Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Pre-Application Document Chakachamna Project (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission No. 12660) 2009
4300 B Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 907-762-8450 Fax 907-278-2332 July 16, 2009 Ms. Kimberly Bose, Secretary FILED ELECTRONICALLY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE Washington, DC 20426 Subject: Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660) Notice of Intent, Preliminary Application Document and Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process Dear Ms. Bose, TDX Power, Inc. (TDX) is pleased to submit its Notice of Intent (NOI) and Preliminary Application Document (PAD) for the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660). The proposed Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project is bordered by the Alaska Mountain Range on the west and Upper Cook Inlet on the east, and is approximately 40 miles west of the Native Village of Tyonek in the Kenai Peninsula Borough. In conjunction with this filing, TDX is requesting that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) designate it as the Commission’s non-federal representative for the purposes of consultation, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR Part 402, Section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR § 600.920. This submittal is being electronically filed with the Commission. As required, two courtesy copies are being mailed, simultaneously, to the Commission. In accordance with 18 CFR § 4.32, we are also submitting paper and/or CD copies of this NOI and PAD to the entities on the attached Distribution List. The entities include those resource agencies, Indian tribes, Native corporations, Native villages, non-governmental organizations, and members of the public that have participated in TDX’s pre-formal consultation or have otherwise expressed interest in the relicensing proceedings. The distribution list also includes other entities that TDX has identified as having potential interest in the proceedings. Also pursuant to the Commission’s regulations, a notice will be published in local newspapers, and the public portions of the PAD will be made available at our relicensing website, www.chakachamna-hydro.com. Kimberly Bose, Secretary July 16, 2009 Page 2 of 7 Also included within our NOI is TDX’s request to FERC for authorization to use the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP). TDX conducted a significant outreach effort regarding its desire to use a modified TLP for this project. Documentation of these efforts, including comments from resource agencies, Indian tribes, Native corporations, Native villages, and members of the public, along with a proposed communications protocol, is located in attachments to the PAD. Interested organizations and members of the public may file comments regarding TDX’s request to utilize the TLP directly with FERC within 30 days of the filing date of this request, and should reference the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660). If you have any questions regarding this filing, please contact Eric Yould at (907) 242-0487. Sincerely, Nicholas Goodman TDX Power, Inc. Cc: Distribution list (see attached) Kimberly Bose, Secretary July 16, 2009 Page 3 of 7 Distribution List † J. Charles Ahlrichs* MWH Americas Inc 2353 130th Ave. NE Ste. 200 Bellvue, WA 98005-1759 Chuck Akers Tyonek Corporation, AK Division 1689 C Street Suite #219 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-5131 Joe Balash SOA Office of the Governor P.O. Box 110001 Juneau, AK 99811-0001 Cindy Benton CIRI CIRI Lands P.O. Box 93330 Anchorage, Alaska 99509-3330 Patricia Bettis Water Resources Manager Dept. Natural Resources Mining, Land and Water 550 W. 7th Ave., Suite 1020 Anchorage, AK 99507 Johni Blankenship County Clerk County of Kenai Peninsula 144 N Binkley St Soldotna, AK 99669-7520 Cynthia Bohn US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services 1875 Century Blvd. NE, Ste. 200 Atlanta, GA 30345-3319 James Brady Sr. Fisheries Biologist HDR, Inc. 2525 C Street Anchorage, AK 99503 Philip Brna Fish and Wildlife Biologist US Fish and Wildlife Service 605 West 4th Ave., Rm. G-61 Anchorage, AK 99501 Debra Call Knik Tribe Knik Tribal Council P.O. Box 871565 Wasilla, AK 99687 Thomas Cappiello Alaska Dept. Fish and Game Sport Fish 333 Raspberry Rd Anchorage, AK 99518 Brian Carey P.E. AEA, AIDEA 813 W. Northern Lights Anchorage, AK 99503 Dorothy Cook Eklutna Native Village 26339 Eklutna Village Rd. Chugiak, AK 99567 Jennifer Curtis NEPA Reviewer US Environmental Protection Agency 222 West 7th Ave., #19 Anchorage, AK 99513 Bob Dach Hydropower Program Manager US Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs 911 NE 11th Ave. Porltand, OR 97232 Michael Daigneault Regional Supervisor AK Dept of Fish and Game Habitat 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518 Bob Day Manager of Power Production HEA 3977 Lake Street Homer, Ak 99603 Kevin Dunham Supervisor, System Operations Chugach Electric Association 361 W. 121st Anchorage, AK 99515 Timothy Evans 38275 Robinson Loop Rd. Sterling, AK. 99672 Jim Ferguson Statewide Hydropower Coordinator Alaska Department of Fish and Game Sport Fish 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518-1565 Steve Gilbert Manager Enxco 6921 Howard Anchorage, AK 99504 † Service for this list was via email and US mail. Where noted with an *, an email address was unavailable and recipients received notification via US mail; where noted with **, the recipient was notified via email only. Kimberly Bose, Secretary July 16, 2009 Page 4 of 7 Grier Hopkins Legislative Aide Alaska State Senate 1292 Sadler Way #314 Fairbanks, AK 99701 Scott Houk Natural Resource Specialist II DNR 550 W. 7th Ave. Anchorage, AK 99501 SaraEllen Hutchison Sustainable Communities Program Manager AK Center for the Environment 807 G Street, Ste 100 anchorage, AK 99501 James Keen Regulatory Commission of AK 701 W. 8th Ave., Ste 300 Anchorage, AK 99501 Allen Kemplen Area Planner DOT & PF 4111 Aviation Avenue Anchorage, AK 99519 Thomas Kerns PO Box 4042 Homer, AK 99603 Kimberly Klein Habitat Biologist Alaska Department of Fish and Game 333 Raspberry Rd. Anchorage, AK 99518-1565 Jan Konigsberg Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition 7511 Labrador Circle Ste 100 Anchorage, AK 99502 Ray Kreig Chairman Chugach Consumers 201 Barrow Street #1 Anchorage, AK 99501-2429 Mark Lamoreaux Eklutna Native Village Land & Environment Program 26339 Eklutna Village Rd. Chugiak, AK 99567 Tim Leach President MEA Ratepayers Alliance P.O. Box 3666 Palmer, AK 99645 Adele Lee Natural Resource Specialist II ADNR 550 W. 7th Avenue Anchorage, AK Anne Leggett Senior Ecologist HDR, Inc. 2525 C Street Anchorage, AK 99 Sasha Lindgren Cultural Resources Coordinator Kenaitze Indian Tribe P.O. Box 988 Kenai, AK 99611 Kenneth Lord Attorney-Advisor USDOI 4230 University Dr., Ste. 300 Anchorage, AK 99501 Frances Mann Branch Chief Construction Planning Assistance USFWS 605 West 4th Ave., Room G61 Anchorage, AK 99501 John McClellan P.E. Tyonek Native Corporation 1689 C Street, Suite 219 Anchorage, Betsy McCracken Fishery Biologist US Fish and Wildlife Service Conservation Planning Assistance 605 W. 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Paul McLarnon Fish Biologist HDR, Inc. 2525 C Street Anchorage, AK Joan Darnell* US National Parks Service Alaska Regional Office 240 W 5th Ave Rm 114 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Curtis McQueen Eklutna, Inc. Eklutna Native Corporation 16515 Centerfield Drive Eagle River, AK 99577 Kimberly Bose, Secretary July 16, 2009 Page 5 of 7 Tom Melius Regional Director US Department of Agriculture Forest Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, AK 99503 David Meyer Branch Chief for Hydrologic Data and Monitoring USGS, Alaska Science Center 4210 University Drive Anchorage, Thomas Meyer NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service 709 West 9th Street, Room 909A Juneau, AK 99801 Jason Mouw ADF&G 333 Raspberry Rd. Anchorage, AK 99518-1565 Douglas Mutter Regional Environmental Assistant OPEC-Anchorage 1689 C Street, Rm 119 Anchorage, AK 99501 Phil North Ecologist USEPA Kenai River Center, 514 Funny River Road Soldotna, AK 99669 Melinda O'Donnell Project Review Supervisor Department of Natural Resources Division of Coastal & Ocean Management 550 w 7th Ave Suite 705 Anchorage, AK 99501 Mike O'Meara CIK Board Treasurer Cook Inlet Keeper P.O. Box 3269 Homer, AK 99603 Doug Ott Hydroelectric Program Manager AIDEA 813 W. Northern Lights Anchorage, AK 99503 Steve Padula Principal and Senior Consultant Long View Associates 2705 NE 163rd St. Ridgefield, Wa 98642 Sarah Palin* Governor State of Alaska Office of the Governor P.O. Box 110001 Juneau, AK 99811-0001 Sean Palmer Division of Water Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 555 Cordova Street Anchorage, AK 99501-2617 Paul Park Project Engineer GVEA 758 Illinois Street Fairbanks, AK 99707 Doug Parkinson Principal Douglas Parkinson and Associates 890 L Street Arcata, CA 95521 Lawrence Peltz Habitat Biologist NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service 222 West 7th Ave., #43 Anchorage, AK 99513 Leroy Phillips USACE P.O.Box 6898 Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-6898 Jeff Pietz Engineer PCL Construction Civil 15405 SE 37th St Suite 200 Bellevue, wa 98006 Gary Prokosh Chief, Water Resources Section Alaska Division of Mining, Land & Water, ADNR 550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1020 Anchorage, Alaska 99501- 3562 Ann Rappaport* US Department of Agricultural Forest Service 605 West 4th Ave., Ste. G61 Anchorage, AK 99501-2250 Dudley Reiser R2 Resource Consultants 15250 N.E. 95th Street Redmond, Washington 98052 Donna Robertson Senior Wildlife Ecologist HDR, Inc. 2525 C Street, Ste 305 Anchorage, AK 99503 Kimberly Bose, Secretary July 16, 2009 Page 6 of 7 Dave Rutz Area Management Biologist for N&WCI Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1800 Glenn Hwy, Suite 4 Palmer, AK Sue Sander Business Developmetn DIrector URS Washington 10900 NE 8th Street, Suite 500 Bellevue, WA 98004 Gene Sandone Senior Fisheries Scientist R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. 2100 Cordova St Suite 211 Anchorage, AK 99503 Angela Sandstol Tribal Council President Native Village of Tyonek Native Village of Tyonek P.O. Box 82009 Tyonek, AK 99682 Kevin Schneider Business Development Barnard Construction Company Inc Dam and Hydro P.O. Box 99 Bozeman, MT 59771-0099 Bob Shavelson Cook Inlet Keeper P.O. Box 3269 Homer, AK 99603 Toby Smith Executive Director AK Center for the Environment 807 G Street, Ste 100 Anchorage, AK Page Spencer Chief of Natural Resources US National Park Service Lake Clark National Park & Preserve 240 West 5th Avenue, Suite 236 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Robert Stephan, Jr. Native Village of Tyonek Native Village of Tyonek P.O. Box 82009 Tyonek, AK 99682 Raymond Theodore* Knikatnu, Inc. Knik Tribe Native Corporation P.O. Box 872130 Wasilla, AK 99687 Cassie Thomas Regional Hydro Coordinator US National Park Service 240 West 5th Ave., Rm. 114 Anchorage, AK 99501 Johanna Thompson Marketing Coordinator LACHEL FELICE & Assoc. 11411 NE 124th Street Suite 275 Bellevue, WA 98034 Jim Thrall Licensing Consultant TDX Power, Inc. 13643 Karen Circle Anchorage, AK 99515 Dennis Tiepelman Tribal Administrator Native Village of Tyonek Native Village of Tyonek P.O. Box 82009 Tyonek, AK 99682 Sue Walker Hydropower Coordinator NOAA-Fisheries (NMFS) Habitat Conservation, Alaska Region P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, AK 99801 Jim Walker Senior Counsel Matanuska Electric Association p.O. Box 2927 Palmer, AK 99645 Michael Walton Natural Resource Specialist Alaska DNR Division of Mining, Land and Water; Water Resources Section 550 W. 7th Ave., Ste 1020 Anchorage, AK 99501 Edward Weiss Lands & Refuge Manager Alaska Department of Fish & Game Wildlife Conservation 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518 Ann Wilde Secretary/Commission Section Manager Alaska Regulatory Commission 701 West 8th Ave., Ste. 300 Anchorage, AK 99501-3469 Gary Williams Coastal District Coordinator Kenai Peninsula Borough 514 Funny River Rd. Soldotna, AK 99669 Rich Wilson AK DNR 7903 Arlene Street Anchorage, AK 99502 Kimberly Bose, Secretary July 16, 2009 Page 7 of 7 Brad Zubeck Project Manager Homer Electric/Kenai 280 Airport Way Kenai, AK 99611 Kimberly Sager Natural Resource Specialist Department of Natural Resources 550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1020 Anchorage, Alaska 99501- 3562 Nolan Adams** Isaac Bertschi** Debby Burwin** Dan Chay** Jeffrey Corton** John Dunker** Mark Fouts** Laura Frazer** Sam Ivey** Carl Gamble** Keven Kleweno** Chris Lausten** Kate Miller** Anna-Maria Mueller** Dan Young** Brian Yanity** Chakachamna Project Notice of Intent of TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 1 July 2009 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION TDX Power Project No. 12660 NOTICE OF INTENT OF TDX POWER TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORIGINAL LICENSE FOR THE CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 12660) Pursuant to 18 CFR § 5.5, TDX Power, Inc. (TDX) hereby notifies the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) of its intent to file an application for an original license for the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660). Simultaneously TDX is filing its Pre-Application Document (PAD) with the Commission. TDX proposes to license the project utilizing an enhanced Traditional Licensing Process (TLP). TDX requests that all correspondence and service of documents related to this notification and subsequent proceedings be addressed to: Nicholas Goodman Chief Executive Officer TDX Power, Inc. 4300 B Street, Suite 402 Anchorage, AK 99503-5946 Eric Yould Chakachamna Lake Project Licensing Manager TDX Power, Inc. 4300 B Street, Suite 402 Anchorage, AK 99503-5946 Finlay Anderson Long View Associates, Inc. 4022 NE 8th Ave Portland, OR 97212 The following information is provided consistent with the regulations of 18 CFR § 5.5. Applicant's name and address: TDX Power, Inc. 4300 B Street, Suite 402 Anchorage, AK 99503-5946 Chakachamna Project Notice of Intent of TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 2 July 2009 Project number: P-12660 License expiration date, if any: Not applicable. Project does not possess a license and involves the construction of new facilities. An unequivocal statement of the applicant's intention to file an original license: TDX unequivocally intends to file an application for an original license for this proposed project. Type of principal project works licensed, if any, such as dam and reservoir, powerhouse, or transmission lines: Not applicable. This is a Notice of Intent (NOI) for an unconstructed project. Project location by state, county and stream, and when appropriate, by city or nearby city: State: Alaska County: Kenai Peninsula Borough Stream: Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers; Chakachamna Lake City: Approximately 40 miles west of the Native Village of Tyonek; approximately 82 miles west of Anchorage Installed plant capacity (if any): Not applicable. Proposed installed capacity is 300 megawatts. Names and addresses of: (1) Every county in which any part of the project is located, and in which any federal facility that is used by the project is located: Kenai Peninsula Borough (2) Every city, town, or similar local political subdivision: i. In which any part of the project is to be located and any federal facility that is or is to be used by the project is located, or ii. That has a population of 5,000 or more people and is located within 15 miles of the proposed project dam, None (3) Every irrigation district, drainage district, or similar special purpose political subdivision: i. In which any part of the project is located and any federal facility that is or is proposed to be used by the project is located, or ii. That owns, operates, maintains, or uses any project facility or any federal facility that is or is proposed to be used by the project; and Chakachamna Project Notice of Intent of TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 3 July 2009 None (4) Every other political subdivision in the general area of the project that there is reason to believe would be likely to be interested in, or affected by, the notification; and None (5) Affected Indian tribes. Several federally recognized tribes were identified as having potential interests within the Project region that may be affected by the Chakachamna Project licensing, based on location of traditional tribal territories and after seeking comments from tribal representatives. These tribes are as follows: Native Village of Tyonek Kenaitze Indian Tribe Knik Tribe Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process TDX is requesting Commission approval to use the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP). The regulations in 18 CFR § 5.3 require that an application for authorization to use the TLP include justification for the request and any existing written comments on the potential applicant's proposal and a response thereto. The proposed Chakachamna Project (Project) is a large new conventional hydropower project that would be located in an area containing important resource values for which there is relatively little existing resource information; moreover, TDX is working to synchronize the development of the Project with a Regional Integrated Resources Plan (RIRP) process that has been initiated by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), which will result a 50-year, long-range plan that will identify combinations of generation and transmission (G&T) capital improvement projects in the Railbelt Region of Alaska. TDX anticipates that the RIRP, currently scheduled for issuance near year end 2009, will influence the role of the Project in meeting future energy needs of the Railbelt. Given these unique circumstances, the licensing process must accommodate a significant data collection and impact assessment effort to support the final design of the Project and development of the license application, but do so in a measured manner that does not pre-judge the RIRP process thereby putting TDX at significant financial exposure in the licensing process. Based on feedback received from an outreach effort to agencies and other interested stakeholders and its own evaluation of the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP), TDX believes that a TLP, enhanced by a number of provisions designed to address specific concerns identified in its outreach efforts, is the preferred process for the pre-filing consultation and study efforts for the Project. In addition, use of the TLP will provide the needed flexibility to undertake a phased Chakachamna Project Notice of Intent of TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 4 July 2009 study program that allows TDX to initiate essential study efforts in 2010, including hydrologic data collection, aerial mapping and imagery, and bathymetric surveys. The balance of study planning for specific technical evaluations would be deferred until after the RIRP is complete, with implementation starting in 2011. The following information addresses the specific considerations found in 18 CFR § 5.3(c)(1)(ii): A. Likelihood of timely license issuance Unlike a relicensing effort for an existing project there is no regulatory deadline for the filing of the license application for the Project. Instead, TDX must effectively manage the schedule of its licensing, studies and engineering/design efforts to allow the Project to be constructed and power brought on line in an expeditious and cost effective fashion. Flexibility in the regulatory requirements is necessary to allow TDX, in consultation with agencies and other stakeholders, to make adjustments to the timeframes of various components of the licensing process to best utilize available time. This flexibility is lacking in the ILP, which is generally designed to complete pre-filing consultation within the window of time from the NOI to the expiration of an existing license. The enhanced TLP proposed by TDX for the Project allows for this flexibility while adopting a number of key ILP process elements. B. Complexity of the resource issues As noted in the PAD, a significant study program is envisioned to generate the needed information to support the development of the license application; to date, 43 specific studies have been identified to address identified environmental issues; there will be additional engineering and feasibility studies conducted as well. Some of the more complex issues include potential effects of the Project on ground and surface water hydrology due to the diversion of water from Chakachamna Lake to the McArthur River, the provisions for up and downstream fish passage from the Chakachatna River to Chakachamna Lake, maintenance of appropriate flows in the Chakachatna River and potential resource effects of reservoir operations. A complete list of identified resource issues and how these would be addressed in the study program is included in Appendix 5-1 of the PAD. C. Level of anticipated controversy A significant level of interest is anticipated during the pre-filing consultation period. During the outreach effort conducted by TDX regarding the use of the TLP, agencies and other stakeholders have identified the need for a significant study program to develop the information needed for impact assessment as well as to provide the baseline for evaluating post-construction protection, mitigation and enhancement measures that may be required. Concerns have been expressed regarding the tight timeframes of the ILP, particularly with regard to review of the proposed study plans and study reports over the course of the pre-filing study program. Additionally, TDX believes that unnecessary controversy regarding the need for the Project can be avoided by phasing its study program such that the bulk of the study program follows the issuance of the RIRP. TDX believes that the flexibility that will be available for making adjustments to review time frames, when appropriate, while not endangering the overall Project schedule and effective Chakachamna Project Notice of Intent of TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 5 July 2009 use of available field time, will provide an important tool for making engagement in the study program as effective as possible. While TDX understands that there is significant interest in developing adequate information to assess potential Project impacts and that these issues will be complex in nature, consultation to date has not indicated that the Project has opposition, or is considered highly controversial. D. Relative cost of the traditional process compared to the integrated process TDX anticipates that it will engage agencies and other stakeholders in a substantial consultation process and conduct a comprehensive study program under either licensing process. However, substantial efficiencies are expected from utilizing the enhanced TLP that is proposed due to the flexibility that will exist for TDX, in consultation with agencies and other stakeholders, to make adjustments to deadlines and timeframes where possible to accommodate differences among resource areas and study proposals. Thus, in terms of effective use of available time, TDX believes that the TLP provides advantages over the ILP. Given the commitments that TDX is making to substantial engagement with agencies and other stakeholders over the course of the pre-filing period, the monetary cost difference between utilizing the enhanced traditional process, as proposed by TDX and the integrated licensing process may not be significant. E. The amount of available information and potential for significant disputes over studies Some resource information is available for the Project area from studies conducted in the 1980s. While TDX plans to take full advantage of this information in designing its study program, significant new information will be required to support development of the license application. It is TDX’s intent to conduct its pre-filing consultation in a manner that addresses and resolves, to the extent possible, any differences of opinion with regard to the design and implementation of the study program. TDX is also requesting that the Commission approve the integration of the formal study dispute resolution provisions of the ILP into the TLP that TDX is proposing to use for this Project. In this way there will be a clear path for resolving any disputes which might arise in a timely fashion. F. Other factors believed by the applicant to be pertinent TDX has made a considerable effort to consult with potentially interested agencies, tribes, native corporations, and non-governmental organizations regarding its desire to utilize the TLP. Documentation of the public meetings, conference calls and other communications is included in the PAD. One of the key messages that TDX received during this outreach was that many of the agencies that would be involved in the pre-filing consultation efforts were concerned with the inflexibility of timeframes and tight schedule of activities under the ILP. As noted above, given the size and complexity of the anticipated study program, the agencies expressed their concern that inadequate time would be available for meaningful consultation. TDX views this as a legitimate concern and believes that its proposed enhanced TLP can provide some level of flexibility to make adjustments to the specific elements of the pre-filing process (e.g., time allotted for review and comment on particularly complex study plans) which is not readily available in the ILP. Chakachamna Project Notice of Intent of TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 6 July 2009 Moreover, the ongoing RIRP process conducted by the AEA creates an environment where a phased approach to environmental studies is most appropriate. TDX proposes that the formal study plan developed in support of the licensing process be conducted in two phases. Phase 1 will be implemented in 2010 (planning to begin in the fall of 2009) and will generate essential data (e.g., hydrologic, imagery, bathymetry) to design the balance of the environmental studies that will be initiated in 2011. This will allow Phase 2 to be developed in 2010 for implementation in 2011, following completion of the RIRP. Such a two-phased approach will allow TDX to manage the substantial financial exposure that would result from initiating the full study program prior to completion of the RIRP. This approach to the formal pre-filing consultation and study program, with effective opportunities for stakeholder input participation is not possible under the ILP. Finally, the TLP provides additional flexibility over the ILP through provisions 18 CFR § 4.38(c)(1)(ii) and CFR § 4.38(c)(1)(iii) that expressly provide for continuing studies, under certain conditions, after submittal of the license application and after a license is issued. Given the complex nature of the Project area and the lack of existing information, TDX may elect to pursue such a post filing study program. As part of its outreach efforts, TDX drafted a proposed communications protocol to guide its interactions with agencies and other stakeholders under its proposed enhanced TLP. The protocol was distributed to agencies and other stakeholders as both an initial and revised draft for review and comment. The current version of the proposed protocol is included as an appendix to the PAD. As of the filing date of this NOI, TDX has received responses from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Department of Interior Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game with regard to the last draft protocol issued on May 29. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in a June 12 e-mail stated that: “the Service would like to go on record as having ‘no comment’ at this time. We look forward to reviewing the PAD and reserve comment until more information is made available through the FERC process.” The other two offices within the Department of Interior provided concurring e-mails. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, in a June 15 e-mail from Jim Ferguson, Statewide Hydropower Coordinator, stated that is “OK with the [protocol] language as proposed”. The e- mail continued that “at least some studies will require review (by agencies) and revision (by TDX) for longer periods than those set out in the ILP”. The e-mail also stated that “Agreement to allow additional time for study development and review, where needed, is an extremely important step in licensing the project”. Complete copies of these e-mails are included in the consultation record in Appendix 6-1 of the PAD. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon each person designated on the official service list in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of Rule 2010 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Dated at Anchorage, Alaska this 16th day of July 2009. TDX Power, Inc. 4300 B St, Suite 402 Anchorage, AK 99503-5946 (907) 762-8450 Pre-Application Document Chakachamna Project (FERC No. 12660) Photo: HDR 2008 TDX Power, a subsidiary of Tanadgusix Native Corp. July 2009 © 2009 TDX Power, Inc. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 ES-1 July 2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TDX Power (TDX) is a subsidiary of Tanadgusix Corporation, Inc., a shareholder-owned Aleut Alaska Native village corporation founded in 1973. In 2006, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) granted TDX a three year preliminary permit under Section 4 (f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to study the potential for the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (Project), to be located at the existing Chakachamna Lake on the Chakachatna River in Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska. Activities to date under the preliminary permit have indicated the Project would be economically viable, and play a significant role in providing reliable energy to Alaska’s “Railbelt” and meeting the long-term needs for power in Central Alaska. Further investigation is warranted to address questions concerning the optimal configuration of the Project and the potential impacts the Project could have on the existing environment. TDX is filing this Pre-Application Document (PAD) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to initiate the formal FERC licensing process to generate the information needed to provide a comprehensive basis for an Application for an Original License under Part I of the FPA. TDX anticipates that the licensing process and accompanying environmental study plan will provide TDX and stakeholders with a solid foundation of information to develop the license application; provide FERC with the information it needs for its environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and agencies with information necessary to fulfill their statutory requirements under federal and state law. TDX is requesting FERC to authorize the licensing of the Chakachamna Project under the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP). As described in section 2 of this PAD, TDX is requesting as part of its proposal to utilize the TLP that FERC approve the addition of certain ILP elements into the Chakachamna licensing process in order to address stakeholder concerns with the administrative record and the NEPA process. TDX anticipates that the requested TLP will proceed in a similar manner to an ILP, but with additional flexibility that is appropriate given the complex nature of the proposed Project, and general lack of existing information on the environmental characteristics of the Project area which may necessitate adjustments to study approach and schedule as the study program proceeds. In accordance with the FERC ILP regulations, this PAD summarizes all reasonably available existing information that is relevant to the Project, as identified through an intensive information- gathering effort by TDX. In addition to providing licensing participants with important background information on the Project and associated environment, this existing information serves as the basis for identifying critical information gaps that will be addressed in the licensing study program. TDX began systematically identifying potentially relevant information in 2008. Information was gathered through research and inquiries to resource agencies and other entities identified as potential sources of relevant information. TDX also held a series of workshops to present information on the Project and engage participants in preliminary discussions regarding potential licensing issues and information needs. In addition, TDX conducted site reconnaissance efforts PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 ES-2 July 2009 to provide additional basic information on the Project vicinity for inclusion in the PAD, and to help focus study planning. The PAD is organized in general alignment with the requirements in the ILP regulations. Section 2 presents the licensing process plan and schedule, and summarizes TDX’s proposed Communications Protocol for the pre-filing licensing effort. Section 3 summarizes information about the proposed Project facilities and operations. Section 4 describes existing information and identifies known or potential adverse impacts to environmental resources, and is subdivided into the following sections: River basin overview, Geology and soils, Water resources, Fish and aquatic resources, Wildlife and botanical resources, Wetlands, riparian, and littoral resources, Recreation and land use, Aesthetic/visual resources, Cultural resources, Socioeconomic resources, and Tribal resources. Section 5 identifies licensing issues and proposed studies based on TDX’s analysis of the existing information and discussions with licensing participants. TDX is proposing to develop the environmental study program in two distinct phases. Planning for Phase 1 will be initiated in 2009; Phase 1 will generate essential data in 2010 (e.g., hydrologic, imagery, bathymetry) to support the design of the balance of the environmental studies that will be initiated in 2011. Sections 6 through 7 fulfill additional PAD requirements, including documentation of due diligence in gathering reasonably available existing information and a list of all references used in preparing the PAD. With initiation of the formal licensing process, the schedule of consultation milestones for the Project licensing is proposed. Beyond the formal consultation requirements of the process, TDX intends to create additional opportunities for interaction with stakeholders. TDX believes this enhanced consultation approach is key to working effectively within the proposed schedule constraints and to resolving, to the extent possible, issues that may arise during the pre-filing period. TDX proposes to file its draft license application in August 2013, and a final license application in March of 2014. As noted above, Section 5 of the PAD and Appendix 5-1 summarizes TDX’s preliminary list of proposed studies to address the identified licensing issues. In response to comments received from agencies and other interested stakeholders, the information in Appendix 5-1 provides a substantial amount of information regarding the anticipated study program that goes beyond a simple list of proposed studies. It is TDX’s hope that this additional information will provide licensing participants with a solid foundation for engaging with TDX in developing the more detailed study plan elements to be included in the two phased study planning process. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 ES-3 July 2009 As described in section 2, as part of its proposed communications protocol, TDX has developed a relicensing website (http://chakachamna-hydro.com/) to facilitate the distribution of information to all interested parties. The website provides public access to the following information: a current calendar of events; a public information library, which will house all of the information used in development of the PAD; licensing documents; and contact information. Stakeholders may also communicate with TDX by contacting Maxine Blake at (907) 762-8450 or emailing Chakachamna@tdxpower.com . Given the significant study effort that is anticipated in support of the license application and stakeholder concerns regarding the inflexibility of many of the deadlines in the ILP, TDX is hopeful that FERC will approve the use of the TLP, with modifications, as described in the proposed communications protocol (Appendix 2-1). Should the use of the TLP not be authorized, TDX is prepared to pursue the licensing of the Project pursuant to the requirements of the ILP. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 i July 2009 Table of Contents Table of Contents........................................................................................................................... i List of Appendices..........................................................................................................................v List of Figures............................................................................................................................... ix List of Acronyms and Abbreviations.......................................................................................xiii Glossary of Terms.....................................................................................................................xxii 1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................1-1 1.1. Background................................................................................................................1-1 1.2. The Power Market......................................................................................................1-1 1.3. Project Summary........................................................................................................1-2 1.4. Resource Issues and Proposed Study Approach........................................................1-3 2 Process Plan, Schedule, and Communication Protocol....................................................2-1 2.1. Overview of Licensing Approach and Early Consultation........................................2-1 2.2. Process Plan and Schedule.........................................................................................2-3 2.2.1. Summary of Licensing Milestones.............................................................2-3 2.2.2. Chakachamna Project Licensing Site Visit and Scoping Meetings .........2-11 2.3. Communications and Document Distribution .........................................................2-12 2.3.1. Document Distribution by TDX...............................................................2-12 2.3.2. Information Categories and Associated Distribution Protocols...............2-13 2.3.2.1. Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII)...................................2-13 2.3.2.2. Privileged Information .............................................................................2-13 2.3.2.3. Public Information....................................................................................2-14 2.3.3. Public Reference File...............................................................................2-14 2.3.4. Providing Documents to TDX and FERC................................................2-15 2.4. Workgroup Structure for Pre-filing Technical Efforts.............................................2-15 2.5. Development of Licensing Study Program..............................................................2-16 3 Project Location, Facilities, and Operations.....................................................................3-1 3.1. Authorized Agents for the Applicant.........................................................................3-1 3.2. Project Location.........................................................................................................3-1 3.3. Proposed Project Facilities.......................................................................................3-11 3.3.1. Summary of Project Features...................................................................3-11 3.3.2. Proposed Construction and Development Schedule ................................3-42 3.4. Project Operations....................................................................................................3-42 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 ii July 2009 3.4.1. Proposed Project Operations....................................................................3-42 3.4.2. Proposed Project Generation....................................................................3-51 4 Description of Existing Environment and Resource Impacts..........................................4-1 4.1. Summary....................................................................................................................4-1 4.2. Basin Overview..........................................................................................................4-2 4.2.1. Tributaries to Kenibuna Lake.....................................................................4-4 4.2.2. Tributaries to Chakachamna Lake..............................................................4-6 4.2.3. Chakachatna River ...................................................................................4-12 4.2.4. McArthur River Basin..............................................................................4-17 4.2.5. Climate.....................................................................................................4-19 4.2.6. Land and Water Use.................................................................................4-21 4.2.7. Dams and Diversion Structures in the Basin............................................4-21 4.2.8. Trading Bay State Game Refuge..............................................................4-21 4.3. Geology and Soils....................................................................................................4-21 4.3.1. Summary ..................................................................................................4-21 4.3.2. Quaternary Geology.................................................................................4-23 4.3.3. Seismic Geology ......................................................................................4-49 4.3.4. Geological Conditions and Project Excavations......................................4-59 4.3.5. Soils..........................................................................................................4-60 4.3.6. Lake Shoreline and Streambanks.............................................................4-69 4.3.7. Potential Adverse Impacts........................................................................4-74 4.3.8. Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures................4-75 4.4. Water Resources......................................................................................................4-76 4.4.1. Introduction..............................................................................................4-76 4.4.2. Drainage Basin Hydrology.......................................................................4-76 4.4.3. Project Streamflow Data ..........................................................................4-77 4.4.4. Existing and Proposed Water Uses ........................................................4-103 4.4.5. Water Quality.........................................................................................4-105 4.4.6. Potential Adverse Impacts......................................................................4-137 4.4.7. Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures..............4-139 4.5. Fish and Aquatic Resources...................................................................................4-140 4.5.1. Introduction............................................................................................4-140 4.5.2. Existing Fish and Aquatic Communities................................................4-140 4.5.3. Federally Designated Habitat.................................................................4-156 4.5.4. Potential Adverse Impacts......................................................................4-159 4.5.5. Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures..............4-163 4.6. Wildlife and Botanical Resources..........................................................................4-164 4.6.1. Introduction............................................................................................4-164 4.6.2. Wildlife...................................................................................................4-164 4.6.3. Botanical Resources...............................................................................4-184 4.6.4. Potential Adverse Impacts......................................................................4-205 4.6.5. Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures..............4-207 4.7. Wetlands, Riparian, and Littoral Habitat...............................................................4-208 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 iii July 2009 4.7.1. Introduction............................................................................................4-208 4.7.2. Potential Adverse Impacts......................................................................4-209 4.7.3. Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures..............4-209 4.8. Aesthetic/Visual Resources ...................................................................................4-210 4.8.1. Introduction............................................................................................4-210 4.8.2. Existing Aesthetic/Visual Resource Conditions ....................................4-210 4.8.3. Potential Adverse Impacts......................................................................4-212 4.8.4. Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures..............4-213 4.9. Recreation and Land Use.......................................................................................4-213 4.9.1. Introduction............................................................................................4-213 4.9.2. Existing Recreation Facilities.................................................................4-213 4.9.3. Current Recreational Use of the Project Vicinity and Region...............4-214 4.9.4. Shoreline Buffer Zones and Adjoining Land Use..................................4-216 4.9.5. Recreation-Related Goals and Needs Identified in Agency Management Plans.......................................................................................................4-218 4.9.6. Designated Scenic and Protected River Segments.................................4-227 4.9.7. National Trails System and Wilderness Area Lands in the Region.......4-227 4.9.8. Recreation Areas in the Project Vicinity................................................4-227 4.9.9. Non-Recreational Land-Uses and Management.....................................4-229 4.9.10. Potential Adverse Impacts......................................................................4-237 4.9.11. Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures..............4-238 4.10. Cultural Resources.................................................................................................4-238 4.10.1. Introduction............................................................................................4-238 4.10.2. Applicable Laws and Regulations..........................................................4-239 4.10.3. Area of Potential Effects........................................................................4-240 4.10.4. Identification of Historic Properties and Archaeological Sites in the Project Vicinity...................................................................................................4-240 4.10.5. Potential Adverse Impacts......................................................................4-242 4.10.6. Existing Discovery Measures.................................................................4-242 4.10.7. Affected Tribes.......................................................................................4-242 4.10.8. Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures..............4-243 4.11. Socioeconomic Resources .....................................................................................4-243 4.11.1. Introduction............................................................................................4-243 4.11.2. Land Use and Real Estate.......................................................................4-245 4.11.3. Demographics.........................................................................................4-248 4.11.4. Industry and Employment......................................................................4-258 4.11.5. Public Sector (Taxes and Services)........................................................4-262 4.11.6. Electricity...............................................................................................4-266 4.11.7. Potential Adverse Impacts......................................................................4-267 4.11.8. Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures..............4-267 4.12. Tribal Resources....................................................................................................4-268 4.12.1. Introduction............................................................................................4-268 4.12.2. Tribal Consultations...............................................................................4-270 4.12.3. Potential Adverse Impacts......................................................................4-270 4.12.4. Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures..............4-271 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 iv July 2009 5 Preliminary Issues and Studies List...................................................................................5-1 5.1. Introduction................................................................................................................5-1 5.1.1. Potential Impact Types and Information Needs.........................................5-2 5.1.2. Chakachamna Study List............................................................................5-3 5.2. Phased Study Plan Development and Implementation..............................................5-6 5.3. Geology and Soils......................................................................................................5-7 5.3.1. Identification of Issues and Study Needs...................................................5-7 5.3.2. Issues and Studies Related to Potential Project Impacts............................5-8 5.3.3. Studies Related to Engineering, Hazard Assessment, and Feasibility.......5-9 5.3.4. Relevant Plans..........................................................................................5-10 5.4. Water Resources......................................................................................................5-10 5.4.1. Identification of Issues and Study Needs.................................................5-10 5.4.2. Relevant Plans..........................................................................................5-13 5.5. Fish and Aquatic Resources.....................................................................................5-13 5.5.1. Identification of Issues and Study Needs.................................................5-13 5.5.2. Relevant Plans..........................................................................................5-21 5.6. Wildlife and Botanical Resources............................................................................5-21 5.6.1. Identification of Issues and Study Need...................................................5-21 5.6.2. Relevant Plans..........................................................................................5-27 5.7. Wetland, Riparian & Littoral Habitat......................................................................5-29 5.7.1. Identification of Issues and Study Needs.................................................5-29 5.7.2. Relevant Plans..........................................................................................5-30 5.8. Recreation and Land Use.........................................................................................5-31 5.8.1. Identification of Issues and Study Needs.................................................5-31 5.8.2. Relevant Plans..........................................................................................5-33 5.9. Aesthetic/Visual Resources .....................................................................................5-41 5.9.1. Identification of Issues and Study Needs.................................................5-42 5.9.2. Relevant Plans..........................................................................................5-42 5.10. Cultural Resources...................................................................................................5-46 5.10.1. Identification of Issues and Study Needs.................................................5-46 5.10.2. Relevant Plans..........................................................................................5-47 5.11. Socioeconomic Resources .......................................................................................5-48 5.11.1. Identification of Issues and Study Needs.................................................5-48 5.11.2. Relevant Plans..........................................................................................5-48 5.12. Tribal Resources......................................................................................................5-49 5.12.1. Identification of Issues and Study Needs.................................................5-49 5.12.2. Relevant Plans..........................................................................................5-49 6 Summary of Contacts..........................................................................................................6-1 7 References.............................................................................................................................7-1 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 v July 2009 List of Appendices Appendix 2-1. Proposed Communications Protocol for Licensing Consultation Activities for the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660) Appendix 4-1. Soil Taxonomy in Project Vicinity Appendix 4-2. Application for Water Rights of TDX Power, Inc Appendix 4-3. Table of Mammals Species in the Project Vicinity Appendix 4-4. Table of Bird Species in the Project Vicinity Appendix 4-5. Table of Plants Species in the Project Vicinity Appendix 5-1. Chakachamna Lake Hydroelectric Project Study Planning Approach Appendix 6-1. Documentation of Contacts Related to PAD Development PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 vi July 2009 List of Tables Table 2.2-1. Milestones, responsible parties, dates, and applicable regulations associated with the pre-filing period of the enhanced TLP for the Chakachamna Project licensing............2-4 Table 2.2-2. Formal study dispute resolution process, within the enhanced TLP for the Chakachamna Project licensing...........................................................................................2-8 Table 2.2-3. Steps related to submitting and addressing disagreements regarding the initial study report meeting summary and requests to amend the approved study plan for the Chakachamna Project licensing.........................................................................................2-10 Table 2.3-1. Guidelines for mode of distribution of Chakachamna Project licensing documents from TDX to stakeholders. ................................................................................................2-13 Table 3.3-1. Fish passage assumptions ....................................................................................2-23 Table 3.4-1. Summary of Project operating characteristics......................................................3-43 Table 3.4-2. Project reservoir area-elevation-capacity.............................................................3-45 Table 3.4-3. Chakachamna Lake outlet rating..........................................................................3-47 Table 3.4-4. Estimated project base loads. ...............................................................................3-48 Table 3.4-5. Proposed Project Total Chakachatna River Outlet Flow (cfs).............................3-49 Table 3.4-6. Proposed Project total powerhouse flow (cfs)......................................................3-50 Table 3.4-7. Proposed Project generation (MWh)....................................................................3-52 Table 4.2-1. Chakachamna Lake characteristics (Bechtel, 1983).............................................4-10 Table 4.3-1. Potential geology and soils impact issues that relate to wildlife and botanical resources. ...........................................................................................................................4-74 Table 4.4-1. Average flows (cfs) at USGS Gage 15294500, Chakachatna River near Tyonek...4- 77 Table 4.4-2. Flow volume (acre-feet) at USGS Gage 15294500 – Chakachatna River near Tyonek.. Drainage area is 1,120 square miles..................................................................4-78 Table 4.4-3. Flow (cfs) frequency at USGS Gage 15294500 – Chakachatna River near Tyonek. ............................................................................................................................................4-80 Table 4.4-4. Peak annual flows at USGS Gage 15294500.......................................................4-84 Table 4.4-5. Calculated flood frequency at USGS Gage 15294500.........................................4-85 Table 4.4-6. Calculated historical Chakachamna Lake inflows (cfs).......................................4-86 Table 4.4-7. USGS gaging stations...........................................................................................4-89 Table 4.4-8. Chakachamna Lake inflows (cfs).........................................................................4-92 Table 4.4-9. Location of water quality sampling and station numbers (Bechtel, 1983).........4-108 Table 4.4-10. Chakachamna Lake water temperatures and dissolved oxygen levels (March 22, 1982) for Site 1 measured from water surface (Bechtel, 1983).......................................4-111 Table 4.4-11. Water quality profile of Chakachamna Lake, August 1982 (Bechtel, 1983)...4-112 Table 4.4-12. Water quality profile of Chakachamna Lake, September 1982 (Bechtel, 1983)....4- 113 Table 4.4-13. Water quality profile of Chakachamna Lake, April 1983 (Bechtel, 1983)......4-114 Table 4.4-14. Water quality profile of Chakachamna Lake, July 1983 (Bechtel, 1983)........4-115 Table 4.4-15. Summary of 1982 streamflow temperature records in oC from the recording gage on the Chakachatna River at the lake outlet (Bechtel, 1983)...........................................4-118 Table 4.4-16. Mean daily water temperature in oC of the Chakachatna River at the Chakachamna Lake outlet for the period August 1982 through November 1982 (Bechtel, 1983)........4-119 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 vii July 2009 Table 4.4-17. Summary of 1982 streamflow temperature records in oC from the recording gage on the McArthur River at the rapids (Bechtel, 1983)......................................................4-120 Table 4.4-18. Mean daily water temperature in oC of the McArthur River at the rapids for the period August 1982 through June 1983 (Bechtel, 1983).................................................4-121 Table 4.4-19. Summary of 1982 streamflow temperature records in oC from the recording gage on the McArthur River at Station 15, the powerhouse location (Bechtel, 1983).............4-122 Table 4.4-20. Habitat data measured at Station 17 sloughs, March 1982 (Bechtel, 1983).....4-124 Table 4.4-21. Water quality data for the McArthur River, winter 1982 (Bechtel, 1983).......4-124 Table 4.4-22. Water quality data for the Chakachatna River drainage, May 1982 (Bechtel, 1983)................................................................................................................................4-125 Note: S.D. = Standard deviation Table 4.4-23. Water quality data for the McArthur River drainage, May 1982 (Bechtel, 1983)...............................................................................4-125 Table 4.4-23. Water quality data for the McArthur River drainage, May 1982 (Bechtel, 1983). ..........................................................................................................................................4-126 Table 4.4-24. Water quality data for the Chakachatna River drainage, June 8-11, 1982 (Bechtel, 1983)................................................................................................................................4-127 Table 4.4-26. Water quality data by station, July 1982 (Bechtel, 1983)................................4-129 Table 4.4-27. Water quality data by station, August 1982 (Bechtel, 1983). ..........................4-130 Table 4.4-28. Water quality data by station, September 1982 (Bechtel, 1983)......................4-131 Note: S.D. = Standard deviation..............................................................................................4-131 Table 4.4-29. Water quality data by station, October 1982 (Bechtel, 1983)..........................4-132 Table 4.4-30. Water quality data by station, April 1983 (Bechtel, 1983)...............................4-133 Table 4.4-31. Water quality data by station, spring 1983 (Bechtel, 1983).............................4-134 Table 4.4-32. General substrate and sediment transport characteristics of the Chakachatna and McArthur river systems in 1982 (Bechtel, 1983)............................................................4-136 Table 4.4-33. Potential impact issues related to water resources. ..........................................4-138 Table 4.5-1. Estimated salmon escapement by stream segment – 1982.................................4-145 Table 4.5-2. Potential impact issues of the Chakachamna Project listed by issue category...4-159 Table 4.6-1. Project area wildlife species and abundance among habitat types, from 1981 studies (Bechtel, 1983).................................................................................................................4-170 Table 4.6-2. Project area bird species and abundance among habitat types, from 1981 studies (Bechtel, 1983).................................................................................................................4-172 Table 4.6-3. Waterfowl activity by vegetation community type on the Trading Bay State Game Refuge (ADF&G,1994)...................................................................................................4-174 Table 4.6-4. Mammal species with special status, identified in the Project vicinity..............4-180 Table 4.6-5. Bird species with special status identified in the Project vicinity......................4-183 Table 4.6-6. Plants identified in the Project area during the 1981 Bechtel vegetation habitat study (Bechtel, 1983).......................................................................................................4-201 Table 4.6-7. Rare plant species found during vegetation studies for the Chuitna Coal Project...4- 204 Table 4.6-8. Invasive plant species found during vegetation studies for the Chuitna Coal Project. ..........................................................................................................................................4-205 Table 4.6-9. Potential impact issues related to wildlife and botanical resources. ..................4-206 Table 4.8-3. Potential Impact Issues Related to Aesthetic/Visual Resources.........................4-212 Table 4.9-1. Recreation activity and access information for Game Management Subunit 16b 4(ADNR 2009b)...............................................................................................................4-215 Table 4.9-2. Potential impact issues related to recreational resources and land use. .............4-237 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 viii July 2009 Table 4.11-1. Land ownership in the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB, 2005).......................4-247 Table 4.11-2. Tyonek population statistics by race (DCRA, accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data).................................................................................................................................4-249 Table 4.11-3. Tyonek population statistics by gender and age (DCRA accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data)....................................................................................................................4-249 Table 4.11-4. Income and occupations in Tyonek (DCRA, accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data).................................................................................................................................4-250 Table 4.11-5. Population growth in the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB, 2005)....................4-251 Table 4.11-6. Kenai Peninsula Borough population statistics by race (DCRA, accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data)...................................................................................................4-252 Table 4.11-7. Kenai Peninsula Borough Population Statistics by gender and age (DCRA accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data).........................................................................................4-253 Table 4.11-8. Income and occupations in Kenai Peninsula Borough (DCRA, accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data)...................................................................................................4-254 Table 4.11-9. Anchorage population statistics by race (DCRA, accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data).................................................................................................................................4-255 Table 4.11-10. Anchorage population statistics by gender and age (DCRA accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data)............................................................................................................4-256 Table 4.11-11. Income and occupations in Anchorage (DCRA, accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data).................................................................................................................................4-257 Table 4.11-12. Employment in Tyonek (DCRA, accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data)....4-258 Table 4.11-13. Employment in the Kenai Peninsula Borough (DCRA, accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data)....................................................................................................................4-260 Table 4.11-14. Employment in Anchorage (DCRA, accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data).....4- 261 Table 4.11-15. Public services in Tyonek (DCRA, accessed 2009)........................................4-262 Table 4.11-16. Kenai Peninsula Borough revenues (DCRA, accessed 2009).........................4-264 Table 4.11-17. Kenai Peninsula Borough expenditures (DCRA, accessed 2009)...................4-264 Table 4.11-18. Anchorage revenues (DCRA, accessed 2009).................................................4-265 Table 4.11-19. Anchorage expenditures (DCRA, accessed 2009)..........................................4-266 Table 6.0-1. Summary of communications with stakeholders since January, 2008. .................6-1 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 ix July 2009 List of Figures Figure 2.2-1. Projected dates for key pre-filing milestones for the Chakachamna Project licensing...............................................................................................................................2-5 Figure 3.2-1. Location map of Kenai Peninsula Borough in South Central Alaska...................3-2 Figure 3.2-2. Location map and general arrangement of the Chakachamna Project..................3-3 Figures 3.2-3 through 3.2-8. Location map of the Chakachamna Project proposed Project boundary. .............................................................................................................................3-4 Figure 3.3-1. Power tunnel plan and profile.............................................................................3-13 Figure 3.3-2. Intake and gate shaft section drawing.................................................................3-15 Figure 3.3-3. Intake and gate shaft details................................................................................3-17 Figure 3.3-4. Powerhouse plan and section drawings...............................................................3-19 Figure 3.3-5. Fish facilities – plan and profile drawings..........................................................3-26 Figure 3.3-6. Fish facilities – adult exit and juvenile inlet structure........................................3-29 Figure 3.3-7. Fish facilities – adult fish passage exit section...................................................3-31 Figure 3.3-8. Fish facilities – adult fish passage tunnel section...............................................3-34 Figure 3.3-9. Single-line electrical diagram of the proposed facilities.....................................3-39 Figure 3.4-1. Stage-flow relationship at the USGS gage located at the Chakachamna Lake outlet from June 1959 through August 1972. ..............................................................................3-44 Figure 3.4-2. Chakachamna Lake area-elevation-capacity.......................................................3-46 Figure 3.4-3. Proposed Project reservoir elevation frequency..................................................3-49 Figure 3.4-4. Proposed Project total Chakachatna River outlet flow (cfs)...............................3-50 Figure 3.4-5. Proposed Project total Powerhouse flow (cfs)....................................................3-51 Figure 3.4-6. Proposed Project annual generation (MWh) based on a simulation conducted for the period 1950 - 2006.......................................................................................................3-54 Figure 3.4-7. Proposed Project monthly generation (MWh). ...................................................3-54 Figure 4.2-1. McArthur and Chakachatna river basins..............................................................4-3 Figure 4.2-2. Neocola River entering Kenibuna Lake, July 30, 2008 (Photo by HDR Alaska).4-4 Figure 4.2-3. Igitna River draining into Kenibuna Lake, July 30, 2008 (Photo by HDR Alaska). ..............................................................................................................................................4-5 Figure 4.2-4. Upstream end of braided channels of Igitna River, looking upstream, July 30, 2008 (Photo by HDR Alaska).......................................................................................................4-6 Figure 4.2-5. Kenibuna Lake looking northwest from Shamrock moraine toward Igitna River, June 2008 (Photo by HDR Alaska)......................................................................................4-8 Figure 4.2-6. Shamrock Lake outlet, looking downstream, July 31, 2008 (Photo by HDR Alaska).................................................................................................................................4-9 Figure 4.2-7. Chilligan River, July 2008 (Photo by HDR Alaska)...........................................4-11 Figure 4.2-8. Chilligan River, further upstream July 2008 (Photo by HDR Alaska)...............4-11 Figure 4.2-9. Barrier Glacier moraine at outlet. Meltwater ponds on far left and exposed ice at middle left ( Photo by HDR Alaska)..................................................................................4-12 Figure 4.2-10. Chakachatna River clear water side channel, July 2008 (Photo by HDR Alaska). ............................................................................................................................................4-14 Figure 4.2-11. Noautka Slough, June 2008 (Photo by HDR Alaska).......................................4-16 Figure 4.2-12. McArthur River Tailrace Area, August 2008 (Photo by HDR Alaska).............4-18 Figure 4.3-1. Quaternary geology site locations (Bechtel, 1983).............................................4-25 Figure 4.3-2. Glacial and volcanic features in the Chakachamna-Chakachatna valley, Sheet 1 of 2 (Bechtel, 1983)................................................................................................................4-27 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 x July 2009 Figure 4.3-3. Glacial and volcanic features in the Chakachamna-Chakachatna valley, Sheet 2 of 2 (Bechtel, 1983)................................................................................................................4-29 Figure 4.3-4. Mount Spurr volcano, showing Crater Peak and lateral margins of Mount Spurr caldera structure. Also shown are Crater and Kidazqeni Glaciers, two prominent glaciers exiting breached caldera. View is toward north (Aerial photograph by Austin Post, September 1966) (Waymouth and Nye, 2002)..................................................................4-35 Figure 4.3-5. Simplified geology of Spurr volcanic complex (modified from Nye and Turner, 1990; cited in Waythomas and Nye, 2002)........................................................................4-37 Figure 4.3-6. Extent of proximal hazard zones around Mount Spurr volcano. Red circles define hazard zones for H/L = 0.1 and H/L = 0.3, where H and L are fall height and runout length, respectively; they are centered on the presently active Crater Peak (Waythomas and Nye, 2002)..................................................................................................................................4-38 Figure 4.3-7. Lahar deposits on south flank of Crater Peak, lahar dams along Chakachatna River, and parts of lahar dammed lakes (near Crater Peak and Mount Spurr volcano) associated with 1953 (A) and 1992 (B) Crater Peak eruptions. Vertical aerial photographs taken in August 1954 (source unknown) and in September 1992 (by Aeromap, Inc.), respectively (cited in Waythomas and Nye, 2002)............................................................4-40 Figure 4.3-8. Debris-avalanche hazard zones. Likely flow paths for future debris avalanches are for eruptions and activity at Crater Peak. Although unlikely, if magma is intruded beneath other sectors of volcano, flank collapse and debris avalanche could occur on other flanks of volcano. H, debris-avalanche fall height; L, debris-avalanche runout length. The H/L ratio for the only known debris-avalanche deposit at Mount Spurr volcano is 0.17 (Waythomas and Nye, 2002)...................................................................................................................4-42 Figure 4.3-9. Preliminary Hazard Assessment for Mount Spurr Volcano (Waythomas and Nye, 2002)..................................................................................................................................4-43 Figure 4.3-10. The hazard-zone boundary showing the area most likely to be affected by a directed blast. Scenario is based on data from the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, which is considered to be to be a “worst case” example (Waythomas and Nye, 2002)....4-45 Figure 4.3-11. Segmentation of megathrust (Wesson, 2007)...................................................4-50 Figure 4.3-12. Plate tectonic map (Bechtel, 1983)....................................................................4-53 Figure 4.3-13. Recorded earthquakes since 1973 where distance represents miles from Chakachamna Lake (USGS, 2008 in Hatch, 2008)...........................................................4-55 Figure 4.3-14. Tectonic and structural map of Cook Inlet basin showing major faults and anticlines (Bruin, 2006). Green triangle represents approximate location of proposed powerhouse........................................................................................................................4-57 Figure 4.3-15. Active crustal faults in south-central Alaska. The yellow line shows the surface ruptures associated with the 2002 Denali fault earthquake (Wesson et. al., 2007)...........4-58 Figure 4.3-16. Generalized landscape groupings in Project vicinity, based on overall characteristics of the soils..................................................................................................4-66 Figure 4.3-17. Comparison photos of the Kenibuna outlet channel as observed during low water (June) and high water (July) visits in 2008. Photos by HDR Alaska. ..............................4-70 Figure 4.4-1. Chakachamna Lake outflow frequency...............................................................4-81 Figure 4.4-2. Chakachamna Lake outflow duration curve. ......................................................4-81 Figure 4.4-3. Chakachamna Lake outflow duration curves – lower flow months....................4-82 Figure 4.4-4. Chakachamna Lake outflow duration curves – higher flow months...................4-82 Figure 4.4-5. Log Pearson Type III Flood frequency plot – USGS Gage 15294500...............4-85 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 xi July 2009 Figure 4.4-6. Chakachamna lake stage area and capacity, based (based on USGS 1960 and Bechtel 1983).....................................................................................................................4-87 Figure 4.4-7. Average monthly Chakachamna Lake inflows and outflows. ............................4-88 Figure 4.4-8. Period of record at USGS gaging stations...........................................................4-89 Figure 4.4-9. Chakachamna Lake annual inflows. ...................................................................4-91 Figure 4.4-10. Locations of hydrologic study areas, representative locations and channel configuration reach boundaries (Bechtel, 1983). Red boxes indicate sampling locations referenced in this section. ..................................................................................................4-95 Figure 4.4-11. Stream and floodplain transect on Chakachatna River showing approximate range of natural stages. Note that the site is located upstream of confluence with Straight Creek in Study Area D. Transect, as shown, is looking in downstream direction (Bechtel, 1983).4-97 Figure 4.4-12. Stream and floodplain transect on upper McArthur River showing approximate range of natural stages. Note that the site is located upstream of confluence with upper Blockade Glacier channel in Study Area L. Transect, as shown, is looking in downstream direction (Bechtel, 1983). ..................................................................................................4-98 Figure 4.4-13. Stream and floodplain transect on McArthur River at Study Area P showing approximate range of natural stages (Bechtel, 1983).........................................................4-99 Figure 4.4-14. Hydraulic Geometry of Chakachatna River showing approximate range of natural flow. Note: site is located upstream of confluence with Straight Creek in Study Area D (Bechtel, 1983).................................................................................................................4-100 Figure 4.4-15. Hydraulic Geometry of upper McArthur River showing approximate range of natural flow. Note: site is located upstream of confluence with upper Blockade Glacier Channel in Study Area L (Bechtel, 1983)........................................................................4-101 Figure 4.4-16. Hydraulic Geometry of McArthur River showing approximate range of natural flow. Note: site is located upstream of confluence with lower Noaukta Slough Channel in Study Area P (Bechtel, 1983)..........................................................................................4-102 Figure 4.4-17. Location and identification of 1982 sampling stations (Bechtel, 1983).........4-106 Figure 4.4-18. Location and identification of 1983 sampling stations (Bechtel, 1983).........4-107 Figure 4.4-19. Winter 1982 hydroacoustic survey sites (Bechtel, 1983).................................4-110 Figure 4.4-20. Water temperature record at Station 15 (Powerhouse Location) Peabody-Ryan J- 90 Thermograph (Bechtel, 1983).....................................................................................4-117 Figure 4.5-1. Sensitive fish habitats in Chakachamna Lake...................................................4-142 Figure 4.5-2. Sensitive fish habitats downstream of Chakachamna Lake: Chinook and eulochon spawning..........................................................................................................................4-143 Figure 4.5-3. Sensitive fish habitats downstream of Chakachamna Lake: sockeye, pink, coho and Dolly Varden spawning & rearing............................................................................4-144 Figure 4.5-4a. Sensitive time periods for Project area’s fish resources. Information modified from Bechtel (1983) and Morrow (1980)........................................................................4-154 Figure 4.5-4b. Sensitive time periods for Project area’s fish resources. Information modified from Bechtel (1983) and Morrow (1980)........................................................................4-155 Figure 4.5-5. Essential Fish Habitat for anadromous fish habitat within the Project area as delineated in the 2008 anadromous stream atlas..............................................................4-158 Figure 4.6-1. Beluga whale habitat in Cook Inlet (NMFS 2008)...........................................4-178 Figure 4.6-2. Predicted beluga distribution by month, from the Cook Inlet Beluga Conservation Plan (NMFS 2008), using known locations of 14 satellite tagged belugas (predictions derived via kernel probability estimates; Hobbs et al. 2005). Note total area use and offshore locations increases beginning in December and continuing through March. The PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 xii July 2009 red area (95 percent probability) encompasses the green (75 percent) and yellow (50 percent) regions................................................................................................................4-179 Figure 4.6-3. Location of sampling quadrats in Chakachamna study area, 1981 (Bechtel, 1983). ..........................................................................................................................................4-187 Figure 4.6-4. Location of habitat and vegetative types within the 1983 study area (1 of 6) (Bechtel, 1983).................................................................................................................4-189 Figure 4.6-5. Location of habitat and vegetative types within the 1983 study area (2 of 6) (Bechtel, 1983).................................................................................................................4-191 Figure 4.6-6. Location of habitat and vegetative types within the 1983 study area (3 of 6) (Bechtel, 1983).................................................................................................................4-193 Figure 4.6-7. Location of habitat and vegetative types within the 1983 study area (4 of 6) (Bechtel, 1983).................................................................................................................4-195 Figure 4.6-8. Location of habitat and vegetative types within the 1983 study area (5 of 6) (Bechtel, 1983).................................................................................................................4-197 Figure 4.6-9. Location of habitat and vegetative types within the 1983 study area (6 of 6) (Bechtel, 1983).................................................................................................................4-198 Figure 4.8-1. Chakachamna Lake looking towards east end..................................................4-211 Figure 4.8-2. Chakachatna River............................................................................................4-211 Figure 4.8-3. McArthur River.................................................................................................4-212 Figure 4.9-1. Game Management Unit/Subunit for the Project area (ADNR 2009b)............4-216 Figure 4.9-2. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management District (Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program 2008)...............................................................................4-217 Figure 4.9-3. Land ownership in the Project vicinity.............................................................4-234 Figure 4.10-1. Areas with documented cultural sites in the Project vicinity...........................4-241 Figure 4.11-1. Kenai Land use in the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB, 2005). Green triangle represents approximate location of the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project.................4-244 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 xiii July 2009 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Abbrev. Definition Agency or Member of an Agency AAC Alaska Administrative Code AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ABOG Alaska Board of Game ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Places ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ADCA Alaska Division of Community Advocacy ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources ADOLWD Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development ADOT&PF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities ARRC Alaska Railroad Corporation ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ASTt Arctic Small Tool tradition AVCP Association of Village Council Presidents BBNA Bristol Bay Native Association BIA U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs BLM Bureau of Land Management CEA Chugach Electric Association CEMI Canadian Environmental and Metallurgical Laboratory CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CIMMC Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Commission CIRI Cook Inlet Region, Inc. CLG certified local government DCOM (Alaska) Division of Coastal and Ocean Management DOI Department of Interior ENSTAR ENSTAR Natural Gas Company EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERT Environmental Research and Technology FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FHWA Federal Highway Administration FPC Federal Power Commission FY Fiscal Year HDR HDR Alaska, Inc.; HDR, Inc. IAC Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISA Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society ISER University of Alaska Anchorage Institute for Social and Economic Research PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 xiv July 2009 Abbrev. Definition ITC Intermodal Transportation Center JPA Joint Powers Authority JPO Joint Pipeline Office KPB Kenai Peninsula Borough MARAD Maritime Administration MEA Matanuska Electric Association ML&P Anchorage Municipal Light and Power MLW Division of Mining, Land and Water MOA Municipality of Anchorage MSB Matanuska-Susitna Borough NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NCIMA Northern Cook Inlet Sport Fish Management Area NDM Northern Dynasty Mines, Inc. NGO Non-governmental organization NHS National Highway System NIP Non-Internet Public NIST National Institute for Standards and Technology NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA/NMFS National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service NPDES National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System NPS U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWR National Wildlife Refuge OCRM Office of Coastal Resource Management OHMP Office of Habitat Management and Permitting OPMP Office of Project Management and Permitting PHS U.S. Public Health Service PL Public Law POA Port of Anchorage PUD Public utility district RTPO Regional Transportation Planning Organization RWG Resource work group SCS U.S. Soil Conservation Service SFSGR Susitna Flats State Game Refuge SGR State Game Refuge SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer TAPS Trans Alaska Pipeline System THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer TNC Tyonek Native Corporation TRAAK Trails and Recreational Access for Alaskans PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 xv July 2009 Abbrev. Definition U.S. United States USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USCG U.S. Coast Guard USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USDOI U.S. Department of Interior USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service USFWS U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey WDOE Washington Department of Ecology WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WMS Watershed Management Services WRCC Western Regional Climate Center Document or Policy ACMA Alaska Coastal Management Act ACMP Alaska Coastal Management Program ACMP Alaska Coastal Management Program AHRS Alaska Heritage Resources Survey AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act ALP Alternative Licensing Process ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act ANHP Alaska Natural Heritage Program ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act AS Alaska Statutes BA Draft Biological Assessment BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BMPs Best management practices BO Biological Opinion CEMP Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMP Coastal Management Plan CPQ Coastal Project Questionnaire CWA Clean Water Act CWCS Alaska’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act DLA Draft license application EA Environmental assessment EBD Environmental baseline document ECPA Electric Consumers Protection Act EID Environmental information document PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 xvi July 2009 Abbrev. Definition EIS Environmental impact statement EO Executive order ESA Endangered Species Act FPA Federal Power Act FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FOIA Freedom of Information Act FR Federal Register FSP Field sampling plan GMA Growth Management Act HCP Habitat conservation plan ILP Integrated licensing process IRA Indian reorganization act ISR-1 Phase 1 Initial Study Report ISR-2 Phase 2 Initial Study Report ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act LA License application LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NAICS North American Industry Classification System NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NHRP National Register of Historic Places NOI Notice of intent NPL National priority list P&N Purpose and need PAD Pre-Application Document PI Public involvement PIP Public involvement plan PLP Preliminary License Proposal PME Protection, mitigation and enhancement PSP-1 Phase 1 Proposed Study Plan PSP-2 Phase 2 Proposed Study Plan REA Ready for environmental analysis RMP Resource management plan ROD Record of decision RSP Revised Study Plan SB Senate Bill SCORP Statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan SD1 Scoping document 1 SD2 Scoping document 2 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 xvii July 2009 Abbrev. Definition SIP State implementation plan SMA Shoreline Management Act SMP Shoreline Management Plan TLP Traditional licensing process Uniform Act Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 USC United States Code USR Updated study report WRIR Water resources investigations report WSRA Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Engineering or Environmental Term AMSA Area meriting special attention ASCI Alaska Stream Condition Index ATV All-terrain vehicle AWQS Alaska water quality standards CE Categorical exclusion CEII Critical energy infrastructure information COC Chain of custody CP Corridor preservation CRM Cultural resources management GMU Game Management Unit GIS Gas Insulated Switchyard GPS Global positioning system IDSE Initial distribution system evaluation IESWTR Interim enhance surface water treatment rule MDC Mine development concept MEL Municipal entitlement lands MIS Management indicator species OE Ordnance and explosives PCE Power Cost Equalization QA Quality assurance QAPP Quality assurance project plan QC Quality control RBP Rapid bioassessment protocols RFFA Reasonably foreseeable future action RO/RO Roll-on/roll-off ROW Right-of-way RRSA Rural Road Service Area RTE Rare, threatened and endangered SR State Route TBM Tunnel-boring machine TCP Traditional cultural property WRIA Watershed resource inventory area WTP Water Treatment Plant PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 xviii July 2009 Abbrev. Definition WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant Miscellaneous Terms M.A. Master of Arts M.S. Master of Science n.d. No date n/a Not applicable or not available O&M Operations and maintenance OHV Off-highway vehicle ORV Off-road vehicle PDF Portable document format PhD Doctor of Philosophy Scientific Nomenclature µg Microgram µg/L Micrograms per liter μL Microliter(s) 14C Carbon 14 ABA Acid-base accounting acre-feet Do not abbreviate, except in tables, figures, etc. agl Above ground level AP Acid potential APE Area of potential effect BFE Base flood elevation BOD Biochemical oxygen demand BP Before present BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes CALC Chronic aquatic life criteria cfm Cubic feet per minute cfs Cubic feet per second cm Centimeter CO Carbon monoxide CO2 Carbon dioxide CQ Continuous flow CT Contact Time CU Color unit CUEQ% Copper equivalent grade cy Cubic yard(s) DAF Dissolved Air Floatation dB Decibel dB re 20 µPa Air reference level dB re 1 µPa Sound intensity, in decibels, referenced to 1 micro-Pascal dBA A-weighted decibel DBH Diameter at breast height PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 xix July 2009 Abbrev. Definition DEM Digital elevation model DI Deionized DMU Diesel mobile unit DO Dissolved oxygen DOC Dissolved organic carbon DPS Distinct population segment DRO Diesel range organics DTM Digital terrain model EFH Essential fish habitat feet Do not abbreviate, except in tables, figures, etc. feet MSL Mean sea level FL Fork length fpm Feet per minute fps Feet per second ft Foot (feet) g Gram g Fraction of gravity GHFS Global High Frequency System GIS Geographic Information System GLM General linear model gpcd Gallons per capita per day gpd Gallons per day gpm Gallons per minute GRO Gasoline range organics GS Gaging station GWUISW Ground water under the influence of surface water HAA5 Haloacetic acid HC-3 High-gradient, contained channel HF High frequency hp Horsepower HPT Heterotrophic Plate Count HWM High-water mark ICP Inductively coupled plasma Inch Do not abbreviate, except in tables, figures, etc. IOC Inorganic Compounds IQ Instantaneous flow kg Kilogram km Kilometer kV Kilovolt kVA Kilo volt amp kW Kilowatts kWh Kilowatt hours L Liter(s) PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 xx July 2009 Abbrev. Definition L/s Liters per second LC-1 Low-gradient, contained channel Leq·h Hourly equivalent level LIDAR Light detection and ranging LO/LO Load on/load off LOW Lacustrine open water areas (large lakes >20 acres) LUST Leaking underground storage tank m Meter(s) M Million m Meter m2 Square meter(s) MC-1 Moderate-gradient, narrow, shallow, contained channel MCE Maximum credible earthquake MCL Maximum contaminant level MDL Method detection limit me-Hg Methyl-mercury MEND Mine environment neutral drainage mg Milligram(s) MG Million gallons mg Milligram mg/L Milligrams per liter mgd Million gallons per day MHHW Mean higher high water, tide level MHW Mean high water mi2 Square mile(s) mile Do not abbreviate, except in tables, figures, etc. ml Milliliter(s) ML/ARD Metal leaching/acid rock drainage MLLW Mean Lower Low Water, tide level mm Millimeter(s) mmHg Millimeters of mercury (atmospheric pressure) mph Miles per hour MRL Method reporting limit MSL Mean sea level MVM Million vehicle miles MW Megawatts (one million watts) MWh Megawatt-hour NAC Noise abatement criteria NAVD 88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 NGVD 29 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 NO2 Nitrogen dioxide NOx Nitrogen oxide NP Neutralization potential PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 xxi July 2009 Abbrev. Definition NTU Nephelometric turbidity unit Nv Calculated variance O3 Ozone ºC Degrees Celsius ºF Degrees Fahrenheit OHW Ordinary high water ORP Oxidation-reduction potential PAG Potentially acid-generating PAH Polyaromatic hydrocarbons Pb Lead PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls PM10 Particulate matter up to 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 Particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter POLs Petroleum, products, oils, and lubricants pound Do not abbreviate, except in tables, figures, etc. POW Palustrine open water (ponds under 20 acres) ppm Parts per million PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration psi Pounds per square inch PVC Polyvinyl chloride Q Discharge Rkm River kilometer RM River mile RPM Rotations per minute RRO Residual range organics s Second SEL Sound exposure level sf Square foot (feet) SPL Sound pressure level SVOC Semi-volatile organic compound SWE Snow/water equivalent TAH Total aromatic hydrocarbons TAqH Total aqueous hydrocarbons TDG Total dissolved gas TDS Total dissolved solids TMDL Total maximum daily load TOC Total organic carbon TSS Total suspended solids TTHM Trihalomethanes V/C Volume-to-capacity ratio VHF Very high frequency VOC Volatile organic compound ww Wet weight PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 xxii July 2009 Abbrev. Definition yd Yard(s) Glossary of Terms Context / Term Definition Abrasivity The resistance of a rock type to abrasion or impact, i.e., its tenacity, defines its toughness Access tunnel A route for ventilation and power cables Accretion Growth or increase in size by gradual addition or inclusion; for instance, the slow accumulation of land by deposition of water-borne sediment, or the increase in river flow from tributaries Active power pool storage Total amount of reservoir capacity normally available for release from a reservoir below the maximum storage level (volume of water between the power tunnel intake and normal full pond) Adfluvial Fish that have a life history involving movement between a tributary stream and a lake or reservoir for feeding, shelter, or spawning Affected by Has its common sense meaning and makes the area for analysis co-extensive with the area of potential impacts. Affected environment The physical features, land, area, or areas to be influenced , impacted, or created by an alternative alignment under consideration; also includes various social and environmental factors and conditions pertinent to an area Alluvial Relating to alluvium Alluvial fan A stream deposit built where the gradient of a stream is abruptly decreased; especially characteristic of regions where mountain slopes rise steeply from adjacent plains Alluvium Sediment deposited by moving water, as in a riverbed, floodplain, or delta Anadromous Fish that migrate from fresh-water rivers and stream to the ocean Applicant TDX Power, Inc. Aquatic macrophyte (macrophyte) Aquatic plants, typically vascular plants, large enough to be apparent to the PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 xxiii July 2009 Context / Term Definition Conifer Needle-leaved or scale-leaved, primarily evergreen, cone-bearing trees or shrubs, e.g., pines, spruces, and firs Dependable capacity The maximum capability of the powerhouse at the minimum normal operating reservoir level Direct effects Influence or occurrences caused by a given action and occurring at the same time Distributary channel A stream that branches off and flows away from a main stream channel; common feature of river deltas Drawdown Lowering of a reservoir’s surface elevation and water volume by releasing (spilling or generating) the reservoir’s water at a rate that is greater than the rate of water flowing into the reservoir Drumlins Stream-lined hills of till the result of irregular accumulations beneath actively moving ice which overrides and shapes the till into stream-lined forms Ecotone A transition area between two adjacent but different plant communities; it may appear on the ground as a gradual blending of the two communities across a broad area or it may manifest itself as a sharp boundary line Emergent Plants rising above the water’s surface Entrainment The incidental pulling of fish and other aquatic organisms into the current and subsequently transported through a hydropower plant’s conduits and generation equipment Epilimnetic Relating to the surface layer (i.e., epilimnion) of a thermally stratified lake or reservoir Eskers Elongated ridges of stratified drift. Deposits formed by deposition in drainage tunnels under or through the ice, in open channels in the ice, and in elongated re-entrants of the ice margin. Euphotic zone Upper portion of the water column into which light penetrates Eutrophic Having waters rich in nutrients that promote plant life, especially algae, which can reduce the concentration of dissolved oxygen Fingerling Juvenile fish, especially trout, between about 2 and 6 inches long Fish passage tunnel A fish bypass system connecting Chakachamna Lake to Chakachatna River to pass adult and juvenile fish when the lake level is not high enough to flow down the Chakachatna River Fluvial (biological) Fish that undergo in-river migrations between small spawning tributaries and mainstem reaches Full pool Maximum level of a reservoir under its licensed normal operating range Glacial till Glacial drift composed of an unconsolidated mixture of clay, sand, pebbles, cobbles, and boulders Glaciofluvial Geomorphic feature whose origin is related to processes associated with glacial meltwater Global warming The increase in the average temperature of the earth’s near surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation Grade control weir Passageway at the Chakachamna Lake outlet through which excess water is released or "spilled" when the lake is full without going through the turbines Granitic Of or pertaining to granite PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 xxiv July 2009 Context / Term Definition Hazard-zone boundary The area most likely to be affected by a direct blast from volcanic eruption Herbaceous An herb as opposed to a woody plant Hydrophytic Pertaining to hydrophytes, i.e., plants adapted to grow in water Impacts A collective term to describe the particular positive or negative effects upon natural or human environment as a result of specific project or projects Indirect effects Influence or occurrences caused by a given action, occurring later in time or further removed in distance but which are reasonably foreseeable Intake The entrance to the power tunnel intake at Chakachamna Lake Invasive plants Plants not native to an ecosystem whose introduction is likely to cause economic, environmental, or human harm Iteroparous Offspring are produced in more than one group and across multiple seasons or other periods. Iteroparous animals survive over multiple seasons or periods Jointing Failure of a rock mass by fracturing when the rock has shattered and cracked without important movement or displacement along the breaks Kelts A spent or exhausted salmon after spawning; all species of Pacific salmon, except some steelhead and sea-run cutthroat, die at this stage Kettle holes Hollows formed where an ice block had been partially or completely buried; when the ice block melts, a topographic depression results Lacustrine Of or relating to lakes Lahars Poorly sorted mixture of boulders, sand, silt and water that has the consistency of wet concrete Lahars-runout flows Finer grained, watery flows of lahars Lake tap Type of water intake in the upstream water control system located within a vertical shaft Lineament A linear topographic feature revealing fault or subsurface structure Lithology Overall physical character of a rock or rock formation Littoral Shallow water areas where light reaches the substrate allowing attached algae and macrophytes to grow Load Amount of electric power or gas delivered or required at any point on a system (originates primarily at the energy consuming equipment of the customers) Load-following The adjustment of storage releases so that generation and load are continuously in balance Loess Light colored windblown deposit of fine-grained, calcareous silt or clay Mesic Pertaining to a moderately moist habitat Meso-oligotrophic Level of productivity between oligotrophic and mesotrophic but tending toward mesotrophic Mesotrophic Moderate amounts of nutrients and primary productivity Mitigation measures Specific design commitments made during environmental evaluation and study process which serve to moderate or lessen impacts deriving from the proposed action Monomictic Lakes and reservoirs that are deep, do not freeze over in winter, and undergo a single cycle of stratification and mixing during the year PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 xxv July 2009 Context / Term Definition Moraines Deposits of till built along the margins of a glacier, hence with transverse ridge- like forms; or they are deposited beneath the ice and are without transverse linear elements Muskegs Grassy bog or a sphagnum bog often with tussocks Nephelometric Measurement of the size and concentration of particles in liquid by analysis of light scattered by the liquid Oligo-mesotrophic Level of productivity between oligotrophic and mesotrophic but tending toward oligotrophic Oligotrophic Low productivity, lacking in nutrients and having a large amount of dissolved oxygen Palustrine Non-tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, or emergent vegetation; small shallow wetlands Peaking Operation of generating facilities to meet maximum instantaneous electrical demands Peak load The maximum electrical demand in a stated period of time Penstock An inclined pipe used to convey water under pressure to the turbines of a hydroelectric plant Pelagic Open waters in lakes or reservoirs, rather than waters adjacent to shore Periphyton Algae growing on the substrate of rivers, lakes, or reservoirs Physiographic Physical features of the landscape, especially its slope and elevation Project Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Project area Includes the area to be defined within the FERC-licensed Project boundary and adjacent/nearby areas (as defined for specific resource areas i.e., the total Chakachatna and McArthur river drainage areas for fish and aquatic resources for example) Project location On Chakachamna Lake bordered by the Alaska Mountain Range on the west and upper Cook Inlet on the south. The Project’s powerhouse is located in the NW ¼ of Section 31 of Township 12N, Range 16W, Seward Meridian. The upstream end of the Project reservoir is located on the NW 1/4 of Section 26, Township 13N, Range 20W. The outlet of the proposed Fish Tunnel is located at Section 15, Township 13N, Range 17W. Project vicinity General geographic area of the Project, including Cook Inlet and the Kenai Peninsula Borough located west of Cook Inlet in southcentral Alaska Project waters Waters to be defined in the Project license issued by FERC to include Chakachamna Lake, Chakachatna River, and a portion of McArthur River Pyroclastic flow A hot, dry mixture of volcanic-rock debris and gas that flows rapidly downslope Pyroclastic surge Similar to pyroclastic flow but has a higher gas content Railbelt Southcentral Alaska area to be serviced by the electricity produced at the Project Reservoir storage Reservoir in which storage is held over from the annual high water period to the following low water period Riparian Of or pertaining to the area adjacent to a stream’s or river’s banks; vegetation growing along or near the stream bank PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 xxvi July 2009 Context / Term Definition Riverine Flowing, non-tidal waters with a discrete channel with persistent emergent vegetation sparse or lacking but may include areas with abundant submerged or floating-leaved aquatic vegetation Rock-flour Sediments of glacial origin that stays in suspension in water Run-of-river project Hydroelectric generating plant that operates based only on available inflow and a limited amount of short-term storage (daily/weekly pondage) Salmon alevin Larval salmon that have hatched but have not yet completely absorbed their yoke sacs and usually have not yet emerged from the gravel Salmon fry The life stage of salmon between the alevin and parr stages Salmon parr The life stage of salmon between the fry and smolt stages; generally reached by the end of the first summer, the young salmon have distinctive parr marks and are actively feeding in fresh water Salmon smolt The life stage of salmon between the parr and adult stages; the young salmon are silver in color and migrate to the sea Secchi depth Measure of the turbidity of surface water based on the depth of visibility of a black-and-white disk lowered into the water column Sedimentary Rocks composed of weathered loose material, moved and deposited by wind, water, ice or organisms Seral Relating to a sere Sere Complete sequence of ecological communities occupying an area successively from first stage to climax Significant impacts Any number of social, environmental, or economic effects or influences which may occur as a result of the implementation of a project; “significant impacts” may include effects which are direct, secondary, or cumulative Species richness Total number of species, or the number of species within a certain group of organisms (e.g., birds), associated with a defined location Spill Releasing water through the a grade control weir at the outlet of Chakachamna Lake rather than through the turbine units Stakeholders Agencies, tribes, and other stakeholders Step-up transformer Transformer in which the output voltage is greater than the input voltage Storage The volume of water in a reservoir at a given time Substation An assemblage of equipment for the purposes of switching and/or changing or regulating the voltage of electricity Surge shaft or chamber A structure located on a tunnel, penstock, or other sort of water conveyance, used to absorb and attenuate the overflow and prevent any disruption due to a sudden change in water pressure through a water conveyance Sward Land covered with grass; meadow Tailrace Channel or tunnel through which water is discharged from the powerhouse turbines Talus slope An accumulation of rock debris at the base of a cliff or steep mountain slope Taxa Plural of taxon, i.e., a taxonomic category or group of organisms, e.g., a genus or species Taxonomy Classification system for organisms based on natural relationships; referring to the set of species, especially similar species, occurring in a specific region PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 xxvii July 2009 Context / Term Definition Tectonic Relating to structural deformation of the earth's crust resulting from the movement of plates on the upper mantle Terrace Flat, usually narrow stretch of ground, often with a steep slope, that faces a river, lake, or sea Thermistor Automated instrument that continuously records water temperature Transformer Device that transforms electricity from one voltage to another Trashrack Mechanism on a dam or intake structure that clears the water of debris before the water passes through the structure Trophic Relating to the feeding habits or food relationships of organisms in a food web Turbine Machine that uses a flow of water to turn blades on a shaft. The shaft also has electromagnets attached, which create an electromagnetic field that can be used to create electricity Turbine-generator Turbine directly coupled to an electrical generator; often referred to as one unit Usable storage capacity (See active power pool storage) Vegetative reproduction Of or relating to asexual reproduction; reproduction that occurs without the union of male and female gametes Volcanism Phenomena associated with volcanic activity Wetlands Areas that are inundated or saturated with surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and, that under normal circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegetation typically for life in saturated soil conditions Wheeling Transmission of electricity produced by one utility through facilities owned by another for a fee PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 1-1 June 2009 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background The proposed Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (Chakachamna Project or Project) is located approximately 85 miles west of Anchorage and 42 miles west north west from the Chugach Electric Association (CEA) Beluga substation that feeds power to the “Railbelt” grid system. The power potential of the Project has been investigated for more than 60 years with the first studies conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1948 and published in a report entitled Report on Reconnaissance of Lake Chakachamna. Additional studies were carried out initially by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and later by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Power potential from Chakachamna, depending on various development scenarios, ranges between 300 and 400 megawatts (MW) based on a 50% plant factor. While this is a substantial amount of power, neither federal agency chose to pursue the project because each was vying for its own much larger project in the 1960s: Susitna (1,600 MW) for the Bureau of Reclamation and Rampart (6,400 MW) for the USACE. The State of Alaska, through the Alaska Power Authority (APA), carried out the most definitive investigations of the potential development of Chakachamna (Cited hereafter as Bechtel, 1983). Although the Power Authority had begun investigations of the Susitna Hydropower Project in the late 1970s, it chose to investigate the merits of Chakachamna as well. Chakachamna was viewed at the time as a fairly straightforward project that could be brought on line prior to Susitna to meet the growing power needs of the Railbelt (the load center from Fairbanks to Anchorage and the Kenai where roughly 70 percent of Alaska’s population resides). The Power Authority contracted with Bechtel Engineering (Bechtel) to evaluate the viability of the Chakachamna Project in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The Bechtel studies resulted in the recommendation of a 330 MW development that would include a 183-meter (m) (600-foot) long and 15-m (49-foot) high rockfill embankment structure located at the outlet of Chakachamna Lake, a lake tap at Chakachamna Lake and a tunnel to an underground powerhouse and tailrace at the McArthur River. Section 1.3 below describes how this early configuration has evolved in response to stakeholder questions and comments into the project being proposed by TDX. The Chakachamna Project was ultimately put aside in deference to the Susitna hydropower project; the latter was ultimately terminated in 1985 when the price of oil fell below $10 per barrel. Hindsight suggests that the Railbelt market may well have been better served by the smaller Chakachamna Project. 1.2. The Power Market Total energy demand in the Railbelt is approximately 5 billion kilowatt hours (KWH) annually. The market is served by six utilities, each with their own protected service territories that are regulated by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). Four of the utilities are cooperatives, and two are municipally owned. The preponderance of electricity comes from natural gas-fired generation, but hydropower comprises approximately 20 percent of the total with coal and oil- PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 1-2 June 2009 fired generation providing the balance. The availability of natural gas to the Railbelt as a feedstock for home heating and power generation is beginning to wane. Of the approximately 9 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas reserves found in the Cook Inlet area since the mid-1960s, less than 2 TCF remains, and most of that has been committed. While Cook Inlet has historically been an exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG), it is anticipated that it will become an LNG importer in the near future. Because of this anticipated natural gas shortage, the electric utilities in the Railbelt are looking for alternative sources of power generation. Some are evaluating coal-fired power plants while others are hoping for new discoveries of natural gas or an eventual in-state pipeline from the North Slope gas fields. New coal or natural gas fired generation would be expected to result in the cost of electricity rising dramatically. TDX identified Chakachamna Project as a potentially significant source of power and received its preliminary permit in November, 2006 to explore the feasibility of bringing this resource to market. Recently, a Regional Integrated Resources Plan (RIRP) process has been initiated by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), which will result in a 50-year, long-range plan identifying combinations of generation and transmission (G&T) capital improvement projects in the Railbelt Region of Alaska. TDX anticipates that the results of the RIRP will play a significant role in determining the potential role of the Project in providing power for the Railbelt. 1.3. Project Summary TDX is proposing a project that entails the interbasin transfer of water from a lake-tap near the outlet of Chakachamna Lake through an approximately 11-mile long, 21-ft diameter hard-rock tunnel to an underground powerhouse that would discharge to the McArthur River. The total head would be approximately 900 feet, and the powerhouse elevation would be approximately 200 feet. It is estimated that the project could produce roughly 1,300 gigawatt hours (GWh) average annual energy from an installed capacity of 300 MW. A control weir and fish passage facilities would be located at the outlet of Lake Chakachamna. Upstream and downstream fish passage would be provided under the entire range of hydrologic conditions through an operating plan that maintains a minimum pool that would provide access via the existing river channel during key migration periods, and fish passage facilities that are available when the lake level is not high enough to develop flow down the Chakachatna River. The power produced would be distributed to an existing substation on the Railbelt grid in central Alaska via approximately 42 miles of newly constructed 230-kilovolt transmission lines. The proposed Project has undergone some modifications from the preferred alternative described by the Bechtel report in 1983. Many of these changes have been made in response to questions and concerns raised during extensive early consultation with resource agencies, Indian Tribes, and non-governmental parties (collectively, “stakeholders”) about the risks posed to upstream and downstream migration of salmon. Other specifications have changed due to preliminary engineering and economic optimization analyses. Some key proposed changes from the earlier Bechtel concept include: ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MITIGATION MEASURES o Adding seasonal reservoir elevation restrictions and reducing power pool normal operating range to enhance fish migration o Lowering elevation of power tunnel intake to reduce potential fish attraction PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 1-3 June 2009 ENGINEERING AND ECONOMIC OPTIMIZATION MEASURES o Decreasing diameter of power tunnel to 21 feet o Decreasing installed capacity to 300 megawatts o Decreasing powerhouse hydraulic capacity to 5,400 cubic feet per second o Eliminating most of the power tunnel’s proposed concrete lining through selection of a tunnel boring machine as construction method o Reducing number of turbines to three o Relocating and redesigning outlet structures to minimize exposure to potential glacial hazards o Shortening length of new transmission line to 42 miles CHANGES IN FISH PASSAGE FACILITIES o Using same tunnel diameter as the power tunnel o Providing a fish lock instead of ladder with multiple outlets o Providing fish passage at the low weir in the river o Reconfiguring the juvenile channels at the head of the tunnel to reduce flow velocities and provide smoother transition to the bypass flow in the tunnel Additional technical information about the features and operation of the proposed Project are provided in Section 3. 1.4. Resource Issues and Proposed Study Approach Project Area salmon contribute to commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries in the Upper Cook Inlet area. Sockeye salmon are by far the most important commercial species. However, fish from westside streams, including the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers, are believed to contribute a small percentage of the total Cook Inlet catch because of the numerical dominance of salmon from larger and highly productive systems such as the Kenai, Susitna, and Kasiloff rivers. Sport fishing for Chinook and coho salmon and rainbow trout occurs in the lower Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers but pressure is light because of difficult access. Set net fisheries (both commercial and subsistence) on the west side of Upper Cook Inlet would be expected to intercept fish en route to the Project Area. Important impact issues relating to aquatic resources that have been identified include: maintenance of salmon passage into Chakachamna Lake and its tributaries; impact of lake drawdown on spawning salmon and lake trout; impact of reduced flow in the Chakachatna River; impact of increased flow in the McArthur River; false attraction of salmon to the powerhouse tailrace; and maintenance of existing tributary and slough fish use areas. The goal of the environmental study program and facilities design effort that will be undertaken in support of a license application is to accommodate fish passage, and through the regulation of instream flow releases, avoid or reduce downstream impacts in the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers and their floodplain systems. Wildlife habitats are generally typical of those found in similar areas in south-central Alaska. The Trading Bay State Game Refuge encompasses the lower portions of the McArthur and Chakachatna Rivers. The refuge was established primarily to protect migratory bird habitats and PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 1-4 June 2009 other wildlife species associated with the extensive wetlands and tide flats and to protect human use opportunities, especially hunting. Refuge values will need to be protected during Project development. Other potential impacts associated with terrestrial habitats include conflicts between birds and transmission lines, disturbance of wildlife during high impact activities such as blasting, loss of habitat from facility construction and waste rock disposal, increased human activity due to improved access, and loss of wetland function. Most impacts will be associated with changes in water distribution in the two river flood plain systems; as with aquatic resources, a significant study program will be required to update vegetation and wildlife information in the Project Area and to address specific potential impact issues. As described in section 5 and Appendix 5-1 of this PAD, 43 resource studies have been identified to answer questions about the relationship between the Project and the environment. Developing the necessary information for a complete license application is hampered by a lack of existing information about the Project area; therefore, the proposed environmental study program needs to develop 1) a baseline period of record necessary to understand the interrelationships between proposed project characteristics and the environment; 2) a basic understanding of the key environmental functions and values in the area; and 3) a basis for determining project effects and appropriate Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement (PME) measures to address those effects. A phased study program is being proposed as the most effective way to obtain the necessary information. TDX is therefore proposing to issue two Proposed Study Plans, PSP-1 and PSP-2, in 2009 and 2010 respectively. PSP-1 will be limited to those studies that are necessary to develop a baseline period of record and to shed light on key environmental functions and values. TDX will issue PSP-2 in 2010 in order to describe the balance of the environmental program aimed at impact assessment and PME measure development. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 2-1 July 2009 2 PROCESS PLAN, SCHEDULE, AND COMMUNICATION PROTOCOL 2.1. Overview of Licensing Approach and Early Consultation The proposed Project is being investigated by TDX Power (TDX) under a preliminary permit pursuant to Section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA). For the licensing of the Project, TDX is proposing a modified Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) to provide the framework for its consultation with agencies, Indian tribes, Native corporations, Native villages and other stakeholders (stakeholders) during the period leading up to the filing of the license application. The Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) is the default process used by FERC; therefore, TDX must request approval from FERC to use the modified TLP. The modified TLP is being proposed to address stakeholder concerns with the tight timeframes and perceived inflexibility of the ILP. Additionally, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) has initated the development of a Regional Integrated Resources Plan (RIRP) which will result in a 50-year, long-range plan identifying possible combinations of generation and transmission (G&T) capital improvement projects in the Railbelt Region of Alaska. TDX Power anticipates that the results of the RIRP will play a significant role in determining the role of the Project in meeting the future power needs of the Railbelt. TDX believes that use of the TLP will provide flexibility to make adjustments to the overall pre- filing schedule, as may be appropriate during the course of the study program, in an efficient manner; and is most appropriate for coordinating an environmental study program with the results of the RIRP. The ongoing RIRP process being conducted by the AEA creates an environment where a phased approach to environmental studies is warranted. TDX proposes that the formal study program to support the licensing process be conducted on two phases. Planning for Phase 1 will be initiated in 2009 and describe key baseline environmental studies that will be initiated in 2010. Planning for Phase 2 will be initiated in 2010, following completion of the RIRP and after gaining field experience and information from the Phase 1 efforts. Phase 2 will describe the balance of the formal environmental study program focused on impact assessment and development of PME measures. Such a two-phased approach with distinct opportunities for stakeholder comments and opportunities for participation in both phases of study requires a level of flexibility that would be difficult under the ILP. TDX is committed to working with stakeholders to make adjustments to timeframes for such activities as review of proposed study designs and review and commenting on draft study reports to the extent possible without jeopardizing the overall Project schedule. As in the ILP, the enhanced TLP proposed here establishes specific criteria for study requests from stakeholders, provides for FERC’s ultimate determination of study needs, and provides for FERC to conduct formal scoping at the beginning of the licensing process to fulfill its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) obligations. The intent of these enhancements is to meet the interests of stakeholders for a transparent, well documented process, to provide TDX with the ability to manage the study program and licensing schedule with appropriate flexibility, and to provide FERC with the information needed to allow it to process the license application efficiently and issue a timely licensing decision. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 2-2 July 2009 The filing of this Pre-Application Document (PAD) and accompanying Notice of Intent (NOI) to seek a new license for the Project by TDX initiates the formal licensing effort. Copies of the PAD and NOI, as filed with FERC, will be distributed to all known interested state and federal agencies, Indian tribes, Native corporations, Native villages, local governments, non- governmental organizations, and members of the public. Since January 2008, TDX has engaged in informal consultation in preparation for initiating the licensing process. The objectives of this early engagement included: Gathering information from agencies and other potential stakeholders regarding their interest in the Project licensing and any concerns they might have with the available licensing approaches Gathering information on relevant resource management goals, potential issues, and potential information needs Developing contact information for stakeholders Identifying and obtaining relevant information to support the licensing effort Understanding key stakeholder questions concerning the proposed Project and its potential impacts on the existing environment Indentifying an approach to study planning appropriate for the scale of the Project and Project area and taking into consideration the lack of existing information about the resources potentially affected The effort to systematically identify and obtain all existing, reasonably available, relevant information related to the proposed Project and resources potentially affected by the Project as source material for this PAD, as required by the ILP regulations, was initiated by TDX in September, 2008. This effort was extensive and wide ranging and resulted in the acquisition of approximately 150 potentially relevant documents that are identified in the Information Library database located on TDX’s licensing website (http://www.chakachamna-hydro.com). A subset of these documents was used in the actual development of this PAD, and these documents are identified in the reference list of this document. The intent of the PAD is to provide as robust a foundation as possible upon which to base upcoming study planning for the licensing of the Project. With that purpose in mind, TDX elected to include in the PAD all reasonably available information that it deems to be relevant to the Project licensing, even if the information is not required for the PAD by FERC regulations. TDX also developed information through informal field reconnaissance to provide additional background on the Project vicinity for inclusion in the PAD. Notwithstanding TDX’s due diligence in obtaining all reasonably available, relevant information, some information that is specified in the ILP regulations to be included in the PAD is not available; this reflects both the preliminary nature of the current Project design for which basic operational and facilities information are still being developed, as well as the large, diverse and remote project area that has never been extensively studied or monitored. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 2-3 July 2009 2.2. Process Plan and Schedule TDX is requesting that FERC authorize the licensing of the Chakachamna Project to proceed under the TLP. As allowed under 18 CFR §4.38(e)(4), TDX is requesting as part of its proposal to use the TLP that FERC approve the addition of the following ILP elements into the Chakachamna licensing process: Early NEPA Scoping by FERC as described under 18 CFR §5.8; Study Criteria under 18 CFR §5.9; Study Plan Development (18 CFR §5.11); Stakeholder comments on study plans and revised study plans (18 CFR §5.12 though 18 CFR §5.13); Formal study dispute resolution process as described in 18 CFR §5.14; and Initial Study Report (ISR) and Updated Study Reports (USR) pursuant to 18 CFR §5.15. With these modifications, TDX anticipates that the licensing process will proceed in a similar manner to an ILP, but with additional flexibility that is appropriate given the complex nature of the proposed Project and general lack of existing information on the environmental characteristics of the Project area, which may necessitate adjustments to study approach and schedule. TDX has included in this request a proposed Communications Protocol (Appendix 2- 1), which has been developed through consultation with stakeholders as described in Section 6. Because this is not the relicensing of an existing licensed project, there is no license expiration date to dictate submittal of the license application. TDX is anticipating filing a license application in early 2014, contingent on satisfactory progress with the environmental study program. As required under the ILP regulations, this PAD includes the following summary of TDX’s proposed Process Plan and Schedule for the Chakachamna Project licensing effort. This plan and schedule reflect mandatory timeframes and deadlines in FERC’s regulations, consultation with interested agencies and tribes, and, to the extent practicable, other related regulatory processes including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation and consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. TDX will update and refine this process plan and schedule as needed throughout the course of the pre-filing consultation period. Outlined below are the major steps for the various activities occurring throughout the licensing process during the preparation of TDX’s Application for Original License for the Project. Also provided in this section is a proposed schedule and logistical information pertaining to the FERC scoping meetings and site visit and the first formal meetings following issuance of the PAD and NOI. 2.2.1. Summary of Licensing Milestones The following information briefly summarizes the significant milestones within the proposed enhanced TLP and provides further detail regarding the timing of specific components of the TLP, including the formal study planning and study dispute resolution steps (elements of the ILP that are proposed to be included in this TLP). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 2-4 July 2009 The major framework of the enhanced TLP during the pre-filing period, in terms of significant steps, responsibilities, and timeframes, is summarized in Table 2.2-1. Figure 2.2-1 depicts the key process steps associated with the milestones listed in Table 2.2-1. In addition to the steps required by the ILP regulations that TDX has proposed for inclusion in its enhanced TLP, Table 2.2-1 and Figure 2.2-1 include additional major consultation points that TDX has undertaken and plans to undertake throughout the course of the pre-filing period; these additional consultation opportunities are noted as “voluntary” in Table 2.2-1. Table 2.2-1. Milestones, responsible parties, dates, and applicable regulations associated with the pre- filing period of the enhanced TLP for the Chakachamna Project licensing. Significant Pre-filing Milestones Responsible Party Date [Required timeframe] Applicable Regulations 1 Initiate informal consultation with agencies, tribes, non-governmental organizations and public TDX January, 2008 Voluntary Hold first workshop for stakeholders 2 TDX November 13, 2008 Voluntary Initiate due diligence in identifying and acquiring existing, reasonably available, relevant information for the PAD TDX September, 2008 ILP, 5.6(b)(2) Hold second workshop for stakeholders TDX February 19, 2008 Voluntary Hold third workshop for stakeholders TDX April 10, 2009 Voluntary Hold fourth workshop for stakeholders TDX May 12, 2009 Voluntary Issue public notice for NOI/PAD TDX July 16, 2009 ILP, 5.3(d)(2) Request designation as FERC’s non-Federal representative for Section 7 ESA and authorization to initiate consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA TDX July 16, 2009 ILP, 5.5 File NOI/PAD with FERC and distribute to appropriate Federal, state, and interstate resource agencies, Indian tribes, local governments and members of the public likely to be interested in the proceeding TDX July 16, 2009 ILP, 5.5, 5.6 Comments on use of TLP stakeholders August 16, 2009 [within 30 days from NOI] ILP, 5.3 Conduct tribal meeting(s) FERC NLT August 16, 2009 [within 30 days from NOI] ILP, 5.7 Issue public notice for NOI/PAD; Issue Scoping Document 1 (SD1) FERC NLT Aug 29, 2009 [within 60 days from NOI] TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.8 Scoping Meetings and Site Visit FERC September 17-19, 2009 TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.8(b)(viii) PAD/SD1 comments due, including any information gathering and study requests, due to FERC stakeholders October 19, 2009 [within 30 days from Scoping notice/Site Visit] TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.9 Issue Scoping Document 2 (SD2) (discretionary) FERC December 3, 2009 [within 45 days from SD1 comment due date] TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.1 Phase 1 Proposed Study Plan Development PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 2-2 July 2009 Significant Pre-filing Milestones Responsible Party Date [Required timeframe] Applicable Regulations 1 (PSP-1) File Phase 1 Proposed Study Plan (PSP-1) TDX December 3, 2009 [within 45 days from SD1 comment due date] TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.11(a) Hold PSP-1 meeting(s) TDX December 16-17, 2009 [initial meeting must be held within 30 days of deadline for filing PSP-1] TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.11(e) PSP-1 comments, including any revised information or study requests, due to FERC stakeholders March 4, 2010 [within 90 days of filing PSP-1] TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.12 File Revised Study Plan (RSP-1), including comments on the PSP-1, description of efforts to resolve differences and explanation of any study request not adopted TDX April 5, 2010 [within 30 days from due date for PSP-1 comments] TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.13(a) RSP-1 comments due Agencies April 20, 2010 [within 15 days from filing of RSP-1] TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.13(b) Director’s Study Plan Determination (SPD-1), including any modifications determined necessary FERC May 5, 2010 [within 30 days from filing of RSP-1] TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.13(c) Phase 2 Proposed Study Plan Development (PSP-1) Phase 2 Study Requests Stakeholders October 19, 2010 TLP, 4.38(e)(4) File Phase 2 Proposed Study Plan (PSP-2) TDX December 3, 2010 TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.11(a) Hold PSP-2 meeting(s) TDX December 15-16, 2010 [initial meeting must be held within 30 days of deadline for filing PSP-2] TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.11(e) PSP-2 comments, including any revised information or study requests, due to FERC stakeholders March 2, 2011 [within 90 days of filing PSP-2] TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.12 File Revised Study Plan (RSP-2), including comments on the PSP-2, description of efforts to resolve differences and explanation of any study request not adopted TDX April 1, 2011 [within 30 days from due date for PSP-2 comments] TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.13(a) RSP-2 comments due Agencies April 18, 2011 [within 15 days from filing of RSP-2] TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.13(b) Director’s Study Plan Determination (SPD-2), including any modifications determined necessary FERC May 2, 2011 [within 30 days from filing of RSP-2] TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.13(c) Potential study dispute path – see Table 2.2-2 Conduct first study season TDX 2010 (Phase 1) or 2011 (Phase 2) ILP, 5.15(a) PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 2-3 July 2009 Significant Pre-filing Milestones Responsible Party Date [Required timeframe] Applicable Regulations 1 Issue initial study report (ISR-1 and ISR-2) TDX Pursuant to FERC approved study plan and schedule but no later than May 2011 (ISR-1), and May 2012 (ISR-2) [within 1 year after Study Plan Determination] TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.15(c)(1) Hold initial study report meeting TDX [within 15 days from initial study report] TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.15(c)(2) Issue initial study report meeting summary TDX [within 15 days from study report meeting] TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.15(c)(3) Potential study plan amendment path (2011 season) – see Table 2.2-3 Conduct second study season TDX 2011 (Phase 1 study program) and 2012 (Phase 2 study program) TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.15(a) Issue updated study report TDX Pursuant to FERC approved study plan and schedule but no later than May 2012 (Phase 1) or May 2013 (Phase 2) [within 2 years from Study Plan Determination] TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.15(f) Hold updated study report meeting TDX [within 15 days from updated study report] TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.15(f) Issue updated study report meeting summary TDX [within 15 days from study report meeting] TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.15(f) Potential study plan amendment path (2012 season, if applicable) – see Table 2.2-3 Conduct third study season TDX 2012/2013 TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.15(a) Issue 2nd updated study report TDX Pursuant to FERC approved study plan and schedule but no later than May 2013 (Phase 1) or May 2014 (Phase 2) [within 3 years from Study Plan Determination] TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.15(f) Hold 2nd updated study report meeting TDX [within 15 days from updated study report] TLP, 4.38(e)(4) ILP, 5.15(f) Issue 2nd updated study report meeting summary TDX [within 15 days from study report meeting] ILP, 5.15(f) File draft license application (DLA) TDX August, 2013 TLP, 4.38(c)(4) Draft post-filing study plan TDX August 2013 Voluntary File Draft Biological Assessment (BA) and/or draft Historic Properties Management Plan TDX August, 2013 [assume will be filed with DLA] ILP, 5.16(d) Comments on DLA due stakeholders November, 2013 TLP, 4.38(c)(5) PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 2-4 July 2009 Significant Pre-filing Milestones Responsible Party Date [Required timeframe] Applicable Regulations 1 [within 90 days from DLA filing] Post-filing study plan comments due stakeholders November, 2013 Voluntary Joint Meeting TDX January, 2014 [within 60 days if substantive disagreement] TLP, 4.38(c)(6) Draft BA and/or draft Historic Properties Management Plan comments due stakeholders November, 2013 [to be submitted with DLA comments’ Written summary of agreements reached with the resource agencies, as well as remaining disagreements TDX February, 2014 TLP, 4.38(c)(8) Revised post-filing study plan due TDX March, 2014 Voluntary File License Application TDX April 2014 TLP 4.38(c)(9) File revised Draft BA TDX April 2014 [file with license application] ILP 5.18(b)(3)(ii) Tendering notice of license application FERC April 2014 [within 14 days from filing] TLP 4.38(d)(2) Notes: 1 ILP = FERC regulations pertaining to the Integrated Licensing Process, found at Title 18, Chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 5. 2 TLP= FERC regulations pertaining to the Traditional Licensing Process, found at Title 18, Chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 4. 2 stakeholders = agencies, tribes, and other stakeholders IDTask Name1Preliminary Permit2Preliminary Permit Effective Date3Expiration of first preliminary permit4Effective date of 2nd Prelimary Permit (estimated)5Expiration of 2nd preliminary permit (estimated)6Pre-Application Activity7Pre-PAD/NOI8Initiate informal consultation with agencies, non-governmental organizations9Initiate due diligence in identifying and aquiring existing, reasonably available, relevantinformation for PAD10Reconnaissance Surveys11Hold first stakeholder workshop: stakeholder outreach and project orientation12Hold second stakeholder workshop: Conceptual Study Plan (CSP) development13Hold third stakeholder workshop: licensing process discussion14Hold fourth stakeholder workshop: Communication Protocol discussion (conference call)15Distribute revised Communication Protocol for final comments16Applicant Issues NOI/PAD17Initial Tribal Consultation Meeting18Comments on use of TLP/ALP19Commission Notices PAD/Issues SD120Commission Holds Scoping Meeting & Site Visits21Comments on PAD, study requests22Phase 1 Study Planning23Applicant Files Proposed Phase One Preliminary Study Plan (PSP-1); SD2 (if necessary) 24Study Plan Meeting (PSP-1)25Comments on Proposed Phase One Study Plan26Applicant Files Revised Phase One Study Plan (RSP-1)27Agencies comments on RSP-128Commission Issues Study Plan Determination (Phase 1 Studies)29Notice of Dispute (from Mandatory Conditioning Agencies)30Study Plan Dispute Resolution Process31Final Study Plan Determination (for disputed studies)32Study Season 1 (Phase 1 Studies)11/110/304/13/311/34/15/297/168/168/168/2910/1912/33/44/55/58/3H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020TaskSplitProgressMilestoneSummaryProject SummaryExternal TasksExternal MilestoneDeadlineTDX PowerChakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No 12660)Figure 2.2-1: Project Dates for Key Pre-Filing MilestonesChakachamna Hydrolectric Project (FERC 21660)TDX Power, June 2009Project: Figure 2.2-1Date: Wed 7/15/09 IDTask Name33Phase 2 Study Planning34Study Requests35Applicant Files Proposed Phase Two Prelimianry Study Plan (PSP-2); SD2 (if necessary)36Study Plan Meeting (PSP-2)37Comments on Proposed PSP-238Applicant Files Revised Phase One Study Plan (RSP-2)39Agencies comments on RSP-240Commission Issues Study Plan Determination (Phase 2 Studies)41Notice of Dispute (from Mandatory Conditioning Agencies)42Study Plan Dispute Resolution Process43Final Study Plan Determination (for disputed studies)44Study Season 2 45Phase 1 Studies Initial Study Report (ISR-1)46Study Season (2)47Phase 2 Studies Initial Study Report (ISR-2)48Updated Study Report (USR) - Phase 1 studies only49Study Season (3)50Draft License Application (DLA)51DLA Comments Due52Joint Meeting (tribes, resource agencies, public)53Development of post-filing study plan54Comments on post-filing study plan55Revised post-filing study plan56License Application (include BA and HPMP)57Post Filing Activities58EIS Preparation59Additional Studies (Geotechnical and Environmental)60License Issuance61Construct Project62Final Design/Engineering63Project Construction64Project Configuration and Testing65Firm Power Delivered10/1912/33/24/15/27/315/45/48/299/147/31H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020TaskSplitProgressMilestoneSummaryProject SummaryExternal TasksExternal MilestoneDeadlineTDX PowerChakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No 12660)Figure 2.2-1: Project Dates for Key Pre-Filing MilestonesChakachamna Hydrolectric Project (FERC 21660)TDX Power, June 2009Project: Figure 2.2-1Date: Wed 7/15/09 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 2-7 July 2009 Within the framework outlined above are several formal opportunities for dispute resolution pertaining to the following two general areas: Disputes related to the Director’s Study Plan determination; these disputes can be filed by agencies with mandatory conditioning authority (e.g., USFWS and NOAA/NMFS). Disputes and/or requests to amend the approved study plan after each of the study seasons; such disputes and/or requests may be filed by any agency, or other stakeholder. The process steps for resolving the first type of dispute opportunity — disputes related to FERC’s determination regarding the scope of the study plan for the licensing studies program — are outlined in Table 2.2-2. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 2-8 July 2009 Table 2.2-2. Formal study dispute resolution process, within the enhanced TLP for the Chakachamna Project licensing. Formal Study Dispute Resolution Steps Responsible Party Date [Required timeframe] Applicable Regulations 1 Phase 1 Revised Study Plan (RSP-1) Director’s Study Plan Determination (DSP-1) FERC May 2010 [within 30 days from filing of RSP] ILP, 5.13(c) Notice of any study disputes, including contact information for panel member, due USFWS, NOAA/ NMFS May 2010 [within 20 days from Director’s Study Plan Determination] ILP, 5.14(a) Dispute resolution panel (DRP) convenes with first two members DRP June 2010 [within 20 days from notice of study dispute] ILP, 5.14(d) Third dispute panel member selected DRP June 2010 [within 15 days from convening of panel] ILP, 5.14(d)(3) TDX comments on study disputes due TDX June 2010 [within 25 days from notice of study dispute] ILP, 5.14(j) DRP holds technical conference DRP Apr./May 2010 [prior to engaging in deliberative meetings] ILP, 5.14(j) DRP recommendations to Director DRP July 2010 [within 50 days from notice of study dispute] ILP, 5.14(k) Director issues study dispute determination (RSP-1), constituting amendment of the approved study plan FERC August 2010 [within 70 days from notice of study dispute] ILP, 5.14(l) Phase 2 Revised Study Plan (RSP-2) Director’s Study Plan Determination (SPD-2) FERC May 2011 [within 30 days from filing of RSP] ILP, 5.13(c) Notice of any study disputes, including contact information for panel member, due USFWS, NOAA/ NMFS May 2011 [within 20 days from Director’s Study Plan Determination] ILP, 5.14(a) Dispute resolution panel (DRP) convenes with first two members DRP June 2011 [within 20 days from notice of study dispute] ILP, 5.14(d) Third dispute panel member selected DRP June 2011 [within 15 days from convening of panel] ILP, 5.14(d)(3) TDX comments on study disputes due TDX June 2011 [within 25 days from notice of study dispute] ILP, 5.14(j) DRP holds technical conference DRP Apr./May 2011 [prior to engaging in ILP, 5.14(j) PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 2-9 July 2009 deliberative meetings] DRP recommendations to Director DRP July 2010 [within 50 days from notice of study dispute] ILP, 5.14(k) Director issues study dispute determination (RSP-2), constituting amendment of the approved study plan FERC August 2010 [within 70 days from notice of study dispute] ILP, 5.14(l) Note: 1 ILP = FERC regulations pertaining to the Integrated Licensing Process, found at Title 18, Chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 5. As can be seen from the information in Table 2.2-2, engagement in the formal study dispute process on the FERC Director’s Study Plan Determination could jeopardize the timely initiation of any studies under dispute in the 2010 study season. For this reason, TDX is committed to working to resolve any mandatory conditioning agency concerns with its each of the Proposed Study Plans (PSP-1 and PSP-2) prior to filing the Revised Study Plan (RSP) with FERC to avoid, to the extent possible, such an adverse effect on the study program. There will be two Initial Study Reports (ISR-1 and ISR-2) following the first field season of each study phase. Following the issuance by TDX of the ISR-1 and ISR-2 meeting summaries, all stakeholders have the opportunity to file a disagreement concerning TDX’s meeting summary, including any desired modifications to ongoing studies or new studies proposed by FERC staff or another participant. The steps to resolve this type of disagreement/request are shown in Table 2.2-3. ISR-2 will be issued jointly with the USR of Phase 1 studies. Following TDX’s filing of the license application with FERC in 2014, FERC will evaluate TDX’s licensing proposal through its NEPA process. However, considering the lack of existing information and expressed concern from agencies over an adequate level of baseline data for the Project area, TDX anticipates that selected field studies will continue post-filing for the purpose of continuing to develop baseline information to be used in post-construction monitoring. The Project schedule includes a post-filing study plan that will be developed in consultation with stakeholders. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 2-10 July 2009 Table 2.2-3. Steps related to submitting and addressing disagreements regarding the initial study report meeting summary and requests to amend the approved study plan for the Chakachamna Project licensing. Disputes/Requests to Amend Approved Study Resolution Steps Responsible Party Date [Required timeframe] Applicable Regulations Issue initial study report (ISR-1 or ISR-2) TDX [Within 1 year after study plan approval or per FERC-approved schedule, whichever comes first] ILP, 5.15(c)(1) Conduct meeting on study results and any proposals to modify study plan TDX [Within 15 days of issuance of initial study report] ILP, 5.15(c)(2) Issue initial study report meeting summary TDX [within 15 days from study report meeting] ILP, 5.15(c)(3) Disputes/requests to amend study plan due stakeholders [within 30 days from study report meeting summary] ILP, 5.15(c)(4) Responses to disputes/requests to amend study plan due stakeholders and TDX [within 30 days from dispute/request due date] ILP, 5.15(c)(5) Director’s determination on study disputes/requests to amend plan FERC [within 30 days from response due date] ILP, 5.15(c)(6) Continue study program TDX 2011 (Phase 1) or 2012 (Phase 2) Issue updated study report TDX [No later than 2 years after FERC approval of the study plan and schedule] ILP, 5.15(f) Conduct meeting on updated study results and any proposals to modify study plan TDX [Within 15 days of issuance of updated study report] ILP, 5.15(f) Issue updated study report meeting summary TDX [within 15 days from updated study report meeting] ILP, 5.15(f) Disputes/requests to amend study plan due stakeholders [within 30 days from study report meeting summary] ILP, 5.15(f) Responses to disputes/requests to amend study plan due stakeholders and TDX [within 30 days from dispute/request due date] ILP, 5.15(f) Director’s determination on study disputes/requests to amend plan FERC [within 30 days from response due date] ILP, 5.15(f) Note: 1 ILP = FERC regulations pertaining to the Integrated Licensing Process, found at Title 18, Chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 5. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 2-11 July 2009 2.2.2. Chakachamna Project Licensing Site Visit and Scoping Meetings It is anticipated that FERC will hold a site visit and two scoping meetings in September 2009. The first scoping meeting will solicit comments from resource agencies and tribes, while the second scoping session will solicit comments from the general public and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). All interested individuals, NGOs, resource agencies, and tribes are invited to attend one or both of the meetings as well as the site visit. Specific instructions for attending the scoping meetings and site visit will be posted on the Chakachamna Project licensing website at http://www.chakachamna-hydro.com. Additional information can also be obtained by contacting Patti Leppert with FERC at (202) 502-6034 or pattie_leppert@ferc.gov. A summary of the proposed times and dates for the site visit and scoping meeting information is provided below: Scoping Meetings: o Agency/Tribe Scoping Meeting Date: September 17, 2009, (afternoon; specific time to be determined) Location: Anchorage, Alaska o Public/Non-Governmental Organization Scoping Meeting Date: September 17, 2009, (evening; specific time to be determined) Location: Anchorage, Alaska Site Visit (aerial tour of Project area) o Date: September 18-19, 2009, (specific time to be determined) o Location: Aerial tours will leave from Anchorage; specific logistics to be determined and will be included in FERC’s Notice of the PAD. o Note: because of the remote location and difficulty of access, site visits will be conducted via aerial tour. Because the ability to complete the tours is weather dependent, two days of site tours are being scheduled. The scoping meetings will be recorded by a court reporter, and all statements, oral and written, will become part of FERC’s official public record for this licensing. At the start of each meeting all individuals who attend will be asked to sign in. Anyone wishing to make a statement for the record will be asked to indicate this desire and to identify themselves and any organizations that they represent. In addition to the opportunity to comment at the scoping meetings, all stakeholders may provide written comments to FERC by sending an original and eight copies of any written comments to: The Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 2-12 July 2009 Please include the project name and project number, “Chakachamna Project, FERC No. 12660,” on the first page of any written comments. As noted in Table 2.2-1, the deadline for filing written comments on this PAD and FERC’s Scoping Document 1 will be 60 days from the date of FERC’s notice of issuance of the scoping document and consultation procedures. 2.3. Communications and Document Distribution Pursuant to 18 CFR 5.4(c)(2)(ii) TDX developed a Communications Protocol to govern how TDX and other participants in the pre-filing consultation process may communicate with each other regarding the merits of TDX’s proposal and proposals and recommendations of interested entities. The Communications Protocol (attached as Appendix 2-1) was developed in consultation with the entities contacted by TDX that expressed interest in the pre-filing consultation process. As required by 18 CFR 5.4(c)(2)(iii) a copy of the request to use the TLP has been provided to all affected resource agencies, tribes, and members of the public that are likely to be interested in the proceeding. 2.3.1. Document Distribution by TDX TDX will distribute licensing documents it generates in electronic format (primarily Portable Document Format [PDF]) to the extent practicable but may choose to distribute certain types of documents in hardcopy. The primary mode of document distribution will be through the Chakachamna Project licensing website (http://www.chakachamna-hydro.com/). TDX will maintain a current calendar of upcoming and past meetings and will post all meeting materials (including agendas, handouts, and summaries), study plans and reports, and other important licensing documents, such as the PAD and PSP-1/2, on the website to increase the availability of these materials to all interested parties. TDX will use email notifications to stakeholders to announce important new postings, which will help maximize review and comment opportunities, where applicable. Informal communications, such as those between TDX representatives and workgroup members, will be conducted primarily by email. Table 2.3-1 summarizes the general guidelines TDX will follow in determining the appropriate mode of distribution for licensing documents. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 2-13 July 2009 Table 2.3-1. Guidelines for mode of distribution of Chakachamna Project licensing documents from TDX to stakeholders. Document Type Distribution Mode(s) Informal communications Email or regular mail Meeting notices and agendas Website with email notice Meeting summaries Website with email notice Large licensing related documents (e.g., PAD, SD1, PSP, study reports, progress reports, PLP, license application) Website and/or CD-ROM through regular mail PAD reference documents Website (scanned PDF files) 2.3.2. Information Categories and Associated Distribution Protocols Throughout the licensing, all of the information generated will be categorized into one of three key information classes, as defined and prescribed by FERC. These three information classes are as follows: Public information Critical energy infrastructure information (CEII) Privileged information Given the preliminary nature of the proposed Project, this PAD will require only the public information category. As appropriate for future filings, TDX will file information in appropriate categories with FERC and provide public information to all stakeholders on its licensing contact list. CEII and privileged information can be obtained directly from FERC via written request. A short description of each category of information and contact information for obtaining CEII and privileged information is provided below. 2.3.2.1. Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) CEII is information about proposed or existing critical infrastructure that (i) relates to the production, generation, transportation, transmission, or distribution of energy; (ii) could be useful to a person in planning an attack on critical infrastructure, (iii) is exempt from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and iv) provides detail beyond simply giving the location of the critical infrastructure. Anyone seeking this type of information from FERC must file a CEII request. Instructions for filing such a request are provided on FERC’s website at www.ferc.gov/help/how-to/file-ceii.asp . 2.3.2.2. Privileged Information This is information that is sensitive in nature, for example, information that could present a risk of harm or theft to archaeological or cultural resources. Anyone seeking this information from PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 2-14 July 2009 FERC must file a FOIA request. Instructions for filing a FOIA request are located on FERC’s website at www.ferc.gov/legal/ceii-foia/foia.asp. 2.3.2.3. Public Information All remaining information not found in the above categories is classified as public information. In general, all documents filed with, and issued by, FERC that FERC deems appropriate for public availability can be found on FERC’s website at www.ferc.gov (click on “Documents and Filing,” “eLibrary,” then “General Search,” or access the eLibrary directly at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp; the website provides further instructions for obtaining documents). All public information is also available to be viewed at FERC’s Public Reference Room (for location, hours of operation, and other information, go to www.ferc.gov/help/pub-ref- rm.asp). 2.3.3. Public Reference File TDX will maintain electronic and/or hard copies of all relevant written communications, meeting summaries, reports and Project documents in a Public Reference File. The Public Reference File will be maintained until the Chakachamna Project licensing proceeding is terminated by FERC through the issuance of an order that is no longer subject to appeal on TDX’s license application. CEII and Privileged documents in the Public Reference File may be restricted from public viewing in accordance with FERC’s regulations (18 CFR 388.313; 18 CFR 388.112). All public information contained in the Public Reference File is available for public viewing during normal business hours at the following location: TDX Power 4300 B St, Suite 402 Anchorage, AK 99503-5946 Alternatively, copies of the information in the Public Reference File that is available for public viewing may be requested by contacting Maxine Blake, Executive Assistant, as follows: By regular mail: TDX Power 4300 B St, Suite 402 Anchorage, AK 99503-5946 By phone: (907) 762-8450 By email: chakachamna@tdxpower.com PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 2-15 July 2009 A fee, where permitted by applicable regulations, may be charged for extensive copying requests. 2.3.4. Providing Documents to TDX and FERC To place a document in TDX’s Public Reference File, send one hard copy and one electronic copy (in Microsoft Word, Excel, Access, or PDF) to: Maxine Blake TDX Power 4300 B St, Suite 402 Anchorage, AK 99503-5946 Please include the following information on the front cover sheet of any document you submit “Chakachamna Project, FERC No. 12660”. To place a document in FERC’s official project file you may electronically file documents with FERC (see instructions at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/user-guide/userguide.pdf) or send an original and eight hard copies to: The Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 Please include the following on the front cover of any document you file with FERC: “Chakachamna Project, FERC No. 12660.” 2.4. Workgroup Structure for Pre-filing Technical Efforts TDX will be responsible for coordinating licensing activities among stakeholders during the pre- filing period, and intends to form workgroups of interested stakeholders for this purpose. During the period leading up to issuance of this PAD, TDX held several workshops to engage with stakeholders in the identification of issues and questions related to the licensing of the Project. With the issuance of this PAD, TDX plans to formalize the role of workgroups organized around major resource areas to work with TDX to implement the pre-filing licensing activities. Resource workgroups (RWGs) will consist of representatives of stakeholder organizations engaged with TDX in activities including: Development of study plan components Review of study work products PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 2-16 July 2009 Evaluation of Project effects Identification of potential protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures These workgroup efforts will occur within the licensing context to assist TDX with developing and reviewing PSP-1 and PSP-2, implementing the approved study plans, reviewing draft study reports, and reviewing the draft License Application. Membership in RWGs will be voluntary, although TDX encourages stakeholder organizations to assign representatives to participate regularly in the RWG activities of all resource areas in which they have interest. As noted above, TDX will communicate with stakeholders regarding RWG activities primarily through the Chakachamna Project licensing website and e-mail. Stakeholders’ interest in participating in one or more RWGs may be communicated to TDX through one of several means: Sign-in sheets and attendance lists from workshops, scoping meetings, and other licensing-related meetings will be used to indicate resource-area interests of each participant. Attendance lists from the resource workgroup discussions at licensing workshops to date will serve as the preliminary lists of potential RWG members. Stakeholders can indicate which resource areas they are interested in through the licensing website (select the “sign-up” and indicate interest areas when providing contact information). 2.5. Development of Licensing Study Program In the development of the PAD, TDX has collected and summarized the available information regarding the existing human and natural environments. The PAD also indicates areas where little or no information exists. Section 5 of the PAD outlines 18 broad potential impact types or information gaps and 43 discreet studies to form the basis for determining Project effects. In response to Stakeholder requests, TDX has also developed a conceptual framework for completing the formal study plan. The basis of the approach is to create a clear linkage between key questions posed by the proposed Project, and the identified studies. The framework is attached as Appendix 5-1. Stakeholders may request additional studies or investigations to add to the knowledge regarding the potential effects of the Project. Consistent with the proposal to build an environmental study program in two phases, stakeholders will have additional opportunities to request studies between PSP-1 and PSP-2 (see Table 2.1-1). The modified TLP proposes to utilize the study development process, including study request criteria of the ILP. These criteria require specific information from parties requesting studies related to the licensing. Study requests should follow the following format. As specified by 18 CFR 18 § 5.9(b) of FERC's ILP regulations, any study request must: Describe the goals and objectives of each study proposal and the information to be obtained; PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 2-17 July 2009 If applicable, explain the relevant resource management goals of the agencies or Indian tribes with jurisdiction over the resource to be studied; If the requestor is a not resource agency, explain any relevant public interest considerations in regard to the proposed study; Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study proposal, and the need for additional information; Explain any nexus between project operations and effects (direct, indirect, and/or cumulative) on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the development of license requirements; Explain how any proposed study methodology (including any preferred data collection and analysis techniques, or objectively quantified information, and a schedule including appropriate filed season(s) and the duration) is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community or, as appropriate, considers relevant tribal values and knowledge; and Describe considerations of level of effort and cost, as applicable, and why any proposed alternative studies would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs. Study requests should be filed electronically with FERC at www.ferc.gov citing the FERC project number P-12660. Alternatively, study requests can be emailed in MS Word or PDF format to chakachamna@tdxpower.com or mailed to: Maxine Blake TDX Power 4300 B St, Suite 402 Anchorage, AK 99503-5946 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-1 July 2009 3 PROJECT LOCATION, FACILITIES, AND OPERATIONS This section of the PAD contains specific information regarding the proposed Project location, facilities, and operations, as well as TDX’s authorized agents. This information will serve as a basis for exploring potential Project impacts as the licensing process and accompanying environmental studies progress. 3.1. Authorized Agents for the Applicant The name, business, and telephone number of the person authorized to act as agent for applicant are as follows: Nicholas Goodman TDX Power, Inc. 4300 B Street, Suite 402 Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone: (907) 278-2312 Fax: (907) 278-2332 Email: ngoodman@tdxpower.com 3.2. Project Location The proposed Project is located on Chakachamna Lake and is bordered by the Alaska Mountain Range on the west and Upper Cook Inlet on the east. Chakachamna Lake and its tributaries, the Nagishlamina River, the Chilligan River, and Kenibuna Lake are located above the Chakachatna River. Kenibuna Lake, in turn, is supplied by the Neacola River, Another River, and the Igitna River. At the mouths of major tributaries are large deltas, composed mainly of sand and glacial- fluvial deposits. The proposed Project would discharge into the MacArthur River via a lake tap outlet in Chakachamna Lake and an 11-mile long tunnel. The Powerhouse on the MacArthur River is approximately 38 miles west from the Village of Tyonek and approximately 82 miles from Anchorage in the Kenai Peninsula Borough (Figure 3.2-1). The Project’s powerhouse is located in the NW ¼ of Section 31 of Township 12N, Range 16W, Seward Meridian. The upstream end of the Project reservoir is located on the NW ¼ of Section 26, Township 13N, Range 20W. The outlet of the proposed Fish Tunnel described in Section 3.3.1.2 below is located at Section 15, Township 13N, Range 17W (see Section 3.3.1.2.2 below for a description of the fish tunnel). To date, there has been no River Mile (RM) system designated in the Project area. The Project facilities, surrounding geographic features, and land ownership are shown on the general location map in Figure 3.2-2. Maps showing the proposed Project boundary are provided in Figures 3.2-3 through 3.2-9. Chilliga n Riv e r I g itn a R i v e r A nother River C h a k a c h a m n a Lake Nagishla mi n a River N e a c o l a R iv e r Chakachatna River McArthu r Ri v er C o o k I n l e tBlockade LakeBeluga Lake KENAI BELUGA TYONEK SUSITNA NIKISKIKUSTATAN SHIRLEYVILLE Anchorage Author: HDR Alaska - MC Date: 09 June 2009 Sources: ESRI, USGS, ADNR Filename: FIG 4 2-1 RegMap-8x11.mxd 0510Miles Map Extent Legend Trading Bay State Game Refuge Borough Boundary Location map Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Graphic representation only. HDR makes no guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of source data. Figure 3.2-1 0510Kilometers Mat-Su Borough Kenai Peninsula Borough Iditarod REAA Lake & Peninsula Borough Trading Bay State Game Refuge Location Map of Kenai Peninsula Borough in South Central Alaska Chilliga n Ri v e r I g itn a R i v e r A nother River C h a k a c h a m n a Lake Nagish l a mi n a River N e a c o l a R iv e r Chakachatna River McArthu r Ri v er C o o k I n l e tBlockade LakeBeluga Lake Capps Glacier Triumvirate Glacier L o n e R idgeNorth T wi n G l a c i e r South T w i n G lacierHa r p o o n G l a c i e r Mt. Torbert Mt. Spurr Black Peak Bloc k a d e Gl a ci er S ha mr ock GlacierBELUGA TYONEK SHIRLEYVILLE Anchorage Author: HDR Alaska - MC Date: 09 June 2009 Sources: ESRI, USGS, HATCH, MWH Filename: FIG 3 2-2 GA-8x11.mxd 0510Miles Map Extent Legend General Arrangement Bridge Existing Road For Improvement Proposed Fish Passage Tunnel Proposed Access Road Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Tunnel Trading Bay State Game Refuge Borough Boundary General Arrangement Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Graphic representation only. HDR makes no guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of source data. Figure 3.2-2 0510Kilometers Mat-Su Borough Kenai Peninsula Borough Trading Bay State Game Refuge 2 7 53 41 6 8 Location map and general arrangement of the Chakachamna Project General Arrangement Features 1. Proposed Adult Outlet and Juvenile Inlet Structure 2. Proposed Power Intake 3. Proposed Gate Shaft Tunnel Access 4. Proposed Weir and Fish Ladder 5. Proposed Bridge 6. Proposed Tail Race Tunnel Capps Glacier Triumvirate Glacier L o n e R idgeMount SusitnaNorth T wi n Gl a ci e r South T w i n G lacierHar p o o n G l a c i e r Mt. Torbert Mt. Spurr Black Peak Bloc k a d e Gl a ci er S ha mr ock GlacierAnchorage Author: HDR Alaska - MC Date: 09 June 2009 Sources: ESRI, USGS, HATCH, KPB, MWH Filename: FIG 3_2-3 Index-8x11.mxd 0510Miles Map Extent Legend General Arrangement Trading Bay State Game Refuge Ice Mass Proposed Project Boundary Index Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Graphic representation only. HDR makes no guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of source data. Figure 3.2-3 0510 Kilometers Figure 3.2-4 Figure 3.2-5 Figure 3.2-6 Figure 3.2-7 Figure 3.2-8 Location map of the Chakachamna Project - Proposed Project Boundary S h a mr ock Gl acierC h a k a c h a m n a Lake Anchorage Author: HDR Alaska - MC Date: 09 June 2009 Sources: ESRI, USGS, HATCH, KPB, MWH Filename: FIG 3_2-4 ProjDetail1-8x11.mxd 00.51Miles Map Extent Legend General Arrangement Bridge Existing Road For Improvement Proposed Fish Passage Tunnel Proposed Access Road Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Tail Race Tunnel Land Owner BOROUGH FEDERAL MUNICIPAL NATIVE NATIVE ALLOTMENT PRIVATE STATE Proposed Project Area Ice Mass Proposed Project Boundary Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Graphic representation only. HDR makes no guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of source data. Figure 3.2-4 00.51 Kilometers Project Area Buffers Lake 200 ft Facilities/Infrastructure 400 ft Tunnel Outlet 600 ft 1 2 3 4 6 5 General Arrangement Features 1. Proposed Adult Outlet and Juvenile Inlet Structure 2. Proposed Power Intake 3. Proposed Gate Shaft Tunnel Access 4. Proposed Weir and Fish Ladder 5. Proposed Bridge 6. Proposed Tail Race Tunnel Location map of the Chakachamna Project - Proposed Project Boundary Anchorage Author: HDR Alaska - MC Date: 09 June 2009 Sources: ESRI, USGS, HATCH, KPB, MWH Filename: FIG 3_2-5 ProjDetail2-8x11.mxd 00.51Miles Map Extent Legend General Arrangement Bridge Existing Road For Improvement Proposed Fish Passage Tunnel Proposed Access Road Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Tunnel Land Owner BOROUGH FEDERAL MUNICIPAL NATIVE NATIVE ALLOTMENT PRIVATE STATE Proposed Project Area Ice Mass Proposed Project Boundary Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Graphic representation only. HDR makes no guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of source data. Figure 3.2-5 00.51 Kilometers Project Area Buffers Lake 200 ft Facilities/Infrastructure 400 ft Tunnel Outlet 600 ft 1 2 3 4 6 5 General Arrangement Features 1. Proposed Adult Outlet and Juvenile Inlet Structure 2. Proposed Power Intake 3. Proposed Gate Shaft Tunnel Access 4. Proposed Weir and Fish Ladder 5. Proposed Bridge 6. Proposed Tail Race Tunnel 7 5 Location map of the Chakachamna Project - Proposed Project Boundary Anchorage Author: HDR Alaska - MC Date: 09 June 2009 Sources: ESRI, USGS, HATCH, KPB, MWH Filename: FIG 3_2-6 ProjDetail3-8x11.mxd 00.51Miles Map Extent Legend General Arrangement Bridge Existing Road For Improvement Proposed Fish Passage Tunnel Proposed Access Road Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Tunnel Land Owner BOROUGH FEDERAL MUNICIPAL NATIVE NATIVE ALLOTMENT PRIVATE STATE Proposed Project Area Ice Mass Proposed Project Boundary Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Graphic representation only. HDR makes no guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of source data. Figure 3.2-6 00.51 Kilometers Project Area Buffers Lake 200 ft Facilities/Infrastructure 400 ft Tunnel Outlet 600 ft Location map of the Chakachamna Project - Proposed Project Boundary 1 -+ L -~ .• • ----o -o J 1 1 L L ---~ .• -. -o CJ o Beluga Anchorage Author: HDR Alaska - MC Date: 09 June 2009 Sources: ESRI, USGS, HATCH, KPB, MWH Filename: FIG 3_2-7 ProjDetail4-8x11.mxd 00.51Miles Map Extent Legend General Arrangement Bridge Existing Road For Improvement Proposed Fish Passage Proposed Access Road Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Tunnel Land Owner BOROUGH FEDERAL MUNICIPAL NATIVE NATIVE ALLOTMENT PRIVATE STATE Proposed Project Area Ice Mass Proposed Project Boundary Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Graphic representation only. HDR makes no guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of source data. Figure 3.2-7 00.51 Kilometers Project Area Buffers Lake 200 ft Facilities/Infrastructure 400 ft Tunnel Outlet 600 ft Location map of the Chakachamna Project - Proposed Project Boundary -~ .• • ----o -o l T l ;¢. ....... J :f ----_ 0 ~ .• -. CJ 0 Tyonek Old Tyonek Shirleyville Anchorage Author: HDR Alaska - MC Date: 09 June 2009 Sources: ESRI, USGS, HATCH, KPB, MWH Filename: FIG 3_2-8 ProjDetail5-8x11.mxd 00.51Miles Map Extent Legend General Arrangement Bridge Existing Road For Improvement Proposed Fish Passage Proposed Access Road Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Tunnel Land Owner BOROUGH FEDERAL MUNICIPAL NATIVE NATIVE ALLOTMENT PRIVATE STATE Proposed Project Area Ice Mass Proposed Project Boundary Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Graphic representation only. HDR makes no guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of source data. Figure 3.2-8 00.51 Kilometers Project Area Buffers Lake 200 ft Facilities/Infrastructure 400 ft Tunnel Outlet 600 ft Location map of the Chakachamna Project - Proposed Project Boundary PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-11 July 2009 3.3. Proposed Project Facilities TDX is proposing a project that entails the interbasin transfer of water from a lake-tap near the outlet of Chakachamna Lake through an approximately 11-mile long, 21-ft diameter hard-rock tunnel to an underground powerhouse that would discharge to the McArthur River. The total head would be approximately 900 feet, and the powerhouse elevation would be approximately 200 feet. It is estimated that the project would produce some 1,300 gigawatt hours (GWh) average annual energy from an installed capacity of 300 MW. A control weir and fish passage facilities would be located at the outlet of Lake Chakachamna. Upstream and downstream fish passage would be provided through an operating plan that maintains a minimum pool to provide access through the natural channel during key migration periods, and fish passage facilities that are available when the lake level is not high enough to provide flow to the Chakachatna River. The power produced would be distributed to an existing substation on the Railbelt grid in central Alaska via approximately 42 miles of newly constructed 230-kilovolt transmission lines. Key project features described in this section and shown on Figure 3.2-2 include: Power Tunnel Intake Power Tunnel and Surge Shafts Fish Passage Tunnels Adult Outlet and Juvenile Inlet Structure Adult Entrance and Juvenile Outlet Structure Powerhouse and Powerhouse Tailrace Control Weir and Fish Ladder at Chakachamna Lake Outlet Transmission Lines and Interconnection Facilities Site Access Facilities 3.3.1. Summary of Project Features 3.3.1.1. Power Tunnel The tunnel alignment is shown in Figure 3.3-3 in Plan and Section. Topography from early 1960s United States Geological Survey quadrangle maps was used as it is believed to be the most accurate topography on hand. 3.3.1.1.1. Power Tunnel Intake The power tunnel intake would be located in the right bank rock abutment (composed of quartz diorite) to provide for a secure structure protected against avalanches and rock-falls. The opening of the intake to the Chakachamna Lake would be located at an approximate elevation of 932 foot to insure adequate submergence to reduce attraction of fish into the power tunnel and to prevent vortex formation. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-12 July 2009 Construction of the water intake would involve a lake tap and would have an upstream water control system located within a vertical shaft. The upstream control system would consist of a bulkhead gate as the primary maintenance gate and a fixed wheel gate as an emergency gate. The vertical shaft will be a wet-well type. The elevation of the platform in the shaft, for operation and maintenance of the gates, will be above maximum water level in the lake. An unlined intake tunnel will connect the bottom of the shaft to the lake. A rock trap would likely be installed to capture rock entering the power tunnel as a result of lake tap operation. These features are shown in Figure 3.3-2. 3.3.1.1.2. Power Tunnel The power tunnel, which would be excavated with tunnel boring machines (TBMs), would be approximately 10.8 miles long and 21 feet in diameter (Figure 3.3-3). Since the bored surface would be relatively smooth, with small head losses, the tunnel would be unlined over most of its length. It is anticipated that the tunnel would cross faulted zones along the route, and the rock in these zones would not be self-supporting. These sections of tunnel would be lined with an integrated rockbolt and shotcrete lining. Immediately upstream of the penstocks, a surge shaft would be provided to control water hammer effects. Downstream of the surge shaft, the tunnel would be concrete lined and then pass into a steel lined section (Figure 3.3-4). A comprehensive geotechnical investigation program would be undertaken as part of the feasibility study to evaluate the lithology, jointing, the nature, location and orientation of major geological faults, and the fundamental rock strength, mineralogy and abrasivity for TBM design. Construction adits to access the top and bottom of the power-house and other chamber excavations and an access tunnel are also shown on Figure 3.3-4. As shown, the access tunnel would also serve as the route for the ventilation system and power cables. As the Project design progresses, it may be shown that a separate cable/ventilation tunnel is required. TO)( power 5000 4000 Facility Overview Chakachamna Hydroelectric Facilities SEC]ON NO LINING OVER MAJORITY OF TUNNEL <1. TUNNEL N01ES ,- ~1 ~ TOPOGRAPHY IS FROM USGS QUADRANGLE MAPS 2 CONTOUR IN1ERVAL IS 100 FEET 3 VERTICAL DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL. (4) HORIZONTAL GRID IS UNIVERSAL nRANSVERSE MERCATOR PROJECTION, 1927 NORTH AMERICAN DATUM. 21' DlA CIRCULAR TUNNEL POWER TUNNEL PLAN & PROFILE NTS Figure 3.3-1 Power Tunnel Plan and Profile LINING OVER FAUL1ED AREAS TO BE SHOTCRETE AND ROCK BOLTS --<1. TUNNEL SURGE SHAFT INV EL 192.0 POWERHOUSE (lMWH lUi( power Project Features Chakachamna Hydroelectric Facilities AXIMUM NORMAL POOL EL 1142.0 APPROX. PRESENT OiANNEL INIlERT AT LAKE OUTLET EL 1128.0 = INIMUM NORMAL POOL EL 1082.0 EL 1245.0 GAlE MAiNlENANCE SHAFT . U> .1 :ll EL. 884.0 EL 116000(9 ~L. TRANSI110N INTAKE AND GATE SHAFT SECTION N1S WHEELED EMERGENCY GAlE Figure 3.3-2 Intake and Gate Shaft Section GMWH TO)( power " b , l\ Project Features Chakachamna Hydroelectric Facilities l TUNNEL ELB84 2 '-• SECTION NTS CONCRETE UNING .. , .. , .. .. .; EL.BSa ." .~ . ; .... ' ..... :, ELB84 SECTION NTS .. ' I .' .~ ..... ~ ." '. :.;(.::::\ ,..1 _. I----''''.·~p'-0_-I . ~:;.. .:~: :::~~. : ~ : .... ::~ .•.. : :., . .~ ~ .::~: I .:.: ::.-' -" .. ;;.-t'~: .•.... :.~ ': .• '!'. 17'-0· I f,...f" 34'-0· SECTION CD NTS I ' r TUNNEL AND SHAFT , ELVARIES SECTION NTS oJ z z " «SHAFT I SECTION CD NTS 0- ~ "" :J: '" " z "" ~ w z z "lo '" ~ Figure 3.3-3 Intake and Gate Shaft Details SHAFT ". . /BATTERY CHARGER BATTERY R AC""" / .. . . .~. ", . .. ........ . . ,---.... ~ iv DOWN re-.. ~ .~. :~.: , ARE; " ~ ~ . ~ 1 W Z .,~ Z " " ~I/I'! , ~~ I~ .. z "" .' 0-..• ~ .. . .. "" ;:;: ri'"~ :J: W '" ... .. DIESEL GENERATOR ... Llll-I-' If --. . ·:1\ ~ ~ .. , , .. : "" "'" .! .... .. . , . ,'!" • .; , .. GATE HOIST ROD STORAGE ~ SECTION CD NTS 8 DIRECTION ) OF FLOW ---- ~1 8 ~ 15'-0· 15'-0· lRANSll10N 30'-0· SECTION CD NTS b , " ~ 5 lRANSmON b , j;; (lMWH TO)( power Project Features Chakachamna Hydroelectric Facilities i< SURGE SHAFT SHAFt I EL.1300.0 POWER llUNNEL 21'-O"DIA PLAN NlS CONCRETE PLUGS ~"""~~~~2X TE~PORARY CONS1RUCllON ACCESS llUNNEL FOR PENSTOCK " UNITS EL.190. SECTIONAL ELEVATION NTS CONCRETE PLUG Figure 3.3-4 Powerhouse Plan and Sections SECTION ED STEEL LINER . ACCESS llUNNEL POWER / VENllLAllON '" . ,,,; ;..." « C b , i.o.z, ,-. " SECTION CD SECTION ® (lMWH PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-21 July 2009 3.3.1.1.3. Surge Shafts A single long tunnel is proposed to convey water from the intake to the three turbine units. Because of this long water conveyance, a surge shaft would be installed at the downstream end of tunnel, as close as possible to the powerplant. The location of the surge shaft would be selected so that the shaft will be located in rock. The surge shaft (as shown, the diameter of this shaft is approximately 60 feet) will be connected to the power tunnel with a smaller diameter shaft (the same diameter as the power tunnel). The purpose of the surge shaft is to reduce pressure changes caused by hydraulic transients resulting from load changes on the turbines and to reduce the water start-time relative to the mechanical start-time of the units, which would facilitate frequency regulation as well as load acceptance. An approximately 1000-foot-long tailrace tunnel would connect the draft tubes to the river downstream of the Project. Because of the length of this tunnel, a downstream surge shaft, at the confluence of all three tailrace tunnels, would be needed to reduce pressure fluctuation in the tailrace tunnel. The interior of the surge shaft must be at atmospheric pressure: this is currently shown as a small diameter shaft to the surface, but a horizontal adit leading to the ventilation tunnel or the access tunnel is also an option. 3.3.1.2. Fish Passage Throughout the history of evaluation of hydroelectric power generation at Chakachamna Lake it has been understood that Project viability would require maintaining fish passage into the lake. A number of alternative designs and operating scenarios have been investigated from which several approaches to accommodating fish passage have evolved. Because certain aspects of the project design and operation are not finalized and questions remain concerning fish seasonal distribution and use of the lake and river habitats it is not possible to do a final selection from these alternatives. As additional environmental and engineering data become available these alternatives will continue to be refined. Design alternatives which have been considered are described below and some of these options are still under consideration pending results of environmental and engineering studies. The proposed facilities described in subsection subsections of the PAD represent TDX Power’s most current thinking about the best way to balance project economics with fish passage considerations. 1. Bechtel 1983 Concept – The concept described in the original feasibility study (Alaska Power Authority 1983) included a low dam at the lake outlet which would block fish passage and a bypass tunnel from the lake to the Chakachatna River that would include provisions for both upstream and downstream fish passage. Fish passage facilities included a large fish ladder at the lower end and provision for fish entry at various lake levels at the upper end. Concerns were expressed that relying on a long tunnel and complex passage works might not allow adequate passage to maintain salmon runs. 2. Hatch 2008 Concept – The concept described in a more recent look at the Project (Hatch Energy 2008) suggested that no dam was required. The Project would be operated so that lake level would be similar to natural lake levels during the late summer and fall period PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-22 July 2009 when the salmon would be migrating, thus allowing movement of salmon into the lake via the natural outlet channel. A bypass tunnel would be constructed to carry instream flows and provide downstream fish passage when lake levels were low. The tunnel inlet structure would be designed to allow entry of fish at varying lake levels. Concerns were expressed that upstream movement of salmon might not be possible in dry years if lake levels were too low to match the natural outlet elevation, and upstream movement of resident fish would be blocked during the low lake level period. 3. Modified Hatch Concept – This concept would be the same as No. 2 except that a low control weir with fish passage provisions would be added to the lake outlet to stabilize outlet level and provide better control of lake surface elevations. Additionally, the downstream end of the bypass tunnel would be configured to facilitate trapping of fish in the unlikely event that lake level was too low to allow salmon to enter the lake via the natural river channel. Under these conditions, adult sockeye salmon (and possibly resident fish) would be moved to the lake by a temporary trap and haul operation. 4. Enhanced Fish Passage Concept (as described in this section) -- This concept is the same as No. 3 except that it incorporates both upstream and downstream fish passage provisions into the bypass tunnel, although primary passage of adult salmon into Chakachamna Lake would still be via the natural river channel under most conditions. During periods of low lake levels, fish passage could also be accommodated through the tunnel, or through a trap and haul operation, whichever is deemed most effective. The final design concept will likely be a combination of, or a refinement of, the above listed alternatives. Defining fish passage needs and designing realistic and effective measures to provide fish passage depends on obtaining answers to a number of key questions, all of which will be considered during the formal study process: What is the precise timing of adult sockeye salmon entering Chakachamna Lake? What is the seasonal timing and extent of resident fish movement between Chakachamna Lake and the Chakachatna River? What are the chances of lake levels not reaching the Chakachatna River outlet elevation in any given year, and what will be the ability of adaptive project management to reasonably adjust power production to counteract dry conditions? What is the exact timing of juvenile salmon outmigration from Chakachamna Lake? PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-23 July 2009 3.3.1.2.1. Assumptions There is a scarcity of historical data on fish numbers and locations in the Project area. Based on data recorded by Woodward-Clyde in 1982, it has been estimated that the total number of adult migrating salmonids entering Chakachamna Lake is around 50,000 fish. Fish passage into Chakachamna Lake would be provided for both adult fish migrating upstream and for juveniles migrating downstream. The most numerous salmonid and primary species of concern is sockeye salmon. Chinook, pink, chum, and coho salmon are present in the Chakachatna River downstream but are not found in tributaries to the lake. In 1982, the total number of sockeye was estimated to be about 43,300. The run size used to design the upstream passage facilities is 50,000 adult fish per year into the lake. For purposes of developing a preliminary design, it was estimated thalt up to ten percent of the entire run would use the facilities in one day. Juvenile sockeye are assumed to outmigrate from the lake from about May 15 to September 15, with a likely peak from May 15 to June 15. The minimum water level at this time would be about 1,083 feet. Adult fish would be present from about July 15 to October 15. The desired seasonal operation of the hydropower plant dictates water levels in the lake and, thus, has a direct bearing on the design of the required fish passage facilities. Although instream flow requirements in the Chakachatna River below the lake outlet have not yet been established, preliminary estimates of required instream flows were calculated by Bechtel during the 1982 study and have been used in this analysis. Fish migration timing was estimated based on previous work and professional judgment. It should be emphasized that passage of adult salmon in most years would occur via the natural channel of the Chakachatna River and across the lake outlet weir. Provisions for adult fish passage in the tunnel are intended to allow passage of salmon during very unusual low water years when Chakachamna Lake level does not reach the elevation of the lake outlet weir. The lake levels used for fish passage facility layouts were obtained from the results of preliminary reservoir operations and power study model runs (Table 3.3-1). The water surface elevations in the river were estimated from USGS topographic maps from 1960, and will need to be confirmed through the formal environmental study program. Table 3.3-1. Fish passage assumptions . Design number of returning adult sockeye 50,000 Minimum instream flow during fish passage 1,094 cfs Juvenile Migration Migration period May 15 – Sep 15 Low operating lake level 1,083 ft High operating lake level 1,150 ft Adult Migration Migration period Jul 15 - Oct 15 Low operating lake level 1,111 ft High operating lake level 1,150 ft Low water surface elevation in Chakachatna River at fishway outlet 1,065 ft PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-24 July 2009 3.3.1.2.2. Fish Passage Tunnel Under the proposed operating plan, Chakachamna Lake water surface elevation will be below the elevation of the natural Chakachatna River outlet elevation for part of the year, preventing flow into the river. A bypass tunnel will be constructed in order to provide a means of conveying water for required instream flow releases and to provide low water fish passage when access is not available via the Chakachatna River. Preliminary long-term averages indicate that the project could be operated such that the river channel would carry sufficient flow for fish passage during much of the season. Current indications are that fish passage technology in some form would be required more than 70% of the time in an average July and less than 10% on average for the months of August through October. Natural variation in precipitation and other conditions would be expected to result in years with significantly more or less use of the fish facilities. More study is needed to further define run timing, instream flow requirements and other parameters that impact project design and operations. At this time it appears that the system could potentially be optimized to reduce or eliminate use of fish passage facilities in September and October. The proposed tunnel for fish passage will be located on the southwest abutment connecting Chakachamna Lake to the Chakachatna River, about 2.5 miles from the lake outlet (Figure 3.3-5). The adult entrance and juvenile outlet would be located at the downstream end of the tunnel. At the upstream or west end would be a chamber containing the juvenile inlet and adult outlet. These features are described below, from upstream to downstream (west to east). At this stage of the preliminary design, it is anticipated that the proposed fish tunnel would be bored in an east-west direction, with the same TBM as the power tunnel, so the anticipated diameter would also be 21 feet. The tunnel will probably cross one or more fault zones, expected to be between 15 feet and 60 feet wide. As in the case of the power tunnel, in areas of good quality rock, excavation would need very little rock support, whereas in the fault zones, supporting the rock with an integrated lining of rock bolts and reinforced shotcrete is anticipated. 3.3.1.2.3. Adult Outlet and Juvenile Inlet Structure A chamber would be excavated about 40 feet into the rock-face at the shore of the lake, with inlet structures for passing juvenile fish and minimum instream flows. Facilities for adults would include a fish ladder, holding pool, and a fish lock for returning adults to the reservoir. Adult Fish Facilities Adults arriving at the upstream end of the tunnel would travel up a vertical slot fish ladder, with a rise of 19 feet over 19 pools up to an invert elevation of 1,103 feet. At the top of the fish ladder, the fish would travel up a short channel and through a V-trap into a holding pond. The holding pool would be about 100 feet long and 16 feet wide and fitted with a fish crowder. Water depth in the holding pool would be a minimum of 6 feet. The water supply for the holding pool and fish ladder would come from the ladder flow intake gate adjacent to the fish lock (Figure 3.3-6). The energy of the water would dissipated in a stilling chamber and then upwell through floor gratings in the bottom of the fish lock and the holding pond. This flow of about 40 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-25 July 2009 to 50 cfs would serve as fish attraction flow. The fish lock is 14 feet in diameter and about 60 feet high. It has three exit gates and a braille for crowding fish to the surface and out of the lock. Fish in the holding pool would be moved into the fish lock using the crowder (Figure 3.3-7). The entrance gate to the lock would be closed, and the lock would fill from flow entering through the floor grating. After the lock is filled, the appropriate lock exit gate would be opened. To make sure that the fish leave the lock, a brail covering the area of the lock will be raised forcing the fish upward to the level of the exit gate. Water flowing through the open lock exit gate would attract fish into the lake. The flow through the exit gate would be withdrawn at the bottom of the lock into a pipe delivering the flow to the stilling chamber and into the holding pool through the floor diffuser. Although operation of this facility could be automated, personnel would be present to monitor operation. It is envisioned that the lock would operate for 16 hours per day during the peak adult upstream passage season. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-26 July 2009 [This page intentionally left blank] TO)( power Fish Facilities Chakachamna Hydroelectric Facilities Figure 3.3-6 Adult Exit and Juvenile Inlet Structure JUVENILE INTAKE GATES, 6' X 6' (TYP OF 3) JUVENILE OU1LET CHANNEL APPROX ROCK FACE AT TUNNEL OPENINGS PLAN INSTREAM FLOW 16' 12QQ .. •••••••••••••••• .. ••••••••••••••••••• .. ••••• .. •••••• ........................................................................................................................................ . . . . . . . . . EXIT TUNNEL LOCK EXIT GATE FISH LOCK (14' DIA) ENTRANCE GATE ADULT HOLDING FISH LADDER SUPPLY STILLING CHAMBER TRAP SLOT FISH LADDER . n50· .1----------....:...---------..:...---------..:....---------.:...----------:-----------.:------,., ...... '150 • HJ50.', .•.•...••.•.•.••.•...••.• ; ..••.•.•.••.•.•.••.•.•.••. ~ .•.••.•.•.••••...••••...•. : •.•...••.•...••.•.•.••.•.• : ••.•.•.••...•.••...•.•••.. ; . • . • . . . . • . • . • • . • . • .. . •.•. ; •..•.•.•....•.•.•..•.•.•.. ; 1050 : . . . • . INSTREAM FLOW GATE BEYOND ~. ~ ~ DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION (lMWH TO)( power MAX OPERATING WATER SURFACE EL 1145 LAKE CHAKACHAMNA MIN ADULT OPERATING WATER SURFACE EL 1111 Fish Facilities Chakachamna Hydroelectric Facilities EXIT CHANNEL. DAYlIGHT TO LAKE FISH LOCK EXIT GATES EXISllNG FISH LOCK FISH LOCK ENTRANCE GATE EL 1103 S7 SECTION SCALE: '-=20'-0· FISH CROWDER LADDER WATER SllLLlNG CHAMBER V-TRAP Figure 3.3-7 Adult Fish Passage Exit Section FISH LADDER (lMWH PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-33 July 2009 Juvenile Fish Facilities Juvenile fish would be attracted into the entrance structure through openings provided at four elevations (Figure 3.4-2). The lowest is the instream flow gate, a 12-foot by 12-foot gate capable of producing the bypass flow at the design water surface elevation range of 1,083 to 1,150 feet. After passing through the gate, the flow would decelerate in a horizontal channel until reaching the junction with the channel from the juvenile bypass gates. The upper three gates are the juvenile intake gates at elevations 1,132, 1,112, and 1,092 feet. Each of these gates is 6-foot by 6-foot and designed to admit 200 cfs into a 16-foot wide channel, which has a series of 1-foot drops over submerged weirs. At the downstream end of the drops is a chute, which accelerates the flow to same velocity as the instream flow. The flows combine at the junction of the two channels about 120 feet downstream of the instream flow gate. Both adults and juveniles would pass through the fish passage tunnel when the lake level is not high enough to provide flow down the Chakachatna River that is adequate for fish passage. The tunnel would be about 13,800 feet long and 21 feet in diameter. It would contain the adult transport channel, the downstream migrant transport channel, the instream flow conduit, and a small access road. The tunnel would have a slope of about 0.116 percent (Figure 3.3-8). The adult transport channel would be in the upper right quadrant of the tunnel looking upstream. It would have the same overall slope as the tunnel and would contain baffles along its length to provide resting areas for adults. The flow in the channel would be 100 cfs and the average water velocity would be about 2 fps. The 100 cfs is made up of 40 to 50 cfs from the ladder and about 50 cfs from the instream flow diffused into the lower steps in the ladder. Lighting of the adult passage channel would be provided to improve adult passage. The lower half of the tunnel would be devoted to passage of the instream flows and downstream migrants. During the passage seasons for both adults and juveniles, which do not overlap, the instream flow is assumed to be 1,094 cfs. This design flow will be evaluated and adjusted as appropriate through instream flow studies as described in Section 5 and Appendix 5-1. During the juvenile passage season, all flow (1,094 cfs) would travel down the instream flow channel at about 7 fps. During the adult passage season flow in the instream flow channel would be 994 cfs and travel at a velocity of about 7 fps. The remaining 100 cfs present in the juvenile channel during the juvenile passage season would be routed to the adult transport channel during the adult passage season. The channel would be lined or unlined depending on the nature of the rock through which the tunnel is bored. There would be a center wall in the lower half of the tunnel to support the adult passage channel and the roadway. An access roadway would be contained in the upper left quadrant of the tunnel (looking upstream). It would be about 9 feet wide at floor level and would provide access to the adult exit and juvenile inlet facilities. It would also allow for inspection of the adult fishway channel. This roadway would be suitable for electric carts to transport personnel and equipment. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-34 July 2009 [This page intentionally left blank] TO)( power Fish Facilities Chakachamna Hydroelectric Facilities ACCESS ROAD UGHT TYPICAL TUNNEL CROSS SECTION SCALE: '"=4'-0" 2" DIA TUNNEL Figure 3,3-8 Adult Fish Passage Tunnel Section (lMWH PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-37 July 2009 3.3.1.2.4. Adult Entrance and Juvenile Outlet Structure As noted above, the adult and juvenile peak migration periods do not overlap. The minimum instream flow would pass down the fish passage tunnel during the year when the lake water level is below the lake outlet. At the beginning of the season for fish passage, the facilities would initially be configured for juvenile migration. At the start of the adult migration season the ladder flow intake gate would be opened to provide flow to the ladder and holding pond. When the juvenile migration period is over the facility would remain in the same configuration for adult passage while maintaining the minimum instream flow. The structure would be reconfigured by installing or removing bulkheads, bar racks, and adjusting gates and valves. The adult entrance and juvenile outlet structure would be located between the downstream end of the tunnel and the wide area in the Chakachatna River just downstream of a bend and islands (Figure 3.4-1). At this location on the river the water surface is 1,065 feet. Locating the terminus of the tunnel this far down the river is required to provide the slope necessary to deliver the instream flows and fish passage flows at the low design operating lake water surface elevation of 1,111 feet. The structure would include an outlet for juvenile migrants traveling in the instream flow release. The outlet would spread the flow over a wide area to create a low-velocity entry into the river and wider dispersion of migrants to decrease the chance of predation. The facilities for adults would consist of entrance gates for adult fish and a fish ladder of about 9 feet in height for fish to enter the fish passage channel in the tunnel. An auxiliary water structure would be located adjacent to the fish ladder and adult entrance pool. This structure would take about 300 or 400 cfs from the instream flow channel and add it to the ladder and entrance pool through diffuser gratings in the floors of these structures. This would provide greater attraction flows for adults to enter the ladder. The remainder of the instream flow would be diffused through bar gratings at low velocities into the river to prevent adults from being attracted to this flow. 3.3.1.2.5. Fish Ladder at Chakachamna Lake Outlet Control Weir A nine-foot-high grade control weir would be placed at the lake outlet. A pool-and-chute fishway would be incorporated into the weir to provide fish passage when the lake is full and water is flowing out of the lake. The pool-and-chute fishway concept is a conventional design developed by engineers at the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to provide full-flow fishways for low-height weirs and diversion structures. The fishway would consist of about nine long-crested weirs extending the full width, or a major portion of the width, of the control weir. The fishway weirs would be spaced about 10 to 30 feet apart depending on the design flows. These flows would be determined under further reservoir operations and power studies conducted as part of the FERC licensing process. The weir crests would have a slight “V” shape, i.e., the crest of the weirs would be higher at the sides and lower in the center. This would allow low flows to pass down the center and higher flows over the whole weir. The weir would be designed to safely pass flood waters over its crest. No other spillways are anticipated to be required. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-38 July 2009 3.3.1.3. Power Intake The power intake would be located very deep in the lake, at elevation 950 feet, which is presumed to be too deep to attract juvenile fish. Therefore, no structures are planned for fish exclusion at the power intake; this assumption will be evaluated during the course of the environmental studies program. 3.3.1.4. Powerhouse Tailrace Because the tailrace tunnel from the powerhouse to the outlet channel would have relatively high velocities and would be dark inside, no false attraction of adult fish is expected Therefore, no barriers would be installed to prevent fish from entering the draft tubes. As described in Section 5 and Appendix 5-1, studies are proposed to determine if this assumption is valid. 3.3.1.5. Powerhouse The underground cavern-type powerhouse will contain all mechanical equipment, including turbines and ancillary equipment. The three turbines proposed for the Project are vertical axis Francis units with a rated output capacity of 122 MW at full gate and average reservoir level with only one unit operating. The total installed capacity of the power plant would be 300 MW, as defined in Section 3.4.1. The turbines would be directly coupled to a synchronous air/water-cooled generator. Because Francis units operate at higher speeds, smaller generators, and therefore a smaller powerhouse cavern, would be needed. Additional mechanical equipment would include the governor, three turbine shutoff valves installed immediately upstream of the turbines, and a powerhouse bridge crane. The tailrace mechanical systems include stoplogs and hoists to allow dewatering of the tailrace channel. Based on the equipment specifications identified above, the expected powerhouse footprint would be 60 feet wide by 200 feet long. The three-phase power transformers would be placed in an underground cavern connected to an underground gas insulated switchyard (GIS). Both the transformer and the switchyard cavern would be 40 feet wide by 85 feet long and connected to each other by an access tunnel and three bus tunnels. A single-line electrical diagram of the proposed facilities is provided in Figure 3.3- 9. Further study may show that there is sufficient space outside the underground powerhouse for the GIS. If this is so, the GIS will be located outside as a surface facility, and one of the underground chambers will be eliminated. TO)( power Electrical Overview Chakachamna Hydroelectric Facilities :z=o KV u.~ 1 , .------t , 0 f--, Ii , , f-- , [ ] '--- , GSU I~ tRANSFORMER I~ 115 IIVA (lYP) [~ 0 I ~ EXQTAllON ~ (lYP) .; i" I\... <ID <ID ~ DIESEL ;> GENERAlOR L,..I_ V STAllON SER\1CE "" -.... :z=o KV U. 2 , f--, I 230 KV (ID I"" 1-"" 13.8 KV/25KV BUS COUPLER BUS 1 BUS 2 LEGEND 9 QRCUIT BREAKER I ~ DISCONNECT SIIIIn:H -<ID-tRANSFORMER JJ! L---~===============---------L----~~~o-~ ~~~ -I ~ ~. ~ HEADWORKS AND FISH PASSAGE Figure 3.3-9 Single-Une Electrical Diagram of Proposed Facilities (lMWH PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-40 July 2009 3.3.1.6. Transmission Line 3.3.1.6.1. Chakachamna Transmission Line System The power generated by the Project will be transmitted to the grid servicing the Railbelt. The closest connection to the Railbelt grid would be Chugach Electric Association’s (CEA) Beluga substation, approximately 42 miles from the proposed new powerhouse. The new transmission lines would consist of 230-kilovolt (kV) lines designed to match the existing grid. Although there currently is no excess outbound capacity from the Beluga substation, it is understood that CEA’s existing Beluga generation facilities will be nearing the end of their useful life at the time that Chakachamna facilities would be coming online, and that TDX will be able to reach an agreement with CEA regarding the Chakachamna Project’s connection to CEA's facilities If excess capacity does not become available and/or an agreement cannot be reached with CEA, an alternate transmission line route from Chakachamna to the load center would be considered. Detailed transmission line design, including loss calculations, has not yet been completed. 3.3.1.6.2. Chakachamna Transmission Line Route Figure 3.2-2 shows a tentative transmission line alignment developed to keep the transmission towers out of the alluvial fan of the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers, to prevent scour damage to tower foundations. The transmission line is proposed to be laid along the proposed access road from the powerhouse, then across the Chakachatna River, and then overland to CEA’s Beluga substation. The proposed transmission route avoids the proposed Chuitna Coal Project, located between the Project powerhouse site and the Beluga switchyard. The transmission line would still intersect the conveyor infrastructure between the mine and the proposed port facility, but this intersection can be accommodated relatively easily. Additional study of potential engineering and environmental issues will be required prior to finalizing the proposed transmission line route. 3.3.1.6.3. Transmission System within Project Areas A 25kV power supply is proposed from the powerhouse to the intake to feed the intake area and fish passage tunnel power requirements. Another 25kV cable is proposed from the powerhouse to the residential area for Project operating personnel. Because of the extreme weather conditions in the Project area, both cables would be buried. 3.3.1.7. Access Roads 3.3.1.7.1. Existing Roads Existing roads from Trading Bay or North Foreland would provide access to the location of the Straight Creek crossing (located approximately half way to the Project site). From the Straight PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-41 July 2009 Creek crossing to the Project site existing roads would be improved in a northwest direction to the north of the Chakachatna River; however, existing roads do not extent up the Chakachatna as far as the Project (see Sectio 3.3.1.8 below). Road improvements would take place on relatively flat land, crossing numerous creeks and wetland areas along the way. Thus no major slope stability issues are of concern and only improvements to gravel surfaces and/or culverts are expected. A new bridge construction at Straight Creek will be necessary. Overall review for improvement of the existing road conditions and river crossings will take into consideration transportation of the large pieces of equipment–including the tunnel boring machine, turbine and generator components–transportation of personnel, and delivery of construction equipment and materials. 3.3.1.8. Access Road to Powerhouse Farther upstream from Straight Creek a new bridge and new access road are proposed to cross the Chakachatna River and proceed approximately 15 miles to the proposed powerhouse to be located on the left bank of the McArthur River. The road alignment will follow the topography along existing creeks and follow the mountain contours on the left margin of McArthur River. Several culvert crossings would be required along the way to the powerhouse, but no major slope or stability issues will be encountered because the alignment of this section of road follows relatively gentle topography. 3.3.1.9. Access Road to Intake The access road from the Straight Creek Bridge will follow the left bank of the Chakachatna River valley for about 20 miles to the proposed intake area. This alignment will almost entirely cross rugged topography. The Chakachatna River canyon is bordered by steep slopes that may be unstable at times, so stabilization measures will be needed; careful alignment of this portion of the access road will be needed. It may be possible to move the alignment north to keep a setback distance from potentially unstable areas or other areas with higher risk of rockfall. At least one river crossing will be needed to access the right bank of the river valley and the power tunnel intake area and the upstream and downstream portals of the fish tunnel. Several culverts will be required along this portion of road for adequate drainage. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-42 July 2009 3.3.2. Proposed Construction and Development Schedule The Project schedule (see Figure 2.2-1) allows nine years for Project development including: FERC licensing, construction, demobilization, and site restoration. Several assumptions have been made regarding the times required for the various activities, based on MWH’s experience with other similar projects. The following are the time periods for major components of Project development: Total schedule – 9 years – from 2009 to 2018 Pre-Application studies and related activities 2½ years FERC License Process – approximately 2 years. From start of detail design to units coming on line – 5 years Power tunnel and underground chambers (excavation and lining) dominate the construction schedule. The activities on the construction schedule critical path can be summarized as: o Development of port facilities and access roads; o Access tunnels o Power tunnel and underground chambers excavation and lining. It is planned to use two tunnel boring machines (TBMs) to excavate the power tunnel and fish passage tunnel and to excavate the underground chambers simultaneously with the TBM excavation; o Installation, water testing and commissioning of the units, transformers and switch yard equipment. o Site Restoration. Some design work would be initiated or completed prior to issuance of the license, so that contracts critical to the schedule (such as the ports, access roads, and TBMs) are “shelf ready” to be awarded shortly after issuance of the License. 3.4. Project Operations This Section describes anticipated operation of the Chakachamna Project. Project operations are based on information largely developed or derived from the 1983 investigations of the Chakachamna area by the Bechtel (1983). This information will be confirmed and refined in the course of completeing the licensing studies. 3.4.1. Proposed Project Operations The general objective of proposed Project operation would be to generate at a level that is roughly proportional to the electricity loads in the Alaska Railbelt area. The Project would normally be operated to generate at a constant rate each day; to date there has only been consideration for seasonal load following. Daily and hourly load following would be examined PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-43 July 2009 at a later date once more economic data and ramping rate information became available (see Section 5 and Appendix 5-1). The availability of substantial lake storage would be used to increase generation during the winter months when Chakachamna Lake inflows are low, but when the demand for electricity is relatively high. The powerhouse would not normally operate at capacity unless spill at the Chakachamna Lake outlet was occurring or was expected to occur. A summary of the basic proposed Project physical operating characteristics are shown on Table 3.4-1. Table 3.4-1. Summary of Project operating characteristics. Parameter Value Powerhouse rated capacity (MW) 300 Powerhouse maximum hydraulic capacity (cfs) 5,400 Powerhouse minimum operating capability (cfs) 360 Number of units 3 Turbine type Francis Power tunnel diameter (feet) 21 Maximum normal pool elevation (feet) 1142 Minimum normal pool elevation (feet) 1082 Active power pool storage (acre-feet) 886,500 Average tailwater elevation 210 Maximum normal static head (feet) 932 A low weir with crest at an elevation of 1,142.0 feet will be constructed at the natural lake outlet to the Chakachatna River. The USGS operated a gaging station at the Chakachamna Lake outlet from June 1959 through August 1972. During this time, a number of flow measurements were made to develop and update rating curves for the gage. The USGS flow measurements are plotted versus gage stage in Figure 3.4-1. The datum of the gage is at 1,125.1 feet, such that a measured stage of 10 feet would correspond to a water surface elevation of 1,135.1 feet. Inspection of Figure 3.4-1 shows that over time for any given flow, the water surface elevation has varied by as much as 10 to 15 feet. This has resulted both from natural erosion and deposition and effects of Barrier Glacier. The low weir constructed at the outlet will stabilize the outlet elevation variation that has occurred in the past. A stable and predictable lake outlet elevation is important for operation of the fish facilities. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-44 July 2009 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000Stage (feet)Flow (cfs) Figure 3.4-1. Stage-flow relationship at the USGS gage located at the Chakachamna Lake outlet from June 1959 through August 1972. The normal power pool operating range will be between elevation 1,082 feet and 1,142 feet, which will provide an active storage of 886,500 acre-feet. Table 3.4-2 presents an area- elevation-capacity table (based on USGS 1960 and Bechtel 1983) for Chakachamna Lake, and Figure 3.4-2 is a plot of the data. Reservoir storage above elevation 1,142 feet, a level at which spill would be occurring, is referred to as surcharge storage or the surcharge pool. The surcharge pool has no specified upper limit. Power generation would normally occur at the maximum powerhouse capability when the lake level is at or above the surcharge pool elevation. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-45 July 2009 Table 3.4-2. Project reservoir area-elevation-capacity Elevation (feet) Area (acres) Storage Capacity (acre-feet) Storage Below Max. Normal Pool (acre-feet) Storage Above Max. Normal Pool (acre-feet) 1,160 18,250 4,572,000 ----- 322,000 1,142 16,780 4,250,000 0 0 1,140 16,100 4,218,000 32,000 ----- 1,133 15,582 4,110,200 139,800 ----- 1,120 14,620 3,910,000 340,000 ----- 1,100 14,390 3,620,000 630,000 ----- 1,080 14,170 3,335,000 915,000 ----- 1,060 13,960 3,053,000 1,197,000 ----- 1,040 13,740 2,776,000 1,474,000 ----- 1,020 13,520 2,504,000 1,746,000 ----- 1,000 13,280 2,236,000 2,014,000 ----- 980 12,980 1,973,000 2,277,000 ----- 960 12,650 1,717,000 2,533,000 ----- 940 12,320 1,467,000 2,783,000 ----- 920 11,960 1,224,000 3,026,000 ----- 900 11,590 988,000 3,262,000 ----- 880 10,400 769,000 3,481,000 ----- 860 9,280 572,000 3,678,000 ----- 840 8,270 397,000 3,853,000 ----- 820 7,320 241,000 4,009,000 ----- PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-46 July 2009 4,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,00020,00022,00024,000 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 Area (acres)Elevation (feet)Capacity (thousands of acre-feet) Capacity Area Maximum normal pool Minimum normal pool Normal Operating Range Figure 3.4-2. Chakachamna Lake area-elevation-capacity During the months of June through September, spill at the Chakachamna Lake outlet will occur frequently, even with the powerhouse operating at capacity. No flood control operations are planned for the Project, other than those that would incidentally result from reservoir drawdown for power generation. During periods of spill at the lake outlet, the lake level will be determined by the outlet stage-discharge relationship, which has varied over time (as explained above). For the purposes of simulating proposed Project operations, a typical stage-discharge relationship was used, based on the USGS stage-discharge measurements. The Chakachamna Lake outlet rating used for the simulation of proposed Project operations is shown in Table 3.4-3. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-47 July 2009 Table 3.4-3. Chakachamna Lake outlet rating. Water Surface Elevation (feet) Head on Outlet (feet) River Spill Outflow (cfs) Water Surface Elevation (feet) 1,142.0 0.0 0 1,133.0 1,143.6 1.6 700 1,134.6 1,148.9 6.9 3,600 1,139.9 1,153.4 11.4 7,800 1,144.4 1,156.1 14.1 13,000 1,147.1 1,158.5 16.5 18,900 1,149.5 1,161.0 19.0 25,500 1,152.0 1,163.0 21.0 32,800 1,154.0 1,164.5 22.5 40,700 1,155.5 1,167.0 25.0 58,000 1,158.0 Continuous minimum flow releases are expected to be required from Chakachamna Lake to the Chakachatna River. When spill at the outlet is less than the required releases, the flow releases to the river will be provided through an outlet tunnel. Minimum releases to the Chakachatna River used for this preliminary design analysis are those previously estimated by Bechtel (1983); an instream flow study is planned to determine the appropriate flow regine for inclusion in the license application. The Bechtel estimated minimum flows are as follows: April through September – 1,094 cfs or Chakachamna Lake inflow, whichever is less October through March – 365 cfs or Chakachamna Lake inflow, whichever is less An additional Project operating requirement would be provisions for fish in-migration to Chakachamna Lake beginning no later than July 16 and continuing through September in 95 percent of the years. If the water surface elevation is not sufficient to produce spill at the natural outlet in this time period, then in-migration would occur with facilities and releases through the Chakachatna River outlet tunnel. The in-migration tunnel facilities would be effective down to a water surface elevation of 1,113 feet. From July1 to July 16, power tunnel releases and energy generation may be curtailed to allow the reservoir to reach elevation 1,113 feet by July 16. The Project would maintain flexibility in power operations with the availability of reservoir storage. For the purposes of providing a reasonable operation study simulation, the Project was modeled to generate to the base loads shown in Table 3.4-4. These base loads correspond to the typical pattern of higher loads during winter and lower loads during summer, which are typical of the Alaska Railbelt area. Additional generation would occur during high inflow months from flow that would otherwise be spilled at the natural outlet in excess of the minimum flow release requirements. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-48 July 2009 Table 3.4-4. Estimated project base loads. Month Load Factor Load (MW) January 1.20 143 February 1.14 135 March 1.02 121 April 0.91 109 May 0.84 99 June 0.81 96 July 0.80 95 August 0.84 99 September 0.91 109 October 1.04 124 November 1.20 143 December 1.31 155 Average 1.00 119 A reservoir operation and power study model was developed to simulate Project operations and to provide the needed information on projected generation, lake levels, flows throughout the system, and other parameters. The model is a water balance type of reservoir operation model that accounts for flow through reservoir, tunnels, and powerhouse system on an hourly basis for a continuous period of 58 years. The model is written in FORTRAN and utilizes a number of text inputs and monthly, daily, and hourly parameter output files. The development of the power study model hydrologic input data is described in Section 4.4. Input parameters includes the physical characteristics and operating rules and requirements of the system; and powerhouse characteristics including the turbine efficiencies as a function of flow and head (hill curves), generator efficiencies as a function of output, and limiting maximums of the units. The remainder of this section provides simulation results based on the reservoir operation and power study model. The reservoir level operating frequency is depicted on Figure 3.4-3. Water levels would range from a low at elevation 1,082 feet to a maximum at about elevation 1,161 feet during an unusually high inflow year. Spill to the Chakachatna River is indicated when the water level is above 1,142 feet. The 50 percent exceedance (median) water levels are an indication of more typical reservoir operating levels. The exceedance values are based on all of the daily reservoir elevations for each month over the 58-year period of simulation. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-49 July 2009 1,080 1,090 1,100 1,110 1,120 1,130 1,140 1,150 1,160 1,170 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov DecReservoir Elevation (feet)Maximum 10% Exceedance 50% Exceedance 80% Exceedance Minimum Normal Maximum Pool Maximum normal pool -El 1142 Figure 3.4-3. Proposed Project reservoir elevation frequency. The average, maximum, and minimum monthly outflows to the Chakachatna River are provided in Table 3.4-5 and Figure 3.4-4. The outlet flows include both minimum flow releases and spill. Table 3.4-5. Proposed Project Total Chakachatna River Outlet Flow (cfs) Parameter Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Average 365 360 359 426 939 1,094 1,854 5,134 2,454 437 363 365 1,187 Maximum 365 365 365 941 1,094 1,111 5,272 11,972 6,422 1,545 365 365 1,994 Minimum 365 299 300 198 621 1,059 1,094 1,103 1,094 365 249 365 662 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-50 July 2009 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov DecTotal Chakachatna River Outlet Flow (cfs)Average Maximum Minimum Figure 3.4-4. Proposed Project total Chakachatna River outlet flow (cfs). Flow will be diverted from Chakachamna Lake through a power tunnel to an underground powerhouse before being returned to the McArthur River. Table 3.4-6 and Figure 3.4-5 provide the simulated average, maximum, and minimum monthly power tunnel flows to the powerhouse. The powerhouse flows are generally in proportion to the base loads that would be used to schedule the generation. The powerhouse may operate at maximum capacity for periods of more than one month during the high inflow season. A low average monthly powerhouse flow during July would occur due to curtailment of generation so that the reservoir would reach elevation 1,113 feet as required by July 16. Table 3.4-6. Proposed Project total powerhouse flow (cfs). Parameter Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Average 2,227 2,130 1,914 1,715 1,590 1,521 2,462 5,199 4,002 2,109 2,185 2,419 2,460 Maximum 2,241 2,144 1,927 1,727 1,602 1,642 5,400 5,400 5,400 3,618 2,197 2,434 2,812 Minimum 2,216 2,118 1,902 1,704 1,575 1,483 236 2,113 1,742 1,870 2,177 2,408 1,905 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-51 July 2009 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov DecTotal Powerhouse Flow (cfs)Average Maximum Minimum Figure 3.4-5. Proposed Project total Powerhouse flow (cfs). 3.4.2. Proposed Project Generation A primary objective of Project operation is to provide stable year-to-year generation and to maximize the firm (minimum) generation to the extent possible. Table 3.4-7 provides the simulated monthly and annual generation for the 58-year period of operation. With a firm annual energy of 1,069,000 MWh, an average annual generation of about 1,331,500 MWh, and a maximum annual generation of about 1,498,000 MWh the Project would achieve the objective of providing relatively stable energy production. The firm annual energy is the minimum annual energy in the 58-year period of simulation. The dependable capacity of the Project is determined from the maximum capability of the powerhouse at about the minimum pool level. Near the minimum pool level at elevation 1,082 feet, the surface area of Chakachamna Lake is still over 22 square miles, so short periods of generation at maximum capability would cause little change in the lake level. The maximum capability of the powerhouse at the minimum normal operating level is about 275 MW, which would be the dependable capacity. In contrast to run-of-river hydroelectric projects, the primary benefits of hydroelectric projects with reservoir storage include the ability to shape generation in response to load demands, as shown on Table 3.4-4, and to provide relatively stable annual generation, which is graphically demonstrated by the proposed Project generation shown in Figure 3.4-6. Figure 3.4-7 shows the variation of the maximum, minimum, and average monthly generation. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-52 July 2009 Table 3.4-7. Proposed Project generation (MWh). Year Jan Feb Mar AprMayJunJulAug SepOctNovDecTotal1950 108,230 92,105 89,183 74,915 74,632 70,397 44,383 199,776 184,116 89,220 103,965 118,959 1,249,8811951 108,235 92,014 89,018 74,703 74,746 70,586 122,657 228,283 220,160 135,662 103,923 118,942 1,438,9291952 108,233 92,042 89,091 74,811 74,680 70,384 39,685 194,284 161,132 89,341 104,140 119,018 1,216,8421953 108,444 92,259 89,371 75,112 74,547 70,530 115,392 228,549 177,868 89,258 104,037 118,999 1,344,3661954 108,375 92,165 89,228 74,949 74,614 70,418 61,500 228,595 176,481 89,304 104,106 119,017 1,288,7531955 108,445 92,261 89,370 75,106 74,54170,354 51,374 220,660 154,014 123,095 103,827 118,899 1,281,9471956 108,099 91,911 88,935 74,640 74,783 70,551 109,157 228,557 221,111 157,955 103,914 118,943 1,448,5541957 108,228 92,022 89,063 74,779 74,919 70,842 214,642 229,283 220,617 100,999 103,997 118,980 1,498,3721958 108,350 92,168 89,261 75,000 74,64770,471 64,458 227,872 142,811 101,338 103,914 118,956 1,269,2471959 108,287 92,109 89,183 74,913 74,643 70,568 110,484 228,168 159,585 89,316 104,121 119,024 1,320,4011960 108,476 92,295 89,425 75,180 74,629 70,561 82,744 227,802 119,292 89,313 104,085 119,000 1,252,8021961 108,338 92,093 89,120 74,841 74,683 70,543 122,204 228,288 207,452 89,222 103,970 118,972 1,379,7251962 108,321 92,101 89,138 74,848 74,662 70,495 105,940 228,418 183,311 89,279 104,070 118,999 1,339,5831963 108,396 92,218 89,326 75,072 74,571 70,280 49,986 228,208 204,338 96,724 103,949 118,948 1,312,0171964 108,221 92,040 89,096 74,813 74,679 70,541 94,326 228,300 169,631 89,317 104,106 119,008 1,314,0771965 108,401 92,218 89,326 75,072 74,55570,235 28,008 195,497 220,770 153,415 103,985 118,989 1,330,4701966 108,390 92,217 89,325 75,072 74,557 70,441 65,392 225,622 210,121 89,213 103,928 118,944 1,323,2231967 108,236 92,049 89,102 74,823 74,693 70,580 158,510 229,323 211,613 90,064 103,901 118,927 1,421,8211968 108,185 91,986 89,009 74,707 74,812 70,658 146,498 228,493 140,858 89,376 104,183 119,042 1,337,8051969 108,495 92,286 89,384 75,122 74,550 70,493 121,784 227,411 84,328 118,324 103,849 118,897 1,284,9231970 108,089 91,881 88,867 75,074 74,850 70,603 85,930 227,502 84,788 89,320 104,033 118,983 1,219,9201971 108,355 92,166 89,239 74,958 74,752 70,788 219,649 229,486 144,821 89,398 104,220 119,054 1,416,8881972 108,539 92,344 89,474 75,223 74,499 70,377 58,175 228,313 197,920 89,223 103,911 118,923 1,306,9191973 108,146 91,953 88,983 74,690 74,754 70,545 92,829 228,152 122,005 89,278 103,937 118,939 1,264,2121974 108,196 91,999 89,038 74,744 74,764 70,601 121,270 228,606 148,881 89,257 103,983 118,954 1,320,2931975 108,232 92,020 89,044 74,751 74,722 70,589 129,496 228,596 184,123 89,236 103,953 118,941 1,363,7021976 108,206 92,007 89,044 74,754 74,711 70,344 30,322 149,067 107,163 89,210 103,888 118,927 1,107,6431977 108,207 92,030 89,091 74,812 74,692 70,669 183,640 228,552 176,632 92,418 103,967 118,969 1,413,6791978 108,312 92,125 89,197 74,929 74,625 70,345 37,346 161,204 93,860 93,738 103,926 118,952 1,118,5581979 108,262 92,067 89,122 74,832 74,831 70,804 212,852 228,875 156,845 98,115 103,909 118,933 1,429,4461980 108,207 92,017 89,070 74,789 74,768 70,646 161,654 228,291 156,017 96,590 103,910 118,944 1,374,9031981 108,231 92,009 89,017 74,715 74,822 70,691 150,486 229,305 169,243 113,686 103,853 118,917 1,394,9751982 108,150 91,951 88,978 74,681 74,775 70,583 102,904 228,155 209,040 96,095 103,931 118,958 1,368,202 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-53 July 2009 Year Jan Feb Mar AprMayJunJulAug SepOctNovDecTotal1983 108,289 92,095 89,155 74,873 74,668 70,498 75,663 228,045 192,483 91,385 103,963 118,960 1,320,0771984 108,243 92,006 89,006 74,704 74,743 70,554 84,780 228,096 147,443 89,297 104,072 118,999 1,281,9451985 108,399 92,213 89,316 75,062 74,60270,482 94,116 228,311 221,313 151,008 103,992 118,968 1,427,7831986 108,300 92,115 89,189 74,920 74,628 69,584 11,646 98,962 128,226 98,990 103,886 118,935 1,069,3801987 108,207 91,952 88,913 74,885 74,919 70,701 134,062 228,988 150,175 106,483 103,885 118,934 1,352,1051988 108,216 92,027 89,071 74,785 74,693 70,544 125,696 228,555 142,008 129,925 103,913 118,945 1,358,3761989 108,246 92,070 89,131 74,854 74,677 70,563 106,187 228,781 220,778 143,666 103,985 118,975 1,431,9121990 108,316 92,106 89,155 74,871 74,743 70,727 187,954 228,685 205,770 119,627 103,912 118,957 1,474,8231991 108,255 92,050 89,078 74,777 74,715 70,461 60,719 205,018 81,766 89,329 104,050 118,992 1,169,2101992 108,374 92,177 89,254 74,984 74,602 70,487 131,847 228,261 143,416 97,053 103,929 118,947 1,333,3321993 108,255 92,069 89,133 74,859 74,859 76,835 228,336 228,553 174,187 89,247 103,985 118,960 1,459,2781994 108,279 92,095 89,160 74,882 74,737 70,716 177,547 228,664 148,899 89,247 103,959 118,947 1,377,1321995 108,222 92,027 89,063 74,772 74,710 70,558 122,768 228,558 190,192 89,253 104,053 119,005 1,363,1831996 108,411 92,224 89,325 75,068 74,645 70,590 105,693 228,043 162,641 105,243 103,869 118,922 1,334,6751997 108,157 91,953 88,977 74,674 74,766 70,515 99,934 228,262 206,859 98,159 103,894 118,927 1,365,0791998 108,162 91,920 88,904 74,814 74,934 70,788 180,624 228,392 133,502 89,307 104,088 118,999 1,364,4341999 108,392 92,192 89,259 74,989 74,605 70,492 103,282 228,673 161,977 89,334 104,162 119,039 1,316,3952000 108,473 92,236 89,298 75,037 74,628 70,656 186,661 228,543 207,852 96,606 103,895 118,924 1,452,8092001 108,168 91,977 89,017 74,730 74,736 70,576 100,751 228,227 137,782 115,685 103,845 118,913 1,314,4062002 108,130 91,937 88,957 74,650 74,775 70,447 44,344 180,834 195,018 89,339 104,164 119,034 1,241,6292003 108,509 92,321 89,449 75,204 74,519 70,448 101,188 228,066 115,500 89,429 104,129 119,018 1,267,7792004 108,436 92,234 89,324 75,061 74,563 70,534 137,634 228,503 177,198 89,270 104,037 118,982 1,365,7762005 108,361 92,187 89,283 75,024 74,624 70,612 155,713 229,011 192,652 89,265 104,025 118,976 1,399,7362006 108,314 92,102 89,146 74,863 74,655 70,497 103,851 228,548 191,548 89,302 104,112 119,012 1,345,9502007 108,428 92,247 89,360 75,10874,57370,39853,709220,043 189,61189,251103,975118,9561,285,660Avg 108,294 92,098 89,156 74,894 74,690 70,634 110,524 220,485 167,92799,828 103,986 118,967 1,331,482Maxi 108,539 92,344 89,474 75,223 74,934 76,835 228,336229,486 221,313 157,955 104,220 119,054 1,498,372Mini 108,089 91,881 88,867 74,640 74,499 69,584 11,646 98,962 81,766 89,210 103,827 118,897 1,069,380 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 3-54 July 2009 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 19501952195419561958196019621964196619681970197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006Annual Generation (MWh)1,331,500 MWh long-term average annualgeneration Figure 3.4-6. Proposed Project annual generation (MWh) based on a simulation conducted for the period 1950 - 2006. 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMonthly Generation (MWh)Average Maximum Minimum Figure 3.4-7. Proposed Project monthly generation (MWh). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-1 July 2009 4 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE IMPACTS 4.1. Summary The Project would be located in a remote region with abundant natural resources. The description of the existing Project environment and Project-related impacts presented in this section of the PAD is addressed for the following resource areas: Geology and soils Water resources Fish and aquatic resources Wildlife and botanical resources Wetland, riparian, and littoral resources Recreation and land use Aesthetic/visual resources Cultural resources Socioeconomic resources Tribal resources In addition, the general geographic setting of the drainage basin is described in a brief overview section preceding the discussion of individual resource areas. The content of Section 4 is organized to be consistent with the content requirements of 18 CFR § 5.6(d)(3). Discussions of rare, threatened and endangered (RTE) species, pursuant to 18 CFR § 5.6(d)(3)(vii), have been included in relevant resource sections, i.e., RTE species are addressed in subsections of the discussions of fish and aquatic resources, botanical resources, and wildlife resources. The descriptions of existing conditions and known or potential Project-related impacts associated with each of the above resource areas are based on a review of all available existing information that TDX Power (TDX) obtained through its due diligence effort (as described in section 2.1), supplemented with some descriptions provided through 2008 reconnaissance efforts. The existing information sources used in the development of this PAD are cited in the text and listed in the References section (Section 6). For each resource area, the description of the Project environment and impacts is generally organized as follows: Description of the existing resources in the Project vicinity, including species and habitats with special designation Description of known or potential adverse impacts of the Project on these resources PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-2 July 2009 Description of any protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PME) measures that have been identified by TDX as potential measures to be evaluated for possible inclusion in the new license The information presented in this section provides the foundation for the identification of licensing issues and scoping of studies to be conducted to support the licensing process, including FERC’s analysis to satisfy NEPA requirements. Although the information on resources presented in this section of this PAD is relatively detailed (depending on the extent of information available), Section 5 and Appendix 5-1 of this PAD contain a distilled identification of licensing issues and associated study needs, comprehensive for all resource areas described in this Section 4. 4.2. Basin Overview The Chakachamna Lake drainage basin is located in the southern part of the Alaska Range of mountains about 85 miles west of Anchorage, covers about 1,120 square miles, and ranges in elevation from 1,150 feet at the lake's outlet to over 10,000 feet at the summit of Mt. Spurr. The mean drainage basin elevation is 3,200 feet. There are 13 peaks in the drainage basin (Bechtel, 1983; Curran, Meyer, and Tasker 2003). Chakachamna Lake is roughly 15 miles long and comprises an area of approximately 17,000 acres. Three lakes separated by the Shamrock Glacier moraine occur in the basin: Chakachamna Lake, Shamrock Lake, and Kenibuna Lake. Kenibuna Lake, which flows into Chakachamna Lake, has a water surface elevation of 1,250 feet. Major tributaries to Kenibuna Lake include the Neacola and Igitna rivers. In addition to Kenibuna Lake inflow, major tributaries to Chakachamna Lake include the Chilligan and Nagishlamina rivers. Several glaciers feed into Chakachamna Lake, the largest of which is Barrier Glacier, which forms the lake outlet, and Shamrock Glacier, which impounds Kenibuna Lake (Bechtel, 1983). The Chakachatna River begins at the outlet of Chakachamna Lake, at approximately river mile 27, and flows east-southeast, and then south to the head of Noaukta Slough at river mile 5. Noaukta Slough is a southwest-flowing complex of side channels, beaver dams, and wetlands, over 1.5 miles wide in places, located within the Trading Bay Wildlife Refuge. Noaukta Slough flows into the McArthur River. The McArthur River, located to the south of Chakachamna Lake and the Chakachatna River, begins at an elevation of about 1,600 feet at McArthur Glacier and flows southeast 34 miles through Trading Bay State Game Refuge to Cook Inlet. An unnamed tributary, originating at Blockade Glacier, enters McArthur River from the west at approximately river mile 24.0, and Noaukta Slough enters from the north at river mile 12. Chilliga n Riv e r I g itn a R i v e r A nother River C h a k a c h a m n a Lake Nagishl a mi n a River N e a c o l a R iv e r Straight CreekChakachatna River McArthu r Ri v er Noaukta Slough C o o k I n l e tBlockade LakeBeluga Lake Capps Glacier Triumvirate Glacier L o n e R idgeNorth T wi n Gl a ci e r South T w i n G lacierHa rp o o n G l a c ie r Mt. Torbert Mt. Spurr Te la q u a n a P as s Black Peak Bloc k a d e Gl a ci er S ha mr ock GlacierTyonek Old Tyonek Shirleyville Anchorage Author: HDR Alaska - MC Date: 09 June 2009 Sources: ESRI, USGS, HATCH Filename: Fig 4_2-1 RiverBasins-8x11.mxd LAKE CLARK NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE 0510Miles Map Extent Legend Proposed Tunnel Chakachamna Basin Boundary River Basins Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Graphic representation only. HDR makes no guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of source data. Figure 4.2-1 0510 Kilometers Proposed Intake Proposed Power House McArthur and Chakachatna River Basins PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-4 July 2009 4.2.1. Tributaries to Kenibuna Lake 4.2.1.1. Neacola River The Neacola River flows into the southwest end of Kenibuna Lake, and the delta built at its outlet appears to fill over half of the original lake basin. The lower section of the river is extensively braided (Figure 4.2-2). The drainage basin is heavily glaciated and the river carries an enormous amount of mostly fine sediment into Kenibuna Lake. This river is located entirely in the Lake Clark National Park (HDR 2009). Figure 4.2-2. Neocola River entering Kenibuna Lake, July 30, 2008 (Photo by HDR Alaska). 4.2.1.2. Igitna River The Igitna River enters Kenibuna Lake from the northwest and is located almost entirely in Lake Clark National Park. The river is composed of multiple braided channels near its discharge point PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-5 July 2009 into Kenibuna Lake (Figure 4.2-3). The river becomes confined to one channel about one mile upstream of the lake, and two miles upstream of the lake it flows through a narrow bedrock gorge (Figure 4.2-4). Because the Igitna River basin is located in a rain shadow, it has lower precipitation and fewer, smaller glaciers than the southern tributaries to Chakachamna Lake. Because of the smaller glacial influence, Igitna water is less silty than Kenibuna or Chakachamna lakes or the Chakachatna River (HDR 2009). Figure 4.2-3. Igitna River draining into Kenibuna Lake, July 30, 2008 (Photo by HDR Alaska). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-6 July 2009 Figure 4.2-4. Upstream end of braided channels of Igitna River, looking upstream, July 30, 2008 (Photo by HDR Alaska). 4.2.2. Tributaries to Chakachamna Lake 4.2.2.1. Kenibuna Lake and outlet channel Kenibuna Lake was free of ice during site visits in June, July, and August of 2008. Kenibuna Lake appears to be shallow and choked with sediment where the Neacola River, Igitna River, and several small glacial tributaries from the south flow into the lake (Figure 4-2.5). Shamrock Glacier no longer appears to have any surface connection to Kenibuna Lake, although there may be some underground discharge from Shamrock Lake. During the June visit, extensive mudflats were visible along the margins of Shamrock Glacier and the Neacola River delta. The Neacola River delta was exposed nearly to the northern margin of the lake, where the outlet of the Igitna River had formed a channel. In July, water was higher in Kenibuna Lake, and the mudflats were mostly under water. The elevation of Kenibuna Lake is 1,250 feet, approximately 95 feet higher than Chakachamna Lake’s maximum high water level under natural conditions. It is connected to Chakachamna PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-7 July 2009 Lake by an outlet channel (referred to as “Kenibuna outlet” in HDR Alaska, 2009) that runs east- northeast for approximately 2.5 miles along the northern margin of the terminal moraine of Shamrock Glacier. Kenibuna outlet is confined between the moraine and a steep bedrock slope, with no apparent flood bars or terraces along the northern stream bank. The channel is high gradient and swift, with a cobble and boulder substrate. According to the USGS topographic map, Shamrock Glacier at one time extended to the moraine, and possibly the stream channel, along the upper half of the stream. In 2008, the glacier was over a mile from the moraine, and Shamrock Lake occupies the basin formed in front of the retreating glacier. There was no evidence of ice-coring in the moraine anywhere along the Kenibuna outlet channel. In June 2008, several avalanche deposits were observed along the northern margin of the channel. One avalanche apparently crossed the channel, as the toe of the deposit was on the south side of the river. This suggests that the channel was iced over during the winter. In July, only one snow patch remained at the base of the avalanche slope. In June, Kenibuna Outlet was generally confined to a single channel between Kenibuna Lake and Chakachamna Lake, with many dry side channels observed. In July, the upper mile was typically confined to a single channel, which then became braided for approximately one-half mile, and then became primarily confined again to a single main channel for the remaining mile. The lower portion of the outlet channel is primarily contained in a single channel. However, several mid-channel islands and exposed flood bars were observed near the outlet in June. Many of these exposed flood bars observed in June were submerged in July (HDR 2009). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-8 July 2009 Figure 4.2-5. Kenibuna Lake looking northwest from Shamrock moraine toward Igitna River, June 2008 (Photo by HDR Alaska). 4.2.2.2. Shamrock Glacier, Shamrock Lake and outlet channel Shamrock Glacier has retreated approximately one mile to the southern mountain front from its mid 1950s position near the northern mountain front (USGS 1958), and drains exclusively into Shamrock Lake. The surface area of Shamrock Lake is now nearly the same as Kenibuna Lake, and may be deeper. The lake is rimmed by steep-sided, un-vegetated moraines on the southwestern and northeastern ends, and a lower, well-vegetated terminal moraine from an earlier advance of the glacier on the northern margin along the outlet channel. The well- vegetated moraine front showed no evidence of remaining ice-cores. One large, dry kettle hole was encountered on the moraine during ground reconnaissance. During the June, July, and August 2008 surveys, icebergs were observed in Shamrock Lake. The Shamrock Lake outlet channel drains from Shamrock Lake into Chakachamna Lake (Figure 4.2-6) at the southeast corner of the lake, apparently in the same location as that shown on the USGS topographic map. The outlet channel substrate consisted primarily of boulders, large cobbles, and some gravels, with a steep bank along the north side. The flows were relatively high with some large rapids, although some slower water areas were observed in July. Water clarity was poor due to glacial silt input (HDR 2009). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-9 July 2009 Figure 4.2-6. Shamrock Lake outlet, looking downstream, July 31, 2008 (Photo by HDR Alaska). 4.2.2.3. Chilligan River The Chilligan River is the longest tributary to Chakachamna Lake, at about 24 miles long. Similar to the Igitna River watershed, the Chilligan watershed is in a rain shadow behind Mt. Spurr and has lower precipitation and less glacial runoff than the southern tributaries. During the July visit, the lake backwater extended over a mile upstream from the outlet. The Chilligan River is extensively braided near its mouth and becomes a single-braided stream about five miles upstream. Although fewer braids exist upstream, side-channel fish habitat was still abundant (Figure 4.2-7). The channel becomes more confined farther up the river valley (Figure 4.2-8) (HDR 2009). 4.2.2.4. Nagishlamina River The Nagishlamina River is a major tributary to Chakachamna Lake, that extends north around the western slope of Mt. Spurr. The dominant features of the Naglishlamina have not been described in existing literature, although it is considered significant in the glacial and hydrologic record as the source of at least one out-burst flood, caused by instability of the Pothole glacier. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-10 July 2009 4.2.2.5. Chakachamna Lake Chakachamna Lake is located within a steep-sided glacial valley over 1,000 feet in elevation. The lake is partially dammed at the outlet by Barrier Glacier, which descends from over 10,000 feet on Mt. Spurr. The Barrier Glacier currently terminates in an ice-cored moraine at lake level. The portion of the moraine that blocks the lake is south of the main ice stream, and more vegetated (Figure 4.2-9). Several tributaries on the south shore are still filled with glaciers, although all of these appear to have retreated from terminal moraines at lake level. The only glaciers to contribute to the north side of the lake descend directly from Mt. Spurr (HDR Alaska, 2009). The lake’s characteristics are provided below in Table 4.2.-1. Water level in Chakachamna Lake in 1981 was at elevation 1,142 feet and was typical of the September lake stage records in the 12 years preceding the major flood of August 1971. Table 4.2-1. Chakachamna Lake characteristics (Bechtel, 1983). Maximum water level, natural conditions, (ft) 1,155 Minimum water level, natural conditions, approx. (ft) 1,128 Surface area at elevation 1155 (acres) 17,842 Surface area at elevation 1155 (square miles) 27 Total volume at elevation 1155 (acre-ft) 4,483,000 Drainage area (sq. mi.) 1,120 Average annual inflow, 11 years (cfs) 3,606 Correlated average annual inflow, 31 years (cfs) 3,781 Normal maximum operating water surface elevation (ft) 1,155 Normal minimum water surface elevation (ft) 1,083 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-11 July 2009 Figure 4.2-7. Chilligan River, July 2008 (Photo by HDR Alaska). Figure 4.2-8. Chilligan River, further upstream July 2008 (Photo by HDR Alaska). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-12 July 2009 Figure 4.2-9. Barrier Glacier moraine at outlet. Meltwater ponds on far left and exposed ice at middle left ( Photo by HDR Alaska). 4.2.3. Chakachatna River The upper Chakachatna River flows about 22 miles from the outlet of Chakachamna Lake to the head of Noaukta Slough, just downstream of Straight Creek. The upper 13 miles of the Chakachatna River are contained in a canyon, 1,000 – 3,000 feet wide, between Mt. Spurr and the Neacola Mountains. Several small tributaries from Mount Spurr and Neacola glaciers contribute to the Chakachatna River within the canyon. Downstream of the canyon, the Chakachatna River enters a broad, low-relief foreland. Straight Creek, the largest tributary to Chakachatna River, enters from the north about 20 miles downstream from the lake outlet. About 2 miles downstream of Straight Creek, the Chakachatna River bends toward the slough and enters Noaukta Slough. The majority of Chakachatna River water enters Noaukta Slough, a southwest-flowing complex of side channels, beaver dams, and wetlands over 1.5 miles wide in places. Some water continues southward down the old Chakachatna River channels, most of which are abandoned. Large wetlands occur to the northwest and southeast of Noaukta Slough. Noaukta Slough flows into the McArthur River (Bechtel, 1983). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-13 July 2009 4.2.3.1. Chakachatna River from Chakachamna Lake outlet to Straight Creek At the outlet of Chakachamna Lake the channel is defined by bedrock cliffs along the south side and the Barrier Glacier moraine on the north side. A well-defined water line was visible approximately 5 feet above the water level on the bedrock cliffs (south side) in June 2008. This watermark was no longer visible in July. The USGS stilling well was still bolted to the cliffs on the south bank. Unlike the Kenibuna outlet channel, the Chakachatna River channel shows evidence of past horizontal and vertical movement. Evidence of such movement exists in the form of terraces many feet above river level, perched tributary fans graded to higher river levels, and many abandoned and revegetated channels where the valley bottom is broad enough to contain them. These features are expected given the various glacial and volcanic events that have introduced sediment and floodwaters or temporarily blocked the channel over the past several thousand years. Several boulder rapids occur along the river and form low-flow control sections, as observed during the June visit. The first set of rapids, approximately 0.8 miles downstream of the outlet, is located just downstream of the narrows formed by Barrier Glacier and may be a remnant of the moraine dam from Barrier Glacier. Below this section, the river is relatively placid for about 4 miles. At this location, the river is contained within one channel, characterized by a gently sloping left bank and a steeper right bank with a cobble bed. The river is approximately 300 feet wide at bankfull discharge. A gravel bar below the bench was exposed during the June visit, and the water surface was relatively placid. Water levels were relatively low in June, but in July the water level was at bankfull and no gravel bar was exposed. The next set of boulder-rapids was noted approximately 5 miles downstream of the outlet, just below Crater Peak where it appears that the lahars of 1953 and 1992 debouched into the Chakachatna River and dammed it for a short period. The lahar deposit impinges on the channel, and during the June field visit a long section of still water was ponded above the deposit, indicating that the lahar still creates a significant control on channel elevation here. A second tributary from Crater Peak enters the river about 2 miles below the onset of the rapids. Thick, bouldery deposits from this tributary extend the rapids for over 2.5 miles. Boulders were exposed in the rapids in June but mostly submerged in July. In July, runoff from the Crater Peak tributaries was noticeably darker and more opaque than that of the Chakachatna River. The color of the Chakachatna River changed to a browner color below the tributaries. Seven miles downstream of the outlet, the river valley broadens significantly, from an average of less than 1,000 feet wide to over 3,000 feet wide. The river occupied the northern margin of the broad braidplain during both field visits. Clear water side channels were observed along the forested southern margin of the braidplain in June and July (Figure 4.2-10). From the Chakachamna lake outlet to the Straight Creek confluence (about 20 miles downstream) there appears to be very little wetland along the Chakachatna River. The extensive lowlands downstream of the canyon and extending south to the McArthur River floodplains contain large wetland complexes and disconnected channels. In June, several of these PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-14 July 2009 disconnected channels were flowing intermittently and contained pools several feet deep. In July, the same channels were dry (HDR 2009). Figure 4.2-10. Chakachatna River clear water side channel, July 2008 (Photo by HDR Alaska). 4.2.3.2. Chakachatna River, Confluence of Straight Creek to Noaukta Slough Distributary channels are mapped starting about 21 miles downstream of the lake outlet. This is where the Chakachatna River takes a turn from flowing southeast to flowing directly south. At the time of the June survey, many side and distributary channels were dewatered or disconnected from the main channel. Surface connections between the Chakachatna River and Chuitkilnachna Creek, which appear on the USGS topographic map, were not visible during the June 2008 field trip. In fact, Chuitkilnachna Creek itself barely appeared to be flowing. During the July field trip, the field crew traversed the Chakachatna floodplain from the riverbank to Chuitkilnachna Creek to a major wetland complex in the Trading Bay State Game Refuge. During this survey, it appeared from the clarity of Chuitkilnachna Creek and its tributaries that no surface water from PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-15 July 2009 Chakachatna River was entering the creek, yet the creek was flowing near bankfull. Thus it is likely that the creek derives much of its flow from groundwater leaving the Chakachatna River. Several tributaries to Chuitkilnachna Creek were blocked by abandoned logging roads in this area (HDR 2009). 4.2.3.3. Noaukta Slough area Noaukta Slough is the term used for the section of Chakachatna River that flows southwest to the McArthur River, beginning about 25 miles downstream of the lake outlet. In the mid 1950s, the Chakachatna River continued to flow south from this point before splitting into several distributary channels (USGS 1958). During the June and July 2008 field surveys, it appeared that over 95 percent of the flow turned southwest and flowed through Noaukta Slough to the McArthur River. In June the Chakachatna River, as mapped, was not visible from the air at the point that it left the main channel. In July a narrow side channel was seen diverging from the main channel and following the original Chakachatna route. This narrow channel had numerous beaver dams along its length. Noaukta Slough is a broad, highly anastomosed (Figure 4.2-11), placid waterway that flows about 5 miles from the mainstem Chakachatna to McArthur River. While Noaukta Slough seems to capture most of the surface water from the Chakachatna River as it approaches the McArthur, it appears the Chakachatna River probably provides the water that surfaces again in old channels of the Chakachatna River farther east. Many sites of groundwater discharge were visible there, based on iron bacteria and water appearing in channels. These observations support the hypothesis that the effects of reducing flows in the part of the Chakachatna River channel that runs north-south could extend eastward via groundwater connections (HDR 2009). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-16 July 2009 Figure 4.2-11. Noautka Slough, June 2008 (Photo by HDR Alaska). 4.2.3.4. Lower Chakachatna River, Noaukta Slough to Confluence with McArthur River The lower Chakachatna River meets the McArthur River in the same places as those shown on the USGS topographic map; however, the channel is small compared to that shown on the map. The water is a rusty brown color indicating a wetland source rather than gray and silty like the upper Chakachatna River. During the survey, several ponds appeared where dry openings are shown on the USGS map between Noaukta Slough, McArthur River, and the lower Chakachatna River. The lower Chakachatna River is a narrow, single-braid channel that appears to be groundwater fed, with multiple beaver dams along it (HDR 2009). 4.2.3.5. Middle River, Cottonwood Slough, and Seal Slough These water features are in the same positions as they appear on the USGS topographic map, indicating that minimal change has occurred in the lower part of the refuge since the 1957 base map was produced (USGS 1958). Middle River, like lower Chakachatna River, is very small compared to what is shown on the maps and appears to be groundwater fed as well (HDR 2009). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-17 July 2009 4.2.4. McArthur River Basin The 34-mile long McArthur River begins at about 1,600 feet in elevation at the snout of McArthur Glacier. The upper 7 miles flow through a steep-sided canyon. About 3 miles below the canyon mouth, the McArthur River joins an unnamed tributary that issues from Blockade Glacier. This tributary supplies the majority of flow in the McArthur River. Noaukta Slough enters the McArthur River 10 to 12 miles below Blockade Glacier. The McArthur River continues to flow another 12 miles through the Trading Bay Wildlife Refuge to Cook Inlet (HDR 2009). One of the proposed tailrace locations is about four miles downstream from McArthur Glacier in a steep sided canyon, about 2,000 feet wide from toe-slope to toe-slope (Figure 4.2-12). The active McArthur River braided channel occupies 50 to 100 percent of the width of the valley bottom, the remainder is vegetated in uniform-aged alder and cottonwood. The river water was slightly silty in June, and opaque in July during higher runoff. The banks and streambed are composed of micaceous sand and granitic cobbles with very few boulders. The broad braided channel has a capacity for carrying higher flows without damaging the floodplain. No juvenile fish were observed in this area and likely do not occupy this area because of poor habitat conditions resulting from relatively cold water and little to no instream cover. About 6.5 miles downstream of the glacier the braidplain narrows and the floodplain is forested. This may be because of the greater distance from the sediment source (i.e., McArthur Glacier). The valley bottom narrows near the mountain front and the braided channel merges into a single channel. Wetlands and beaver ponds appear on the south side of the river. A potential flow gaging site is located approximately 2.6 miles upstream of the confluence with the main McArthur floodplain. The river here is controlled by a bedrock knob, which narrows the channel. The cross-section is likely to be more stable here due to the bedrock influence. About 9 miles downstream from the glacier, the floodplain becomes much broader, and multiple abandoned and revegetated channels flank the active channel. Clear water channels with beaver dams are extensive north of the river near the confluence with the Blockade Glacier tributary. This more confined section of McArthur River and floodplain is most likely to be influenced by increased flows from interbasin transfer. Increased flows may create or enlarge wetlands in abandoned side channels, or turn clear water side channels into silty overflow channels. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-18 July 2009 Figure 4.2-12. McArthur River Tailrace Area, August 2008 (Photo by HDR Alaska). About 9.5 miles downstream of the glacier, the McArthur River enters the outwash plain of Blockade Glacier. Blockade Glacier appears to supply well over half the flow to McArthur River downstream of this location. Downstream of this location, there was very little wetland observed next to the channel. Tannic staining was observed on channels feeding McArthur River on both trips in 2008. During the July trip, when water was much higher, numerous clear water ponds and channels appeared on the braidplain that were not directly connected to the main river. These are probably fed by groundwater upwelling. During July, the crew conducted aerial reconnaissance of the headwater of the Kustatan River, which appears from Google imagery to be nearly connected to the southern part of the McArthur River floodplain about 16 miles below the glacier. It appeared that the portion of the McArthur floodplain that connected to the Kustatan drainage has not been occupied for many years and that it may have been formed during a glacial outburst from Blockade Lake. No apparent flow paths between the McArthur and Kustatan drainages were observed (HDR 2009). An unnamed clear water tributary was flown during the August survey. According to the USGS maps (USGS 1958), this tributary enters the McArthur River via the Noaukta Slough, but it now enters the McArthur River directly. This unnamed tributary begins on the west side of the refuge at the toe of a mountain slope and extends for approximately 10 miles to its confluence with the McArthur River. The upper 2 to 3 miles of the stream are somewhat steep in gradient, 4 - 5percent, with large cobble boulder substrate. This steeper channel changes to a highly sinuous PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-19 July 2009 lower gradient channel consisting of a gravel and eventually white volcanic sand substrate in the lower 4 to 5 river miles. Water clarity was good although there was some glacial influence at the head of the drainage (HDR 2009). 4.2.5. Climate 4.2.5.1. Regional Climate The Chigmit Mountains divide the subpolar marine climate of Cook Inlet from the continental climate of Interior Alaska. Local climate conditions within these two regions vary with elevation and the distance from mountains and large bodies of water (NPS, 2008). The air temperature near Cook Inlet is slightly warmer in winter and cooler in summer than areas further inland, and precipitation increases at higher altitudes (ADF&G, 1994). The coastal east side of the mountains in the Project area is typically warmer and wetter than the west side, with an annual average precipitation between 15 and 20 inches. Precipitation increases dramatically, ranging between 40 to 80 inches per year, where the mountains immediately rise from Cook Inlet (NPS, 2008). Tyonek, located on Cook Inlet northeast of the Project, had an average annual precipitation of 22.8 inches (58 cm) and an average annual snowfall of 82 inches (208 cm) over a 9-year period (ADF&G, 1994). At Big River Lake, located inland south of the Project and south of the Kustatan River, average annual precipitation was 56.2 inches (143 cm) and average annual snowfall of 140.7 inches (357 cm) over a 30-year period (WRCC, 2008). Mean coastal air temperature ranges from 10 to 32 oF (-12.2 to 0 oC) during January, typically the coldest month. Mean temperature for the warmest month, July, ranges from 48 to 60 oF (8.9 to 15.6 oC) (NPS, 2008). Port Alsworth, located west of the Chigmit Mountains and southwest of the Project, represents inland climatic conditions (NPS, 2008). Annual average precipitation at Port Alsworth is 14.8 inches (38 cm), with an average annual snowfall of 77.4 inches (197 cm) over a 48-year period (WRCC, 2008). Mean air temperature ranges from 12 oF (11 oC) in January to 56 oF (13.3 oC) in July (NPS, 2008). 4.2.5.2. Global Climate Change The significance of global climate change to hydropower projects is currently unknown. However, to the extent that projects in Alaska are dependent on annual cycles of precipitation and temperature, global climate change is a factor that could impact the lifecycle and operation of these projects in significant ways. At the same time, hydropower, as a source of carbon free energy provides one alternative to other technologies that contribute to global warming. According to the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global warming trends appear more evident than ever. Concentrations of carbon dioxide (the predominant greenhouse gas) increased at a faster rate from 1995 to 2005 than they did from 1960 to 1995. The report points to human activities as the source of the increase in carbon PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-20 July 2009 dioxide. Most of the carbon dioxide is the result of burning fossil fuels, but changes in land use, such as the disappearance of forests, also is a significant factor. Concentrations of the other greenhouse gases, including methane and nitrous oxide, have also increased. On September 14, 2007, Governor Sarah Palin signed Administrative Order 238 forming the Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet. The Sub-Cabinet is charged with preparing and implementing an Alaska Climate Change Strategy, a transparent document that will deal with state policies for anticipating climate change and summarizes a wide range of impacts in Alaska, including: Melting glaciers, rising sea levels, and flooding of coastal communities. Warming of oceans and melting of land-based ice that increases the volume of ocean water. Loss of sea-ice cover that changes habitat for arctic species and leaves coastal communities more exposed to larger waves generated by severe storms. Thawing permafrost, increased storm severity, and related infrastructure damage to roads, utility infrastructure, pipelines and buildings. Extremes in weather patterns, precipitation, and rising sea levels that will affect safe water sources in villages and contribute to increased erosion along Alaska coasts and rivers and undermine Alaska boreal forests. Loss of the subsistence way of life as animal habitat and migration patterns shift and as hunting and fishing become more dangerous with changing sea and river ice. Warming streams and increased silt from melting glaciers that affect fish habitat. Boreal forest advance northward and to higher elevations, displacing tundra. Invasive species competition with native vegetation. Humans, animals, and plants that may be exposed to new infectious diseases as habitat changes. Forest fires and insect infestations increasing in frequency and intensity. In the past decade, Alaska has witnessed a record loss in forests to fires and spruce bark beetles. For the Project, the issue of global warming leads to questions that are relevant to planning Project operations for the life of the license and beyond, and for use in determining instream flows. Additionally, the potential impact of changing atmospheric conditions on the stability of local glaciers has engineering ramifications for the Project as the Chakachamna Lake outlet is anchored, at least in part, by the terminus of the Barrier Glacier (see Section 4.3.2.1.1). Resource issues and questions raised by global climate change are addressed, as appropriate, in sections 4.3 (Geology and Soils) and 4.4 (Water Resources). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-21 July 2009 4.2.6. Land and Water Use 4.2.6.1. Land Use Land use in the Project area and vicinity of the Project includes timber harvesting, oil and gas extraction, mining claims, timber sales, agricultural leases, limited recreation, and subsistence. There are no known uses or users of the Chakachamna Lake, Chakachatna River, or McArthur River water resources other than for subsistence and recreation such as fishing, boating, and hunting. 4.2.7. Dams and Diversion Structures in the Basin There are no dams or diversion structures currently in the Project area. 4.2.8. Trading Bay State Game Refuge Trading Bay State Game Refuge was created in 1976 for the protection of waterfowl and big game habitat. The Trading Bay State Game Refuge includes uplands, tidal, and submerged lands on 168,930 acres. A series of small shallow brackish marshes, encompassing approximately 2,500 acres, runs the length of the refuge. Five salmon-producing river systems cross the refuge including the Kustatan, McArthur, Chakachatna, Middle and Nikolai. 4.3. Geology and Soils 4.3.1. Summary Chakachamna Lake is a glacier-formed lake surrounded by mountains that are part of the Alaska Range near the Cook Inlet lowlands. The mountains surrounding the lake rise to above 5,000 feet elevation and support many active glaciers. The region is both seismically and volcanically active, with major northerly-dipping thrust of strike-slip faults paralleling Cook Inlet, and a line of active volcanoes landward of the faults (Bechtel, 1983). The dominant geologic features of the site area are as follows: Chakachamna Lake is formed by a natural dam at its eastern end, consisting of glacial morainal deposits from the still active Barrier Glacier. This glacier is an active alpine-type ice stream that descends the southwest slope of Mount Spurr and spreads into an expanded fan-shaped tongue for a distance of 2 miles across the Chakachatna River valley. This results in a confinement of nearly a 1-mile reach of the Chakachatna River into a narrow channel at the base of the steep mountainside on the south side of the valley. However, during the last 50 years, evidence points toward a trend of recession and shrinkage of the glacier. When examined by Bechtel (1983), an exception to this trend was noted in the advancement of one ice lobe on the glacier that is believed to be the result of Mount Spurr’s 1953 eruption. With the development of the Chakachamna powersite and the PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-22 July 2009 resulting long periods of lake drawdown, the erosive effects of the existing Chakachatna River on the Barrier Glacier will be diminished. There is a potential that this may result in the advancement of Barrier Glacier and closure of the short gap to the north of the mountainside where the river currently flows (Bechtel, 1983). About 60 miles to the east of Chakachamna Lake, the Lake Clark-Castle Mountain fault zone, an approximately 350-mile-long fault, is known to have offset Holocene sediments and more recent sediments that date to between 260 and 1,800 years ago. This fault passes within approximately 11 miles of Chakachamna Lake and a preliminary estimate of the potential magnitude of a seismic event along this feature is 7+. The potential for seismic activity generally increases as one proceeds southward along the fault. Additionally, the Bruin Bay fault lies approximately 30 miles south to southwest of the proposed facilities at Chakachamna Lake and approximately 20 miles of the Project facilities in the McArthur River. Although no evidence has been observed or reported that would indicate youthful fault activity along the Bruin Bay fault, several of the lineaments observed by Bechtel (1983) are suggestive of youthful fault activity. On the basis of the lineaments along the projected trace of the Bruin Bay fault, and the fact that the fault is suspected to intersect with the Castle Mountain fault, the Bruin Bay fault is considered to be a significant geologic feature of the Project area. Aerial photographs of this region show a series of parallel lineaments that trend roughly NW-SE.. These features are nearly vertical, with severe fracturing and pulverization in the fault or fracture zone. A tunnel from Chakachamna Lake to the McArthur River Valley would roughly parallel the strike of these features. An active volcano, Mount Spurr, is located about 5 miles to the northeast of Barrier Glacier. This volcano erupted ash in 1953 and again in 1992. Pyroclastic flows that descended the south flank of Crater Peak during both historical eruptions initiated volcanic-debris flows or lahars that formed temporary debris dams across the Chakachatna River, the principal drainage south of Crater Peak (Waythomas and Nye, 2002). Mudflows from similar events in the future could conceivably alter the nature of the ice- moraine dam that forms Chakachamna Lake, render unserviceable the intake structure to the power tunnel, and otherwise affect the feasibility or useful life of the Project. Superficial deposits in this area include gravels, sands, and silts that form river deltas and beach deposits at the entrances of the Nagishlamina, Chilligan, and Neacola Rivers. A large glacial moraine is present at the base of More Glacier. The streams that feed Chakachamna Lake are all laden with sediment. The sediment is primarily “rock-flour” of glacial origin, and much of it seems to stay in suspension even after it reaches the calm waters of Chakachamna Lake. There are no firm data available as to the rate of accumulation of sediment in the lake, but the abrupt leveling off of the lake bottom at depths below 240 feet is an indication of a considerable-accumulation of sediment. The Project design calls for tunnels and related structures to be excavated in granitic rocks; the alignment would cross a zone of contact between granitics of two different periods of intrusion. Older greenstones outcrop directly to the north of Chakachatna River, and these same rocks could conceivably outcrop along the tunnel route. Site inspections have shown generally favorable geologic conditions for tunnel portals where steep faces of relatively fresh rock are exposed. The powerhouse would be located approximately 11 miles PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-23 July 2009 southeast of the lake on the McArthur River, between the floodplain and an active talus slope. 4.3.2. Quaternary Geology Bechtel’s 1983 site investigation included an analysis of the Quaternary geology to describe the glaciers and glacial history of the Chakachamna Lake area, Mt. Spurr and associated volcanic centers, and the slope conditions near sites proposed for Project facilities. The Quaternary period, approximately the last 2 million years, is commonly subdivided into the Pleistocene and the Holocene epochs (most recent 10,000 years). Generally, the Pleistocene epoch is equated to the glacial age and the Holocene epoch with post-glacial time. Such distinctions are less defined in southern Alaska, where the mountains still contain extensive glaciers. In addition to the extensive glacial activity and associated phenomena, the Quaternary period was also a time of mountain building and volcanic activity in the region. These geologic processes that were active throughout the Quaternary are still active in the Chakachamna Lake area today. 4.3.2.1. Glaciers On at least five separate occasions during the Quaternary, the glaciers in the mountains that surround Cook Inlet have expanded onto the Cook Inlet lowlands, where they coalesced to cover much or all of the lowland with ice. The available evidence suggests that several thousand feet of ice covered virtually all of the Cook Inlet lowland during early glaciations (Bechtel, 1983). Naptowne is thought to be the most recent large scale glaciation; ice again advanced onto the Cook Inlet lowland, but did not completely cover the lowland as it apparently did during the earlier glaciations. Even at the glacial maxima, portions of the lowland were ice free; such areas were commonly the sites of large ice-dammed lakes that have been studied in some detail (Miller and Dobrovolny, 1959; Karlstrbm, 1964). The maximum ice advance during the Naptowne glaciation is recorded by distinct end moraine complexes located near the mouths of the major valleys that drain the Alaska Range and by moraines on the Kenai lowland. The moraines on the Kenai lowland are of particular interest because they were, at least in part, formed by the Trading Bay ice lobe, which originated in the Chakachatna-McArthur rivers area and advanced across Cook Inlet. Most of the study area was covered by glacier ice during the maximum stand of the Naptowne- age glaciers. Based on Karlstrom's (1964) work, it would appear that only high, steep slopes and local elevated areas were not covered by Naptowne ice. Within the area examined during the 1981 studies, the upper limit of Naptowne ice was clearly identified in the area between Capps Glacier and Blockade Glacier, at and east of the range front (Figure 4.3-1). In this area lateral moraines produced during the maximum stand of Naptowne ice (25,000-17,000 ybp) are distinct and traceable for long distances; younger Naptowne lateral and terminal moraines are also present. The largest area that was not buried by Naptowne ice, and which was observed during PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-24 July 2009 field reconnaissance by Bechtel (1983), is located high on the gentle slopes east of Mt. Spurr, between Capps Glacier and Straight Creek. 4.3.2.1.1. Barrier Glacier Barrier Glacier originates in the snow and ice field high on the slopes of Mt. Spurr. From there it flows down a steep, ice-carved canyon to the shore of Chakachamna Lake, where its piedmont lobe forms the eastern end of the lake (Figures 4.3-2, 4.3-3) and influences the size and character of the outlet lake outlet. Giles' (1967) investigation of Barrier Glacier was designed to assess the possible impact of the glacier on hydroelectric development of Chakachamna Lake, and the potential impacts of hydroelectric development on the glacier. Giles mapped the lake outlet area and measured horizontal and vertical movement as well as ablation on various portions of the glacier. Those measurements indicated that: 1) horizontal movement was in the range of 316 to 125 feet/year on the debris-free ice and 28 to 1 feet/year on the debris-covered lobe of ice that formed the southernmost component of the glacier's piedmont lobe complex; and 2) surface elevation changes were generally small (+0.8 to -2.9 feet/year), but ablation on the relatively debris-free ice averaged about 35 feet/year in the terminal zone. TDX Power Pre-Application Document Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 12660 Figure 4.3-1 Quaternary Geology Site Locations (Bechtel, 1983) TDX Power Pre-Application Document Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 12660 Figure 4.3-2 Glacial and Volcanic Features in the Chakachamna- Chakachatna Valley (Bechtel, 1983) i " 'il ~. " u, K C /I A 'M A 1" c If A .. ! .. . " , " , I A MNA " i LA ·~'.E " ': ?) , " ! ". I " , " ' ' " " ", C /-I A K. C /I A M A .. " " " ,. " " " " MNA LA·'(E TDX Power Pre-Application Document Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 12660 Figure 4.3-3 Glacial and Volcanic Features in the Chakachamna- Chakachatna Valley (Bechtel, 1983) PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-31 July 2009 Giles (1967) concluded that the level of Chakachamna Lake is controlled by a 900-foot wide portion of the Barrier Glacier along the river; that zone reportedly advances southward into the river channel at a rate of about l5 feet/year; the net accumulation and erosion is controlled by annual cycles of stream flow, thus establishing an equilibrium in the annual cycle. Bechtel (1983) was able to confirm Gile’s conclusions through observations made with color infrared (CIR) aerial photographs and during extensive aerial and ground-based observations. Bechtel extended these conclusions as follows: All of the moraines associated with Barrier Glacier are the products of late Neoglacial (i.e., post-Naptowne) advances of the glacier and subsequent retreat. The large, sharp-crested moraines that bound the glacier complex on the eastern margin and a portion of the western margin mark the locations of the ice limit as recently as a few hundred years ago (maximum estimate) and perhaps as recently as the early to middle part of the 1900s. Cottonwood trees, which are the largest and among the oldest trees on the distal side of the moraine are approximately 300 to 350 years old based on tree ring counts made in 1981 (location of trees on Figure 4.3-2). Those dates provide a maximum age estimate. The most recent advance of Barrier Glacier did not reach the outermost moraine. It appears that the flow of ice was deflected westward by pre-existing ice and ice-covered moraine at the point where the glacier begins to form a piedmont lobe. This pulse was responsible for the vegetation-free zone of till that mantles the ice adjacent to the debris- free ice and for the large moraines that stand above the delta at the northeast corner of the lake. The presently active portion of Barrier Glacier has the same basic flow pattern as that described above, but the terminus appears to be retreating. The flow of ice is deflected westward as it exits the canyon through which the glacier descends the slopes of Mt. Spurr. Thus it appears that the large debris-mantled (ice-cored) lobe that forms the most distal portion of the glacier complex, and which borders the river, is now, at least in large part, decoupled from the active portion of the glacier. Bechtel (1983) speculated that movements measured by Giles (1967) were due to adjustments within the largely independent debris mantled lobe and to secondary effects transmitted to and through this lobe by the active ice upslope. There is no ice now exposed along the lake shore or around the lake outlet at the head of the Chakachatna River, as was the case as recently as the middle of the century (Giles, 1969). These areas are rather uniformly vegetated and the debris mantle over the ice appears to be relatively thick compared to areas where accelerated melting is taking place. These areas appear to be reasonable models of what to expect when melting of the ice and the associated sorting and readjustment of the overlying debris have produced a debris cover thick enough to insulate the ice. If the debris-mantled ice lobe is functionally decoupled from the active ice, as suggested above, the move of ice toward the river is likely to gradually slow in the near future. The Giles (1967) data suggest that this slowing may be underway. Although a 1971 flood on the Chakachatna PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-32 July 2009 River suggests that the ice movement could potentially be occasionally rapid enough to constrict the river channel, it appears likely that the degrading portion of the ice lobe along the river will slowly stabilize to a condition similar to that along the lake shore. Bechtel (1983) concluded that this will probably lead to a channel configuration somewhat wider than what is was in 1983, but the channel floor elevation is unlikely to change significantly, assuming discharge will remain as observed in 1983. If discharge increases, then a channel deepening, as suggested by Giles (1967), may occur. If discharge decreases, the available data suggest that the outlet channel is likely to become narrower and perhaps shallower as the debris-covered ice continues to stabilize. Over the long term, the possible changes along the uppermost reaches of the Chakachatna River, where the lake level is controlled, are potentially more varied and more difficult to predict. One reason for this is that the longer timeframe (i.e., centuries versus decades) provides an increased probability for both dramatic (e.g., marked warming of the climate) and catastrophic (e.g., large volcanic eruption) events. In this regard, it should be noted that Barrier Glacier and the lake outlet appear to be within the zone of greatest potential impact from eruptions of Mt. Spurr volcano. Post and Mayo (197l) listed Chakachamna Lake as one of Alaska's glacier-dammed lakes that could produce outburst floods. They rated the flood hazard for the lake as "very low," unless the glacier advances strongly. The 1971 flood on the Chakachatna River (Lamke, 1972) was attributed to lateral erosion of the glacier terminus at the lake outlet. This flood may have been triggered by waters from an outburst flood at Pothole Glacier, a surging glacier (Post, 1969) in the Nagishlamina River valley. 4.3.2.1.2. Blockade Glacier Near the south end of the Chakachamna Lake, near the location of the proposed powerhouse, Blockade Glacier (Figure 4.3-1) is of special interest because it contributes a large portion of the McArthur River's flow, which might influence the drainage and water levels of the river. Blockade Glacier originates in a very large snow and ice field high in the Chigmit Mountains south of Chakachamna Lake. This same ice cap area is also the source of several of the glaciers that flow to the south shore of Chakachamna Lake. These include Shamrock, Dana, and Sugiura Glaciers (Figure 4.3-1). Blockade Glacier flows southward out of the high mountains into a long linear valley, which trends NE&SW. Once in the linear valley, Blockade Glacier flows both to the northeast and to the southwest. The southwestern branch terminates in Blockade Lake, which is one of Alaska's glacier-dammed lakes and a source of outburst floods as described by Post and Mayo (1971). The northeastern branch of the glacier terminates near the mouth of the McArthur River Canyon and meltwater from the glacier drains to the McArthur River. Blockade Glacier is also of specific interest because one of its branches terminates near the mouth of the McArthur River Canyon, the proposed site for the powerhouse (Section 3.0). Changing conditions at the northeastern terminus of Blockade Glacier could conceivably change the drainage of the McArthur River to a degree that may influence conditions in the canyon. At its northeastern terminus Blockade Glacier is over two miles wide. Over about half of that width (the northern half) the glacier terminates in a complex of meltwater lakes and ponds that are dammed between the ice and Neoglacial moraines. The meltwater from the lake system PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-33 July 2009 drains to the McArthur River via one large and one small river that join and then flow into the McArthur River about 2.5 miles downstream from the mouth of the McArthur River Canyon. A complex of recently abandoned meltwater channels formerly carried flow to the McArthur River at the canyon mouth. On the basis of the reports that Blockade Lake produces outburst floods (Post and Mayo, 1971), it appears that the distinct features in the southern portion of the northeast terminal zone are present because this is the area where the outburst floods exit the glacier front. 4.3.2.1.3. Other Potentially Significant Glaciers In order to get a reasonably broad-based sense of the glacial record and history of recent glacier behavior in the Chakachamna Lake region, the Bechtel (1983) field reconnaissance included aerial and ground-based observations of a number of the glaciers in the region in addition to Barrier and Blockade Glaciers. Those glaciers included: Shamrock Glacier, Dana Glacier, Sugiura Glacier, and First Point Glacier along the south shore of Chakachamna Lake (see Figure 4.3-1 for locations) Harpoon Glacier and Pothole Glacier in the Nagishlamina River Valley Alice Glacier, Crater Peak Glacier, and Brogan Glacier on the slopes of Mt. Spurr above the Chakachatna River Capps Glacier and Triumvirate Glacier on the eastern slopes of Mt. Spurr McArthur Glacier in the McArthur River valley Post (1969) identified four surging glaciers in the Chakachamna study area (Figure 4.3-1). Three, including Pothole Glacier and Harpoon Glacier, are located in the Nagishlamina River Valley, a tributary to Chakachamna Lake, and one, Capps Glacier, is on the eastern slope of Mt. Spurr. Ponding and sudden draining of the impoundment upstream of the Pothole Glacier (a surging glacier) end moraine complex in the Nagishlamina River valley may be an episodic phenomenon that could produce flooding in the lower portions of that valley and thus a pronounced influx of water into Chakachamna Lake. Published USGS topographic maps show a small lake upstream of the end moraine, which with the exception of a narrow channel along the western valley wall, completely blocked the Nagishlamina River Valley. That lake is no longer present but there is clear evidence of its presence and the presence of an even larger lake in the recent past. Features on the floor of the lower Nagishlamina River Valley suggest recent passage of a large flood. Such a sudden influx of water into Chakachamna Lake could produce significant changes at the outlet from the lake. It may be that the 1971 flood on the Chakachatna River (USGS, 1972) was triggered by such an event, the stage having been set by the slow increase in the level of Chakachamna Lake in the years prior to the flood (Giles, 1967). 4.3.2.1.4. Implications with Respect to the Proposed Hydroelectric Project General implications with respect to the proposed Project derived from the assessment of the glaciers in the Chakachamna Lake area are summarized as follows: PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-34 July 2009 In the absence of the proposed Project, the terminus of Barrier Glacier is likely to continue to exist in a state of dynamic equilibrium with the Chakachatna River and to produce small-scale changes in lake level through time; the terminal fluctuations are likely to slow and decrease in size in the future, leading to a more stable conditions at the lake outlet. If development of the Project results in the flooding of the terminus of Barrier Glacier, the rate of disintegration is likely to increase. If hydroelectric development lowers the lake level, the debris-covered ice of Barrier Glacier is likely to encroach on and decrease the size of the river channel; a subsequent rise in lake level could yield conditions conducive to an outburst flood from the lake. Glacier damming of the Nagishlamina River Valley may result in outburst floods that influence conditions at the outlet from Chakachamna Lake. With the possible exception of Shamrock Glacier, the terminus of which may be affected by the lake level, there is no evidence to suggest that the proposed Project will influence the glaciers (other than Barrier Glacier) in the Chakachatna-Chakachamna Valley. However, changes in the mass balance of the glaciers will influence the hydrologic balance of the lake-river system. 4.3.2.2. Volcanic Activity Mt. Spurr is generally reported to be the northernmost volcano in a chain of at least 80 volcanoes that extends about 1,500 miles through the Aleutian Islands and along the Alaska Peninsula. Like Mt. Spurr, about half of the known volcanoes in the Aleutian Islands-Alaska Peninsula group have been historically active. The volcanoes of this group are aligned in a long arc that follows a zone of structural uplift (Hunt, 1967) and that lies immediately north of the subduction zone at the northern edge of the Pacific Plate. The volcanoes on the Alaska Peninsula developed on a basement complex of Tertiary period and pre-Tertiary period igneous, sedimentary, and metasedimentary rocks. The pre-volcanic rocks are poorly exposed in the Aleutian Islands. At the northern end of the chain the volcanoes developed on top of a pre-existing area of higher elevation. Mt. Spurr is the highest of the volcanoes in the group, with summit elevations decreasing to the south and west. The Alaska Peninsula-Aleutian Islands volcanic chain is in many ways similar to the group of volcanoes in the Cascade Range. Both ranges developed in already mountainous areas, both consist of volcanoes that developed during the Quaternary period and include historically active volcanoes. In both areas the volcanic rocks encompass a range of compositions but are dominantly andesitic, and both groups contain a variety of volcanic forms. The Alaskan volcanoes include low, broad shield volcanoes, steep volcanic cones, calderas, and volcanic domes. Much of the present volcanic morphology developed in late- and post-glacial time. 4.3.2.2.1. Mount Spurr The Mount Spurr volcano is an ice- and snow-covered stratovolcano complex located in the north-central Cook Inlet region about 60 miles west of Anchorage. The complex is an assemblage of volcanic landforms that include an ancestral Mount Spurr volcano, defined by an PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-35 July 2009 andesitic stratovolcano that has a summit caldera. Mount Spurr is a lava dome in the center of the caldera and Crater Peak is a small cone-shaped stratovolcano that formed in the breach on the south flank of Mount Spurr volcano (Figure 4.3-4). Mount Spurr is 11,069 feet high and sits within a nearly circular, 3-mile-diameter caldera. The caldera at Mount Spurr volcano was formed by collapse of the volcano summit during an eruption 10,000 to 4,000 years ago. Figure 4.3-4. Mount Spurr volcano, showing Crater Peak and lateral margins of Mount Spurr caldera structure. Also shown are Crater and Kidazqeni Glaciers, two prominent glaciers exiting breached caldera. View is toward north (Aerial photograph by Austin Post, September 1966) (Waymouth and Nye, 2002). Moullt SpU" caJderamargill\. .••....... /............... ~.,:;.~ . . . . . . . " .. ' . .. " • /" CralerP6a k • • tiI'.. .... PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-36 July 2009 Historical eruptions of Crater Peak occurred in 1953 and 1992. These eruptions were relatively small but explosive, and they dispersed volcanic ash over areas of interior, south-central, and southeastern Alaska. Pyroclastic flows that descended the south flank of Crater Peak during both eruptions initiated volcanic-debris flows or lahars that formed temporary debris dams across the Chakachatna River (Waythomas and Nye, 2002). Prehistoric eruptions of Crater Peak and Mount Spurr generated clouds of volcanic ash, pyroclastic flows, and lahars that extended to the volcano flanks and beyond. A flank collapse on the southeast side of Mount Spurr generated a large debris avalanche that flowed about 12.5 miles beyond the volcano into the Chakachatna River valley. Waythomas and Nye (2002) found that present caldera was formed during a major flank collapse of Mount Spurr volcano that either caused or resulted from a major eruption in late Pleistocene or early Holocene epochs. A discontinuous mantle of pyroclastic debris composed of high-silica andesite rests directly on the debris-avalanche deposits on the south flank of the volcano (Figure 4.3-5). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-37 July 2009 Figure 4.3-5. Simplified geology of Spurr volcanic complex (modified from Nye and Turner, 1990; cited in Waythomas and Nye, 2002). A future eruption of Mount Spurr from the Crater Peak vent can be expected, but the timing of the next eruption is uncertain (Waythomas and Nye, 2002). The primary hazards for the immediate Project vicinity would be lahars, lahar-runout flows, floods, ash fall, ballistic fallout, and pyroclastic flows. Lahars likely would inundate major drainages on Crater Peak and could produce lahar dams across the Chakachatna River. Failure of the lahar dams could then lead to flooding of the Chakachatna River valley, if large volumes of water become impounded above the dam. Thick accumulations of volcaniclastic sediment in affected valleys and drainages would occur and sediment-laden runoff could persist for months to years after the eruption. In general, hazards associated with volcanic eruptions are grouped as proximal or distal from the vent. Waythomas and Nye (2002) classified proximal and distal hazards resulting from a PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-38 July 2009 potential future eruption of Mt. Spurr based partly on the scale of the eruption. Life and property within the proximal hazard zone may be at risk during eruptions depending on the eruptive style and duration of activity. Distal hazards pose less risk to people because time for warning and evacuation is usually adequate. Volcanic ash, either in explosive eruption columns or ash clouds that drift far away from the volcano, can be both a proximal and a distal hazard. Fallout of volcanic ash also can be a proximal and a distal hazard. Figure 4.3-6 illustrates proximal hazard zones around Mt. Spurr. Figure 4.3-6. Extent of proximal hazard zones around Mount Spurr volcano. Red circles define hazard zones for H/L = 0.1 and H/L = 0.3, where H and L are fall height and runout length, respectively; they are centered on the presently active Crater Peak (Waythomas and Nye, 2002). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-39 July 2009 Lahars, Lahar-Runout Flows, and Floods Most of the volcanoes in Alaska support glaciers or are snow covered most of the year. During typical eruptions, hot pyroclastic debris expelled from the volcano interacts dynamically with the snowpack or glacier cover causing rapid, extensive melting and water production. As meltwater mixes with available unconsolidated volcanic debris, various types of flowage phenomena may occur on the volcano flanks and in stream channels and drainages downstream from the volcano. Most of these phenomena are categorized as debris flows or more specifically as noncohesive lahars. Lahars consist of a poorly sorted mixture of boulders, sand, silt, and water that has the consistency of wet concrete. As these lahars flow downstream, they typically transform into finer grained, watery flows, called hyperconcentrated flows or lahar-runout flows. Noncohesive lahar deposits of Holocene and Pleistocene age have been identified in the Chakachatna River valley and immediately south of Capps Glacier, and several lahars entered and blocked the Chakachatna River during the 1953 and 1992 eruptions of Crater Peak (Juhle and Coulter, 1955; Meyer and Trabant, 1995). Previously unrecognized lahar deposits on the south flank of Crater Peak indicate that three or four noncohesive lahars have formed in the 2,000 years prior to the 1953 eruption and most likely were initiated by eruptions similar to those in 1953 and 1992. Holocene eruptions of Crater Peak produced lahars that flowed into the Chakachatna River valley and formed temporary debris dams across the Chakachatna River (Figure 4.3-7). Lakes formed upstream from the lahar dams and eventually the lahar dams failed causing flooding of the Chakachatna River valley farther downstream. This formation and failure of volcanic debris dams on the Chakachatna River has likely happened during most if not all eruptions of Crater Peak. Although the lahars that blocked the Chakachatna River have not formed large lakes, the topography of the Chakachatna River valley in the area south of Crater Peak is steep and narrow, and if more voluminous lahars are generated during future eruptions, substantially larger lakes could form upstream. Waythomas and Nye (2002) suggest that if water depth of a lahar damned lake that extended upstream to Barrier Glacier approaches or exceeds the ice thickness of the glacier terminus, the ice dam may become unstable and fail leading to a large and possibly catastrophic flood of lake water down the Chakachatna Valley. The combined volume of Chakachamna Lake and a lahar- dammed lake big enough to overtop Barrier Glacier would be about 1.3 billion cubic yards and a flood with this volume would inundate significant parts of the Chakachatna River valley and probably reach Cook Inlet about 37 miles downstream (Waythomas and Nye, 2002). Typical lake volumes for lahar-dammed lakes in the upper Chakachatna Valley are about 13 million to 130 million cubic yards. Waythomas and Nye (2002) estimate that lakes of this size could produce maximum flood discharges in the range of 320,000 cfs to 4,767,480cfs where they exit the lahar dam. Floods of this size would be hazardous to areas of the Chakachatna River valley for at least 3 to 6 miles downstream of the lahar dam. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-40 July 2009 Figure 4.3-7. Lahar deposits on south flank of Crater Peak, lahar dams along Chakachatna River, and parts of lahar dammed lakes (near Crater Peak and Mount Spurr volcano) associated with 1953 (A) and 1992 (B) Crater Peak eruptions. Vertical aerial photographs taken in August 1954 (source unknown) and in September 1992 (by Aeromap, Inc.), respectively (cited in Waythomas and Nye, 2002). N t N t ~ Lahar deposits from 1953 eruplic I=--=--1 Lahar-dammed lake o I o I 2 MILES I 2 K ILOMETERS ~ Lahar deposits from 1992 eruptio K~I Lahar-dammed lake o I o Approximate limit of known lahar deposits of Holocene age 1 MILE I 1 KI LOME TER N t N t ~I Lahar deposits from 1953 eruplic 1-~ ~ Lahar-dammed l ake o I o I 2 MILES I 2 KILOMETERS ~ Lahar deposits from 1992 eruptio K~I Lahar-dammed lake o I o Approximate limit of known l ahar deposits of Holocene age 1 MILE I 1 KILOMETER PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-41 July 2009 Debris Avalanches Volcanic rock or debris avalanches typically form by structural collapse of the upper part of the volcano. Only one debris-avalanche deposit is known at Mount Spurr volcano, and it apparently represents a major collapse of the volcanic edifice during the caldera-forming eruption of the volcano. The debris avalanche deposit consists of angular unsorted gravel, boulders, and blocks of altered volcanic rock. The surface of the deposit is uneven and irregular and is characterized by an assemblage of closely spaced mounds and low hills. As the south flank of Mount Spurr volcano became destabilized, probably because magma was rising upward into the edifice, it slumped away from the volcano summit and flowed into the Chakachatna River valley as a large volcanic landslide. The debris-avalanche deposit travelled about 12.5 miles and blocked the Chakachatna River. Waythomas and Nye (2002) concluded that future debris avalanches this size are unlikely given the present location of the active vent at Crater Peak, which is a relatively small volume eruptive center. The cone-shaped edifice of Crater Peak is not obviously unstable, and alteration of the rocks exposed in the crater is not extensive. A major collapse of the cone is unlikely unless a very large amount of magma began rising through the crust toward the surface beneath the cone or beneath Mount Spurr. Thus, the hazard from debris avalanche is minor unless conditions at the volcano change significantly, and that is not expected. A hazard zonation analysis for debris avalanche at Mount Spurr is illustrated in Figure 4.3-8. Pyroclastic Flows and Surges A pyroclastic flow is a hot, dry mixture of volcanic- rock debris and gas that flows rapidly downslope. A pyroclastic surge is similar to and often occurs with a pyroclastic flow but has higher gas content. Pyroclastic flows are relatively dense and generally follow topographically low areas such as stream valleys. Any of the major drainages that head on Crater Peak could be engulfed by pyroclastic flows even during modest eruptions. Pyroclastic flows generated by the 1992 eruptions of Crater Peak flowed only a few miles down the southeast flank of the volcano. Pyroclastic flows and surges from most eruptions would be expected to reach at least several miles beyond the vent and could travel in almost any direction but are most likely to flow southeastward from the vent. The runout distance of pyroclastic flows is estimated to be between 7 to 10.5 miles (Figure 4.3-9). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-42 July 2009 Figure 4.3-8. Debris-avalanche hazard zones. Likely flow paths for future debris avalanches are for eruptions and activity at Crater Peak. Although unlikely, if magma is intruded beneath other sectors of volcano, flank collapse and debris avalanche could occur on other flanks of volcano. H, debris-avalanche fall height; L, debris-avalanche runout length. The H/L ratio for the only known debris-avalanche deposit at Mount Spurr volcano is 0.17 (Waythomas and Nye, 2002). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-43 July 2009 Figure 4.3-9. Preliminary Hazard Assessment for Mount Spurr Volcano (Waythomas and Nye, 2002). 152"00' 151"30' TyoneI<.l958 l!riiYeIsaI Trans_ Mercalor projection o ~ 10 15 MILES ,Cl ----,;--"-",c---"15~--C,,"' CKCllcCOMETERS Ii!m "'""" ~ ~ •••• •••• • '-' • Contour in t.......! variable, 100 and 200 feet EXPL ANATI ON A pp roximate extent of py roc last ic-f low deposits from 1992 erupUon of C rate r Pea k App roximate extent of block-and-ash-f low deposits from ancest ra l Mount Spu rr Area most li ke ly to be a ff ected by pyroc lasUc flows fo r p resent vent geomet ry Pyroc lastic-flow-hazard zone for Hit. = 0.2. Possible runout extent of pyroaastic flows fo r moderate to large erupUons of Crater Peak, where pyrodasUc fows are generated by dome co napse Pyroc lastic-flow-hazard zone for Hit. = 0.3. Possible runout extent of pyroaastic flows fo r sma ll to moderate eruptions 01 Crater Peak , whe re pyroc lastic lows are generated by dome col lapse l ike ly flow path of pyroc lastic flows from Mount Spu rr Mount Spu rr ca lde ra ri m C rate r Pea k cone Pyroc lastic-flow deposits of Holocene(?) age Ii!m ~ ~ ~ •••• •••• . , , . 152°30' 152"00' o ~ 10 1,5 MILES ,Cl --,;-~o.IFO:--"IF5:"~--:"'" CKClLcCOMETERS ContOUF in terval variable, 100 and 200 feet EXPL ANATI ON App roximate exlent of py roc last ic-f low deposits from 1992 eruption of C rate r Peak App roximate exlent of block-and-ash-f low deposits from ancest ra l Mount Spu rr A rea most li ke ly to be affected by py roc l astic flows fo r p resent vent geomet ry Pyroclastic-flow-hazard zone for HIL = 0.2. Possib le runout extent of pyroclastic flows fo r moderate to large erupUons of C rater Peak, where pyrodastic lows are generated by dome co ll apse Pyroclastic-flow-hazard zone for HIL = 0.3. Possible runout extent of pyroclastic flows fo r sma ll to moderate eruptions 01 Crater Peak , whe re pyroc lastic lows are generated by dome col lapse Like ly flow path of pyroc lastic flows from Mou nt Spurr Mount Spu rr ca lde ra ri m C rate r Pea k cone • Pyroclast ic-flow deposits of Holocene(?) age PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-44 July 2009 Directed Blasts A directed blast is a large-scale lateral volcanic explosion caused by a major landslide or slope failure that uncaps the internal vent system of the volcano. Such an event is rare in the history of a volcano. Although geologic evidence indicates that at least one major slope failure did occur at Mount Spurr, evidence for a directed blast has not been discovered (Waythomas and Nye, 2002). If a directed blast were to occur from Crater Peak, it could affect a broad area, possibly a 180° sector from the vent (Figure 4.3-10). A directed blast usually happens in the first few minutes of an eruption and thus there is no time for warning or evacuation once the eruption is imminent. Post and Mayo (1971) suggested that melting of glacier ice on Mt. Spurr during volcanic activity may present a serious hazard. Significant direct impact on Barrier Glacier could result from a summit eruption that included the flow of hot volcanics at least into the upper reaches of the glacier or the development of a new eruptive center (such as Crater Peak) west of the present summit. Although the character of the volcanoes in the Aleutian Island-Alaska Peninsula chain makes it clear that a very large event (i.e., a Mt. St. Helens--or even a Crater Lake-type event) is possibleat Mt. Spurr; such an event has a very low annual probability of occurrence at any given site. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-45 July 2009 Figure 4.3-10. The hazard-zone boundary showing the area most likely to be affected by a directed blast. Scenario is based on data from the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, which is considered to be to be a “worst case” example (Waythomas and Nye, 2002). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-46 July 2009 4.3.2.2.2. Implications with Respect to the Proposed Hydroelectric Project The types of volcanic event judged to be most likely to impact the Chakachatna River valley in the near future are: 1953or 1992-type debris flows which could inundate a portion of the valley and re- dam the river Lava flows, which could enter and dam the valley Large floods that would be produced by the melting of glacier ice during an eruption The potential impact of Mt. Spurr on the proposed Project would, in part, vary as a function of the Project design. Some potential for disruption will always exist because of the location of Mt. Spurr relative to Chakachamna Lake and the Chakachatna River. The amount of negative impact on the Project is a function of the size of volcanic event considered: larger events, which would have the greatest potential for adverse impact, are, in general, less likely to occur than smaller volcanic events. Some general possibilities that might be associated with low to medium- intensity events (such as a Crater Peak event or slightly larger) include: Damming of the Chakachatna River by lava or debris flows, with the most likely site being in the vicinity of the 1953 debris dam. Flooding of the terminus of Barrier Glacier may increase the rate of ice melt and possibly alter the configuration of the current lake outlet. Any Project facilities on the valley floor of the upper valley would be buried by the flow and/or flooded. Flooding of the Chakachatna River Valley as a result of the melting of glacier ice on Mt. Spurr during an eruption. Project facilities near or on the valley floor would be flooded. Accelerating the retreat of Barrier Glacier due to the flow of hot volcanic debris onto the glacier. In the extreme, Barrier Glacier could be eliminated if enough hot material flowed onto the ice. A less dramatic scenario could include destabilization of the lake outlet due to accelerated melting in the terminal zone of Barrier Glacier. In contrast, a large lava flow at the present site of Barrier Glacier could replace the glacier as the eastern margin of the lake, providing a more stable dam than that provided by Barrier Glacier. Each of the design alternatives considered by Bechtel (1983) and in TDX’s proposed configuration includes a lake tap in the zone between the lake outlet and First Point Glacier. Although it is generally true that a site farther from Mt. Spurr is less likely to be subject to volcanic hazards than a site closer to the volcano, there is no apparent reason to favor one particular site in the proposed zone over any other site in that zone. A large eruptive event, apparently substantially larger than any of the Holocene events on Mt. Spurr, would be required before the proposed lake tap site would be directly threatened by an eruption of Mt. Spurr. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-47 July 2009 4.3.2.3. Slope Conditions The Chigmit Mountains, south of Chakachamna Lake and the Chakachatna River, and the Tordrillo Mountains to the north contain many steep slopes and near-vertical cliffs, reflecting the mu1tipie glaciation during the Quaternary, including Neoglaciation that continues in the area today. The proposed Project is likely to include facilities in the Chakachamna Lake basin and either or both of the McArthur and Chakachatna River valleys. Any above-ground facilities in these areas would be on or immediately adjacent to steep slopes, and thus subject to any slope processes that may be active in the area. Future fieldwork should include detailed assessment of bedrock characteristics, such as joint orientations, that influence slope conditions. 4.3.2.3.1. Chakachamna Lake Area Chakachamna Lake sits in a glacially overdeepened basin that is generally bordered by steep slopes of granitic bedrock that was scoured during Naptowne and earlier glaciations. Locally, such as along the southern valley wall west of Dana Glacier (Figure 4.3-1), distinct bedrock benches are present. In other areas, the slopes rise, with only minor variation in slope from the lake level to the surrounding peaks. All principal valleys along the southern side of the lake presently contain glaciers. The principal valleys tributary to the north side of the lake, the Chilligan and Nagishlamina, are larger than those on the south side of the lake and are currently essentially ice-free, although their present form is clearly the product of glacial erosion. No evidence of large-scale slope failures of the slopes in the Chakachamna Lake basin has been observed (Bechtel, 1983). Most of the slopes are composed of glacially-scoured bedrock and are essentially free of loose rock debris, although talus is locally present. The orientation of joint sets in the granitic bedrock varies somewhat from area to area. Cross-cutting joints have formed boulder-size pieces and small slabs that produce rockfall as the only common type of slope failure identified in 1983. This condition is apparently most pronounced along the southern valley wall, between Sugiura Glacier and the lake outlet. 4.3.2.3.2. Chakachatna River Valley The Chakachatna River, from its origin at Chakachamna Lake to the mountain front, flows through a valley that is variable in its form and characteristics along its length and from side to side. Throughout the valley, the south side consists of steep glaciated granitic bedrock slopes that rise essentially continuously from the river to the adjacent mountain peaks. All major tributary valleys on the southern valley wall, many of which are hanging valleys, now contain glaciers. The comments regarding slope conditions on the slopes above the lake (section 4.3.2.3.1) apply to the southern wall of the Chakachatna River Valley. The north side of the valley differs from the south side in many ways. On the north side, bedrock is volcanic and glacial and fluvial sediments are also present. In the westernmost portion of the valley, the river is bordered by the Barrier Glacier moraine and alluvial fans; steep volcanic slopes above the alluvial fans are subject to rockfall activity. Between Alice Glacier (the area of the 1953 debris flow) and the valley mouth, the river flows through a narrow canyon, the north side of which consists of a variety of interbedded volcanics, glacial deposits, and fluvial PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-48 July 2009 sediments (Figure 4.3-2). The north canyon wall has been the site of several landslides that range in size from small slumps to large rotational slides. Such activity is likely to continue in the future, but its impact will most frequently be limited to the diversion of the main river course away from the north canyon wall. A large landslide, which appears to be unlikely given the height of the slopes, could completely dam the canyon; partial damming with temporary ponding appears to be a more likely possibility (Bechtel, 1983). As described in section 4.3.2.2.1 volcanic activity on Mt. Spurr could directly influence conditions along the Chakachatna River, or could, by slowly altering conditions along the north wall of the canyon, have a secondary impact on the valley. 4.3.2.3.3. McArthur River Canyon The geology in the area between the Chakachatna and McArthur river valleys has been formed from tertiary igneous intrusive rocks, mainly granitic, with topography characteristic of many higher altitude mountainous areas. This entire area is partially covered with glaciers, there is exposed rock near the peaks and the lower portions of slopes are covered with blocky rock talus. Based on information from previous studies and geologic mapping information, the bedrock comprises areas with relatively massive quartz diorite and less massive or blocky biotite granite. The McArthur River Canyon is a narrow, steep-walled glaciated valley. The proposed powerhouse site has been identified along the north wall of the canyon. The valley walls, which consist of granitic bedrock, expose a complex of cross-cutting joint sets and shear zones. The character and dominant orientations of the joints and shears vary along the length of the canyon and the character of the slopes also varies, apparently in direct response. Except near the canyon mouth, there is no evidence of large-scale slope failure; rockfall is the dominant slope process. Between the terminus of McArthur Glacier and Misty valley (Figure 4.3-1) the joint sets are of a character and orientation such that rockfall has been active and the bedrock on the lower slopes on the north valley wall are uniformly buried beneath a thick talus. The vegetation on the talus suggests that the bulk of talus development took place sometime soon after deglaciation and rockfall has been less active recently. The slopes between Misty and Gash valleys (Figure 4.3-1) consist of glacially-scoured bedrock that is essentially talus free, suggesting little or no rockfall in this area. From Gash Valley to the canyon mouth, the granitic bedrock appears to become progressively more intensely jointed and sheared and thus more subject to rockfall and small-scale slumping. Talus mantles the lower slopes in much of this area. A large fault zone (Section 5.3) is present at the canyon mouth. The fault has produced intense shearing over a broad zone that is now subject to intense erosion and is the site of several landslides. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-49 July 2009 4.3.2.3.4. Implications with Respect to the Proposed Hydroelectric Project As indicated in Section 4.3.3.2, the Castle Mountain fault crosses the McArthur River just outside the canyon mouth where the granitic bedrock has been badly shattered by fault movement. Surface examination reveals that the rock quality progressively improves with distance upstream from the canyon mouth and the best quality rock lies between Gash Valley and Misty Valley (Figure 4.3-1), beginning about 1.5 miles upstream from the powerhouse location presently shown on the drawings. A critical evaluation of the rock conditions in this area should be included in future studies and a site should be selected for drilling a deep core hole. Bechtel (1983) concluded that a powerhouse site at or immediately outside the canyon mouth would likely be in the fault zone and subject to fault rupture as well as high ground motions. In addition, facilities outside the canyon will be in Tertiary sedimentary rocks and glacial deposits, not granite. 4.3.3. Seismic Geology Work completed at the time of the Bechtel (1983) reports was as follows: A literature review, mainly relying on reports by Woodward Clyde for the Susitna and Bradley Lake hydroelectric projects Aerial photographs and imagery analyses to define potential lineaments A detailed field reconnaissance to check the lineaments, which also included a detailed review and ranking of all the lineaments From this work, seismic hazard sources can be identified as follows: Deep subduction zone events Shallow crustal zone events within the North American plate Moderate to shallow volcanic events 4.3.3.1. Regional Seismicity Alaska is the most seismically active State in the United States, and southern Alaska is a particularly active region. The 1964 Prince William Sound earthquake (Mw 9.2) is one of the three largest earthquakes to occur since the beginning of instrumental recording in the late 1800s. The 2002 Denali fault earthquake (Mw 7.9) is the largest onshore earthquake to strike the United States since the San Francisco earthquake of 1906. A number of great earthquakes (Richter surface wave magnitude Ms 8 or greater) and large earthquakes (greater than Ms 7) have been recorded during historic time. These earthquakes have primarily occurred along the interplate boundary between the Pacific and North American plates, from the Alaskan panhandle to Prince PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-50 July 2009 William Sound and along the Kenai and Alaska peninsulas to the Aleutian Islands. Among the recorded earthquakes are three great earthquakes that occurred in September 1899 near Yakutat Bay, with estimated magnitudes Ms of 8.5, 8.4, and 8.1 (Thatcher and Plafker, 1977). Ground deformation was extensive and vertical offsets ranged up to 47 feet (Tarr and Martin, 19l2); these are-among the largest known displacements attributable to earthquakes. Three zones along the plate boundary that have not ruptured in the last 80 years have been identified as “seismic gaps” (Sykes, 1971). These zones are located near Cape Yakataga, in the vicinity of the Shumagin Island, and near the western tip of the Aleutian Chain as shown in Figure 4.3-11. The Yakataga seismic gap is of particular interest to the Project because of its proximity to the site region. The rupture zone of a major earthquake filling this gap has the potential to extend along the subduction zone to the north and northwest of the coastal portion of the gap near Yakataga Bay (Bechtel, 1983). Figure 4.3-11. Segmentation of megathrust (Wesson, 2007). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-51 July 2009 The active faulting, seismicity, and volcanism of southern Alaska are products of the regional tectonic setting. The primary cause of the faulting and seismic activity is the stress imposed on the region by the relative motion of the Pacific lithospheric plate relative to the North American plate along their common boundary (Figure 4.3-12). The Pacific plate is moving northward relative to the North American plate at a rate of about 2.4 inches/year (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1981 and references therein). The relative motion between the plates is expressed as-three styles of deformation: High-angle strike-slip faults, as seen along the Alaska Panhandle and eastern margins of the Gulf of Alaska Underthrusting of the Pacific plate beneath the North American plate, as seen along the northern margins of the Gulf of Alaska, including the Cook Inlet area and the central and western portions of the Aleutian Islands Oblique thrust faulting, noted at the eastern end of the Aleutian Islands The Chakachamna Lake area is located in the region where the interplate motion is producing underthrusting of the Pacific- plate beneath the North American plate. This underthrusting results primarily in compressional deformation, which causes folds, high-angle reverse faults, and thrust faults to develop in the overlying crust. The boundary between the plates where underthrusting occurs is a northwestward-dipping megathrust fault or subduction zone. The Aleutian Trench, which marks the surface expression of this subduction zone, is located on the ocean floor approximately 270 miles south of the Chakachamna Lake area. The orientation of the subduction zone, which may be subdivided into the megathrust and Benioff zones (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1981), is inferred at depth to be along a broad inclined band of seismicity that dips northwest from the Aleutian Trench. The close relationship between the subduction zone and the structures within the overlying crust has implications on the effect of the tectonic setting on the Project. The subduction zone represents a source of major earthquakes near the site. Faults in the overlying crust, which may be subsidiary to the subduction zone at depth, are sources of local earthquakes and they may present a potential hazard for surface fault rupture. This is of special concern because the Castle Mountain, Bruin Bay, and several other smaller faults have been mapped near to the Project. Future activity on these faults may have a more profound effect on the seismic design of the Project structures than the underlying subduction zone because of their closer proximity to proposed Project site locations. TDX Power Pre-Application Document Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 12660 Figure 4.3-1 Plate Tectonics Map (Bechtel, 1983) PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-55 July 2009 4.3.3.2. Historic Seismicity of the Project Study Area There has been little, if any, definition of the seismic hazard in the Project area. The Bechtel (1983) study noted the absence of recorded earthquakes in the vicinity of Chakachamna Lake as of 1983. However, data from USGS indicates that there have been two events of magnitude 5.5 (Ms) within 15 miles of the site since 1988 (Figure 4.3-13). The Castle Mountain fault is one of the major regional faults in southern Alaska. It trends northeast to southwest and extends from the Copper River basin to the Lake Clark National Park, a distance of approximately 310 miles (Beikman, 1980) (Figure 4.3-14). The Castle Mountain fault crosses the mouth of the McArthur River Canyon near Blockade Glacier, and is reported to be an oblique right-lateral fault with the north side up relative to the south side. Between the Susitna and Chakachatna Rivers, the fault is less prominent but is marked by a series of slope breaks, scarps, sag ponds, lithologic contrasts, and locally steeply dipping, sheared sedimentary rocks that are generally flat to gently dipping away from the fault (Schmoll and others, 1981; Barnes, 1966). Southwest of the Chakachatna River, toward the Lake Clark area, the Castle Mountain fault is well defined and expressed by the alignment of slope breaks, saddles, benches, lithologic contrasts between plutonic and sedimentary rocks, shear zones, and a prominent topographic trench through the Alaska-Aleutian Range Batholith (Detterman and others, 1976b). Figure 4.3-13. Recorded earthquakes since 1973 where distance represents miles from Chakachamna Lake (USGS, 2008 in Hatch, 2008). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-56 July 2009 Three significant faults have been identified in the Project area. The Castle Mountain fault passes within a mile or less of the proposed Project facilities in the McArthur River drainage and within 11 miles of the proposed facilities at Chakachamna Lake. Haeussler (2002) reports two historic earthquakes on the fault include a magnitude 5.7 (Ms) earthquake in 1983 and a magnitude 4.5 (Ms) in 1986. The main trace of the fault shows evidence of three paleoseismic events in the past 2,100 years (Haussler, 2002). Evidence for displacement of Holocene deposits has been reported in the Susitna lowlands, in the vicinity of the Susitna River (Detterrnan and others, 1976a). The 2002 Denali earthquake resulted in changes to slip rate models of the central and eastern Denali and Totschunda fault; understanding of the Castle Mountain Fault was also updated to reflect a modeled slip of 2.9 mm/yr, compared to previous values of 0.5 mm/yr; the estimated characteristic or maximum magnitude was reduced from 7.5 (Ms) to 7.1 (Ms), resulting in a prediction of somewhat smaller but more frequent events arising from this fault (Figure 4.3-15) (Wesson, 2007). Haeussler (2002) estimates an average recurrence interval of approximately 700 years. Because it has been 600-700 years since the last significant earthquake, a significant earthquake in the near future is possible. The Bruin Bay fault lies Approximately 30 miles south to southwest of the proposed Project facilities at Chakachamna Lake and approximately 20 miles of the Project facilities in the McArthur River. Although no evidence has been observed or reported that would indicate youthful fault activity along the Bruin Bay fault, several of the lineaments observed by Bechtel (1983) are suggestive of youthful fault activity. On the basis of the lineaments along the projected trace of the Bruin Bay fault, and the fact that the fault is suspected to intersect with the Castle Mountain fault, the Bruin Bay fault is considered to be a significant geologic feature of the Project area. The Castle Mountain fault is located along the southeast side of the Chigmit Mountains at the mouth of McArthur Canyon. Although no displacements of Holocene deposits have been observed or reported for the segment of the Castle Mountain fault between the Susitna River and the Lake Clark area, the fault is considered an active fault on the basis of the reported displacement of Holocene deposits east of the project area in the vicinity of the Susitna River. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-57 July 2009 Figure 4.3-14. Tectonic and structural map of Cook Inlet basin showing major faults and anticlines (Bruin, 2006). Green triangle represents approximate location of proposed powerhouse. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-58 July 2009 Figure 4.3-15. Active crustal faults in south-central Alaska. The yellow line shows the surface ruptures associated with the 2002 Denali fault earthquake (Wesson et. al., 2007). Further studies are needed to assess the possible association of other historic earthquakes shown in Figure 5-7, with candidate significant features identified in the fault investigation phase of the Project study. Because of the proximity of the project site to active volcanoes of the Aleutian Islands-Alaska Peninsula volcanic chain, including Mt. Spurr, which is located immediately northeast of Chakachamna Lake, volcanic induced earthquakes are considered a potential seismic source. Active volcanism can produce small-to-moderate magnitude earthquakes at moderate-to-shallow depths due to the movement of magma or local adjustments of the earth's crust. Occasionally, severe volcanic activity such as phreatic explosions or explosive caldera collapses may be accompanied by significant earthquake events. Because such large volcanic events are rare, there is little data from which to estimate earthquake magnitudes that may be associated with them. However, because of the similarities in characteristics of the Mount St. Helens volcano to those of the Aleutian chain (including Mt. Spurr), it is reasonable to assume that earthquakes associated with the Mount St. Helens eruption of May 1980 may also occur during future volcanic activity of Mt. Spurr and others in the Aleutian chain. The largest earthquake associated with the Mount St. Helens explosive eruption that occurred on May 18, 1980 had a magnitude of 5.0 Ms. Numerous smaller earthquakes with magnitudes ranging from 3 to 4 Ms were recorded during the period preceding the violent rupture of Mount St. Helens (USGS, 1980). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-59 July 2009 4.3.4. Geological Conditions and Project Excavations 4.3.4.1. Power Tunnel and other Powerhouse Related Excavations The Powerhouse System excavations include the following: An intake excavation, including a deep-water lake piercing An approximately 10-mile-long, 21-foot-diameter bored tunnel; the tunnel will be unlined over the majority of the length and lined only in sections where the rock is not sound enough Concrete and steel lined penstock tunnels A vertical surge shaft at the start of the penstock tunnels An underground powerhouse chamber approximately 250 feet x 65 feet x 130 feet together with the transformer chamber The tailrace excavation including a 15 foot x 35 foot tunnel, underground surge chamber and outlet works Construction adits, as required to access the top and bottom of the powerhouse and other chamber excavations, and the surge shafts The proposed power tunnel alignment with the envisaged location of the powerhouse near the downstream end of the McArthur River minimizes the risk of obstruction due to a potential eruption of Mt. Spurr, as well as potential disruptions from glacier activity and avalanches and debris-flows. With our current understanding of the geology, in particular the faulting, the proposed power tunnel would follow an approximately NW-SE alignment, i.e., a straight line between the intake and the start of the penstocks. The geology along the proposed alignment, based on USGS mapping information in previous studies, is described as massive quartz diorite over approximately the Northern third of the tunnel length and medium grained biotite granite over the remaining two thirds of the alignment. The rock mass quality of the quartz diorite would thus be described as “very good” in tunneling terms. The biotite granite bedrock along the lower two thirds of the power tunnel and at the powerhouse includes sub-horizontal joints forming moderately sized rock blocks between 1 and 2 cubic yards, so that this rock mass quality would be described as “good”. Some areas of poorer rock are to be anticipated when the tunnel passes through or alongside fault zones. The depth of overburden in the area of the powerhouse complex is estimated to be approximately 65 to 100 feet. As indicated, the rock over the upper third of the tunnel comprises good quality, very strong, quartz diorite, which has widely spaced fractures and is described as “massive”. Since it is planned to use a tunnel boring machine (TBM), the results of petrographic thin sections which indicated quartz contents between 20 percent and 30 percent are important. This rock also has a PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-60 July 2009 high percentage of feldspar, another hard mineral. The biotite granite also has high percentages of quartz and feldspar. The proposed tunnel will follow an approximately NW-SE direction and probably will cross existing NW and NE striking joint families. It is anticipated that several fault zones varying in length up to 325 feet will be intersected. In the areas where the rock is of good quality, excavation should be carried out using a TBM with no rock support; in fault zone areas where the rock mass quality is not as good, the rock would be supported with pattern rock bolts and fiber- or mesh- reinforced shotcrete. A comprehensive geotechnical investigation program would be undertaken as part of the feasibility study to evaluate the lithology, jointing, the nature and orientation of major geological faults as well as the intact rock tensile and compressive strength, mineralogy, and abrasivity for designing the TBM. 4.3.4.2. Fish Tunnel Proposed fish passage facilities would allow upstream and downstream migration as well as maintain downstream flow releases. The proposed fish passage tunnel would be located on the southwest abutment connecting Chakachamna Lake to the Chakachatna River. As discussed in Section 1.1, USGS mapping information indicates the geology comprises good quality, very strong, quartz diorite, which has widely spaced fractures. Since it is also the plan to use a TBM for this tunnel, the high percentage of feldspar quartz is important. It is anticipated that the proposed fish tunnel and power tunnel will be bored with the same TBM, so the anticipated diameter of the fish tunnel would also be 21 feet. The fish tunnel would follow an approximate east-west direction, crossing one or more fault zones, which are expected to be between 15 feet and 60 feet wide. As in the case of the power tunnel, in areas of good quality rock, excavation would need very little rock support, whereas in the fault zones, supporting the rock with a combination of pattern rock bolts and reinforced shotcrete is anticipated. 4.3.5. Soils Due to the highly variable geology and topography in the area, soil properties vary greatly over short distances. Some of the soils are shallow overlying bedrock, whereas others on very steep terrain can be deeper. Low-lying areas often have wet soils with a high water table, whereas soils along the rivers are often composed of well drained coarse material. Unless otherwise noted, the information below was taken from the Soil Survey of Yentna Area, Alaska of 1982 (USDA-NRCS 1986), with updates from Web Soil Survey (USDA-NRCS 2009). Due to the broad-scale nature of the Yentna Survey and the limited geographic coverage of existing taxonomic information, soil taxonomy was excluded from the description, herein. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-61 July 2009 Generalized groupings of the soil in and around the Project area are described for purposes of identifying key soil functions and morphologies. These include the river basins and floodplains, tidal plains, alluvial fans and terraces, mountainous uplands, and glacial till plains. The glacial till plains are distinguished in subgroupings of moraines and mountain footslopes, toeslope of eastern bluff, and lowlands. Documented soil taxonomic classes and soil properties are provided in Appendix 4-1. 4.3.5.1. River basins and floodplains The river basins and floodplains are along the McArthur and Chakachatna Rivers. These rivers are of glacial origin and transport a heavy silt load seasonally. Where the flood plain is not controlled by bedrock, the rivers form a mass of braided channels. Overflow water during spring break-up fills the secondary channels. During the growing season, when flow is highest, channels meander and change location. The river channels range in elevation from 3,500 feet to sea level. Streams along Cook Inlet are influenced by tides. The soils in this grouping are flooded, washed, and reworked loamy and silty alluvium over sands and gravels. Textures range from moderately fine to coarse, depending on the proximity of the area to the source of the material. Soils of the river basins and floodplains are Hewitt, Hiline, Killey, Niklason, Susitna and Wasilla. They are distinguished by the depth to the high water table as well as the thickness of the loamy surface layer over the sandy and gravelly material. Because these soils formed from recent deposits, they exhibit no soil development. Vegetation is sparse in areas that are regularly reworked, but in areas that are less frequently disturbed, there is dense riparian vegetation consisting of willows, alders, balsam poplar, and bluejoint grass. In areas of frequent and continuous inundation, deep organic surface materials are found along with mosses, sedges, bog birch, forbs, and ericaceous shrubs. These areas are occasionally or frequently flooded. In the coarser soils, permeability is high, while in the highly organic soils, runoff water often ponds and the water table is at or near the surface. Erosion in the organic soils is minimal, but wind and water erosion are moderate to severe in the mineral soils, especially when devoid of vegetation. The risk of erosion in the these soils can be minimized by seeding roads, cutbanks, and landings, avoiding excessive disturbance on the soil surface, and maintaining permanent cover of native or adapted species. Roads built in these soils may encounter severe problems due to excessive wetness, frequent flooding, and extensive frost action. It is likely that these soils will serve well as a source for sand and gravel for road building elsewhere. Soils in this group are very acidic and the potential for corrosion of both steel and concrete is high. 4.3.5.2. Tidal Plains The tidal plain soils along Cook Inlet are fine, interlayered with organic matter, and poorly drained These soils are influenced by tidal effects as well as from overflow from adjoining freshwater streams. On the shore, old beach lines and high water marks can be seen, and driftwood is found in the soil or on the surface in most areas. Vegetation on the tidal plains PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-62 July 2009 consists of mosses, sedges, and rushes. These soils are frequently inundated: the high water table is often at the surface, or the soils have ponded water over the surface. In areas that are devoid of vegetation, wind erosion can be pronounced. These soils are unsuitable for building foundations or roads due to the risk of cutbank caving, excess humus in the soil, ponding at the surface, flooding, excessive wetness, subsidence, and frost action. They would not constitute a good source of construction materials. 4.3.5.3. Alluvial Fans and Terraces Gently sloping terraces, occasionally interspersed with escarpments between the levels, characterize this landform. The alluvial fans and terraces are located adjacent to streams and rivers, and are formed from sediments deposited by streams. The origin of most of the deposits is glacial outwash from adjoining mountain ranges (See Section 4.3.2.3). The coarse fragments originated from granite, andesite and basalt bedrock formations, whereas the volcanic ash- influence loess that mantles much of the Project area came from the adjacent volcanic mountains and glacial flour deposited in the river bottoms. These well-drained soils are mostly ash- influenced loess deposits over sandy and/or gravelly alluvium or firm glacial till. They are the most fertile soils in the area and support white spruce and paper birch forests with grasses and forbs as understory. Wetter areas of inclusion have alder, black spruce sphagnum moss, bog birch, and sedges. The soils included in this landscape group include the Chichantna, Kashwitna, Kroto, Nancy, Spenard, and Strandline soils, all of which have a water table at a depth greater than 72 inches. Wetter, poorly drained areas are Salamatof and Starichkof peat soils. Nancy soils tend to have well-developed spodic horizons. Erosion poses a severe hazard if these soils are cleared of vegetation, but the risk of erosion can be reduced if roads, cutbanks, and landings are seeded and stabilized with grass straw mulch. Buildings and access roads need to be designed to compensate for steepness of slope, and disturbed areas at construction sites need to be revegetated as soon as possible to reduce the hazard of erosion. Topsoil can be stockpiled and used to reclaim areas disturbed during construction. Other important considerations in designing footings and road bases in these soils include the depth to which frost penetrates, the root restricting feature of firm glacial till at a depth of 20 to 38 inches in some soils, and severe frost action in wet areas. The dryer and coarser-grained soils in this grouping work well for roadfill material and are likely good sources of sand and gravel for construction. These soils are poor sources of topsoil, as there contain small stones. These soils are acidic making them corrosive to steel and concrete. 4.3.5.4. Mountainous Uplands The mountainous uplands include steep mountain sides and mountaintops and areas of exposed bedrock at elevations to over 4,000 feet. The soils are formed of volcanic–ash influenced loess deposited over glacial till or bedrock. Due to erosion of the loess and microclimatic conditions at the time of deposition, the thickness of the loess mantle varies. Most of the soils are well- drained. The exceptions are soils adjacent to stream drainages and in depressional areas where PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-63 July 2009 firm glacial till restricts the downward movement of water and perches water in the loess layer. In sub-alpine areas, the ground surface is generally smooth, but alpine areas severe frost churning results in hummocks 6 to 24 inches high. In the sub-alpine grasslands (below about 2,000 feet), the natural vegetation is bluejoint grass with alders and forbs. The Puntilla and Kliskon soils of the sub-alpine grasslands contain large amounts of organic matter. Cool temperatures at these elevations slow decomposition of organic matter, resulting in the formation of thick organic-rich surface layers. These soils are found on mountainsides that range from 7 to 45 percent slope and have a water table that is deeper than 72 inches. In alpine areas, the vegetation includes lichens and mosses, with some prostrate shrubs, berries and forbs. The soils are Chuit and Nakochna, which have formed spodic horizons as the result of leaching of iron and aluminum in the silty loess mantle. Severe frost heaving causes mixing of the soil horizons so that soil organic matter is integrated into the lower portions of the soil profile. These soils are highly erodible if exposed to wind and water, especially in areas where the depth to the glacial till substratum is shallow and/or on steep slopes. The risk of erosion can be reduced by seeding roads, cutbanks, and landings, seeding cuts and fills and stabilizing with grass straw mulch, and revegetating disturbed areas at construction sites as soon as possible. Buildings and access roads need to be designed and constructed to compensate for steep slopes, and consideration needs to be given to the depth to which frost penetrates when designing footings and road bases. Topsoil can be stockpiled and used to reclaim areas disturbed during construction. Wet areas have severe frost heaving and are unsuited for building site development. These soils are not good sources for roadfill, sand, and gravel and may become excessively slippery when used for roads due to the volcanic-ash parent material. The risk of corrosion of steel and concrete is high due to the extremely acidic nature of these soils. 4.3.5.5. Glacial Till Plains The glacial till plains are between the alluvial plains and the mountainous uplands. This geomorphic grouping is the result of land shaping by glacial action and deposition of glacial material and occurs throughout the Project area. The glacial till plains have been further categorized into four sub-groupings: moraines and mountain footslopes, toeslope of the eastern boundary of the lowlands, upper reaches of the lowlands, and lower reaches of the lowlands. 4.3.5.5.1. Moraines and Mountain Footslopes This landform includes moraines, eskers, and drumlins that are sometimes widely separated by muskegs. The prominent relief forms are generally oriented in the direction of the advance and retreat of the glacier systems. Volcanic ash-influenced loess was deposited over a firm glacial till substratum in areas that support accumulation, such as convex landforms and those protected from wind scour. Where a loess mantle exists, spodic horizons have often formed and include the Strandline, Spenard, and Kroto soils. These soils support white spruce and paper birch PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-64 July 2009 forests, alders, bluejoint grass and forbs. Higher on the mountain sideslope is found the Puntilla soil, which supports mostly open grassland with alders, ferns and, forbs. In convex or depressional areas is the Chichantna soil, with vegetation that includes mosses, sedges, bog birch, and ericaceous shrubs. Soils found at lower elevations generally have a higher water table (from 0 to 6 inches below the surface), whereas soils farther up slope are well drained and have a water table at a depth greater than 72 inches. Steep slopes may have root restricting layers of firm glacial till at depths of 20 to 38 inches. Wind and water erosion are severe risks in exposed soils. Disturbances such as cutbanks, landings, and access roads need to be reseeded to reduce the risk of erosion, and may need to be stabilized with grass straw mulch. Compensating for steepness of slope is an important factor to consider when designing and constructing buildings and access roads. Wet areas may have severe frost heaving and be unsuited for construction. Consideration should be given to the depth at which frost penetrates in designing footings and road bases. Stone and boulder-size erratics may be present on or near the surface in some areas. These soils have a high quantity of fine particles and would be poor choices for construction materials such as sand, gravel, and roadfill. Subsidence may prove to be a problem in wetter and organic soils, and the risk of corrosion is high in all soils in this sub-group due to their acidic nature. 4.3.5.5.2. Toeslope of the Eastern Boundary of the Lowlands This area is unique in that the alluvial fans and terraces end rather abruptly along a bluff face. At the toe of this slope there is a high accumulation of runoff from above, and this bluff creates a boundary for the lowland hydrology. The soils in this area are highly variable due to the abrupt change in topography along this margin. The bluff face is composed of well-drained volcanic- ash influenced loess deposited over coarser-textured alluvium, colluvium, and glacial till substratum. These soils are the Kroto, Strandline, Cryorthent, Spenard, Susitna, and Niklason soils. At the toe of the bluff are muskegs, stream terraces, floodplains composed of peat over silty alluvium, coarse peat deposits, organic materials interlayered with ash-influenced loess, and stratified loamy alluvium over sandy and gravelly alluvium. The soils are Doroshin, Hewitt, Killey, Hiline, Lucile, Slamatof, Schrock, and Tyonek. Depth of organics is high, permeability moderate, and erosion hazards low in the organic soils. The mineral soils of the moraines, footslopes, alluvial terraces, and floodplains have a much higher risk of erosion and should be treated in a manner similar to those in the Alluvial Fans and Terraces landscape group. The toeslope area soils are poor choices for construction materials, and some of the more organic soils are at risk of subsidence of 10 to 60 inches. 4.3.5.5.3. Lowlands The upper reaches of the lowlands are well-drained soils similar to the Alluvial Fans and Terraces classification but have frequent inclusions of muskegs including the Hewitt, Slamatof, and Starichkof soils. These soils may have very deep organic layers (greater than 72 inches) or they may have strata of mineral material or underlying silty alluvium. The well-drained soils support white and black spruce and paper birch forest, alders, willows, grasses, and forbs, and the muskeg areas support mosses, sedges, bog birch, ericaceous shrubs, and forbs. Where ponding and shallow water table are not present, erosion is likely if the soil is cleared of vegetation. These soils are likely sources of sand and gravel for construction materials. The PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-65 July 2009 soils in this landscape sub-group frequently alternate between well-drained alluvium and muskegs. In transitional areas between very wet and dryer soils, evidence of observed soil characteristics that meet the regulatory standards for wetland soils (those with anaerobic conditions) may not be readily measurable or observable due to the volcanic-ash parent material. Saturated soils formed in volcanic ash-derived parent materials frequently present few or no observable hydric soil features (Clark and Ping 1997, McDaniel et al. 1997). In these cases, in- situ monitoring may be used to establish the presence or absence of anaerobic conditions. In the lower reaches of the lowlands, there is a greater frequency of muskegs composed of Slamatof, Starichkof and Hewitt soils, with greater risk of subsidence. The wet soils are poor sources of construction materials and unsuitable for use as building sites. 4.3.5.6. Soils not included in the Survey The Yentna Soil Survey does not include information on the soils in some portions of the proposed Project area. The soil survey did include the majority of the complex systems of soils where landscape groupings are intertwined. Outside the survey boundary, the landscape consists mostly of mountainous uplands and river basins, with some glacial till plains. Much of the mountainous portions of the area are bare rock and glaciers and have little or no soil present. The landscape groupings in Figure 4.3-16 are generalized based on overall characteristics of the soils. In reality, the categories described above are more descriptive than the groupings on the map. The soils in the Project area are fairly predictable within a certain landscape class. These landscape classes can be identified in finer detail on the ground than on the map. If an area is identified as belonging to a particular class, then the soils described as belonging to that class are likely to be found in that particular area. Although the Yentna Soil Survey did not describe the soils of the entire Project area, extrapolation based on landscape classes provides a reliable method to predict the types, characteristics, and development implications of the soil. It will still be important to consider certain site characteristics before disturbing or developing an area. Steep slopes are highly susceptible to erosion (water, wind, and mass movement) when vegetation is disturbed. If the surface and sub-surface soils are volcanic ash-derived loess, slopes of greater than 30-35 percent present a severe erosion hazard. Slope measurements will need to be taken to develop an erosion prevention plan. Many of the alpine and sub-alpine soils are shallow or consist of bedrock and may be difficult to revegetate and prevent erosion. Topsoil depth will need to be measured to ensure that at least 6 inches of soil is present, and if not, then topsoil will need to be collected from other areas and spread for proper regevetation. In areas with a high water table, subsidence is a severe hazard. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-66 July 2009 [This page intentionally left blank] Chilliga n R iv e r I g itn a R i v e r A nother River C h a k a c h a m n a Lake Nagishl a mi n a River N e a c o l a R i v e r Chakachatna River McArthu r Ri v er C o o k I n l e t Tyonek Old Tyonek Shirleyville Anchorage Author: HDR Alaska - BB Date: 5 June 2009 Sources: ESRI, , NRCS, USGS, HATCH Filename: FIG 4_3-16 soils-11x17.mxd 0510 Miles Map Extent Landscape Classes Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Graphic representation only. HDR makes no guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of source data. Figure 4.3-16 0510 Kilometers Landscape Classes Alluvial Fans and Terraces Lowlands Moraines/ Mountain Footslopes Mountainous Upland River Basins and Floodplains Tidal Plains Toeslope at Eastern Lowlands Lakes Rivers Ice Mass Generalized landscape groupings in project vicinity, based on overall characteristics of the soil PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-69 July 2009 4.3.6. Lake Shoreline and Streambanks HDR conducted a basic reconnaissance level survey of the McArthur River, Chakachamna Lake, and Chakachatna River areas in 2009. Descriptions of the shoreline and streambanks come largely from these observations, as well as historical reports (Bechtel, 1983). 4.3.6.1. Kenibuna Lake and Outlet Channel HDR (2009) noted that Kenibuna Lake appears to be shallow and choked with sediment where the Neacola River, Igitna River, and several small glacial tributaries from the south flow into the lake. Shamrock Glacier no longer appears to have any surface connection to Kenibuna Lake, although there may be some underground discharge from Shamrock Lake. In June 2008, extensive mudflats were visible along the margins of Shamrock Glacier and the Neacola River delta; the Neacola River delta was exposed nearly to the northern margin of the lake where the outlet of the Igitna River had formed a channel. In July, water was higher in Kenibuna Lake, and the mudflats were mostly under water (HDR, 2009). Kenibuna Lake is at a higher elevation than Chakachamna Lake (approximately 95 feet when Chakachamna is at its maximum water elevation) and is connected to Chakachamna Lake by an outlet channel that runs east-northeast for approximately 2.5 miles along the northern margin of the terminal moraine of Shamrock Glacier. The Kenibuna outlet is confined between the moraine and a steep bedrock slope, with no apparent flood bars or terraces along the northern stream bank (Figure 4.3-17). The channel is high gradient and swift, with a cobble and boulder substrate. According to the USGS topographic map, Shamrock Glacier extended to the moraine, and possibly the stream channel, along the upper half of the stream. In 2008, the glacier was observed to be over a mile from the moraine, and Shamrock Lake occupied the basin formed in front of the retreating glacier (HDR, 2009). HDR reported no evidence of ice-coring in the moraine anywhere along the Kenibuna outlet channel. In June, Kenibuna Outlet was generally confined to a single channel between Kenibuna Lake and Chakachamna Lake, with many dry side channels. In July, the upper mile was typically confined to a single channel, which then became braided for approximately 0.5 miles, and then became primarily confined again to a single main channel for the remaining mile. The lower portion of the outlet channel is contained in a single channel. However, several mid- channel islands and exposed flood bars were observed near the outlet in June. Many of the exposed flood bars observed in June were submerged in July. HDR (2009) crossed the upper half of the channel by foot in July, and observed that the main channel filled the entire floodplain. The moraine crests along the upper half of the channel were heavily vegetated with alder and occasional spruce trees. The moraine was of a somewhat lower relief than that along the downstream half of the channel, allowing the stream to braid in places. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-70 July 2009 During the July and August trips, most unvegetated areas were under water, and side channels extended about 1,000 feet from the main channel in the braided portion of the channel. The poorly defined side channels were shallow in the flat, low-lying areas and could often be crossed by hopping from boulder to boulder. Many of the larger boulders were angular, similar to boulders in the moraine crests along the channel edges (HDR, 2009). In June, the southern margin of the channel in the lower single-braid reach was a uniformly armored bouldery surface with no vegetation, approximately 160 feet wide, and appeared to suffer regular scouring. Other than this bare surface, there were no apparent abandoned surfaces or terraces that indicated continual down-cutting in the lower portion of the channel. Although on-the-ground observations were limited to only a few areas, it appeared this lower section, along with the upper braided section, contained a variable fish habitat with slower water and more cover, whereas the middle section was generally too swift and bouldery to offer suitable fish habitat. Based on limited observations, the lower section of Kenibuna Lake outlet appears to contain suitable salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. Because this channel connects Kenibuna Lake and the Lake Clark National Park drainages with Chakachamna Lake, the potential effect of lake drawdown on this channel is an issue (HDR, 2009). The portion of the channel above normal low-water surface is armored with large cobbles and boulders from the adjacent moraine and appears stable. There is no evidence of major channel changes since the glacier retreated and the moraines established their current geometry. There were no easily erodible bed or bank materials evident. However, the substrate and geometry of the outlet channel between the low-water level observed in June and the maximum proposed drawdown is unknown. Bathymetric surveys and lake cores will need to be taken to evaluate the potential effects of drawdown on channel stability and fish passage. If the substrate is erodible or the gradient is too steep in the proposed low-water channel, an engineered channel may be necessary to assure fish passage (HDR, 2009). Figure 4.3-17. Comparison photos of the Kenibuna outlet channel as observed during low water (June) and high water (July) visits in 2008. Photos by HDR Alaska. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-71 July 2009 4.3.6.2. Shamrock Lake and outlet channel Shamrock Lake has nearly the same surface area as Kenibuna Lake, and may be deeper (HDR, 2009). The lake is rimmed by steep-sided, unvegetated moraines on the southwestern and northeastern ends, and a lower, well-vegetated terminal moraine from an earlier advance of the glacier on the northern margin along the outlet channel. The well-vegetated moraine front did not show any evidence of remaining ice-cores. One large, dry kettle hole was encountered on the moraine during ground reconnaissance. The Shamrock Lake outlet channel drains from Shamrock Lake into Chakachamna Lake at the southeast corner of the lake, apparently in the same location as that mapped on the USGS topographic map. HDR (2009) surveyed downstream along the channel where it drains into Chakachamna Lake. The substrate consisted primarily of boulders, large cobbles, and some gravels, with a steep bank along the north side. 4.3.6.3. Chakachamna Lake Chakachamna Lake is within a steep-sided glacial valley over 1,000 feet in elevation. The steep slopes are of granitic bedrock that was scoured during Naptowne and earlier glaciations (Bechtel, 1983). Localized distinct bedrock benches are present. The principal tributaries on the north side of the lake are larger than those on the southern side and are the product of glacial erosion (Bechtel, 1983). The lake is partially dammed at the outlet by Barrier Glacier, which descends from over 10,000 feet on Mt. Spurr. The Barrier Glacier currently terminates in an ice-cored moraine at lake level. The portion of the moraine that blocks the lake is south of the main ice stream. Evidence indicating that the moraine is still largely cored by ice includes: meltwater ponds on the surface, small streams exiting the moraine front without apparent surface drainage, and slumps with exposed ice cliffs. No ice was visible in the cut bank adjacent to the outlet; however, several small seeps were seen running down the bank. Even if ice is not directly confining the stream, the moraine that does face the outlet is buttressed by ice to some extent. The majority of the shoreline of Chakachamna Lake is composed of granite cliffs and steep hillside. Lake beaches are associated with alluvial fans at the tributary inputs. HDR (2009) noted that these fans were much more extensive in June than in later months in which up to 80 percent of the beaches previously observed were submerged. Several tributaries on the south shore are still filled with glaciers, although all of these appear to have retreated from terminal moraines at lake level. The only glaciers to contribute to the north side of the lake descend directly from Mt. Spurr. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-72 July 2009 4.3.6.4. Stream Banks 4.3.6.4.1. Neacola River The Neacola River flows into the southwest end of Kenibuna Lake, and the delta built at its outlet appears to fill over half of the original lake basin. The lower section of the river is extensively braided. The drainage basin is heavily glaciated, and the river carries an enormous amount of mostly fine sediment into Kenibuna Lake (HDR, 2009). This river is entirely within Lake Clark National Park and was not surveyed by HDR. 4.3.6.4.2. Igitna River The Igitna River enters Kenibuna Lake from the northwest and is almost entirely within Lake Clark National Park. Only the lower 1.8 miles were viewed from the air. The river is composed of multiple braided channels near its discharge point into Kenibuna Lake, is confined to one channel beginning about 1 mile upstream, and flows through a narrow bedrock gorge beginning about 2 miles upstream. Some off-channel fish habitat was observed in the lower reaches. The Igitna River basin is located in a rain shadow, and has lower precipitation and fewer, smaller glaciers than the southern tributaries to Chakachamna Lake. Because of the smaller glacial influence, Igitna water is less silty than Kenibuna or Chakachamna lakes or the Chakachatna River. 4.3.6.4.3. Chilligan River The Chilligan River is the longest tributary stream to Chakachamna Lake, at about 24 miles. Similar to the Igitna River watershed, the Chilligan watershed is in a rain shadow behind Mt. Spurr and has lower precipitation and less glacial runoff than southern tributaries. During the July 2008 visit, the lake backwater extended over a mile upstream from the river's outlet. The Chilligan River is extensively braided near its mouth, and becomes a single-braided stream about 5 miles upstream. The channel becomes more confined farther up the river valley. 4.3.6.4.4. Noaukta Slough Area Noaukta Slough is a broad, highly anastomosed, placid waterway that flows about 5 miles from the mainstem Chakachatna River to McArthur River. There are three to five main channels that diverge and converge over a 1.5-mile-wide braidplain that includes many smaller side channels. 4.3.6.4.5. McArthur River One of the proposed tailrace locations is about 4 miles downstream of McArthur Glacier in a steep-sided glaciated valley (Bechtel, 1983). The active braided channel of the McArthur River occupies 50 to 100 percent of the width of the valley bottom. The remainder is vegetated with uniform-aged alder and cottonwood (HDR, 2009). The river water was slightly silty in June and opaque in July during higher runoff. The banks and streambed are composed of micaceous sand and granitic cobbles, with very few boulders. The broad braided channel has a capacity for carrying higher flows without altering the floodplain here. No juvenile fish were observed in this PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-73 July 2009 area and likely do not occupy this area because of poor habitat conditions resulting from relatively cold water and little to no instream cover. Except near the canyon mouth, there is no evidence of large-scale slope failure, and rockfall is the dominant slope process (Bechtel, 1983). Between the terminus of McArthur Glacier and Misty Valley the joint sets are of a character and orientation such that rockfall has been active and the bedrock on the lower slopes on the north val1ey wall are uniformly buried beneath a thick talus. The vegetation on the talus suggests that the bulk of talus development took place sometime soon after deglaciation, and rockfall has been less active recently (Bechtel, 1983). The slopes between Misty and Gash valleys consist of glacially-scoured bedrock that is essentially talus free, suggesting little or no rockfall in this area (Bechtel, 1983). About 6.5 miles downstream of the glacier, the braidplain narrows and the floodplain is forested. This may be because of the greater distance from the sediment source (McArthur Glacier). The valley bottom narrows near the mountain front and the braided channel merges into a single channel. Wetlands and beaver ponds occur on the south (right) side of the river. About nine miles downstream from the glacier, the floodplain becomes much broader, and multiple abandoned and revegetated channels flank the active channel. Clear-water channels with beaver dams are extensive north of the river near the confluence with the Blockade Glacier tributary. This more confined section of McArthur River and floodplain is most likely to be influenced by increased flows from interbasin transfer. An unnamed clear-water tributary was flown during the August survey. According to the USGS maps from the mid 1950s, this tributary entered the McArthur River via the Noaukta Slough, but it now enters the McArthur River directly. This unnamed tributary begins on the west side of the refuge at the toe of a mountain slope and extends for approximately 10 miles to its confluence with the McArthur River. The upper 2- 3 miles of the stream are somewhat steep in gradient, 4-5 percent, with a larger cobble bolder substrate. This steeper channel changes to a highly sinuous lower gradient channel consisting of a gravel and eventually white volcanic sand substrate in the lower 4 -5 river miles. 4.3.6.4.6. Chakachatna River At the outlet of Chakachamna Lake the channel is defined by bedrock cliffs along the south side and the Barrier Glacier moraine on the north side. HDR (2009) noted a well-defined water line that was visible approximately 5 feet above the water level on the bedrock cliffs (south side) in June. This water mark was no longer visible in July. Unlike the Kenibuna outlet channel, the Chakachatna River channel shows evidence of past horizontal and vertical movement. Evidence of such movement exists in the form of terraces high above river level, perched tributary fans graded to higher river levels, and many abandoned and revegetated channels where the valley bottom is broad enough to contain them. These features are expected given the various glacial and volcanic events that may have introduced PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-74 July 2009 sediment and floodwaters or temporarily blocked the channel over the past several thousand years. The north side of the valley differs from the south side in significant ways: the bedrock is volcanic, and glacial and fluvial sediments are also present. The westernmost portion of the river is bordered by the Barrier Glacier moraine and alluvial fans; steep volcanic slopes above the alluvial fans are subject to rockfall activity. Between Alice Glacier (the area of a 1953 debris flow) and the valley mouth, the river flows through a narrow canyon, the north side of which consists of a variety of interbedded volcanics, glacial deposits, and fluvial sediments (Bechtel, 1983). Several boulder rapids occur along the river and form low-flow control sections. The first set of rapids, approximately 0.8 miles downstream of the outlet, is just downstream of the narrows formed by Barrier Glacier and may be a remnant of the moraine dam from Barrier Glacier. Below this, the river is relatively placid for about 4 miles (HDR, 2009). The next set of boulder-rapids is approximately 5 miles downstream of the outlet, just below Crater Peak, where it appears that the lahars of 1953 and 1992 debouched into the Chakachatna River and dammed it for a short period. The lahar deposit impinges on the channel and during the June field visit a long section of still water was ponded above the deposit, indicating that the lahar still creates a significant control of channel elevation here. A second tributary from Crater Peak enters the river about 2 miles below the onset of the rapids. Thick, bouldery deposits from this tributary extend the rapids to a total of over 2.5 miles. Boulders were exposed in the rapids in June 2008, but mostly submerged in July. In July, runoff from the Crater Peak tributaries was noticeably darker and more opaque than the Chakachatna River. The color of the Chakachatna River was browner below the tributaries. Seven miles downstream of the outlet, the river valley broadens significantly, from an average of less than 1,000 feet wide to over 3,000 feet wide. The river occupied the northern margin of the broad braidplain during both field visits. 4.3.7. Potential Adverse Impacts There are no known Project-related impacts to soils and geology at this time. However, reconnaissance level site investigations indicated several potential impact issues associated with development and operation of the Project. These potential adverse impacts are listed in Table 4.3-1, by category of impact. Table 4.3-1. Potential geology and soils impact issues that relate to wildlife and botanical resources. IMPACT ISSUE CATEGORY IMPACT ISSUE Possible down-cutting of channel between Kenibuna and Chakachamna Lakes and subsequent lowering of Kenibuna Lake levels as a result of Project operations Related to Increased Chakachamna Lake Water Level Fluctuation Possible down-cutting of fluvial fan at outlet of Naglishlamina River as a result of Project operations. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-75 July 2009 IMPACT ISSUE CATEGORY IMPACT ISSUE Impact of long periods of lake drawdown on the erosive effects Chakachatna River on the Barrier Glacier; potential for increased likelihood of outburst floods. Potential for flooding of terminus of Barrier Glacier and impact on rate of disintegration of glacier Potential impacts of Project operations on sediment transport and deposition in Kenibuna Lake and associated impacts on the Neacola River, Igitna River, and Another River deltas. Impact of lake level fluctuations on shoreline erosion Related to Flow Reduction in the Chakachatna River Impact on stream morphology and channel maintenance, especially in the intertidal wetland area. Impact on stream morphology and channel maintenance, especially in the intertidal wetland area. Potential for Project operations to contribute to erosion in the McArthur River Related to Flow Increase in the McArthur River Potential impact of increased flows on terminus of the Blockade Glacier Potential contribution of road and transmission line construction to erosion in the Project area Related to Roads and Transmission Lines Potential contribution of road and transmission line operation to erosion in the Project area Related to Power Tunnel Construction Construction related impacts – deposition of tunnel excavation material 4.3.8. Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures There are no proposed PMEs related to geology and soils at the Project at this time. The potential need for PME measures will be evaluated during the licensing process. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-76 July 2009 4.4. Water Resources 4.4.1. Introduction Hydrological field studies were conducted for Chakachamna Lake, several of its tributary streams, and the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers in 1981, 1982, and 1983. The results of these hydrological studies and presentation of historical hydrometeorological data are documented in Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Assessment Report, Volumes I, II, and III, dated March 1983, and IV Addendum, dated October 1983, prepared by Bechtel Civil and Minerals, Inc. Pertinent water resource information from this report is provided throughout this section referenced as Bechtel (1983). The USGS Gaging Station No. 15294500 is located on the right bank of the Chakachatna River, close to the outlet of Chakachamna Lake at latitude 61 degrees 12 minutes 44 seconds, longitude 152 degrees 21 minutes 26 seconds (NAD27), gage datum 1,125.1 feet above sea level (NGVD29). Drainage area for the gage is 1,120 square miles. The gage records include Chakachamna Lake outflow data for 13 years and 5 months from May 21, 1959 to September 30, 1972. This information is presented here in Section 4.4.4, Project Streamflow Data. 4.4.2. Drainage Basin Hydrology 4.4.2.1. Chakachatna River Basin The Chakachamna Lake drainage basin covers about 1,120 square miles, and ranges in elevation from 1,150 feet at the lake outlet to over 10,000 feet at the summit of Mt. Spurr. The area of lakes and ponds in the drainage basin providing storage is 2 percent, and the forested area is 17 percent. The mean annual precipitation is 80 inches and the mean minimum January temperature is 17.8 degrees C (Curran, Meyer, and Tasker 2003). Three lakes separated by the Shamrock Glacier moraine occur in the same basin: Chakachamna Lake (28 square miles), Shamrock Lake (3 square miles) and Kenibuna Lake (3 square miles). Major tributaries to Kenibuna Lake include the Neacola River and Igitna River. Major tributaries to Chakachamna Lake include the Chilligan River and Nagishlamina River. Several glaciers feed into Chakachamna Lake, the largest of which is Barrier Glacier, which forms the lake outlet, and Shamrock Glacier, which impounds Kenibuna Lake (Bechtel, 1983). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-77 July 2009 4.4.3. Project Streamflow Data This section contains streamflow as summarized by Bechtel (1983) and reexamined by MWH Global (2009). 4.4.3.1. USGS Recorded Chakachamna Lake Outflows USGS gage 15294500, Chakachatna River near Tyonek, existed at the outlet of Chakachamna Lake from June 1959 through September 1972. The period of record flow data (in cubic feet per second or cfs) at this gage is presented in Table 4.4-1. The monthly flow volumes (in acre-feet) for this same data are presented in Table 4.4-2. Table 4.4-1. Average flows (cfs) at USGS Gage 15294500, Chakachatna River near Tyonek. Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1959 ---- - ---- - ----- ---- - ----- 7,685 10,990 10,960 5,758 2,022 992 658 ----- 1960 504 381 325 250 1,483 6,368 10,500 10,300 4,364 1,800 1,116 882 3,214 1961 817 780 544 394 876 5,673 12,090 12,330 6,989 2,638 1,200 730 3,782 1962 690 630 540 470 620 5,222 13,000 11,060 6,904 1,827 1,144 744 3,597 1963 553 387 361 332 748 3,441 12,640 12,240 7,373 2,768 1,384 1,007 3,634 1964 618 436 424 370 471 6,278 10,590 12,030 5,654 2,026 1,090 852 3,428 1965 620 449 360 350 525 2,114 10,020 13,180 10,260 4,072 1,180 650 3,677 1966 480 400 350 350 615 5,995 10,040 10,310 7,145 3,790 1,100 820 3,472 1967 600 500 430 380 936 6,616 14,380 16,610 7,333 2,939 1,565 947 4,474 1968 626 535 490 511 1,695 6,190 12,580 12,170 4,369 1,552 939 723 3,562 1969 639 550 500 533 1,003 6,548 13,100 8,416 3,347 3,098 1,822 1,006 3,407 1970 705 568 550 625 1,285 4,893 9,960 8,884 3,587 2,201 1,247 829 2,968 1971 532 467 467 692 2,381 10,930 14,470 16,710 4,513 1,351 902 726 4,548 1972 586 484 447 481 907 4,294 12,860 12,750 6,995 ----- ----- ----- ----- Avg 613 505 445 441 1,042 5,875 11,944 11,996 6,042 2,468 1,206 813 3,644 Max 817 780 550 692 2,381 10,930 14,470 16,710 10,260 4,072 1,822 1,007 4,548 Min 480 381 325 250 471 2,114 9,960 8,416 3,347 1,351 902 650 2,968 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-78 July 2009 Table 4.4-2. Flow volume (acre-feet) at USGS Gage 15294500 – Chakachatna River near Tyonek.. Drainage area is 1,120 square miles. Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1959 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 457,300 675,700 673,900 342,600 124,300 59,000 40,400 ----- 1960 31,000 21,100 20,000 14,900 91,200 378,900 645,600 633,300 259,700 110,700 66,400 54,200 2,327,000 1961 50,300 43,300 33,400 23,400 53,900 337,600 743,400 758,100 415,900 162,200 71,400 44,900 2,737,800 1962 42,400 35,000 33,200 28,000 38,100 310,700 799,300 680,100 410,800 112,300 68,100 45,800 2,603,800 1963 34,000 21,500 22,200 19,700 46,000 204,800 777,200 752,600 438,700 170,200 82,400 61,900 2,631,200 1964 38,000 24,200 26,100 22,000 29,000 373,600 651,200 739,700 336,400 124,600 64,900 52,400 2,482,100 1965 38,100 24,900 22,100 20,800 32,300 125,800 616,100 810,400 610,500 250,400 70,200 40,000 2,661,600 1966 29,500 22,200 21,500 20,800 37,800 356,700 617,300 633,900 425,200 233,000 65,500 50,400 2,513,800 1967 36,900 27,800 26,400 22,600 57,500 393,700 884,200 1,021,300 436,300 180,700 93,100 58,200 3,238,700 1968 38,500 29,700 30,100 30,400 104,200 368,300 773,500 748,300 260,000 95,400 55,900 44,500 2,578,800 1969 39,300 30,500 30,700 31,700 61,700 389,600 805,500 517,500 199,200 190,500 108,400 61,900 2,466,500 1970 43,300 31,500 33,800 37,200 79,000 291,200 612,400 546,300 213,400 135,300 74,200 51,000 2,148,600 1971 32,700 25,900 28,700 41,200 146,400 650,400 889,700 1,027,500 268,500 83,100 53,700 44,600 3,292,400 1972 36,000 26,900 27,500 28,600 55,700 255,500 790,700 784,000 416,200 ----- ----- ----- ----- Avg 37,700 28,000 27,400 26,300 64,100 349,600 734,400 737,600 359,500 151,700 71,800 50,000 2,638,100 Max 50,300 43,300 33,800 41,200 146,400 650,400 889,700 1,027,500 610,500 250,400 108,400 61,900 3,292,400 Mini 29,500 21,100 20,000 14,900 29,000 125,800 612,400 517,500 199,200 83,100 53,700 40,000 2,148,600 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-79 July 2009 Flow data for the Chakachatna River are needed for two primary purposes:(1) establishing a record of existing flow and environmental conditions on the river and (2) providing the necessary basic flow data from which Project operation and generation studies can be performed. The gage at the Chakachamna Lake outlet is the only USGS gage that has existed on the Chakachatna River. Whereas other project-related flow gages have been established on the Chakachatna River for environmental studies, the period of record was too short and the number of flow measurements too few to be useful in extending the period of record at USGS Gage 15294500. In 2008, TDX contracted with USGS to reestablish the gage at the Chakachamna Lake outlet; these data will useful in extending the period of record as the licensing process for the Project proceeds. Within the June 1952 through September 1972 period of record at gage 15294500 there have been several periods of no gage-height record, some lasting for several consecutive months. The USGS has developed estimated flows for the period of no gage-height records to provide a continuous period of record. All of the data published by the USGS were used in the hydrologic analysis described in this section. Table 4.4-3 provides flow frequency data based on the daily flow records at gage 15294500. The data for each month represent a flow duration curve for that month. The data are presented at 5 percent exceedance intervals, except at the high and low flows where 1 percent exceedance intervals were used to provide additional resolution where flow duration curves changes rapidly. The highest flow of 90,000 cfs during August was due to a sudden release of stored water in Chakachamna Lake when a portion of the terminus of Barrier Glacier eroded away. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-80 July 2009 Table 4.4-3. Flow (cfs) frequency at USGS Gage 15294500 – Chakachatna River near Tyonek. % of Time Flow is Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Exceeded (all months) 0 990 890 678 1,000 5,980 19,000 19,800 90,000 14,000 9,240 2,590 1,300 90,000 1 950 870 663 900 5,000 18,000 18,400 25,000 13,200 7,290 2,420 1,200 17,000 2 850 840 610 800 4,200 14,500 17,800 20,100 12,900 6,390 2,150 1,200 15,500 3 820 800 570 750 3,400 13,000 17,500 19,500 12,000 5,970 1,880 1,100 14,400 4 800 768 550 700 3,100 12,300 17,000 18,400 11,700 5,380 1,850 1,100 13,800 5 800 747 550 700 2,850 11,800 17,000 17,200 11,000 4,500 1,800 1,080 13,000 10 740 630 550 600 1,900 11,000 15,800 15,500 10,000 3,890 1,580 1,020 11,300 15 690 630 540 550 1,700 9,630 14,900 14,800 9,690 3,400 1,450 1,000 10,000 20 690 550 512 550 1,430 8,940 14,000 14,000 8,670 3,150 1,400 938 8,000 25 690 550 500 500 1,270 7,760 13,500 13,100 7,900 2,900 1,340 900 5,500 30 664 550 500 480 1,100 6,740 13,000 13,000 7,200 2,700 1,300 860 3,630 35 650 540 480 480 1,000 6,350 13,000 12,500 6,690 2,510 1,240 838 2,500 40 628 500 460 470 940 6,000 12,900 12,000 6,400 2,400 1,200 820 1,800 45 600 500 460 448 802 5,530 12,600 12,000 6,000 2,300 1,200 820 1,330 50 600 500 450 400 760 5,320 12,000 11,500 5,520 2,120 1,160 800 1,100 55 600 480 440 370 700 4,890 11,400 11,100 5,060 2,100 1,100 762 900 60 598 460 430 370 670 4,260 11,000 11,000 4,700 2,000 1,100 750 760 65 560 460 430 360 622 3,590 11,000 10,800 4,360 1,880 1,080 730 690 70 550 440 374 350 540 3,200 10,600 10,300 4,300 1,720 1,020 730 600 75 550 420 360 350 470 2,720 10,300 9,760 3,870 1,620 974 718 550 80 530 400 360 350 440 2,400 10,000 9,430 3,490 1,540 959 700 500 85 500 400 350 342 420 2,300 9,400 8,840 3,210 1,480 923 662 460 90 480 390 350 328 380 2,000 8,780 8,550 2,910 1,370 896 650 400 95 480 380 330 260 370 1,620 8,070 7,380 2,600 1,210 850 650 360 96 480 376 330 260 368 1,540 7,940 6,750 2,480 1,200 850 600 350 97 480 360 320 240 357 1,350 7,380 6,130 2,400 1,140 840 590 350 98 480 360 320 240 310 1,300 6,050 5,740 2,300 1,100 837 590 340 99 476 360 320 240 310 1,280 5,020 4,850 2,200 1,000 826 590 320 100 438 360 320 240 310 1,000 4,430 4,390 2,010 1,000 802 590 240 Figure 4.4-1 is a plot of the monthly flow frequency at USGS gage 15294500. The flow distribution by month is almost bell-shaped, with clearly defined high and low flow months. The higher flow months of June through October represent about 88 percent of the annual flow. The remaining 7 months of lower flows from November through May represent only about 12 percent of the annual flow. Figure 4.4-2 presents a flow duration curve for all of the recorded daily flows at USGS gage 15294500, which represents the outflow from Chakachamna Lake. As shown in Table 4.4-3, the median annual flow (50 percent exceedance) is 1,100 cfs, compared to an average annual flow of 3,644 cfs at the gaging station. This indicates that the great majority of the annual average flow occurs during a relatively short period of time. Figure 4.4-3 presents flow duration curves for the lower flow months of January through May, based on the recorded daily flows at USGS gage 15294500. In a similar manner, Figure 4.4-4 presents the flow duration curves for the higher flow months of June through October. The flow duration curve numerical values are shown in Table 4.4-3. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-81 July 2009 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov DecDaily Flow (cfs)5% Exceedance 10% Exceedance 25% Exceedance 50% Exceedance 90% Exceedance Based on Historic Recorded Daily Chakachamna Lake Outflows at USGS Gage 15294500 Figure 4.4-1. Chakachamna Lake outflow frequency. 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Daily Flow (cfs)Percent of Time Flow is Equaled or Exceeded Based on Historic Recorded Daily Chakachamna Lake Outflows at USGS Gage 15294500 Figure 4.4-2. Chakachamna Lake outflow duration curve. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-82 July 2009 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Daily Flow (cfs)Percent of Time Flow is Equaled or Exceeded January February March April May November December Based on Historic Recorded Daily Chakachamna Lake Outflows at USGS Gage 15294500 Figure 4.4-3. Chakachamna Lake outflow duration curves – lower flow months. 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Daily Flow (cfs)Percent of Time Flow is Equaled or Exceeded June July August September October Based on Historic Recorded Daily Chakachamna Lake Outflows at USGS Gage 15294500 Figure 4.4-4. Chakachamna Lake outflow duration curves – higher flow months. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-83 July 2009 Examination of the historical and calculated hydrological record was used to identify the most adverse hydrologic conditions upon which the estimate of dependable capacity is based (see Section 3.4). For the Project, the most adverse hydrologic conditions bring the reservoir down to the minimum power pool; the dependable capacity is the maximum output capability at the minimum power pool level. The power study simulation described in section 3.4 showed that the minimum pool level was reached in June 1986 and the reservoir was previously at the maximum normal pool level during October 1985. Therefore, the most adverse hydrologic conditions for dependable capacity were from October 1985 through June 1986. However, given the large amount of storage and the operating flexibility that is envisioned for the Project, the calendar period for the simulated critical drawdown is not significant because different generating patterns could result in a different critical period. 4.4.3.2. Annual Flood Frequency Peak annual flows have also been summarized by the USGS at gage 15294500 and are presented in Table 4.4-4. The table includes both average daily values and instantaneous peaks, but this should have little effect on the values because of the moderating effect of Chakachamna Lake on the peak flows. The USGS lists an estimated peak outflow of 470,000 cfs on August 11, 1971, which was excluded from the peak flow analysis because this flood resulted from distinctly different causative factors. The August 11 exceptional flow was the result of a sudden release of water from Chakachamna Lake that was a glacial outburst flood. None of the other peak flows used in the analysis are known to be caused by glacial outburst. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-84 July 2009 Table 4.4-4. Peak annual flows at USGS Gage 15294500. Date Peak Flow (cfs) August 28, 1959 17,400 July 27, 1960 13,400 July 31, 1961 17,600 August 1, 1962 14,000 July 16, 1963 18,000 August 26, 1964 14,000 August 1, 1965 15,500 August 1, 1966 12,000 August 18, 1967 23,400 August 11, 1968 15,000 July 3, 1969 15,400 July 30, 1970 11,200 July 15, 1971 19,800 July 14, 1972 16,600 To estimate the flood frequency distribution, a log Pearson type III distribution was fit to the data in Table 4.4-4. The skew coefficient of the logarithms of the peak flows, which is important in determining estimates of the more rare floods, was calculated to be 0.235. The fitted distribution and the data points are plotted on Figure 4.4-5, and the resulting estimated peak flows for various return periods are shown on Table 4.4-5. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-85 July 2009 1,000 10,000 100,000 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Flow (cfs)Standard Normal Variable Return Period (Years) 1,00010050201052500 Figure 4.4-5. Log Pearson Type III Flood frequency plot – USGS Gage 15294500. Table 4.4-5. Calculated flood frequency at USGS Gage 15294500. Return Period (Years) Flow (cfs) 2 15,500 5 18,400 10 20,200 20 21,900 50 24,100 100 25,600 200 27,100 500 29,100 1,000 30,500 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-86 July 2009 4.4.3.3. Chakachamna Lake Inflows The reservoir operation and power studies require inflows to Chakachamna Lake because the power operations will result in different outflows compared to existing conditions. For lakes with relatively small surface areas, the outflow and inflow are essentially the same values. Because the Chakachamna Lake area at average flow conditions is about 25 square miles, the storage effects of the lake can be large, resulting in outflows that are significantly different from inflows. Inflows to the lake can be calculated using the storage-outflow equation, which is: Inflow = Outflow + Change in storage The outflows in the above equation are the USGS measured flows at the Chakachamna Lake outlet. Change in storage can be determined from the Chakachamna Lake area-elevation- capacity curve (Figure 4.4-6) and the lake elevation on the first day of each month as determined from the USGS gage stage-discharge relationship. The resulting calculated monthly Chakachamna Lake inflows are presented on Table 4.4-6. Table 4.4-6. Calculated historical Chakachamna Lake inflows (cfs). Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1959 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 9,614 10,544 11,567 3,369 1,080 739 509 ----- 1960 437 299 300 198 4,002 6,882 11,154 9,496 2,544 1,377 797 872 3,227 1961 760 743 404 331 1,635 8,525 12,667 11,145 5,914 1,740 710 459 3,776 1962 666 590 486 426 795 8,480 13,231 10,829 4,702 1,146 871 600 3,592 1963 424 344 342 331 1,589 4,975 13,820 12,374 5,479 1,844 916 862 3,643 1964 462 347 412 351 672 9,612 10,614 11,968 3,671 1,128 873 720 3,425 1965 481 353 348 344 720 3,876 11,936 12,766 10,135 1,913 398 467 3,671 1966 377 345 319 350 975 8,961 10,212 10,038 6,574 1,770 984 658 3,481 1967 469 433 387 361 1,678 9,492 14,923 15,806 5,980 1,809 1,251 620 4,469 1968 530 508 466 611 3,001 8,173 12,961 11,343 2,390 963 761 647 3,560 1969 589 516 469 565 1,705 9,616 12,601 7,068 2,649 3,043 1,141 721 3,413 1970 585 534 550 749 2,068 6,879 10,426 7,924 2,060 1,891 1,019 536 2,958 1971 471 440 492 998 4,147 13,097 13,211 16,740 2,450 714 812 607 4,550 1972 525 423 434 551 1,557 6,293 13,742 12,338 5,155 -------------------- Average 521 452 416 474 1,888 8,177 12,289 11,529 4,505 1,571 867 637 3,638 Maximum 760 743 550 998 4,147 13,097 14,923 16,740 10,135 3,043 1,251 872 4,550 Minimum 377 299 300 198 672 3,876 10,212 7,068 2,060 714 398 459 2,958 A comparison of the average monthly Chakachamna Lake inflows and outflows is plotted on Figure 4.4-7. In comparison to the recorded outflows, the inflows are increased in the period of rising lake levels in May, June and July. With a lake level that would be typically falling from August through December, the inflows are less than the outflows. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-87 July 2009 4,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,00020,00022,00024,000800850900950100010501100115012000 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000Area (acres)Elevation (feet)Capacity (thousands of acre-feet)CapacityAreaMaximumnormal poolMinimumnormal poolNormalOperating Range Figure 4.4-6. Chakachamna lake stage area and capacity, based (based on USGS 1960 and Bechtel 1983). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-88 July 2009 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Avg.Flow (cfs)Calculated Chakachamna Lake Inflows -13 Years Historic Chakachamna Lake Outflows -13 Years Figure 4.4-7. Average monthly Chakachamna Lake inflows and outflows. 4.4.3.4. Chakachamna Lake Inflow Record Extension The hydroelectric generation is determined with a reservoir operation and power study model that includes a time-series of reservoir inflows as basic input data. To determine the long-term average generation and the variability of generation, the standard minimum period of record is 30 years. When the available period of record is less than 30 years, the available flow data are filled-in and extended as necessary using statistical correlation methods. The maximum number of years to be included in the extended flow record is dependent on the availability of other flow records. USGS gaging stations on major rivers close to the Chakachatna River are summarized on Table 4.4-7. The period of record at each station is depicted in Figure 4.4-8 to also indicate overlap with the Chakachatna River data. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-89 July 2009 Table 4.4-7. USGS gaging stations. USGS StationNumberStation Name19491950195119521953195419551956195719581959196019611962196319641965196619671968196919701971197219731974197519761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200815294500 Chakachatna River15284000 Matanuska River15294300 Skwentna River15292000 Susitna River at Gold Creek15292700 Talkeetna River15292400 Chulitna RiverNote: Data are on a calendar year basis.LegendComplete years of recordPartial years of record Figure 4.4-8. Period of record at USGS gaging stations. USGSStationNumberStation NameDrainageArea(sq.mi.)15294500 Chakachatna River near Tyonek 1,12015284000 Matanuska River at Palmer 2,07015294300 Skwentna River near Skwentna 2,25015292000 Susitna River at Gold Creek 6,16015292700 Talkeetna River near Talkeetna 2,00615292400 Chulitna River near Talkeetna 2,570 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-90 July 2009 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), has developed a detailed and comprehensive computer program specifically for the purpose of fill-in and extension of monthly flow records. This program is called HEC-4 Monthly Streamflow Simulation. The HEC-4 program can analyze monthly streamflows at a number of inter-related stations to determine their statistical characteristics. It can reconstitute missing streamflows on the basis of concurrent flows observed at other locations. HEC-4 develops multiple cross- correlation and lag-correlation equations and includes a random component to preserve the variability of the flow. Based on the extent and period of overlap of the flow records shown on Figure 4.4-8, the period of reconstituted inflows to Chakachamna Lake would be the 58 years from 1950 through 2007. Acceptable correlations of other stations with the Chakachatna River were found in the higher flow months, but correlations among the stations were generally poor during the low flow months. Due to snow, ice, and extreme weather conditions during the winter, the accuracy of the USGS records is frequently considered to be fair to poor, or the stage records are missing and flows must be estimated. Because about 92 percent of the inflow occurs during the six highest flow months, the lack of good correlations during the low flow months has no significant impact on the results. Results of the Chakachamna Lake inflow extension are presented on Figure 4.4-9 and Table 4.4- 8. The 58-year long-term average inflow of 3,647 cfs is nearly the same as the 13-year historic recorded average flow of 3,644 cfs. The period of record produced slightly higher maximum flow year and slightly lower minimum flow years than were included in the historic record. The monthly flows were disaggregated to daily flows for input to the reservoir operation and power study model based on recorded daily flows of a similar magnitude in the same month. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-91 July 2009 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 19501952195419561958196019621964196619681970197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006Average Annual Flow (cfs)3,647 cfs long-term average flow Figure 4.4-9. Chakachamna Lake annual inflows. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-92 July 2009 Table 4.4-8. Chakachamna Lake inflows (cfs). Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1950 404 299 356 242 1,121 6,149 10,395 11,463 4,640 1,700 795 802 3,224 1951 695 611 571 589 1,433 8,298 12,576 10,023 7,952 2,015 1,002 618 3,885 1952 472 471 379 311 795 4,655 11,068 11,717 3,549 811 1,037 596 3,016 1953 485 359 437 320 1,297 10,639 12,083 11,724 4,097 1,565 524 621 3,704 1954 618 551 466 625 902 7,148 11,796 14,207 4,003 1,145 723 593 3,594 1955 453 379 465 584 924 6,979 11,511 12,837 3,298 2,855 1,170 768 3,550 1956 467 424 367 384 1,609 6,955 12,835 12,156 12,034 1,794 902 596 4,232 1957 597 485 390 352 5,670 10,542 13,417 13,738 7,237 1,550 742 500 4,634 1958 481 350 365 227 2,627 6,199 11,542 11,215 2,787 2,429 561 544 3,310 1959 413 394 371 343 1,453 9,614 10,544 11,567 3,369 1,080 739 509 3,389 1960 437 299 300 198 4,002 6,882 11,154 9,496 2,544 1,377 797 872 3,227 1961 760 743 404 331 1,635 8,525 12,667 11,145 5,914 1,740 710 459 3,776 1962 666 590 486 426 795 8,480 13,231 10,829 4,702 1,146 871 600 3,592 1963 424 344 342 331 1,589 4,975 13,820 12,374 5,479 1,844 916 862 3,643 1964 462 347 412 351 672 9,612 10,614 11,968 3,671 1,128 873 720 3,425 1965 481 353 348 344 720 3,876 11,936 12,766 10,135 1,913 398 467 3,671 1966 377 345 319 350 975 8,961 10,212 10,038 6,574 1,770 984 658 3,481 1967 469 433 387 361 1,678 9,492 14,923 15,806 5,980 1,809 1,251 620 4,469 1968 530 508 466 611 3,001 8,173 12,961 11,343 2,390 963 761 647 3,560 1969 589 516 469 565 1,705 9,616 12,601 7,068 2,649 3,043 1,141 721 3,413 1970 585 534 550 749 2,068 6,879 10,426 7,924 2,060 1,891 1,019 536 2,958 1971 471 440 492 998 4,147 13,097 13,211 16,740 2,450 714 812 607 4,550 1972 525 423 434 551 1,557 6,293 13,742 12,338 5,155 1,793 1,123 924 3,770 1973 528 427 399 298 1,502 7,445 11,873 10,281 1,969 2,287 1,125 779 3,272 1974 570 433 429 439 2,448 7,821 13,234 11,767 2,842 1,603 1,047 824 3,654 1975 624 574 439 371 1,404 8,878 13,677 11,238 4,539 1,567 1,212 748 3,799 1976 569 456 422 325 1,148 2,991 9,723 10,071 2,627 2,099 1,156 550 2,706 1977 415 332 344 269 1,453 12,330 12,912 11,111 4,117 1,894 684 591 3,895 1978 460 449 368 402 1,045 4,607 10,561 7,789 3,010 2,045 766 546 2,694 1979 568 409 463 385 4,554 11,780 13,868 11,719 3,231 1,946 1,177 566 4,254 1980 550 399 344 271 2,960 8,604 14,581 9,507 3,725 2,255 796 608 3,748 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-93 July 2009 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1981 595 683 474 325 3,274 8,881 12,373 15,653 3,579 2,740 915 695 4,219 1982 558 444 424 543 2,028 6,359 12,873 10,251 6,370 2,025 728 467 3,616 1983 530 446 438 364 1,706 7,348 11,386 10,876 5,137 1,802 664 847 3,488 1984 673 766 459 480 1,308 7,496 10,903 11,557 2,916 1,165 951 561 3,294 1985 468 400 356 504 2,317 7,292 12,780 12,192 12,188 1,083 910 667 4,284 1986 468 412 362 591 925 1,656 10,088 8,904 3,673 2,367 917 495 2,599 1987 757 852 598 536 3,797 6,813 13,197 12,922 3,024 2,482 827 599 3,903 1988 468 450 410 496 835 9,353 13,765 11,101 2,561 3,103 745 657 3,692 1989 398 392 399 410 1,631 9,301 11,604 12,960 9,645 1,480 703 594 4,147 1990 592 556 449 378 3,268 11,810 14,288 10,026 6,128 2,778 249 718 4,296 1991 565 552 513 492 1,647 6,416 9,879 8,143 2,301 1,614 967 537 2,823 1992 526 483 432 876 1,130 9,261 13,046 10,815 3,120 1,943 973 578 3,625 1993 456 424 324 292 5,322 12,743 12,884 10,366 4,433 1,512 1,074 663 4,234 1994 465 396 423 430 3,258 11,482 12,062 11,471 2,912 1,644 1,142 764 3,898 1995 520 495 433 519 1,371 8,110 14,166 11,090 4,833 1,366 559 561 3,696 1996 494 404 397 309 3,248 8,575 10,547 10,497 3,822 2,587 887 736 3,569 1997 592 456 448 573 1,703 6,612 12,740 11,602 5,612 2,084 1,033 720 3,710 1998 740 695 496 463 4,099 9,826 11,128 9,840 2,990 1,035 1,047 592 3,603 1999 497 576 438 371 1,312 8,173 13,228 12,640 3,367 935 610 669 3,597 2000 701 756 418 278 2,598 12,250 14,382 11,175 5,919 2,081 1,097 688 4,386 2001 542 416 364 344 1,555 8,738 11,215 10,456 2,980 2,767 953 773 3,452 2002 521 432 470 406 1,519 3,946 9,608 10,606 5,681 711 880 489 2,962 2003 421 439 384 371 1,939 8,579 12,833 9,895 1,564 1,695 970 595 3,335 2004 571 490 433 494 1,094 11,660 13,278 10,073 4,590 1,223 1,049 548 3,812 2005 384 333 388 347 2,397 10,993 12,847 13,437 4,903 1,282 1,035 646 4,111 2006 597 575 444 391 723 8,677 12,245 12,709 4,810 947 846 659 3,660 2007 427 370 382 270 2,158 6,233 11,369 10,976 5,054 1,454 1,149 637 3,400 Average 529 472 420 427 2,018 8,191 12,248 11,314 4,532 1,753 891 642 3,647 Maximum 760 852 598 998 5,670 13,097 14,923 16,740 12,188 3,103 1,251 924 4,634 Minimum 377 299 300 198 672 1,656 9,608 7,068 1,564 711 249 459 2,599 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-94 July 2009 4.4.3.5. Hydraulics Bechtel (1983) provides the best current information on hydrological characteristics of tributaries downstream of the proposed Project. Plots of stream and floodplain transects in study area D (Chakachamna River upstream of its confluence with Straight Creek), area L (McArthur River just upstream of the Upper Blockade Glacier channel), and area P (McArthur River just upstream of the Lower Noaukta Slough channel confluence) (see Figure 4.4-10, Bechtel 1983) are provided in Figures 4.4-11, and 4.4-12, and 4.4-13 respectively. Stages corresponding to the highest and lowest mean monthly flows are plotted in the figures to show the typical annual range in stages. The seasonal flow patterns of the Chakachatna River vary over a wide range (Figure 4.4-11) (Bechtel, 1983). Winter depths would likely be only 1 -2 feet in the main channel, with very little or no flow in the left channel. Summer flows would inundate the bar separating the two channels and a portion of the Straight Creek floodplain as well. Flow in the upper McArthur River probably varies over a much narrower range (Figure 4.4-12) (Bechtel, 1983). Winter depths would be about 0.5 feet and summer depths would be 2 - 3 feet more than that. Downstream, the McArthur River would increase in depth and range of depth (Figure 4.4- 13) (Bechtel, 1983). Maximum winter depths might be as much as 8 feet, with water flowing in high water channels. Flood stages were estimated for the 10 year recurrence interval at the three transects D, L, and P, and were plotted in Figures 4.4-11, 4.4-12, and 4.4-13 (Bechtel, 1983). The Chakachatna River would likely flood the lower floodplain of Straight Creek but would probably not flood any vegetated areas. The floods on the McArthur River remained in the un- vegetated portion of the floodplain at these transects. It is likely that much of the McArthur River would have similar flooding characteristics. The hydraulic geometry for transect areas D, L, and P is shown in Figures 4.4-14, 4.4-15, and 4.4-16, respectively (Bechtel, 1983). Mean monthly flows are denoted on these figures. The flows increase in June and July as the mountain snowpack continues to melt and the glaciers begin to melt. In late summer, flows taper off gradually toward the winter low flows. As the discharges change, so does the hydraulic geometry (Bechtel, 1983). GHDE F P ONML J KTDX Power Pre-Application Document Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 12660 Figure 4.4-10 Locations of Hydrologic Study Areas, Representative Locations and Channel Configuration Reach Boundaries (Bechtel, 1983) PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-97 July 2009 Figure 4.4-11. Stream and floodplain transect on Chakachatna River showing approximate range of natural stages. Note that the site is located upstream of confluence with Straight Creek in Study Area D. Transect, as shown, is looking in downstream direction (Bechtel, 1983). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-98 July 2009 Figure 4.4-12. Stream and floodplain transect on upper McArthur River showing approximate range of natural stages. Note that the site is located upstream of confluence with upper Blockade Glacier channel in Study Area L. Transect, as shown, is looking in downstream direction (Bechtel, 1983). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-99 July 2009 Figure 4.4-13. Stream and floodplain transect on McArthur River at Study Area P showing approximate range of natural stages (Bechtel, 1983). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-100 July 2009 Figure 4.4-14. Hydraulic Geometry of Chakachatna River showing approximate range of natural flow. Note: site is located upstream of confluence with Straight Creek in Study Area D (Bechtel, 1983). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-101 July 2009 Figure 4.4-15. Hydraulic Geometry of upper McArthur River showing approximate range of natural flow. Note: site is located upstream of confluence with upper Blockade Glacier Channel in Study Area L (Bechtel, 1983). " 15 " _13 ~ [til ~ 1':11 ~ gIG " " , > • -• -, , r " 6 ~ " 0 5 4 l , 1 , -. 1 1 I 11 Natural Ran'ge of Mean Monthly flow ',//-' /-----1000 VElOCITY DEPTH ______ _ -------, --------2000 3000 DISCHARGE ( CfS) 4000 5DOC '00 150 50 16 IT'In N.tural Ran'ge of Me.n Monthly flow ___ / 15 / 14 ;.~/ _ 13 ./ ~ .----~12 ~ . 1':11 -glO " > , • • " ~:" __ /~ ___ ..:-----___ ~=~m~oc:n~'===== " 5 (,. 8m" ______ _ : JI / _--------------. 2~/_/-----1 I"~ 8 1000 2000 3000 DISCHARGE ( CfSj 4000 sooc 200 150 50 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-102 July 2009 . Figure 4.4-16. Hydraulic Geometry of McArthur River showing approximate range of natural flow. Note: site is located upstream of confluence with lower Noaukta Slough Channel in Study Area P (Bechtel, 1983). , , I • 2 // I I I I I ---j N~tllr(ll Range of Mean Monthly "Flows DEPTH" ------~ElOCUY_----___ ---\lIOT\I __ ----------------" -, , , -----------///--------/ ~/ o 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 DISCHII~GE (CFS) 2000 1000 -----------', N~tllriJl Range of Mean Monthly "Flows . , DEPTH" --------" -, VElOC!.IY-___ _ ___ ---IIIDTII __ _ ---------------:: 2 o // I I I I I --/ r/ -5000 , , ------/-~-------/ 10(100 DISCHII~GE 15000 (CFS) 2()Q00 25C1!lO 2000 1000 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-103 July 2009 4.4.4. Existing and Proposed Water Uses 4.4.4.1. Existing Water Uses There are no known uses or users of Chakachamna Lake's or the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers' water resources other than for subsistence and limited recreation such as fishing, boating, and hunting. 4.4.4.2. Proposed Water Uses The proposed Project would divert water from Chakachamna Lake on the Chakachatna River to a powerhouse in the McArthur River basin 200 feet above sea level. The Project would have a hydraulic capacity of 7,200 cfs and, with a maximum drawdown of 72 feet, and use 1,105,000 acre-feet of Chakachamna Lake for active storage. There are no existing or proposed uses of the Project waters for irrigation, domestic water supply, industrial or other uses. Upstream constraints on uses of water are statutory restrictions on impacts to Lake Clark National Park. However, within the boundaries of Lake Clark National Park is a federal power withdrawal that extends up the Igitna River from Lake Kenibuna. Instream flow use in the Project area and vicinity of the Project include limited recreation for fishing, boating, and hunting activities, and for subsistence. There are no existing water rights, but water rights applications have been filed with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water (ADNR) that would potentially affect or be affected by the Project: PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-104 July 2009 ADNR received an Application for Reservation of Water from Trout Unlimited (TU) on August 15, 2008 for “Protection of fish and wildlife habitat, mitigation, and propagation.” for seasonal stream flows within the Chakachatna River and its entire floodplain, including associated side channels, springs, and ponds from the outlet of Chakachamna Lake. TU has requested base flows to allow for “access to the median range of habitats that fish are adapted to using.” Specified quantities and durations are listed as Month Quantity (cfs) January 600 February 500 March 450 April 400 May 1-15 500 May 16-31 1500 June 1-15 5000 June 16-30 10000 July 12000 August 10500 September 1-15 7000 September 15-30 3500 October 2000 November 1100 December 750 ADNR has not issued a determination on the requested Reservation of Water. TDX Power (TDX) filed an Application for Water Right on April 17, 2009 to operate a hydroproject using water from Chakachamna Lake (Appendix 4-2). The application states that the Project would be a conventional lake-tap project taking water from beneath the surface of the lake, and diverting it via an approximately 12.3-mile power tunnel to a powerhouse before discharging the water to the McArthur River. TDX stated that the maximum potential instantaneous flow of the Project would be 7,200 cfs. TDX notes that the Project could not sustain this flow over a month or year, but could reach this as an instantaneous flow. ADNR has not made a determination with respect to TDX’s application. TDX, by letter dated April 16, 2009, suggested that the annual, monthly, and instantaneous water requirements for the Project would be determined as part of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing NEPA evaluation and agency permitting processes. TDX noted that the eventual decision concerning flows will be dependent on agency analysis, public input, and the significant hydrologic and fisheries investigations to be conducted over the next few years (Appendix 4-2). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-105 July 2009 4.4.5. Water Quality 4.4.5.1. State and Federal Water Quality Standards Applicable to Project Waters No state or federal water quality standards have been identified for the proposed Project area at this time. 4.4.5.2. Historical Baseline Water Quality Baseline water quality data were obtained during 1982 for the Chakachamna and McArthur river systems in March and May through October, and during 1983 in April and July, as reported in Bechtel 1983. Water temperatures were measured on a continuous basis at several locations in the Chakachamna and McArthur river systems and on a periodic basis together with dissolved oxygen (DO), conductivity, turbidity, and pH elsewhere in the drainage systems as part of the fisheries habitat data collection program. Observations made in Bechtel (1983) concerning the water quality data collected for Chakachamna Lake, Chakachatna River, and McArthur River are presented here with reference to tables and figures contained in the source report. The locations of sampling stations for the 1981, 1982, and 1983 Bechtel studies are shown in Figures 4.4-10, 4.4-17, and 4.4-18. A list of the sampling locations and their respective stations shown in these three figures are provided in Table 4.4-9. TDX Power Pre-Application Document Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 12660 Figure 4.4-17 Location and Identification of 1982 Sampling Stations (Bechtel, 1983) o Recording Gauge Locat ion o 2 3 4 5 o Siaff Gauge L ocolian 8 Sampling Sial io n , I , miles o Sampling Siolion Only o Recording Gauge Locat ion o 2 3 4 5 o Staff Gouge Locati on 8 Sampling Station ! I ! miles o Sampling Station Only TDX Power Pre-Application Document Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 12660 Figure 4.4-18 Location and Identification of 1983 Sampling Stations (Bechtel, 1983) PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-108 July 2009 Table 4.4-9. Location of water quality sampling and station numbers (Bechtel, 1983). Location Station Numbers Another River 33 Igitna River 32 Neacola Pond & River 31 Chilligan River 30 Kenibuna Lake Outlet 29 Nagishlamina River Delta 26 Chakachamna Lake 25, 27, 28, C Chakachatna River Canyon 22, 23, 24 Chakachatna River 6, 6A, 17D, 21 Backwater area 20 Clearwater Tributary 19, 19A Straight Creek 18, 18A Chakachatna River bridge area 17 Noaukta Slough 8, 9, 10, 16, 16A Noaukta Slough tributaries 41, 41A, 42, 42A, 43, 43A, 44, 44A, 45 Middle River 4, 5 Lower Chakachatna River 1, 2, 3 McArthur Canyon 15 Lower McArthur Canyon 14 McArthur rapids 13.5 Upper McArthur River 13 McArthur River 1D, 11, 12 McArthur River tributaries 13U, 13X, 40, 40A 4.4.5.3. Chakachamna Lake Chakachamna Lake water quality profiles are provided for March, August, and September in 1982 and for April and July in 1983. 4.4.5.3.1. March, August, and September 1982 In 1982, two study sites were examined on Chakachamna Lake (Figure 4.4-19) (Bechtel, 1983). Site 1 was near the proposed lake intake location and site 2 was in the mid-lake area, approximately one mile off shore, where water depths were greater than 250 feet in the eastern part of the lake. In March, water temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) were measured in situ. One profile was taken at Site 1 and these data show an inverted temperature profile (Table 4.4- 10) (Bechtel, 1983). DO levels were high throughout the water column, with a slight increase in DO at 45 feet. At Site 2, the instrument malfunctioned resulting in no measurements. In August and September, water quality profiles consisting of temperature, DO, conductivity, and turbidity were taken in Chakachamna Lake (Tables 4.4-11 and 4.4-12, respectively) (Bechtel, 1983). In PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-109 July 2009 August, water surface temperatures were elevated due to solar radiation. At depths greater than 30 feet there were large changes in turbidity that were attributed to the settling within the water column of small silt particles of glacial origin. In September, a profile of water quality data was taken to a depth of 300 feet at mid-lake between sites 1 and 2. High winds, heavy rain, and high waves were present for seven days before sampling and the lake level had risen more than a foot. This likely had considerable influence on water quality data collected in the upper 5 to 10 feet of the lake. DO was measured to a depth of 30 feet. Samples from 50 feet and deeper effervesced and showed signs of being gas supersaturated when brought to the surface. No reliable DO readings were taken at depths of 50 feet or more during the sampling. 4.4.5.3.2. April and July 1983 In 1983, a water quality profile for temperature, DO, turbidity, conductivity, and pH was taken in Chakachamna Lake near mid-lake (Table 4.4-13) (Bechtel, 1983). At the time of sampling surface ice was 2-feet-thick. Data indicated considerable variability among parameters. The highest water temperature occurred near the bottom, as observed during the March 1982 survey (Table 4.4-10) (Bechtel, 1983). Near-surface water temperature may have been exaggerated during the April survey due to high air temperatures and the large size of the sampling hole. DO values were well below saturation near the surface and well below gas saturation at greater depths. In July, a water quality profile for temperature, DO, turbidity, and conductivity was taken in Chakachamna Lake (Table 4.4-14) (Bechtel, 1983). There was evidence of heating of the lake’s surface with apparent mixing in deeper water. Turbidity was low near the lake's bottom (275 feet). TDX Power Pre-Application Document Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 12660 Figure 4.4-19 Winter 1982 Hydroacoustic Survey Sites (Bechtel, 1983) PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-111 July 2009 Table 4.4-10. Chakachamna Lake water temperatures and dissolved oxygen levels (March 22, 1982) for Site 1 measured from water surface (Bechtel, 1983). m ft 0 0 1.5 5 3.0 10 4.6 15 6. I 20 7.6 25 9. I 30 10.7 35 12.2 40 13. 7 45 15.2 50 16.8 55 18.3 60 19.8 . 65 21.3 70 23.2 76 26.8 88 29.6 97 36.0 118 41.1 135 Water-Temperature ( 0 C) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1. 25 1. 25 1. 50 1. 50 1. 50 1. 50 1. 50 1. 50 1. 50 1. 50 1. 50 1. 65 1. 90 2.00 2.00 2.10 Dissolved Ox y gen Level (m9/l ) 13.3 13.3 12.4 12 .3 12.4 12.0 11.4 11.4 11.4 10.6 10.6 10 .8 11.0 11.1 11.1 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.1 10.8 m ft 0 0 1.5 5 3.0 10 4.6 15 6. I 20 7.6 25 9. I 30 10.7 35 12.2 40 13. 7 45 15.2 50 16.8 55 18 ·.3 60 19.8 . 65 21.3 70 23.2 76 26.8 88 29.6 97 36.0 118 41.1 135 Wate1" Temperature ( 0 C) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 I. 25 I. 25 I. 50 I. 50 I. 50 I. 50 I. 50 I. 50 I. 50 I. 50 I. 50 I. 65 I. 90 2.00 2.00 2.10 Dissolved Oxy g en Level (m9/l ) 13 .3 13.3 12.4 12.3 12.4 12.0 11.4 11.4 11.4 10.6 10.6 10.8 11.0 11.1 11.1 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.1 10 .8 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-112 July 2009 Table 4.4-11. Water quality profile of Chakachamna Lake, August 1982 (Bechtel, 1983). m ft 0 0 1.5 5 3.0 10 4 .6 15 6. 1 20 7.6 25 9.1 30 10.7 35 12.2 40 13. 7 45 15.2 50 16 .8 55 18.3 60 19.8 . 65 21.3 70 23.2 76 26 .8 88 29.6 97 36 .0 118 41.1 135 Water-Temperature ( 0 C) 0.0 0 .5 1.0 1.0 1. 25 1. 25 1. 50 1. 50 1. 50 1. 50 1. 50 1. 50 1. 50 1. 50 1. 50 1. 65 1. 90 2.00 2.00 2.10 Dissolved Oxygen Level (m9/l ) 13 .3 13.3 12.4 12 .3 12 .4 12.0 11.4 11.4 11.4 10 .6 10.6 10.8 11.0 11. 1 11.1 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.1 10.8 m ft 0 0 1.5 5 3.0 10 4.6 15 6. I 20 7.6 25 9. I 30 10.7 35 12.2 40 13. 7 45 15.2 50 16.8 55 18.3 60 19 .8 . 65 21.3 70 23.2 76 26.8 88 29.6 97 36.0 11 8 41.1 135 Wate1" Temperature ( 0 C) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 I. 25 I. 25 I. 50 I. 50 I. 50 I. 50 I. 50 I. 50 I. 50 I. 50 I. 50 I. 65 I. 90 2.00 2.00 2.10 Dissolved Oxygen Level (m9/l ) 13 .3 13.3 12.4 12.3 12.4 12.0 11.4 11.4 11.4 10.6 10.6 10 .8 11.0 11.1 11.1 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.1 10.8 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-113 July 2009 Table 4.4-12. Water quality profile of Chakachamna Lake, September 1982 (Bechtel, 1983). Oissolved Deeth Tem~erature OX,lsen Conducti vi t,l Turbidit,l (meters) (feet) (oG) (1119/1 ) (umho/cm) (m9/1 ) 0.0 0.8 1.5 2.1 3.0 4.6 6.1 7.6 9.1 15.2 22.9 30.5 45.7 61.0 76 .2 91.4 0 .0 5.9 11.9 23 2.5 6 .0 10.8 23 5.0 6 .0 12.5 23 7.0 5.9 12 .5 23 10 .0 5.9 12 .4 27 15.0 5.9 11.9 27 20 .0 5.9 12.1 23 25.0 5.9 11.6 24 30 .0 5.9 11.9 28 50.0 6.2 m 28 75 .0 6.3 24 100 .0 6.2 [2-25 150.0 6.3 [d 23 200.0 6 .3 f2] 23 250 .0 6.3 2] 22 300 .0 6.5 [2] 23 1 -Data taken immediately follwing heavr rains and stcrm , waves 1.2 -1 .5 meters (4.5 -5.0 ft J. 54 58 58 57 58 61 63 64 64 66 70 62 54 53 58 80 2 Sa mples ta ke n with Va n Oorn bottle showed signs of supersaturati on -effervescence, dissolved oxygen could not be mea sured reliably . Oissolved Deeth Tem~erature OX,lsen Conductivit,l Turbidit,l (meters) (feet) (OC) (mg/1 ) (umho/cm) (m9/1 ) 0.0 0 .8 1.5 2.1 3.0 4.6 6.1 7.6 9.1 15.2 22.9 30.5 45.7 61.0 76 .2 9 1.4 0 .0 5.9 11.9 23 2.5 6 .0 10.8 23 5.0 6 .0 12.5 23 7.0 5.9 12.5 23 10 .0 5 .9 12.4 27 15.0 5.9 11.9 27 20 .0 5.9 12.1 23 25 .0 5.9 11. 6 24 30 .0 5.9 11.9 28 50 .0 6.2 m 28 75 .0 6 .3 24 100 .0 6.2 m 25 150 .0 6 .3 23 200.0 6 .3 [2] 23 250 .0 6.3 [2] 22 300 .0 6.5 [2] 23 1 -Data taken immediately follwin g heav¥ rains and stcrm , waves 1.2 -1 .5 meters (4 .5 -5.0 ftJ . 54 58 58 57 58 61 63 64 64 66 70 62 54 53 58 80 2 Samples taken with Van Darn bottle showed signs of supersaturati on -effervescence. dissolved oxygen cou l d not be me asured reliably . PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-114 July 2009 Table 4.4-13. Water quality profile of Chakachamna Lake, April 1983 (Bechtel, 1983). Deeth1 Dissolved Speeific TeatE;erature OXllUn Turbidit! Conductivitll ell' (meters) (feet) (eC) (Illg/l) (ppm) (mg/!) (umbos/em) 0 2 0 2 0.8 10.8 57 42 4.94 0 .3 2 ,2 0.8 11.5 55 35 4 .6 4 0.6 2 22 0.1 11.9 5. 31 4.04 0.' 3 0.1 12 .3 58 28 4.14 1.2 • 0 .1 12.4 .3 21 3.94 1.5 5 0 .• 12.6 .3 22 3.74 3.0 10 0 .• 12 .• ., 21 3.94 •. 5 15 0 .• 12 .5 •• 22 3.94 •. 1 20 0 .• 12.5 69 n 3.94 1 .• 25 0 .• 12.4 13 20 4.0· '.1 30 0 .• IS.0 ., 20 7.0 15.Z 50 0 .• 15.2 6. 1. 1.0 22.9 75 0.7 16.1 .7 23 7.0 30.5 100 0.7 20.5 ., n 7.0 45.7 150 1.3 20.9 •• 20 7.0 61.0 200 1.5 14.3 .5 21 7.1 76.2 250 1.7 14.2 .2 20 1.2 85.3 280 1.8 2Z.1 1. 20 1.2 86.9 3 285 3 1 1 et of snow on top of ice 2 ice greater than 2 ft in depth 3 bottom • possible instrument malfunction Deethl Dissolved Specific Tell'leerature OXlll!len Turbidit! Conductivitll 1!!!4 (meters) (feet) (-C) (mg/l) (ppm) (mg/l) (umbos/em) 0 2 0 2 0.8 10.8 57 .2 4.94 0.3 2 ,2 0.8 11.5 55 35 4.64 0.6 2 22 0.7 11.9 5. 31 4.04 0.' 3 0.7 12 .3 58 28 4.14 1.2 • 0.7 12.4 .3 27 3.94 1.5 5 0 .• 12.6 .3 22 3.7 4 3.0 10 0 .• 12.4 •• 27 3.94 4.5 15 0 .• 12.5 •• 22 3.94 •. 1 20 0 .• 12.5 ., 21 3.94 7 .• 25 0 .• 12.4 73 20 4.04 '.1 30 0 .• 15.0 .7 20 7.0 IS.Z 50 0 .• 15.2 ., 19 7.0 22.9 75 0.7 16.1 .7 23 7.0 30.5 100 0.7 20.5 '.5 21 7.0 45.7 150 1.3 20.9 •• 20 7.0 61.0 200 1.5 14.3 .5 21 7.1 76.2 250 1.7 14.2 .2 20 7.2 85.3 280 1.8 22.1 7. 20 7.2 86.9 3 285 3 1 1 Et of snow on top of ice 2 ice greater than 2 ft in depth 3 bottom • possible instrument malfunction PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-115 July 2009 Table 4.4-14. Water quality profile of Chakachamna Lake, July 1983 (Bechtel, 1983). Dissolved Depth Tellperature Oxygen Conduct1vity Turbidity (meters) (feet) ( 'C) (mgl1) (umhos/cm) (119/1 ) 0.0 0 .0 11 .1 10.B 35 36 0 .3 1.0 9.5 11.3 35 40 0.6 2.0 9.1 11 .2 35 39 0 .9 3.0 B.9 11 .1 33 40 1.2 4.0 B.9 11. 1 33 40 1.5 5.0 B.9 11 .1 31 35 3 .0 10 .0 B.2 11.3 29 35 4 .6 15.0 7 .B 11.3 27 3B 6.1 20 .0 7.7 11.4 26 36 9 .1 30 .0 7.1 11.3 25 31 15 .2 50 .0 7.0 11 .6 25 14 30.5 100.0 6.9 11 . 1 32 17 B3.B 27 .0 6 .5 12.3 2B 3 Dissolved Depth Tefllperature Oxygen Conduct1v1ty Turbidity (meters) (feet) ( 'C) (mgl1) (umhos/cm) (119/1 ) 0 .0 0 .0 11. 1 10.B 35 36 0 .3 1.0 9.5 11 .3 35 40 0 .6 2.0 9.1 11.2 35 39 0 .9 3.0 B.9 11 .1 33 40 1 .2 4 .0 B.9 11 . 1 33 40 1.5 5.0 B.9 11 .1 31 35 3 .0 10 .0 B.2 11.3 29 35 4 .6 1 5 .0 7 .B 11.3 27 3B 6.1 20 .0 7 .7 11.4 26 36 9 .1 30 .0 7.1 11 .3 25 31 15 .2 50 .0 7.0 11 .6 25 14 30 .5 100.0 6 .9 11 . 1 32 17 B3.B 27 .0 6 .5 12.3 2B 3 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-116 July 2009 4.4.5.3.3. Chakachamna River outlet Mean daily water temperatures in the Chakachamna River at the lake outlet varied by 8 ˚C (46.4 ˚F) in August, 6 ˚C (42.8 ˚F) in October (Table 4.4-15) , 4.0 ˚C (39.2 ˚F) in November, and 0 ˚C (32 ˚F) in December 1982 (Table 4.4-16) (Bechtel, 1983). Insufficient depth of water over the transducer limited the validity of the temperature data provided in Table 4.4-16 (Bechtel, 1983) from December 1982 to May 1983. 4.4.5.4. McArthur River Daily fluctuations in water temperature are provided for the period August 1982 through mid- June 1983 at the rapids (Station 13.5) (Tables 4.4-18 and 4.4-18) (Bechtel, 1983). Water temperatures in the McArthur River at the rapids exhibited large diurnal variations on August 26 and 27, and on September 1, 1982; temperatures varied from 3.0 ˚C (37.4 ˚F) to 9.5 ˚C (49.1 ˚F) in a six-hour period (Table 4.4-17) (Bechtel, 1983). This extreme temperature variation was likely related to the broad, braided configuration of the river for several miles above the gage. In that reach, the cold glacial flow spreads out and receives energy from the warm air and solar radiation during the day, and loses energy at night. Water temperatures decreased to 0 ˚C (32 ˚F) by early November, and began to increase in early April and exceeded 4 ˚C (39.2 ˚F) by mid- May (Table 4.4.-18) (Bechtel, 1983). Temperatures in the McArthur River from mid-August to mid-September 1982 averaged 1.6 ˚C (42.8 ˚F) less near the proposed powerhouse site (station 15, Table 4.4-19) than at the downstream recording gage (station 13.5, Table 4.4-17) (Bechtel, 1983). At station 15, water temperature fluctuations were recorded between the daily minimum and maximum readings from 0.5 ˚C(32.9 ˚F) variation (2.2 to 2.7 ˚C) (35.9 to 36.8 ˚F ) to as much as 5.2 ˚C(41.3 ˚F) variation (2.1 to 7.3 ˚C) (35.7 to 45.1 ˚F) (Figure 4.4-25) (Bechtel, 1983). TDX Power Pre-Application Document Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 12660 Figure 4.4-20 Water Temperature Record at Station 15 (Powerhouse Location) Peabody-Ryan J-90 Thermograph (Bechtel, 1983) PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-118 July 2009 Table 4.4-15. Summary of 1982 streamflow temperature records in oC from the recording gage on the Chakachatna River at the lake outlet (Bechtel, 1983). August SeEtember October Mean Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean Min . Max . 1 8 .4 8.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7 ,0 2 7.9 7 .5 8 .0 6.9 . 6 .5 7.0 3 8 .1 7.5 8.5 6 .8 6.5 7 .0 4 8 .0 8.0 8.0 6.5 6.5 6 .5 5 6.4 5.5 7.5 6.5 6.5 6 .5 6 5.6 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6 .0 7 8 .4 8.0 8.5 6 .0 6.0 6.0 8 8 .5 8.5 8.5 6 .1 6.0 6 .5 9 7 .9 7.5 8.0 6 .0 6.0 6 .0 10 7 .0 7.0 7.0 6 .0 6.0 6 .0 11 7.6 7 .0 8.0 6 .0 6.0 6 .0 12 8 .1 7.5 8.5 8.0 8.0 8 .0 5 .9 5 .5 6 .0 13 8.1 8_._0 8 .5 6 .7a 6.0 7 .5 5 .5 5 .5 ,5:5 14 8.0 7 .5 8 .5 5 .8 5.5 6.0 15 8.5 8 .5 8.5 6.5 6 .0 7.0 16 8 .4 8 .0 8.5 .6.5 6.5 6.5 17 8.5 8 .5 8.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 18 8.4 8.0 8.5 6 .5 6.5 6.5 19 8 .1 8.0 8.5 6 .5 6 .5 6.5 20 8.3 8 .0 8.5 6.9 6 .5 7.0 21 8.0 7.5 8.5 6 .6 6.5 7.0 22 7.6 7 .5 8.0 6.6 6.5 7.0 23 7 .1 7.0 7.5 7.0 7 .0 7.0 24 6.8 6.5 7.0 6.9 6 .5 7.0 25 7 .5 6.5 8 .0 7 .0 7.0 7.0 26 8.5 8.0 9.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 27 8 .9 8.5 9.0 7.0 7.0 7 .0 28 7.9 7 .0 8.5 7.0 7 .0 7.0 29 6.1 6.0 6.5 7.0 7 .0 7.0 30 7.6 7 .0 8 .0 7.0 7.0 7.0 3 1 8.5 8 .5 8.5 a Data based upon three of fo ur readings ; no da t a fo r the period 12 :00-18 :00 . August SeEtember October Mean Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. 1 8.4 8.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7,0 2 7.9 7.5 8.0 6.9 . 6.5 7.0 3 8.1 7.5 8.5 6 .8 6.5 7.0 4 8.0 8.0 8.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 5 6 .4 5.5 7 .5 6.5 6 .5 6.5 6 5.6 5 .5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7 8 .4 8.0 8.5 6 .0 6.0 6.0 8 8.5 8.5 8.5 6.1 6.0 6.5 9 7 .9 7 .5 8.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 10 7.0 7.0 7.0 6 .0 6.0 6.0 II 7.6 7.0 8.0 6 .0 6.0 6.0 12 8.1 7.5 8.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 5 .9 5 .5 6.0 13 8.1 8_ . .0 8 .5 6.7 a 6.0 7.5 5.5 5 .5 .5:5 14 8.0 7.5 8 .5 5 .8 5.5 6.0 15 8.5 8.5 8.5 6.5 6.0 7.0 16 8.4 8.0 8.5 ,6.5 6.5 6.5 17 8 .5 8 .5 8 .5 6.5 6.5 6.5 18 8.' 8.0 8 .5 6.5 6.5 6.5 19 8 .1 8.0 8.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 20 8.3 8 .0 8.5 6.9 6 .5 7.0 21 8.0 7.5 8.5 6.6 6.5 7.0 22 7.6 7 .5 8.0 6.6 6.5 7.0 23 7 .1 7.0 7.5 7.0 7 .0 7.0 24 6.8 6.5 7.0 6.9 6 .5 7.0 25 7 .5 6.5 8 .0 7 .0 7.0 7.0 26 8.5 8 .0 9.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 27 8 .9 8.5 9 .0 7.0 7 .0 7.0 28 7 .9 7 .0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 29 6.1 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 30 7.6 7 .0 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 3 1 8.5 8 .5 8.5 a Data based upon three of four readings; no data fo r the period 12 :00 -18 :00. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-119 July 2009 Table 4.4-16. Mean daily water temperature in oC of the Chakachatna River at the Chakachamna Lake outlet for the period August 1982 through November 1982 (Bechtel, 1983). Day Aug Sept Oct Nov Deea Jana Feba Mara Apra Maya 1 8.4 7.0 4.0 0.8 -0.6 -2.5 4 ,., -4.6 -0.1 .. -.0 2 7.9 6.9 4.0 -0.3 --0.5 -1. 6 -10.3 -5.3 0.1 3 8.1 6.8 4.0 -1.1 -0.,8 -1.4 -12.1 -4.0 0.1 4 8.0 6.5 4.0 -1.5 -26.0 -1. 0 -10.3 -2.5 -37.5 5 6.4 6.5 3.8 -0. ;::1 -38.9 -1.1 -7. I -26.0 -24.9 6 5.6 6.0 3.4 -12.5 -8;3 -4.'-__ -6.9 -13.6 -0. I 7 8.4 6.0 3.5 0.5 -12.6 -5.9. -9.3 -1.3 -0.1 8 8.5 6.1 3.4 1.3 -14.5 -1'~.6 -11. 1 -1. 5 0.3 ',' 7.9 6.0 3.0 -0.1 -12.4 -12.5 -11. 4 -2.0 0.6 10 7.0 6.0 3.5 -1.0 -12.1 -14.3 -11.5 -3.1 -24.5 11 6.5 7.6 6.0 3.5 -0.5 ;".20.0 -15.1 -9.0 -14.8 -50.0 12 8.1 8.0 5.9 3.5 0.0 -11.,9 -13.1 -28.8 -2.4 -37.0 S.l 3.1 • • 3 ." 0.8 -12.6 -15.6 -50.0 -38.1 '-23.1 13 ...J •.... .~ 14 8.0 5.8 5.5 3.4 0.9 -12.8 -17.0 -16.6 -15.3 2.0 , .. " 8.5 6.5 · . ...' • ...J 3.3 0.5 -9.6 -17.4 -5.0 -13.5 1.4 16 8.4 6.5 • • ~.~ 2.5 0.0 -5.5 -16.4 -4.9 -1. 1 ',1.3 17 8.5 6.5 5.S 2.0 -0.1 -7.0 -15.6 -6.0 -2.'0 1.3 18 8.4 b.5 5.5 1.5 -0.5 -7.1 -14.0 -b.O -1. 3 19 8.1 6 ." .~ 5· .v 1.1 -12.8 -1(:.,0 -10.0 -5.9 -0 .. 8 20 8.:::.c 6.9 5.0 1.9 -12.3 -3 .. 0 -19. 1 -4.6 -1.'1 21 8.0 b.6 5.0 I ~ -25.1 -14.3 -7.3 -4.6 -0.9 .~ 22 7.6 b.b 5.0 2.3 -50.'0 -4.5 -17.5 -5.9 -37.5 23 7. 1 7.0 4.:3 3.4 -38.8 -9.6 -5.5 -6.0 0.0 24 6.8 6.9 4.5 3.0 -15.9 -9.9 -5.0 -16.3 0.0 .-:0"-7.5 7.0 4~"5 3.0 -38.5 -17.5 -6.3 -26.8 0.0 .~ 26 8.S 7.(1 4.0i 3.0 -37.6 -5.0 -6.1 -3.1 -25.1. 27 8.9 7.0' 4.3 2. ;,:: -37.6 -3.4 -27.4 -3.0 0.0 28 7.9 7.0 4.3 2. 1 -50,0 -3.1 -15.5 -2.5 0.0 29 6. 1 7.0 4.0 1.9 1.3 -5.6 -3'11 -37.5 30' 7.1, 7.0 4.0 1.0 0.6 -39.5 -5.3 -25.0 31 8 .-4.0 -O.S -50.0 -5.0 .~ alnsufficient water depth over transducer. Day Aug Sept Oct Nov Deca Jana Feba Hara Apra Maya 1 8.4 7.0 4.0 0.8 -0.6 -2.5 -4.8 -4.6 -0.1. 2 7.9 6.9 4.0 -0.3 --0.5 -1. 6 -10.3 -5.3 0.1 3 8.1 6.8 4.0 -1.1 -0.,8 -1.4 -12.1 -4.0 0.1 4 8.0 6.5 4.0 -1.5 -26.0 -1. 0 -10.3 -2.5 -37.5 5 6.4 6.5 3.8 -0.8 -38.9 -1.1 -7.1 -26.0 -24.9 6 5.6 b.O 3.4 -12.5 -8;3 -4.l. .... -6.9 -13.6 -0,1 7 8.4 6.0 3.5 0.5 -12.6 -5.9. -9.3 -1.3 -0.1 8 8.5 6.1 3.4 1.3 -140;5 -1'~.6 -11. 1 -1. 5 0.3 ',' 7.9 6.0 3.0 -0.1 -12.4 -12.5 -11. 4 -2.0 0.6 1(1 7.0 6.0 3.5 -1.0 -12.1 -14.3 -11.5 -3,1 -24.5 11 6.5 7.6 b.O ....... -0.5 :....20.0 -9.0 -50.0 ~.~ -15.1 -14.8 12 8.1 8.0 5.9 3.5 0.0 -11.,9 -13.1 -28.8 -2.4 -37.0 13 8.1 3.1 • o· 3.5 0.8 -12.6 -15.6 -50.0 -38.1 '-23.1 "." 14 8.0 5.8 " . 3.4 0.9 -12.8 -17.0 -16.6 -15',3 2.0 ~.~ 15 8.5 6.5 .. 3.3 0.5 -9.6 -17.4 -5.0 -13.5 1.4 ... ', .,.} 16 8.4 6.5 5.5 2.5 0.0 -5.,5 -16.4 -4.9 -1. 1 -1.3 17 8.5 6.5 5.S 2.0 -0.1 -7.0 -15./:, -6.0 -2.'0 1.3 18 8.4 6.5 5.5 1.5 -0.5 -7.1 -14.0 -6.0 -1. 3 19 8.1 6 .' ." 0' • ~.~ 1.1 -12.8 -1(:.,0 -10.0 -5.9 -0 •. 8 20 8. ::.c 6.9 5.0 1.9 -12.3 -3 .. 0 -19. 1 -4.6 -1.'1 21 8.0 6.6 5.0 1 ~ -25.1 -14.3 -7.3 -0.9 ." -4./;,. 22 7.6 6.6 5.0 2.3 -50.'0 -4.5 -17.5 -5.9 -37.5 23 7.1 7.0 4.8 3.4 -38.8 -9.6· -5.5 -b.O 0.0 24 6.8 6.9 4.5 3.0 -15.9 -9.9 -5.0 -16.3 0.0 0<:-7.5 7.0 4~"5 3.0 -:;:8.5 -17.5 -6.3 -26.8 0.0 -" 26 8.5 7.0 4.0: 3.0 -37.6 -5.0 -6.1 -3.1 -25.1. 27 8.9 7.0' 4.3 2. ;,:: -37.6 -3.4 -27.4 -3.0 0.0 28 7.9 7.0 4.3 2. 1 -50.0 -3.1 -15.5 -2.5 0.0 29 6. 1 7.0 4.0 1.9 1.3 -5.6 -3'11 -37.5 30' 7.6 7.0 4.0 1.0 0.6 -39.5 -5.3 -25.0 31 8. ~-; 4.0 -0.8 -50.0 -5.6 alnsufficient water depth over transducer. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4- 120 July 2009 Table 4.4-17. Summary of 1982 streamflow temperature records in oC from the recording gage on the McArthur River at the rapids (Bechtel, 1983). August Se2 t ember Octobe r Mean Min . Max. Mean Min. Max. Mea n Min. Max. 1 5.2 3.0 9.5 3.8 3.5 4.5 2 4.5 2.5 7.0 3.8 3 .5 4 .0 3 4.9 3 .5 7.5 3.6 3.5 4.0 4 4 .3 3.5 6.0 3.3 3.0 3.5 5 4.5 4 .0 5 .5 3.0 2 .5 3.0 6 4 .1 3.0 4.5 1.6 0.5 2.5 7 4 .0 3".0 6 .5 2.5 2 .0 2.5 8 4.0 2 .5 5 .5 2.5 2.5 2.5 9 3 .9 3 .5 4.5 2.5 2 .5 2.5 10 4.0 3.5 5 .0 2.5 2.5 .2.5 11 3.0 2.0 4 .0 2.2 2.0 2 .5 12 4.2 3.0 5.0 2.1 2.0 2.5 13 4 .4b 4.0 5 .0 2.1 2.0 2.5 14 5 .4 4.5 7.5 2.0 1.5 2 .0 15 4.2 c 3.5 4 .9 1.7 1.5 2.0 16 4.6c 4.1 5 .2 1.9 1.5 2.0 17 5.9a 4.0 7 .5 5 .7c 4 .7 7 .4 18 5 .8 3 .0 10 .0 4.1 c 3.2 5 .2 19 5 .7 3.0 10 .0 3.6c 3.3 3.9 20 5 .8 3.0 10 .0 3.Sc 3.5 4 .2 21 5 .6 3.0 9 .5 4.0c 3.6 4.6 22 4.9 3.0 7 .5 4.7 c 3.7 5.9 23 5.3 4.0 7.0 c 3 .7 5.2 4.sd 24 4 .6 4.0 5.5 4.0 3 .5 4.5 25 4 .8 3.5 7 .0 3.1 3 .0 3.5 26 5.2 3.0 9.5 3 .9 3.0 4.5 27 5 .4 3 .0 9.5 3 .7 3.0 4.5 28 4 .3 3.5 5.5 3 .6 3.5 4.0 29 5 .0 4.0 6 .5 3 .6 3.5 4.0 30 4 .2 3.5 6.0 4.0 3.5 4 .5 II ~ 2.5 JlS --.--~~-- • Incomp l e t e recor d for the day. b Re c o rding gage dislodged by r ains t orm flood . c ~eab o d y -Ryan t hermograph data . d Reco r ding gage reinstalled . AU8ust See tember Octobe r Mean Min. Max. Mean Min. Hax. Mean Min . Max. 1 5 .2 3.0 9.5 3.8 3.5 4 .5 2 4.5 2.5 7.0 3 .8 3.5 4 .0 3 4.9 3 .5 7.5 3 .6 3.5 4.0 4 4 .3 3.5 6.0 3.3 3.0 3.5 5 4.5 4.0 5 .5 3 .0 2 .5 3 .0 6 4 .1 3.0 4 .5 1.6 0.5 2.5 7 4.0 3'.0 6.5 2 .5 2 .0 2 .5 8 4.0 2.5 5 .5 2.5 2 .5 2 .5 9 3.9 3.5 4.5 1.5 2 .5 2.5 10 4.0 3.5 5.0 1 .5 2.5 2.5 11 3 .0 2.0 4.0 2.2 2.0 2 .5 11 4.2 3.0 5.0 2.1 2.0 2.5 13 4 .4b 4.0 5.0 1 .1 2.0 2 .5 14 5.4 4.5 7.5 1 .0 1.5 2 .0 15 4.2 c 3.5 4.9 1.7 1.5 2.0 16 4.6c 4.1 5.2 1.9 1.5 1 .0 17 5.9a 4.0 7.5 5.7 c 4.7 7.4 18 5 .8 3.0 10 .0 4.1 c 3.2 5.2 19 5 .7 3.0 10.0 3.6c 3 .3 3 .9 10 5 .8 3 .0 10 .0 3.Sc 3.5 4 .2 21 5 .6 3.0 9.5 4 .0 c 3.6 4.6 22 4.9 3.0 7 .5 4 .7 c 3.7 5 .9 23 5.3 4.0 7 .0 c 3 .7 5 .2 4 ,Sd 24 4.6 4.0 5 .5 4.0 3 .5 4.5 25 4.8 3 .5 7.0 3.1 3.0 3.5 26 5.2 3.0 9 .5 3 .9 3.0 4.5 27 5 .4 3 .0 9.5 3.7 3 .0 4.5 28 4 .3 3.5 5.5 3.6 3 .5 4.0 29 5.0 4.0 6 .5 3.6 3.5 4.0 30 4.2 3.5 6.0 ~_ 4.0 3 .5 -4.5 .il !!~ 2.5 A.S . • Incomple t e record for the day. b Recording gage dislodged by rainstorm flood . c Peabody-Ryan thermograph data. d Recording gage re installed. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. . Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-121 July 2009 Table 4.4-18. Mean daily water temperature in oC of the McArthur River at the rapids for the period August 1982 through June 1983 (Bechtel, 1983). Day Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June I 5 . .2 . 3.S 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 3 •. )) n " ~.~ 2 4.5 3.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 3.6 4.0 3 4.9 3.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I. 5' 3.3 3.1 4 . 4.3 3.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 3.9 3.1 5 4.5 3.0 o •. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 • 8.:3 4.0 .~ /, 4.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0, 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 5.4 7 4.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 '4.1 4.3 8 4.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .4.1 4-;-1" 9 3.9 2.5 0.0 0.0; 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4' 4.3 4.4 10 4.0 2.5 0.0 o. O· 0.0 0;0 0.0 1.0 4.0 4. 1 II 4.7 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 ,4.0 5. 1 12 3.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 1.0 .4.0 4.5 13 4.2 2.1 0.0 1.."1. (I 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 4.0 "4.5 14 4.4 2.0 0.0 1.."1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.5 4.0 4.6 1~ 5.4 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0.0 1.5 4.0 4.0 " 16 .4.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 4.0 3.9 17 5.9 6.3 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 1.6 4.3 5.,1 18 5.8 6.6 1.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 4.4 5.0 19 5.7 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1. 9. 4.5 4.5 20 5.3 -1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 ?, 4.8 .~ 21 5.6 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 4.6 22 4.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 4.5 23 5.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 4.4 24 4.6 4.0 0.8 (i.0· 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 4.~ 25 4.8 3.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3. S· 4.5 2(, 5.2 3.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.5 4.:> 27 5.4 3.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 4.4 28 4.3 3.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.5 .4.4' 2'~ . 5.0 3.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 ' ,3.5 4. 1 30 4.2 4.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 "3.5 ,3.4 31 4.9 O.S 0.0 0.0 O.B 3.0 Day Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June 1 5.2· 3.S 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 3.9 3.3 2 4.5 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.(1 1.4 3.0 4.0 3 4.9 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I. S· 3.e 3. 1 4 . 4.3 3.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 3.9 3.1 5 4.5 3.0 o o' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 • 3. S 4.0 .~ /, 4.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 9·.0 3.e 5.4 7 4.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 '4.1 4.3 8 4.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 .4. I 471" 9 3.9 2.5 0.0 0.0; 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 4.3 4.4 10 4.0 2.5 0.0 O. (I' 0.0 0;0 0.0 1.0 4.0 4. 1 II 4.7 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . ·4. 0 5.1 12 3.0 2. I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 1.0 .4.0 4.5 13 4.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 4.0 '4.5 14 4.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 '1.5 4.0 4.6 15 5.4 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0.0 1.5 4.0 4.0 16 4.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 4.0 3.9 17 5.9 0.3 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 1.6 4.3 5.,1 18 5.8 6.6 1.0 0.°1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 4.4 5.0 19 5.7 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1. 9. 4.5 4.5 20 5.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 . 4.8 21 5.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 4.6 22 4.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 4.5 23 5.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 2.5 4.4 24 4.6 4.0 0.8 O. o' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 4.:;; 25 4.8 3.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.5· 4.5 2(, 5.2 3.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.5 4.5 27 5.4 3.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 4.4 28 4.3 3.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.5 .4.4' 2'~ , 5.0 3.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 .. 3.5 4. I 30 4.2 4.0 O.S (I. (I 0.0 O. (I 0.8 "3. ~ .3.4 31 4.9 O.S 0.0 0.0 0.8 3.0 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-122 July 2009 Table 4.4-19. Summary of 1982 streamflow temperature records in oC from the recording gage on the McArthur River at Station 15, the powerhouse location (Bechtel, 1983). Ausust SeE tember October Mean Min. Max . Mean Min . Max . Mean Min. Max. 1 3 .2 2 .4 4 .7 2 3.1 1.9 4 .8 _ 3 3.0 2.4 4 .2 4 3.1 2 .4 4 .5 5 2 .8 2 .3 3.7 6 2.5 2.2 2 .8 7 1.9 1.5 2.4 8 2.2 1.2 3 .8 9 2.6 1.9 4.0 10 2.3 1.8 2 .9 11 2.4 1.8 3 .8 12 1.8 0 .5 4 .1 13 1.7 1.0 2.3 14 2 .4 2 .2 2.7 15 2.5 2 .1 4 .2 16 3 .5 2 .5 4 .9 17 18 19 20 21 3 .5 2 .1 7 .3 22 3 .4 2.1 5.9 23 3 .5 3 .0 4.7 24 3.4 2.9 4.2 25 2 .9 2 .4 3 .7 26 2.9 1.8 4 .9 27 3 .5 2.1 5.8 28 3 .4 2.4 5 .7 29 3.2 3 .0 3.6 30 2.8 2.3 4.0 31 "2 .7 1.8 4.2 AU8ust Se2tember October Mean Min . Max. Mean Kin. Max. Mean Kin. Max . 1 3 .2 2.4 4 .7 2 3 .1 1.9 4.8 " 3 3.0 2.4 4 .2 4 3 .1 2 .4 4 .5 5 2 .8 2.3 3 .7 6 2 .5 2 .2 2 .8 7 1.9 1.5 2 .4 8 2.2 1.2 3 .8 9 2.6 1.9 4.0 10 2.3 1.8 2 .9 II 2.4 1.8 3.8 12 1.8 0.5 4.1 13 1.7 1.0 2 .3 14 2 .4 2 .2 2 .7 15 2 .5 2 .1 4 .2 16 3 .5 2.5 4.9 17 18 19 20 21 3 .5 2.1 7 .3 22 3 .4 2.1 5.9 23 3 .5 3.0 4 .7 24 3.4 2.9 4.2 25 2 .9 2.4 3 .7 26 2 .9 1.8 4.9 27 3 .5 2.1 5 .8 28 3 .4 2 .4 5 .7 29 3 .2 3.0 3 .6 30 2 .8 2 .3 4.0 31 "2.7 1.8 4 .2 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-123 July 2009 4.4.5.4.1. Chakachamna and McArthur drainage system spawning habitats During 1982, water temperature, DO, conductivity, turbidity, stream depth, and water velocity measurements were taken at spawning habitats during the following months and sampling locations (tables in Bechtel March 1983): March - Table 4.4-20, Chakachatna River, station 17 and Table 4.4-22 McArthur River, stations 15 and 13. May - Table 4.4-22, Kenibuna Lake Outlet, Chilligan River, Nagishlamina River Delta, Chakachamna Lake, Chakachatna River, Straight Creek, Noaukta Slough, and Middle River and Table 4.4-21 McArthur River, near McArthur Glacier, and tributary. June - Table 4.4-24, Another River, Igitna River, Neacola Pond and River, Chilligan River, Chakachamna Lake, Chakachatna River, Straight Creek, Noauka Slough, and Middle River and Table 4.4-25 McArthur River. July - Table 4.4-26, Chilligan River, Chakachatna River, Clearwater tributary, McArthur River and tributary. August - Table 4.4-26, Chilligan River, Chakachamna Lake, Chakachatna River, Straight Creek and Clearwater tributary, Noaukta Slough, Middle River, and McArthur River. September - Table 4.4-18, Chakachatna River, Clearwater tributary, Noaukta Slough, and McArthur River. October - Table 4.4-29, Chakachatna River, Straight Creek and Clearwater tributary, Noaukta Slough, Middle River, and McArthur River. During 1983, water temperature, DO, conductivity, and turbidity measurements were taken at spawning habitats in the following months or seasons and station locations (tables in Bechtel October 1983): April - Table 4.4-30, Chakachatna River, two feeder streams from Mt Spurr, Clearwater tributary, Noaukta Slough, Middle River, and McArthur River. Spring - Table 4.4-31, Chakachatna River and tributaries, Straight Creek and Clearwater tributary, Noaukta Slough and tributaries, Middle River, and McArthur River and tributaries. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-124 July 2009 Table 4.4-20. Habitat data measured at Station 17 sloughs, March 1982 (Bechtel, 1983). Table 4.4-21. Water quality data for the McArthur River, winter 1982 (Bechtel, 1983). Notes: 1 Pool 2 Riffle 3 Standard Deviation PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-125 July 2009 Table 4.4-22. Water quality data for the Chakachatna River drainage, May 1982 (Bechtel, 1983). Note: S.D. = Standard deviation PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-126 July 2009 Table 4.4-23. Water quality data for the McArthur River drainage, May 1982 (Bechtel, 1983). Note: S.D. = Standard deviation PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-127 July 2009 Table 4.4-24. Water quality data for the Chakachatna River drainage, June 8-11, 1982 (Bechtel, 1983). Note: S.D. = Standard deviation PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-128 July 2009 Table 4.4-25. Water quality data for the McArthur River drainage, June 8-11, 1982 (Bechtel, 1983). Note: S.D. = Standard deviation PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-129 July 2009 Table 4.4-26. Water quality data by station, July 1982 (Bechtel, 1983). Station Water Temperature 1 ~tean S.D. Dissolved Oxygen Conductivity Mean S.D. Turbidity Mean S.D. N -------------------------------------------------------------------------------15 4.5 0.0 I 17 10. l 0.4 Il.0 0.4 51.0 1.4 12.0 4.2 2 I3X 10.l 0.0 II. 3 0.6 3.0 0.0 9.0 1.8 1 lO 7.1 0.1 11.3 0.1 13.7 0.6 19.3 0.6 3 19 8.0 0.0 IStandard Deviation Station Water Temperature 1 Mean S.D. Dissolved Oxygen Mean S.D. Conductivity Mean S.D. Turbidity Mean S.D. N -------------------------------------------------------------------------------15 4.5 0.0 I 17 10.3 0.4 13.0 0.4 51. 0 1.4 12.0 4.2 2 13X 10.3 0.0 II. 3 0.6 3.0 0.0 9.0 2.8 2 30 7. I 0.2 II. 3 0.2 13.7 0.6 29.3 0.6 3 19 8.0 0.0 lStandard Deviation PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-130 July 2009 Table 4.4-27. Water quality data by station, August 1982 (Bechtel, 1983). Note: S.D. = Standard deviation PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-131 July 2009 Table 4.4-28. Water quality data by station, September 1982 (Bechtel, 1983). Note: S.D. = Standard deviation. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-132 July 2009 Table 4.4-29. Water quality data by station, October 1982 (Bechtel, 1983). Note: S.D. = Standard deviation PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-133 July 2009 Table 4.4-30. Water quality data by station, April 1983 (Bechtel, 1983). Note: S.D. = Standard deviation PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-134 July 2009 Table 4.4-31. Water quality data by station, spring 1983 (Bechtel, 1983). Note: S.D. = Standard deviatione Water Oissolved Tem!;!erature Ox~gen Conductivit~ Turb1d1t!l Mean SO Mean SO Hean SO Mean SO Station ( 0c) (mgl1 ) (umhos/clII) (mgl1) 9.8 10 .8 41 83 10 9 .0 12.5 29 155 2 5.' 12 .8 3D 133 3 5.4 12 .3 33 82 4 8.2 12.6 41 95 5 9.1 2.22 10 .5 1.98 54.1 24 .99 85.1 49 .9 8 6 1 .4 12 .8 39 92 6A 6.5 12 .2 32 93 8 1.2 13 .0 35 14 9 6 .8 12 .0 33 90 10 9.0 11 .2 38 84 11 6.1 0.21 11.35 .15 34 .4 1 .2 93.9 6.3 11.5 1.0 12 .5 33 125 12 4.9 12 .8 9 220 13 4.2 11.1 '·2 160 14 9.6 9 .4 16 19 15 3 .5 12.-1 12 194 16 5 .3 13 .2 31 86 16A 11.1 3 .06 10 .3 1.96 10 .3 24.42 54.1 18 .32 11 5.9 10.5 31 14 30.00 110 5 .1 12.3 31 112 18 6 .1 10.1 42 51 18A 3 .2 12.9 33 180 19 9.4 10.8 12 8 19A 5 .8 12.3 8 11 20 11.3 1 1.7 65 3 21 6 .1 12.9 39 59 22 5 .1 12.6 21 63 23 4.1 12 .1 26 56 24 5.1 15.5 28 21 40 5.5 12.2 1 1 40A 5.2 12 .4 1 4 41 6 .1 12 .6 1 16 41A 5 .2 12 .5 6 34 42 10 .1 10 .1 14 1 4211 1.2 12.1 64 12 43 9 .3 13.3 16 1 43A 1.6 10 .6 15 5 44 1.9 11.2 102 6 44A 1.0 12.5 102 12 45 9 .2 1 .0 46 18 Water Oissolved Temt!e ra~ure Ox ~gen Con du ctiv1t~ Turb1d1t!l Mean SO Mean SO Mean SO Mean SO Station (Oe) (mg/l ) (umhos/c .. ) (mg/l ) 9.8 10.8 41 83 1 0 9 .0 12 .5 29 155 2 5 .4 12 .8 30 133 3 5.4 1 2.3 33 82 4 8 .2 12 .6 41 95 5 9.1 2.22 10.5 1.98 54 .1 24 .99 85 .1 49.98 6 1 .4 12 .8 39 92 6' 6 .5 12 .2 32 93 8 1.2 13 .0 35 14 9 6 .8 12 .0 33 90 10 9.0 11.2 38 84 11 6.1 0.21 11.35 .15 34.4 1 .2 93.9 6.3 11 .5 1.0 12 .5 33 125 12 4 .9 12 .8 9 22 0 13 4 .2 11.1 '·2 160 14 9.6 9 .4 16 19 15 3.5 12.-1 12 194 16 5.3 13 .2 31 86 16A 11.1 3.06 10 .3 1.96 10.3 24.42 54 .1 18 .32 11 5.9 10.5 31 14 30.00 110 5.1 12.3 31 112 18 6.1 10.1 42 51 18A 3 .2 12.9 33 180 19 9.4 10.8 12 8 19A 5.8 12.3 8 11 20 11.3 11.7 65 3 21 6.1 12.9 39 59 22 5 .1 12.6 21 63 23 4.1 12.1 26 56 24 5.1 15 .5 28 21 40 5.5 12.2 1 1 40. 5.2 12 .4 1 4 41 6 .1 12 .6 1 16 41. 5.2 12.5 6 34 42 10 .1 10 .1 14 1 42A 1.2 12.1 64 12 43 9.3 13.3 16 1 43A 1.6 10 .6 15 5 44 1.9 11.2 102 6 44A 1.0 12.5 102 12 45 9.2 1 .0 46 18 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-135 June 2009 4.4.5.5. Sediments Chakachatna and McArthur river systems are glacial and thus carry fine glacial silts through much of the open water season. The systems also transport larger materials in suspension and as bedload. The main channel substrate of these river systems under existing flow regimes appears to be quite unstable. Table 4.4-32 summarizes the general substrate and sediment transport characteristics of various stream reaches of the Chakachatna and McArthur river systems (Bechtel, 1983). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 4-136 July 2009 Table 4.4-32. General substrate and sediment transport characteristics of the Chakachatna and McArthur river systems in 1982 (Bechtel, 1983). Reach Representative Main Channel Substrate Sediment Transport Characteristics Chakachatna River in Chakachatna Canyon Cobble/Boulder Silts and sands are carried in suspension; gravel/cobble sizes are likely moved as bed load Chakachatna River from Canyon Outlet to Noaukta Slough Split Gravel/Cobble Silts and sands are carried in suspension; gravels are likely moved as bed load Upper McArthur River near Powerhouse Sand with some gravel Silts and fine sands are moved in suspension; sand and small gravel may move as bed load Upper McArthur River at Rapids Cobble/Boulder Silts and sands are moved in suspension; gravel and cobbles likely moved as bed load McArthur River near Blockade Glacier Sand with some areas of gravel/cobble Silts and fine sands are moved in suspension; course sands and small gravels are likely moved as bed load McArthur River below Blockade Glacier, Noaukta Slough, Lower Chakachatna River, and Middle River Silty sand with limited areas of gravel Silts are carried in suspension; Sands are moved as bed load in large dune forms PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 4-137 July 2009 4.4.6. Potential Adverse Impacts Water leaving Chakachamna Lake supports a variety of aquatic and wetland habitats alongside channels, in adjacent wetlands, and in groundwater-fed distributary channels throughout the Chakachatna/McArthur lowlands. The Project area is a dynamic environment with significant historical changes in streamflow patterns, floodplains, glacial extent, and input of volcanic debris. The potential impacts of the Project will be assessed within the framework of a changing rather than static environment. Delineating flow paths and quantifying water discharge between the outlet of Chakachamna Lake and the confluence with the McArthur River are prerequisites to understanding potential Project impacts and designing mitigation measures that might help offset those impacts. Potential impacts from the Project fall into a number of categories from the need for additional baseline data to anticipated hydrologic changes after Project operation begins. A discussion of impacts to water resources by impact category is provided in Table 4.4-31. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 4-138 July 2009 Table 4.4-33. Potential impact issues related to water resources. Water Resource Impact Issues Related to the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Impact Issue Category Issue Related to Establishment of a Multi-Year Climatologic Data Record for the Study Area. Establish a record of both short-term and seasonal recordings of air temperature and precipitation. Establish a record of both short-term and seasonal fluctuations in surface water flows and levels and water temperature and pressures. Establish a record of both short-term and seasonal fluctuations in groundwater elevations to determine flow paths throughout the study area. Related to Establishment of a Multi-Year Hydrologic and Groundwater Data Record for Chakachamna Lake, Chakachatna River, and McArthur River Investigate how much water is draining off hill slopes adjacent to river systems downstream of Chakachamna Lake. Related to Establishment of a Baseline Water Quality Data Record Establish a record of both short-term and seasonal fluctuations in water quality data (including dissolved oxygen, conductivity, turbidity, and pH) in Chakachamna Lake, and the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers, particularly in support of fisheries habitat data collection. Delineation of flow paths and quantifying water discharge between the outlet of Chakachamna Lake and the confluence with the McArthur River to provide insight into flow distribution between Chakachatna River and Noaukta Slough, downstream distributaries of the river, and adjacent wetland complexes. Related to Project Impacts as a Result of Reduced Flows on the Chakachatna River Changes in hydrology may affect traditional subsistence use of the Chakachatna River and riparian habitats. Delineation of flow paths and quantifying water discharge between the proposed powerhouse tailrace location on the McArthur River and the confluence with Cook Inlet to provide insight into distribution between McArthur River and Noaukta Slough tributaries, downstream distributaries of the river, and adjacent wetland complexes. Related to Project Impacts as a Result of Increased Flows on the McArthur River Changes in hydrology may affect traditional subsistence use of the McArthur River and riparian habitats. Operation of the proposed Project would result in substantially increased year-round flow in the McArthur River upstream of Noaukta Slough, and decreased flow in summer and fall in the Chakachatna River, Noaukta Slough, and downstream distributary channels. There would also be a seasonal change in flow due to the drawdown schedule of Chakachamna Lake. This decrease in flow could also affect clear-water channels, ponds, and wetlands associated with the distributary channels. In addition, changes in the flow of both the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers could affect traditional subsistence use of the rivers and associated riparian habitats. To provide more recent climatological and water quality baseline data, which are lacking for the Project area and needed for impact assessment of Project water resources, several weather stations will be established to collect multi-year temperature and precipitation data, and a water quality monitoring study will be initiated for Chakachamna Lake and the Chakachatna and PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 4-139 July 2009 McArthur rivers in support of the fisheries habitat data collection. An integrated surface and groundwater study will be developed for data collection to provide insight into flow distribution between the Chakachatna River, McArthur River, Noaukta Slough, downstream distributaries of the Chakachatna River, and adjacent wetland complexes. Additionally, as described in Section 4.2.2.2., the potential significance of global climate change to the basin’s hydrologic cycle will be examined. Additionally, the significance of the basin’s glaciers in providing instream flows will be examined. 4.4.7. Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures The extent of potential impacts, and possible needs for mitigation, will be examined during the licensing process. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 4-140 July 2009 4.5. Fish and Aquatic Resources 4.5.1. Introduction The Chakachatna River/McArthur River drainage areas are large and complex, consisting of Kenibuna Lake, Chakachamna Lake, approximately eight named and unnamed tributaries to Chakachamna and Kenibuna lakes, the mainstem Chakachatna River, the mainstem McArthur River, and a system of interconnected tributaries, distributaries and sloughs that carry flow from both rivers through lowlands and tide flats to Cook Inlet. Fish resources and aquatic habitats associated with these drainage systems are, likewise, complex. Topography surrounding the lake is mountainous and numerous glaciers contribute to river flow. Glacial input causes the water to be turbid throughout most of the system. Unless otherwise noted, all of the information presented below is based on the 1981-83 APA study program (Bechtel, 1983). Consequently, most of the information represents one year's data on composition of the aquatic communities from 1982. The investigations emphasized qualitative information, making comparisons with other stream systems difficult. In the following discussion, “Project area” refers to the total Chakachatna and McArthur river drainage areas (Figure 4.1-1). Fish concentration and/or special use areas are highlighted on Figures 4.5- 1, 4.5-2, and 4.5-3. 4.5.2. Existing Fish and Aquatic Communities 4.5.2.1. Aquatic Communities by Watershed Area Aquatic habitats are described below beginning at the upstream end of the Chakachatna River drainage and proceeding downstream. Chakachamna Lake and Kenibuna Lake Tributaries - Five significant tributaries and numerous minor drainages empty from the surrounding mountains into Kenibuna and Chakachamna Lakes (Figure 4.5-1). Most of these relatively high altitude tributaries have a glacial origin, are turbid and cold, and provide poor fish habitat. However, the Chilligan and Igitna Rivers receive substantial non-glacial input and have clearer water than the other lake tributaries. These two streams provide significant sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) spawning habitat. Escapements were estimated in 1982 at 38,600 and 2,900 for the Chilligan and Igitna Rivers, respectively (Table 4.5-1). Some of the peak counts provided by later ADF&G aerial survey data (ADF&G,File Data) suggest that sockeye salmon numbers have been substantially higher in some years. The lower three miles of the Chilligan River provides the most important sockeye salmon spawning habitat in the Project area. No species of salmon other than sockeye have been observed in the lake tributaries except for one record of 12 Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in 1981 (ADF&G,File Data). The lake tributary streams also provide habitat for Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) which are ubiquitous in the study area but especially abundant in the Chilligan and Igitna Rivers. Round whitefish (Prosopium PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 4-141 July 2009 cylindraceum) are present in Chakachamna Lake and may spawn in tributary streams, but such spawning has not been confirmed. Chilliga n R iv e r I g itn a R i v e r A nother River C h a k a c h a m n a Lake Nagishl a mi n a River N e a c o l a R iv e r Chakachatna River McArthu r Ri v er de LakeCapp Sout h T w i n G lacH a r p o o n G l a c i e r Mt. Torbert Mt. Spurr Bloc k a d e Gl a ci er S ha mr ock GlacierAnchorage Author: HDR Alaska - MC Date: 28 May 2009 Sources: ESRI, USGS, HATCH Filename: FIG 4_5-1_FishHabLake_8x11.mxd 02.55Miles Map Extent Legend Lake Clark National Park Sensitive Fish Habitat Dolly Varden Spawning Sockeye Salmon and Dolly Varden Spawning Sockeye Salmon Milling Areas - Possible Spawning Sensitive Fish Habitats Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Graphic representation only. HDR makes no guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of source data. Figure 4.5-1 02.55 Kilometers Sensitive Fish Habitats in Chakachamna Lake C h a k a c h a m n a Lake Chakachatna River McArthu r Ri v er Blockade LakeL o n e R idgeBloc k a d e Gl a ci er Anchorage Author: HDR Alaska - MC Date: 09 June 2009 Sources: ESRI, USGS, ADFG, HEA, HATCH Filename: FIG 4_5-2_FishHabCHEU_8x11.mxd 02.55Miles Map Extent Habitat Type Chinook Spawning Eulachon Spawning Sensitive Fish Habitats Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Graphic representation only. HDR makes no guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of source data. Figure 4.5-2 02.55 Kilometers Cook Inlet Sensitive Fish Habitats Downstream of Chakachamna Lake: Chinook and Eulochon Spawning C h a k a c h a m n a Lake Chakachatna River McArthu r Ri v er Blockade LakeL o n e R idgeBloc k a d e Gl a ci er Anchorage Author: HDR Alaska - MC Date: 09 June 2009 Sources: ESRI, USGS, ADFG, NEA, HATCH Filename: FIG 4_5-3_FishHabSPCD_8x11.mxd 02.55Miles Map Extent Sensitive Fish Habitats Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Graphic representation only. HDR makes no guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of source data. Figure 4.5-3 02.55 Kilometers Cook Inlet Habitat Type Rearing; Possible Overwintering Sockeye, Pink, Coho and Dolly Varden Spawning Sensitive Fish Habitats Downstream of Chakachamna Lake: sockeye, pink, coho and dolly varden spawning & rearing PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 4-145 July 2009 Table 4.5-1. Estimated salmon escapement by stream segment – 1982. Species Chilligan River Igitna River Chakachatna Mainstem Straight Creek Tributary McArthur Mainstem McArthur and Noaukta Clear Tributaries Total Sockeye 38576 2781 2026 254 666 34265 78568 Chinook 0 0 0 1422 0 2107 3529 Pink 0 0 338 7925 60 19717 28040 Chum 0 0 1920 0 1 28 1949 Coho 0 0 2427 172 1182 3545 7326 Total 38576 2781 6711 9773 1909 59662 119412 Chakachamna and Kenibuna Lakes - Chakachamna Lake is a long, narrow mountain lake with a length of 14.5 miles and a maximum width of 2.4 miles. The water is turbid and cold and several glaciers abut the steep shoreline. Kenibuna Lake adjoins Chakachamna Lake at its west end; the lakes are separated by the end of the Shamrock glacier and its associated moraine and outwash delta. A channel around the delta connects the two lakes. Ice covers the lakes from November to early June. The Chakachatna River exits from the east end of Chakachamna Lake. Both lakes provide rearing habitat for sockeye salmon, most of which presumably originate at spawning grounds in the Chilligan and Igitna Rivers. Juvenile sockeye salmon spend up to two years in Chakachamna Lake prior to outmigrating to saltwater. Hydroacoustic studies indicated that juvenile fish were widely distributed, primarily within the upper 120 feet of the water column. There was some suggestion that fish distribution was related to turbidity with highly turbid layers in deeper water being avoided. The lakes also provide a migratory corridor for adult salmon en route to spawning grounds in the western tributaries. Studies in 1982 showed large numbers of adult sockeye salmon milling along the north shore of Chakachamna Lake (Figure 4.5-2). Lake spawning was suspected but not confirmed. Tagging studies indicated that at least some of these fish moved into tributary streams. In light of recent experience with other large glacial lakes in Alaska (Burger 1995), it is likely that some shoreline spawning occurs. Sockeye are the only salmon species to be observed in Chakachamna Lake or its tributaries with the exception of the one record of Chinook salmon cited above. Chakachamna Lake also provides habitat for resident lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), Dolly Varden, and round whitefish. Lake trout probably spend their entire lives in the lake, whereas Dolly Varden may use a combination of lake, lake tributary, and Chakachatna River habitats. The size of the lake trout population is unknown. Life histories of lake trout, Dolly Varden, and whitefish have not been investigated in Chakachamna Lake. Chakachatna River -The Chakachatna River mainstem provides a migration corridor for all salmon species, limited spawning habitat for sockeye, chum (Oncorhynchus keta), pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), and coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) salmon, and rearing habitat for sockeye, Chinook, and coho salmon. Known fish use areas are limited within this large, turbid river. The uppermost 14 miles have a uniformly high gradient, and the primary fish value is as a migratory corridor for sockeye salmon and, perhaps, resident species. Salmon spawning occurs within a short reach at the lower end of the Chakachatna River canyon area (sockeye and chum), PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 4-146 July 2009 within side channels about 1 mile upstream from the Straight Creek confluence (sockeye, chum and pink), and immediately downstream from the confluence of Straight Creek (Figures 4.5-2 and 4.5-3). About 6,700 salmon (primarily chum, coho, and sockeye) were estimated to be present in Chakachatna mainstem areas in 1982 (Table 4.5-1). These specific areas are likely associated with upwelling groundwater. Much of the actual spawning occurs in side channels and sloughs. The upwelling areas used for spawning also provide rearing habitat and may be important overwintering refuge areas due to the presence of open water during periods of ice cover. The lower Chakachatna River splits into three branches: Middle River, which flows southeast and empties into Cook Inlet, Chakachatna River, which flows south and joins the McArthur River near its mouth, and a third channel that enters Noaukta Slough ultimately joining the middle part of the McArthur River. Recent satellite imagery suggests that the flow pattern within these distributaries has changed since the 1981-1983 studies with more flow now entering Noaukta Slough than previously. Recent environmental reconnaissance (HDR 2008) indicates that at most times of the year almost all of the water from the Chakachatna River now flows through Noaukta Slough, joining the McArthur River in its middle reaches. Middle River and the old lower Chakachatna River channel currently have no direct connection with the upper Chakachatna River. These changes will need to be confirmed by future investigations. At the time of the 1981-1983 studies, the low gradient channels in the lower Chakachatna and Middle Rivers provided significant rearing and feeding habitat for juvenile coho and sockeye salmon, Dolly Varden, pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulteri), and adult rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Fish use decreased as the channels entered the marshy intertidal area. Fish habitat values of these Chakachatna River distributary streams have likely changed since the Bechtel studies. Straight Creek - Straight Creek is a major north side tributary to the Chakachatna River. Water is turbid and the mainstem probably has low fish value. However, an unnamed clear tributary that enters the north side of Straight Creek is one of the more important fish streams in the Project area. All of the known Chinook salmon spawning in the Chakachatna drainage occurs in this tributary, as well as most of the pink salmon spawning (Table 4.5-1). Chum, sockeye, and coho salmon are also present in the unnamed creek. The value of juvenile rearing and adult resident fish habitat is also high in this clear stream. Juvenile Chinook and coho salmon, juvenile Dolly Varden, and adult rainbow trout were abundant. A sampling station near the mouth of the clear tributary to Straight Creek had the highest density and diversity of fish species of all the areas sampled in 1982. The drainage area of Straight Creek and its tributary are probably independent of any potential impacts from proposed Project development. Noaukta Slough - Noaukta Slough is a heavily braided complex of channels, islands, and pools with varied depth and substrate. Most of the flow in the slough comes from the Chakachatna River, but the slough also receives clear water drainage from the wetland and associated short tributaries to the north. The slough empties into middle reaches of the McArthur River. Because of the high habitat diversity and abundance of slow-water habitats, Noaukta Slough provides high value rearing and feeding habitat for juvenile coho, Chinook, and sockeye salmon, Dolly Varden, rainbow trout, and whitefish. The initial investigators considered Noaukta Slough to be PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 4-147 July 2009 a major nursery area and a possible wintering area for both the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers. Clear water Tributaries - A series of about eight short southerly flowing clear water tributaries enter the McArthur River and the north side of Noaukta Slough. These unnamed streams were important salmon spawning areas (Figure 4.5-3 and 4.5-4) and provided spawning habitat for 50 percent of the total salmon of all species in the Project area (Table 4.5-1). The longest of these tributaries was one of only two Chinook salmon spawning sites in the Project area. The streams can be accessed by fish either from the McArthur River or from the Chakachatna River via Noaukta Slough. The drainage areas of these tributaries may be at least partly independent of flow in the mainstems of the McArthur and Chakachatna rivers. However, additional investigation is needed to determine whether a link exists between Chakachatna flow and water levels in adjoining wetlands that contribute to the tributaries. McArthur River - Originating at the McArthur Glacier, the upper portion of the McArthur River is fast and cold with little fish value. Water quality samples collected by the USGS in 1970 indicated that the stream was unproductive with a high sediment load (USGS 2008). Hardness and mineral concentrations were generally higher, however, than the Chakachatna River. About 4 miles downstream from its origin and just downstream from the proposed powerhouse discharge, the river becomes braided, water temperature increases, and clear water input from small side tributaries contributes to the habitat diversity and fish use. Dolly Varden, including large anadromous spawners, were abundant in this reach in fall. All five species of salmon were observed to spawn in side channels adjacent to this area (Figures 4.5-2 and 4.5-3). This area near the mouth of the canyon also provided rearing habitat and may have been a winter refuge area. Further downstream, below the confluence with the Blockade Glacier stream, the McArthur River becomes larger and splits into several channels. Limited slow-water reaches provide rearing and feeding habitat for juvenile coho and sockeye salmon; Dolly Varden; and pygmy whitefish. Downstream from the confluence with Noaukta Slough, which carries most of the Chakachatna River water, the McArthur River becomes large, wide and slow. This low gradient intertidal segment of the McArthur River contains no salmonid spawning habitat and rearing potential is minimal; however, anadromous eulachon (Thaleichthes pacificus) were observed to spawn in the lower stream. At the present time the lower McArthur River provides a migratory corridor for all anadromous fish entering the Project area, including those bound for the Chakachatna River or Chakachamna Lake. Upper Cook Inlet Marine Waters – Upper Cook Inlet marine waters are dynamic. Extreme tides, strong currents, variable salinity, and high turbidity limit diversity and productivity of the marine ecosystem. Near shore zones are especially vulnerable to the effects of wide tidal variation and ice action. Primary productivity is very low and benthic infauna is rare. Nevertheless, a highly specialized group of plants and animals inhabit these areas (Pentec 2005; Dames & Moore 1983). Invertebrates are dominated by highly mobile epibenthic crustaceans including several species of shrimp, amphipods, and mysids. Several investigators have suggested that the ecosystem is detritus-based – dependent on organic material from upstream sources rather than primary productivity within the marine system itself (Pentec 2005; Dames & Moore 1983). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 4-148 July 2009 Upper Cook Inlet provides a migratory corridor for juveniles and adults of all five Pacific salmon species en route to and from freshwater spawning and rearing streams. Juvenile coho, Chinook, and sockeye salmon are able to successfully feed in the inlet in spite of the high turbidity (Pentec 2005; Moulton 1997; Dames & Moore 1983). Other anadromous species common seasonally in Upper Cook Inlet include eulachon (hooligan), three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), Dolly Varden, and Bering cisco (Coregonus laurettae). Resident marine species known to be present in Upper Cook Inlet include longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthes), Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi), walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma), saffron cod (Eleginus gracilis), Bering cisco, and ringtail snailfish (Liparis rutteri)(Pentec 2005). Beach seine sampling indicates that all of the above fish species may be oriented to the shoreline at some times and, thus, potentially vulnerable to shoreline impacts (Pentec 2005; Moulton 1997; Dames & Moore 1983). 4.5.2.2. Key Fish Species For Alaska projects, key fish species are usually those that provide a significant contribution to commercial, sport, or subsistence fisheries. In some cases, forage species that provide essential nutrition to key species can also be considered key species. The species discussed below for the Project are considered the minimum key fish species that will be considered in environmental analysis. Sockeye Salmon - Sockeye salmon are the most abundant anadromous fish in the Chakachatna and McArthur River drainages, and they are the most valuable commercial species in Upper Cook Inlet. The 1982 Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project studies estimated that about 78,600 adult sockeye spawners were present in the Project area in that year, about 53 percent of which spawned in the Chilligan and Igitna Rivers and reared in Chakachamna Lake (Table 4.5-1). About 40 percent of the total fish spawned in tributaries to the McArthur River and Noaukta Slough, and most of the remaining 7 percent were associated with mainstem habitats in the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers. Sockeye salmon would be considered by far the most significant key species associated with the upper part of the Chakachatna River drainage, potentially vulnerable to fish passage impacts at the entrance to Chakachamna Lake and to lake drawdown impacts. Some rearing also occurs in lower McArthur River and in Noaukta Slough; thus some of these young fish would be vulnerable to downstream impacts as well. Juvenile sockeye salmon are specifically adapted to rearing in lakes, and the most productive sockeye systems consist of stream/lake complexes. Therefore, sockeye habitats are limited by the number of lake-stream systems available, adding to the perceived value of sockeye salmon systems. A study of the genetic characteristics of Upper Cook Inlet salmon stocks (Habicht et al. 2007) indicated that sockeye salmon from the Chilligan River were distinctively different from other Cook Inlet sockeye stocks, suggesting that the Chilligan River fish represent a separate population that has been isolated from other stocks for an extended period. There is no information available that specifically looks at the contribution of Chakachamna Project area sockeye salmon to area-wide fisheries, but the numbers are small in terms of area- wide totals. For example, total returns of sockeye salmon to Upper Cook Inlet in 2007 equaled PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 4-149 July 2009 about 4.9 million fish, with about 1.5 million fish allowed to escape the fisheries and enter spawning streams (Shields 2007). Escapement to the Kenai River alone in 2007 was about 880,000 fish. The number of fish contributed by the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers is obviously overwhelmed by the major producing rivers, such as the Kenai, Kasiloff, and Susitna rivers. Genetic studies that looked at the contributions of various sockeye salmon stocks to Cook Inlet fisheries have found that west side streams (including the Chakachatna and McArthur drainages) normally contribute less than 5 percent of the total catch, but early in 2007 west side streams contributed 31 percent of the central inlet drift net catch (Habicht et al. 2007). In spite of the overwhelming numbers of salmon contributed by the major Cook Inlet systems, fish from west side drainages including the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers might make significant contributions to Cook Inlet fisheries at some times and at some locations. Sockeye from west side streams undoubtedly also contribute to subsistence set net fisheries on the west side of Upper Cook Inlet, especially in the vicinity of the village of Tyonek. Chinook Salmon - Chinook salmon are the largest and least abundant of the Pacific salmon. They also have the highest commercial value per pound and per fish. An estimated 3,530 Chinook salmon were present in Project Area streams in 1982. About 40 percent of the Chinooks were found in a clear tributary to Straight Creek, a northern tributary to the Chakachatna River. The watershed of Straight Creek is independent of the Chakachatna River and, thus, spawning habitat in this drainage likely will not be affected by potential project induced flow changes. About 60 percent of the Chinook spawning was observed in clear water tributaries to the McArthur River. Much of the flow in these tributaries may also be independent of flow in the mainstem McArthur River and, again, Chinook spawning habitat may not be affected by potential Project effects. However, Chinook rearing habitats were found in several areas on the mainstem McArthur River, lower Chakachatna River, and in Noaukta Slough. All of these areas could be affected by project-induced flow and/or temperature changes. Consequently, Chinook salmon rearing habitat will likely be considered a key evaluation factor in environmental analysis. Commercial fisheries in Upper Cook Inlet harvest relatively small numbers of Chinook salmon. The total harvest in 2007 was 17,625 fish (Shields 2007). Stream escapement is not measured in most areas but numbers per stream are generally small. For example, the Deshka River, one of the most productive Chinook streams in the area, had a 2007 escapement of 18,700 fish. Project area streams make a significant contribution to Upper Cook Inlet Chinooks. Chinooks are an important freshwater sport fish species and are fished heavily in waters that are accessible to anglers. While the Chakachamna Project area provides some sport fishing opportunity, fishing pressure has been light due to its remote location. Pink Salmon - Pink salmon are the smallest, most numerous, and least commercially valuable of the Pacific salmon species. About 28,000 adult pink salmon were estimated to be present in the Project Area in 1982. Pink salmon numbers can be highly variable, and some years may have much higher or much lower numbers. In the Chakachatna River drainage, pink salmon spawning habitats are mostly limited to clear tributaries of Straight Creek. In the McArthur River drainage most pink salmon were found in clear north side tributaries. As was the case with Chinook salmon, most pink salmon spawning occurs in tributaries that might not be affected by altered PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 4-150 July 2009 flow in the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers. Pink salmon fry leave fresh water soon after emerging, consequently rearing habitats are not an issue. Pink salmon will likely not be considered a key evaluation factor in environmental analysis of the Chakachamna Project because spawning habitats are mostly separated from potentially affected waterways. Pink salmon harvests in Upper Cook Inlet in 2006 and 2007 were 404,000 and 145,000 fish, respectively (Shields 2007). Many pink salmon are caught incidental to other fisheries and are not specifically targeted. Area-wide escapement numbers are not available but numbers are in the multiple millions with even years having much higher numbers than odd years. Pink salmon are generally underexploited in Cook Inlet and the contribution of Project Area streams would likely not be viewed as an essential resource. Coho Salmon - Coho are relatively large salmon that tend to enter spawning streams later in the year than other species. About 7,330 coho salmon were estimated to be present in the Project Area in 1982, about 35 percent of which were found in the Chakachatna River and the remainder in the McArthur River drainage (Table 4.5-1). Most of the spawning in the Chakachatna River was observed in sloughs and side channels downstream from the Straight Creek confluence. Coho salmon spawning in the McArthur drainage was about evenly divided between the mainstem canyon area, and two clear water tributaries that drain the wetland area north of Noaukta Slough and enter the McArthur River downstream from the canyon. Spawning areas in or adjacent to the Chakachatna and McArthur mainstems would be vulnerable to potential impact from project-induced flow changes. Mainstem spawning areas account for about 49 percent of the total habitat as reflected by the 1982 coho salmon distribution. Juvenile coho salmon rear in freshwater for one or two years prior to outmigrating to saltwater. The 1982 study program indicated that juvenile coho salmon were widely distributed throughout the lower Project Area wherever suitable slow water habitats existed. Noaukta Slough was especially important. Because of the distribution of both spawning and rearing habitats, coho salmon would be highly vulnerable to flow-related impacts. Coho salmon will likely be a key evaluation species when considering potential project impacts in the downstream area. The average annual harvest of coho salmon in the Upper Cook Inlet commercial fishery was 185,000 fish in the 10-year period ending in 2007 (Shields 2007). Coho salmon are also important in subsistence set net fisheries and in the sport fishery. Total run size is highly variable from year to year and escapements are measured in only a few area streams. For example, the average escapement to the Little Susitna River (the most productive coho stream in Upper Cook Inlet) over the last ten years was about 20,600 (Shields 2007). The Project Area escapement in 1982 of 7,330 is significant in light of the relatively small numbers of fish in the typical coho salmon stream. There are no specific data relative to the contribution of Project Area coho salmon stocks to the Upper Cook Inlet Fishery as a whole. Chum Salmon - Chum salmon were the least abundant salmon species in the Project Area. About 1,920 chums were estimated to be present in the Chakachatna drainage in 1982, whereas only 29 were observed in the McArthur drainage. Like pink salmon, chum salmon numbers tend to be highly variable between years, and the limited available data may not reflect average returns to the Project Area. About 84 percent of the chum salmon observed in 1982 were seen in PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 4-151 July 2009 the Chakachatna River immediately downstream from the Straight Creek confluence, mostly associated with sloughs and side channels. Chum salmon tend to select areas of upwelling ground water for spawning. Existing spawning habitat in the Chakachatna River would be vulnerable to project-induced flow reductions. A general reduction in flow could also reduce shallow ground water input to side channel habitats and affect chum spawning areas. Chum salmon generally leave freshwater soon after hatching although some early rearing may occur in intertidal or estuarine areas. While low in numbers, the availability of chum salmon spawning habitat may be considered important from an impact evaluation standpoint, especially since coho salmon use some of the same areas. Maintenance of shallow ground water flow may be critical to these species. The average commercial harvest of chum salmon in Upper Cook Inlet for the 10-year period ending with 2007 was 122,000 fish (Shields 2007). Chum salmon have a low commercial value and are generally not targeted by fishermen in Cook Inlet. Most of the chums are caught incidental to the sockeye salmon fishery. The contribution of Project Area chum salmon to the commercial catch is likely small. Rainbow Trout - The 1981-1983 studies indicated that resident rainbow trout in a variety of sizes were present in the Project area, occupying portions of the Chakachatna River below the canyon and much of the lower McArthur River. Tagging indicated that the trout travel widely within and between the two river systems and within Noaukta Slough. Spawning was not observed and spawning areas were not identified. Juvenile and adult rainbow trout would be vulnerable to flow and temperature changes in the lower Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers. Rainbow trout are a popular sport fishing species, although current exploitation is light because of difficult access to the Project Area. Rainbow trout habitat availability will likely be considered important as an impact evaluation criteria. Dolly Varden - Dolly Varden are ubiquitous throughout the Project area and were numerically dominant at most sites sampled in 1982. The large drainage probably contains numerous subpopulations of resident Dolly Varden as well as supporting anadromous Dolly Varden that spend part of their life history in Cook Inlet. Dolly Varden, especially large anadromous fish, are caught in the sport fishery, but exploitation is light. Slow water habitats suitable for Dolly Varden rearing overlap those used by rainbow trout and coho salmon. Use areas in the lower portions of the Project area also overlap. Consequently, the availability of these rearing habitats for a suite of juvenile fish will be an important impact evaluation criterion. Lake Trout - Very little is known about the lake trout population in Chakachamna Lake. This species normally spends all or most of its life in its home lake, spawning within the lake at selected shoreline and lake bottom areas. Spawning areas may be vulnerable to drawdown depending on their depth. The significance of such an impact would depend in part on the size of the lake trout population. Lake trout will likely be a key impact evaluation species relative to potential Chakachamna Lake impacts, with significance depending in part on the size of the population. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 4-152 July 2009 Eulachon - Eulachon (hooligan) are an anadromous species that spend most of their life in the marine environment but spawn in fresh and brackish waters, including portions of the lower McArthur River. Eulachon are a seasonal food source for endangered Beluga whales and, thus, may require special consideration. Spawning occurs primarily in the intertidal portion of the McArthur River over silty substrates both in the early spring and the late fall. Non-game Species – The above-mentioned key fish species derive their importance from their value in sport or commercial harvests or as forage for key species. In addition, there are numerous “non-game” species that are protected under Alaska’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). Fish species present in the Project area that have been listed (McCracken 2007) as being species of concern under the CWCS program include the following: Three-spine stickleback Nine-spine stickleback (Pungitius pungitius) Slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) Lake trout Round whitefish Pygmy whitefish Bering cisco Longfin smelt Eulachon Although lamprey (Lampetra sp. and Ichthyomyzon sp.) were not found during the Bechtel studies, it should be assumed that some species of lamprey are present in the Project area. Lampreys may be either anadromous or resident and some species are considered to be especially vulnerable to impacts. 4.5.2.3. Sensitive Time Periods The timing of life history stages and events for the various species and life history stages of fish in the Project Area is presented in Figure 4.5-4a and Figure 4.5-4b. Sensitive time periods are described and summarized below for events that may be most relevant to Project design and operation. Sockeye salmon migration into Chakachamna Lake and tributaries – Adult sockeye salmon move up the Chakachatna River and into Chakachamna Lake from mid-July to mid-August. Provision of upstream passage for these fish at the lake entrance would need to target this time period. Spawning in the Chilligan River takes place from mid-August to mid-October with a sharp peak occurring in early September. Spawning in Chakachamna Lake, if it occurs, would likely occur at about the same time as in Chilligan River. Provision of passage into Chakachamna Lake tributaries, Kenibuna Lake, and Kenibuna Lake tributaries would need to occur during the early August to early October time period. In general, sockeye salmon can be expected to move into Chakachamna Lake, mill around for awhile, then move to tributary or lake spawning areas. This process occurs from early July to mid-October. Judging from research in other large glacial lakes (Burger et al. 1995), it is likely that several genetically separate PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 4-153 July 2009 populations of sockeyes occupy the Chakachatna drainage and that the timing for each population's life history may be somewhat different. Chakachamna Lake spawning and egg incubation – Lake trout and sockeye salmon likely spawn in Chakachamna Lake, with eggs and fry developing for an extended period. As mentioned above, sockeye salmon spawn in early fall with eggs and pre-emergent fry developing until the following spring. Lake trout spawn in late fall, most likely November, with a similar incubation period. Actual time that trout and salmon fry emerge from the gravel and become mobile is not known but emergence probably occurs in May prior to ice out. The long incubation period would coincide with the period of falling reservoir level, suggesting that impact to developing fish might be a likely consequence of drawdown, possibly affecting project operating requirements. Juvenile sockeye salmon outmigration from Chakachamna Lake – Juvenile sockeye salmon rear in Chakachamna and Kenibuna Lakes for 1-3 years prior to moving out to sea. The 1982 studies indicated that outmigration in the lower Chakachatna River was ongoing from early June to October. The exact timing of movement out of Chakachamna Lake is not known, but most smolts likely leave the lake shortly after ice out in June. Some smolts may continue to move out through the summer. Provisions for downstream passage will need to target this time period. Additional information is needed to identify periods of peak outmigration. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 4-154 July 2009 Figure 4.5-4a. Sensitive time periods for Project area’s fish resources. Information modified from Bechtel (1983) and Morrow (1980). LIFESTAGESockeye SalmonSpawningIncubationRearingOutmigrationChinookSalmonSpawningIncubationRearingOutmigrationCohoSalmonSpawningIncubationRearingOutmigrationPink SalmonSpawningIncubationRearingOutmigrationMARCH APRIL MAYSPECIESOCTNOVDECJUNEJULYAUGSEPTJANFEB[ [ I :J [ :J [ [ [ [ I c::::-[ :J PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 4-155 July 2009 Figure 4.5-4b. Sensitive time periods for Project area’s fish resources. Information modified from Bechtel (1983) and Morrow (1980). LIFESTAGEChumSalmonSpawningIncubationRearingOutmigrationRainbowTroutSpawningIncubationRearingAndAdult FeedingDollyVardenSpawningIncubationRearingAndAdult FeedingPygmyWhitefishSpawningIncubationRearingAndAdult FeedingEulachonSpawningIncubationOutmigrationMARCH APRIL MAYSPECIESOCTNOVDECJUNEJULYAUGSEPTJANFEB[ [ [ [ I I I I -::J I I [ ::J I I I [ [ [ I I I I -::J [ I I [ ::J I I I [ PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 4-156 July 2009 Salmon migration into McArthur River and Chakachatna River below the lake – In Cook Inlet streams Chinook salmon usually spawn the earliest. In the Project area Chinook salmon enter streams as early as late June with the peak of spawning occurring from mid-July to mid- August. Sockeye, chum, and pink salmon enter the rivers in mid-July with the peak of spawning occurring from early August to early September for sockeye and pink salmon and early September to mid-October for chum salmon. Coho salmon arrive in mid-August with the peak of spawning occurring from early September to mid-October. Generally, adult salmon are present in the McArthur and Chakachatna Rivers from late June until late October. Spawning times depend on species and location but fall within the above window. Instream flow decisions will need to consider the preservation of spawning habitats with emphasis on flow during the above times. Salmon and Dolly Varden egg incubation in McArthur and Chakachatna Rivers – Salmon and Dolly Varden eggs and fry will be present in the gravels of spawning areas from mid- summer through winter and early spring. Most species in the study area had emerged and were free swimming by late May. Instream flow decisions will need to consider preservation of incubation habitats by providing adequate water through the winter and early spring. Rainbow trout spawning and incubation– Rainbow trout spawn in the spring when water temperatures begin to warm, and eggs incubate for 4-8 weeks depending on water temperature. The locations of trout spawning in the Project Area have not been identified. Instream flow quantity and instream water temperature regulation will need to consider the trout spawning period. Water temperature is critical for rainbow trout spawning and incubation. Juvenile Rearing – Juvenile Chinook, sockeye, and coho salmon rear in freshwater for 0-3 years prior to migrating, with most juveniles remaining for 1-2 years. Resident Dolly Varden, rainbow trout, and whitefish are present in suitable habitats year-round. Rearing habitats vary somewhat from species to species but generally involve relatively slow water, adequate cover, and varied substrate. Instream flow decisions will need to consider preservation of rearing habitats year- round. Winter flows are often a limiting factor to Alaskan fish populations and preservation of over-wintering habitat areas may be especially important. 4.5.2.4. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species There are no rare, threatened, or endangered aquatic plant or animal species present in the Project area. The Beluga whale, an endangered marine mammal, is discussed in the wildlife section. 4.5.3. Federally Designated Habitat The only federally designated habitats pertaining to aquatic resources in the proposed Project area are those portions of streams and marine areas considered to be Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH is defined under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 4-157 July 2009 (PL 104-267) as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” NOAA’s National Marine Fishery Service (NOAA Fisheries) is responsible for designating EFH. In the case of anadromous fish streams (principally salmon), NOAA Fisheries has designated the anadromous fish maps prepared by ADF&G (ADF&G,2008) as the definition of EFH within freshwater habitats. Figure 4.5-5 shows the extent of EFH for anadromous fish habitat within the Project area as delineated in the 2008 anadromous stream atlas. The limits and extent of anadromous fish habitat will likely be refined as detailed studies progress through the licensing process, and the EFH maps will be subject to updates as new data become available. Anadromous species for which EFH has been designated include the juvenile and adult stages of sockeye, Chinook, coho, pink, and chum salmon and eulachon. Cook Inlet has also been designated as EFH for the juvenile and adult stages of several Gulf of Alaska marine species including: Pacific cod, sculpin species, walleye pollock, and eulachon. While the above marine species may be present in Upper Cook Inlet near the Project area, existing information suggests that they are likely not abundant except for seasonal presence of eulachon (Pentec 2005; Moulton, 1997; Dames & Moore 1983). Chilliga n Ri v e r I g itn a R i v e r A nother River C h a k a c h a m n a Lake Nagishl a mi n a River N e a c o l a R iv e r Straight CreekChakachatna River McArthu r Ri v er Noaukta Slough C o o k I n l e tBlockade LakeBeluga Lake Capps Glacier Triumvirate Glacier L o n e R idgeNorth T wi n Gl a ci e r Sout h T w i n G lacierHa r p o o n G l a c i e r Mt. Torbert Mt. Spurr Black Peak Bloc k a d e Gl a ci er S ha mr ock GlacierBeluga Tyonek Old Tyonek Shirleyville Anchorage Author: HDR Alaska - MC Date: 09 June 2009 Sources: ESRI, USGS, HATCH, ADFG Filename: Fig 4_5-5 AnadStrm-8x11.mxd LAKE CLARK NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE 0510Miles Map Extent Legend Anadromous Streams Anadromous Streams Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Graphic representation only. HDR makes no guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of source data. Figure 4.5-5 0510 Kilometers Essential fish habitat for anadromous fish within the project area as delineated in the 2008 anadromous stream atlas PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-159 July 2009 4.5.4. Potential Adverse Impacts Potential impact issues associated with development and operation of the Project on fish and aquatic resources are listed in Table 4.5-2 by category of impact. The most significant impact issues are discussed in greater detail below. Table 4.5-2. Potential impact issues of the Chakachamna Project listed by issue category. IMPACT ISSUE CATEGORY IMPACT ISSUE Accessibility of Chakachamna and Kenibuna Lake tributary streams to sockeye salmon and other species from Chakachamna Lake when water levels are low. Flooding of spawning and incubation habitats in lower reaches of Chakachamna Lake tributary streams when lake water level is high. Possible down-cutting of channel between Kenibuna and Chakachamna Lakes and subsequent lowering of Kenibuna Lake levels Loss of spawning and incubation habitat value for lake spawning sockeye salmon and lake trout in Chakachamna Lake due to lake level fluctuation. Possible alteration to lake limnology and fluid dynamics including changes to currents, temperature profiles, distribution of suspended solids, and primary and secondary productivity Loss of sockeye salmon rearing habitat value in Chakachamna Lake due to limnological changes, especially with regard to distribution and abundance of fish food organisms. Related to Increased Chakachamna Lake Water Level Fluctuation Protection of fish resources in Lake Clark National Park. Especially applies to possible fluctuations in Kenibuna Lake levels as they might affect lake and tributary stream productivity and access to fish. Entrainment of fish, primarily juvenile sockeye salmon, in the intake and subsequent mortality. Effect of deep water intake on lake currents, water temperature, turbidity, and other water quality parameters. Related to Chakachamna Lake Intake Structure False attraction of outmigrating juvenile salmon to intake rather than passage structure Potential blockage of adult sockeye salmon spawners on route to lake or tributary spawning areas because of structures at the lake outlet or impassable river flows Probability of lake level being too low during the salmon migration in a dry year to allow lake entry via the natural channel of the Chakachatna River Potential blockage of outmigrating juvenile sockeye salmon due to ineffectiveness of passage structure Impact of changes to lake fluid dynamics on ability of juvenile salmon to orient to passage structure Potential blockage of up- and downstream migrating resident fish species during low lake level periods Related to Blockage of Fish Passage into and out of Chakachamna Lake via the Chakachatna River Effectiveness of various alternative fish passage structure options to provide passage at varying lake levels PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-160 July 2009 IMPACT ISSUE CATEGORY IMPACT ISSUE Fish habitat value in the river mainstem, pre-Project vs. post-Project; Release of instream flows relative to habitat suitability for key fish species and life history stages. Impact on near-surface ground water upwelling in fish use zones, especially in sloughs and side channels. Impact on flow, hydrology, and fish use of Noaukta Slough. Impact on stream morphology and channel maintenance, especially in the intertidal wetland area. Impact on off-channel wetland fish habitats. Related to Flow Reduction in the Chakachatna River Possibility of impact mitigation by targeted additions of water at selected key locations Fish habitat value in the river mainstem, pre-project vs. post-project. Impact on near-surface ground water upwelling in fish use zones, especially in sloughs and side channels. Impact on flow, hydrology, and fish use of Noaukta Slough and surrounding wetlands. Impact on stream morphology and channel configuration downstream from the tailrace. Related to Flow Increase in the McArthur River Impact on wetland and intertidal fish habitats. Chakachamna and McArthur River water temperatures – pre-Project vs. post-Project. Noaukta Slough water temperature – pre-Project vs. post-Project. Impact on salmon spawning success including initial attraction to the spawning area, timing of spawning, length of incubation. Related to Downstream Water Temperature Changes Impact on timing and success of spawning for rainbow trout False attraction of Chakachamna Lake tributary sockeyes to the McArthur River tailrace. False attraction of Chakachatna River salmon spawners to the McArthur River tailrace. Impact of delay of spawning. Related to Tailrace Outflow Nitrogen gas saturation and possible fish mortality Loss of aquatic habitat due to disposal of rock spoil into drainage ways. Related to Power Tunnel Construction Water quality problems associated with spoil disposal sites. Related to Roads and Transmission Fish passage at roadway drainage structures. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-161 July 2009 IMPACT ISSUE CATEGORY IMPACT ISSUE Construction impacts – downstream siltation. Lines Increased access and fishing pressure on area streams. Direct impact to intertidal and subtidal organisms from filling and in- water structures. Related to Port or Barge Landing Facilities Obstruction of fish movements along the Cook Inlet shoreline. One of the more important impact categories is related to the increased fluctuation of Chakachamna Lake water levels that would occur under the operation of a hydropower facility as described in Section 3.4. Proposed fluctuations of as much as 60 feet substantially exceed the existing natural fluctuations of about 15 feet Under Project operation, maximum lake levels would be similar to natural levels suggesting that impact would not occur as a result of abnormal flooding but might occur as a result of abnormally low lake level. Kenibuna Lake level would not be affected because of its elevation 80 ft. above Chakachamna Lake. During low Chakachamna Lake levels, the length of tributaries entering the lake would be extended onto the former lake shore. In some cases minimum lake water levels would expose stream deltas and steep delta fronts causing an increase in stream gradient and possibly impeding fish passage into the tributaries. Channel degradation would occur during these conditions until a new equilibrium were reached. Potential interference with fish passage into tributaries would likely only occur under low drawdown conditions. During the summer and fall periods water levels would be near normal and fish passage would be unimpeded. The locations and depths of lake trout and sockeye salmon spawning areas in Chakachamna Lake are currently unknown, but some of these areas may fall within the drawdown zone. If that is the case, incubating eggs that were spawned during high water would be dewatered as lake level drops during the long incubation period that extends from late summer until the following April or May. Mortality to incubating eggs and alevins would occur in dewatered areas. Lake fluctuations, in combination with the presence of a deep water lake tap and a new low water outlet structure, will likely affect the fluid dynamics of Chakachatna Lake, which may affect current regimes, turbidity, water temperature profiles, and the distribution of water layers within the lake. These changes could affect the distribution and abundance of fish food organisms. Additionally, outmigrating juvenile salmon may become disoriented because of conflicting cues as they attempt to move downstream from the lake into the Chakachatna River. The extent of these potential impacts will be examined during the licensing process. The passage of fish into and out of Chakachatna Lake via the Chakachatna River would also be affected seasonally. During low water periods (late fall through spring) the upper part of the Chakachatna River will be dewatered and fish passage within the river channel will not be possible. Although, upstream fish passage into Chakachamna Lake will not be possible during PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-162 July 2009 low lake level conditions, downstream fish passage out of the lake will be provided by the planned bypass flume and multilevel gate structure. Lake level is expected to be near normal during the most important fish use period (mid-summer through fall) and fish passage into and out of the lake will be possible via the natural channel of the Chakachatna River. Adult sockeye salmon and resident fish species will have free access during the spawning period. Outmigration of juvenile salmon from Chakachamna Lake may occur in early summer when water levels are too low to allow access to the Chakachatna River. These fish will be provided passage via the proposed downstream fish passage structure. Operation of the Project will cause significant changes in the flow of both the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers. Summer and fall flow within the Chakachatna River will be greatly reduced. At all times of the year minimum instream flows will be maintained to provide continued use by fish. Habitat characteristics of the mainstem Chakachatna River will be substantially altered. Whether these habitat changes will be positive or negative will be determined by analyses conducted during licensing. In addition to mainstem impacts, reduction in annual flow in the Chakachatna River may affect shallow groundwater regimes and, thus, impact fish habitat values within sloughs, side channels, wetlands, and small clear water tributaries that are known to be important to fish. The extent of these potential impacts, and possible needs for mitigation, will be examined during the licensing process. Flow in the McArthur River will be substantially increased year-round, which will cause alteration to fish habitats between the powerhouse discharge and the confluence with the Chakachatna River (outlet of Noaukta Slough). Downstream from the confluence, mean annual flow within the McArthur River will be similar to what now occurs, but seasonal flow will be somewhat different with increased winter flow. As with the Chakachatna River, value of fish habitats may be affected by the complex interactions between river flow, groundwater flow, and important off-channel fish habitats. Whether these habitat changes will be positive or negative will be determined by analyses conducted during licensing. Transfer of water from Chakachamna Lake to the McArthur River may cause false attraction of salmon to the tailrace area, possibly preventing or delaying movement to spawning areas in the Chakachatna River or Chakachamna Lake tributaries. Because instream flows would be present year-round in the Chakachatna River, the chemical signature would still provide some orientation to migrating salmon, and the extent of confusion that might occur is difficult to predict. Tailrace attraction has not been a problem at the similarly configured Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project (Morsell 2000). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-163 July 2009 4.5.5. Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures The proposed design and operating characteristics for the Project have been specifically configured to avoid many of the most pressing potential impacts to aquatic habitats. These features include: Exploitation of the existing storage capacity of Chakachamna Lake without constructing a dam; the low outlet control weir, as currently proposed, will stabilize the outlet elevation and provide for upstream and downstream fish passage. Operation that approximates existing lake levels so that spill into the natural channel of the Chakachatna River will occur during a substantial part of the year, providing fish passage during critical salmon spawning months Use of a deep-water lake tap that will minimize entrainment of fish into the power tunnel Inclusion of a fish passage facility and flume that will operate at all lake levels allowing movement of fish into and out of the lake and providing the capability to release water year-round into the Chakachatna River Intent to provide instream flows for the maintenance of aquatic life in the Chakachatna River pending the results of an instream flow study Use of existing roadways and transmission lines as much as possible to access Project facilities and distribute power, thus minimizing right-of-way stream crossings Other mitigation measures will be considered pending results of the environmental and engineering studies programs. Some mitigation and enhancement possibilities include: Gravity transfer of water from the powerhouse to other locations to enhance flow in habitats that would be expected to lose flow due to Project flow alteration Enhancement of selected fish habitats in limited areas by using accepted habitat enhancement practices such as channel reconfiguration, pool formation, introduction of cover, etc. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-164 July 2009 4.6. Wildlife and Botanical Resources 4.6.1. Introduction This section of the PAD provides a summary of the information currently available on the wildlife and botanical resources in the Project area. Habitats in the Project area extend from sea level to above 1,142 feet, the proposed maximum elevation of Chakachamna Lake. At sea level, on Cook Inlet, there are intertidal mudflats, tidal guts, and marshes inhabited by migratory and resident birds and used by a number of terrestrial mammals. Marine mammals have been recorded near shore and in estuarine areas. Riparian and wetland habitats fill the transition zone between sea level marshes and the mountains of the upper McArthur and upper Chakachatna rivers and Chakachamna Lake and its tributaries. Some wetlands are present in the higher elevations of the Project area , but most of Project area consists of riparian and upland habitats. Mammals and migratory and resident birds are found throughout the area. A limited number of investigations have focused on Project area animal populations and their habitats. The Bechtel studied biotic resources in the Project area in the early 1980s as part of a feasibility analysis for hydropower development. Further north, the Project’s proposed transmission line corridor passes through an area where environmental investigations were performed in preparation for permitting the Chuitna Coal Project in the mid-1980s and again in 2006-2007 (EPA 2009). In addition, various agencies perform periodic surveys of several species of mammals and migratory birds whose populations are of concern or are managed. 4.6.2. Wildlife There have been 180 animal species (36 mammal, 143 bird, and one amphibian) identified in the Project vicinity during studies and surveys by the Bechtel in 1981, by researchers for the Chuitna Coal Project, by the ADF&G, and by the USFWS.. Researchers for the Bechtel studies selected 23 quadrats in the Project area, each approximately two square miles, to classify habitats and determine wildlife distribution among those habitats. Following Phister et al. (1977) classification methodology, they identified eight habitat types (Bechtel, 1983). The habitat types, listed below, are predominantly riparian and wetland habitats: Coastal Marsh Riparian (CMR) Black Spruce Riparian (BSR) Resin Birch Bog (RBB) Black Cottonwood Riparian (BCR) Black Spruce Transitional (BST) Willow Thicket Riparian (WTR) High Altitude Riparian (HAR) Upland Alder Thicket (UAT) These habitat types are described in more detail in Section 4.6.3.1, Vegetation Cover Types. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-165 July 2009 4.6.2.1. Description of Wildlife Populations and Habitat Use Appendices 4-3 and 4-4 provide a complete list of the mammal and bird species found in the Project vicinity to date (Bechtel 1983, ADF&G 1994, and ABR 2007). Below are brief descriptions of the status and habitat use of the mammals and birds found in the Project area. 4.6.2.1.1. Mammals Moose (Alces alces) - Oral history from the local Dena’ina Indians, recorded around 1900, indicates that moose were rare in the Project area until the 1940s (ADF&G,1994). It is uncertain whether this was the result of a natural cycle influenced by habitat change, such as fire. Currently, moose are year-round residents found most often in high altitude riparian and black cottonwood riparian habitats (Bechtel 1983 and ADF&G 1994). Moose prefer riparian areas or hillsides with willows, birch, aspen, or cottonwood for browse and closed forest for shelter. The 1981 study reported finding moose antlers in the high altitude riparian habitats above Chakachamna Lake, indicating that moose spent at least part of the winter there. Generally, moose move to lower elevations in winter. Wintering concentrations were located along the lower McArthur River, Noautka Slough, lower Chakachatna River, and Nikolai Creek (ADF&G,1994). Winter moose surveys done for the Chuitna Coal Project indicated that the greatest concentration of moose was near the coast and along the lower reaches of the Beluga River (ABR 2007). The lower McArthur River, Noautka Slough, lower Chakachatna River, and Nikolai Creek areas appear to have been used as calving grounds in the past, based on moose calf skeletons located during the 1981 studies (Bechtel, 1983). After calves are born, moose may also use the sedge flats of the coastal marshes in the Trading Bay Refuge during the late spring and early summer (ADF&G,1994). In fall, rutting moose are reported to occur outside the refuge. Information from the Chuitna Coal Project studies indicates that rutting moose concentrate at higher elevations, south of Lone Ridge near the proposed mine site area, in October and November (EPA 1990 and ABR 2007). Some moose from the Project area probably move to the Chuitna rutting sites while some may move to similar habitats within the Project area. Moose collared for the Diamond Chuitna studies of the 1980s had ranges that extended from the Chuitna Project area southwest to the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers. The ADF&G estimated that in the early 1980s moose numbers were about 10,000 in game management unit (GMU) 16B, of which the study area is a part (Del Frate, 2004). Moose census data from the McArthur River census area of the refuge ranged from 0.9 – 1.7 moose per square mile between 1982-1989. After the winter of 1989-1990, moose numbers declined by 15-20 percent. In 1995-1996 the density of moose in the southern section of GMU 16B was estimated to be 0.8 moose/square mile (Del Frate 2004). Deep snows and predation on neonatal calves were implicated in the moose population decline (Del Frate, 2004). Predator control and limited hunts have been used to try to bolster moose numbers within GMU 16B. The 2001 population PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-166 July 2009 estimate for the southern section of GMU 16B (everything south of the Beluga River) was 718 animals, with a ratio of 31 bulls and 15 calves to 100 cows (Del Frate 2004). Barren ground caribou (Rangifer arcticus) - Caribou were found only in high altitude riparian habitats on the northern and western fringes of the Project area during the 1981 studies. Caribou in the Project area may be part of the Rainy Pass herd whose range is not well known. It is a small herd that has been seen in the mountains of western Cook Inlet (GMU 16B) during the summer (Boudreaux 2005). Wolf (Canis lupus) - In the 1981 studies evidence of wolves was found in all habitat types except the resin birch bog and black spruce riparian types. However, wolves have not been considered common in the Project area and have been seen only occasionally on the Trading Bay Refuge (ADF&G,1994). Only one wolf was sighted during the 2006 surveys for the Chuitna Coal Project (ABR 2007). Regardless, attempts are being made to control wolf numbers in GMU 16B, which contains the Project area (ADF&G,2007), because wolf predation on moose calves has been implicated in the declining moose population (Del Frate 2004). As a result, the Alaska Board of Game (ABOG) approved a predator control program in 2004 to reduce the wolf population in GMU 16 to 30-60 wolves in at least four packs, 22-45 of which would be in three to five packs in GMU 16B. Wolf populations in GMU 16 were estimated in 2005 at 85-114 wolves in 10-12 packs (0.82-1.09 wolves/100 square miles) (ABOG 2006). This represents an increase in GMU 16 since the initial systematic estimate in 1993 of 48-62 wolves in 8-10 packs (Del Frate 2004). Coyote (Canis latrans) - During the 1981 studies coyotes were found in all eight habitat types and considered abundant in the coastal marsh riparian habitat and common in all the others. Coyote sightings and evidence of their presence occurred more often than that of wolves or red fox. Habitats in the Chuitna Coal Project study area are considered productive for coyotes, with 7 (in 6 groups) being sighted during the 2006 surveys (ABR 2007). They currently are likely common in similar habitats and in the coastal marsh riparian habitat of the Project area. Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) - Although not observed during the 1981 studies, red fox are reported to live in the Project area (ADF&G,1994). South of the Project area in the Big River Lakes area red fox were reported to be more numerous than coyotes (ADF&G,1994). North of the Project area in the Chuitna Coal Project study area, red fox were found in the earlier studies but were uncommon, and habitat was deemed of low value for them. Only one was seen during the 2006 studies (ABR 2007). Brown bear (Ursus arctos) - All eight habitat types in the Project area are used to some extent by brown bears (Bechtel, 1983). In September 1981, when aerial and ground surveys were being conducted, brown bears appeared most abundant in the high altitude riparian and black cottonwood riparian habitat types. Both brown and black bears appeared to be eating berries, salmon, and grasses. The coastal marsh habitat and beaches/mudflats also are used intensively by brown bears, where in the spring they are reported to eat sedges and beach lovage (Ligusticum scoticum) and at other times dead eulachon and other carrion (ADF&G,1994). The Trading Bay Refuge management plan (1994) notes that the upper McArthur River was a spring PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-167 July 2009 concentration area for bears. In late summer and fall, brown bears are found along salmon streams. Beginning in late July, berries are important and were found in scat in the 1981 studies. Winter den sites are not well known in the area (ADF&G,1994). During the studies conducted in September 1981, bears were observed moving up into the high altitude riparian habitats along the Chakachatna River, Nagishlamina River, and Chakachamna Lake (Bechtel, 1983). The highest concentrations of brown bears in GMU 16 are reported in the coastal plains and foothills of the Redoubt and Trading Bay areas (Kavalok 2005). The ADF&G has estimated bear densities in the southern portion of GMU 16B, which includes the Project area at 150 bears/1000 square kilometers (Kavalok 2005). Local perception is that over the last couple of decades brown bear populations have been increasing on the west side of Cook Inlet, and this is corroborated by the ADF&G (Kavalok 2005). Black bear (Ursus americanus) - Black bears, like brown bears, were found to use all eight habitat types in the Project area (Bechtel, 1983). During September 1981 aerial and ground surveys, they were most common in the upland alder thicket and high altitude riparian habitat types, where they were eating berries, salmon, and grasses. Black bears tend to stay closer to wooded areas than do brown bears, remaining within 350 yards of cover (ADF&G,1994). They are drawn to the same habitats as brown bears by food sources such as salmon and berries. Denning sites are not well known. Population estimates by ADF&G place black bear numbers in GMU 16 at about 2,700 bears or 100-200 bears/1000 square kilometers (Kavalok 2004). Recent harvest trends indicate black bear numbers are increasing. Black bear predation on moose calves is considered a contributing factor in the decline of moose populations in GMU 16. Consequently the Project area is part of the black bear control program (ADF&G,2007). Lynx (Lynx canadensis) – Researchers for Bechtel recorded only one set of lynx tracks during the 1981 study and do not include lynx in their list of mammals (Bechtel, 1983). The Trading Bay management plan describes lynx habitat as limited within the Trading Bay State Game Refuge (ADF&G,1994). Researchers for the Chuitna Coal Project also describe habitat in their study area as low quality for lynx (ABR 2007). Lynx populations have “boom and bust” cycles that follow the population trends of the snowshoe hare, their primary prey species. Mustelids - Members of the weasel family occurring in the Project area include river otter (Lutra canadensis), marten (Martes americana), mink (Mustela vison), least weasel (Mustela nivalis), ermine (Mustela ermina), and wolverine (Gulo gulo). Evidence of mink, river otter, and wolverine was found during the 1981 studies. Evidence of mink was common in the black cottonwood riparian and black spruce riparian habitats and occasionally observed in upland alder thicket, high altitude riparian, and willow thicket riparian. Evidence of wolverine was seen occasionally in the same habitats as mink. River otters were limited to black cottonwood, black spruce, and willow thicket riparian habitat types adjacent to streams. The Trading Bay Refuge Management Plan includes marten, least weasel, and ermine. Even though they were sighted only in neighboring areas, they are considered to occur in suitable habitats on the refuge (ADF&G,1994). There is no population information for members of the weasel family in the PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-168 July 2009 Project area. However, harvest numbers for river otter and marten have increased since the early 1990s, suggesting a possible increase in their populations increased trapper effort (Kavalok 2004b). Small mammals: rodents, shrews, and bats - Small mammal surveys have been conducted on or near the Project area by Osgood in 1901, Bechtel Civil and Minerals, Inc. in 1981, Environmental Research and Technology, Inc. (ERT) in 1984, and Lanier in 2007 (ADF&G,1994 and Lanier pers. comm. 2008). A number of rodent and shrew species and one bat species (little brown bat [Myotis lucifugus]) inhabit the Project area: beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), porcupine (Erithizon dorsatum), marmot (Marmota caligata), arctic ground squirrel (Spermophilus parryii), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), northern red-backed vole (Chlethrionomys rutilus), red-backed vole (Myodes rutilus), singing vole (Mircrotus gregalis), tundra vole (Microtus oeconomus), meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius), northern bog lemming (Synaptomys borealis), cinereus (masked) shrew (Sorex cinereus), dusky shrew (S. monticolus), and the pigmy shrew (S. hoyi) (BCM 1983, ADF&G 1994, Lanier pers. comm. 2008, Spencer pers. comm. 2008). Beaver can be important because their dam building influences local waterways and fish and wildlife. The Trading Bay Management Plan notes that after a population decline in the early 1900s, beaver are now abundant, and they have impounded many streams and sloughs in the Project area (ADF&G,1994). Harvest records for GMU 16B from 1991 to 2004 show fluctuating numbers but essentially no overall change over the time period (Kavalok 2004b and ABR 2007). The 1981 study found beaver and muskrat throughout the black cottonwood, willow thicket, and black spruce riparian habitats. Previous surveys have found muskrats most commonly around ponds in bogs. Early surveys rarely found porcupines, but surveys conducted for the Chuitna Coal Project found that porcupines were common in forested areas (ADF&G,1994 and ABR 2007). Red squirrels were also commonly found in forested areas near the Chuitna Coal Project, but were found only occasionally in a variety of habitats during the 1981 studies in the Project area (Bechtel 1983; ADF&G 1994; ABR 2007). Marmots normally occur at higher elevations in rocky habitats. The most widespread of the smallest mammals, such as voles and shrews, was the northern red- backed vole, which was common in five habitat types and abundant in the upland alder thicket (Bechtel, 1983). Voles, shrews, and lemmings were found throughout the Project area, each species in its preferred habitat type, which ranged from coastal marshes to high elevation upland areas around Chakachamna Lake. The arctic shrew (Sorex arcticus) and little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) were identified in the area north of Trading Bay by ERT (1984) and probably occupy similar lowland spruce- hardwood forest in the Project area. Pikas and hares - The collared pika (Ocotona collaris) and snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) are both found in the Project area (ADF&G,1994, Lanier pers. comm. 2008, Spencer pers. comm. 2008). Pikas are found at high elevations and have been trapped near Chakachamna and PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-169 July 2009 Kenibuna Lakes. Snowshoe hares were not mentioned in the 1981 studies but were found, albeit infrequently, in the 2006 surveys for the Chuitna Coal Project to the north (ABR 2007). ABR (2007) speculated that the snowshoe hare population could be in a cyclic low as it was in the 1980s. Snowshoe hares likely occur throughout the Project area in suitable habitat. Marine mammals - Belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) and harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) have been documented in the Project vicinity (BCM 1983 and ADF&G 1994). A harbor seal was sighted at the mouth of McArthur River during the 1981 studies. Belugas feed on fish (salmon, eulachon, and tomcod) at the mouths of local streams, and 62 individuals were seen at the mouth of the McArthur River during an August 1982 aerial survey (ADF&G,1994). The 1981 studies performed by Bechtel were designed to collect data on habitat types and the distribution of wildlife among them. Table 4.6-1 presents information on wildlife distribution in the Project area for species identified by researchers in 1981 (Bechtel, 1983). The greatest diversity of species occurred in the black cottonwood riparian and the high altitude riparian habitat types. The lowest diversity was found in the resin birch bog habitat type (Bechtel 1981). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-170 July 2009 Table 4.6-1. Project area wildlife species and abundance among habitat types, from 1981 studies (Bechtel, 1983). Wildlife Identified and Their Abundance in the Project Area Habitat Type and Abundance1 Common Name Scientific Name CMR BSR RBB BCR BST WTR HAR UAT Marine Moose Alces alces 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 5 Barren ground caribou Rangifer arcticus 5 Coyote Canis latrans 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Wolf Canis lupus 5 5 5 5 3 5 Black bear Ursus americanus 3 3 3 3 5 3 1 1 Brown bear Ursus arctos 3 3 5 3 5 3 1 3 River otter Lutra canadensis 5 5 5 Wolverine Gulo gulo 5 5 5 5 5 Mink Mustela vison 3 3 5 5 5 Beaver Castor canadensis 3 3 3 Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 3 3 3 5 Porcupine Erithizon dorsatum 5 3 3 Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus 5 5 5 5 5 5 Tundra vole Microtus oeconomus 3 Northern red-backed vole Chlethrionomys rutilus 3 3 3 3 3 1 Dusky shrew Sorex monticolus 3 3 3 Beluga whale (Cook Inlet Beluga) Delphinapterus leucas 5 Harbor seal Phoca vitulina 5 Sources: Bechtel 1983 and ADF&G 1994 1. Abundance estimates from Bechtel 1983. 1=Abundant, 3=Common, 5=Occasional. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-171 July 2009 4.6.2.1.2. Birds Between the Bechtel studies, the Trading Bay State Game Refuge management plan, and the Chuitna Coal Project studies, 143 bird species have been identified in the Project vicinity (Bechtel 1983; ADF&G 1994; and ABR 2007). A comprehensive list of species is in Appendix 4-4. Table 4.6-2 lists the 56 species recorded during the 1981 study and their abundance by habitat type in the Project area (Bechtel, 1983). The greatest number of bird species inhabited the coastal marsh riparian habitat. The lowest diversity was in the upland alder thicket habitat followed by the resin birch bog and willow thicket riparian habitats (Bechtel 1983 and ADF&G 1994). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-172 July 2009 Table 4.6-2. Project area bird species and abundance among habitat types, from 1981 studies (Bechtel, 1983). Birds Identified and Their Abundance in the Project Vicinity Habitat Type and Abundance1 Common Name Scientific Name CMR BSR RBB BCR BST WTR HAR UAT Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator 3 3 3 5 Greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons 5 5 Canada goose Branta canadensis 3 5 Green-winged teal Anas crecca 1 Mallard Anas platyrynchos 1 Northern pintail Anas acuta 1 5 5 5 5 American widgeon Anas americana 1 5 Greater scaup Aythya marila 5 Long-tailed duck (oldsquaw) Clangula hyemalis 5 Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula 5 Common merganser Mergus merganser 3 5 Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator 5 Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 3 3 5 3 5 5 3 3 Northern harrier Circus cyaneus 3 3 3 3 5 3 5 Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus 3 Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni 5 Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis 5 5 5 5 Spruce grouse Dendragopus canadensis 5 3 5 Willow ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus 5 5 Sandhill crane Grus canadensis 3 5 Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola 5 Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanolueca 5 Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularius 5 5 Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla 5 Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos 1 3 Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus 3 Red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 5 5 5 Pomarine jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus 5 3 5 Mew gull Larus canus 3 3 5 3 5 Herring gull Larus argentatus 5 Glaucous-winged gull Larus glaucescens 3 3 3 5 Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea 3 Northern hawk owl Surnia ulula 5 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-173 July 2009 Birds Identified and Their Abundance in the Project Vicinity Habitat Type and Abundance1 Common Name Scientific Name CMR BSR RBB BCR BST WTR HAR UAT Short-eared owl Asio flammeus 5 5 5 Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon 5 Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus 5 Bank swallow Riparia riparia 3 3 Gray jay Perisoreus canadensis 5 5 5 5 3 5 Black-billed magpie Pica pica 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Common raven Covrus corax 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Black-capped chickadee Parus atricapillus 5 5 5 3 5 1 1 1 Boreal chickadee Parus hudsonicus 5 Brown creeper Certhia americana 5 Ruby-crowned kinglet Rugulus calendula 5 5 5 Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus 5 American pipit Anthus rubescens 3 3 5 Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia 5 American tree sparrow Spizella arborea 3 5 3 3 Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina 5 3 Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 3 5 Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca 5 Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis 3 3 3 3 Lapland longspur Calcarius lapponicus 3 3 Snow bunting Plectrophenax hyperboreus 3 Common redpoll Carduelis flammea 3 5 3 Pine siskin Carduelis pinus 5 5 3 Sources: Bechtel 1983 and ADF&G 1994 1. Abundance estimates from Bechtel 1983. 1=Abundant, 3=Common, 5=Occasional. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-174 July 2009 Waterfowl – A large portion of the lower elevations of the Project area lie within the Trading Bay State Game Refuge, which was established largely because of the valuable waterfowl habitat in its tidal mudflats, coastal marshes, and inland wetlands. Thirty-six species of waterfowl are listed in the refuge management plan (ADF&G,1994). The management plan describes waterfowl activity based on five community types that progress from tidal areas to inland habitats. They are summarized in Table 4.6-3. Table 4.6-3. Waterfowl activity by vegetation community type on the Trading Bay State Game Refuge (ADF&G,1994). Waterfowl Activity on the Trading Bay State Game Refuge Community Type Waterfowl Type/Species Activity/Season Tidal Flats Dabbling ducks (northern pintails, green-winged teal, mallards, American widgeon) Feed on Macoma and other invertebrates, migrants roost on exposed mud during the spring migration. Puccinellia-Triglochin Community Snow and cackling Canada geese; ducks, tule geese Feeding during spring migration by snow and cackling geese; few nests of duck and tule geese south of project area. Ramenski Sedge-Shallow Pond Community Ducks (resident dabblers and migrants) Primarily feeding and roosting, attracts migrants; nesting minimal due to tidal flooding; brood rearing by resident dabbling ducks). Marsh Community Tundra swans, loons, geese, and diving ducks during migration; resident tule geese, ducks, loons, grebes, and gulls Important staging area for migrants during spring and fall; most productive nesting for tule geese and other residents; flooded only on highest tides. Shrub-bog Community Canada and tule geese migrants; resident ducks, geese, and cranes Ponds used as night roosts for fall migrants; interface between this community and marsh community has greatest concentration of nesting ducks, geese, and cranes. Shorebirds and Other Waterbirds - The Trading Bay State Game Refuge management plan states that at least 33 species of shorebirds and other waterbirds occur seasonally on the refuge, including sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis), loons (Gavia sp.), grebes (Podiceps sp.), terns (Sterna paradisaea), and gulls (Larus sp.). The refuge management plan reports few shorebirds nesting on the refuge, although thousands pass through during migration (ADF&G,1994). Sandhill cranes are known to nest on the refuge and loons probably nest on lakes in the Project area that are deep enough to contain prey species of fish (ADF&G,1994). Loons (Gavia stellata, G. pacifica, G. immer) were recorded (both migrating and nesting) north of the Project area in the Chuitna Coal Project study area (ABR 2007). Raptors - Fifteen species of raptors are listed as occurring in the Trading Bay State Game Refuge, including eagles (Aquila chrysaetos and Haliaeetus leucocephalus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), hawks (Buteo spp.), accipiters (Accipiter sp.), harriers (Circus cyaneus), falcons PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-175 July 2009 (Falco sp.), and owls (Bubo sp., Surnia sp., and Asio sp.) (ADF&G,1994). Five species of raptor were recorded during the 1981 studies of the Project area. The bald eagle (H. leucocephalus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and northern harrier were most common throughout the Project area (Bechtel, 1983). In August, when all five species of salmon are available, bald eagles were observed in the Project area from the Chilligan River to Cook Inlet. The highest concentration during the August 1981 study period was near the confluence of Straight Creek and the Chakachatna River (APA 1994). Bald eagles were the most common breeding raptor in the Chuitna Coal Project study area in 2006 (ABR 2007). Bald eagles probably nest in the Project area where there are suitable nest trees (Bechtel, 1983). Peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) were not recorded in either the 1981 Bechtel study or the refuge management plan, but were seen along the coast during 2006 raptor surveys for the Chuitna Coal Project (Bechtel 1983; ADF&G 1994; ABR 2007). There is a potential for suitable nesting habitat at higher elevations in the Project area, and prey species are abundant in Project area wetlands and shore habitats. Other Birds (Corvids and Passerines) - Forty-five species of corvids and passerines have been recorded on the refuge (ADF&G,1994). The common raven (Covrus corax), black-billed magpie (Pica pica), and black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus) were found most often and inhabited the largest number of quadrats during the 1981 studies (Bechtel, 1983). Amphibians The wood frog (Rana sylvatica) occurs on the Trading Bay State Game Refuge and probably throughout the Project area in suitable habitat: i.e., riparian areas, open forest, and muskeg (ADF&G,1994). Wildlife Species with Commercial, Recreational, or Cultural Importance Several species of wildlife are of commercial, recreational, or cultural importance. Difficult access tends to limit human pressure compared to other areas that are connected by road to the population centers in southcentral Alaska. Guided hunting and hunting by local residents result in the harvest of wildlife resources for recreational and subsistence purposes. Residents also trap furbearers. Hunters and trappers primarily use snow machines, boats, or aircraft for access. Other recreational uses, such as wildlife viewing and photography, are uncommon because of the remoteness of the area. Moose – Moose are hunted both for recreation and subsistence. The last data available indicate that the moose population of GMU 16B South was about 700 in 2001 (Del Frate 2004). The ABOG closed the general hunt in 2001 and 2002 to help increase the number of moose in GMU 16B. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-176 July 2009 Brown Bears – The average annual brown bear harvest for all of GMU 16 was 82.7 bears (Kavalok 2005). According to information available from 2005, the bag limit for brown bears was scheduled to increase to 2 bears per year, in response to local concern about declining moose numbers (Kavalok 2005). Black Bears – ADF&G (Kavalok 2004) reports 225 black bears killed in GMU 16 in 2003. The average annual harvest for the period 2001 - 2004 was 196. Furbearers – Mustelids, beaver, muskrat, wolves, coyotes, and fox are found throughout the Project area. Marten and beaver are the primary targets of area (GMU 16) residents, who trap full time for income. In the latest report available, ADF&G reports that trappers found all species common or abundant in GMU 16 except lynx (Kavalok 2004). The ABOG recommended closing the 2003 - 2004 seasons for lynx. There is no trapping bag limit on any furbearer in GMU 16B. The hunting bag limit on furbearers is two per season for coyote, red fox, and lynx, and one per season for wolverine (Kavalok 2004). Waterfowl – The ADF&G reported that relatively few ducks are shot by sport hunters in marshes on the Trading Bay State Game Refuge (ADF&G,1994). From 1981 - 1990 the average annual harvest was 980 dabbling ducks, 15 diving ducks, and 86 geese. Other marsh areas around Cook Inlet that are accessible by road receive most of the hunting pressure (ADF&G,1994). 4.6.2.2. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species and Other Species with Special Status There is one wildlife species in the Project vicinity listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Cook Inlet population of beluga whales, discussed in Section 4.6.2.3.1, was listed as Endangered on October 17, 2008 (73 FR 62919; NOAA 2008). The State of Alaska Department of Law (ADL) submitted on January 12, 2009 a “Sixty Day Notice of Intent to Sue for Violations of the Endangered Species Act; improperly determining endangered status for a Distinct Population Segment of the beluga whale (Delpninapterus leucas) found in Cook Inlet Alaska,” with the aim of having the listing withdrawn (ADL 2009). A number of bird species, discussed in Section 4.6.2.3.2, have special status conferred by state and/or federal wildlife management agencies. 4.6.2.2.1. Mammals Threatened or Endangered Mammals Cook Inlet Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas) - The Cook Inlet population of beluga whales is considered a distinct population by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA/NMFS). The historical abundance of the population has been estimated at 1,293 individuals. Their numbers have declined in one decade from an estimated 653 in 1994 to a low of 278 in 2005 (NOAA 2007 and NOAA 2008). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-177 July 2009 The Cook Inlet beluga was first listed as a “Species of Concern” in 1997. In 2000 the NOAA/NMFS declared the Cook Inlet beluga population depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (65 FR 3459, May 31, 2000). Overhunting has been cited as contributing to the decline, and subsistence hunting is now conducted under co-management agreements between Alaska Native organizations and NOAA/NMFS (NMFS 2008). A final rule regarding “Taking of the Cook Inlet, Alaska Beluga Whale Stock by Alaska Natives” was issued on October 15, 2008 (73 FR 60976). Although the population increased to an estimated 375 by 2007, the recovery has been considered insufficient, and on October 17, 2008 the Cook Inlet population of belugas was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (73 FR 62919, NOAA 2008). A critical habitat designation was not made at the time of listing but is due in one year. Currently in its conservation plan for the Cook Inlet beluga, NOAA/NMFS categorizes beluga habitat in Cook Inlet at three levels: Type 1 is considered the most valuable habitat and includes all of Cook Inlet north of Point Possession on the east shore and a point 3 miles southwest of the Beluga River on the west shore. Type 2 habitat use is less concentrated in spring and summer than in Type 1, but it has known areas of fall and winter use. It extends south of Type 1 to 60.2500 north latitude and also along the west shore south to Kamishak Bay and Douglas Reef. Kachemak Bay is also considered Type 2. Type 3 includes the remainder of Cook Inlet south to the mouth between Cape Douglas and Cape Elizabeth (Figure 4.6-1) (NMFS 2008). The Cook Inlet shoreline at the edge of the Project area lies within Type 2 beluga habitat. According to NOAA/NMFS, belugas in Type 2 habitat are generally engaged in dispersed fall and winter feeding, often at deeper depths than observed in Type 1 habitat. NOAA/NMFS therefore concludes at this time that deeper mid Cook Inlet habitats may be important for winter survival. Research using transmitters and direct observations show that beluga distribution in Cook Inlet is related to the migration patterns of their prey species, such as salmon and eulachon (NMFS 2008).. In early summer through fall, belugas concentrate in upper Cook Inlet at river mouths and bays. In fall they begin to move into coastal areas near the middle of Cook Inlet as far south as Trading, Tuxedni, and Chinitina Bays. In winter they move more offshore both in mid and upper Cook Inlet (NMFS 2008). Predicted distribution from late summer through early spring is illustrated in Figure 4.6-2. Although the cause is not known, it is evident from surveys from the 1990s and earlier that the summer range of belugas in Cook Inlet has contracted (NMFS 2008). Where they previously were encountered in some numbers farther south in Cook Inlet (including Trading Bay and the McArthur River), they are now concentrated mainly in upper Cook Inlet (NMFS 2008). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-178 July 2009 Figure 4.6-1. Beluga whale habitat in Cook Inlet (NMFS 2008). Chakachamna Lake PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-179 July 2009 Figure 4.6-2. Predicted beluga distribution by month, from the Cook Inlet Beluga Conservation Plan (NMFS 2008), using known locations of 14 satellite tagged belugas (predictions derived via kernel probability estimates; Hobbs et al. 2005). Note total area use and offshore locations increases beginning in December and continuing through March. The red area (95 percent probability) encompasses the green (75 percent) and yellow (50 percent) regions. Project Area PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-180 July 2009 Special Status Mammals There are three mammals (including the Cook Inlet beluga discussed above) with special status conferred by one or more State or Federal agencies and the Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP). The two non-listed species are discussed below and in Table 4.6-4. Lynx – The lynx is the only cat native to Alaska. Its population is influenced by the cyclic fluctuations in the numbers of snowshoe hares, its primary prey species (ADF&G,1994). It is listed as threatened (65 FR 16051 16086) in all of its range in the lower 48 states and is considered a sensitive species in Alaska (AKHNP 2009 and FWS 2000 - 2008). Pacific Harbor Seal – The pacific harbor seal lives throughout Southeast Alaska and west as far as the Pribilof and Aleutian Islands. The population, although estimated recently (2003) at 35,980 in the Gulf of Alaska, has declined dramatically over its range in the last three decades (AKNHP 2005). Table 4.6-4. Mammal species with special status, identified in the Project vicinity. Mammal Species With Special Status In The Project Vicinity1, 2 Common Name Scientific Name AKNHP3 Rank Agency Status Lynx Lynx canadensis G5 S4 BLM-sensitive Pacific harbors seal Phoca vitulina richardsi G5TQ S4S5 ADF&G –species of concern BLM-sensitive Cook Inlet beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas G4T1 S1 NMFS-endangered ADF&G- species of concern 1 Sources: Bechtel 1983, ADF&G 1994, ABR 2007, Lanier pers. comm. 2008, Spencer pers. comm. 2008. 2Only species with state ranking of S2/S3 or lower or with special status designation through another agency are included. 3AKHNP 2009. 4.6.2.2.2. Birds Treatened Or Endangered Birds There are no threatened or endangered bird species documented or expected to occur in the Project area. Special Status Birds There are 23 species of birds with special status, conferred primarily because of population declines or limited habitat. They are listed along with their status in Table 4.6-5. Below are brief discussions of species that reside in habitats that may be affected by the Project. Red-throated loon – The red-throated loon underwent a 53 percent population decline in Alaska between 1977 and 1993, without any sign of rebounding (AKNHP 2009). Loons could breed on ponds in the Project area that are deep enough to provide habitat for their prey species. Red- PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-181 July 2009 throated loons are susceptible to changes in prey base, breeding habitat disturbance; as well they are sometimes caught as fish by-catch (AKHNP 2009). Tule white-fronted goose - Tule white-fronted goose, a subspecies of the greater white-fronted goose, nests only on the west side of Upper Cook Inlet, in the Redoubt Bay Critical Habitat Area and Susitna military operations area (Susitna Flats). In the past, the greatest concentration of nests has been in the Redoubt Bay Critical Habitat Area, but currently it is in the Susitna Flats. Some nesting occurs on the Trading Bay Refuge and has been reported in the upper McArthur River drainage (ADF&G,1994). No nests were located during surveys for the 1981 studies (Bechtel, 1983). The population of tule geese has been steadily increasing to the current level of approximately 8,000 individuals (ABR 2007). Trumpeter swans - Trumpeter swans were removed from the Endangered Species List in 1968. Peak numbers of trumpeter swans on the Trading Bay Refuge occur in early May during the spring migration, with many of them remaining to nest and rear broods in suitable habitat throughout the Project area. The lower Chakachatna River is listed as a nesting concentration area in the refuge management plan (ADF&G,1994). Areas outside the refuge and in the Project area that provide habitat for nesting trumpeter swans include both sides of the McArthur River valley below Blockade Glacier (ADF&G,1994), where the USFWS counted 56 swans in 1980 Bechtel, 1983). Nesting trumpeter swans are sensitive to human activity, and the trumpeter swan management plan (Trumpeter Swan Subcommittee 1984) recommended that USFWS and ADF&G review Project impacts with respect to protecting swan habitats (ADF&G,1994) Harlequin ducks – These ducks nest along clear mountain streams. Listed in the Sea Duck Joint Venture Species Status Report, March 2003, they have a niche habitat that is susceptible to changes in hydrology and water quality (ABR 2007). As a result, they have no formal status but have been considered for listing as an endangered species. Harlequin ducks were found north of the Project area on clear streams in the Chuitna Coal Project study area at a density of 0.2 ducks per mile (ABR 2007). Harlequin ducks likely nest and rear broods in similar habitat in the Project area. Other waterfowl - There are several other species of waterfowl in the Project area that have special status: black brant, long-tailed duck, surf scoter, and black scoter (ADF&G,1994, ABR 2007). These species are notable because their populations are already affected by or are susceptible to impacts due to hunting, fishing bycatch, population isolation, habitat loss, or concentration during migration and/or wintering (ABR 2007). Rock sandpiper – The rock sandpiper is the only shorebird species that winters in Upper Cook Inlet; most of the Upper Cook Inlet wintering population (18,000 in 1998-1999) resides on the western side of Cook Inlet, mainly north of Trading Bay in the Susitna Flats. Other waterbirds – Waterbirds with special status that could potentially breed in the Project area are the arctic tern, solitary sandpiper, Hudsonian godwit, and short-billed dowitcher. The American golden-plover, whimbrel, marbled godwit, surfbird, western sandpiper, and dunlin are PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-182 July 2009 non-breeding migrants in the Project area. These species have small and/or declining populations and/or limited habitat (ABR 2007, AKNHP 2009). Peregrine falcon – Delisted in 1999, the peregrine falcon remains a “species of conservation concern” for the USFWS (2002). They have been sighted along the coast near the Project area, and potential nesting habitat could be found in the canyons of the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers (ABR 2007). Bald eagle – Eagles are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, and national and state management guidelines have been drafted that require identification and protection of current nest sites (USFWS 2007). Preventing electrocution by transmission lines is also a concern, and prevention measures are required in transmission line design. Olive-sided flycatcher – The USFWS determined it does not have sufficient information on file to support a proposal to list this species and, therefore, it was not elevated to Candidate status, September 2008 (USFWS 2008 b). Other passerines – Three species of passerines with special status reported to nest on the Trading Bay State Game Refuge are the gray-cheeked thrush, blackpoll warbler, and rusty blackbird (ADF&G,1994). Another species of concern, the Townsend’s warbler, was found during the 2006 studies for the Chuitna Coal Project (ABR 2007). All these species have undergone significant population declines. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-183 July 2009 Table 4.6-5. Bird species with special status identified in the Project vicinity. Bird Species With Special Status In The Project Vicinity1, 2 Common Name Scientific Name AKNHP3 Rank Agency Status Red-throated loon Gavia stellata G5 S4BS4N BLM-sensitive Tule white-fronted goose Anser albifrons elgasi G5T1T2 S1S2B BLM-sensitive Black brant Branta bernicla G5 S4 BLM-sensitive Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator G4 S4BS3N BLM-sensitive Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus G4 S4BS4N BLM-sensitive Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata G5 S4BS4N BLM-sensitive Black scoter Melanitta nigra G5 S3S4BS3N BLM-sensitive Long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis G5 S5BS4N BLM-sensitive Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus G5 S5 Eagle Protection Act Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni G5 S2S3B Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus ssp. G4T3 S3B G4T2T3 S2S3 ADF&G-species of concern USFWS-species of conservation concern BLM-sensitive Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea G5 S4S5B USFWS-species of conservation concern American golden plover Pluvialis dominica G5 S5B USFWS-species of conservation concern Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus G5 S3S4B USFWS-species of conservation concern Marbled godwit Limose fedoa G5 S2B USFWS-species of conservation concern Hudsonian godwit Limosa heimastica G4 S2S3B USFWS-species of conservation concern Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus G5 S4S5B USFWS-species of conservation concern Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria G5 S4B ADF&G-species of concern USFWS-species of conservation concern Dunlin Calidris alpina G5 S4BS4N USFWS-species of conservation concern Rock sandpiper Calidris ptilocnemis ssp. G5T2T3 S2NS3B ADF&G-species of concern USFWS-species of conservation concern Surfbird Aphriza virgata G5 S2NS3B USFWS-species of conservation concern Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi G4 S4S5B ADF&G-species of concern USFWS-species of conservation concern BLM-sensitive Gray-cheeked thrush Catharus minimus G5 S4S5B ADF&G-species of concern BLM-sensitive Blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata G5 S4B ADF&G-species of concern USFWS-species of conservation concern BLM-sensitive Townsend’s warbler Dendroica townsendi G5 S4B ADF&G-species of concern BLM-sensitive Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus G4S4BS3N ADF&G-species of concern 1 Sources: Bechtel 1983, ADF&G 1994, ABR 2007, Lanier pers. comm. 2008, Spencer pers. comm. 2008. 2Only species with state ranking of S2/S3 or lower or with special status designation through another agency are included. 3AKHNP 2009. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-184 July 2009 4.6.3. Botanical Resources The Project area encompasses a variety of habitats, from coastal mudflats along Cook Inlet to high altitude riparian areas along tributaries to Chakachamna Lake. The 1981 study by Bechtel identified 50 plant species occupying eight habitat types (Bechtel, 1983). 4.6.3.1. Vegetation Cover Types Researchers for the 1981 (Bechtel, 1983) study selected 23 quadrats of approximately 2 square miles each within which vegetation data were collected (Figure 4.6-3). Information from the study quadrats was combined with observations from low altitude aerial surveys and used as the basis for mapping habitats on color aerial photographs (Bechtel, 1983). Vegetation was classified into eight habitat types using a classification methodology described by Phister, et al. (1977): Coastal Marsh Riparian (CMR) Black Spruce Riparian (BSR) Resin Birch Bog (RBB) Black Cottonwood Riparian (BCR) Black Spruce Transitional (BST) Willow Thicket Riparian (WTR) High Altitude Riparian (HAR) Upland Alder Thicket (UAT) These habitat types are described below and shown on Figures 4.6-4 through 4.6-9. The Trading Bay State Game Refuge, which is included in the Project area, also uses these habitat descriptions in its management plan, with the addition of “unvegetated mudflats” as a habitat type (ADF&G,1994). Coastal Marsh Riparian - Extensive areas of coastal marsh lie inland of the mudflats along the shores of Cook Inlet, along the lower seven miles of the McArthur River, and into the lower Chakachatna River. Coastal marsh habitats are often inundated by high tides, but because of a network of tidal guts they are better drained than bogs. Ponds within the coastal marsh range from highly to slightly saline with increasing distance inland (ADF&G,1994). Plant species commonly found in the coastal marsh are sedges (Carex spp.), grasses (Puccinella, Poa, Festuca), and herbaceous plants (Triglochin, Plantago, Potentilla). Elevated stream banks and other higher areas are populated with scarce woody plants, such as willows (Salix spp.) and sweet gale (Myrica gale). Black Spruce Riparian - This poorly drained habitat is common at intermediate elevations between the coastal marsh and the resin birch bog. It is the most common of the eight habitats described on the Trading Bay State Game Refuge. The characteristic vegetation of this habitat PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-185 July 2009 includes black spruce (Picea mariana), diamondleaf willow (Salix planifolia), alders (Alnus), sedges (Carex), and grasses. Resin Birch Bog - Found inland of the black spruce riparian habitat and often near streams, resin birch bogs are characterized by floating mats of shrubby vegetation over poorly drained soils. The dominant plants are resin (dwarf) birch (Betula glandulosa), bog blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum), narrowleaf Labrador tea (Ledum decumbens), sedges (Carex spp.), and grasses. Much of the large bog area between the McArthur River, Noaukta Slough, and the Chakachatna River is this type. Figure 4.6-3 Location of Sampling Quadrats in Chakachamna Study Area, 1981 (Bechtel, 1983) LEGEND o Samp li ng Quadrats U.S .C.S ., Kena i .nd Tyon.k " LEGEND O S,mp li ng Quadrats Figure 4.6-4 Location of Habitat and Vegetative Types within the Study Area (1 of 6) (Bechtel, 1983) Figure 4.6-5 Location of Habitat and Vegetative Types within the Study Area (2 of 6) (Bechtel, 1983) Figure 4.6-6 Location of Habitat and Vegetative Types within the Study Area (3 of 6) (Bechtel, 1983) Figure 4.6-7 Location of Habitat and Vegetative Types within the Study Area (4 of 6) (Bechtel, 1983) Figure 4.6-8 Location of Habitat and Vegetative Types within the Study Area (5 of 6) (Bechtel, 1983) PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-198 July 2009 [This page intentionally left blank] Figure 4.6-9 Location of Habitat and Vegetative Types within the Study Area (6 of 6) (Bechtel, 1983) PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-200 July 2009 Black Cottonwood Riparian - The stream and river banks at lower elevations are composed mainly of this habitat type, where there are better draining floodplain soils. The dominant vegetation includes black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), thinleaf alder (Alnus tenuifolia), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), and willows (Salix alaxensis, S. barrattiana, S. commutata, S. glauca, and S. planifolia). Herbaceous plants include Tilesiu’s wormwood (Artemisia tilesii), sedges (Carex spp.), fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium), and ferns. Black Spruce Transitional - Located between bog and riparian areas, black spruce transitional is an ecotone composed of a mixture of bog and riparian plant species. Bog species include black spruce (Picea mariana), bog blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum), and bog rosemary (Andromeda polifolia). Riparian species include black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), thinleaf alder (Alnus tenuifolia), and paper birch (Betula papyrifera). Willow Thicket Riparian - Seven willow species (Salix spp.), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), and thinleaf alder (Alnus tenuifolia) characterize this habitat type. The sparse herbaceous plants include fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium), lupine (Lupinus sp.), and grasses. Willow thicket riparian is limited in the Project area, occurring only along the floodplain of the McArthur River canyon. High Altitude Riparian - High altitude riparian habitat was identified only in the Chakachatna River canyon and in the floodplains of tributaries to Chakachamna Lake. The dominant species are Sitka alder (Alnus sinuata), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), white spruce (Picea glauca), diamond leaf willow (Salix planifolia), and feltleaf willow (Salix alaxensis), and herbaceous plants such as fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium), ferns, and grasses. Upland Alder Thicket - This habitat type occurs mainly on the steep slopes and canyon walls above Chakachamna Lake and the Neacola, Igitna, Chilligan, Nagishlamina, and McArthur rivers. It was also identified on Kustatan Ridge near Cook Inlet. The vegetation is characterized by black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), Sitka alder (Alnus sinuata), and paper birch (Betula papyrifera), with some stands of diamond leaf willow (Salix planifolia) and feltleaf willow (Salix alaxensis) and some grasses and herbaceous plants (uncommon). Table 4.6-6 contains a list of plants identified during the 1981 study and their relative abundances at that time in each of the eight habitat types of the Project area as shown on Figures 4.6-4 through 4.6-9 (Bechtel, 1983). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-201 July 2009 Table 4.6-6. Plants identified in the Project area during the 1981 Bechtel vegetation habitat study (Bechtel, 1983). Plants Identified in the Project Area During the Bechtel Study and Their Abundance, 1981 Habitat Type and Abundance1 Common Name Scientific Name CMR BSR RBB BCR BST WTR HAR UAT Sitka alder Alnus sinuata C O O D D Thinleaf alder Alnus tenuifolia C A D C A O Foxtail Alopecurus pratensis Saskatoon serviceberry2 Amelanchier alnifolia C O O Pacific serviceberry2 Amelanchier florida R Bog rosemary Andromeda polifolia C O Parsley Angelica genuflexa O Sagebrush2 Artemisia tilesii R R R Resin birch Betula glandulosa D O Dwarf arctic birch Betula nana C C O Paper birch Betula papyrifera R O C A C O D A Sedges Carex spp. A C C R R Cassandra Chamaedaphne calyculata O R Bunchberry dogwood Cornus canadensis R Devil's club2 Echinopanax horridum R R R Black crowberry Empetrum nigrum O C O O Tall fireweed Epilobium angustifolium R O O C C Horsetails Equisetum spp. C O O O R R O Cotton sedge Eriophorum scheuchzeri R O R Grasses Gramineae D A A C C C C C Labrador tea Ledum decumbens A R Labrador tea2 Ledum groenlandicum O C O Large-leaf Lupine Lupinus polyphyllus R Rusty menziesia Menziesia ferruginea R C Sweet gale Myrica gale C C R O White spruce Picea glauca C R C C O Black spruce Picea mariana O D D O Fern Polystichum spp. R O R Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera trichocarpa R A O D O D Quaking aspen2 Populus tremuloides R O PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-202 July 2009 Plants Identified in the Project Area During the Bechtel Study and Their Abundance, 1981 Habitat Type and Abundance1 Common Name Scientific Name CMR BSR RBB BCR BST WTR HAR UAT Shrubby cinquefoil2 Potentilla fruticosa A O Skunk currant Ribes glandulosum O America red currant Ribes triste R O C O O Trailing black currant Ribes laxiflorum C R Prickly rose Rosa acicularis O O American red raspberry Rubus idaeus var. strigosus R O R O Alaska willow Salix alaxensis O A A A A A Barratt willow2 Salix barrattiana C O Barren-ground willow2 Salix brachycarpa R Undergreen willow2 Salix commutata O O Alaska bog willow Salix fuscescens O R R Grayleaf willow2 Salix glauca C O O Richardson willow2 Salix lanata O R R Diamondleaf willow Salix planifolia R D C R R D A A Sitka willow Salix sitchensis O R Pacific red elderberry Sambucus callicarpa O R R O Early blueberry Vaccinium ovalifolium O Bog blueberry Vaccinium uliginosum C A O Lowbush cranberry Vaccinium vitis-idaea O O O Highbush cranberry2 Viburnum edule O Sources: Bechtel, 1983 and ADF&G, 1994 1. Abundance estimates from Bechtel 1983. A=Abundant, C=Common, O=Occasional, R=Rare. 2. Plants identified in Bechtel study and not in Chuitna Coal Study (Bechtel 1983 and HDR 2007). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-203 July 2009 The 1981 Bechtel study did not include lands along the proposed transmission line corridor. However, researchers for the proposed Chuitna Coal Project conducted vegetation studies in the area that provide an indication of habitats expected along the corridor. The following vegetation community types were identified in 2006 and 2007 during the Chuitna Coal Project studies (HDR 2007). Major Community Type Spruce-birch forest Alder scrub Shrub swamp Sweetgale fen Fireweed meadow Minor Community Type Poplar forest White spruce forest Black spruce forest Willow scrub Ericaceous scrub Bluejoint meadow Sedge wet meadow Sedge bog meadow Vegetated pond Dune grass meadow Wetland mosaic Unvegetated coastal type Disturbed area The list of plants documented during the Chuitna Coal Project studies contains 288 species (see Appendix 4-5), and includes all but thirteen of the species in Table 4.6-6. Eighteen vegetation community types were identified by researchers in the vicinity of the proposed transmission line. The disparity between the number of species and vegetation/habitat types documented during the two studies may be due to a difference in the habitats sampled, but probably is because of a difference in sampling methods and vegetation community typing requirements. Researchers for the Bechtel study did not identify some plant groups to species, such as sedges (Carex sp.) and grasses (Graminae). Studies to support this licensing process will be designed to collect complete vegetation data for all Project area habitats. Cross references will be established between methods used in 1981 and those used in relicensing studies for this Project to facilitate description of habitat changes over the last 29 years. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-204 July 2009 4.6.3.2. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species No threatened or endangered plant species currently occur or were found in previous studies of the Project area (Bechtel, 1983). There is only one plant, the Aleutian shield fern (Polystichum aleuticum), listed as endangered in Alaska (USFWS 2008d). Its range, however, is limited to the central Aleutian Islands and does not extend into the Project vicinity (USFWS 2008). No rare plants were documented during the 1981 studies of the Project area. In 2006 and 2007, however, studies for the Chuitna Coal Project found seven plants tracked by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP). The Chuitna Coal Project studies were not designed to locate rare species, but they were noted when encountered. These are listed in Table 4.6-7 along with their AKNHP ranking. Rankings for tracked plants found in the Project vicinity indicate that they are secure globally (G5 and G4) but have few records for Alaska (S2 and S3). In this nationally recognized ranking system (1-5), 5 indicates a common plant with demonstrably secure populations and 1 indicates a plant critically imperiled, with populations vulnerable to extinction (HDR 2007 and 2007b). Table 4.6-7. Rare plant species found during vegetation studies for the Chuitna Coal Project. Rare Plant Species Found in the Chuitna Coal Project Area Common Name Scientific Name AKNHP1 Rank Leathery grape fern Botrychium multifidum G5 S2S3 Green-keel cottongrass Eriophorum viridicarinatum G5 S2 Boreal bedstraw Galium kamtschaticum G5 S2 Elephanthead lousewort Pedicularis groenlandica G4G5 S1S2 False melic Schizachne purpurascens G5 S2 Selkirk violet Viola selkirkii G5? S3 1 AKHNP (HDR 2007) Plants tracked by AKNHP may occur in the Project area where habitats are similar to those sampled for the Chuitna Coal Project studies. The AKNHP database includes one sighting of Puccinellia triflora, three-flowered alkali grass, at a river mouth near the community of Tyonek. Tracking of this species was recently discontinued by AKHP (HDR 2007). 4.6.3.3. Plant Species with Important Commercial, Recreational, or Cultural Value The remoteness of the Project area makes commercial exploitation of resources difficult. Despite this, the Tyonek Native Corporation (TNC) harvested white spruce from its lands in the Project area, south of the Chakachatna River and north of Trading Bay State Game Refuge. The TNC has logged in the Project vicinity, off and on, from the 1970s until recently. In the last few decades there has been an infestation of spruce bark beetle in the Cook Inlet region, and logging has focused on removal of trees killed by beetles (OASIS 2006). There are no other plants in the Project area known to have commercial value. There are several plants of cultural importance because of their value for subsistence. The majority of these plants are berries: nagoon berry, cloudberry, raspberry, cranberries (swamp, PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-205 July 2009 lowbush, and highbush), blueberry (bog and early), crowberry, and red currant. Subsistence activities in the Project vicinity are covered under Section 4.10. 4.6.3.4. Invasive Species Invasive plants in Alaska are tracked by the Alaska Exotic Plant Information Clearinghouse (AKEPIC), whose database is maintained by the AKHNP. Invasive plants were not surveyed, nor were incidental sightings recorded during the 1981 Bechtel studies of the Project area. However, some information on invasive or “alien” species is available for the Chuitna Coal Project area (HDR 2007 and 2007b). Vegetation studies for the Chuitna Coal Project were not designed to specifically search for invasive species, but six species were encountered in 2006 and one additional species in 2007 (Table 4.6-8). The AKEPIC ranks plants according to invasiveness, from 0 to 100, with 100 having the highest potential. Table 4.6-8. Invasive plant species found during vegetation studies for the Chuitna Coal Project. Invasive Plant Species Found in the Chuitna Coal Project Area Common Name Scientific Name AKEPIC1 Rank Field foxtail Alopecurus pratensis currently unranked Splitlip hempnettle Galeopsis bifida 43 Bigleaf lupine Lupinus polyphyllus 53 Annual bluegrass2 Poa annua 46 Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis 57 Common dandelion Taraxacum officianale 62 Alsike clover Trifolium hybridum 57 1 AKEPIC Database (2005) 2 Found during 2007 field work (HDR 2007b). None of the invasive species listed above had been documented in the Project vicinity before 2006, although they occur elsewhere around Cook Inlet (HDR 2007 and 2007b). A portion of the transmission line corridor crosses lands in the Chuitna Coal Project vicinity and these species may occur there and in other suitable habitats in the Project area. 4.6.4. Potential Adverse Impacts Potential impacts from the Project fall into a number of categories, from disturbances because of study activity and construction to hydrologic changes after Project operation begins. A discussion of impacts to Wildlife and Botanical Resources by impact category follows in Table 4.6-9. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-206 July 2009 Table 4.6-9. Potential impact issues related to wildlife and botanical resources. Wildlife and Botanical Resource Impact Issues Related to the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Impact Issue Category Issue Related to general project activity, including air and ground disturbance, that may be associated with pre- project studies, construction and operation General disturbance (e.g. from helicopter overflights) of wildlife species during critical life stages Related to Increased Chakachamna Lake Water Level Fluctuation Changes in shoreline vegetation and wetlands due to lake level fluctuation Loss of, or increase in, shoreline habitats used by wildlife species due to lake level fluctuations; resulting effects on wildlife populations Changes in distribution and/or number of fish used by wildlife species Changes in breeding and rearing habitat and nesting success of waterbirds using Chakachamna Lake Related to Blockage of Fish Passage into and out of Chakachamna Lake via the Chakachatna River Changes in distribution and/or numbers of fish used by wildlife populations Related to project impacts on the Chakachatna River Changes in riparian vegetation and adjacent wetlands due to hydrologic changes Loss or increase in riparian habitats used by wildlife species due to hydrologic changes; resulting effects on wildlife populations Changes in distribution and/or number of fish used by wildlife species Related to project impacts on the McArthur River Changes in riparian vegetation and adjacent wetlands due to hydrologic changes Loss or increase in riparian habitats used by terrestrial wildlife species due to hydrologic changes; resulting effects on wildlife populations Changes in distribution and/or number of fish used by wildlife species Related to Power Tunnel Construction Loss of habitat due to disposal of rock spoil Related to Roads and Transmission Lines Construction and maintenance impacts on vegetation and wetlands Disturbance to wildlife populations due to initial habitat disturbance and subsequent corridor maintenance Potential for bird deaths because of electrocution or collisions with transmission lines Increased recreational pressure, such as hunting, fishing, and backcountry activities (hiking, skiing, rafting, and snowmachining), due to increased access Related to Port or Barge Landing Facilities Disturbance of vegetation and wetlands by construction Disturbance to wildlife populations due to construction Disturbance of underwater areas that could be designated as “critical habitat” for the newly listed Cook Inlet beluga whale population The Chakachatna and McArthur rivers likely have a major influence on the lower elevation habitats both through hydrologic ties and by geomorphic changes along channels. Decreased flow in the Chakachatna River may reduce the amount of water available to support habitats adjacent to and down-gradient (along losing reaches) of the river. Decreased flow in the PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-207 July 2009 Chakachatna River may also decrease the amount of habitat change from channel migration and erosion in general. Conversely, increased flow in the McArthur River could inundate some habitats, alter the character of other habitats or even create new areas of wetlands, or potentially increase the rate and severity of channel migration and erosion, which would influence adjacent habitats. Habitats around the shores of Chakachamna Lake could be affected by increased fluctuation in the water surface elevation of the lake. Chakachamna Lake has a natural fluctuation of approximately 15 feet, with low water occurring before summer runoff from snow and glacial melt. Lake water surface elevation is not expected to exceed current conditions and low levels are expected to occur in winter and early spring, with levels increasing over the growing season. Studies planned for this licensing process will be designed to collect data to help understand the relationships between the hydrology of the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers and their adjacent habitats and the role of lake level fluctuations in Chakachamna Lake in maintaining existing shoreline habitats. 4.6.5. Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures The proposed design and operating characteristics for the Project have been specifically configured to avoid many of the most pressing potential impacts to wildlife and botanical resources. These features include: Exploitation of the existing storage capacity of Chakachamna Lake by using a nine-foot weir (top elevation the same as current maximum lake level) for lake level stabilization and flow control. No dam will be constructed. Intent to release instream flows for the preservation of aquatic and riparian vegetation in the Chakachatna River pending the results of an instream flow study Use of existing roadways and transmission lines as much as possible to access Project facilities and distribute power, thus minimizing right-of-way incursions into new habitats Construction of transmission lines to prevent bird electrocutions and collisions Other mitigation measures will be considered pending results of the environmental and engineering studies programs. Some mitigation and enhancement possibilities include: Gravity transfer of water from the tailrace to other locations to maintain or enhance existing vegetation communities that could be affected by Project flow alteration Enhancement of selected habitats in limited areas using active management techniques such as willow planting Best management processes will be used during construction to minimize land and habitat disturbance. Erosion control planning will minimize offsite impacts from uncontrolled drainage. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-208 July 2009 4.7. Wetlands, Riparian, and Littoral Habitat 4.7.1. Introduction Researchers for Bechtel did not specifically map wetlands, riparian, or littoral habitats during the 1981 study (Bechtel, 1983). Wetlands mapping and vegetation habitat mapping that will distinguish critical habitats is planned as part of licensing studies. However, based on mapping from the Bechtel studies, roughly 95 percent of the low elevation portion of the Project area is composed of floodplain, wetlands, riparian habitats, and littoral zones. The percentage of wetlands is substantially less at higher elevations immediately surrounding the upper Chakachatna and McArthur rivers, Chakachamna Lake, and lake tributaries. About 40 percent of the area just downstream of where the Chakachatna River exits the mountains and about 8 percent of the canyon and higher elevation habitats were considered to be floodplain, wetlands, riparian habitats, or littoral zones. Of the eight habitat types described in the Bechtel studies, seven would fall under the categories of wetlands and riparian habitats. These habitats, described in detail under Section 4.6.3.1, Vegetation Cover Types, are: Coastal Marsh Riparian (CMR), Black Spruce Riparian (BSR), Resin Birch Bog (RBB), Black Cottonwood Riparian (BCR), Black Spruce Transitional (BST), Willow Thicket Riparian (WTR), and High Altitude Riparian (HAR) Since the 1981 studies were conducted, the USFWS has mapped some wetlands in the Project area as part of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Available digital mapping covers some of the Project area around Chakachamna Lake and areas near Big River, Nikolai Creek, and the Beluga River that contain wetlands similar to those in the Project area. The wetlands around Kenibuna Lake and Chakachamna Lake and their tributaries, the Neacola, Igitna, and Chilligan Rivers, fall under the general types of palustrine emergent, palustrine scrub shrub, riverine, and lacustrine. Wetlands surrounding Chakachamna Lake and its tributaries are confined by the steep topography to river floodplains, deltas, and glacial outwash and moraines. NWI mapping from areas similar to lower elevations of the Project area (Big River, Nicolai Creek, Beluga River) indicates that wetlands likely fall into the general types of palustrine forested, palustrine scrub shrub, palustrine emergent, palustrine open water, riverine, lacustrine, estuarine scrub shrub, estuarine emergent, and estuarine. These would comprise the muskeg (resin birch bogs), black spruce bogs, riparian areas, and coastal marshes described in the vegetation section above. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-209 July 2009 Because such a large proportion of the Project area, and especially the area studied by Bechtel, falls into the categories of floodplain, wetlands, riparian, and littoral habitats, the majority of the animals and plants discussed in Sections 4.6.2.1 and 4.6.3.1 and listed in tables 4.6-1 (wildlife), 4.6-2 (birds), and 4.6-6 (Plants) and appendices 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5 can be considered residents of these habitats. Figure 4.6-3 shows the quadrats sampled for the habitat studies in 1981. For the most part, they are located in floodplains, wetlands, riparian, and littoral habitats. Figures 4.6-4 through 4.6-9 (Bechtel, 1983) show the habitats as they occurred in 1981. Reconnaissance of the Project area in 2008 shows that the Chakachatna River and channels flowing through Noaukta Slough and across the lowlands of Trading Bay State Game Refuge have changed course (HDR 2008). Vegetation and wetlands studies planned as part of Project licensing will re-classify habitats and map wetlands for the first time. This information will also be used to document the changes that have occurred in habitats as a result of hydrologic changes to date. 4.7.2. Potential Adverse Impacts Hydrologic ties to the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers appear to be important in supporting the lower elevation wetlands in the Project area, mainly in Noaukta Slough and the Trading Bay State Game Refuge. Changes in the hydrology of these two rivers could affect floodplains, wetlands, and riparian habitats. Decreased flow in the Chakachatna River may reduce the amount of water available to support habitats adjacent to and down-gradient (along losing reaches) of the river. Conversely, increased flow in the McArthur River could inundate some habitats or cause changes in the channel that would affect adjacent habitats. There are littoral, riparian, and wetland habitats around the shores of Chakachamna Lake that could be affected by increased fluctuation in the water surface elevation of the lake. Table 4.6-9 above describes potential impacts to wetlands and other terrestrial resources that may result from Project construction and operation. 4.7.3. Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures The PME measures described in Section 4.6.5 for vegetation in general apply also to floodplains, wetlands, riparian, and littoral habitats. The hydrology of the Project area will be studied to describe the role of hydrologic connections between the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers and their surrounding habitats. Information on natural historical changes in area hydrology may be used to predict the effects of the Project and help design PME measures. Wetlands will be mapped so that Project facilities can be constructed to avoid them to the extent practicable or minimize impacts in wetlands that cannot be avoided. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-210 July 2009 4.8. Aesthetic/Visual Resources 4.8.1. Introduction The scenic value of the Project area is considered high. Chakachamna Lake is within a steep- sided glacial valley over 1,000 feet in elevation. At the outlet of Chakachamna Lake, the channel is defined by bedrock cliffs along the south side and the Barrier Glacier moraine on the north side. Most of the proposed Project works would not be visible to the general public. This section provides a summary of the information readily available on aesthetic and visual resources in the Project area. 4.8.2. Existing Aesthetic/Visual Resource Conditions The scenic value in the remote Project area is considered high, and the Project area is generally in a pristine state (Hatch Energy 2008). Chakachamna Lake is within a steep-sided glacial valley over 1,000 feet in elevation. According to the Kenai Area Plan, two townships immediately east of Lake Clark National Park and encompassing the western end of the lake have scenic values and potential for recreation and small scale tourism (ADNR 2001). The lake is partially dammed at the outlet by Barrier Glacier, which descends from over 10,000 feet on Mt. Spurr. The majority of the shoreline of Chakachamna Lake is composed of granite cliffs and steep hillside. Lake beaches are associated with alluvial fans at the tributary inputs (HDR 2009). Several tributaries on the south shore are still filled with glaciers, although all of these appear to have retreated from terminal moraines at lake level. The only glaciers to contribute to the north side of the lake descend directly from Mt. Spurr. At the outlet of Chakachamna Lake, the channel is defined by bedrock cliffs along the south side and the Barrier Glacier moraine on the north side. Several boulder rapids occur along the Chakachatna River and form low-flow control sections (HDR 2009). The first set of rapids, approximately 0.8 miles downstream of the outlet, is just downstream of the narrows formed by Barrier Glacier. The next set of boulder rapids was noted approximately 5 miles downstream of the outlet, just below Crater Peak. Seven miles downstream of the outlet, the Chakachatna River valley broadens significantly, from an average of less than 1,000 feet wide to over 3,000 feet wide. Noaukta Slough is the term used for the section of Chakachatna River that flows southwest to the McArthur River, beginning about 25 miles downstream of the lake outlet. Noaukta Slough is a broad, highly anastomosed, placid waterway that flows about 5 miles from the mainstem Chakachatna to McArthur River (HDR 2009). The McArthur River begins at about 1,600 feet in elevation at the snout of McArthur Glacier and the upper seven miles of the river flow through a steep-sided canyon (HDR 2009). About 3 miles below the canyon mouth, the McArthur River joins an unnamed tributary from Blockade Glacier. Noaukta Slough enters the McArthur River 10 to 12 miles below Blockade Glacier. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-211 July 2009 Photographs of the Project area waters, Chakachamna Lake, and the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers, are presented in Figures 4.8-1 through 4.8-3. Figure 4.8-1. Chakachamna Lake looking towards east end. Figure 4.8-2. Chakachatna River. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-212 July 2009 Figure 4.8-3. McArthur River. Most of the proposed Project works would not be visible to the general public. No dam is proposed; the proposed Project includes an 11 mile long headrace tunnel, an underground powerhouse, a tailrace tunnel, and a transmission line that would follow new or existing roads and transmission lines from the powerhouse to the substation (Hatch Energy 2008). 4.8.3. Potential Adverse Impacts Potential impacts from the Project fall into a number of categories, from disturbances because of study activity and construction to hydrologic changes after Project operation begins. A discussion of impacts to aesthetic and visual resources by impact category follows in Table 4.8- 3. Table 4.8-3. Potential Impact Issues Related to Aesthetic/Visual Resources. Aesthetic/Visual Resource Impact Issues Related to the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Impact Issue Category Issue Related to project impacts on the Chakachatna River Reduced flow may affect the experience of the Chakachatna River as a visual resource Related to project impacts on the McArthur River Increased flow may affect the experience of the McArthur River as a visual resource Proposed Project operations would decrease summer and fall flow within the Chakachatna River and increase flow to the McArthur River year-round. These changes in the flow of both the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers may affect the experience of the Chakachatna River as a visual resource. Additionally, aesthetic resources may be impacted by the Project’s proposed PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-213 July 2009 transmission line and road corridors. The extent of these potential impacts, and possible needs for mitigation, will be examined during the licensing process. 4.8.4. Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures The extent of potential impacts, and possible needs for mitigation, will be examined during the licensing process. 4.9. Recreation and Land Use 4.9.1. Introduction There are no existing, formal recreation facilities in the proposed Project area. Although the Project area is remote and sparsely populated, recreation activities have been increasing in the vicinity of Chakachamna Lake, primarily fly-in hunting, fishing, hiking, and kayaking. The lands around Chakachamna Lake support widely dispersed recreation. Recreational use of the Project area is generally concentrated on or near the coast but is increasing on Chakachamna Lake and the tributaries feeding into the lake (Bechtel, 1983). The extent of recreational use of the upper stretches of the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers is less well known. Trading Bay State Game Refuge and Lake Clark National Park are regionally or nationally important recreation areas in the Project vicinity. The refuge provides opportunities for waterfowl hunting and wildlife and waterbird viewing. Outdoor activities at the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve include bird watching, camping/backpacking, day hiking, fishing, hunting, kayaking/canoeing, power boating, rafting, and wildlife viewing. Land owners in the Project vicinity include federal, state, and borough agencies, native corporations, and private parties. Land use in the Project area and vicinity of the Project include timber harvesting, oil and gas extraction, mining claims, timber sales, agricultural leases, and subsistence. This section provides a summary of the information readily available on recreation and land use in the Project area. 4.9.2. Existing Recreation Facilities There are no existing, formal recreation facilities in the proposed Project area. Although the Project area is remote and sparsely populated, recreation activities have been increasing in the vicinity of Chakachamna Lake, primarily fly-in hunting, fishing, hiking, and kayaking (Bechtel, 1983). Future promotion and use of Lake Clark National Park could result in increased use of Chakachamna Lake (Bechtel, 1983). The lands around Chakachamna Lake support widely dispersed recreation, which requires extensive bushwhacking and hiking on glaciers or glacial moraines (ADNR 2001). According to the Kenai Area Plan, the Chakachamna Lake area has some potential to support a hut-to-hut loop or point-to-point trail system (2001). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-214 July 2009 4.9.3. Current Recreational Use of the Project Vicinity and Region Recreational use of the Project area is generally concentrated on or near the coast but is increasing on Chakachamna Lake and the tributaries feeding into the lake (Bechtel, 1983). Water-related recreation occurs most frequently along the coast where the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers empty into Trading Bay. Except for the native village of Tyonek along the coast, the western peninsula is sparsely populated but provides recreational opportunities such as mountaineering, backpacking, kayaking and flight-seeing in the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve and guided hunting and fishing opportunities (Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program 2008). Access to the area by boat and charter air service is provided from Homer and Kenai, with most recreation taking place from May to October. Access is primarily by boat or plane but vehicular access within the Project vicinity is afforded by roads and trail associated with oil and gas activities, pipelines, power lines, and logging roads. Snow machines are used well into the late spring and many of the larger streams are navigable by powerboat. Rivers in the vicinity are used by rafters and kayakers (ADNR 2001). The extent of recreational use of the upper stretches of the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers is less well known. The rapids in the upper reaches of the Chakachatna River are difficult but are thought to be navigable (Bechtel, 1983). According to the ADNR Division of Mining, Land and Water’s Navigability Program (2009c), the navigability of Chakachamna Lake and the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers is unknown. Thus, kayak trips beginning in Chakachamna Lake are a possibility, but this potential use may or not be supported. Bechtel (1983) reported that Lake Clark National Park rangers describe the use of the western end of Chakachamna Lake as a staging area for recreational use. Gravel bars on the east end of the lake and other gravel bars at the river deltas are used to unload visitors from planes. Users kayak on the lake and hike by the lake and up its many drainages. One of these routes heads west toward Kenibuna Lake and into Lake Clark National Park. ADNR collects yearly expected use-patterns from commercial recreation operators through a registration system to obtain commercial use data needed to make informed land management decisions for state land (2009b). ADNR collects information about where such uses are occurring, how many clients are recreating on state land (i.e., state uplands, shorelands, tidelands, and fresh water bodies), and the type of activity that is occurring. Businesses are required to register their commercial recreation day use in advance of the use each calendar year. A regulation effective in 2002 generally allows day use of state land for commercial recreation purposes without a permit if the business registers that use. Table 4.8-1 summarizes the registration information for 2004 through 2008 for game management subunit 16b, which includes the Project area, Trading Bay State Game Refuge, and portions of Lake Clark National Park. Figure 4.9-1 shows the location of this game management subunit. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-215 July 2009 Table 4.9-1. Recreation activity and access information for Game Management Subunit 16b (ADNR 2009b). Year Number of Registered Operators Visitor Days Activity Types Types of Access 2008 37 8706 Skiing, snowshoe, snowboard, dog sledding, bicycling, hunting, off-road vehicle use, motorized boating, general tour (sightseeing, wildlife, nature), hiking, rock/mountain climbing, drop-off comm. recreation uses, rafting, kayaking, canoeing, horseback riding, fishing Other activity: production, fly fishing videotaping Float plane, wheel plane, ski plane, helicopter, off- road vehicle, road vehicle, foot, horse/beast of burden, motorized boat, non-motorized boat 2007 33 12,215 Hunting, off-road vehicle use, motorized boating, general tour (sightseeing, wildlife, nature), hiking, rock/mountain climbing, drop-off comm. recreation uses, rafting, kayaking, canoeing, fishing Other activity: film shoot of skiing and volcanoes, bear guiding, predator control, big game guide operations Float Plane, wheel plane, ski plane, helicopter, off- road vehicle, road vehicle, foot, motorized boat, non- motorized boat Other access types: snow machine, raft 2006 21 10,418 Hunting, off-road vehicle use, motorized boating, general tour (sightseeing, wildlife, nature), hiking rock/mountain climbing, drop-off comm. recreation uses, rafting, kayaking, canoeing, fishing Float plane, wheel plane, ski plane, off-road vehicle, road vehicle, foot, motorized boat, non- motorized boat 2005 41 15,485 Skiing, snowshoe, snowboard, dog sledding, bicycling, hunting, off-road vehicle use, motorized boating, general tour (sightseeing, wildlife, nature), hiking rock/mountain climbing, drop-off comm. recreation uses, rafting, kayaking, canoeing, horseback riding, fishing Other activity: clam digging Float plane, wheel plane, ski plane, helicopter, off- road vehicle, road vehicle, foot, horse/beast of burden, motorized boat, non-motorized boat 2004 64 12,789 Skiing, snowshoe, snowboard, dog sledding, bicycling, hunting, off-road vehicle use, motorized boating, general tour (sightseeing, wildlife, nature), hiking rock/mountain climbing, drop-off comm. recreation uses, rafting, kayaking, canoeing, horseback riding, fishing Other activity: motorcycle touring Float plane, wheel plane, ski plane, helicopter, off- road vehicle, road vehicle, foot, horse/beast of burden, motorized boat, non-motorized boat PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-216 July 2009 Figure 4.9-1. Game Management Unit/Subunit for the Project area (ADNR 2009b). 4.9.4. Shoreline Buffer Zones and Adjoining Land Use The Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) implements the Alaska Coastal Management Act passed by the State of Alaska in 1977. The ACMP improves stewardship of Alaska’s coastal land and water uses and natural resources by creating a network of local, state, federal, and applicant interests in the project approval process (Kenai Peninsula Borough 2009). The ACMP requires that projects in Alaska’s coastal zone be reviewed by coastal resource management professionals and found consistent with the statewide standards of the ACMP, known as the “consistency review process.” A finding of consistency with the ACMP must be obtained before permits can be issued for a project. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-217 July 2009 All lands and waters of the Kenai Peninsula Borough coastal zone are included within the “Recreation” designation to allow for management of uses and activities that may have direct and significant impact on the physical, biological, and cultural features upon which recreational and tourism uses depend (Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program 2008). A portion of the Project area near the coast is included in the area designated as Recreation Use (Figure 4.8-2). The ACMP does not allow for management of uses and activities that are adjacent to the designated recreation use areas unless the adjacent area is included within the designation. The designated area encompasses actively used areas, those areas that have the potential to be used and those areas that are setbacks or buffers needed to protect the adjacent recreational resource. The designated Recreation Use area is contiguous with the coastal zone boundary. Figure 4.9-2. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management District (Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program 2008). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-218 July 2009 4.9.5. Recreation-Related Goals and Needs Identified in Agency Management Plans Relevant local, state, or regional recreation and land use management plans include: Alaska’s Outdoor Legacy Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 2004-2009 Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Zone Management Plan Kenai Area Plan Trading Bay State Game Refuge and Redoubt Bay Critical Habitat Area Management Plan Strategic Plan for Lake Clark National Park and Preserve October 1, 2004 - September 30, 2008. In addition to the recreation and land use management plans, ADF&G has developed state management plans for game species that may affect recreational hunting and subsistence use in the vicinity of the Project: Black bear management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2001–30 June 2004 Brown bear management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004–30 June 2006 Dall Sheep Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2001–30 June 2004 Furbearer Management Report of Survey-Inventory Activities 1 July 2003–30 June 2006 Moose Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2003–30 June 2005 Wolf Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2002–30 June 2005. Alaska’s Outdoor Legacy Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 2004- 2009 Alaska’s current SCORP guides recreation-related acquisition, facility development, and policy for the State of Alaska for 2004 through 2009 (ADNR 2004). The goals of the SCORP are to: Provide recreation agencies and communities with a reference to outdoor recreation preferences, use trends, and issues relevant to Alaska through 2009 Identify statewide capital investment priorities for acquiring, developing, and protecting outdoor recreation resources Identify the State’s priorities, strategies, and actions for the obligation of its Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) apportionment PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-219 July 2009 Provide information that agencies and communities need to develop project proposals eligible for LWCF assistance The chief goal for outdoor recreation providers is to offer a range of opportunities for responsible use of Alaska’s recreation resources while protecting natural values. The SCORP identifies four recreation issues and goals, one of which includes aspects related to aesthetic/visual resources, along with recommended strategies to meet these goals:Issue 1: Lack of Adequate Funding o Goal: Secure a reliable source of funding for outdoor recreation in Alaska. Develop programs that allow important projects to be completed and maintained. Strengthen mutually beneficial relationships with other agencies, private sector and user groups. o Recommended Strategies: support ongoing efforts to reform the Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant (LWCF) Program; continue interagency communication and cooperative efforts; privatize selected services, facility operation, and maintenance; strengthen alternative funding mechanisms and programs; develop alternative funding sources. Issue 2: Opportunities to Meet Recreation Needs in Communities o Goal: Support efforts to assist communities in meeting the outdoor recreation needs of their citizens. o Recommended Strategies: give some communities a higher priority for LWCF matching grants; develop alternative funding sources; design facilities to reflect economic realities and sustainable practices. Issue 3: Improved Access to Outdoor Recreation Resources (includes discussion of transportation enhancements [including acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites, scenic highway programs, and scenic beautification], Trails and Recreational Access for Alaskan (TRAAK) [including transportation enhancements, the Scenic Byways Program, and the Recreation Trails Program], disabled access, and trail identification/legal access) o Goal: Provide more convenient, legal, and barrier-free access to outdoor recreation opportunities on Alaska’s public lands and waters. o Recommended Strategies: implement Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) provisions; improve access to water based recreation; develop inventory of barrier free outdoor recreation facilities; continue cooperative planning efforts with “barrier-free” advocacy groups; consider PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-220 July 2009 incompatibility among users and user values; continue the identification and legal dedication of existing trails. Issue 4: Shortage of Tourism Opportunities on Public Lands o Goal Support and promote balanced use and development of Alaska’s public lands for outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism. o Recommended Strategies: expand cooperative planning and marketing efforts; maintain and expand private-public nature-based tourism partnerships; promote private sector development on public lands where appropriate; develop year round tourism destinations and related services on public lands; increase capital spending to rehabilitate and expand facilities, expand public use cabin system; promote the Alaska Public Lands Information Centers. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Zone Management Plan The Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Plan was developed to provide local information and policies that carry out the objectives of the Alaska Coastal Management Program. The plan provides the Kenai Peninsula Borough with a tool for evaluating proposed developments within its coastal zone. The boundary of the Kenai Peninsula Borough and the Kenai coastal district are the same. Within that boundary, there is an area called the “coastal zone.” This coastal zone is subject to coastal zone management. As discussed in Section 4.8.4, all lands and waters of the Kenai Peninsula Borough coastal zone are included within the “Recreation” designation and a portion of the Project area near the coast is included in the area designated as Recreation Use. Federal lands are excluded from the coastal zone and the recreation designation. The goals and objectives of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Plan (Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program 2008) related to recreational resources include the following: Goal 3.1: To maintain the Borough's variety of high quality recreational opportunities to meet the needs of residents and visitors. o Objective 3.1.1: To encourage the well-planned development of recreation and tourism facilities and area wide trail systems by public agencies and private citizens where there is local support. o Objective 3.1.2: To minimize conflicting uses in designated recreation areas. o Objective 3.1.3: To maintain public access to water bodies and recreation areas and facilitate provision of additional access where necessary and desirable. o Objective 3.1.4: To minimize the adverse impacts of access on sensitive environments PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-221 July 2009 Goal 3.3: To encourage provision of facilities for outdoor and indoor recreational for borough residents and visitors. o Objective 3.3.1: Support improved, environmentally responsible angler access facilities on major rivers in the Borough. Goal 3.4: To plan for future recreational use of borough land that has recreational value. o Objective 3.4.1: Identify borough lands with recreational value that provide access to coastlines or recreational areas. o Objective 3.4.2: To maintain information about and support other groups in establishing and maintaining a network of trails to provide recreation and transportation opportunities. o Objective 3.4.3: Work with the ANDR and local organizations to inventory existing and potential recreational trails on the Kenai Peninsula. o Objective 3.4.4: Develop access management plans to avoid or minimize the adverse impacts of access. The Statewide Standards relevant to recreational resources also address coastal access. Districts and state agencies shall ensure that projects maintain and, where appropriate, increase public access to, from, and along coastal water. Kenai Area Plan The Kenai Area Plan directs how ADNR will manage state uplands, tidelands, and submerged lands within the planning boundary, including the Project area (ADNR 2001). The state land use plans determine management intent, land-use designations, and management guidelines that apply to all state lands in the planning area. The plan is used by staff within the ADNR Division of Mining, Land, and Water when reviewing and making decisions on authorizations for use of state land, including permits, leases, sales, conveyances, and right-of-way. The plan is also used by the ADNR Divisions of Forestry, Agriculture, Parks and Outdoor Recreation. The Division of Oil and Gas also uses the plan in its mitigation measures. The Kenai Peninsula Borough and federal government also have plans and planning efforts that directly and indirectly affect state lands. Camping, hiking, boating, hunting, and fishing generally do not require authorization on state lands. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-222 July 2009 Goals of state lands in the planning area include: Economic development - provide opportunities for jobs and income by managing state land and resources to support a self-sustaining local economy; Fiscal costs - locate settlement uses where there is sustainable economic base and where necessary services can be efficiently provided; Public health and safety - maintain or enhance public health and safety for users of state land and resources; Public use - provide and enhance opportunities for public use of state lands, including hunting, fishing, boating, and other types of recreation; Quality of life -maintain or enhance the quality and diversity of the natural environments and protect heritage resources and the character and lifestyle of the community; Settlement - provide opportunities for private ownership and leasing of land currently owned by the state; and Sustained yield - maintain the long-term productivity and quality of renewable resources and all other state-owned replenishable resources on a sustained-yield or optimum- sustained yield basis, including fish, wildlife, rangelands, and forests. Specific to public recreation, the goals of the plan include providing lands for accessible outdoor recreational opportunities with well-designed, maintained and conveniently located recreation facilities; providing undeveloped lands for recreation pursuits that do not require developed facilities. These opportunities would be realized by: Developing a State Park System of recreation areas, trails, waysides, rivers and sites that provide a wide range of year-round outdoor recreation opportunities for all ages, abilities and use preferences in close proximity to population centers and major travel routes. Providing recreation opportunities on less developed land and water areas both within the State Park System as well as areas outside the system, which serve multiple purposes. Encouraging commercial development of recreation facilities and services through land sales, leases, and permits where public recreation needs can most effectively be provided by private enterprise. In some units, the plan specifically allows for commercial recreation leasing. Providing for public open space that is readily accessible to communities and is sufficient to meet existing and future needs for public recreation land in developed areas. Protecting scenic beauty. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-223 July 2009 Specific to trails and access, the goals of the plan include the following: Public Use Opportunities - Ensure adequate opportunities for public use of important recreation, public access and historic trails of regional and statewide significance. Also provide for future trail and access needs. Local Trails - Assist in establishing local trail systems that provide access to public land and water and community facilities. Trail Corridors - Protect or establish trail corridors to meet projected future use requirements as well as protecting current use. Management guidelines in the plan related to trails and access include consideration for aesthetic/visual resources. Additionally, the plan identifies specific goals associated with the following resources related to public recreation and aesthetic resources: Transportation and utilities - Design a transportation system and authorize vehicle uses in a manner that has minimal adverse impacts on local residents, the environment, fish and wildlife resources, and aesthetic and cultural features. Shorelines, stream corridors and wetlands - Protect and enhance a variety of public recreation and tourism opportunities along waterbodies including both wilderness and developed recreational and tourism activities and protect the visual quality of waterbodies. Forestry - Ensure that the state forestlands support tourism, maintain opportunities for diverse recreational activities in a variety of settings, and promote scenic quality Trading Bay State Game Refuge and Redoubt Bay Critical Habitat Area Management Plan The purpose of the Trading Bay State Game Refuge and Redoubt Bay Critical Habitat Area Management Plan (ADF&G,1994), which is applicable to state owned land only, is to provide consistent long-term guidance to ADF&G and other agencies involved in managing the refuge and critical habitat area. It presents management goals for the refuge and critical habitat area and their resources, and indentifies policies to be used in determining whether proposed activities within the refuge and critical habitat area are compatible with the protection of fish and wildlife, their habitats and public use of the refuge and critical habitat area. The plan does not specifically identify recreation needs in the Project vicinity or Project area. According to the plan, activities that occur within the Trading Bay State Game Refuge will reflect the following goals in accordance with the purpose for which the area was established: Fish and wildlife populations and their habitat - manage the refuge to maintain and enhance fish and wildlife populations and their habitat. Public use - manage the refuge to maintain and enhance public use of fish, wildlife, and refuge lands and waters consistent with the other goals of the management plan. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-224 July 2009 o Maintain public access to and within the refuge. o Maintain and, if compatible with existing public use as described in the regulations establishing the refuge, improve opportunities for waterfowl, moose, and bear hunting, trapping, and fishing within the refuge. o Maintain and, if compatible with existing public use as described in the regulations establishing the refuge, improve opportunities for wildlife viewing, photography, and general recreation in a high quality environment. o Make information about the refuge available to the public. Multiple use - manage multiple uses, including oil and gas, in the refuge in a manner compatible with the above goals of the management plan. Strategic Plan for Lake Clark National Park and Preserve October 1, 2004 - September 30, 2008 (Lake Clark Strategic Plan) The most recent Lake Clark Strategic Plan contains long-term goals, which target in quantifiable, measurable ways what will be accomplished toward achieving the overall mission goals and mission (NPS 2008). The following recreation and subsistence-related long-term goal targets of the strategic plan address park-specific outcomes: By September 30, 2008, 2,445,300 acres (99% of 2,470,000 acres) of designated wilderness in Lake Clark National Park and Preserve will meet wilderness character objectives. By September 30, 2008, 2 (29% of 7) species of Lake Clark National Park populations of native plant and animal Species of Management Concern are managed to self sustaining levels. Lake Clark National Park and Preserve is authorized for subsistence use and primary subsistence species include salmon, caribou, moose, brown bear and Dall sheep. To ensure these species are maintained at natural and healthy population levels in the park and healthy population levels in the preserve, harvest trend analyses are utilized to support the subsistence management plan for the park. By September 30 of 2008, three segments, (100% of 3 segments) of Wild and Scenic Rivers in Lake Clark National Park and Preserve will continue to meet heritage resource objectives. By September 30, 2008, Lake Clark National Park and Preserve does not have an approved plan that addresses the management of wilderness (or backcountry) resources. The staff at Lake Clark National Park and Preserve will write a statement to demonstrate the need for funding to develop a Wilderness Plan for the area. By September 30, 2008, 95% of visitors to Lake Clark National Park and Preserve are satisfied with appropriate park facilities, services, and recreational opportunities. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-225 July 2009 By September 30, 2008, 85% of Lake Clark National Park and Preserve visitors understand and appreciate the significance of the park. By September 30, 2008, 25% (9 of 37) other facilities (non-building asset types), non- historic, are in fair to good condition as measured by the Facilities Condition Index at Lake Clark National Park and Preserve. By September 30, 2008, Lake Clark National Park has eight community partnerships designed to enhance the park’s ability to manage recreation activities seamlessly. Black Bear Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2001–30 June 2004 (Black Bear Management Report) The ADF&G Game Management Unit 16, located west of the lower Susitna River and upper Cook Inlet, contains large areas of unaltered wildlife habitat and includes the Project area and Lake Clark National Park. The Black Bear Management Report (Kavalok 2005) reported harvest rates of black bears have been increasing. According to the Black Bear Management Report, the ADF&G management goal for black bears in Unit 16 is to provide the greatest opportunity to participate in hunting black bears with the objective of a three-year average harvest of greater than 270 black bears in Unit 16 (greater than 225 in Unit 16B, the subunit containing the Project area and Lake Clark National Park) with greater than 30% being female (Kavalok 2005). Because the population objective of black bear is unverifiable, the Black Bear Management Report recommends that a tooth specimen be collected from bears during sealing to collect age data on harvested bears. Brown Bear Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2002–30 June 2004 (Brown Bear Management Report) The Brown Bear Management Report (Kavalok 2007) reported harvest rates of brown bears in 2005 in Unit 16. According to the Brown Bear Management Report, the ADF&G management goal for brown bears in Unit 16 is to allow the number of breeding females in the population to decrease by providing optimal opportunity to hunt brown bears with the objective of allowing human use to reach a three-year average harvest of 28 females older than two years (Kavalok 2007). The Brown Bear Management Report reports that management objectives were exceeded during the report period and that bear viewing and hunting are becoming more popular in Unit 16. It recommends that ADF&G closely monitor the harvest of brown bears to identify and avoid any serious declines in the population. Dall Sheep Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2001–30 June 2004 (Dall Sheep Management Report) The Alaska Range West is a popular Dall sheep hunting area even though it is not road accessible. Aircraft transportation is the primary mode of transportation for sheep hunters and guides are required for nonresident sheep hunters throughout Alaska. From 1983 to 2000, an PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-226 July 2009 average of 220 hunters used the Alaska Range West annually, and average annual harvest was 123 rams. According to the Dall Sheep Management Report, the ADF&G management goals for Dall sheep in Unit 16B (among others) include providing a sustainable opportunity to harvest Dall sheep rams from a naturally regulated population, providing an opportunity to harvest Dall sheep rams under aesthetically pleasing conditions, and providing an opportunity to view and photograph Dall sheep (Szepanski 2005). The growth of the guide and outfitter industry in the Alaska Range West was unregulated during the reporting period for the Dall Sheep Management Report and crowded hunting conditions may have reduced the quality of the hunting experience in the more accessible drainages. The Dall Sheep Management Report recommends continued aerial surveys and monitoring or sheep harvest reports, determining the conditions that hunters find “aesthetically pleasing,” and assessment of hunter satisfaction with hunting experiences. Furbearer Management Report of Survey-Inventory Activities 1 July 2003–30 June 2006 (Furbearer Management Report) Recreational cabins and fishing and hunting lodges are scattered throughout the unit, many of which have winter caretakers who hunt and trap furbearers. Because of its proximity to Alaska’s largest population centers, the area receives a large amount of year-round recreational use and a few local residents trap full time to generate income, primarily from marten and beaver. According to the Furbearer Management Report (Peltier 2007), ADF&G management goals for furbearers in Unit 16 include providing the opportunity to trap and hunt furbearers, maintaining an optimal sustained harvest of furbearers, and developing measurable population objectives for all fur species (Peltier 2007). Unit 16 trappers reported that all species were common or abundant in 2003–2006, except lynx and wolverine which were reported as scarce in 2004–2005. Trappers reported small prey species as abundant. The lack of data on population density, composition, and productivity of furbearers makes it difficult to determine if harvests are optimal. The Furbearer Management Report recommends that indirect survey techniques be conducted annually (Peltier 2007). Moose Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2003–30 June 2005 (Moose Management Report) According to the Moose Management Report, the ADF&G management goal for moose in Unit 16B is to maintain and enhance the moose population to provide for high levels of human consumptive use (Peltier 2006a). The Moose Management Report recommends gathering additional information (e.g., accurate estimates of wolf and bear populations) to better manage moose in Unit 16B, a long-term monitoring program, and consideration of prescribed burns for habitat enhancement (Peltier 2006a). Wolf Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2002–30 June 2005 (Wolf Management Report) According to the Wolf Management Report, the ADF&G management goal for wolves in Unit 16 is to retain desirable predator/prey ratios and provide a sustainable harvest of wolves (Peltier PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-227 July 2009 2006b). The human-use objective is to allow maximum opportunity for harvest while maintaining minimum wolf population objectives. The Wolf Management Report recommends that surveys be conducted every three years to assess wolf numbers and that managers consider that Unit 16B is an intensive management area for moose (Peltier 2006b). 4.9.6. Designated Scenic and Protected River Segments No National Wild and Scenic Rivers or state-protected river segments are located within or adjacent to the proposed Project area. The closest river to the Project area designated as a National Wild and Scenic River, located east of the Project area in the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, is a 51imile stretch of the Tlikakila River designated as “Wild.” 4.9.7. National Trails System and Wilderness Area Lands in the Region No lands within the proposed Project area are included or under study for inclusion in the National Trails System or as a Wilderness Area. Lake Clark National Park and Preserve contains approximately 2,470,000 acres of designated wilderness for management under the provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964. 4.9.8. Recreation Areas in the Project Vicinity Trading Bay State Game Refuge and Lake Clark National Park are regionally or nationally important recreation areas in the Project vicinity. Trading Bay State Game Refuge The 168,930-acre Trading Bay State Game Refuge (Trading Bay Refuge) was created in 1976 for the protection of waterfowl and big game habitat. The Trading Bay Refuge is located near the coast and located in the Project vicinity, with a portion of the proposed Project transmission line and access road in close proximity to the refuge. The refuge is best known for its prime waterfowl habitat (ADF&G,2009). The refuge provides opportunities for waterfowl hunting and wildlife and waterbird viewing. Trading Bay Refuge includes uplands, tidal, and submerged lands. A series of small shallow brackish marshes, encompassing approximately 2,500 acres, runs the length of Trading Bay. The refuge’s wetlands provide critical spring feeding, summer nesting, and fall staging habitat for thousands of ducks, geese, swans, and cranes (ADF&G,2009). Loons, shorebirds, and bald eagles also nest on the refuge. Tule geese are known to nest in the McArthur River drainages and molt in the Middle River area. In the fall, waterfowl populations once again concentrate in flocks on the refuge in preparation for their southward migration. Bechtel (1983) reported that Trading Bay Refuge is the ninth most important waterfowl hunting area in the state of Alaska. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-228 July 2009 The lowlands of Trading Bay provide important wintering habitat for approximately 500 moose (ADF&G,2009). Coastal areas of western Cook Inlet, including Trading Bay Refuge, are considered critical calving and overwintering moose habitat. Brown bears forage on the tidal flats each spring and summer and each year from early summer through early fall, the Noaukta Slough supports high numbers of black and brown bears feeding on returning salmon. Healthy populations of coyote, mink, land otter, and weasels inhabit the wetlands year-round and there is a resident wolf pack that ranges through the area. Five salmon-producing river systems cross Trading Bay Refuge: Kustatan, McArthur, Chakachatna, Middle, and Nikolai. Of these, the McArthur-Chakachatna system is probably the most productive (ADF&G,2009). These systems all support coho salmon; Nikolai Creek and McArthur-Chakachatna rivers also support small runs of Chinook salmon, and the Chakachatna system is a large producer of sockeye salmon. Rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, and smelt are also found in Trading Bay Refuge streams. Bechtel (1983) reported that Nikolai Creek receives limited fishing pressure. Public access to the Trading Bay Refuge is by small plane or boat, or by road access from the nearby communities of Tyonek and Shirleyville. There are no developed public use facilities on the refuge. The refuge is a popular waterfowl and moose hunting area in the fall. Fly-in sport fishermen enjoy the refuge lakes and streams in summer months. Trapping occurs in the winter. The residents of the nearby community of Tyonek hunt, fish, trap, and gather plants and berries on the refuge. An oil pipeline and a gas pipeline cross the wetlands from West Foreland to Shirleyville. A number of cabins (on both private and state land) have been built within the refuge by waterfowl hunters. ADNR was given the authority to issue permits for cabins on state land within the refuge after ADF&G announced a moratorium on new cabin construction on state game refuges; however, Bechtel (1983) reported that no new permits for cabins had been issued by 1983. The Shirleyville Lodge caters to recreationists in the area and several air charter businesses provide access to the refuge. Lake Clark National Park The eastern boundary of Lake Clark National Park crosses Kenibuna Lake upstream of Chakachamna Lake. This portion of the park is classified as wilderness and no formal recreation facilities are planned for this wilderness area (Bechtel, 1983). The Lake Clark National Park and Preserve (4,030,00 acres) was created to protect scenic beauty (volcanoes, glaciers, wild rivers and waterfalls), populations of fish and wildlife, watersheds essential for red salmon, and the traditional lifestyle of local residents (NPS 2009a). Outdoor activities include bird watching, camping/backpacking, day hiking, fishing, hunting, kayaking/canoeing, power boating, rafting, and wildlife viewing. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-229 July 2009 Two of the three wild and scenic rivers located in the Lake Clark National Park, the Mulchatna and the Chilikadrotna, provide exceptional rafting experiences and the opportunity to fish for red and king salmon, grayling, Dolly Varden, and rainbow trout. The Tlikakila River, although an excellent float trip, is too glacial to support a sizeable population of game fish (NPS 2009a). The lower Chulitna River, with its non-glacial waters flowing through tundra and marshes in the southern preserve, has northern pike. Other rivers provide good fishing opportunities in and around the park. Access to Lake Clark is almost exclusively by small aircraft. Float planes land in the many lakes throughout the area, and wheeled planes can sometimes land on beaches and gravel bars. Authorized air taxi services are available from Anchorage, Kenai, Homer and the local area. There are several commercial lodges in the Lake Clark area which cater especially to recreational anglers. Other services available may include day-use transportation, fishing guides, and boat rentals. 4.9.9. Non-Recreational Land-Uses and Management Land ownership in Alaska is complex and in transition (ADNR 2004). Under terms of the 1959 Alaska Statehood Act, the State of Alaska is authorized to receive over 103 million acres of land from the federal government. According to the SCORP, the State has received about 89.5 million acres of this land (ADNR 2004). Signed into law in 1971, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) won a settlement from the United States for Alaska’s Native population. The Act extinguished aboriginal land claims, provided for formation of 13 regional, 4 urban, and 200 village Native corporations, and transfer of 44 million acres of land from federal to Native corporation ownership. State and ANCSA conveyances have not been completed and the federal government (BLM) owes ANCSA corporations about 9 million acres and owes the State about 16 million acres (ADNR 2004). According to the SCORP, many of these remaining claims are in conflict and will require many years to resolve since various selections cannot be completed until actual land surveys are completed (ADNR 2004). Figure 4.8-3 shows the existing land ownership in the proposed Project area and in the vicinity of the Project. Land owners in the Project vicinity comprise federal, state, and borough agencies, Native corporations, and private parties (Bechtel, 1983). Federal lands account for approximately 65 percent of the total land area in the Kenai Peninsula Borough (Kenai Peninsula Borough 2005). State-owned lands account for approximately 21 percent of the total land area in the Borough, followed by Native land (approximately 9 percent), borough land (approximately 0.7 percent), and city land (approximately 0.2 percent) (Kenai Peninsula Borough 2005). Large areas of historical federal land have been transferred to the Alaskan Native and the State of Alaska. A small amount of state land was subsequently transferred to the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Land ownership patterns have not been finalized in the Project vicinity as some lands have been selected but the legal transfers have not been completed (Bechtel, 1983). Land use in the Project area and vicinity of the Project include timber harvesting, oil and gas extraction, mining claims, timber sales, agricultural leases, and subsistence. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-230 July 2009 Federal lands in the vicinity of the Project include Lake Clark National Park and Preserve managed by the National Park Service as part of the National Park System and public domain lands administered by BLM. Land use on federal lands varies from wilderness to intensive use for minerals, oil, gas, and timber and the use is dependent upon congressional mandate and the resource base of these lands (Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program 2008). The portion of the Lake Clark National Park near the Project area is designated as wilderness and is managed accordingly. Federal lands administered by BLM include the Chakachamna Lake power site and a number of townships surrounding the power site (Bechtel, 1983). Most of these townships have been selected by the state. The remaining BLM land, some of which is unsurveyed, is being passively managed. Federal domain lands are generally open to wildland recreation with few regulations imposed on users of these lands (ADNR 2004). In 1947, lands in the immediate vicinity of Chakachamna Lake were withdrawn as a power site under Power Site Classification 395 (USS 3970) (Bechtel, 1983). The power site includes all public lands lying within one-quarter mile of Chakachamna Lake, Kenibuna Lake, and the Chakachatna River from the outlet at the lake to the mouth of Straight Creek (Bechtel, 1983). This power site is federal land that has been selected by the state (ADNR 2001). A portion of the proposed Project area is located on these lands, and a portion of the proposed Project tunnel and the powerhouse would be located on or adjacent to another parcel of BLM land selected by the state. State lands include lands owned and managed by a variety of state agencies or trusts. Most of these lands are managed by ADNR but other major landowners or management agencies include the Department of Transportation, Parks, Fish and game, Aviation Division, Alaska Railroad Corporation, University of Alaska, and Alaska Mental Health Trust (Kenai Peninsula Borough 2005). A significant amount of state land in the Kenai Peninsula Borough is designated as game refuges (the Trading Bay State Game Refuge is located in the Project vicinity), Critical Habitat Areas, or state parks. In addition, a significant portion of state land is managed or classified for uses such as oil and gas extraction, mining claims, timber sales, and agricultural leases. The lands held by the Alaska Mental Health Trust are reserved for programs to generate funding for mental health programs while those held by the University of Alaska are used to support university programs. The remaining state land is undeveloped and unclassified (Kenai Peninsula Borough 2005). General state-owned lands (managed by ADNR) are typically open to wildland recreation with few regulations imposed on users of these lands (ADNR 2004). Camping, hiking, boating, hunting, and fishing generally do not require authorization on state lands. Additionally, the Alaska Statehood Act granted the state ownership of submerged lands under most navigable waterways and submerged lands up to three miles offshore. Which rivers and lakes are navigable and where the offshore boundaries fall is still being debated between the State of Alaska and the federal government (ADNR 2004). According to the ADNR Division of Mining, Land and Water’s Navigability Program, the navigability of Chakachamna Lake and the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers is unknown (2009c). As discussed previously, all public lands lying within one-quarter mile of Chakachamna Lake, Kenibuna Lake, and a portion of the Chakachatna River are state selected lands. A portion of the PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-231 July 2009 proposed Project area is located on these lands, and a portion of the proposed Project tunnel and the powerhouse would be located on or adjacent to another parcel of BLM land selected by the state. State lands surround Chakachamna Lake and a portion of the Chakachatna River from the lake outlet. A large portion of the proposed Project area is located on or adjacent to existing state land, including the proposed tunnel and a portion of the proposed transmission line. As discussed in Section 4.8.5, the Kenai Area Plan directs how ADNR will manage state uplands, tidelands, and submerged lands within the planning boundary, including the Project area (ADNR 2001). The plan determines management intent, land-use designations, and management guidelines that apply to all state lands in the planning area. Primary Designated Uses (also called Primary Designations) help determine how best to manage state lands, how uses will be authorized, and which uses may or may not be authorized (ADNR 2001). Primary designated uses are applied to state lands and identify uses or resources that are of major importance. These lands will be managed to encourage these uses and their conservation or development. According to the Kenai Area Plan, state lands in the Project area have the following designations: Upper McArthur River drainage is designated as “General Use” (classified as Resource Management Land) since no resource values were identified that warrant a primary designation other than General Use. The Snout of Blockade Glacier and the Upper McArthur River are designated as “Habitat” (classified as Wildlife Habitat Land) for high wildlife habitat value. Part of this state unit was selected for mineral potential. The higher elevations around the Chakachatna River and Chakachamna Lake are designated as “General Use” (classified as Resource Management Land) since resource values are not high enough to warrant a primary designation other than General Use. According to the Kenai Area Plan, development is discouraged on the flanks of Crater Peak and along the Chakachatna River between the lake exit and the confluence with Straight Creek due to hazards from volcano eruptions and flooding (ADNR 2001). The area has habitat and recreation values on a small portion of the unit. Chakachatna River and Chakachamna Lake are designated as “Public Recreation and Tourism - Dispersed Use” (and classified as Public Recreation Use). The area encompassing the western end of Chakachamna Lake, the north shore of Kenibuna Lake, and the toe of the Shamrock Glacier have potential for fly-in hut-to-hut system and other parts of the lake shore may be suitable for kayak-accessible huts (ADNR 2001). Two townships immediately east of Lake Clark National Park wilderness and encompassing the western end of the lake have scenic values and potential for recreation and small scale tourism (ADNR 2001). According to the Kenai Area Plan, the rapids of the upper river are navigable, although with difficulty by rafts and kayaks. Visitors kayak the lake and hike the drainages. Rock climbers trek up the glaciers on the south side of the lake to access big-wall climbing. Areas around the lake are hunted in fall and winter. Trails and camps around the lake for recreational use will require authorizations from BLM and ADNR as long as the lake remains within a power site withdrawal. According to the Kenai Area Plan, development is discouraged on the flanks of Crater Peak and along the PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-232 July 2009 Chakachatna River between the lake exit and the confluence with Straight Creek due to hazards from volcano eruptions and flooding (ADNR 2001). The lake and river are state owned and the uplands around these waterbodies are still state selected (ADNR 2001). Access from the lake to the higher elevations is difficult. The Upper Chuitna River coal lease is located in the vicinity of the proposed Project transmission line and designated as “Coal” (classified as Coal Land). This state unit contains several coal deposits and active coal leases with pending applications for roads, materials sites, a runway, and other facilities. The unit will be retained in public ownership and managed primarily for coal development. Borough-owned land is acquired through municipal entitlement, purchase, exchange, donation, or tax foreclosure. The Kenai Peninsula Borough was entitled to select 156,000 acres of state land under the Mandatory Borough Act of 1964 and the Municipal Entitlement Act of 1978. Approximately 91,500 acres have been patented to the Borough, and an additional 34,000 acres have been approved for patent by the state (Kenai Peninsula Borough 2005). The Borough has selected sufficient acreage to meet its remaining entitlement but until the Borough has a patent to these selected lands, management and disposal options for these parcels are limited. No borough-owned land is located in or adjacent to the Project area but a tract is located in the vicinity of the proposed Project area. Borough land is managed in accordance with the Borough Code of Ordinances and the Borough land management ordinance includes provisions for the sale, lease, and temporary use of borough land (Kenai Peninsula Borough 2005). The Borough Management Division implements a land classification system for Borough land. Just over 12 percent of the land in the Borough is privately-owned with Native-owned land (Native corporations, villages, and tribes) accounting for the largest percentage, approximately 8.9 percent, of this private land (Kenai Peninsula Borough 2005). There are four main classes of Native land ownership in the proposed Project area as a result of special legislation: Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI), Tyonek Native Corporation, Native Village of Tyonek, and Native Allotments (Bechtel, 1983). Other Native holdings or land ownership in the vicinity include patented parcels and set net sites. The subsurface estate for most of the Village Corporation land in the Borough is held by CIRI or Chugach Alaska Corporation. Within the geographic boundaries of CIRI there are six village corporations. One of the six CIRI village corporations, the Tyonek Native Corporation, was organized as a result of the passage of ANCSA and represents the Native people enrolled to the village of Tyonek. The village of Tyonek is located in the vicinity of the proposed Project area. The Native Allotment Act of May 17, 1906, as amended August 2, 1956, authorized the Secretary of Interior to allot land to any Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo of full or mixed blood who resides in and is a Native of Alaska and who is the head of family or is 21 years of age. A land area cannot exceed 160 acres of vacant, unappropriated and unreserved non-mineral land in Alaska or subject to the provisions of the Act of March 8, 1922. The title to a Native Allotment is under restricted title and the land cannot be mortgaged, leased, or sold without the approval of PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-233 July 2009 the Secretary of Interior. Bechtel (1983) reported that there were six Native Allotments in the proposed Project area. The remaining private land in the Borough (approximately 3.4 percent) is in small private tracts owned by other private individuals or companies and the majority of the development in the Borough is concentrated on this private land (Kenai Peninsula Borough 2005). A small number of these private land tracts are located in the vicinity of Project near the coast. Approximately 56 percent of these parcels (accounting for 96 percent of the land) are vacant, 36 percent are occupied for residential uses (2.3 percent of the acreage), 3.6 percent are occupied for commercial use (0.1 percent of the acreage), and 0.6 for industrial purposes (0.1 percent of the acreage) (Kenai Peninsula Borough 2005). The remaining parcels have various uses, including agriculture, timber harvest, gravel pits, and public buildings. Many of the parcels of lands that have been transferred to the state and Natives have right-of - way reservations. Bechtel reported that numerous easements and rights-of-way exist in the vicinity of the Project, primarily along the coast (Bechtel, 1983). Rights to various resources, including timber, petroleum and coal, have been sold in the vicinity of the Project to by both the state and the Natives. Resource development activities will continue to have a major impact on the area (Bechtel, 1983). Other than pipelines, Bechtel reported (1983) that there are two petroleum-related facilities on the west side of Cook Inlet in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Subsistence activities of the villagers occur both on Tyonek Native Corporation land and on adjacent coastal areas. Bechtel (1983) reported that the general area of greatest use extends from the village south to the Polly Creek area and north along the coast to the mouth of the Susitna River. The use an area receives is dependent upon access and the availability of resources (i.e., coastal areas, river banks, and areas along the road system are used more extensively that areas only accessible by foot). Subsistence users of resources, other than Tyonek residents, may also be in the Project area. Bechtel (1983) reported that subsistence use areas in the vicinity of the proposed Project include: Kustatan River (entire vicinity hunted heavily when moose are not plentiful in McArthur River area and some trapping); Trading Bay and McArthur River including Upper McArthur River (moose hunting and furbearer trapping) and McArthur Flats (waterfowl hunting and furbearer trapping) and Middle River and lower area flats (moose hunting, trapping, and waterfowl hunting); Chakachatna River and Noaukta Slough (moose hunting, trapping, and waterfowl hunting); Chuitkilnacha Creek and associated marsh areas (duck hunting); Granite Point to Chuitna River (subsistence and commercial salmon and herring fishing); Chuitna River and Chuit Creek Area including Chuitbuna Lake/Chuit Lake (trapping, hunting, and berry picking, close to Tyonek village), areas west and north of Beluga village berry picking area, moose hunting, and furbearer trapping), Old Tyonek Creek and the lakes area (moose hunting and trapping); and Beluga Flats and lower reaches of Beluga River (hunting whale and waterfowl and some seals). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-234 July 2009 [This page intentionally left blank] Chilliga n R i v e r I g itn a R i v e r A nother River C h a k a c h a m n a Lake Nagis hl a mi n a River N e a c o l a R i v e r Chakachatna River McArthu r Ri v er C o o k I n l e tBlockade LakeBeluga Lake Tyonek Old Tyonek Shirleyville Anchorage Author: HDR Alaska - MC Date: 28 May 2009 Sources: ESRI, USGS, HATCH Filename: FIG 4 8-3 KPBparcels-11x17.mxd 0510 Miles Map Extent Legend PowerWithdrawal Land Owner BOROUGH FEDERAL MUNICIPAL NATIVE NATIVE ALLOTMENT PRIVATE STATE Land ownership Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Graphic representation only. HDR makes no guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of source data. Figure 4.8-3 0510Kilometers Mat-Su Borough Kenai Peninsula Borough Land ownership in the project vicinity PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-237 July 2009 4.9.10. Potential Adverse Impacts Potential impacts from the Project fall into a number of categories, from disturbances because of study activity and construction to hydrologic changes after Project operation begins. A discussion of impacts to recreational resources and land use by impact category follows in Table 4.8-2. Table 4.9-2. Potential impact issues related to recreational resources and land use. Recreational Resource and Land Use Impact Issues Related to the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Impact Issue Category Issue Effects on traditional subsistence use of the lake and shoreline habitats and /or travel around the shoreline in summer and winter Related to Increased Chakachamna Lake Water Level Fluctuation Impacts to recreational uses such as boating, fishing, and hunting Changes in distribution and/or numbers of fish used for subsistence Related to Blockage of Fish Passage into and out of Chakachamna Lake via the Chakachatna River Changes in distribution and/or numbers of fish used for recreation Changes in hydrology may affect traditional subsistence use of the Chakachatna River and riparian habitats Effects on recreational use of the Chakachatna River, such as fishing and rafting Changes in distribution and/or numbers of fish may affect subsistence use Related to project impacts on the Chakachatna River Changes in distribution and/or numbers of fish may affect recreational use Changes in hydrology may affect traditional subsistence use of the McArthur River and riparian habitats Increased flow may affect recreational use of the McArthur River, such as fishing and rafting Changes in distribution and/or numbers of fish may affect subsistence use Related to project impacts on the McArthur River Changes in distribution and/or numbers of fish may affect recreational use Related to Roads and Transmission Lines Increased recreational pressure, such as hunting, fishing, and backcountry activities (hiking, skiing, rafting, and snowmachining), due to increased access Recreational uses of Chakachamna Lake and traditional subsistence use of the lake and shoreline habitats and/or travel around the shoreline could be affected by increased fluctuation in the water surface elevation of the lake. Proposed fluctuations of as much as 60 feet exceed the existing natural fluctuations of about 15 feet. Under the proposed Project operation, maximum lake levels would be similar to natural levels, suggesting that potential impacts would not occur as a result of abnormal flooding but might occur as a result of an abnormally low lake level. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-238 July 2009 Proposed Project operations would decrease summer and fall flows within the Chakachatna River and increase flow to the McArthur River year-round. These changes in the flow of both the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers may affect traditional subsistence use of the rivers, riparian habitats, recreational use (such as fishing and rafting), and/or result in changes in distribution and/or numbers of fish that could in turn affect recreational or subsistence use. The passage of fish into and out of Chakachatna Lake via the Chakachatna River would also be affected seasonally during low water periods. This could result in changes in distribution and/or numbers of fish that may affect recreational or subsistence use. Access roads to the Project would likely increase recreational pressure, such as hunting, fishing, and backcountry activities (hiking, skiing, rafting, and snowmachining) in the Project area. The area is currently remote with limited access but road access and additional information about the area would likely result in increased recreational use. The extent of these potential impacts, and possible needs for mitigation, will be examined during the licensing process. 4.9.11. Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures The extent of potential impacts, and possible needs for mitigation, will be examined during the licensing process. The proposed design and operating characteristics for the Project have been specifically configured to avoid many of the most important potential impacts. Any measures that limit impacts to the distribution and/or numbers of fish would also lessen any potential impacts to recreational and subsistence use. Best management processes will be used during construction to minimize land and habitat disturbance, and erosion control planning will minimize offsite impacts from uncontrolled drainage. Since there are no existing, formal recreation facilities in the proposed Project area, appropriate recreation opportunities would be proposed for the Project. 4.10. Cultural Resources 4.10.1. Introduction Cultural resources on the west side of Cook Inlet, the general Project vicinity, include archaeological, historical, and traditional Tribal use areas. The primary year-round residents near the Project are Dena’ina speaking Athabascan Indians living in or near the village of Tyonek, or Tubughnenq’, which has an estimated population of 154 (ADCRA 2007). The Tebughna, which means “beach people”, are Dena’ina that come from this village. The Dena’ina have a long history in the Cook Inlet basin, and many strive to maintain, as much as possible, a traditional subsistence based culture. The earliest cultural remains in the Cook Inlet basin have been attributed to the Paleoarctic Tradition, which arrived in Alaska sometime after people migrated across Beringia 8,000 to 10,000 years ago. Apparent dates for the Paleoarctic Tradition around Cook Inlet are younger PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-239 July 2009 than those attributed to the initial migration into Alaska. This tradition was succeeded by the Northern Archaic tradition and the affiliated traditions of Arctic Small Tool, Norton, and Thule cultures. They spread from the Bering Sea along the coasts, across Alaska and into the Cook Inlet basin. These cultural traditions were present from about 6,000 B.P. until the time of European contact and overlapped each other: Northern Archaic – 6,000 to 4,000 B.P.; Arctic Small Tool – 5,000 to 3,000 B.P.; Norton – 2,200 to 1,000 B.P.; and Thule 1 to 1,600 A.D. It is believed that these four traditions are tied to historic Eskimo cultures of the Alaska Peninsula and Cook Inlet. In the Project vicinity these cultures are represented by sites in Lake Clark National Park, although the Thule tradition expanded to Kodiak Island and the southcentral Alaska coast (NPS 2004). The Kachemak Tradition, present from about 3,000 until 1,000 years ago, was a cultural tradition pervasive throughout Cook Inlet. The people of the Kachemak Tradition were Pacific Eskimos who lived in an area that stretched from Kodiak Island, throughout Cook Inlet, and east into Prince William Sound. The people of the Kachemak Tradition were followed in late prehistoric times, about 1,500 to 1,000 years ago, by the ancestors of the Dena’ina people, who migrated into the area from the interior. The Dena’ina are Athabascan speaking Indians, who are unique among northern Athabascan peoples because they use both inland and marine resources. The Dena’ina community nearest to the Project area is the Native Village of Tyonek. The first contact between Euroamericans and the Dena’ina in the Cook Inlet basin was in 1778 when Capitan James Cook explored the area. Cook anchored off the West Foreland near the villages of Kustatan and Tyonek. Russian trading posts were established in the 1780s but did not operate for long because of poor relations with the Natives. A small pox epidemic struck the region between 1836 and 1840, reducing the Native population by about half. The Alaska Commercial Company built an outpost at Tyonek around 1875, and in the 1880s the village became a disembarkation point for prospectors and goods headed for the Resurrection Creek gold mines on the Kenai Peninsula. In 1915 the Tyonek Reservation, also called the Moquawkie Indian Reservation, was formed. Soon after, the influenza epidemic of 1918-1919 decimated the Athabascans. The village of Tyonek was moved to its current location on a bluff overlooking Cook Inlet following flooding at the old site in the early 1930s (ADCRA 2007). 4.10.2. Applicable Laws and Regulations The passage of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to “to expand and maintain a National Register of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, archaeology, engineering, and culture” (30 CFR 60.1). These sites, structures, and objects are records of a region’s past that warrant listing in the National Register, the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS), or are deemed significant by traditional cultural groups. The NHPA declares that “the preservation of this irreplaceable heritage is in the public interest…” (30 CFR 60.1). Section 106 of NHPA requires that the possible effects of federal undertakings on properties listed or eligible for the National Register be considered. The Project will comply with the NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800) and the Alaska Historic Preservation Act (AS 41.35.010 – 41.35.240, and 11 AAC 16.010 – 11 AAC 16.900). Consultation with Tribal entities and identification of PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-240 July 2009 traditional cultural properties (TCPs) will be performed as required in 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties (FR, Vol. 65, No. 239, 12/12/2000). TCPs are historic properties (as defined by the NHPA) and therefore subject to the Section 106 process. 4.10.3. Area of Potential Effects The area of potential effects (APE) is defined as the “geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking” (36 CFR Part 800, paragraph 800.16). Currently, the initial APE for the Project is considered to be the area within the Project boundary, as shown in Figures 3.3-3 through 3.3-8. This initial APE would include the following: Chakachamna Lake and recreational use areas around the lake, Chakachatna river system including Noaukta Slough and recreational use areas along the system, McArthur River and recreational use areas along the river, Proposed road corridors to the powerhouse site, to the intake on Chakachamna Lake, and to the barge landing and dock facilities at Trading Bay/Granite Point and the North Foreland, and Transmission line corridors from the powerhouse site to the Beluga Substation. The APE will be determined through consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) [36 CFR Part 800, paragraph 800.4 (a)] and FERC and will be refined and adapted as field inventories of cultural sites progress. 4.10.4. Identification of Historic Properties and Archaeological Sites in the Project Vicinity A review of the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) found no historical or archaeological sites in the vicinity of Chakachamna Lake, the Chakachatna River, Noaukta Slough, or the McArthur River (ADNR 2008). However, 100 Dena’ina place names, denoting a feature of potential cultural significance, have been documented in the Project vicinity (Kari and Fall 2003). Concentrations of sites do exist in the Ladd Landing, Tyonek, North Foreland, and Granite Point/Trading Bay areas. The majority of the AHRS listed sites are in the Ladd Landing area, known as the Chu’it’nu Archaeological District (TYO-00132) (Braund 2006-2008). Of all the Project components, the proposed transmission line and existing access roads pass closest to these concentrations of sites (see Figure 4.8-1). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-241 July 2009 Figure 4.10-1. Areas with documented cultural sites in the Project vicinity.Ladd Landing Tyonek Trading Bay /Granite Point North Foreland PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-242 July 2009 4.10.5. Potential Adverse Impacts Disturbance during Project construction poses the greatest threat of adverse impact to cultural resources in the Project area. The construction of new access roads, a transmission line, powerhouse and tailrace, and fish passage structure, and upgrading existing access roads and barge landing facilities all will result in ground disturbance. In addition, there could be an increase in recreational activity in the Project area if access to this remote location is improved. Increased human presence could impact historic sites or interfere with sites of cultural significance. Cultural resource surveys in areas of potential disturbance and consultation with Tribes to identify sensitive areas are planned during the environmental study phase of the Project licensing. 4.10.6. Existing Discovery Measures No cultural resource surveys are known to have been conducted within or adjacent to the Project boundary. Communication with the SHPO indicates they will likely consider the Project area sensitive with regard to cultural resources (S. Ludwig, pers. comm. 2009). In portions of the Project area with moderate topographic relief that is also well drained, the potential for cultural sites is moderate to high. Contributing to the likelihood of finding cultural sites in these areas is current and historical availability of resources, such as food, water, fuel, and raw materials. In addition, there is a tradition of contact across the mountain passes with people on the Bristol Bay side of the Alaska Range (NPS 2004). Much of the lower elevations of the Project area is wetland or dynamic floodplain and has a lower potential for having once been inhabited or for containing historical or archaeological sites. 4.10.7. Affected Tribes The Project area has been inhabited by Dena’ina speaking Athabascan Indians since late prehistoric times, about 1,500 years ago. The Tyonek Reservation, also called the Moquawkie Indian Reservation was formed in 1915. In 1936 the government extended the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (IRA) to include Alaska Natives and urged Native villages to adopt constitutions for self-government under the act. The designation “Native Village of Tyonek (IRA)” indicates that they were one of the villages incorporated under this law. The Native Village of Tyonek, the tribal government, operates social programs and performs other governmental services but does not have jurisdiction over lands conveyed to the Tyonek Native Corporation under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971. ANCSA revoked the reservation status of lands in the Moquawkie Indian Reservation. Following ANCSA, the Native Village of Tyonek formed the Tyonek Native Corporation (TNC), the business/development arm of the tribe, in 1973. The TNC manages the monetary and property compensation received through the regional native corporation formed by ANCSA. The regional corporation for the Cook Inlet area is Cook Inlet Region Inc. (CIRI). In and around Tyonek, the TNC owns the surface rights to lands it selected under ANCSA. CIRI owns the subsurface rights both to village and regional selected lands in the Project area. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-243 July 2009 Because there have been no cultural resource surveys in the Project area, no sites of cultural or traditional significance have been identified in areas potentially affected by the Project. However, there are several sites along the Cook Inlet shoreline in the vicinity of Tyonek that have been surveyed and do contain cultural resources. The most significant of these, to date, is the Chu’it’nu Archaeological District (TYO-00132) (Braund 2006-2008). One area that could see activity from the Project is Trading Bay/Granite Point (Figure 4.8-1). There also have been at least 100 Dena’ina place names identified in the Project area that could indicate sites of cultural importance or traditional use. 4.10.8. Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures There are no historic or cultural sites listed within the Project area and as a result there currently are no plans describing specific protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures. However, there is potential for historic and cultural sites within the Project area and the Project will comply with the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800) and the Alaska Historic Preservation Act (AS 41.35.010 – 41.35.240, and 11 AAC 16.010 – 11 AAC 16.900). Consultation with the SHPO, Tribal organizations, and other interested parties will be ongoing throughout Project development. In addition, identification and evaluation of cultural resources in the Project area will occur to support the FERC licensing process and will be used during Project planning. If any cultural resources are identified in the Project area and are found to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, consultation will continue in order to avoid, minimize, or mitigate effects to those cultural resources. Protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures could include: Locating project facilities to avoid cultural sites Excavation and study of archaeological sites that may be unavoidably impacted Restriction of access to sensitive areas Promoting public awareness with educational displays at an appropriate location, such Tyonek Tribal government facilities. 4.11. Socioeconomic Resources 4.11.1. Introduction The Project falls within the boundaries of the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB) and is in the vicinity of the Municipality of Anchorage (Figure 4.11-1). Most of the development within the KPB is on the Kenai Peninsula itself, which lies across Cook Inlet from the Project area, making the vicinity of the Chakachatna and McArthur river drainages rural and generally isolated. The nearest community is the unincorporated Native Village of Tyonek, population approximately 154, about 38 miles to the east of the proposed powerhouse site. Eighty miles to the east of the powerhouse site lies Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska, with a population of approximately 260,000 (MOA, 2004; 2000 U.S. Census Data). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-244 July 2009 Figure 4.11-1. Kenai Land use in the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB, 2005). Green triangle represents approximate location of the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project.Chakachamna Lake PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project FERC No. 12660 4-245 4.11.2. Land Use and Real Estate Land use patterns in the Project area, which is relatively isolated, are rural. Current land use by local residents is for subsistence activities and non-resident use is mainly recreational. There is no road access from the population centers of the Kenai Peninsula, Matanuska/Susitna Valley, or Anchorage and people must access the Project area by boat or airplane. Most of the lands in the Project area are public, either state or federal. However there are three blocks of Tyonek Native Corporation land that would be crossed by proposed Project access roads and transmission lines (Figure 4.8-1). Land use plans and shoreline management plans that affect properties in the Project vicinity are Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan and Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Zone Management Plan, KPB Kenai Area Plan, ADNR Strategic Plan for Lake Clark National Park and Preserve October 1, 2004 - September 30, 2008 (Lake Clark Strategic Plan), NPS – 1,523,000 acres (most to the west of the Project area) Trading Bay State Game Refuge and Redoubt Bay Critical Habitat Area Management Plan, ADF&G – Trading Bay State Game Refuge comprises 160,960 acres Tyonek Native Corporation lands and the village of Tyonek – 78,849 acres. Figure 4.11-1 shows land use in the region. Land ownership in the Project area is described in greater detail in Section 4.9 Recreation and Land Use. Tyonek The nearest community, Tyonek, is an unincorporated, small, native village of about 150 people. Their village corporation is the Tyonek Native Corporation (TNC). Tyonek residents strive to maintain a subsistence lifestyle by harvesting as many plant and animal resources from area lands as possible. Commercial use of Project area lands by local residents has been mainly operation of recreational fishing lodges and some past logging of TNC lands. Logging activity in the Project vicinity has left a few – generally unmaintained – access roads between Tyonek, a barge landing near Trading Bay, and the timber lands northwest of Noaukta Slough. In the words of the TNC (TNC, accessed 2009), “TNC lands are rich in renewable resources that are vital to the Athabascan subsistence lifestyle, including wildlife, berries, and fish. Additionally, a short distance from TNC’s selected lands, the Cook Inlet Region generally is rich in bountiful timber resources, oil and gas, and the world-famous Beluga coal fields. It is inevitable that these resources will be developed and harvested, and become part of state, national, and even world markets. The TNC Board of Directors and management are preparing for this inevitable development on the West Side of Cook Inlet – development that will have significant impact on the Tebughna PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-246 July 2009 people, their small village, and their small village, and their historical and cultural way of life. Chief Executive Officer Tom Harris and the TNC Board are positioning the corporation to both protect its people and resources from negative consequences of development, and to take advantage of such development for the benefit of the people and their corporation.” Land use and development projects (TNC, accessed 2009) that the TNC foresees and is planning for are New community – ‘Nakacheba’ Conservation easement on Chuit River 1000 acre industrial site North Foreland Port and facilities Aggregate export West Susitna road access Fast ferry Chuitna Coal Project Coal to liquid and power generation Chakachamna Hydropower Project Mt. Spurr Geothermal Power Project Gold port and community development. Current resource development in the vicinity of Tyonek includes natural gas power generation at Beluga and oil drilling platforms off shore of Trading Bay. Kenai Peninsula Borough The Project area lies entirely within the KPB and partially within the coastal zone. Borough land management policies are described in the Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan and the Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Zone Management Plan (KPB, 2005 and 2008). Table 4.11-1, from the KPB Comprehensive Plan (KPB, 2005) lists landownership in the borough by category. Much of the land within the borough is either state or federally owned; a significant portion of that in either parks, game refuges, or Critical Habitat areas. Included in the Project vicinity are Lake Clark National Park, Trading Bay State Game Refuge, and Redoubt Bay Critical Habitat Area. The borough and its residents can influence management of state and federal lands through intergovernmental agreements and relationships and the public participation process. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-247 July 2009 Table 4.11-1. Land ownership in the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB, 2005) There is very little land in the Project vicinity that is actually owned by the borough. However, the borough does regulate some types of uses on specific land designations throughout the borough: Subdivision of privately owned land within incorporated and unincorporated areas Local option zoning Floodplain development Coastal zone development PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-248 July 2009 Development near certain anadromous fish-bearing streams Mobile home developments Gravel pits/material sites Correctional community residential centers Concentrated animal feeding operations. Land use in the KPB, as shown on Figure 4.11-3, is primarily vacant and rural. This is true for the more populated Kenai Peninsula as well as the western side of Cook Inlet where the Project is located. According to data from the KPB Comprehensive Plan (KPB, 2005), land use in tax parcels (does not include the vast tracts of state and federal lands) within the borough has been undergoing change. Combined residential and commercial use of privately owned parcels has increased substantially since the early 1990’s. However, while residential use has increased 64 percent, the net gain in commercial and industrial uses was only 10 percent. Most private parcels and development in the borough are located along the highway corridor from Turnagain Arm to Seward and Homer. There are only a few more remote communities, such as Tyonek, Seldovia, Port Graham, and Nanwalek that are accessible only by boat and plane. 4.11.3. Demographics Populations in the Project vicinity vary from the Dena’ina village of Tyonek to Kenai Peninsula communities to Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city. The nearest year round residents to the Project live in the Native Village of Tyonek, approximately 38 miles to the east of the proposed powerhouse site. The population centers of the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage lie across Cook Inlet to the east. The demographics of these areas are varied and a result of their historical patterns of settlement and accessibility to the state and world by road, rail, and commercial air transport. Tyonek In the last century, the population of Tyonek increased steadily from 58 in 1920 to 239 in 1980, but declined to 154 by 1990 (Bechtel, 1983; DCRA, accessed 2009). According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the population of Tyonek was 193. The current population is listed as 181 (2007 Estimated Population – not certified) and is approximately 95 percent Alaska Native (DCRA, accessed 2009). Tables 4.11-2 through 4.11-4 below list the demographic characteristics of Tyonek, including race, gender, age, and occupation (DCRA, accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data). No data is available on education levels. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-249 July 2009 Table 4.11-2. Tyonek population statistics by race (DCRA, accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data). Population by Race: 2000 U.S. Census Data Population in 2000: 193 White: 9 Alaska Native or Amer. Indian: 184 Black: 0 Asian: 0 Hawaiian Native: 0 Other Race: 0 Percent Native*: 95.30% All or Part Alaska Native/Indian: 184 Hispanic Origin (Any Race): 5 Not Hispanic (Any Race): 188 (*Percent reporting Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more races) Table 4.11-3. Tyonek population statistics by gender and age (DCRA accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data). Population by Gender and Age: 2000 U.S. Census Data Gender: Male: 107 Female: 86 Age: Age 4 and under: 18 Age 5 - 9: 22 Age 10 - 14: 20 Age 15 - 19: 16 Age 20 - 24: 9 Age 25 - 34: 30 Age 35 - 44: 35 Age 45 - 54: 17 Age 55 - 59: 8 Age 60 - 64: 8 Age 65 - 74: 6 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-250 July 2009 Population by Gender and Age: 2000 U.S. Census Data Age 75 - 84: 4 Age 85 and over: 0 Median Age: 28.3 Pop. Age 18 and over: 121 Pop. Age 21 and over: 114 Pop. Age 62 and over: 13 Table 4.11-4. Income and occupations in Tyonek (DCRA, accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data). Income, Poverty, and Occupation: 2000 U.S. Census Data Income and Poverty Levels: These figures are estimates based on a sample, and are subject to sampling variability. The percent of all households sampled in Tyonek was 38.1%. Note: Current socio-economic measures could differ significantly. Tyonek is located in the Kenai Peninsula Census Area. Per Capita Income: $11,261 Median Household Income: $26,667 Median Family Income: $29,792 Persons in Poverty: 29 Percent Below Poverty: 13.9% Total Potential Work Force (Age 16+): 144 Total Employment: 64 Employment by Occupation: Management, Professional & Related: 15 Service: 21 Sales & Office: 12 Construction, Extraction & Maintenance: 9 Production, Transportation & Material Moving: 7 The Dena’ina Indians settled in the area about 1,500 years ago and still comprise the vast majority of the population, despite historical and contemporary influxes of Europeans and Americans during periods of mineral exploration, mining, and resource development. Tyonek residents, who call themselves the Tebughna, strive to maintain a traditional subsistence lifestyle. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-251 July 2009 Subsistence activities provide salmon, moose, beluga whale (harvest depending on Endangered Species Status), waterfowl, and berries and other edible plants. Twenty residents hold commercial fishing permits, some trap in the winter, and some residents provide recreational and fishing and hunting guide services (DCRA, accessed 2009). Besides these commercial fishing and hunting activities, there are few opportunities for non-subsistence occupations outside of tribal government, community services, the schools, and the local store. As a result average yearly incomes are low and cash is less a part of their economy than in Alaska communities connected to population centers by roads and rail. Kenai Peninsula Borough The population characteristics of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, as whole, differ substantially from those of Tyonek and the remote west side of Cook Inlet. The population of the Kenai Peninsula has been growing steadily for the last several decades and stood at over 49,000 at the time of the 2000 census. Population growth was greatest during the boom years of the 1970’s and early 1980’s, as shown in Table 4.11-5. The current population is estimated to be 52,407 (DCCED Certified Population) (DCRA, accessed 2009). Table 4.11-5. Population growth in the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB, 2005). Kenai Peninsula Borough- Decennial Years (1960 – 2000) (U.S. Census Data) Year Population Total Change Annual Rate of Change 1960 9,053 -- -- 1970 16,586 7,533 6.2% 1980 25,282 8,696 4.3% 1990 40,802 15,520 4.9% 2000 49,691 8,889 2.0% The racial composition of the borough is listed in Table 4.11-6. Except for the small native villages, the population of the KPB is predominantly white. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-252 July 2009 Table 4.11-6. Kenai Peninsula Borough population statistics by race (DCRA, accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data). Population by Race: 2000 U.S. Census Data Population in 2000: 49,691 White: 42,841 Alaska Native or Amer. Indian: 3,713 Black: 229 Asian: 480 Hawaiian Native: 86 Other Race: 415 Two or More Races 1,927 Percent Native*: 10.20% All or Part Alaska Native/Indian: 5,065 Hispanic Origin (Any Race): 1,087 Not Hispanic (Any Race): 48,604 (*Percent reporting Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more races) As shown in Table 4.11-7, the KPB has a high percentage of adults in the age range of 25 to 55 years. Also according to the 2000 U.S. Census, males outnumber females in the borough by 52 percent to 48 percent; a ratio that is similar to the state as a whole (KPB, 2005). PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-253 July 2009 Table 4.11-7. Kenai Peninsula Borough Population Statistics by gender and age (DCRA accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data). Population by Gender and Age: 2000 U.S. Census Data Gender: Male: 25,853 Female: 23,838 Age: Age 4 and under: 3,288 Age 5 - 9: 4,024 Age 10 - 14: 4,698 Age 15 - 19: 4,140 Age 20 - 24: 2,132 Age 25 - 34: 5,648 Age 35 - 44: 9,074 Age 45 - 54: 8,739 Age 55 - 59: 2,632 Age 60 - 64: 1,667 Age 65 - 74: 2,361 Age 75 - 84: 1,077 Age 85 and over: 211 Median Age: 36.3 Pop. Age 18 and over: 34,832 Pop. Age 21 and over: 33,091 Pop. Age 62 and over: 4,549 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-254 July 2009 Table 4.11-8. Income and occupations in Kenai Peninsula Borough (DCRA, accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data). Income, Poverty, and Occupation: 2000 U.S. Census Data Income and Poverty Levels: These figures are estimates based on a sample, and are subject to sampling variability. The percent of all households sampled in Kenai Peninsula Borough was 27.7%. Note: Current socio-economic measures could differ significantly. Kenai Peninsula Borough located in the Kenai Peninsula Census Area. Per Capita Income: $20,949 Median Household Income: $46,397 Median Family Income: $54,106 Persons in Poverty: 4,861 Percent Below Poverty: 10.0% Total Potential Work Force (Age 16+): 36,781 Total Employment: 20,486 Employment by Occupation: Management, Professional & Related: 5,581 Service: 3,471 Sales & Office: 4,740 Farming, Fishing & Forestry: 485 Construction, Extraction & Maintenance: 3,394 Production, Transportation & Material Moving: 2,693 In general, adjusted incomes in the KPB decreased during the last couple of decades (KPB, 2005). In the Project area, the median household income for Tyonek has increased substantially, although it is still lower than other communities described in the KPB Comprehensive Plan, except for Hope. The KPB Comprehensive Plan (KPB, 2005) points out the following issues regarding borough demographics: Aging population – the average age and percent of population in higher age groups has increased and is predicted to continue to do so. Declines in school age children – there are budget and service issues surrounding declining enrollment. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-255 July 2009 Declining incomes – decreases in real income may signal increased demand on social and other services at the same time that there is less money to support taxes and fees. Anchorage The population of the Municipality of Anchorage grew most rapidly during the decade between 1980 and 1990, increasing from 174,431 to 226,338 (MOA, 2001). Although now growing more slowly, the population is about 284,000 today (283,938 – 2007 DCCED Certified Population; DCRA, accessed 2009), more than three times the 83,000 it was at statehood in 1960. The growth of outlying areas of the Municipality and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough represents a shift in settlement patterns in the Anchorage bowl (MOA, 2001). The percent of the Anchorage population categorized in a racial minority has increased from less than 10 percent in 1960 to over 25 percent in 1999 (MOA, 2001). The average age in Anchorage in 1980 was 26.3 years increasing by 1998 to 32.1 years and in 2000 to 32.4 years (MOA, 2001; 2000 U.S. Census). Households were predominantly comprised of married couples at 64 percent, followed by one person households at 23 percent, single parent households at 14 percent, and non-family households at 9 percent (MOA, 2001). Population statistics for Anchorage are listed in Tables 4.11-9 to 4.11-11, below. Table 4.11-9. Anchorage population statistics by race (DCRA, accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data). Population by Race: 2000 U.S. Census Data Population in 2000: 260,283 White: 188,009 Alaska Native or Amer. Indian: 18,941 Black: 15,199 Asian: 14,433 Hawaiian Native: 2,423 Other Race: 5,703 Two or More Races: 15,575 Percent Native*: 10.40% All or Part Alaska Native/Indian: 26,995 Hispanic Origin (Any Race): 14,799 Not Hispanic (Any Race): 245,484 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-256 July 2009 Table 4.11-10. Anchorage population statistics by gender and age (DCRA accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data). Population by Gender and Age: 2000 U.S. Census Data Gender: Male: 131,668 Female: 128,615 Age: Age 4 and under: 20,033 Age 5 - 9: 21,867 Age 10 - 14: 21,501 Age 15 - 19: 19,662 Age 20 - 24: 17,694 Age 25 - 34: 40,113 Age 35 - 44: 48,210 Age 45 - 54: 38,803 Age 55 - 59: 11,240 Age 60 - 64: 6,918 Age 65 - 74: 8,895 Age 75 - 84: 4,284 Age 85 and over: 1,063 Median Age: 32.4 Pop. Age 18 and over: 184,412 Pop. Age 21 and over: 173,564 Pop. Age 62 and over: 18,082 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-257 July 2009 Table 4.11-11. Income and occupations in Anchorage (DCRA, accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data). Income, Poverty, and Occupation: 2000 U.S. Census Data Income and Poverty Levels: These figures are estimates based on a sample, and are subject to sampling variability. The percent of all households sampled in Tyonek was 14.5%. Note: Current socio-economic measures could differ significantly. Anchorage is located in the Anchorage Census Area. Per Capita Income: $25,287 Median Household Income: $55,546 Median Family Income: $63,682 Persons in Poverty: 18,682 Percent Below Poverty: 7.4% Total Potential Work Force (Age 16+): 192,782 Total Employment: 134,240 Employment by Occupation: Management, Professional & Related: 46,271 Service: 18,970 Sales & Office: 35,834 Farming, Fishing & Forestry: 432 Construction, Extraction & Maintenance: 12,136 Production, Transportation & Material Moving: 12,094 The Municipality of Anchorage (MOA, 2001) makes the following points about demographic trends: The total population is growing but the number of young adults ages 20 to 34 years is declining, due to lack of growth in high paying jobs, fewer military personnel, young people leaving the state for education, and young families migrating to the Matanuska- Susitna Borough. The population is aging but is still relatively young compared to the rest of the nation: median age 32.1 compared to 36.2, respectively. The school age population remains almost unchanged since 1990. The number of “empty nesters” age 50 to 65 years has increased and is expected to be Anchorages fastest growing age group; but it will still lag behind the national projection. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-258 July 2009 4.11.4. Industry and Employment Tyonek Having a subsistence based culture, formal commercial and industrial employment among the residents of Tyonek would be considered low by urban standards. The unemployment rate is approximately 27 percent (DCRA, accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data). Table 4.11-13 lists employment statistics for Tyonek. Table 4.11-12. Employment in Tyonek (DCRA, accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data). Employment: 2000 U.S. Census Data Note: Current socio-economic measures could differ significantly. Tyonek is located in the Kenai Peninsula Census Area. Employment: Total Potential Work Force (Age 16+): 144 Total Employment: 64 Civilian Employment: 64 Civilian Unemployed (And Seeking Work): 24 Percent Unemployed: 27.3% Adults Not in Labor Force (Not Seeking Work): 56 Percent of All 16+ Not Working (Unemployed + Not Seeking): 55.6% Private Wage & Salary Workers: 31 Self-Employed Workers (in own not incorporated business): 3 Government Workers (City, Borough, State, Federal): 30 Employment by Industry: Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting, Mining: 3 Construction: 11 Transportation, Warehousing & Utilities: 5 Education, Health & Social Services: 17 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation & Food Services: 8 Other Services (Except Public Admin): 6 Public Administration: 14 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-259 July 2009 Kenai Peninsula Borough The KPB has a diverse economy with several industries providing significant opportunities for employment (DCRA, accessed 2009). Services for Cook Inlet oil drilling and production Services for Cook Inlet natural gas drilling and production Oil refining Tourism – both in-state and out-of-state visitors Commercial fishing and processing Commercial fishing permits (salmon, herring, cod, bottom fish and shellfish) are held by 1,555 borough residents. Other important industries and employers are government, agriculture, transportation, construction, retail trade, and timber and lumber. Harvesting spruce bark beetle- killed timber is becoming more profitable and practicable. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-260 July 2009 Table 4.11-13. Employment in the Kenai Peninsula Borough (DCRA, accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data). Employment: 2000 U.S. Census Data Note: Current socio-economic measures could differ significantly. The Kenai Peninsula Borough is located in the Kenai Peninsula Census Area. Employment: Total Potential Work Force (Age 16+): 36,781 Total Employment: 20,486 Civilian Employment: 20,364 Military Employment: 122 Civilian Unemployed (And Seeking Work): 2,630 Percent Unemployed: 11.4% Adults Not in Labor Force (Not Seeking Work): 13,665 Percent of All 16+ Not Working (Unemployed + Not Seeking): 44.3% Private Wage & Salary Workers: 13,691 Self-Employed Workers (in own not incorporated business): 2,578 Government Workers (City, Borough, State, Federal): 3,976 Employment by Industry: Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting, Mining: 2,157 Construction: 1,898 Manufacturing: 1,046 Wholesale Trade: 383 Retail Trade: 2,568 Transportation, Warehousing & Utilities: 1,319 Information: 294 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Rental & Leasing: 638 Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative & Waste Mgmt: 1,046 Education, Health & Social Services: 3,996 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation & Food Services: 2,209 Other Services (Except Public Admin): 1,283 Public Administration: 1,527 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-261 July 2009 Anchorage Anchorage – where there are headquarters for the oil and gas industries, finance and real estate, transportation, communications, and government agencies – is the center of commerce for the state. There also are numerous facilities and services for business visitors and tourists. In addition, over 8,500 military personnel are stationed at Fort Richardson and Elmendorf AFB. The unemployment rate is low, although it fluctuates seasonally. There are 912 commercial fishing permits held by Anchorage residents. Most permit-owners fish in Bristol Bay, Kodiak or Cordova (DCRA, accessed 2009). Table 4.11-14. Employment in Anchorage (DCRA, accessed 2009; 2000 U.S. Census Data). Employment: 2000 U.S. Census Data Note: Current socio-economic measures could differ significantly. Anchorage is located in the Anchorage Census Area. Employment: Total Potential Work Force (Age 16+): 192,782 Total Employment: 134,240 Civilian Employment: 125,737 Military Employment: 8,503 Civilian Unemployed (And Seeking Work): 9,110 Percent Unemployed: 6.8% Adults Not in Labor Force (Not Seeking Work): 49,432 Percent of All 16+ Not Working (Unemployed + Not Seeking): 30.4% Private Wage & Salary Workers: 89,023 Government Workers (City, Borough, State, Federal): 27,646 Unpaid Family Workers: 249 Employment by Industry: Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting, Mining: 3,886 Construction: 7,995 Manufacturing: 2,542 Wholesale Trade: 4,428 Retail Trade: 15,327 Transportation, Warehousing & Utilities: 11,809 Information: 4,079 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Rental & Leasing: 7,654 Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative & Waste Mgmt: 12,845 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-262 July 2009 Education, Health & Social Services: 24,532 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation & Food Services: 11,342 Other Services (Except Public Admin): 7,156 Public Administration: 12,142 4.11.5. Public Sector (Taxes and Services) Tyonek The Native Village of Tyonek is unincorporated and does not support either city officials or a system of finances. Services in the community, including law enforcement, fire, medical, water and sewer, and education, are provided by the state, the KPB, or the village council (Table 4.11- 15). The community medical clinic, Indian Creek Health Clinic, is owned and operated by the Native Village of Tyonek and the village council. Classified as an isolated village, Tyonek is in the EMS Region 2J in the Kenai Peninsula Region and emergency evacuation services are only by air. Emergencies are handled locally by volunteers and the clinic health aide (DCRA, accessed 2009). The community – approximately 90 homes – is served by a piped water and sewer system. The village water source is Second Lake; water from which is treated and stored in a 175,000 gal tank. Tyonek has a small coin operated washeteria with one washer and dryer (DCRA, accessed 2009). Kindergarten through 12th grade education is provided by the state and administered by the KPB. The DCRA (accessed 2009) lists a total of 37 students and eight teachers attending and working in Tebughna School. Communications services are provided by Anchorage or Matanuska area businesses. Table 4.11-15. Public services in Tyonek (DCRA, accessed 2009). Local Services and Facilities Police: State troopers in Girdwood Fire/Rescue: Tyonek Volunteer Rescue Squad Youth Center: Boys and Girls Club Community Hall: Community Hall Library: School/Community Library Water Distribution, Source, and Treatment Systems: Water System Operator: Village Council Washeteria Operator: None Piped Water System: Yes Central Watering Point (Haul): No Multiple Watering Points: No Water Truck (Delivery): No PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-263 July 2009 Individual Wells: Yes Community Well Source: No Surface Water Source: Yes DEC Water Permit Number: 240472 Water Is Filtered: Yes Water Is Chlorinated: Yes Sewage Collection Systems: Sewer System Operator: Village Council Piped Sewer System: Yes Honeybucket Haul: No Honeybucket Pits: No Individual Septic Tanks: Yes Community Septic Tank: Yes Sewage Pumper: Yes Sewage Lagoon: No Sewage Lift Station: No Outhouses: No Refuse/Landfill System: Refuse Collector: None Landfill Operator: Kenai Peninsula Borough DEC Landfill Permit: No Type of Landfill: Class 3, 8423-BA004 Expired Health Care: Clinic/Hospital in Community: Indian Creek Health Clinic Operator: Native Village of Tyonek Owner: Village Council Facility Status: The clinic needs major renovations Alternate Health Care: Tyonek Volunteer Rescue Squad Local Schools: District Name: Kenai Peninsula Schools Operated By: Kenai Peninsula Borough Tyonek Schools: Tebughna School Grades K thru 12 Communications: In-State Phone: Matanuska Telephone Assoc. Long-Distance Phone: AT&T Alascom TV Stations: KYES; KAKM Radio Stations: All Anchorage stations; KSRM-AM; KWHQ-FM Teleconferencing: Alaska Teleconferencing Network PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-264 July 2009 Kenai Peninsula Borough Kenai Peninsula Borough is incorporated as a second class borough and as such levees taxes and fees, which fund borough government and services. The KPB operates the schools and the landfill but most other services such as sewer, water, fire, and law enforcement are managed locally by each city. There are 44 schools in the Kenai Peninsula School District with a total of 9,487 students and employing 716 teachers. Tables 4.11-16 and 4.11-17 list the finances for the KPB for 2005 (DCRA, accessed 2009). Table 4.11-16. Kenai Peninsula Borough revenues (DCRA, accessed 2009) 2005 Municipal Revenues Local Operating Revenues Outside Operating Revenues Taxes: $58,372,872 Federal Operating: $5,033,393 Service Charges: $1,231,122 Other State Revenue: $3,634,590 Enterprise: $79,739,464 State/Federal Education Funds: $59,617,943 Other Local Revenue: $7,664,902 Total Local Operating Revenues: $147,008,360 Total Outside Revenues: $68,285,926 Total Operating Revenues (local + outside): $215,294,286 State/Federal Capital Project Revenues: $1,673,099 Total All Revenues: $216,967,385 Table 4.11-17. Kenai Peninsula Borough expenditures (DCRA, accessed 2009) 2005 Municipal Expenditures Total All Expenditures: $218,680,175 General Government Expenditures: $13,729,978 Public Safety: $9,782,444 Roads: $3,198,758 Refuse/Landfill: $4,348,928 Clinic Hospital: $68,867,214 Parks and Recreation: $1,383,393 Education: $95,553,345 Capital Projects: $17,209,587 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-265 July 2009 Anchorage Anchorage is a unified home rule municipality with the power to tax and raise revenues to support government and public services including schools, law enforcement, water and sewer, sea port and airport, roads, health services, and capital projects. There are 97 schools in the Anchorage School District that offer a range of educational opportunities for grades preschool through 12: deaf and hard of hearing; alternative teaching; and native cultural and other charter schools. The school district employs 3,188 teachers for 48,837 students (DCRA, accessed 2009). Tables 4.11-18 and 4.11-19 list Anchorage revenues and expenditures for 2006. Table 4.11-18. Anchorage revenues (DCRA, accessed 2009) 2006 Municipal Revenues Local Operating Revenues Outside Operating Revenues Taxes: $455,172,329 Federal Operating: $11,437,872 License/Permits: $13,840,537 State Fish Tax Sharing: $85,846 Service Charges: $46,170,550 Other State Revenue: $41,946,753 Enterprise: $238,325,250 State/Federal Education Funds: $335,518,100 Other Local Revenue: $227,454,726 Total Local Operating Revenues: $980,963,392 Total Outside Revenues: $388,988,571 Total Operating Revenues (local + outside): $1,369,951,963 State/Federal Capital Project Revenues: $67,187,087 Total All Revenues: $1,437,139,050 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-266 July 2009 Table 4.11-19. Anchorage expenditures (DCRA, accessed 2009). 2006 Municipal Expenditures Total All Expenditures: $1,257,938,683 General Government Expenditures: $25,781,213 Public Safety: $172,462,047 Roads: $20,644,987 Airport: $1,161,779 Harbor/Dock: $6,226,372 Refuse/Landfill: $17,509,609 Electric Utility: $71,754,729 Water/Sewer: $53,819,127 Other Public Works: $50,485,167 Clinic Hospital: $24,360,212 Miscellaneous Public Services: $62,267,440 Education: $553,411,152 Capital Projects: $132,971,388 4.11.6. Electricity Tyonek Chugach Electric Association provides electrical power to Tyonek. The Beluga power plant, which generates power using natural gas, is located about 10 miles northwest of the community. A total of 385 megawatts is generated at the Beluga power plant for distribution within the “Railbelt ” communities of central and southcentral Alaska. Kenai Peninsula Borough Electricity is supplied to the northern Kenai Peninsula by Chugach Electric Association. The south and central portions of the peninsula are supplied by Homer Electric Association. Homer Electric purchases power from Chugach Electric and is a partner with them in the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, receiving about 12 percent of that project’s output. Homer Electric also has a 40 megawatt co-generation facility in North Kenai, which supplies both the Agrium plant and the Railbelt electric grid. Chugach Electric operates three power generation facilities in the borough: The Beluga power plant near Tyonek (natural gas) The Bernice Lake power plant near Nikiski (natural gas) The Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project near Cooper Landing PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-267 July 2009 The City of Seward owns its local electrical distribution system and transmission lines north of the city. Power is purchased from Chugach Electric. In addition, the city owns one percent of the output of the Bradley Lake Project and a 12 megawatt diesel generator for back up. Anchorage Electrical power in Anchorage is supplied by Municipal Light and Power and Chugach Electric Association. Their current combined capacity can meet near-term peak demands but the need for additional capacity is anticipated by 2015 to 2020 (MOA, 2001). A number of new projects are planned including new transmission lines, new transmission facilities, line upgrades, and undergrounding of lines. The MOA reports the following issues related to Anchorage’s power supply: Revision of the Utility Corridor Plan and Underground Utilities Implementation Plan; Impact of new technologies on distribution and marketing of power; Future power generation capacity; Increased reliance on the intertie grid; Shared utilities with military installations. 4.11.7. Potential Adverse Impacts The Project area is relatively isolated and unpopulated. Therefore, especially during construction, there is likely to be an increase in the local population. Construction workers would be housed primarily in camps built specifically for that purpose and dismantled after construction was complete. However, some increase in the native population of Tyonek could be expected because of the availability of Project related employment opportunities. Tyonek has limited infrastructure and housing, but as stated in Section 4.11.2, the TNC and village council are planning a new subdivision as one way to prepare for regional resource development projects. Even though Tyonek would try to limit outside influences on the community, there would likely be an increased need for law enforcement and public safety. Additionally, subsistence activities may be disrupted during construction and by habitat changes resulting from Project operation. Recreational pressure on Project area lands also may increase if accessibility is improved. 4.11.8. Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures The Project will comply with management plans for borough, state, and federal lands in the Project area. Environmental impacts that would change recreational or subsistence use of Project area lands will be mitigated to the extent practicable. Camps for workers will used during construction to avoid impacts and conflicts with area residents. Access to Project roads may be controlled to mitigate increased recreational pressure. Additional measures will be proposed with the Application for Original License to address ongoing socioeconomic impacts of the project associated with construction and long-term operation of the Project. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-268 July 2009 4.12. Tribal Resources This section addresses FERC requirements for Tribal Resources (18 CFR, Section 5.6, (d)(3)(ii)- (xii)) for the PAD. This section describes the legal rights of Native American tribes in general and identifies specific Native American tribes within the Project region. (No federally recognized tribal lands are within or directly adjacent to the proposed boundary of the Project.) This section also discusses any identified tribal resource interests that may be affected by continued operation of the Project under an original license. 4.12.1. Introduction 4.12.1.1. Overview of Government-to-Government Relations The United States has a unique legal relationship with federally recognized tribal governments as put forth in the Constitution of the U.S., treaties, statutes, executive orders, and court decisions. The United States recognizes Indian tribes as “domestic dependent nations,” which have inherent sovereign powers over their own tribal members and territory (Executive Order 13175). Treaties (contracts between sovereign nations) for some tribes were negotiated between tribal leaders and the U.S. government representatives in the mid- to late 19th century. Most treaties between tribes and the United States include a cession of land from the tribe to the United States and reservation by the tribe of certain lands and rights. These rights vary by treaty, but generally include a portion of land for a homeland and/or hunting, fishing and gathering rights, both on and off the reservation. Indian reservations have also been formed by executive order. An executive order is an order issued by the U.S. Executive office on the basis of authority specifically granted by the U.S. Constitution or a congressional act to the Executive branch. The executive orders that delineated the borders of and established Indian reservations were typically not negotiated with the affected tribes. Rather, the terms of executive orders were made on behalf of the tribes by the U.S. government and without formal consent of the tribes (FindLaw 2005). Executive orders generally reserve water, hunting, and fishing rights on reservation lands only. There are 562 federally recognized tribal governments in the United States. There are also tribes that still maintain a tribal government but have never negotiated a treaty with the U.S. or been federally acknowledged through executive order or otherwise. These tribes are not recognized by the federal government as sovereign nations. For federally recognized tribes, the federal government maintains a special trust relationship. In exchange for the lands ceded to it, the United States provides certain services in perpetuity. These typically include health, education, economic assistance, and protection against crimes and infringements by U.S. citizens. As part of the trust relationship, tribal lands are held in trust by the U.S. government and managed on behalf of the tribes. The U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is charged with the administration and management of the 55.7 million acres of land held in trust by the United States for American Indians, Indian tribes, and PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-269 July 2009 Alaska Natives. The BIA is responsible for developing forestlands, leasing assets on these lands, directing agricultural programs, protecting water and land rights, developing and maintaining infrastructure, and economic development. In addition, the BIA is responsible for providing education services to Indian students (BIA 2005). In November 2000, Executive Order 13175 articulated a process of consultation and coordination with Indian tribal governments to provide regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of federal policies that have tribal implications. Consistent with the federal government’s broader tribal consultation obligations, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued a “Policy Statement on Consultation with Indian Tribes in Commission Proceedings” (2003) to articulate its commitment to promote a government-to-government relationship between itself and federally recognized Indian tribes. The policy statement recognizes the sovereignty of tribal nations and FERC’s trust responsibility to federally recognized Indian tribes. Because FERC cannot delegate tribal consultation, it has established a tribal liaison position to fulfill this commitment and to coordinate consultation with other jurisdictions as appropriate. 4.12.1.2. Tribal Interests in Alaska In 1936 the government extended the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (IRA) to include Alaska Natives and urged Native villages to adopt constitutions for self-government under the act. The designation “Native Village of Tyonek (IRA)” indicates that they were one of the villages incorporated under this law. The Native Village of Tyonek, the tribal government, operates social programs and performs other governmental services but does not have jurisdiction over lands conveyed to the Tyonek Native Corporation under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971. ANCSA revoked the reservation status of lands in the Moquawkie Indian Reservation. Following ANCSA, the Native Village of Tyonek formed the Tyonek Native Corporation (TNC), the business/development arm of the tribe, in 1973. The TNC manages the monetary and property compensation received through the regional native corporation formed by ANCSA. The regional corporation for the Cook Inlet area is Cook Inlet Region Inc. (CIRI). In and around Tyonek, the TNC owns the surface rights to lands it selected under ANCSA. CIRI owns the subsurface rights both to village and regional selected lands in the Project area. 4.12.1.3. Overview of Tribal Interests Several federally recognized tribes were identified as having potential interests within the Project region that may be affected by the Chakachamna Project licensing, based on location of traditional tribal territories and after seeking comments from tribal representatives. These tribes are as follows: Native Village of Tyonek Kenaitze Indian Tribe Knik Tribe PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-270 July 2009 Federally recognized tribes with lands or historical use that may be affected by the Chakachamna Project do not have a signed treaty with the U.S. government identifying the rights of the tribe; none of the identified tribes has reservations or trust lands directly within or adjacent to the proposed Project boundary. The Project area has been used by Native peoples for subsistence and cultural purposes. The Native Village of Tyonek has expressed interest in the Project because of its proximity to the Village. Their concerns include impacts to the salmon fishery and impacts to their traditional lifestyle. The Tribe is concerned about impacts to their subsistence lifestyle and having the village impacted by workers. The Tribes is concerned that the tribe and traditional culture be respected and that their governmental status be respected through consultation. 4.12.2. Tribal Consultations TDX, in the course of preparing this Pre-Application Document and Notice of Intent contacted the following tribes to discuss their potential interests: Native Village of Tyonek Kenaitze Indian Tribe Knik Tribe Eklutna Native Village Native Village of Salamatof TDX has also communicated with both CIRI and TNC; these entities are on the active distribution list for the Project and have been invited to all stakeholder meetings; TDX has met with representatives of each corporation to discuss the Project. With the filing of the PAD and NOI, it is anticipated that FERC will initiate a formal Initial Tribal Consultation meeting as described in 18 CFR § 5.7 will take place within 30 days and will be initiated by FERC. 4.12.3. Potential Adverse Impacts As appropriate within specific resource sections of this PAD potential impacts on tribal interests have been identified, to the extent that Project construction and operation may impact tribal cultural or economic interests (e.g., impacts of project-induced soil erosion on tribal cultural sites). Additionally, the construction and operation of the project may affect tribal interests not necessarily associated with resources specified in this PAD, e.g., tribal fishing practices or agreements between the tribes and other entities that have a connection to project construction and operation. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 4-271 July 2009 4.12.4. Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures No potential PME measures have been identified, specific to tribal resources. The potential need for PME measures related to tribal resources will be evaluated through the tribal consultation and resource studies that will be conducted as part of the relicensing process. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-1 July 2009 5 PRELIMINARY ISSUES AND STUDIES LIST 5.1. Introduction Based on review of the existing information, field reconnaissance conducted in 2008 (as described in Section 4 of this PAD), and preliminary discussions with agencies, tribes, and other stakeholders, TDX has identified 18 potential impact types or information gaps that provide an organizing framework for the Chakachamna licensing studies. From this list, key questions or information needs are identified that will require a multi-disciplinary approach to reach an understanding of how the proposed Project may affect the areas resource values. Forty-three discreet studies have been identified that will form the basis for determining potential Project effects, as well as potential PMEs. In addition to these 43 studies, which will form the basis of two Proposed Study Plans (PSP-1 and PSP-2), TDX has also identified 7 engineering and feasibility studies that will proceed along a parallel track with the environmental studies, but which will not be part of the PSPs. Proposed studies for each resource area are described briefly in this summary and the following subsections. The lack of baseline environmental data for the Project area presents challenges for developing a base of knowledge sufficient to answer key questions about potential Project impacts. Therefore, a number of key questions and information needs are focused on developing basic information about the Project area. The lack of existing information also makes thorough analysis of potential effects difficult. TDX proposes that the formal study plan developed in support of the licensing process be conducted in two phases. Phase 1 study plan development will be initiated in 2009 and will generate essential data (e.g., hydrologic, imagery, bathymetry) in 2010 to design the balance of the environmental studies that will be initiated in 2011. Appendix 5-1 presents an approach for developing the PSPs as part of the formal licensing process described in Section 2 of this PAD. TDX developed this appendix in response to stakeholder requests for an initial vision of how the study program will be approached and how key questions will be framed and answered. Appendix 5-1 presents the conceptual framework for study planning, outlines the study components and objectives for each of the 43 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-2 July 2009 environmental studies identified to date, and describes in general terms the timeframe TDX is anticipating for the completion of the studies and for answering the identified key questions. 5.1.1. Potential Impact Types and Information Needs A. Impacts to existing environmental functions and values from proposed Project operations 1. Impacts resulting from increased Chakachamna Lake water level fluctuation 2. Impacts resulting from reduced flows in the Chakachatna River 3. Impacts resulting from increased flows in the McArthur River 4. Impacts resulting from water temperature changes 5. Impacts resulting from tailrace outflow, such as false attraction of spawning salmon and dissolved gas saturation 6. Impacts resulting from the Chakachamna Lake intake structure 7. Impacts resulting from potential blockage of fish passage into and out of Chakachamna Lake via the Chakachatna River 8. Potential impacts to high profile species, special status species, or species with special designations (not limited to listed species) 9. Potential impacts to non-game fish protected under Alaska’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) and other Species of Concern in the Project area 10. Potential impacts to federally designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) B. Impacts to specific habitats and species from Project facilities 11. Potential impacts of roads and transmission lines 12. Potential impacts of port or barge landing facilities 13. Impacts resulting from general Project activity, including ground disturbance, that may be associated with pre-Project studies, construction, and operation (including post- construction activities) C. Information and baseline data needed to understand the current environment and to build tools for understanding potential effects of the proposed Project 14. Establishment of a multi-year climatologic data record for the Project area and to understand long-term climatic trends PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-3 July 2009 15. Establishment of a multi-year hydrologic and groundwater data record for Chakachamna Lake, the Chakachatna River, and the McArthur River 16. Establishment of a baseline water quality data record for which bodies of water? 17. Development of baseline mapping tools for fisheries and wildlife assessments 18. Description and associated engineering of proposed Project operations and facilities 5.1.2. Chakachamna Study List A list of environmental and engineering studies that will need to be completed to inform the license application is provided below. Details on study objectives, approach, and general timeframe are provided in Appendix 5-1. The list is divided generally by resource area; however, the studies will be interdisciplinary to the extent necessary. An additional category of studies that are primarily engineering in nature has also been provided. Of these engineering focused studies, several are likely to have resource implications and will therefore be included in the PSPs. Studies that have been identified as necessary for engineering and feasibility but which do not have a direct impact on environmental resources are also identified in this list, but have not been detailed in Appendix 5-1, and will not be part of the PSPs; these studies are denoted with an asterisk (*). Geology, Soils and Climate 1. Glaciology and Geological Processes Study 2. Lake Shoreline Topography and Erosional Processes Study 3. Sediment Transport and Geomorphology Study 4. Meteorological/Climatological Study Water Resources 5. Chakachamna Lake Bathymetry 6. Chakachamna Lake Fluid Dynamics Modeling 7. Chakachamna Lake Limnology Study 8. Stream Water Quality and Productivity Monitoring 9. Integrated Surface and Groundwater Hydrology Study PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-4 July 2009 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 10. Chakachamna Lake Juvenile Sockeye Salmon Studies 11. Chakachamna Lake Sockeye Salmon Abundance, Distribution, and Run Timing 12. Lake Trout Abundance, Distribution, and Life History in Chakachamna Lake 13. System-wide Resident and Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance Study 14. System-wide Salmon Spawning Distribution Study 15. Fish Passage Structure Design Evaluation 16. Tailrace Attraction Risk Assessment 17. Entrainment Risk Assessment 18. Nitrogen Saturation/Total Dissolved Gas Risk Assessment 19. Stream Macroinvertebrate Study 20. Aquatic Habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study 21. Intertidal and Sub-tidal Habitat Survey 22. Ramping Rate Study Terrestrial Resources 23. Raptor Survey 24. Shorebird Survey 25. Passerine/Songbird Survey 26. Waterfowl/Waterbird Survey 27. Chakachamna Lake Breeding Waterbird Survey 28. Noxious Weeds/Invasive Plant Species Survey 29. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered (RTE) Plant Species Survey 30. Vegetation Mapping and Classification 31. Wetlands Mapping and Functional Assessment 32. Wildlife Survey and Habitat Use Mapping PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-5 July 2009 33. Forestry Study Cultural Resources 34. Subsistence and Cultural Uses Study 35. Historical and Archeological Resources Survey Recreation Resources and Land Use 36. Recreational Use Assessment 37. Land Use Study Visual and Aesthetic Resources 38. Aesthetic/Visual Resources Study Socioeconomic Resources 39. Socioeconomics Survey Engineering and Feasibility 40. Hazards Assessment Study 41. Construction Methods Impacts Study/ Best Management Practices 42. Reservoir Operations Modeling a. Ramping Rates b. Power Study Modeling* 43. Geotechnical Studies a. Hydropower Facilities b. Fish Passage Structures 44. Project Site Topography and Bathymetry* 45. Access Facilities (Lands, Roads, Bridges, Marina)* 46. Transmission Line Study* 47. Power Market Analysis and Economic Studies* PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-6 July 2009 48. Project Cost and Schedule Updates* 49. Project Feature Optimization Study* 5.2. Phased Study Plan Development and Implementation As described previously, TDX is proposing to phase development of the formal environmental study program into separate Proposed Study Plans (PSPs). The Phase 1 Proposed Study Plan (PSP-1) and the Phase 2 Proposed Study Plan(PSP-2) will be developed in 2009 and 2010, respectively. The overall objective of studies included in PSP-1 will be to generate essential data (e.g., hydrologic, imagery, bathymetry) that may be required to advance Project design and provide background information required for the effective implementation of the balance of the environmental studies that will be planned in 2010 and implemented in 2011. Of the 43 identified environmental studies identified above, TDX anticipates that PSP-1 will describe about eight priority study programs plus one support task (imagery development): Project Imagery Including Base Map Development and Area Topography: While not listed as a formal study, this support element will be required for project planning; mapping study areas and habitats; and referencing data collected from all studies. It will also provide input to engineering planning. Chakachamna Lake Bathymetry: Delineation of the geometry and topographic details of the Chakachamna Lake basin are essential for input to the multidisciplinary fluid dynamics modeling study to be initiated in 2011 and also provides information required for assessment of fish passage issues related to lake tributaries. Additionally, accurate bathymetry is required to determine reservoir volumes needed for engineering analysis. Chakachamna Lake Limnology Study: Determination of baseline physical and biological characteristics of Chakachamna Lake, such as water temperature and turbidity profiles; current velocity and direction; and biological productivity, is essential for input to the fluid dynamics modeling study to be initiated in 2011 and also helps inform fisheries studies to be conducted concurrently. Integrated Surface and Groundwater Hydrology Study: A thorough understanding of water movements within the Project areas is essential for assessing several important issues including wetland maintenance and fish habitat maintenance. The information also will provide necessary input to the Aquatic Habitat Modeling/Instream Flow and Sediment Transport and Geomorphology Studies to be initiated in 2011. Because hydrological conditions vary from year to year, it is essential to begin the period of record as soon as possible PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-7 July 2009 Chakachamna Lake Juvenile Sockeye Salmon Study: A major Project issue concerns the provision of passage for juvenile salmon outmigrating from Chakachamna Lake. The timing of this outmigration has a direct bearing on the design of fish passage structures and, consequently, the information needs to be available early in the Project design process. Additional start-up urgency is suggested by the fact that study methods applicable to the challenging conditions at Chakachamna Lake may require significant development time. Chakachamna Lake Sockeye Salmon Abundance and Run Timing: The extent to which sockeye salmon use Chakachamna Lake and its tributaries is an important Project consideration, and the timing of the adult salmon migration is important for the design of fish passage structures and operations planning. Monitoring salmon entering Chakachamna Lake will involve the use of complex bioacoustic techniques which will require substantial time to setup and troubleshoot. The overall effort will require multiple years of data. System-wide Salmon Spawning Disribution: Information regarding the distribution of salmon within the Chakachatna and McArthur River systems is essential for assessing Project impacts and is needed for input to the Aquatic Habitat Modeling/Instream Flow Study effort to begin in 2011. This complex study should start as soon as possible to begin the period of record and allow time for the development of techniques to capture and track salmon within the extensive study area. Raptor Survey: Surveys to locate nesting raptors (and other specially designated bird species) will be required prior to potential disturbance such as helicopter overflights, and, therefore will be need to be conducted before initiation of other study programs. Wetlands Mapping and Functional Assessment – Hydric Soils Indicators in Ash- Derived Soils Component: An interdisciplinary effort with the Integrated Surface and Groundwater Hydrology Study, this soils study is required to accurately identify, map, and describe the functions of wetlands in the project area, and, therefore, is required prior to initiation of the 2011 wetlands mapping effort. PSP-2 will describe the balance of the environmental study program, including plans for continuing some of the PSP-1 studies as appropriate to complete Project objectives. The PSP-1 study list may be modified prior to plan submittal to accommodate Project needs and stakeholder concerns 5.3. Geology and Soils 5.3.1. Identification of Issues and Study Needs Based on meetings with stakeholders, correspondence from federal and state agencies, and review of relevant literature, TDX Power has identified the following geology and soils resource PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-8 July 2009 issues and study needs. The issues are grouped by category. The studies needed to assess each issue are listed with the issue. Additionally, this section is further subdivided into issues and studies that address potential resource impacts and issues and studies that are necessary from an engineering and feasibility perspective. Information collected by the proposed studies will be used to describe the existing environment, assess potential impacts, and provide essential information that will help to avoid or mitigate Project impacts. 5.3.2. Issues and Studies Related to Potential Project Impacts As described in Section 4.3.7, the following potential project impacts on geology and soils of the project area have been identified: Impacts resulting from increased Chakachamna Lake water level fluctuation Possible down-cutting of channel between Kenibuna and Chakachamna Lakes and subsequent lowering of Kenibuna Lake levels as a result of Project operations. Study: Sediment Transport and Geomorphology Study Possible down-cutting of fluvial fan at outlet of Naglishlamina River as a result of Project operations. Study: Sediment Transport and Geomorphology Study Possible down-cutting of fluvial fan at outlet of Chilligan River as a result of Project operations. Study: Sediment Transport and Geomorphology Study Impact of periods of lake drawdown on the erosive effects Chakachatna River on the Barrier Glacier; potential for increased likelihood of outburst floods. Study: Glaciology and Geological Processes Study Potential for flooding of terminus of Barrier Glacier and impact on rate of disintegration of glacier. Study: Glaciology and Geological Processes Study Potential impacts of Project operations on sediment transport and deposition in Kenibuna Lake and associated impacts on the Neacola River, Igitna River, and Another River deltas. Study: Sediment Transport and Geomorphology Study Impact of lake level fluctuations on shoreline erosion. Study: Chakachamna Lake Shoreline Erosion Study Impacts resulting from reduced flows on the Chakachatna River Impact on stream morphology and channel maintenance, especially in the intertidal wetland area. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-9 July 2009 Studies: o Sediment Transport and Geomorphology Study o Aquatic Habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study Impacts resulting from increased flows on the McArthur River Impact on stream morphology and channel maintenance, especially in the intertidal wetland area. Studies: o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Study o Sediment Transport and Geomorphology Study o Aquatic Habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study Potential for project operations to contribute to erosion in the McArthur River. Study: Sediment Transport and Geomorphology Study Potential impact of increased flows on terminus of the Blockade Glacier. Study: Glaciology and Geological Processes Study Potential impacts of roads and transmission lines Potential contribution of road and transmission line construction to erosion in the Project area Study: o Sediment Transport and Geomorphology Study o Lands, Roads, Bridges, and Transmission Line Study o Construction Methods Impacts Study / Best Management Practices Potential contribution of road and transmission line operation to erosion in the Project area Studies: o Erosion Study o Lands, Roads, Bridges, and Transmission Line Study 5.3.3. Studies Related to Engineering, Hazard Assessment, and Feasibility Construction related impacts – deposition of tunnel excavation material Study: Construction Methods Impacts Study / Best Management Practices Hazard assessment of glacier damming of the Nagishlamina River Valley and potential for outburst floods that influence conditions at the outlet from Chakachamna Lake Study: Glaciology and Geological Processes Study Potential changes in the mass balance of the Glaciers and resulting influence on the hydrologic balance of the lake-river system. Studies: PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-10 July 2009 o Glaciology and Geological Processes Study o Meteorological/Climatological Study Potential for flooding of the Chakachatna River Valley as a result of the melting of glacier ice on Mt. Spurr during an eruption and potential impacts on Project facilities Studies: o Glaciology and Geological Processes Study o Hazards Assessment Hazards associated with accelerating the retreat of Barrier Glacier due to the flow of hot volcanic debris onto the glacier. Studies: o Glaciology and Geological Processes Study o Hazards Assessment Study Need for updated (or additional) seismicity studies Study: Hazards Assessment Study, to include: o Identification (or creation) of an updated seism-tectonic model for the area; o Review and selection of attenuation relationships o Establishment of return functions and maximum magnitudes of each zone or specific feature contributing to the hazards o A probabilistic analysis o Deterministic analysis as appropriate o Selection of the seismic hazard and response spectra Optimization of powerhouse location, based on power production models and economic consideration of potentially higher costs for excavations associated with potentially poorer quality rock. Study: Construction Methods Impacts Study / Best Management Practices 5.3.4. Relevant Plans No relevant resource management plans have been identified relating to soils and geology. 5.4. Water Resources 5.4.1. Identification of Issues and Study Needs Based on meetings with stakeholders, correspondence from federal and state agencies, and its consultants TDX Power has identified the following water resource issues and study needs. The issues are grouped by category. The studies needed to assess each issue are listed with the issue. Information collected by the proposed studies will be used to describe the existing environment, PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-11 July 2009 assess potential impacts, and provide essential information that will help to avoid or mitigate Project impacts. Studies needed to establish a Multi-Year Climatologic Data Record for the Study Area Establish a record of both short-term and seasonal recordings of air temperature and precipitation. Study: Meteorological / Climatological Study Examine potential interaction between long term climatic change and total and seasonal water availability for hydropower generation Studies: o Meteorological / Climatological Study o Glaciology and Geological Processes Study Establishment of a Multi-Year Climatologic Data Record for the Study Area and to understand long-term climatic trends Establish a record of both short-term and seasonal fluctuations in surface water flows and levels and water temperature and pressures. Study: Integrated Surface and Groundwater Hydrology Study Establish a record of both short-term and seasonal fluctuations in groundwater elevations to determine flow paths throughout the study area. Study: Integrated Surface and Groundwater Hydrology Study Investigate how much water is draining off hill slopes adjacent to river systems downstream of Chakachamna Lake. Study: Integrated Surface and Groundwater Hydrology Study Studies needed to establish a baseline water quality data record Establish a record of both short-term and seasonal fluctuations in water quality data (including dissolved oxygen, conductivity, turbidity, and pH) in Chakachamna Lake, and the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers, particularly in support of fisheries habitat data collection. Studies: o Chakachamna Lake Limnology Study o Stream Water Quality and Productivity Monitoring Impacts resulting from reduced flows on the Chakachatna River PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-12 July 2009 Delineation of flow paths and quantification of water discharge between the outlet of Chakachamna Lake and the confluence with the McArthur River to provide insight into flow distribution between Chakachatna River and Noaukta Slough, downstream distributaries of the river, and adjacent wetland complexes. Studies: o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Study: A planning task to identify and integrate the needs of wetlands, fisheries, and instream flow studies and create a strategic plan for monitoring. A monitoring task to install continuously-recording groundwater and surface water stations in selected areas identified in the planning task. A mapping and reconnaissance-level field task to identify surface and groundwater features and large-scale trends where continuous gaging may not be feasible or necessary. A modeling task to describe probable water movements. o Aquatic Habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study Changes in hydrology may affect traditional subsistence use of the Chakachatna River and riparian habitats. Study: Subsistence and Cultural Use / Traditional Cultural Properties Study Impacts resulting from increased flows on the McArthur River Delineation of flow paths and quantifying water discharge between the proposed powerhouse tailrace location on the McArthur River and the confluence with Cook Inlet to provide insight into flow distribution between McArthur River and Noaukta Slough tributaries, downstream distributaries of the river, and adjacent wetland complexes. Studies: o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Study: A planning task to identify and integrate the needs of wetlands, fisheries, and instream flow studies and create a strategic plan for 2010 monitoring. A monitoring task to install continuously-recording groundwater and surface water stations in selected areas identified in the planning task. A mapping and reconnaissance-level field task to identify surface and groundwater features and large-scale trends where continuous gaging may not be feasible or necessary. A modeling task to describe probable water movements. o Aquatic Habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study Changes in hydrology may affect traditional subsistence use of the McArthur River and riparian habitats. Study: Subsistence and Cultural Use / Traditional Cultural Properties Study PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-13 July 2009 5.4.2. Relevant Plans The following resource management plans and directives provide guidance and direction for protection of water resources: ADF&G. 2007. Aquatic Resources Implementation Plan for Alaska’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, September 2006. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Div. of Sport Fish. ADF&G. 1994. Trading Bay State Game Refuge and Redoubt Bay Critical Habitat Area Management Plan. Prepared by Divisions of Habitat and Restoration and Wildlife Conservation. ADF&G. 2006. Our Wealth Maintained: A Strategy For Conserving Alaska’s Diverse Wildlife And Fish Resources. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. xviii+824 pp. Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB). 2005. 2005 Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan. KPB Planning Department. Soldotna, Alaska. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program and LaRoche and Associates. 2008. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Zone Management Plan. Kenai Peninsula Borough. Soldotna, Alaska. NPS (Lake Clark National Park). 2004. Strategic Plan for Lake Clark National Park and Preserve October 1, 2004 - September 30, 2008. 5.5. Fish and Aquatic Resources 5.5.1. Identification of Issues and Study Needs Based on meetings with stakeholders, correspondence from federal and state resource agencies, and its consultants TDX Power has identified the following fish and aquatic issues and study needs . The issues are grouped by category. The studies needed to assess each issue are listed with the issue. Information collected by the proposed studies will be used to describe the existing environment, assess potential impacts, and provide essential information that will help to avoid or mitigate Project impacts. Potential impacts to Non-Game fish protected under Alaska’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) and other Species of Concern in the Project area Assess potential Project impacts to protected Non- Game Fish Studies: o System-wide Resident and Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance o Intertidal and Subtidal Habitat Survey PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-14 July 2009 Assess potential Project impacts on other non-game species, including sand lance and lampreys Studies: o System-wide Resident and Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance o Intertidal and Subtidal Habitat Survey Potential impacts to federally designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Identify the limits and extent of the EFH for the above anadromous and marine fish species and refine as detailed studies progress through the licensing process Studies: o System-wide Salmon Spawning Distribution o Chakachamna Lake Bathymetry o Chakachamna Lake Sockeye Salmon Abundance, Distribution, and Run Timing o Chakachamna Lake Juvenile Sockeye Salmon Studies o System-wide Resident And Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance o Intertidal and Subtidal Habitat Survey Impacts resulting from increased Chakachamna Lake water level fluctuation Assess accessibility of Chakachamna and Kenibuna Lake tributary streams to sockeye salmon and other species from Chakachamna Lake when water levels are low. Studies: o Chakachamna Lake Sockeye Salmon Abundance, Distribution, and Run Timing o Chakachamna Lake Juvenile Sockeye Salmon Studies o System-wide Resident and Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance o Chakachamna Lake Bathymetry o Lake Shoreline Topography and Erosional Processes o Ramping Rate Study Assess potential for down-cutting of channel between Kenibuna and Chakachamna lakes and subsequent lowering of Kenibuna Lake levels. Study: Lake Shoreline Topography and Erosional Processes Assess potential for flooding of spawning and incubation habitats in lower reaches of Chakachamna Lake tributary streams when lake water level is high. Studies: o System-wide Salmon Spawning Distribution o Lake Trout Abundance, Distribution, and Life History in Chakachamna Lake o Chakachamna Lake Bathymetry o Lake Shoreline Topography and Erosional Processes Assess potential for loss of spawning and incubation habitat value for lake spawning sockeye salmon and lake trout in Chakachamna Lake due to lake level fluctuation. Studies: PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-15 July 2009 o Chakachamna Lake Sockeye Salmon Abundance, Distribution, and Run Timing o Lake Trout Abundance, Distribution, and Life History in Chakachamna Lake o Chakachamna Lake Bathymetry Assess potential for loss of sockeye salmon rearing habitat value in Chakachamna Lake due to fluctuating water levels, including effects of fluctuations on fish food organisms. Studies: o Chakachamna Lake Juvenile Sockeye Salmon Studies o Chakachamna Lake Bathymetry o Chakachamna Lake Limnology Study Assess potential for impacts on fish resources in Lake Clark National Park, from possible fluctuations in Kenibuna Lake levels as they might affect lake and tributary stream productivity and access to fish. Studies: o System-wide Salmon Spawning Distribution o Chakachamna Lake Sockeye Salmon Abundance, Distribution, and Run Timing o Chakachamna Lake Bathymetry o Lake Shoreline Topography and Erosional Processes o Chakachamna Lake Limnology Study Assess potential impacts on productivity in Chakachamna Lake and tributaries (including Kenibuna Lake) as result of Project operations Studies: o Operations Modeling o Chakachamna Lake Limnology Study Impacts resulting from Chakachamna Lake intake structure Entrainment of fish, primarily juvenile sockeye salmon, in the intake and subsequent mortality. Studies: o Chakachamna Lake Juvenile Sockeye Salmon Studies o Lake Trout Abundance, Distribution, and Life History in Chakachamna Lake o System-wide Resident and Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance o Chakachamna Lake Bathymetry o Chakachamna Lake Limnology Study o Chakachamna Lake Fluid Dynamics Modeling o Entrainment Risk Assessment Effect of deep water intake on lake currents, water temperature, turbidity, and other water quality parameters. Studies: o Chakachamna Lake Fluid Dynamics Modeling o Chakachamna Lake Limnology Study PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-16 July 2009 Impacts resulting from potential blockage of fish passage into and out of Chakachamna Lake via the Chakachatna River Potential for upstream passage barriers to spawning areas because of structures at the lake outlet or impassable river flows. Studies: o System-wide Salmon Spawning Distribution o Chakachamna Lake Sockeye Salmon Abundance, Distribution, and Run Timing o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Study o Operations Modeling o Chakachamna Lake Bathymetry o Aquatic habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study Risk of Chakachamna Lake levels being too low to allow upstream passage of sockeye salmon via the natural Chakachatna River channel during dry years. Studies: o Chakachamna Lake Sockeye Salmon Abundance, Distribution, and Run Timing o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Study o Operations Modeling o Chakachamna Lake Bathymetry o Aquatic habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study o Meteorological/Climatological Study Potential blockage of out-migrating juvenile sockeye salmon. Studies: o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Study o Chakachamna Lake Juvenile Sockeye Salmon Studies o Operations Modeling o Chakachamna Lake Bathymetry Potential blockage of up- and downstream migrating resident fish species. Studies: o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Study o Operations Modeling o Chakachamna Lake Bathymetry o Aquatic habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study o System-wide Resident And Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance Effectiveness of various alternative fish passage structure options to provide passage at varying lake levels. Study: Evaluation of design options. Changes in distribution and/or numbers of fish may affect subsistence use. Study: Subsistence and Cultural Use / Traditional Cultural Properties Study PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-17 July 2009 Studies needed to assess Project impacts as a result of reduced flows in the Chakachatna River Potential project impacts on invertebrates/Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT) species as an indicator of water quality Studies: o Stream Macroinvertebrate Study o Stream Water Quality and Productivity Monitoring Fish habitat value in the river mainstem, pre-project vs. post-project; Optimization of instream flows relative to habitat suitability for key fish species and life history stages. Studies: o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Study o Aquatic habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study o System-wide Salmon Spawning Distribution o System-wide Resident And Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance o Ramping Rate Study Impact on near-surface ground water upwelling in fish use zones, especially in sloughs and side channels. Studies: o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Study o Aquatic habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study Impact on flow, hydrology, and fish use of Noaukta Slough. Studies: o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Study o Aquatic habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study o System-wide Salmon Spawning Distribution o System-wide Resident And Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance o Ramping Rate Study Impact on stream morphology and channel maintenance Studies: o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Study o Sediment Transport and Geomorphology Study o Aquatic habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study o Vegetation Mapping and Classification Impact on wetland, intertidal, and off-channel fish habitats. Studies: o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Study o Sediment Transport and Geomorphology Study o Aquatic habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study o Vegetation Mapping and Classification o System-wide Salmon Spawning Distribution PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-18 July 2009 o System-wide Resident And Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance Changes in distribution and/or numbers of fish may affect subsistence use. Study: Subsistence and Cultural Use / Traditional Cultural Properties Study. Impacts resulting from increased flows on the McArthur River Potential project impacts on invertebrates/Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT) species as an indicator of water quality Studies: o Stream Macroinvertebrate Study o Stream Water Quality and Productivity Monitoring Potential impacts to fish habitat value in the river mainstem, pre-project vs. post-project; Increased winter flows may impact biota that has adapted to base flow regimes Studies: o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Study o Aquatic habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study o System-wide Salmon Spawning Distribution o System-wide Resident And Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance o Ramping Rate Study Impact of increased flows on near-surface ground water upwelling in fish use zones, especially in sloughs and side channels. Studies: o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Study o Aquatic habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study o System-wide Salmon Spawning Distribution o System-wide Resident And Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance Impact of increased McArthur River flow on flow, hydrology, and fish use of Noaukta Slough and surrounding wetlands. Studies: o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Study o Aquatic habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study o System-wide Salmon Spawning Distribution o System-wide Resident And Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance Impact on stream morphology and channel configuration downstream from the tailrace; Studies: o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Study o Sediment Transport and Geomorphology Study o Aquatic habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study o Vegetation Classification/Wildlife Use Mapping Impact on wetland, intertidal, and off-channel fish habitats. Studies: PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-19 July 2009 o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Study o Sediment Transport and Geomorphology Study o Aquatic habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study o Vegetation Classification/Wildlife Use Mapping o Ramping Rate Study Changes in distribution and/or numbers of fish may affect subsistence use. Study: Subsistence and Cultural Use / Traditional Cultural Properties Study Impacts resulting from water temperature changes Assess Chakachamna and McArthur River, Noaukta Slough, and Chakachamna Lake water temperatures and model post-project changes. Studies: o Stream Water Quality and Productivity Monitoring o Operations Modeling o Aquatic habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study Impact of water temperature changes on salmon spawning success including initial attraction to the spawning area, timing of spawning, length of incubation. Studies: o Stream Water Quality and Productivity Monitoring o Aquatic habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study o System-wide Salmon Spawning Distribution Impact on timing and success of spawning for rainbow trout. Studies: o Stream Water Quality and Productivity Monitoring o Aquatic habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study o System-wide Resident And Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance Impacts resulting from tailrace outflow Impacts to water chemistry, productivity, and turbidity Studies: o Chakachamna Lake Limnology Study o Stream Water Quality and Productivity Monitoring o Sediment Transport and Geomorphology Study Potential for false attraction of Chakachamna Lake tributary sockeyes to the McArthur River tailrace Studies: o Operations Modeling o Chakachamna Lake Sockeye Salmon Abundance, Distribution, and Run Timing o Tailrace Attraction Risk Assessment Study PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-20 July 2009 Potential for false attraction of Chakachatna River salmon spawners to the McArthur River tailrace. Studies: o Operations Modeling o System-wide Salmon Spawning Distribution o Tailrace Attraction Risk Assessment Study Impact of delay of spawning. Studies: o Chakachamna Lake Sockeye Salmon Abundance, Distribution, and Run Timing o System-wide Salmon Spawning Distribution o Tailrace Attraction Risk Assessment Study Potential for nitrogen gas saturation and impacts on fish resources Studies: o System-wide Resident And Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance o System-wide Salmon Spawning Distribution o Nitrogen Saturation/Total Dissolved Gas Risk Assessment Studies Related to Power Tunnel Construction Loss of aquatic habitat due to disposal of rock spoil into drainage ways. Study: Construction Methods Impacts Study/Best Management Practices Water quality problems associated with spoil disposal sites. Studies: o Glaciology and Geological Processes Study o Construction Methods Impacts Study/Best Management Practices Studies needed to plan roads and transmission lines Fish passage and habitat maintenance at roadway and construction pad drainage structures. Studies: o Roads, Bridges, and Transmission Line Study Increased access and fishing pressure on area streams. Study: Recreational Use Assessment Potential impacts of port or barge landing facilities Assessment of direct impact to intertidal and subtidal organisms from filling and in-water structures Studies: PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-21 July 2009 o Intertidal and Sub-tidal Survey o Construction Methods Impacts Study/Best Management Practices Obstruction of fish movements along the Cook Inlet shoreline. Studies: o Intertidal and Sub-tidal Survey o Construction Methods Impacts Study/Best Management Practices 5.5.2. Relevant Plans The following resource management plans and directives provide guidance and direction for protection of fish resources and aquatic habitats: ADF&G. 2007. Aquatic Resources Implementation Plan for Alaska’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, September 2006. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Div. of Sport Fish. ADF&G. 1994. Trading Bay State Game Refuge and Redoubt Bay Critical Habitat Area Management Plan. Prepared by Divisions of Habitat and Restoration and Wildlife Conservation. ADF&G. 2006. Our Wealth Maintained: A Strategy For Conserving Alaska’s Diverse Wildlife And Fish Resources. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. xviii+824 pp. Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB). 2005. 2005 Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan. KPB Planning Department. Soldotna, Alaska. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program. 2008. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Zone Management Plan. Kenai Peninsula Borough. Soldotna, Alaska. NPS (Lake Clark National Park). 2004. Strategic Plan for Lake Clark National Park and Preserve October 1, 2004 - September 30, 2008. USFWS. 2008. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: Endangered and Threatened Species. 5.6. Wildlife and Botanical Resources 5.6.1. Identification of Issues and Study Need Based on meetings with stakeholders, correspondence from federal and state agencies, and review of relevant literature TDX Power has identified the following wildlife resource issues and study needs . The issues are grouped by category. The studies needed to assess each issue are listed with the issue. Information collected by the proposed studies will be used to describe the existing environment, assess potential impacts, and provide essential information that will help to avoid or mitigate Project impacts. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-22 July 2009 5.6.1.1. Wildlife Resources Development of baseline mapping tools for fisheries and wildlife assessments Need comprehensive habitat mapping for fisheries and wildlife assessments. Studies: o Vegetation Mapping and Classification o Wetlands Mapping and Functional Assessment Potential impacts to high profile species, special status species, or species with special designation Need for basic population assessment and monitoring of avian species in project area; potential for disturbance (e.g. from helicopter overflights) of wildlife species during critical life stages. Studies: o Waterfowl/Waterbird Survey o Shorebird Survey o Raptor Survey o Passerine/Songbird Survey Impacts resulting from general project activity, including ground disturbance, that may be associated with pre-project studies, construction and operation Potential for general disturbance (e.g. from helicopter overflights) of wildlife species during critical life stages. Studies: o Waterfowl/Waterbird Survey o Shorebird Survey o Raptor Survey o Passerine/Songbird Survey o Wildlife Survey and Habitat Use Mapping Potential impact of Project on bird populations of Trading Bay State Game Refuge. Studies: o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Hydrology Study o Wetlands Mapping and Functional Assessment o Waterfowl/Waterbird Survey o Shorebird Survey o Raptor Survey o Passerine/Songbird Survey Impacts resulting from increased Chakachamna Lake water level fluctuation PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-23 July 2009 Potential for loss of, or increase in, shoreline habitats used by wildlife species due to lake level fluctuations; resulting effects on wildlife populations. Studies: o Wildlife Survey and Habitat Use Mapping o Chakachamna Lake Breeding Waterbird Survey o Waterfowl/Waterbird Survey o Shorebird Survey o Passerine/Songbird Survey o Wetland Mapping and Functional Assessment o Vegetation Mapping and Classification o Chakachamna Lake Bathymetry o Shoreline Topography and Erosion Study Changes in distribution and/or number of fish consumed by wildlife species. Studies: o Waterfowl/Waterbird Survey o Shorebird Survey o Raptor Survey o Wildlife Survey and Habitat Use Mapping Changes in breeding and rearing habitat and nesting success of waterbirds using Chakachamna lake. Studies: o Chakachamna Lake Breeding Waterbird Survey o Waterfowl/Waterbird Survey o Vegetation Mapping and Classification o Wetland Mapping and Functional Assessment o Shoreline Topography and Erosion Study Impacts resulting from reduced flows on the Chakachatna River Loss or increase in riparian habitats used by wildlife species due to hydrologic changes; resulting effects on wildlife populations (e.g., effects of loss of high flows in Chakachatna River on early successional riparian habitat for beavers, moose, passerines) Studies: o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Hydrology Study o Sediment Transport and Geomorphology Study o Wetland Mapping and Functional Assessment o Vegetation Mapping and Classification o Wildlife Survey and Habitat Use Mapping Assess significance of wetland areas for spring and fall staging of migratory birds; assess potential for project impacts to change habitat functions and values Studies: PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-24 July 2009 o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Hydrology Study o Sediment Transport and Geomorphology Study o Wetland Mapping and Functional Assessment o Vegetation Mapping and Classification o Waterfowl/Waterbird Survey o Shorebird Survey Assess potential for impacts due to changes in distribution and/or number of fish used by wildlife species. Studies: o Wildlife Survey and Habitat Use Mapping o Waterfowl/Waterbird Survey o Raptor Survey o Instream Flow Incremental Method (IFIM) Study Impacts resulting from increased flows on the McArthur River Loss or increase in riparian habitats used by wildlife species due to hydrologic changes; resulting effects on wildlife populations (e.g., effects of loss of high flows in McArthur River on early successional riparian habitat for beavers, moose, passerines) Studies: o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Hydrology Study o Sediment Transport and Geomorphology Study o Wetland Mapping and Functional Assessment o Vegetation Mapping and Classification o Wildlife Survey and Habitat Use Mapping o Waterfowl/Waterbird Survey o Shorebird Survey o Passerine/Songbird Survey Assess significance of wetland areas for spring and fall staging of migratory bird; assess potential for project impacts to change habitat functions and values. Studies: o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Hydrology Study o Wetland Mapping and Functional Assessment o Vegetation Mapping and Classification o Waterfowl/Waterbird Survey o Shorebird Survey Assess potential changes in distribution and/or number of fish used by wildlife species. Studies: o Wildlife Survey and Habitat Use Mapping o Waterfowl/Waterbird Survey o Raptor Survey o Instream Flow Incremental Method (IFIM) Study PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-25 July 2009 Studies needed for Project engineering, hazard assessment, and feasibility Loss of important wildlife habitat due to disposal of rock spoil. Studies: o Wildlife Surveys and Habitat Use Mapping o Passerine/Songbird Survey o Construction Method Impact Study Studies needed to plan and understand effects of roads and transmission lines Disturbance to wildlife populations due to initial habitat disturbance and subsequent corridor maintenance. Studies: o Lands, Roads, and Bridges Study o Noxious Weeds/Invasive Species Study o Waterfowl/Waterbird Survey o Shorebird Survey o Passerine/Songbird Survey o Raptor Survey o Wildlife Survey and Habitat Use Mapping Potential for bird deaths (particularly bald eagles) because of electrocution or collisions with transmission lines. Studies: o Raptor Survey o Waterfowl/Waterbird Survey o Shorebird Survey Potential impacts of port or barge landing facilities Disturbance to marine fauna due to construction. Studies: o Intertidal and Sub-tidal Habitat Survey o Construction Methods Impacts Study Disturbance of underwater areas that could be designated as “critical habitat” for the newly listed Cook Inlet beluga whale population. Studies: o Track designation of “critical habitat”, due October 2009. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-26 July 2009 5.6.1.2. Botanical Resources Studies to assess general project activity, including ground disturbance, which may be associated with pre-project studies, construction and operation Potential for disturbance to important commercial plant species: white spruce exists on Tyonek Native Corporation lands in the Project area, mainly south of the Chakachatna River and north of the Trading Bay State Game Refuge. Studies: o Vegetation Mapping and Classification o Forestry Study o Construction Methods Impacts Study Potential for disturbance to plants of cultural importance because of their value for subsistence: Studies: o Vegetation Mapping and Classification o Construction Methods Impacts Study o Subsistence and Cultural Use / Traditional Cultural Properties Study Need to assess impacts to rare plant species tracked by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP). Studies: o Vegetation Mapping and Classification o Rare, Threatened, and Endangered (RTE) Plant Species Survey o Construction Methods Impacts Study Assessment of noxious weeds and susceptibility of Project area to invasive species Studies o Vegetation Mapping and Classification o Noxious Weeds/Invasive Plant Species Survey o Construction Methods Impacts Study Studies needed to plan and understand effects of roads and transmission lines Construction and maintenance impacts on vegetation and wetlands, including potential for introducing noxious weeds and invasive species Studies: o Vegetation Mapping and Classification o Wetlands Mapping and Functional Assessment o Construction Methods Impact Study Increased recreational pressure for hunting, fishing, and backcountry activities (hiking and rafting) due to increased access with potential impacts to rare plants, if present, and wetlands. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-27 July 2009 Studies: Recreational Use Assessment Potential impacts of port or barge landing facilities Potential for disturbance of vegetation and wetlands by construction. Studies: o Vegetation Mapping and Classification o Wetlands Mapping and Functional Assessment o Construction Methods Impacts Study 5.6.2. Relevant Plans Management of wildlife and their habitats in the Project area are guided by several sources and documents. Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKHNP), 2000, Contingency Planning - Sensitive Areas, Rare Plant Species Map Series. Environment and Natural Resources Institute, University of Alaska Anchorage.http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu ADF&G. 1994. Trading Bay State Game Refuge and Redoubt Bay Critical Habitat Area Management Plan. Prepared by Divisions of Habitat and Restoration and Wildlife Conservation. ADF&G. 2006. Our Wealth Maintained: A Strategy For Conserving Alaska’s Diverse Wildlife And Fish Resources. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. xviii+824 pp. ADF&G. 2007. 2007-2008 Alaska bear and wolf control supplement. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska Boudreau, T.A. 2005. Units 19ABC&D and 21A&E caribou management report. Pages 113-125 in C. Brown, editor. Caribou management report of survey and management activities 1 July 2003 – 30 June 2004. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 3.0. Juneau, Alaska. Del Frate, G. G. 2003. Unit 16 wolf management report. Pages 109-117 in C. Brown, editor. Wolf management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 1999–30 June 2002. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. Del Frate, G. G. 2004. Unit 16B moose management report. Pages 233–245 in C. Brown, editor. Moose management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2001–30 June 2003. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 1.0. Juneau, Alaska. Kavalok, T. 2004. Unit 16 black bear management report. Pages 195-208 in C. Brown, editor. Black bear management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2001–30 June 2004. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-28 July 2009 Kavalok, T. 2004b. Unit 16 furbearer management report. Pages 193-212 in C. Brown, editor. Black bear management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2000–30 June 2003. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. Kavalok, T. 2005. Unit 16 brown bear management report. Pages 157-168 in C. Brown, editor. Brown bear management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2002–30 June 2004. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 7.0. Juneau, Alaska. Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB). 2005. 2005 Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan. KPB Planning Department. Soldotna, Alaska. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program and LaRoche and Associates. 2008. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Zone Management Plan. Kenai Peninsula Borough. Soldotna, Alaska. NPS (Lake Clark National Park). 2004. Strategic Plan for Lake Clark National Park and Preserve October 1, 2004 - September 30, 2008. (http://www.nps.gov/lacl/parkmgmt/ National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas). National Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau, Alaska. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007. Federal Register: Vol. 72, No. 76, April 20, 2007, Proposed Rules. Pages 19854 – 19862 NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Endangered and Threatened Species; endangered Status for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale. Federal Register: Vol. 73, No. 205, October 22, 2008, Rules and Regulations. Pages 62919 – 62930. (http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/frules/73fr62919.pdf Seaduck Joint Venture. 2008. The website for the Sea Duck Joint Venture. Accessed at http://www.seaduckjv.org/infoseries/toc.html USFWS. 2000-2008. Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Listing Status web page. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=A073 USFWS. 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp. (http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/bcc2002.pdf ) USFWS. 2008. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: Endangered and Threatened Species. (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ ) USFWS. 2008 . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form: Olive-sided flycatcher, Alaska specific review only, September 2008. (http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/pdf/OSFY_spp_assessment.pdf ) USFWS. 2008 . USFWS website: Alaska Region Migratory Bird Management Overview. http://alaska.fws.gov/mbsp/mbm/landbirds/landbirds.htm ). U.S. Code 16 Subchapters II and III. 1918, as amended 1936, 1960, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986, and 1989. Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Migratory Bird Conservation. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-29 July 2009 U.S. Code 16 668-668d, 54 Stat. 250. 1940, as amended 1940, 1959, 1962, 1972, and 19778. Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Projection Act of 1940. 5.7. Wetland, Riparian & Littoral Habitat 5.7.1. Identification of Issues and Study Needs TDX Power has identified the following Wetland, Riparian & Littoral Habitat issues and study needs derived from meetings with stakeholders, correspondence from federal and state agencies, and its consultants. The issues are grouped by category. The studies needed to assess each issue are listed with the issue. Information collected by the proposed studies will be used to describe the existing environment, assess potential impacts, and provide essential information that will help to avoid or mitigate Project impacts. Development of baseline wetland identification tools for wetlands mapping Need to develop soil type specific hydric soil indicators for delineation of wetlands. Studies: o Hydric Soils Indicators in Ash-derived Soils Study Impacts resulting from increased Chakachamna Lake water level fluctuation Changes in vegetation in littoral, riparian, and wetland habitats around the shores of Chakachamna Lake due to fluctuation in the water surface elevation of the lake. Studies: o Vegetation Mapping and Classification o Operations Model o Sediment Transport and Geomorphology Study o Bathymetry and Basin Topography Study o Lake Shoreline Topography and Erosional Processes Study o Wetland Mapping and Functional Assessment Impacts resulting from reduced flows on the Chakachatna River Assessment of potential impacts to riparian vegetation and adjacent lower elevation wetlands due to hydrologic changes, mainly in Noaukta Slough and Trading Bay State Game Refuge. Studies: o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Hydrologic Study o Vegetation Mapping and Classification o Wetland Mapping and Functional Assessment PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-30 July 2009 Impacts resulting from increased flows on the McArthur River Assessment of potential impacts to riparian vegetation and adjacent lower elevation wetlands due to hydrologic changes, mainly in Noaukta Slough and Trading Bay State Game Refuge. Studies: o Integrated Surface and Groundwater Hydrologic Study o Vegetation Mapping and Classification o Wetland Mapping and Functional Assessment Studies needed for Project engineering, hazard assessment, and feasibility Study: Construction Methods Impact Study Studies needed to plan and understand effects of roads and transmission lines Construction and maintenance impacts on vegetation and wetlands, including potential for introducing noxious weeds and invasive species Studies: o Vegetation Mapping and Classification o Wetlands Mapping and Functional Assessment o Construction Methods Impact Study Increased recreational pressure for hunting, fishing, and backcountry activities (hiking and rafting) due to increased access with potential impacts to rare plants, if present, and wetlands. Studies: Recreational Use Assessment Potential impacts of port or barge landing facilities Potential for disturbance of vegetation and wetlands by construction. Studies: o Vegetation Mapping and Classification o Wetlands Mapping and Functional Assessment o Construction Methods Impacts Study 5.7.2. Relevant Plans Management of vegetation, wetlands, and habitats in the Project area are guided by several sources and documents. AKEPIC Database. 2005. Alaska Exotic Plant Information Clearinghouse Database. Available at: http://akweeds.uaa.alaska.edu. Retrieved 5 January 2007. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-31 July 2009 Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKHNP), 2000, Contingency Planning - Sensitive Areas, Rare Plant Species Map Series. Environment and Natural Resources Institute, University of Alaska Anchorage.http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu ADF&G. 1994. Trading Bay State Game Refuge and Redoubt Bay Critical Habitat Area Management Plan. Prepared by Divisions of Habitat and Restoration and Wildlife Conservation. ADF&G. 2006. Our Wealth Maintained: A Strategy For Conserving Alaska’s Diverse Wildlife And Fish Resources. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. xviii+824 pp. Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB). 2005. 2005 Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan. KPB Planning Department. Soldotna, Alaska. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program and LaRoche and Associates. 2008. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Zone Management Plan. Kenai Peninsula Borough. Soldotna, Alaska. NPS (Lake Clark National Park). 2004. Strategic Plan for Lake Clark National Park and Preserve October 1, 2004 - September 30, 2008. (http://www.nps.gov/lacl/parkmgmt/ U.S. Code 33 1343 Section 404. 1977. Clean Water Act. (Section 404 - discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters of the U.S.). 5.8. Recreation and Land Use 5.8.1. Identification of Issues and Study Needs TDX Power has identified the following recreation and land use issues and study needs derived from meetings with stakeholders, correspondence from federal and state agencies, and its consultants. The issues are grouped by category. The studies needed to assess each issue are listed with the issue. Information collected by the proposed studies will be used to describe the existing environment, assess potential impacts, and provide essential information that will help to avoid or mitigate Project impacts. Studies to assess impacts of increased Chakachamna Lake water level fluctuation Effects on travel around the shoreline in summer and winter. Studies: o Recreational Use Assessment o Land Use Study Impacts to recreational uses such as boating, fishing, and hunting. Study Recreational Use Assessment PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-32 July 2009 Studies needed to assess potential blockage of fish passage into and out of Chakachamna Lake via the Chakachatna River1 Changes in distribution and/or numbers of fish in Lake may impact how lake is used for recreation. Studies: o Recreational Use Assessment o Chakachamna Lake Sockeye Salmon Abundance and Run Timing Studies needed to assess Project impacts as a result of reduced flows on the Chakachatna River2 Effects on recreational use of the Chakachatna River, such as fishing and rafting. Study: Recreational Use Assessment Studies needed to assess Project impacts as a result of increased flows on the McArthur River3 Increased flow may affect recreational use of the McArthur River, such as fishing and rafting. Study: Recreational Use Assessment Changes in distribution and/or numbers of fish may affect recreational use. Study: Recreational Use Assessment Studies needed plan and understand effects of roads and transmission lines Increased recreational pressure, such as hunting, fishing, and backcountry activities (hiking, skiing, rafting, and snowmachining), due to increased access. Studies: o Recreational Use Assessment o Land Use Study 1 Studies to address changes in distribution and/or numbers of fish used for subsistence as discussed in Table 4.8-2 are discussed in Section 5.4. 2 Studies to address changes in distribution and/or numbers of fish that may affect subsistence use as discussed in Table 4.8-2 are discussed in Section 5.4. 3 Studies to address changes in distribution and/or numbers of fish that may affect subsistence use as discussed in Table 4.8-2 are discussed in Section 5.4. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-33 July 2009 5.8.2. Relevant Plans Relevant local, state, or regional land use and recreation plans include Alaska’s Outdoor Legacy Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 2004-2009, Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Zone Management Plan, Kenai Area Plan, Trading Bay State Game Refuge and Redoubt Bay Critical Habitat Area Management Plan, and the Strategic Plan for Lake Clark National Park and Preserve October 1, 2004 - September 30, 2008. In addition to the recreation and land use management plans, ADF&G has developed state management plans for game species that may affect recreational hunting and subsistence use in the vicinity of the Project: Black bear management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2001–30 June 2004, Brown bear management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004–30 June 2006, Dall Sheep Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2001–30 June 2004, Furbearer Management Report of Survey-Inventory Activities 1 July 2003–30 June 2006, Moose Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2003–30 June 2005, Wolf Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2002–30 June 2005. Alaska’s Outdoor Legacy Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 2004- 2009 Alaska’s current SCORP guides recreation-related acquisition, facility development, and policy for the State of Alaska for 2004 through 2009 (ADNR 2004). The goals of the SCORP are to: Provide recreation agencies and communities with a reference to outdoor recreation preferences, use trends, and issues relevant to Alaska through 2009; Identify statewide capital investment priorities for acquiring, developing, and protecting outdoor recreation resources; Identify the State’s priorities, strategies, and actions for the obligation of its Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) apportionment; and Provide information that agencies and communities need to develop project proposals eligible for LWCF assistance. The chief goal for outdoor recreation providers is to offer a range of opportunities for responsible use of Alaska’s recreation resources while protecting natural values. The SCORP identifies four recreation issues and goals, one of which includes aspects related to aesthetic/visual resources, along with recommended strategies to meet these goals: Issue 1: Lack of Adequate Funding Goal: Secure a reliable source of funding for outdoor recreation in Alaska. Develop programs that allow important projects to be completed and maintained. Strengthen mutually beneficial relationships with other agencies, private sector and user groups. Recommended Strategies: support ongoing efforts to reform the Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant (LWCF) Program; continue interagency communication and PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-34 July 2009 cooperative efforts; privatize selected services, facility operation, and maintenance; strengthen alternative funding mechanisms and programs; develop alternative funding sources. Issue 2: Opportunities to Meet Recreation Needs in Communities Goal: Support efforts to assist communities in meeting the outdoor recreation needs of their citizens. Recommended Strategies: give some communities a higher priority for LWCF matching grants; develop alternative funding sources; design facilities to reflect economic realities and sustainable practices. Issue 3: Improved Access to Outdoor Recreation Resources (includes discussion of transportation enhancements [including acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites, scenic highway programs, and scenic beautification], Trails and Recreational Access for Alaskan (TRAAK) [including transportation enhancements, the Scenic Byways Program, and the Recreation Trails Program], disabled access, and trail identification/legal access) Goal: Provide more convenient, legal, and barrier-free access to outdoor recreation opportunities on Alaska’s public lands and waters. Recommended Strategies: implement Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) provisions; improve access to water based recreation; develop inventory of barrier free outdoor recreation facilities; continue cooperative planning efforts with “barrier-free” advocacy groups; consider incompatibility among users and user values; continue the identification and legal dedication of existing trails. Issue 4: Shortage of Tourism Opportunities on Public Lands Goal Support and promote balanced use and development of Alaska’s public lands for outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism. Recommended Strategies: expand cooperative planning and marketing efforts; maintain and expand private-public nature-based tourism partnerships; promote private sector development on public lands where appropriate; develop year round tourism destinations and related services on public lands; increase capital spending to rehabilitate and expand facilities, expand public use cabin system; promote the Alaska Public Lands Information Centers. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-35 July 2009 Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Zone Management Plan The Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Plan was developed to provide local information and policies that carry out the objectives of the Alaska Coastal Management Program. The plan provides the Kenai Peninsula Borough with a tool for evaluating proposed developments within its coastal zone. The boundary of the Kenai Peninsula Borough and the Kenai coastal district are the same. Within that boundary, there is an area called the “coastal zone.” This coastal zone is subject to coastal zone management. As discussed in Section 4.8.4, all lands and waters of the Kenai Peninsula Borough coastal zone are included within the “Recreation” designation and a portion of the Project area near the coast is included in the area designated as Recreation Use. Federal lands are excluded from the coastal zone and the recreation designation. The goals and objectives of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Plan (Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program 2008) related to recreational resources include the following: Goal 3.1: To maintain the Borough's variety of high quality recreational opportunities to meet the needs of residents and visitors. o Objective 3.1.1: To encourage the well-planned development of recreation and tourism facilities and area wide trail systems by public agencies and private citizens where there is local support. o Objective 3.1.2: To minimize conflicting uses in designated recreation areas. o Objective 3.1.3: To maintain public access to water bodies and recreation areas and facilitate provision of additional access where necessary and desirable. o Objective 3.1.4: To minimize the adverse impacts of access on sensitive environments Goal 3.3: To encourage provision of facilities for outdoor and indoor recreational for borough residents and visitors. o Objective 3.3.1: Support improved, environmentally responsible angler access facilities on major rivers in the Borough. Goal 3.4: To plan for future recreational use of borough land that has recreational value. o Objective 3.4.1: Identify borough lands with recreational value that provide access to coastlines or recreational areas. o Objective 3.4.2: To maintain information about and support other groups in establishing and maintaining a network of trails to provide recreation and transportation opportunities. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-36 July 2009 o Objective 3.4.3: Work with the ANDR and local organizations to inventory existing and potential recreational trails on the Kenai Peninsula. o Objective 3.4.4: Develop access management plans to avoid or minimize the adverse impacts of access. The Statewide Standards relevant to recreational resources also address coastal access. Districts and state agencies shall ensure that projects maintain and, where appropriate, increase public access to, from, and along coastal water. Kenai Area Plan The Kenai Area Plan directs how ADNR will manage state uplands, tidelands, and submerged lands within the planning boundary, including the Project area (ADNR 2001). The state land use plans determine management intent, land-use designations, and management guidelines that apply to all state lands in the planning area. The plan is used by staff within the ADNR Division of Mining, Land, and Water when reviewing and making decisions on authorizations for use of state land, including permits, leases, sales, conveyances, and right-of-way. The plan is also used by the ADNR Divisions of Forestry, Agriculture, Parks and Outdoor Recreation. The Division of Oil and Gas also uses the plan in its mitigation measures. The Kenai Peninsula Borough and federal government also have plans and planning efforts that directly and indirectly affect state lands. Camping, hiking, boating, hunting, and fishing generally do not require authorization on state lands. Goals of state lands in the planning area include: Economic development - provide opportunities for jobs and income by managing state land and resources to support a self-sustaining local economy; Fiscal costs - locate settlement uses where there is sustainable economic base and where necessary services can be efficiently provided; Public health and safety - maintain or enhance public health and safety for users of state land and resources; Public use - provide and enhance opportunities for public use of state lands, including hunting, fishing, boating, and other types of recreation; Quality of life -maintain or enhance the quality and diversity of the natural environments and protect heritage resources and the character and lifestyle of the community; Settlement - provide opportunities for private ownership and leasing of land currently owned by the state; and PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-37 July 2009 Sustained yield - maintain the long-term productivity and quality of renewable resources and all other state-owned replenishable resources on a sustained-yield or optimum- sustained yield basis, including fish, wildlife, rangelands, and forests. Specific to public recreation, the goals of the plan include providing lands for accessible outdoor recreational opportunities with well-designed, maintained and conveniently located recreation facilities; providing undeveloped lands for recreation pursuits that do not require developed facilities. These opportunities would be realized by: Developing a State Park System of recreation areas, trails, waysides, rivers and sites that provide a wide range of year-round outdoor recreation opportunities for all ages, abilities and use preferences in close proximity to population centers and major travel routes. Providing recreation opportunities on less developed land and water areas both within the State Park System as well as areas outside the system, which serve multiple purposes. Encouraging commercial development of recreation facilities and services through land sales, leases, and permits where public recreation needs can most effectively be provided by private enterprise. In some units, the plan specifically allows for commercial recreation leasing. Providing for public open space that is readily accessible to communities and is sufficient to meet existing and future needs for public recreation land in developed areas. Protecting scenic beauty. Specific to trails and access, the goals of the plan include the following: Public Use Opportunities - Ensure adequate opportunities for public use of important recreation, public access and historic trails of regional and statewide significance. Also provide for future trail and access needs. Local Trails - Assist in establishing local trail systems that provide access to public land and water and community facilities. Trail Corridors - Protect or establish trail corridors to meet projected future use requirements as well as protecting current use. Management guidelines in the plan related to trails and access include consideration for aesthetic/visual resources. Additionally, the plan identifies specific goals associated with the following resources related to public recreation and aesthetic resources: PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-38 July 2009 Transportation and utilities - Design a transportation system and authorize vehicle uses in a manner that has minimal adverse impacts on local residents, the environment, fish and wildlife resources, and aesthetic and cultural features. Shorelines, stream corridors and wetlands - Protect and enhance a variety of public recreation and tourism opportunities along waterbodies including both wilderness and developed recreational and tourism activities and protect the visual quality of waterbodies. Forestry - Ensure that the state forestlands support tourism, maintain opportunities for diverse recreational activities in a variety of settings, and promote scenic quality. Trading Bay State Game Refuge and Redoubt Bay Critical Habitat Area Management Plan The purpose of the Trading Bay State Game Refuge and Redoubt Bay Critical Habitat Area Management Plan (ADF&G,1994), which is applicable to state owned land only, is to provide consistent long-term guidance to ADF&G and other agencies involved in managing the refuge and critical habitat area. It presents management goals for the refuge and critical habitat area and their resources, and indentifies policies to be used in determining whether proposed activities within the refuge and critical habitat area are compatible with the protection of fish and wildlife, their habitats and public use of the refuge and critical habitat area. The plan does not specifically identify recreation needs in the Project vicinity or Project area. According to the plan, activities that occur within the Trading Bay State Game Refuge will reflect the following goals in accordance with the purpose for which the area was established: Fish and wildlife populations and their habitat - manage the refuge to maintain and enhance fish and wildlife populations and their habitat. Public use - manage the refuge to maintain and enhance public use of fish, wildlife, and refuge lands and waters consistent with the other goals of the management plan. o Maintain public access to and within the refuge. o Maintain and, if compatible with existing public use as described in the regulations establishing the refuge, improve opportunities for waterfowl, moose, and bear hunting, trapping, and fishing within the refuge. o Maintain and, if compatible with existing public use as described in the regulations establishing the refuge, improve opportunities for wildlife viewing, photography, and general recreation in a high quality environment. o Make information about the refuge available to the public. Multiple use - manage multiple uses, including oil and gas, in the refuge in a manner compatible with the above goals of the management plan. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-39 July 2009 Strategic Plan for Lake Clark National Park and Preserve October 1, 2004 - September 30, 2008 (Lake Clark Strategic Plan) The most recent Lake Clark Strategic Plan contains long-term goals, which target in quantifiable, measurable ways what will be accomplished toward achieving the overall mission goals and mission (NPS 2008). The following recreation and subsistence-related long-term goal targets of the strategic plan address park-specific outcomes: By September 30, 2008, 2,445,300 acres (99% of 2,470,000 acres) of designated wilderness in Lake Clark National Park and Preserve will meet wilderness character objectives. By September 30, 2008, 2 (29% of 7) species of Lake Clark National Park populations of native plant and animal Species of Management Concern are managed to self sustaining levels. Lake Clark National Park and Preserve is authorized for subsistence use and primary subsistence species include salmon, caribou, moose, brown bear and Dall sheep. To ensure these species are maintained at natural and healthy population levels in the park and healthy population levels in the preserve, harvest trend analyses are utilized to support the subsistence management plan for the park. By September 30 of 2008, three segments, (100% of 3 segments) of Wild and Scenic Rivers in Lake Clark National Park and Preserve will continue to meet heritage resource objectives. By September 30, 2008, Lake Clark National Park and Preserve does not have an approved plan that addresses the management of wilderness (or backcountry) resources. The staff at Lake Clark National Park and Preserve will write a statement to demonstrate the need for funding to develop a Wilderness Plan for the area. By September 30, 2008, 95% of visitors to Lake Clark National Park and Preserve are satisfied with appropriate park facilities, services, and recreational opportunities. By September 30, 2008, 85% of Lake Clark National Park and Preserve visitors understand and appreciate the significance of the park. By September 30, 2008, 25% (9 of 37) other facilities (non-building asset types), non- historic, are in fair to good condition as measured by the Facilities Condition Index at Lake Clark National Park and Preserve. By September 30, 2008, Lake Clark National Park has eight community partnerships designed to enhance the park’s ability to manage recreation activities seamlessly. Black Bear Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2001–30 June 2004 (Black Bear Management Report) PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-40 July 2009 The ADF&G Game Management Unit 16, located west of the lower Susitna River and upper Cook Inlet, contains large areas of unaltered wildlife habitat and includes the Project area and Lake Clark National Park. The Black Bear Management Report (Kavalok 2005) reported harvest rates of black bears have been increasing. According to the Black Bear Management Report, the ADF&G management goal for black bears in Unit 16 is to provide the greatest opportunity to participate in hunting black bears with the objective of a three-year average harvest of greater than 270 black bears in Unit 16 (greater than 225 in Unit 16B, the subunit containing the Project area and Lake Clark National Park) with greater than 30% being female (Kavalok 2005). Because the population objective of black bear is unverifiable, the Black Bear Management Report recommends that a tooth specimen be collected from bears during sealing to collect age data on harvested bears. Brown Bear Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2002–30 June 2004 (Brown Bear Management Report) The Brown Bear Management Report (Kavalok 2007) reported harvest rates of brown bears in 2005 in Unit 16. According to the Brown Bear Management Report, the ADF&G management goal for brown bears in Unit 16 is to allow the number of breeding females in the population to decrease by providing optimal opportunity to hunt brown bears with the objective of allowing human use to reach a three-year average harvest of 28 females older than two years (Kavalok 2007). The Brown Bear Management Report reports that management objectives were exceeded during the report period and that bear viewing and hunting are becoming more popular in Unit 16. It recommends that ADF&G closely monitor the harvest of brown bears to identify and avoid any serious declines in the population. Dall Sheep Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2001–30 June 2004 (Dall Sheep Management Report) The Alaska Range West is a popular Dall sheep hunting area even though it is not road accessible. Aircraft transportation is the primary mode of transportation for sheep hunters and guides are required for nonresident sheep hunters throughout Alaska. From 1983 to 2000, an average of 220 hunters used the Alaska Range West annually, and average annual harvest was 123 rams. According to the Dall Sheep Management Report, the ADF&G management goals for Dall sheep in Unit 16B (among others) include providing a sustainable opportunity to harvest Dall sheep rams from a naturally regulated population, providing an opportunity to harvest Dall sheep rams under aesthetically pleasing conditions, and providing an opportunity to view and photograph Dall sheep (Szepanski 2005). The growth of the guide and outfitter industry in the Alaska Range West was unregulated during the reporting period for the Dall Sheep Management Report and crowded hunting conditions may have reduced the quality of the hunting experience in the more accessible drainages. The Dall Sheep Management Report recommends continued aerial surveys PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-41 July 2009 and monitoring or sheep harvest reports, determining the conditions that hunters find “aesthetically pleasing,” and assessment of hunter satisfaction with hunting experiences. Furbearer Management Report of Survey-Inventory Activities 1 July 2003–30 June 2006 (Furbearer Management Report) Recreational cabins and fishing and hunting lodges are scattered throughout the unit, many of which have winter caretakers who hunt and trap furbearers. Because of its proximity to Alaska’s largest population centers, the area receives a large amount of year-round recreational use and a few local residents trap full time to generate income, primarily from marten and beaver. According to the Furbearer Management Report (Peltier 2007), ADF&G management goals for furbearers in Unit 16 include providing the opportunity to trap and hunt furbearers, maintaining an optimal sustained harvest of furbearers, and developing measurable population objectives for all fur species (Peltier 2007). Unit 16 trappers reported that all species were common or abundant in 2003–2006, except lynx and wolverine which were reported as scarce in 2004–2005. Trappers reported small prey species as abundant. The lack of data on population density, composition, and productivity of furbearers makes it difficult to determine if harvests are optimal. The Furbearer Management Report recommends that indirect survey techniques be conducted annually (Peltier 2007). Moose Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2003–30 June 2005 (Moose Management Report) According to the Moose Management Report, the ADF&G management goal for moose in Unit 16B is to maintain and enhance the moose population to provide for high levels of human consumptive use (Peltier 2006a). The Moose Management Report recommends gathering additional information (e.g., accurate estimates of wolf and bear populations) to better manage moose in Unit 16B, a long-term monitoring program, and consideration of prescribed burns for habitat enhancement (Peltier 2006a). Wolf Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2002–30 June 2005 (Wolf Management Report) According to the Wolf Management Report, the ADF&G management goal for wolves in Unit 16 is to retain desirable predator/prey ratios and provide a sustainable harvest of wolves (Peltier 2006b). The human-use objective is to allow maximum opportunity for harvest while maintaining minimum wolf population objectives. The Wolf Management Report recommends that surveys be conducted every three years to assess wolf numbers and that managers consider that Unit 16B is an intensive management area for moose (Peltier 2006b). 5.9. Aesthetic/Visual Resources TDX Power has identified the following aesthetic/visual resource issues and study needs derived from meetings with stakeholders, correspondence from federal and state agencies, and its PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-42 July 2009 consultants. The issues are grouped by category. The studies needed to assess each issue are listed with the issue. Information collected by the proposed studies will be used to avoid or mitigate Project impacts. 5.9.1. Identification of Issues and Study Needs Impacts resulting from increased Chakachamna Lake water level fluctuation Changes in lake level fluctuations may affect the experience of Chakachatna Lake as a visual resource. Studies: o Aesthetic/Visual Resources Study o Operations Model Impacts resulting from reduced flows on the Chakachatna River Reduced flow may affect the experience of the Chakachatna River as a visual resource. Study: o Aesthetic/Visual Resources Study Impacts resulting from increased flows on the McArthur River Increased flow may affect the experience of the McArthur River as a visual resource. Study: Aesthetic/Visual Resources Study Potential impacts of roads and transmission lines New road corridors and transmission line facilities may impact visual resources. Studies: o Aesthetic/Visual Resources Study o Construction Methods Impact Study 5.9.2. Relevant Plans Management plans relevant to aesthetic/visual resources include the SCORP (ADNR 2004) and the Kenai Area Plan (ADNR 2001). SCORP 2004-2009 Alaska’s current SCORP guides recreation-related acquisition, facility development, and policy for the State of Alaska for 2004 through 2009 (ADNR 2004). The goals of the SCORP are to: PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-43 July 2009 Provide recreation agencies and communities with a reference to outdoor recreation preferences, use trends, and issues relevant to Alaska through 2009; Identify statewide capital investment priorities for acquiring, developing, and protecting outdoor recreation resources; Identify the State’s priorities, strategies, and actions for the obligation of its Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) apportionment; and Provide information that agencies and communities need to develop project proposals eligible for LWCF assistance. The chief goal for outdoor recreation providers is to offer a range of opportunities for responsible use of Alaska’s recreation resources while protecting natural values. The SCORP identifies four recreation issues and goals, one of which includes aspects related to aesthetic/visual resources, along with recommended strategies to meet these goals: Issue 1: Lack of Adequate Funding Goal: Secure a reliable source of funding for outdoor recreation in Alaska. Develop programs that allow important projects to be completed and maintained. Strengthen mutually beneficial relationships with other agencies, private sector and user groups. Recommended Strategies: support ongoing efforts to reform the Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant (LWCF) Program; continue interagency communication and cooperative efforts; privatize selected services, facility operation, and maintenance; strengthen alternative funding mechanisms and programs; develop alternative funding sources. Issue 2: Opportunities to Meet Recreation Needs in Communities Goal: Support efforts to assist communities in meeting the outdoor recreation needs of their citizens. Recommended Strategies: give some communities a higher priority for LWCF matching grants; develop alternative funding sources; design facilities to reflect economic realities and sustainable practices. Issue 3: Improved Access to Outdoor Recreation Resources (includes discussion of transportation enhancements [including acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites, scenic highway programs, and scenic beautification], Trails and PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-44 July 2009 Recreational Access for Alaskan (TRAAK) [including transportation enhancements, the Scenic Byways Program, and the Recreation Trails Program], disabled access, and trail identification/legal access) Goal: Provide more convenient, legal, and barrier-free access to outdoor recreation opportunities on Alaska’s public lands and waters. Recommended Strategies: implement Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) provisions; improve access to water based recreation; develop inventory of barrier free outdoor recreation facilities; continue cooperative planning efforts with “barrier-free” advocacy groups; consider incompatibility among users and user values; continue the identification and legal dedication of existing trails. Issue 4: Shortage of Tourism Opportunities on Public Lands Goal Support and promote balanced use and development of Alaska’s public lands for outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism. Recommended Strategies: expand cooperative planning and marketing efforts; maintain and expand private-public nature-based tourism partnerships; promote private sector development on public lands where appropriate; develop year round tourism destinations and related services on public lands; increase capital spending to rehabilitate and expand facilities, expand public use cabin system; promote the Alaska Public Lands Information Centers. Kenai Area Plan Developed by ADNR, the Kenai Area Plan directs how ADNR will manage state uplands, tidelands, and submerged lands within the planning boundary, including the Project area (ADNR 2001). The state land use plans determine management intent, land-use designations, and management guidelines that apply to all state lands in the planning area. The plan is used by staff within the ADNR Division of Mining, Land, and Water when reviewing and making decisions on authorizations for use of state land, including permits, leases, sales, conveyances, and right-of-way. The plan is also used by the ADNR Divisions of Forestry, Agriculture, Parks and Outdoor Recreation. The Division of Oil and Gas also uses the plan in its mitigation measures. The Kenai Peninsula Borough and federal government also have plans and planning efforts that directly and indirectly affect state lands. Camping, hiking, boating, hunting, and fishing generally do not require authorization on state lands. Goals of state lands in the planning area include: Economic development - provide opportunities for jobs and income by managing state land and resources to support a self-sustaining local economy; PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-45 July 2009 Fiscal costs - locate settlement uses where there is sustainable economic base and where necessary services can be efficiently provided; Public health and safety - maintain or enhance public health and safety for users of state land and resources; Public use - provide and enhance opportunities for public use of state lands, including hunting, fishing, boating, and other types of recreation; Quality of life -maintain or enhance the quality and diversity of the natural environments and protect heritage resources and the character and lifestyle of the community; Settlement - provide opportunities for private ownership and leasing of land currently owned by the state; and Sustained yield - maintain the long-term productivity and quality of renewable resources and all other state-owned replenishable resources on a sustained-yield or optimum- sustained yield basis, including fish, wildlife, rangelands, and forests. Specific to public recreation, the goals of the plan include providing lands for accessible outdoor recreational opportunities with well-designed, maintained and conveniently located recreation facilities; providing undeveloped lands for recreation pursuits that do not require developed facilities. These opportunities would be realized by: Developing a State Park System of recreation areas, trails, waysides, rivers and sites that provide a wide range of year-round outdoor recreation opportunities for all ages, abilities and use preferences in close proximity to population centers and major travel routes. Providing recreation opportunities on less developed land and water areas both within the State Park System as well as areas outside the system, which serve multiple purposes. Encouraging commercial development of recreation facilities and services through land sales, leases, and permits where public recreation needs can most effectively be provided by private enterprise. In some units, the plan specifically allows for commercial recreation leasing. Providing for public open space that is readily accessible to communities and is sufficient to meet existing and future needs for public recreation land in developed areas. Protecting scenic beauty. Specific to trails and access, the goals of the plan include the following: Public Use Opportunities - Ensure adequate opportunities for public use of important recreation, public access and historic trails of regional and statewide significance. Also provide for future trail and access needs. Local Trails - Assist in establishing local trail systems that provide access to public land and water and community facilities. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-46 July 2009 Trail Corridors - Protect or establish trail corridors to meet projected future use requirements as well as protecting current use. Management guidelines in the plan related to trails and access include consideration for aesthetic/visual resources. Additionally, the plan identifies specific goals associated with the following resources related to public recreation and aesthetic resources: Transportation and utilities - Design a transportation system and authorize vehicle uses in a manner that has minimal adverse impacts on local residents, the environment, fish and wildlife resources, and aesthetic and cultural features. Shorelines, stream corridors and wetlands - Protect and enhance a variety of public recreation and tourism opportunities along waterbodies including both wilderness and developed recreational and tourism activities and protect the visual quality of waterbodies. Forestry - Ensure that the state forestlands support tourism, maintain opportunities for diverse recreational activities in a variety of settings, and promote scenic quality. 5.10. Cultural Resources 5.10.1. Identification of Issues and Study Needs Based on meetings with stakeholders, correspondence from federal and state agencies, and its consultants TDX Power has identified the following cultural resource issues and study needs . The issues are grouped by category. The studies needed to assess each issue are listed with the issue. Information collected by the proposed studies will be used to avoid or mitigate Project impacts. TDX Power has identified a preliminary Area of Potential Effects (APE) based on the Project boundary; as described in section 4.10; however the APE has not been finalized with FERC, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHOP); tribes, and federal agencies. In will not be possible to develop final inventory, evaluation, and impact assessments until the APE is formally established. Establishment of the APE will be a collaborative effort between TDX Power, the SHPO, tribes, federal agencies, and FERC. Studies needed plan and understand effects of roads and transmission lines Impacts on cultural resources due to construction impacts and increased recreational activity adjacent to and in areas reached by access roads. Studies: o Subsistence and Cultural Use / Traditional Cultural Properties Study o Historic and Archaeological Resources Study o Recreation Use Assessment Studies to assess impacts of increased Chakachamna Lake water level fluctuation PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-47 July 2009 Impacts on cultural resources of the lake due to lake level fluctuations and reservoir operations. Studies: o Historic and Archaeological Resources Study o Subsistence and Cultural Use / Traditional Cultural Properties Study o Erosion Study Studies needed plan port or barge landing facilities Impacts on cultural resources or subsistence use of shoreline due to Project operations and activities related to construction and operation of port or barge landing facilities Study: Historic and Archaeological Resources Study Studies needed to assess Project impacts as a result of reduced flows on the Chakachatna River Assessment of subsistence use of potentially affected areas; determine how reduced flows may impact substance use or impact cultural resources Studies: Subsistence and Cultural Use / Traditional Cultural Properties Study Studies needed to assess Project impacts as a result of increased flows on the McArthur River Assessment of subsistence use of potentially affected areas; determine how increased flows may impact substance use or impact cultural resources Study: Subsistence and Cultural Use / Traditional Cultural Properties Study 5.10.2. Relevant Plans ADF&G. 1994. Trading Bay State Game Refuge and Redoubt Bay Critical Habitat Area Management Plan. Prepared by Divisions of Habitat and Restoration and Wildlife Conservation. Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB). 2005. 2005 Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan. KPB Planning Department. Soldotna, Alaska. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program. 2008. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Zone Management Plan. Kenai Peninsula Borough. Soldotna, Alaska. NPS (Lake Clark National Park). 2004. Strategic Plan for Lake Clark National Park and Preserve October 1, 2004 - September 30, 2008. (http://www.nps.gov/lacl/parkmgmt/ U.S. Department of the Interior. 1966. National Historic Preservation Act. 36 CFR Part 60. U.S. Department of the Interior. 2004. 36 CFR Part 800. Protection of Historic Properties: incorporating amendments effective August 5, 2004. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-48 July 2009 5.11. Socioeconomic Resources 5.11.1. Identification of Issues and Study Needs Based on from meetings with stakeholders, correspondence from federal and state agencies, and review of relevant literature TDX Power has identified the following socioeconomic resource issues and study needs . The issues are grouped by category. The studies needed to assess each issue are listed with the issue. Additionally this section is further subdivided into issues and studies that address potential resource impacts and issues and studies that are necessary from an engineering project economics perspective. Information collected by the proposed studies will be used to describe the existing environment, assess potential impacts, and provide essential information that will help to avoid or mitigate Project impacts. Potential effect of the project on socioeconomic resources Assessment of socioeconomic effects on local and regional economy related to Project construction Study: Socioeconomic Assessment Assessment of socioeconomic effects on local and regional economy related to Project operations Study: Socioeconomic Assessment Potential effects of the Project on tourism and potential for expanding role of tourism to support the local economy Study: Socioeconomic Assessment 5.11.2. Relevant Plans Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB). 2005. 2005 Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan. KPB Planning Department. Soldotna, Alaska. Municipality of Anchorage. 2001. Anchorage 2020: Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan. Prepared by Planning Department, Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska. Tyonek Native Corporation (TNC). West Cook Inlet: 2008 and Beyond. Tyonek Native Corporation, Anchorage, Alaska. Website accessed April 2009. http://www.tyonek.com/lands.php PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-49 July 2009 5.12. Tribal Resources 5.12.1. Identification of Issues and Study Needs No interest has been expressed to date in specific resource areas pertaining to the development of the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project. Numerous studies are being planned that will provide information on potential impacts to tribal resources. These studies include [list]. As information becomes available, it will be shared with appropriate tribal contacts and next steps determined. If the need for additional information is identified, TDX will consider the potential corresponding studies that may be warranted, and those additional studies TDX determines are needed will be scoped as appropriate in conjunction with the formal study phase of the Chakachamna Project licensing. 5.12.2. Relevant Plans The federal, state, and tribal comprehensive waterway plans and resource management plans that are listed as relevant for other resource areas described in this section 5 of the PAD are also relevant to tribal resources, to the extent that there are tribal interests in the other resources areas. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 5-50 July 2009 [This page intentionally left blank] PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 6-1 July 2009 6 SUMMARY OF CONTACTS In accordance with 18 CFR § 5.6(d)(5), this section summarizes contacts with federal, state, and interstate resource agencies, Indian tribes, non-governmental organizations, or other members of the public made in connection with preparing the PAD. TDX initiated stakeholder outreach in 2008; information about the Project area and impressions of stakeholders on key issues that must be addressed have been gathered in public meetings, phone conversations and written correspondence. Additionally TDX launched a Project website (www.chakachamna-hydro.com) to serve as a central clearinghouse for information. All communication is summarized in Table 6.0-1 (below) and copies of correspondence, meeting notes, and draft documents are included in Appendix 6-1. Table 6.0-1. Summary of communications with stakeholders since January, 2008. Affiliation/ Party Date To Description January 3, 2008 Meeting attendees included: Jim Thrall and Eric Yould, TDX Power; Jim Ferguson, Joe Klein, Jason Mouw, and Tammy Massie, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Preliminary consultation meeting between TDX Power and ADF&G for preliminary scoping and issue identification. January 3, 2008 Meeting attendees included: Jim Thrall and Eric Yould, TDX Power; Patricia Bettis, Mark Ingram, and Gary Prokosch, Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), Water Resources Section Preliminary consultation meeting between TDX Power and ADNR, Water Resources Section for preliminary scoping and issue identification. January 7, 2008 Meeting attendees included: Jim Thrall, TDX Power; Jeff Anderson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); Phil Brna, USFWS; Joan Darnell, National Park Service (NPS)-AK Region; Ken Lord, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Solicitor’s Office; Doug Mutter, DOI; Bob Platte, USFWS; Page Spencer, NPS; Theresa Tanner, USFWS; Cassie Thomas, NPS, AK Region Preliminary consultation meeting between TDX Power and DOI for preliminary scoping and issue identification. January 11, 2008 Meeting attendees included: Jim Thrall and Eric Yould, TDX Power; Dennis Gann, Alaska Coal Work Group; Pat Lavin, National Wildlife Federation; Jan Konigsberg, Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition; Tim Obst, Trustees for Alaska; Trish Roth, Sierra Club; Kate Troll, Alaska Conservation Alliance; Eric Uhde, Alaska Energy Center Preliminary consultation meeting between TDX Power and various environmental and resource development non- governmental organizations for preliminary scoping and issue identification. Sally Morsell, Northern Ecological Services (NES) January 16, 2008 Phil Brna, USFWS Email requesting contact for the most current wildlife information and the preferred habitat or vegetation classification method. Phil Brna, USFWS January 22, 2008 Sally Morsell, NES; Debbie Groves, USFWS; Frances Mann, USFWS; Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; Email providing contacts for various wildlife resources PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 6-2 July 2009 Affiliation/ Party Date To Description Judy Putera, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve; Julian Fischer, USFWS; William Eldridge, USFWS; Robert Gill, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); Steve Matsuoka, USFWS; Douglas Mutter, DOI; Page Spencer, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve; Cassie Thomas, NPS; Joan Darnell, NPS and expressing concerns related to wildlife relevant to the Chakachamna Project. Page Spencer, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve January 22, 2008 Phil Brna, USFWS; Sally Morsell, NES; Judy Putera, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve Email providing a list of wildlife species and birds that have been observed or are very likely to be in the Chakachamna Project area and providing issues of concern to the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve. February 14, 2008 Meeting attendees included: Eric Yould and Jim Thrall, TDX Power; Jeanne Hanson and Doug Limpinsel, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Preliminary consultation meeting between TDX Power and NOAA/NMFS for preliminary scoping and issue identification. February 20, 2008 Meeting attendees included: Jim Thrall, TDX Power; Dan Chay; John Czarnezki, Kenai Peninsula Borough; Jennifer Knowles, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US ACOE); Ginny Litchfield, ADNR, Habitat; Phil North, U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Gary Williams, Kenai Peninsula Borough; Jan Yeager, Kenai Watershed Forum Preliminary consultation meeting between TDX Power and Kenai River Center for preliminary scoping and issue identification. Eric Yould (Maxine Blake), TDX Power September 30, 2008 Lawrence Peltz, NOAA/NMFS; Ginny Litchfield, ADNR; Jeanne Hanson, NOAA/NMFS; Nick Goodman, TDX Power; Hazen Baron, TDX Power; Steve Padula, Long View Associates (LVA); Wendy Bley, LVA; Emily Andersen, LVA; Randall Filbert, LVA; Finlay Anderson, LVA; Bao Le, LVA; Jenna Borovansky, LVA; Gary Boyle, LVA; Jody Johns, LVA; Joyce Brooks, LVA; Anna Steirer, LVA Email requesting recipients hold October 29, 2008 for a workshop on the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project. Eric Yould (Maxine Blake), TDX Power October 2, 2008 William Ashton, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC); Wayne Biessel, ADNR; Native Village of Tyonek; Trish Roth, Sierra Club; Tom Namtredt, ADNR; Thomas Meyer, NOAA/NMFS; Tim Obst, Trustees for Alaska; Theresa Tanner, USFWS; Tammy Massie, ADF&G; Stephanie Ludwig, ADNR; Hanh Shaw, EPA; Russell Kirkham, ADNR; Phil Brna, USFWS; Patricia Bettis, ADNR; Pamela Russell, ADNR; Page Spencer, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve; Native Village of Eklutna; Nina Brudie, ADNR; Phillip North, EPA; Eric Uhde, Alaska Energy Center; Ellen Simpson, ADF&G; Ed Weiss, ADG&F; Doug Limpinsel, NOAA/NMFS; Doug Gasek, ADNR; Don Perrin, ADNR; Dan Nelson, Kenai Peninsula Borough; ddgann@hotmail.com; Darrel Williams, Ninilchik Traditional Council; Chickaloon Village Environmental Protection Program; Douglas Mutter, DOI; Clark Cox, ADNR Email notifying parties that the date for the workshop on the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project has been changed to November 6, 2008. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 6-3 July 2009 Affiliation/ Party Date To Description Eric Yould (Maxine Blake), TDX Power October 8, 2008 William Ashton, ADEC; Wayne Biessel, ADNR; Native Village of Tyonek; Trish Roth, Sierra Club; Tom Namtredt, ADNR; Thomas Meyer, NOAA/NMFS; Tim Obst, Trustees for Alaska; Theresa Tanner, USFWS; Tammy Massie, ADF&G; Stephanie Ludwig, ADNR; Hanh Shaw, EPA; Russell Kirkham, ADNR; Phil Brna, USFWS; Patricia Bettis, ADNR; Pamela Russell, ADNR; Page Spencer, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve; Native Village of Eklutna; Nina Brudie, ADNR; Phillip North, EPA Email notifying parties that the date for the workshop on the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project has been changed to November 13, 2008. Maxine Blake, TDX Power October 20, 2008 Nick Goodman, TDX Power; Hazen Baron, TDX Power; Steve Padula, LVA; Wendy Bley, LVA; Emily Andersen, LVA; Randall Filbert, LVA; Finlay Anderson, LVA; Bao Le, LVA; Jenna Borovansky, LVA; Gary Boyle, LVA; Jody Johns, LVA; Joyce Brooks, LVA; Anna Steirer, LVA Email providing flyer and agenda for the November 13, 2008 Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Site Investigation and Licensing Stakeholder Outreach Meeting. Finlay Anderson, LVA October 29, 2008 Melinda O’Donnell, ADNR - Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program (ACMP) Telephone record of call with Melinda O’Donnell (ADNR-ACMP) to assess the concerns of the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program over the scheduling of the November 13th stakeholder meeting. Eric Yould, TDX Power November 5, 2008 Wayne Carmony, Matanuska Electric Association; Tim Barnum, City of Seward, Alaska; Brad Janorschke, Homer Electric Association; Brian Newton, Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA); Brad Evans, Chugach Electric Association; James Posey, Municipality of Anchorage Email informing recipients that TDX Power will be conducting a one day Chakachamna Hydropower workshop on November 13, 2008 to provide environmental information to agencies regarding the project. November 13, 2008 Meeting attendees included: Chuck Akers, Tyonek Corporation, AK Division; Michael Allwright, HDR; Dave Rutz, ADF&G; Michael Walton, ADNR; David Meyer, USGS, Alaska Science Center; Mike O'Meara, Cook Inlet Keeper; Don Perrin, ADNR; Page Spencer, NPS; Donna Robertson, HDR; Paul McLarnon, HDR; Doug Ott, AIDEA; Paul Park, GVEA; Douglas Mutter, OPEC-Anchorage; Phil North, EPA; Eric Yould, TDX Power; Philip Brna, USFWS; Finlay Anderson, LVA; Rich Wilson, ADNR; Frances Mann, USFWS; Robin Beebee, HDR; James Brady, HDR; Sally Morsell, NES; James Keen, Alaska Regulatory Commission; SaraEllen Hutchison, AK Center for the Environment; Jason Mouw, ADF&G; Scott Houk, ADNR; Jennifer Curtis, EPA; Sirena Brownlee, HDR; Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; Steve Gelbert, Enxco; Jim Walker, Matanuska Electric Association; Steve Padula, LVA; Jim Thrall, TDX Chakachamna Hydropower workshop held to provide environmental information to State and Federal agencies regarding the Chakachamna Project. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 6-4 July 2009 Affiliation/ Party Date To Description Power; Sue Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS; Joe Balash, SOA Office of the Governor; Tim Leach, MEA Ratepayers Alliance; Toby Smith, AK Center for the Environment Sirena Brownlee, HDR November 17, 2008 Tony Kavalok, ADF&G Palmer office Telephone record of call with Tony Kavalok (Area Wildlife Biologist, ADF&G Palmer office) to request information on winter moose surveys in Game Management Unit 16B. Eric Yould (Maxine Blake), TDX Power November 24, 2008 William Ashton, ADEC; Wayne Biessel, ADNR; Native Village of Tyonek; Trish Roth, Sierra Club; Tom Namtredt, ADNR; Thomas Meyer, NOAA/NMFS; Tim Obst, Trustees for Alaska; Tammy Massie, ADF&G; Stephanie Ludwig, ADNR; Hanh Shaw, EPA; Serena Sweet, US ACOE; Russell Kirkham, ADNR; Patricia Bettis, ADNR; Pamela Russell, ADNR; Page Spencer, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve; Native Village of Eklutna; Nina Brudie, ADNR; Nick Goodman, TDX Power; Neil Shishido, ADNR; Mike Bethe, ADF&G; Maureen de Zeeuw, USFWS; Mary Nation, USFWS; Mark Ingram, ADNR; Mark Fink, ADF&G; Linda Markham, Alaska Department of Transportation (ADOT); Lawrence Peltz, NOAA/NMFS; Pat Lavin, National Wildlife Federation; Matthew LaCroix, EPA; Kenneth Bouwens, ADF&G; Bob Shavelson, Cook Inlet Keeper; Kate Troll, Alaska Conservation Alliance; Jan Yeager, Kenai Watershed Forum; Justin Selvik, ADNR; Joe Klein, ADF&G; Jane Gabler, Kenai Peninsula Borough; Jennifer Knowles, US ACOE; Jeff Anderson, USFWS; Jeanne Hanson, NOAA/NMFS; John Czarnezki, Kenai Peninsula Borough; Skip (Irvin) Joy, US ACOE; Salamatof Native Association; Chugachmiut; Jan Konigsberg, Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition; Gary Williams, Kenai Peninsula Borough; Ginny Litchfield, ADNR; Gary Prokosch, ADNR; Fran Roche, ADEC; Eric Uhde, Alaska Energy Center; Ellen Simpson, ADF&G; Ed Weiss, ADG&F; Doug Limpinsel, NOAA/NMFS; Doug Gasek, ADNR; Dan Nelson, Kenai Peninsula Borough; ddgann@hotmail.com; Darrel Williams, Ninilchik Traditional Council; Chickaloon Village Environmental Protection Program; Clark Cox, ADNR; Christine Ballard, ADNR; Dan Chay; Crystal Collier, Seldovia Village Tribe; Barbara Trefon, Kenaitze Indian Tribe; Bruce Buzby, ADNR; Bob Platte, USFWS; Benjamin Hagedorn, ADNR; Barbara Mahoney, NOAA Fisheries; Alvin Ott, ADF&G Email updating recipients about informational meeting held on November 13 and providing a web link for meeting notes, presentations, and handouts. Sally Morsell, November 24, 2008 Cheryl Young, U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Telephone record of call with Cheryl Young (BLM PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 6-5 July 2009 Affiliation/ Party Date To Description NES Realty Specialist) to discuss the federal power site withdrawal that shows up on the land status maps for the Project area. Sally Morsell, NES November 24, 2008 Cheryl Young, BLM Email to follow up on telephone call with Cheryl Young (BLM Realty Specialist). Sally Morsell, NES December 5, 2008 Susan Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS Email to follow up on studies mentioned at the November 13 meeting and to inquire about other information pertinent to the Project area. Susan Walker, NOAA Fisheries/ NMFS December 5, 2008 Sally Morsell, NES Email response indicating that she will look for USGS’s groundwater study reports for Ophir Creek and Duck Creek. John Morsell, NES December 8, 2008 Phil Brna, USFWS Telephone record of call with Phil Brna (USFWS) as follow-up to the November Stakeholder Meeting. Sally Morsell, NES December 8, 2008 Leroy Phillips, US ACOE Telephone record of call with Leroy Phillips (US ACOE) about Project area information. Sally Morsell, NES December 9, 2008 Skip (Irvin) Joy, US ACOE Telephone record of call with Skip Joy (US ACOE) for Chakachamna Project area information, specifically the North Foreland Dock expansion. Sally Morsell, NES December 9, 2008 Gary Prokosch, ADNR Telephone record of call with Gary Prokosch (ADNR) about Chakachamna Project area information. Sally Morsell, NES December 9, 2008 Gary Williams, Kenai Peninsula Borough Email requesting information for the Chakachamna Project area. Phillip North, EPA December 11, 2008 Sally Morsell, NES Email indicating that he does not have any information to offer on the Chakachamna Project area. Sally Morsell, NES December 11, 2008 David Krantz, BLM Telephone record of call with David Krantz (BLM) as follow-up to call and email with Cheryl Young regarding the federal power site withdrawal. David December Sally Morsell, NES; James Moore, BLM Email summarizing the PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 6-6 July 2009 Affiliation/ Party Date To Description Krantz, BLM 15, 2008 federal power site withdrawal and providing five Master Title Plats (MTP) with the remaining PSC 395 withdrawn lands. Email provided contact information for Environmental Coordinator. Sally Morsell, NES December 15, 2008 David Krantz, BLM; James Moore, BLM Email indicating that Mr. Moore will be added to the contact list for future meetings on the Chakachamna Project. Serena Sweet, US ACOE December 17, 2008 Sally Morsell, NES Email as follow-up to the call with Skip Joy (US ACOE) indicating that the US ACOE had located the North Foreland Dock expansion file and inquired as to what information was needed. Sally Morsell, NES December 18, 2008 Serena Sweet, US ACOE Email response that the structural drawings and plans were probably the only information needed from the North Foreland Dock expansion file. Serena Sweet, US ACOE December 18, 2008 Sally Morsell, NES Email providing the original permit and modifications for the North Foreland Dock expansion. Maxine Blake, TDX Power December 19, 2008 Andrea Drury; Thomas Kerns; Betsy McCracken, ADF&G; Susan Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS; Bob Day, Homer Electric Association; Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; Chuck Akers, Tyonek Corporation, AK Division; Finlay Anderson, LVA; Joe Balash, Office of the Governor; Robin Beebee, HDR; James Brady, HDR; Phil Brna, USFWS; Brian Carey, AEA, AIDEA; Jennifer Curtis, EPA; Michael Daigneault, ADF&G; Kevin Dunham, Chugach Electric Association; Mark Fouts, Chugach Electric Association; Steve Gilbert, Enxco; Scott Houk, ADNR; SaraEllen Hutchison, Alaska Center for the Environment; James Keen, Alaska Regulatory Commission; Allen Kemplen, ADOT; Kim Klein, ADF&G; Jason Alexander; Tim Leach, MEA Ratepayers Alliance; Adele Lee, ADNR; Anne Legget, HDR; Kenneth Lord, DOI; Frances Mann, USFWS; John McClellan, Tyonek Native Corporation; Paul McLarnon, HDR; David Meyer, USGS; Jason Mouw, ADF&G; Douglas Mutter, DOI; Phillip North, EPA; Mike O’Meara, Cook Inlet Keeper; Doug Ott, AIDEA; Steve Padula, LVA; Paul Park, GVEA; Leroy Phillips, US ACOE; Donna Email updating the recipients about new additions to the Chakachamna Project website. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 6-7 July 2009 Affiliation/ Party Date To Description Robertson, HDR Eric Yould (Maxine Blake), TDX Power January 12, 2009 Sue Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS; Ann Rappaport, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); Ann Wilde, Alaska Regulatory Commission; Bob Dach, DOI; Bob Shavelson, Cook Inlet Keeper; Cassie Thomas, NPS; Charles Ahlrichs, MWH; Chuck Akers, Tyonek Corporation, AK Division; Cynthia Bohn, DOI; Douglas Mutter, DOI; Gary Prokosh, ADNR; Gary Williams, Kenai Peninsula Borough; Jan Konigsberg, Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition; Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; Joe Balash, Office of the Governor; John McClellan, Tyonek Native Corporation; Johni Blankenship, County of Kenai Peninsula; Kenneth Lord, DOI; Mike O'Meara, Cook Inlet Keeper; Page Spencer, NPS; Philip Brna, USFWS; Thomas Meyer, NOAA/NMFS; Toby Smith, Alaska Center for the Environment; Tom Melius, USDA Email/letter requesting a written response regarding the use of the TLP for the licensing of the Project for TDX to provide to FERC to justify its request to use the TLP. Sally Morsell, NES January 16, 2009 Susan Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS; Phil Brna, USFWS; Gary Prokosch, ADNR; Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; Cassie Thomas, NPS; Serena Sweet, US ACOE; Finlay Anderson, LVA; John Morsell, NES Email requesting availability for the week of February 16 for a Chakachamna Project meeting to discuss the draft conceptual study plans for 2009. Philip Brna, USFWS January 16, 2009 John Morsell, NES; Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; Doug Limpinsel, NOAA/NMFS Email providing a discussion regarding study objectives. Eric Yould (Maxine Blake), TDX Power January 20, 2009 Betsy McCracken, ADF&G; Susan Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS; Bob Day, Homer Electric Association; Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; Chuck Akers, Tyonek Corporation, AK Division; Finlay Anderson, LVA; Steve Padula, LVA; Joyce Brooks, LVA; Randall Filbert, LVA; Joe Balash, Office of the Governor; Robin Beebee, HDR; Phil Brna, USFWS; James Brady, HDR; Brian Carey, AEA, AIDEA; Jennifer Curtis, EPA; Michael Daigneault, ADF&G; Kevin Dunham, Chugach Electric Association; Mark Fouts, Chugach Electric Association; Steve Gilbert, Enxco; Scott Houk, ADNR; SaraEllen Hutchison, Alaska Center for the Environment; James Keen, Alaska Regulatory Commission; Allen Kemplen, ADOT; Kim Klein, ADF&G; Tim Leach, MEA Ratepayers Alliance; Adele Lee, ADNR; Kenneth Lord, DOI; Anne Legget, HDR; Frances Mann, USFWS; John McClellan, Tyonek Native Corporation; Paul McLarnon, HDR; David Meyer, USGS; Jason Mouw, ADF&G; Douglas Mutter, DOI; Phillip North, EPA; Doug Ott, AIDEA; Mike O’Meara, Cook Inlet Keeper; Page Spencer, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve; Paul Park, GVEA; Leroy Phillips, US ACOE; Donna Robertson, HDR; David Rutz, ADF&G; Toby Smith, Alaska Center Email transmitting a preliminary list of studies, objectives, and key tasks for review; and requesting that recipients hold February 19 for a meeting to discuss the proposed 2009 effort. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 6-8 July 2009 Affiliation/ Party Date To Description for the Environment; Cassie Thomas, NPS; Jim Thrall, TDX Power; Jim Walker, Matanuska Electric Association; Michael Walton, ADNR; Rich Wilson, ADNR; Brad Zubeck, Homer Electric Association; Patricia Bettis, ADNR; Dan Chay; Gary Williams, Kenai Peninsula Borough; Edward Weiss, ADF&G; Gary Prokosch, ADNR; Thomas Cappiello, ADF&G; Jan Konigsberg, Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition; Dudley Reiser, R2 Resource Consultants; Thomas Meyer, NOAA/NMFS; Lawrence Peltz, NOAA/NMFS; Bob Shavelson, Cook Inlet Keeper; Bob Dach, DOI; Johni Blankenship, County of Kenai Peninsula; Ann Wilde, Alaska Regulatory Commission; Doug Parkinson, Douglas Parkinson and Associates; Gene Sandone, R2 Resource Consultants; Heather Williams, MWH; Sue Sander, URS; Chris Lausten, McGraw-Hill Construction Dodge; Melinda O’Donnell, ADNR - ACMP; Nolan Adams; John Dunker, ADNR; Jeff Pietz, PCL Construction; Dan Young, NPS; Debby Burwen, ADF&G; Samuel Ivey, ADF&G; Sean Palmer, ADEC; Anna-Maria Mueller, Aquacoustics, Inc.; Brian Yanity, WHPacific; Kirby Gilbert, MWH; Johanna Thompson, Lachel Felice & Associates; Ray Kreig, Chugach Consumers; Jeffrey Corton; Kevin Schneider, Barnard Construction Company Inc; Kate Miller, Trout Unlimited Betsy McCracken, ADF&G January 23, 2009 Eric Yould, TDX Power; John Morsell, NES; Jason Mouw, ADF&G; Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; Thomas Cappiello, ADF&G; Kim Klein, ADF&G; Scott Maclean, ADF&G; David Rutz, ADF&G Email providing recommendations pertaining to aquatic non-game species of concern identified in Alaska’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2006). Maxine Blake, TDX Power February 5, 2009 Phil Brna, USFWS; Brian Carey, AEA, AIDEA; Jennifer Curtis, EPA; Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; Kim Klein, ADF&G; Adele Lee, ADNR; Jason Mouw, ADF&G; Doug Ott, AIDEA; Gary Prokosch, ADNR; David Rutz, ADF&G; Cassie Thomas, NPS; Susan Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS; Michael Walton, ADNR; Finlay Anderson, LVA; Nick Goodman, TDX Power; Eric Yould, TDX Power Email providing an agenda for the Study Plan Meeting scheduled for February 19, 2009. Eric Yould (Maxine Blake), TDX Power February 16, 2009 Phil Brna, USFWS; Brian Carey, AEA, AIDEA; Jennifer Curtis, EPA; Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; Kim Klein, ADF&G; Jan Konigsberg, Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition; Adele Lee, ADNR; Betsy McCracken, ADF&G; Doug Ott, AIDEA; Gary Prokosch, ADNR; Cassie Thomas, NPS; Michael Walton, ADNR; Susan Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS Email providing a draft 2009 Conceptual Study Plan for the proposed Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project for discussion at the February 19 meeting. February Meeting attendees included: Meeting held to discuss the PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 6-9 July 2009 Affiliation/ Party Date To Description 19, 2009 Finlay Anderson, LVA; Philip Brna, USFWS; Brian Carey, AEA, AIDEA; Jennifer Curtis, EPA; Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; Kimberly Klein, ADF&G; Jan Konigsberg, Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition; Anne Leggett, HDR; Betsy McCracken, ADF&G; Jason Mouw, ADF&G; Doug Ott, AIDEA; Gary Prokosch, ADNR; Donna Robertson, HDR; Dave Rutz, ADF&G; Page Spencer, NPS; Sue Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS; Michael Walton, ADNR; Sally Morsell, NES; John Morsell, NES; Jim Thrall, TDX Power; Erin Cunningham, HDR; Sam Ivey, ADF&G; Debby Burwen, ADF&G; Scott Prevatte, HDR; Heidi Weigner, HDR; James Brady, HDR; Eric Yould, TDX Power draft 2009 Conceptual Study Plan for the Chakachamna Project. Susan Walker, NOAA Fisheries/ NMFS February 26, 2009 Finlay Anderson, LVA; Heather Blough, NOAA/NMFS; Thomas Meyer, NOAA/NMFS; Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; Phil Brna, USFWS; Cassie Thomas, NPS; Kim Klein, ADF&G; Eric Yould, TDX Power; John Morsell, NES; James Brady, HDR; Page Spencer, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve; Brian Carey, AEA, AIDEA; Larry Swenson, NOAA/NMFS; John Williams, NOAA Fisheries Email providing a summary of verbal comments from February 19 meeting. Page Spencer, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve March 5, 2009 James Brady, HDR Email providing numbers for ice seasons on Chakachamna. Page Spencer, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve March 6, 2009 John Morsell, NES; James Brady, HDR; Dan Young, NPS; Joel Hard, NPS Email providing comments on the Draft Conceptual Study Plans. Jim Ferguson, ADF&G March 6, 2009 James Brady, HDR; John Morsell, NES; Betsy McCracken, ADF&G; Susan Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS; Finlay Anderson, LVA; Robin Beebee, HDR; Phil Brna, USFWS; Brian Carey, AEA, AIDEA; Jennifer Curtis, EPA; Michael Daigneault, ADF&G; Anne Legget, HDR; Paul McLarnon, HDR; Scott Houk, ADNR; SaraEllen Hutchison, Alaska Center for the Environment; James Keen, Alaska Regulatory Commission; Allen Kemplen, ADOT; Kim Klein, ADF&G; Gary Williams, Kenai Peninsula Borough; Page Spencer, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve; Tim Leach, MEA Ratepayers Alliance; Adele Lee, ADNR; Kenneth Lord, DOI; Frances Mann, USFWS; David Meyer, USGS; Jason Mouw, ADF&G; John McClellan, Tyonek Native Corporation; Phillip North, EPA; Doug Ott, AIDEA; Leroy Phillips, US ACOE; David Rutz, ADF&G; Steve Padula, LVA; Email providing comments on the draft conceptual study plan for the Chakachamna Project. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 6-10 July 2009 Affiliation/ Party Date To Description Leroy Phillips, US ACOE; Donna Robertson, HDR; Toby Smith, Alaska Center for the Environment; Cassie Thomas, NPS; Jim Thrall, TDX Power; Michael Walton, ADNR; Patricia Bettis, ADNR; Edward Weiss, ADF&G; Dan Chay; Thomas Meyer, NOAA/NMFS; Jan Konigsberg, Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition; Gary Prokosch, ADNR; Thomas Cappiello, ADF&G; Douglas Mutter, DOI; Debby Burwen, ADF&G; Samuel Ivey, ADF&G; James Hasbrouck, ADF&G; Tom Vania, ADF&G; Jack Erickson, ADF&G; Joseph Klein, ADF&G; Kate Troll, Alaska Conservation Alliance; Tom Papsidero, FERC Michael Walton, ADNR March 6, 2009 John Morsell, NES; James Brady, HDR; Gary Prokosch, ADNR Email providing comments on the Chakachamna Project 2009 Conceptual Study Plans. Eric Yould (Maxine Blake), TDX Power March 12, 2009 Ann Wilde, Alaska Regulatory Commission; Chuck Akers, Tyonek Corporation, AK Division; Cassie Thomas, NPS; Douglas Mutter, DOI; Gary Prokosch, ADNR; Gary Williams, Kenai Peninsula Borough; Jan Konigsberg, Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition; Johni Blankenship, County of Kenai Peninsula; Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; John McClellan, Tyonek Native Corporation; Joe Balash, Office of the Governor; Bob Shavelson, Cook Inlet Keeper; Kenneth Lord, DOI; Mike O’Meara, Cook Inlet Keeper; Page Spencer, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve; Phil Brna, USFWS; Bob Dach, DOI; Susan Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS; Toby Smith, Alaska Center for the Environment; Thomas Meyer, NOAA/NMFS Email providing a memo from Eric Yould inviting recipients to participate in a discussion on March 31, 2009 about the proposed FERC licensing process for the Chakachamna Hydropower Project. Elizabeth Grover, HDR March 13, 2009 Stephanie Ludwig, ADNR, Office of History and Archaeology, Review and Compliance Telephone record of call with Stephanie Ludwig (ADNR, Office of History and Archaeology, Review and Compliance) for information in completing the cultural resource sections in the CPQ. Maxine Blake, TDX Power March 20, 2009 Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; Phil Brna, USFWS; Jan Konigsberg, Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition; Cassie Thomas, NPS; Kim Klein, ADF&G; Page Spencer, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve; Brian Carey, AEA, AIDEA; Gary Prokosch, ADNR; Jennifer Curtis, EPA; Ann Wilde, Alaska Regulatory Commission; Chuck Akers, Tyonek Corporation, AK Division; Douglas Mutter, DOI; Gary Williams, Kenai Peninsula Borough; Johni Blankenship, County of Kenai Peninsula; John McClellan, Tyonek Native Corporation; Joe Balash, Office of the Governor; Bob Shavelson, Cook Inlet Keeper; Kenneth Lord, DOI; Mike O’Meara, Cook Inlet Keeper; Bob Dach, DOI; Toby Smith, Alaska Email rescheduling the March 31, 2009 meeting to discuss the proposed FERC licensing process for the Chakachamna Project to April 10, 2009. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 6-11 July 2009 Affiliation/ Party Date To Description Center for the Environment; Thomas Meyer, NOAA/NMFS; Finlay Anderson, LVA; Jim Thrall, TDX Power; Eric Yould, TDX Power; Nick Goodman, TDX Power; Steve Padula, LVA Jim Ferguson, ADF&G March 25, 2009 Finlay Anderson, Long View Associates Email requesting a summary at the April 10 meeting showing how a “modified” TLP differs from a traditional TLP. Jim Ferguson, ADF&G March 31, 2009 James Brady, HDR; John Morsell, NES; Betsy McCracken, ADF&G; Susan Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS; Finlay Anderson, LVA; Robin Beebee, HDR; Phil Brna, USFWS; Brian Carey, AEA, AIDEA; Jennifer Curtis, EPA; Michael Daigneault, ADF&G; Anne Legget, HDR; Paul McLarnon, HDR; Scott Houk, ADNR; SaraEllen Hutchison, Alaska Center for the Environment; James Keen, Alaska Regulatory Commission; Allen Kemplen, ADOT; Kim Klein, ADF&G; Gary Williams, Kenai Peninsula Borough; Page Spencer, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve; Tim Leach, MEA Ratepayers Alliance; Adele Lee, ADNR; Kenneth Lord, DOI; Frances Mann, USFWS; David Meyer, USGS; Jason Mouw, ADF&G; John McClellan, Tyonek Native Corporation; Phillip North, EPA; Doug Ott, AIDEA; David Rutz, ADF&G; Steve Padula, LVA; Leroy Phillips, US ACOE; Donna Robertson, HDR; Toby Smith, Alaska Center for the Environment; Cassie Thomas, NPS; Jim Thrall, TDX Power; Michael Walton, ADNR; Patricia Bettis, ADNR; Edward Weiss, ADF&G; Dan Chay; Thomas Meyer, NOAA/NMFS; Jan Konigsberg, Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition; Gary Prokosch, ADNR; Thomas Cappiello, ADF&G; Douglas Mutter, DOI; Debby Burwen, ADF&G; Samuel Ivey, ADF&G; James Hasbrouck, ADF&G; Tom Vania, ADF&G; Jack Erickson, ADF&G; Joseph Klein, ADF&G; Kate Troll, Alaska Conservation Alliance; Tom Papsidero, FERC; Robert Clark, ADF&G; Eric Yould, TDX Power Email providing a slightly modified version (correcting an error) of the comments that were submitted on March 6. Finlay Anderson, LVA (Maxine Blake, TDX Power) April 8, 2009 Betsy McCracken, ADF&G; Susan Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS; Bob Day, Homer Electric Association; Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; Chuck Akers, Tyonek Corporation, AK Division; Finlay Anderson, LVA; Joe Balash, Office of the Governor; Robin Beebee, HDR; Phil Brna, USFWS; Brian Carey, AEA, AIDEA; Jennifer Curtis, EPA; Michael Daigneault, ADF&G; Kevin Dunham, Chugach Electric Association; Paul McLarnon, HDR; Steve Gilbert, Enxco; Scott Houk, ADNR; SaraEllen Hutchison, Alaska Center for the Environment; James Keen, Alaska Regulatory Commission; Allen Kemplen, ADOT; Kim Klein, ADF&G; Gary Email providing web link for a detailed draft of the study plan for the 2009 Chakachamna Environmental Studies Program that incorporates the comments and suggestions received to date. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 6-12 July 2009 Affiliation/ Party Date To Description Williams, Kenai Peninsula Borough; Page Spencer, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve; Tim Leach, MEA Ratepayers Alliance; Adele Lee, ADNR; Anne Legget, HDR; Kenneth Lord, DOI; Frances Mann, USFWS; John McClellan, Tyonek Native Corporation; David Meyer, USGS; Jason Mouw, ADF&G; Phillip North, EPA; Doug Ott, AIDEA; Steve Padula, LVA; Paul Park, GVEA; Leroy Phillips, US ACOE; Donna Robertson, HDR; David Rutz, ADF&G; Toby Smith, Alaska Center for the Environment; Cassie Thomas, NPS; Jim Thrall, TDX Power; Jim Walker, Matanuska Electric Association; Michael Walton, ADNR; Rich Wilson, ADNR; Brad Zubeck, Homer Electric Association; Patricia Bettis, NPS; Dan Chay; Edward Weiss, ADF&G; Jan Konigsberg, Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition; Gary Prokosch, ADNR; Thomas Cappiello, ADF&G; Dudley Reiser, R2 Resource Consultants; Thomas Meyer, NOAA/NMFS; Lawrence Peltz, NOAA/NMFS; Bob Shavelson, Cook Inlet Keeper; Douglas Mutter, DOI; Bob Dach, DOI; Johni Blankenship, County of Kenai Peninsula; Ann Wilde, Alaska Regulatory Commission; Doug Parkinson, Douglas Parkinson and Associates; Heather Williams, MWH; Sue Sander, URS; Chris Lausten, McGraw-Hill Construction Dodge; Melinda O’Donnell, ADNR - ACMP; Nolan Adams; John Dunker, ADNR; Jeff Pietz, PCL Construction; Dan Young, NPS; Debby Burwen, ADF&G; Samuel Ivey, ADF&G; James Brady, HDR; Mark Fouts, Chugach Electric Association; Mike O’Meara, Cook Inlet Keeper; Anna-Maria Mueller, Aquacoustics, Inc.; Gene Sandone, R2 Resource Consultants; Sean Palmer, ADEC; Eric Yould, TDX Power; Nick Goodman, TDX Power Finlay Anderson, LVA April 9, 2009 Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; Jim Thrall, TDX Power; Eric Yould, TDX Power; Steve Padula, LVA; Randall Filbert, LVA; Joyce Brooks, LVA Email providing thoughts about process enhancements relative to TLP and providing a web link on FERC’s website for a matrix that describes the differences between the licensing processes. April 10, 2009 Meeting attendees included: Finlay Anderson, LVA; Philip Brna, USFWS; Brian Carey AEA, AIDEA; Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; Jan Konigsberg Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition; Scott Maclean, ADF&G; Megan Marie, ADF&G; Betsy McCracken, ADF&G; Tom Meyer, NOAA Fisheries (by phone); Karen O’leary, U.S. Forest Service (USFS); Doug Ott, AIDEA; Steve Padula, LVA; Bob Shavelson, Cook Inlet Keeper; Jim Thrall, TDX Power; Sue Walker, NOAA-Fisheries/NMFS (by phone); Michael Meeting held to discuss the selection of the FERC licensing process for the Chakachamna Project. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 6-13 July 2009 Affiliation/ Party Date To Description Walton, ADNR; Eric Yould, TDX Power Eric Yould (Maxine Blake), TDX Power April 24, 2009 Betsy McCracken, ADF&G; Susan Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS; Bob Day, Homer Electric Association; Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; Chuck Akers, Tyonek Corporation, AK Division; Finlay Anderson, LVA; Joe Balash, Office of the Governor; Robin Beebee, HDR; Phil Brna, USFWS; Brian Carey, AEA, AIDEA; Jennifer Curtis, EPA; Michael Daigneault, ADF&G; Kevin Dunham, Chugach Electric Association; Paul McLarnon, HDR; Steve Gilbert, Enxco; Scott Houk, ADNR; SaraEllen Hutchison, Alaska Center for the Environment; James Keen, Alaska Regulatory Commission; Allen Kemplen, ADOT; Kim Klein, ADF&G; Gary Williams, Kenai Peninsula Borough; Page Spencer, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve; Tim Leach, MEA Ratepayers Alliance; Adele Lee, ADNR; Anne Legget, HDR; Kenneth Lord, DOI; Frances Mann, USFWS; John McClellan, Tyonek Native Corporation; David Meyer, USGS; Jason Mouw, ADF&G; Phillip North, EPA; Doug Ott, AIDEA; Steve Padula, LVA; Paul Park, GVEA; Leroy Phillips, US ACOE; Donna Robertson, HDR; David Rutz, ADF&G; Toby Smith, Alaska Center for the Environment; Cassie Thomas, NPS; Jim Thrall, TDX Power; Jim Walker, Matanuska Electric Association; Michael Walton, ADNR; Rich Wilson, ADNR; Brad Zubeck, Homer Electric Association; Patricia Bettis, NPS; Dan Chay; Edward Weiss, ADF&G; Jan Konigsberg, Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition; Gary Prokosch, ADNR; Thomas Cappiello, ADF&G; Dudley Reiser, R2 Resource Consultants; Thomas Meyer, NOAA/NMFS; Lawrence Peltz, NOAA/NMFS; Bob Shavelson, Cook Inlet Keeper; Douglas Mutter, DOI; Bob Dach, DOI; Johni Blankenship, County of Kenai Peninsula; Ann Wilde, Alaska Regulatory Commission; Doug Parkinson, Douglas Parkinson and Associates; Heather Williams, MWH; Sue Sander, URS; Chris Lausten, McGraw-Hill Construction Dodge; Melinda O’Donnell, ADNR - ACMP; Nolan Adams; John Dunker, ADNR; Jeff Pietz, PCL Construction; Dan Young, NPS; Debby Burwen, ADF&G; Samuel Ivey, ADF&G; James Brady, HDR; Mark Fouts, Chugach Electric Association; Mike O’Meara, Cook Inlet Keeper; Anna-Maria Mueller, Aquacoustics, Inc.; Gene Sandone, R2 Resource Consultants; Sean Palmer, ADEC; Kirby Gilbert, MWH; Brian Yanity, WHPacific; Johanna Thompson, Lachel Felice & Associates; Randall Filbert, LVA; Joyce Brooks, LVA Email scheduling a conference call for May 12 as follow up to the April 10th discussion on the proposed FERC process and providing a memo from Eric Yould about the status of the Chakachamna Project Licensing and 2009 Field Effort. Eric Yould (Maxine Blake), May 5, 2009 Betsy McCracken, ADF&G; Susan Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS; Bob Day, Homer Electric Association; Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; Chuck Akers, Email scheduling a conference call for May 12 to discuss the draft PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 6-14 July 2009 Affiliation/ Party Date To Description TDX Power Tyonek Corporation, AK Division; Finlay Anderson, LVA; Joe Balash, Office of the Governor; Robin Beebee, HDR; Phil Brna, USFWS; Brian Carey, AEA, AIDEA; Jennifer Curtis, EPA; Michael Daigneault, ADF&G; Kevin Dunham, Chugach Electric Association; Paul McLarnon, HDR; Steve Gilbert, Enxco; Scott Houk, ADNR; SaraEllen Hutchison, Alaska Center for the Environment; James Keen, Alaska Regulatory Commission; Allen Kemplen, ADOT; Kim Klein, ADF&G; Gary Williams, Kenai Peninsula Borough; Page Spencer, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve; Tim Leach, MEA Ratepayers Alliance; Adele Lee, ADNR; Anne Legget, HDR; Kenneth Lord, DOI; Frances Mann, USFWS; John McClellan, Tyonek Native Corporation; David Meyer, USGS; Jason Mouw, ADF&G; Phillip North, EPA; Doug Ott, AIDEA; Steve Padula, LVA; Paul Park, GVEA; Leroy Phillips, US ACOE; Donna Robertson, HDR; David Rutz, ADF&G; Toby Smith, Alaska Center for the Environment; Cassie Thomas, NPS; Jim Thrall, TDX Power; Jim Walker, Matanuska Electric Association; Michael Walton, ADNR; Rich Wilson, ADNR; Brad Zubeck, Homer Electric Association; Patricia Bettis, NPS; Dan Chay; Edward Weiss, ADF&G; Jan Konigsberg, Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition; Gary Prokosch, ADNR; Thomas Cappiello, ADF&G; Dudley Reiser, R2 Resource Consultants; Thomas Meyer, NOAA/NMFS; Lawrence Peltz, NOAA/NMFS; Bob Shavelson, Cook Inlet Keeper; Douglas Mutter, DOI; Bob Dach, DOI; Johni Blankenship, County of Kenai Peninsula; Ann Wilde, Alaska Regulatory Commission; Doug Parkinson, Douglas Parkinson and Associates; Heather Williams, MWH; Sue Sander, URS; Chris Lausten, McGraw-Hill Construction Dodge; Melinda O’Donnell, ADNR - ACMP; Nolan Adams; John Dunker, ADNR; Jeff Pietz, PCL Construction; Dan Young, NPS; Debby Burwen, ADF&G; Samuel Ivey, ADF&G; James Brady, HDR; Mark Fouts, Chugach Electric Association; Mike O’Meara, Cook Inlet Keeper; Anna-Maria Mueller, Aquacoustics, Inc.; Gene Sandone, R2 Resource Consultants; Sean Palmer, ADEC; Randall Filbert, LVA; Joyce Brooks, LVA communications protocol and providing a summary of the April 10, 2009 meeting, a proposed Communications Protocol, and a memo summarizing the approach. May 12, 2009 Meeting attendees included: Philip Brna, USFWS; Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; Jan Konigsberg, Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition; Gary Prokosh, ADNR; Gary Kuhn, Matanuska Electric Association; Scott Maclean, ADF&G; Betsy McCracken, ADF&G; Joe Klein, ADF&G; Steve Padula, LVA; Jim Thrall, TDX; Sue Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS (by phone); Eric Yould, TDX; Finlay Anderson, LVA Conference call to discuss the draft communications protocol for the Chakachamna Project. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 6-15 July 2009 Affiliation/ Party Date To Description Eric Yould (Maxine Blake), TDX Power May 29, 2009 Betsy McCracken, ADF&G; Susan Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS; Bob Day, Homer Electric Association; Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; Chuck Akers, Tyonek Corporation, AK Division; Finlay Anderson, LVA; Joe Balash, Office of the Governor; Robin Beebee, HDR; James Brady, HDR; Phil Brna, USFWS; Brian Carey, AEA, AIDEA; Jennifer Curtis, EPA; Michael Daigneault, ADF&G; Kevin Dunham, Chugach Electric Association; Paul McLarnon, HDR; Steve Gilbert, Enxco; Scott Houk, ADNR; SaraEllen Hutchison, Alaska Center for the Environment; James Keen, Alaska Regulatory Commission; Allen Kemplen, ADOT; Kim Klein, ADF&G; Gary Williams, Kenai Peninsula Borough; Page Spencer, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve; Tim Leach, MEA Ratepayers Alliance; Adele Lee, ADNR; Anne Legget, HDR; Kenneth Lord, DOI; Frances Mann, USFWS; John McClellan, Tyonek Native Corporation; David Meyer, USGS; Jason Mouw, ADF&G; Phillip North, EPA; Doug Ott, AIDEA; Steve Padula, LVA; Paul Park, GVEA; Leroy Phillips, US ACOE; Donna Robertson, HDR; David Rutz, ADF&G; Toby Smith, Alaska Center for the Environment; Cassie Thomas, NPS; Jim Thrall, TDX Power; Jim Walker, Matanuska Electric Association; Michael Walton, ADNR; Rich Wilson, ADNR; Brad Zubeck, Homer Electric Association; Patricia Bettis, NPS; Edward Weiss, ADF&G; Jan Konigsberg, Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition; Gary Prokosch, ADNR; Thomas Cappiello, ADF&G; Dudley Reiser, R2 Resource Consultants; Thomas Meyer, NOAA/NMFS; Lawrence Peltz, NOAA/NMFS; Bob Shavelson, Cook Inlet Keeper; Douglas Mutter, DOI; Bob Dach, DOI; Johni Blankenship, County of Kenai Peninsula; Ann Wilde, Alaska Regulatory Commission; Doug Parkinson, Douglas Parkinson and Associates; Heather Williams, MWH; Sue Sander, URS; Chris Lausten, McGraw-Hill Construction Dodge; Melinda O’Donnell, ADNR - ACMP; Nolan Adams; John Dunker, ADNR; Jeff Pietz, PCL Construction; Dan Young, NPS; Debby Burwen, ADF&G; Samuel Ivey, ADF&G; Mark Fouts, Chugach Electric Association; Mike O’Meara, Cook Inlet Keeper; Anna-Maria Mueller, Aquacoustics, Inc.; Gene Sandone, R2 Resource Consultants; Sean Palmer, ADEC; Kirby Gilbert, MWH; Brian Yanity, WHPacific; Johanna Thompson, Lachel Felice & Associates; Dan Chay; Kate Miller, Trout Unlimited; Jeffrey Corton; Kevin Schneider, Barnard Construction Company Inc; Ray Kreig, Chugach Consumers; Randall Filbert, LVA; Joyce Brooks, LVA Email transmitting revised communications protocol for review and comment. Maxine June 11, Betsy McCracken, ADF&G; Susan Walker, NOAA Email informing recipients PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 6-16 July 2009 Affiliation/ Party Date To Description Blake, TDX Power 2009 Fisheries/NMFS; Bob Day, Homer Electric Association; Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; Chuck Akers, Tyonek Corporation, AK Division; Finlay Anderson, LVA; Joe Balash, Office of the Governor; Robin Beebee, HDR; James Brady, HDR; Phil Brna, USFWS; Brian Carey, AEA, AIDEA; Jennifer Curtis, EPA; Michael Daigneault, ADF&G; Kevin Dunham, Chugach Electric Association; Paul McLarnon, HDR; Steve Gilbert, Enxco; Scott Houk, ADNR; SaraEllen Hutchison, Alaska Center for the Environment; James Keen, Alaska Regulatory Commission; Allen Kemplen, ADOT; Kim Klein, ADF&G; Gary Williams, Kenai Peninsula Borough; Page Spencer, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve; Tim Leach, MEA Ratepayers Alliance; Adele Lee, ADNR; Anne Legget, HDR; Kenneth Lord, DOI; Frances Mann, USFWS; John McClellan, Tyonek Native Corporation; David Meyer, USGS; Jason Mouw, ADF&G; Phillip North, EPA; Doug Ott, AIDEA; Steve Padula, LVA; Paul Park, GVEA; Leroy Phillips, US ACOE; Donna Robertson, HDR; David Rutz, ADF&G; Toby Smith, Alaska Center for the Environment; Cassie Thomas, NPS; Jim Thrall, TDX Power; Jim Walker, Matanuska Electric Association; Michael Walton, ADNR; Rich Wilson, ADNR; Brad Zubeck, Homer Electric Association; Patricia Bettis, NPS; Edward Weiss, ADF&G; Jan Konigsberg, Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition; Gary Prokosch, ADNR; Thomas Cappiello, ADF&G; Dudley Reiser, R2 Resource Consultants; Thomas Meyer, NOAA/NMFS; Lawrence Peltz, NOAA/NMFS; Bob Shavelson, Cook Inlet Keeper; Douglas Mutter, DOI; Bob Dach, DOI; Johni Blankenship, County of Kenai Peninsula; Ann Wilde, Alaska Regulatory Commission; Doug Parkinson, Douglas Parkinson and Associates; Heather Williams, MWH; Sue Sander, URS; Chris Lausten, McGraw-Hill Construction Dodge; Melinda O’Donnell, ADNR - ACMP; Nolan Adams; John Dunker, ADNR; Jeff Pietz, PCL Construction; Dan Young, NPS; Debby Burwen, ADF&G; Samuel Ivey, ADF&G; Mark Fouts, Chugach Electric Association; Mike O’Meara, Cook Inlet Keeper; Anna-Maria Mueller, Aquacoustics, Inc.; Gene Sandone, R2 Resource Consultants; Sean Palmer, ADEC; Kirby Gilbert, MWH; Brian Yanity, WHPacific; Johanna Thompson, Lachel Felice & Associates; Dan Chay; Kate Miller, Trout Unlimited; Jeffrey Corton; Kevin Schneider, Barnard Construction Company Inc; Ray Kreig, Chugach Consumers; Andrea Drury; Thomas Kerns; Kevin Kleweno, Alaska Regulatory Commission; Tom Melius, USDA; Ann Rappaport, USDA; Cynthia Bohn, DOI; Governor Sarah Palin, State of Alaska; J. that TDX Power will be filing the Pre-Application Document (PAD) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to file an Application for Original License for the proposed Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project on FERC’s elibrary, posting the documents in the Documents section of the project licensing website (www.chakachamna- hydro.com/documents), and distributing CDs of the documents by mail for those who have provided a mailing address. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 6-17 July 2009 Affiliation/ Party Date To Description Charles Ahlrichs, MWH Melinda O’Donnell, ADNR - ACMP June 11, 2009 Maxine Blake, TDX Power Email inquiring which licensing process has been selected. Steve Padula, LVA June 11, 2009 Cassie Thomas, NPS; Susan Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS; Phil Brna, USFWS; Gary Prokosch, ADNR; Jim Ferguson, ADF&G Email indicating that TDX appreciates a concern raised about the strict deadlines with the elements of the ILP that TDX is proposing to incorporate into the TLP framework and to confirm that TDX is willing to do what it reasonably can to be flexible. Email also provided additional time for comments. Finlay Anderson, LVA June 12, 2009 Melinda O’Donnell, ADNR - ACMP; Maxine Blake, TDX Power; Eric Yould, TDX Power; Steve Padula, LVA; Joyce Brooks, LVA Email providing response to question about the licensing process and providing an email that explains the general approach that TDX Power is pursuing. Betsy McCracken, USFWS June 12, 2009 Eric Yould, TDX Power; Maxine Blake, TDX Power; Steve Padula, LVA; Douglas Mutter, DOI; Cassie Thomas, NPS; Susan Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS; Phil Brna, USFWS Email responding that the USFWS has no comment at this time in response to TDX’s request for comment on the revised draft communications protocol. Douglas Mutter, DOI Office of Environ- mental Policy and Compliance June 12, 2009 Betsy McCracken, USFWS; Cassie Thomas, NPS; Eric Yould, TDX Power; Maxine Blake, TDX Power; Steve Padula, LVA; Susan Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS; Phil Brna, USFWS Email responding concurrence with USFWS email dated 6/12/09. Cassie Thomas, NPS June 12, 2009 Douglas Mutter, DOI; Betsy McCracken, USFWS; Eric Yould, TDX Power; Maxine Blake, TDX Power; Steve Padula, LVA; Susan Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS; Phil Brna, USFWS Email responding concurrence with USFWS and DOI emails dated 6/12/09. Jim Ferguson, ADF&G June 15, 2009 Steve Padula, LVA; Cassie Thomas, NPS; Susan Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS; Phil Brna, USFWS; Gary Prokosch, ADNR; Eric Yould, TDX Power; Jan Konigsberg, Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition; Joseph Klein, ADF&G Email indicating that ADF&G is okay with the language in the draft communications protocol as proposed and requesting the cooperation of TDX to readily acknowledge that the scale and complexity of this project will, in some cases, necessitate allowing additional time beyond the ILP deadlines, in order to PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 6-18 July 2009 Affiliation/ Party Date To Description develop thorough and scientifically sound studies. Sally Morsell, NES June 17, 2009 Sharon Williford, Village of Salamatof Telephone record of call with Sharon Williford, Village of Salamatof, regarding the Chakachamna Project. Ms. Williford stated that the Project is outside their area and that the Village of Salamatof had no interest in the Project. Sally Morsell, NES June 18, 2009 Dennis Tiepelman, Tribal Administrator, Native Village of Tyonek Telephone record of call with Dennis Tiepelman, Tribal Administrator, Native Village of Tyonek, regarding the Chakachamna Project. The Native Village of Tyonek takes interest in the Project because of its proximity to the village and additional contacts for the village/tribe were provided. Sally Morsell, NES June 18, 2009 Dennis Tiepelman, Tribal Administrator, Native Village of Tyonek; Robert Stephan, Jr., Native Village of Tyonek; Angela Sandstol, Native Village of Tyonek; Finlay Anderson, LVA; Steve Padula, LVA; Randall Filbert, LVA; Joyce Brooks, LVA Email providing link to the Chakachamna Project website and contact information for Finlay Anderson who is coordinating the licensing process. Sally Morsell, NES June 18, 2009 Sasha Lindgren, Kenaitze Indian Tribe Telephone record of call with Sasha Lindgren, Kenaitze Indian Tribe, regarding the Chakachamna Project. The Tribe expressed interest in the Project. Sally Morsell, NES June 18, 2009 Sasha Lindgren, Kenaitze Indian Tribe; Finlay Anderson, LVA; Steve Padula, LVA Email providing link to the Chakachamna Project website and contact information for Finlay Anderson who is coordinating the licensing process. Sally Morsell, NES June 18, 2009 Curtis McQueen, Eklutna, Inc. (the native corporation for Elkutna Native Village) Telephone record of call with Curtis McQueen, Eklutna, Inc. (the native corporation for Elkutna Native Village) who indicated that the tribal interests of the Native Village of Eklutna should be confirmed with Maria Coleman. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 6-19 July 2009 Affiliation/ Party Date To Description Sally Morsell, NES June 18, 2009 Dorothy Cook, Native Village of Eklutna; Maria Coleman, Native Village of Eklutna; Finlay Anderson, LVA; Steve Padula, LVA; Randall Filbert, LVA; Joyce Brooks, LVA Email indicating that tribal consultation is being initiated for the Chakachamna Project and that the Native Village of Eklutna will be called on June 19 regarding whether or not the village has any interest in the project. Email also provided a link to the Chakachamna Project website. Sally Morsell, NES June 19, 2009 Dorothy Cook and Mark Lamoreaux, Eklutna Native Village Telephone record of call with Dorothy Cook, contact for Eklutna Native Village, and Mark Lamoreaux, Eklutna Native Village tribal lands person, who indicated that the project area was too far away for Eklutna to have an interest in the project but Eklutna would support Tyonek’s tribal interests. Sally Morsell, NES June 22, 2009 Debra Call, Knik Tribe Telephone record of call with Debra Call, Knik Tribal Council, who indicated that the Knik Tribe has an interest in the project and should remain on the list for consultation. Eric Yould, TDX Power July 14, 2009 Adele Lee, ADNR; Allen Kemplen, ADOT; Anna- Maria Mueller, Aquacoustics, Inc.; Ann Wilde, Alaska Regulatory Commission; Anne Legget, HDR; Brian Carey, AEA, AIDEA; Bob Day, Homer Electric Association; Betsy McCracken, ADF&G; Brian Yanity, WHPacific; Brad Zubeck, Homer Electric Association; Chuck Akers, Tyonek Corporation, AK Division; Cassie Thomas, NPS; Chris Lausten, McGraw-Hill Construction Dodge; Jeffrey Corton; Jennifer Curtis, EPA; Dan Young, NPS; Dan Chay; David Rutz, ADF&G; Debby Burwen, ADF&G; David Meyer, USGS; Donna Robertson, HDR; Doug Ott, AIDEA; Douglas Mutter, DOI; Dudley Reiser, R2 Resource Consultants; Edward Weiss, ADF&G; Frances Mann, USFWS; Gary Prokosch, ADNR; Gary Williams, Kenai Peninsula Borough; James Brady, HDR; Jan Konigsberg, Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition; Jason Mouw, ADF&G; Johni Blankenship, County of Kenai Peninsula; Jim Ferguson, ADF&G; Jim Walker, Matanuska Electric Association; John McClellan, Tyonek Native Corporation; Joe Balash, Email providing a memo which provides an update on plans for filing the PAD and NOI as well as providing new information on plans for initiating studies in 2010. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 6-20 July 2009 Affiliation/ Party Date To Description Office of the Governor; John Dunker, ADNR; James Keen, Alaska Regulatory Commission; Jim Thrall, TDX Power; Johanna Thompson, Lachel Felice & Associates; Kenneth Lord, DOI; Kevin Schneider, Barnard Construction Company Inc; Kevin Dunham, Chugach Electric Association; Kim Klein, ADF&G; Kate Miller, Trout Unlimited; Lawrence Peltz, NOAA/NMFS; Mark Fouts, Chugach Electric Association; Michael Daigneault, ADF&G; Michael Walton, ADNR; Melinda O’Donnell, ADNR - ACMP; Phillip North, EPA; Page Spencer, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve; Patricia Bettis, NPS; Phil Brna, USFWS; Jeff Pietz, PCL Construction; Paul Park, GVEA; Steve Gilbert, Enxco; Sue Sander, URS; Susan Walker, NOAA Fisheries/NMFS; Thomas Cappiello, ADF&G; Thomas Kerns; Toby Smith, Alaska Center for the Environment; Thomas Meyer, NOAA/NMFS; Rich Wilson, ADNR; Bob Dach, DOI; Samuel Ivey, ADF&G; SaraEllen Hutchison, Alaska Center for the Environment; Scott Houk, ADNR; Sean Palmer, ADEC; Steve Padula, LVA; Doug Parkinson, Douglas Parkinson and Associates; Ray Kreig, Chugach Consumers; Leroy Phillips, US ACOE; Gene Sandone, R2 Resource Consultants; Bob Shavelson, Cook Inlet Keeper; Mike O’Meara, Cook Inlet Keeper; Paul McLarnon, HDR; Tim Leach, MEA Ratepayers Alliance; Carl Gamble, International Union of Operating Engineers; Sasha Lindgren, Kenaitze Indian Tribe; Isaac Bertschi; Laura Frazer; Timothy Evans; Native Village of Eklutna; Grier Hopkins, Staff for Alaska State Senator; Dennis Tiepelman, Native Village of Tyonek; Robert Stephan, Jr., Native Village of Tyonek; Debra Call, Knik Tribal Council; Native Village of Tyonek Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 7-1 July 2009 7 REFERENCES ABOG. 2006. Notice of proposed changes in the regulations of the Alaska Board of Game. ABR. 2006. Chuitna Coal Project: Summary and Review of Previous Baseline Studies for Terrestrial Wildlife and Marine Birds. Prepared for Mine Engineers, Inc. and DRven Corp. on behalf of Pac Rim Coal LP. ABR. 2007. Chuitna Coal Project: Project-wide Wildlife Baseline Studies Report. Prepared for Mine Engineers, Inc. and DRven Corp. on behalf of Pac Rim Coal LP. ADF&G. 1994. Trading Bay State Game Refuge and Redoubt Bay Critical Habitat Area Management Plan. Prepared by Divisions of Habitat and Restoration and Wildlife Conservation. ADF&G. 2007. 2007-2008 Alaska bear and wolf control supplement. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. ADL. 2009. Sixty Day Notice of Intent to Sue for Violations of the Endangered Species Act; improperly determining endangered status for a Distinct Population Segment of the beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) found in Cook Inlet, Alaska. January 12, 2009. Alaska Department of Law. Juneau, Alaska. AKHNP. 2005. Harbor Seal. http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA). Website accessed April 2009. http://www.dced.state.ak.us Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 1994. Trading Bay State Game Refuge and Redoubt Bay Critical Habitat Area Management Plan. July 1994. Published online at http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=refuge.tradingbay. Accessed February 25, 2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2009. Division of Wildlife Conservation Refuges, Sanctuaries, and Critical Habitat Areas website. http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=refuge.tradingbay. Accessed February 25, 2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Trading Bay State Game Refuge and Redoubt Bay Critical Habitat Area Management Plan. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2008. Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing, or Migration of Anadromous Fishes. ADF&G, Division of Sport Fish. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 7-2 July 2009 Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Division of Mining, Land and Water, 2001. Kenai Area Plan. Published online at http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/planning/areaplans/. Accessed February 26, 2009. Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, 2004. Alaska’s Outdoor Legacy Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 2004-2009. July 2004. Published online at http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/plans/scorp/index.htm. Accessed February 27, 2009. Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 2009a. Alaska Land Records website. http://plats.landrecords.info/. Accessed February 23, 2009. Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 2009b. Division of Mining, Land and Water Commercial Recreation Day Use Registration website. http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/commrec/. Accessed February 26, 2009. Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 2009c. Division of Mining, Land and Water Navigability Program Navigable Waters Web Map website. http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/nav/. Accessed February 26, 2009. Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKHNP). 2000. Contingency Planning - Sensitive Areas, Rare Plant Species Map Series. Environment and Natural Resources Institute, University of Alaska Anchorage.http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu Bechtel, 1983. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Assessment Report, Vol. I, II, and IV. Bechtel Civil and Minerals Inc. Alaska Power Authority. Boudreau, T.A. 2005. Units 19ABC&D and 21A&E Caribou Management Peport. Pages 113- 125 in Caribou Management Report of Survey and Management Activities 1 July 2003 – 30 June 2004, edited by C. Brown. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 3.0. Juneau, Alaska. Burger, C., J. Finn, and L. Holland-Bartels, 1995. Pattern of shoreline spawning by sockeye salmon in a glacially turbid lake: evidence for subpopulation differentiation. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. Vol. 124: 1-15. Curran, Janet H., David F. Meyer, Gary D. Tasker. 2003. Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of Peak Streamflows for Ungaged Sites on Streams in Alaska and Conterminous Basin in Canada. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 03-4188. Curran, Janet H., David F. Meyer, Gary D. Tasker. 2003. Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of Peak Streamflows for Ungaged Sites on Streams in Alaska and Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 7-3 July 2009 Conterminous Basin in Canada. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 03-4188. Dames & Moore. 1983. Knik Arm Crossing Marine Biological Studies. Technical Memorandum No. 15. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and the Alaska Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities. Del Frate, G. G. 2003. Unit 16 Wolf Management Report. Pages 109-117 in, Wolf management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 1999–30 June 2002, edited by C. Brown. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. Del Frate, G. G. 2004. Unit 16B Moose Management Report. Pages 233–245, in Moose management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2001–30 June 2003. edited by C. Brown. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 1.0. Juneau, Alaska. Detterman, R. L., Hudson, T.; Plafker, Go, Tysdal, R. G., and Hoare, J. M., 1976b. Reconnaissance geologic map along the Bruin Bay and Lake Clark faults in Kenai and Tyonek quadrangles, Alaska: U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 76-477, 4 p., scale 1:250,000. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Diamond Chuitna Coal Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. Seattle, Washington. EPA, 2009. Chuitna Coal Project: SEIS Project Website. http://www.chuitnaseis.com Giles, G. C. 1967. Barrier Glacier Investigations and Observations in Connection with Waterpower Studies: U.S. Geological Survey, unpublished report, 61 p. Groves, D. 2008. Personal communication. Re: Trumpeter swan census data collected by USFWS in Trading Bay area. USFWS, Anchorage, Alaska. Habicht, C, W. Templin, T. Willette, L. Fair, S. Rayborn, and L. Seeb. 2007. Post-season Stock Composition Analysis of Upper Cook Inlet Sockeye Salmon Harvest, 2005-2007. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Manuscript No. 07-07. 82 pp. Hatch Energy. 2008. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project: Independent Engineering Review of Feasibility Study, Draft Report. March 4, 2008. HDR Alaska Inc. 2009. 2008 Field Reconnaissance Interim Summary Report. Prepared for: TDX Power, Anchorage, AK. January 2009. HDR Alaska. 2006. Chuitna Coal Project: Summary of Previous Studies for Vegetation. Prepared for: Mine Engineers, Inc. 3901 South Industrial Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82007. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 7-4 July 2009 HDR Alaska. 2007. Chuitna Coal Project: Baseline Report for Vegetation and Wetlands. Prepared for: Mine Engineers, Inc. 3901 South Industrial Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82007. HDR Alaska. 2007b. Chuitna Coal Project: Supplement to Baseline Report for Vegetation and Wetlands. Prepared for: Mine Engineers, Inc. 3901 South Industrial Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82007. HDR Alaska. 2008. Chakachamna Hydro Project: field reconnaissance interim summary report. Prepared for TDX, 4300 B Street, Suite 402, Anchorage, AK 99503. HDR Alaska. 2008. Field Reconnaissance Interim Summary Report. Prepared for: TDX Power, Anchorage, AK. HDR. 2006. Chuitna Coal Project: Summary of Previous Studies for Wetlands. Prepared for: Mine Engineers, Inc. 3901 South Industrial Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82007 Hunt, C. B. 1967. Physiography of the United States: W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 480 p Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007. Climate Change 2007. Published on-line at www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/ipc_report.htm. Accessed 02/26/09. Juhle, W., and Coulter, H. 1955. The Mount Spurr eruption, July 9, 1953: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 36, p. 199. Kavalok, T. 2005. Unit 16 Black Bear Management Report. Pages 195-208. In Black Bear Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2001–30 June 2004. Edited by C. Brown. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. Kavalok, T. 2007. Unit 16 brown bear management report. Pages 164-174 in Brown Bear Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2004–30 June 2006, edited by P. Harper. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. Published online at http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.mgt. Accessed March 1, 2009. Kavalok, T. 2004. Unit 16 Black Bear Management Report. Pages 195-208, in Black Bear Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2001–30 June 2004. Edited by C. Brown. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. Kavalok, T. 2004b. Unit 16 furbearer management report. Pages 193-212. In Black Bear Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities, 1 July 2000–30 June 2003, edited by C. Brown. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 7-5 July 2009 Kavalok, T. 2005. Unit 16 brown bear management report. Pages 157-168. In Brown Bear Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2002–30 June 2004. Edited by C. Brown. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 7.0. Juneau, Alaska. Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB). 2005. 2005 Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan. KPB Planning Department. Soldotna, Alaska. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program. 2008. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Zone Management Plan. June 2008. Published online at http://www.borough.kenai.ak.us/KenaiRiverCenter/Agencies/Coastal/CoastalProgram.ht m. Accessed February 23, 2009. Kenai Peninsula Borough. 2005. Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan. Published online at http://www.borough.kenai.ak.us/planningdept/default.htm. June 2005. Accessed February 23, 2009. Kenai Peninsula Borough. 2009. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program website. http://www.borough.kenai.ak.us/KenaiRiverCenter/Agencies/Coastal/CoastalProgram.ht m Accessed February 26, 2009. Kline, K.. 2008. Personal communication. Re: Available wildlife information for Trading Bay State Game Refuge. ADF&G, Anchorage, Alaska. Lamke, R. D. 1972. Floods of the Summer of 1971 in Southcentral Alaska: U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Alaska District, Open-File Report, p. 30-31. Lanier, H. 2008. Personal communication. Re: Small mammal surveys near Kenibuna and Chakachamna Lakes in summer 2008. for PhD. research Dept. of Biology, UAF. Fairbanks, Alaska. McCracken, B. W. 2007. Aquatic Resources Implementation Plan for Alaska’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, September 2006. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Div. of Sport Fish. Meyer, D.F., and Trabant, D.C. 1995. Lahars from the 1992 eruptions of Crater Peak, Mount Spurr volcano, Alaska. In the 1992 eruptions of Crater Peak Vent, Mount Spurr Volcano, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2139, p. 183–198. MOA. 2001. Anchorage 2020: Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan. Prepared by Planning Department, Municipality of Anchorage. Morrow, J. 1980. Freshwater Fishes of Alaska, Alaskan Norwest Publishing Company, Anchorage 248pp. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 7-6 July 2009 Morsell, J. 2000. Long Term Studies of Salmon in a Regulated Alaskan Stream. Proceedings of American Water Resources Association Spring Specialty Conference, May 1-3, 2000, Anchorage, Alaska: pp.197-202. Moulton, L.L. 1997. Early Marine Residence, Growth, and Feeding by Juvenile Salmon in Northern Cook Inlet, Alaska. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin 4(2):154-177. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game. Municipality of Anchorage (MOA). 2004. Website accessed April 2009. http://www.muni.org National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas). National Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau, Alaska. National Park Service (NPS). 2008. Strategic Plan for Lake Clark National Park and Preserve October 1, 2004 - September 30, 2008. 2008. National Park Service (NPS). 2009a. Lake Clark National Park and Preserve website. http://www.nps.gov/lacl/. Accessed February 23, 2009. National Park Service (NPS). 2009b. National Trails System website. http://www.nps.gov/nts/index.htm. Accessed February 23, 2009. National Park Service. 2008. Strategic Plan for Lake Clark National Park and Preserve (Ecological Overview). National Wild and Scenic Rivers. 2009. National Wild and Scenic Rivers website. http://www.rivers.gov. Accessed February 23, 2009. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007. Federal Register: Vol. 72, No. 76, April 20, 2007, Proposed Rules. Pages 19854 – 19862. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Endangered and Threatened Species; endangered Status for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale. Federal Register: Vol. 73, No. 205, October 22, 2008, Rules and Regulations. Pages 62919 – 62930. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. News release: Increase in beluga population noted with caution in NOAA survey of Cook Inlet. Dec. 18, 2007. (http://www.noaa.gov) NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Taking of the Cook Inlet, Alaska Beluga Whale Stock by Alaska Natives. Federal Register: Vol. 73, No. 200, October 15, 2008, Rules and Regulations. Pages 60976 – 60986. NPS (Lake Clark National Park). 2004. Strategic Plan for Lake Clark National Park and Preserve October 1, 2004 - September 30, 2008. (http://www.nps.gov/lacl/parkmgmt/ ) Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 7-7 July 2009 NPS (Lake Clark National Park). 2008. Lake Clark National Park and Preserve: 2008 Compendium. Revised 1/2/2008. (http://www.nps.gov/lacl/parkmgmt/ ) OASIS Environmental, Inc. 2006. Land Use Baseline Summary Report for the Chuitna Coal Project. Prepared for DRven Corporation, 711 H St., Suite 350, Anchorage, AK 99501 Peltier, T. 2006a. Unit 16B moose management report. Pages 225-238 in P. Harper, editor. Moose Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2003–30 June 2005. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 1.0. Juneau, Alaska. Published online at http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.mgt. Accessed March 1, 2009. Peltier, T. 2006b. Unit 16 wolf management report. Pages 109-117 in P. Harper, editor. Wolf Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2002–30 June 2005. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. Published online at http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.mgt. Accessed March 1, 2009. Peltier, T. 2007. Unit 16 Furbearer Management Report. Pages 177-196 in P. Harper, editor. Furbearer Management Report of Survey-Inventory Activities 1 July 2003–30 June 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. Published online at http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.mgt. Accessed March 1, 2009. Pentec Environmental. 2005. Marine Fish and Benthos Studies in Knik Arm, Anchorage, Alaska. Prepared for the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority and HDR Alaska. Pfister, R. D., B. L. Kovalchik, S. F. Arno, and R. C. Presby. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report, INT-34. Post, A. 1969. Distribution of Surging Glaciers in Western North America: Journal of Glaciology, v. 8, no. 53, p. 229-240. Post, A., and Mayo, L. R.. 1971. Glacier Dammed Lakes and Outburst Floods in Alaska: U. S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-455. Proposal 166, 2006. Update existing predator control implementation plan for Unit 16B [adopted by the Board of Game on January 25, 2006 as emergency regulations]. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Boards Support Section, Juneau. Shields, Pat. 2007. Upper Cook Inlet Commercial Fisheries Annual Management, 2007. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report, No. 07-64. 162 pp. Spencer, P. 2008. Personal communication. Re: wildlife and other environmental issues of concern in Lake Clark National Park. Lake Clark National Park & Preserve. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 7-8 July 2009 State of Alaska undated. What will Climate Change mean to Alaska? Alaska Climate Change Strategy. Published on-line at www.climatechange.alaska.gov/cc-ak.htm. Accessed 02/26/09. Sykes, L.R., 1971. Aftershock Zones of Great Earthquakes, Seismicity Gaps, and Earthquake Prediction for Alaska and the Aleutians: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 76, p. 8021–8041. Szepanski, M. M. 2005. Units 9B, 16B, 17B, 19B, and 19C Dall sheep management report. Pages 8-21 in C. Brown, editor. Dall Sheep Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2001–30 June 2004. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. Tarr, R. S., and Martin, L. 1912. The earthquakes at Yakutat Bay, Alaska in September 1899. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 69, 135 p. Thatcher, W., and Plafker, G. 1977. 1899 Yakutat Bay, Alaska Earthquakes: Seismograms and Crustal Deformation (Abs.): Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 9, p. 515. Tyonek Native Corporation (TNC). Website accessed April 2009. http://www.tyonek.com/lands.php U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009a. National Wilderness Preservation System website. http://alaska.fws.gove/nwr/visitor/wilderness.htm. Accessed February 23, 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009b. National Wildlife Refuge System website. http://www.fws.gov/refuges. Accessed February 23, 2009. U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System: Web Interface, USGS Monthly Statistics for the Nation and Peak Stream Flow for the Nation at USGS Station No. 15294500 Chakachatna River Near Tyonek Alaska. Published on-line at nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov. Accessed 02/19/09. U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System: Web Interface, USGS Monthly Statistics for the Nation and Peak Stream Flow for the Nation at USGS Station No. 15294500 Chakachatna River Near Tyonek Alaska. Published on-line at nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov. Accessed 02/19/09. USFWS 2008d; USFWS website: Endangered and Threatened Species. (http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=S00V) USFWS. 2000-2008. Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Listing Status web page. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 7-9 July 2009 USFWS. 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp. USFWS. 2007. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetlands Online Mapper. (http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html ) USFWS. 2008 b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form: Olive-sided flycatcher, Alaska specific review only, September 2008. (http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/pdf/OSFY_spp_assessment.pdf ) USFWS. 2008 c. USFWS website: Alaska Region Migratory Bird Management Overview. http://alaska.fws.gov/mbsp/mbm/landbirds/landbirds.htm ). USFWS. 2008. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: Endangered and Threatened Species. (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ ) USGS. 2008. National Water Information (NWIS). U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources. (http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis ) Viereck, L.A., Dyrness, C.T., Batten, A.R., and Wenzlick, K.J. 1992. The Alaska Vegetation Classification. USDA Forest Service. 278 pp. Waythomas, C.F. and C. Nye. 2002. Preliminary Volcano-Hazard Assessment for Mount Spurr Volcano, Alaska. US Geological Survey, Open File Report 01-482 Wesson, Robert L., Boyd, Oliver S., Mueller, Charles S., Bufe, Charles G., Frankel, Arthur D., Petersen, Mark D. 2007. Revision of time-Independent probabilistic seismic hazard maps for Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1043. Western Regional Climate Center. 2008. Big River Lake, Alaska (500788) and Port Alsworth, Alaska (507570), Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary online at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/mapak.html. Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1978. Offshore Alaska Seismic exposure study: Prepared for Alaska Subarctic operators' Committee (ASOC), March, 1978, v. 1 through 5. Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1980a. Seismicity Study Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project: Contract No. DACW 85-79-C-0045 Modification P0001, Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, 35 p. Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1980b. Interim Report on seismic Studies for Susitna Hydroelectric Project for Acres American Incorporated: Alaska Power Authority, Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Subtask 4.01 through 4.08. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 7-10 July 2009 Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1981. Draft Report Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project Design Earthquake Study: Contract No. DACW 85-79-C-0045 Modification 0005, Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, 53 p. 5 Woodward-Clyde Consultants.1979. Reconnaissance Geology, Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project: Contract No. DACW 85-79-C-0045, Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, 65 p. Clark, M.H. and C.L. Ping. 1997. Hydrology, morphology, and redox potentials in four soils of southcentral Alaska. p. 113-131. In M.J. Vepraskas and S.W. Sprecher (eds.), Aquic Conditions and Hydric Soils: The Problem Soils. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication No. 50, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. Clark, M. 2002. Soil Survey of Matanuska-Susitna Valley Area, Alaska. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Anchorage, AK. McDaniel, P.A., Huddleston, J.H., Ping, C.L., and S.L. McGeehan. 1997. Aquic conditions in Andisols of the Northwest USA. In M.J. Vepraskas and S.W. Sprecher (eds.), Aquic Conditions and Hydric Soils: The Problem Soils. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication no. 50, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. Ping, C.L. 2007. Guidebook for Alaska Soil Geography Field Study NRM-F489/689-F01. Soils affected by Permafrost. July 5-13, 2007. AFES-SNRAS, University of Alaska Fairbanks. USDA-NRCS. 1986. Soil Survey of Yentna Area, Alaska. Accessed Online June, 2009 [http://soils.usda.gov/survey/printed_surveys/state.asp?state=Alaska&abbr=AK]. USDA-NRCS. 2009. Web Soil Survey. Accessed Online June, 2009 [http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm]. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 June 2009 APPENDIX 2-1 PROPOSED COMMUNICATION PROTOCOL FOR TRADITIONAL LICENSING PROCESS Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 1 of 10 July, 2009 Proposed Communications Protocol For Licensing Consultation Activities For the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660) TDX Power, Inc. (TDX) is requesting FERC to authorize use of a traditional three-stage consultation process for the licensing of the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (Project), enhanced with additional process commitments and consultation opportunities. TDX initiated informal consultation with potentially interested parties with an outreach effort that began in 2007. Additional informal consultation regarding the proposed licensing process, and the need and goals for early field studies began in late 2008. TDX plans to initiate formal consultation with issuance of the Notice of Intent (NOI) and Preliminary Application Document (PAD) in June 2009. The TLP, if approved, will require a Joint Meeting with the agencies, Indian tribes and the public and will provide opportunities for the Participants to provide comments on the PAD and to make study requests. TDX believes that there are significant unique characteristics of the proposed Project that make strict adherence to the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) less than optimal. The proposed Project is a large (300 MW) new development in an area of Alaska with important natural resources but relatively little current resource information. Thus, a significant study program is envisioned to generate the information needed to support the development of a license application. It is anticipated that some elements of the study program could extend beyond the typical two year study timeframe envisioned in the ILP. Moreover, TDX Power is working to synchronize the development of the Project with a Regional Integrated Resources Plan (RIRP) process that has been initiated by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). The RIRP which will be a 50-year plan that will identify combinations of generation and transmission (G&T) capital improvement projects in the Railbelt Region of Alaska. TDX Power anticipates that the RIRP, currently scheduled for issuance near year end 2009, will influence the role of the Project in meeting future energy needs of the Railbelt. The ongoing RIRP process conducted by the AEA creates an environment where a phased approach, with multiple opportunities for stakeholders to provide input to environmental studies is most appropriate. TDX proposes that the formal study plan developed in support of the licensing process be conducted on two phases. The TLP provides additional flexibility over the ILP through provisions 18 CFR § 4.38(c)(1)(ii) and CFR § 4.38(c)(1)(iii) that expressly provide for continuing studies, under certain conditions, after submittal of the license application and after a license is issued. Given the complex nature of this Project area and the lack of existing information, TDX may elect to pursue such a post filing study program. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 2 of 10 July, 2009 During consultation regarding its desire to use the TLP, agencies and other stakeholders raised concerns regarding: Consequences of not doing early NEPA scoping, as would be done with the ILP; Ability to reach resolution on study plan disputes and the distinction between “advisory opinion” that is available through the TLP versus a formal study plan determination (ILP); Difficulty in developing an administrative record to which stakeholders could easily reference in future proceedings; Desirability/questions about the significance of early FERC staff involvement (available through ILP but uncertain for the TLP). To address these concerns TDX is proposing to enhance the TLP with specific provisions of the ILP; details in this regard are included below. TDX acknowledges that many of the strict deadlines, particularly with regard to study planning, report review, and modifications to the approved study plan may be difficult to meet. To the extent possible without jeopardizing the ability to effectively utilize available field time or the overall Project schedule, TDX is committed to working with agencies and other participants to identify opportunities to make adjustments to standard timeframes. This Communication Protocol (Protocol) is intended to facilitate communication and cooperation among TDX, federal and state agencies, and other interested organizations and parties (collectively, Participants) during the preparation of TDX’s Application for Original License for the Project. This Protocol is structured based on the assumption that FERC will approve the use of a modified Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) for the pre-filing consultation period for the Project. Given that the Project is a large new development in an area for which relatively little information exists, TDX believes that the TLP, as modified by the provisions outlined below, would be the most effective process for completing the necessary pre-filing work while providing for meaningful participation by agencies, other interested organizations and the public. Should the TLP not be approved for use, TDX will continue with consultation utilizing the default ILP and follow the applicable regulations. This Protocol will govern communications among all Participants and provide public access to information regarding the consultation activities related to the licensing of the Project. The Protocol also applies to communications made by contractors or consultants on behalf of TDX or any of the Participants. This Protocol does not apply to communications solely between Participants, or to any Participant’s internal communications. I. Participation in the Licensing Process The licensing process for the Project is open to the general public and interested parties are encouraged to participate. A contact list, compiled by TDX, will be maintained to identify those agencies, organizations, individuals or groups that have been identified as interested parties or who have requested to be included as Participants. The contact list will be used to provide notice of any public meetings, as well as notice of the availability of information for public review. The Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 3 of 10 July, 2009 contact list will be updated periodically by TDX and inactive Participants will be asked annually to re-affirm their interest in participating in the process. In response to concerns with the TLP identified by agencies and other interested parties, TDX proposes to supplement the TLP process with additional consultation steps to provide an enhanced level of engagement and transparency. As allowed under 18 CFR §4.38(e)(4), TDX is requesting as part of its proposal to utilize the TLP that the Commission approve the addition of the following ILP elements into the licensing process for the Project: - Early NEPA Scoping by FERC as described under 18 CFR §5.8; - Study Criteria under 18 CFR §5.9; - Study Plan Development (18 CFR §5.11); - Stakeholder comments on study plans and revised study plans (18 CFR §5.12 though 18 CFR §5.13); - Formal study dispute resolution process as described in 18 CFR §5.14; and - Initial Study Report (ISR) and Updated Study Reports (USR) pursuant to 18 CFR §5.15. A proposed process schedule that incorporates these elements of the ILP into the enhanced TLP for the Project is attached to this protocol. Early NEPA Scoping by Commission Staff As outlined in the ILP regulations at 18CFR5.8(b)(3)(vii), TDX requests that the Commission, as part of its notice of receipt of the Notice of Intent (NOI) and the Pre-Application Document (PAD), commencement of proceeding and its approval of TDX’s request to use the traditional licensing process as enhanced by the provisions identified herein, issue a statement with regard to its intent to prepare an environmental impact statement on the ultimate license application. TDX also requests that the Commission prepare and issue Scoping Document 1 concurrent with its notice. Study Criteria TDX requests that the Commission incorporate the study criteria identified in 18CFR5.9(b) into the licensing process for the Project and require that any information gathering and study requests meet these criteria. Study Plan Development TDX is proposing to develop the environmental study program in two distinct phases. Phase 1 will be drafted in 2009 for implementation in 2010 and will generate essential data (e.g., hydrologic, imagery, bathymetry) to design the balance of the environmental studies that will be initiated in 2011. This approach to the formal pre-filing consultation and study program, with effective opportunities for stakeholder input participation is not possible under the ILP. TDX requests that the Commission incorporate the requirements of 18CFR5.11 regarding the development of the two separate Proposed Study Plans (PSPs) and the conduct of study plan Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 4 of 10 July, 2009 meetings into the licensing process. This will require that TDX file its Phase 1 PSP (PSP-1) with the Commission within 45 days following the deadline for the filing of comments and study requests on the Pre-Application Document; and it’s Phase 2 PSP (PSP-2) within 1 year of the deadline for the filing of PSP-1. The PSP-1 and PSP-2 will meet the following specific requirements of 18CFR5.11(b), (c) and (d): - For each proposed study: o A detailed description of the study and the methodology to be used, o A schedule for conducting the study, o Provisions for periodic progress reports, including the manner and extent to which information will be shared and sufficient time for technical review of the analysis and results, and, o If TDX does not adopt a requested study, an explanation of why the request was not adopted, with reference to criteria set forth in 18CFR5.9(b) - Provisions for the Initial and Updated Study Reports (ISR and USR, respectively) and meetings provided for in 18CFR5.15 - For each proposed study: o Describe the goals and objectives, o Address any known resource management goals of the agencies or Indian tribes with jurisdiction over the resource to be studied, o Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study proposal and the need for additional information, o Explain any nexus between project operations and effects (direct, indirect and/or cumulative) on the resource to be studied, o Explain how any proposed methodology is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community or, as appropriate, considers any known tribal interests, and o Describe considerations of level of effort and cost, as applicable. - Provisions for conducting study plan meeting(s) during the 90-day period provided for in 18CFR5.12 for the purpose of clarifying TDX’s proposed study plan and any initial information gathering or study requests, and to resolve any outstanding issues with respect to the proposed study plan. - The initial study plan meeting must be held no later than 30 days after the deadline date for filing of the proposed study plan. In addition to the information described above for each study included in PSP-1, PSP-1 will identify anticipated studies to be included in PSP-2. Stakeholder Comments on Proposed Study Plans and Revised Study Plans Comments on PSP-1 and PSP-2, including any revised information or study requests, shall be filed within 90 days after each PSP is filed. Comments shall include an explanation of any study plan concerns and any accommodations reached with TDX regarding those concerns. Any proposed modifications to TDX’s PSP shall address the criteria in 18CFR5.9(b). Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 5 of 10 July, 2009 Within 30 days following the deadline for filing comments on PSP-1 and PSP-2, TDX will file Revised Study Plans (RSP-1 and RSP-2) for Commission approval. The RSPs will include comments received on the proposed study plan and a description of efforts made to resolve differences over study requests. If TDX does not adopt a requested study, it will explain why the request was not adopted, with reference to the criteria in 18CFR5.9(b). In the case of RSP-1, TDX will be clear in its commitment to detailing the balance of the study program in PSP-2. Within 15 days following filing of the RSP-1 and RSP-2, Participants may file comments thereon. Within 30 days following filing of each RSP, the Director of Energy Projects will issue a study plan determination, including any modifications determined to be necessary in light of the record. If no notice of study dispute is filed pursuant to 18CFR5.14 within 20 days of the study plan determination, the study plan as approved in the study plan determination will be deemed approved and TDX will proceed with the approved studies. Formal study dispute resolution process Within 20 days of the study plan determination, any Federal agency with authority to provide mandatory conditions on a license pursuant to FPA section 4(e), or to prescribe fishways pursuant to FPA section 18, or any agency or Indian tribe with authority to issue a water quality certification for the project license under section 401 of the Clean Water Act may file a notice of study dispute with respect to studies pertaining directly to the exercise of their authorities under sections 4(e) and 18 of the FPA or section 401 of the CWA. Any notice of study dispute shall explain how the disputing agency’s or Indian tribe’s study request satisfies the criteria set forth in 18CFR5.9(b), and shall identify and provide contact information for the panel member designated by the disputing agency or Indian tribe, as discussed in 18CFR5.14(d). TDX will request that the Commission follow the formal dispute resolution process as described in 18CFR5.14(d) – (l). Initial Study Report (ISR) and Updated Study Reports (USR) Pursuant to the Commission-approved study plan and schedule or no later than one year after Commission approval of the RSP-1 and RSP-2, whichever comes first, TDX will prepare and file with the Commission an ISR describing its overall progress in implementing the study plan and schedule and the data collected, including an explanation of any variance from the study plan and schedule. The report will also include any modifications to ongoing studies or new studies proposed by TDX. Given the nature of the anticipated study program as outlined in Section 5 and Appendix 5-1 of the PAD, the scopes of some studies, primarily related to impact assessment, will rely significantly on the results of other studies designed to generate basic existing resource information. TDX is committed to working with Participants to refine the scopes of such impact Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 6 of 10 July, 2009 assessment studies based on the new resource information that is generated, and documenting these refinements in the ISR. Within 15 days following the filing of the ISR, TDX will hold a meeting with Participants and Commission staff to discuss the study results and TDX’s and/or other Participants’ proposals, if any, to modify the study plan in light of progress of the study plan and data collected. Within 15 days of this meeting, TDX will file a meeting summary, including any modifications to ongoing studies or new studies proposed by TDX. Any Participant or the Commission staff may file a disagreement concerning TDX’s meeting summary within 30 days, setting forth the basis for the disagreement. Any disagreement filing shall include any modifications to ongoing studies or new studies proposed by the Commission staff or other participant. Responses to any disagreement filings shall be made within 30 days. No later than 30 days following the due date for responses, the Director will resolve the disagreement and amend the approved study plan as appropriate. If no Participant or Commission staff files a disagreement concerning the meeting summary or requests to amend the approved study plan within 30 days, any proposed amendment will be deemed to be approved. TDX requests that the Commission apply the criteria located in 18CFR5.15(d) and (e), with regard to requests to modify an approved study or for new studies. Pursuant to the Commission-approved study plan and schedule, or no later than two years after Commission approval of the study plan and schedule, whichever comes first, TDX will prepare and file with the Commission a USR that meets the requirements of 18CFR5.15(f). TDX acknowledges that due to the nature of some of the resource study efforts described in the PAD, and the proposal to pursue studies in two phases, that all study efforts needed to support the development of the license application will not be completed within two years of the initiation of the study program. TDX is committed to working with agencies and other Participants to generate sufficient information regarding project effects to support the license application without jeopardizing the overall project schedule. To that end, the USR will include any modifications to ongoing studies proposed by TDX based on consultation with Participants. Similar to the ISR, TDX will hold a meeting on the USR with Participants and Commission staff and prepare and file a meeting summary. Any Participant or the Commission staff may file a disagreement concerning TDX’s meeting summary within 30 days, setting forth the basis for the disagreement. Any disagreement filing shall include any modifications to ongoing studies or new studies proposed by the Commission staff or other Participant. Responses to any disagreement filings shall be made within 30 days. No later than 30 days following the due date for responses, the Director will resolve the disagreement and amend the approved study plan as appropriate. If no Participant or Commission staff files a disagreement concerning the meeting summary or requests to amend the approved study plan within 30 days, any proposed amendment will be deemed to be approved. TDX will repeat these process steps as necessary for any studies which extend beyond the end of the second year of the study program. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 7 of 10 July, 2009 TDX acknowledges that many of the strict deadlines outlined above, particularly with regard to study planning, report review, and modifications to the approved study plan may be difficult to meet. To the extent possible without jeopardizing the ability to effectively utilize available field time, TDX is committed working with agencies and other Participants to identify opportunities to make adjustments to these standard timeframes. Given that this effort will occur within a modified TLP, these decisions regarding adjustments to timeframes can be made by TDX in coordination with Participants. To the extent that any study efforts aimed at developing additional baseline information as the basis for long term monitoring of Project effects after construction continue past the filing of the License Application, TDX will work with the Commission to establish a process similar to that described above for continued Participant review of applicable study reports. II. Maintenance of the Public Reference File TDX has developed and will maintain a public reference file at TDX’s offices in Anchorage. The public reference file will include copies of all written correspondence (including e-mails), documentation of phone conversations, meeting notices, agendas and summaries, study plans, study reports, status reports, and other documents developed during consultation or submitted for inclusion in the public reference file. All documents in the public reference file will be submitted to FERC as part of the formal licensing record. TDX will also maintain a website ( www.chakachamna-hydro.com ) for access to key documents developed during the course of the licensing consultation, such as the PAD and NOI, meeting notices, meeting summaries, study plans and study reports. The licensing website will also have an information library that allows stakeholders to access relevant information that TDX has gathered through its due diligence process. For the duration of the licensing proceeding TDX will also make available to the public for inspection, in a form that is readily accessible, reviewable and reproducible during regular business hours, the PAD, materials referenced in the PAD and other information that will constitute the complete application for license, including all exhibits, appendices, and any amendments, pleadings, supplementary or additional information, or correspondence filed by TDX with the Commission n connection with the application. III. Meetings TDX shall be responsible for scheduling all consultation meetings involving TDX and Participants. For the meeting specified in 18 CFR Section 4.38(b)(3), TDX will provide the required notice in appropriate local and other forums. TDX will solicit input from Participants on meeting agendas and objectives and will seek to locate meetings to facilitate Participant attendance to most effectively accomplish those objectives. TDX will notify all Participants of meetings scheduled by TDX at least 30 days prior to the meeting date. This notification may be made in writing, via fax, via email, or by telephone Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 8 of 10 July, 2009 conversation. Under special circumstances, TDX may hold a meeting with less than 30 days notice. TDX shall establish the meeting agenda and will strive to provide a written meeting agenda to all Participants at least two weeks prior to a scheduled meeting. Participants may submit comments on the agenda to TDX up to one week before the scheduled meeting. TDX will incorporate any proposed changes to the agenda and will distribute a final agenda at the meeting. In addition, the agenda may be modified at the beginning of the meeting. TDX and all Participants will strive to make available all documents and other information necessary to prepare for a consultation meeting at least two weeks prior to the scheduled meeting. In the alternative, materials can be provided at the meeting. IV. Documentation All of the documentation requirements described below apply to substantive communications regarding the licensing of the Project; communications related to procedural matters (e.g., responding to inquiries regarding meeting scheduling) are not subject to the same documentation requirements. A. Meeting Summaries TDX will be primarily responsible for providing a written summary of the matters addressed at all meetings involving TDX and Participants. A draft meeting summary will be distributed to all meeting attendees within 15 days of the meeting. Any corrections to the draft meeting summary should be submitted to TDX within 15 days. TDX will finalize the meeting summary within 30 days after receiving corrections. If no corrections are submitted, the meeting summary will become final 30 days after the date of the meeting. Final meeting summaries will be posted on the licensing website. B. Oral Communications Any oral communication (i.e., telephone conversations) between TDX and any Participant regarding any substantive aspect of the Project licensing shall be documented in writing by TDX and included in the public reference file, with a copy provided to those participating in the oral communication. C. Technical Documents A variety of technical documents will be produced during the course of licensing consultation, including the Preliminary Application Document (PAD), study plans, study reports, and draft and final license applications. Whenever comments are solicited on documents, review periods will be established and communicated to Participants. Review periods will typically be 30 days, unless longer periods are required by FERC regulations (e.g., 90 day comment period on the draft application). Participants will endeavor to provide comments to TDX within the timeframes specified for comment periods. TDX will consider adjusting comment periods, making them Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 9 of 10 July, 2009 either longer or shorter, to better utilize available time within the course of pre-filing consultation, without jeopardizing the overall project schedule. Any such adjustments will be made with the concurrence of the Participants. D. Written Correspondence Any written correspondence (including e-mails) regarding the licensing of the Project between TDX and Participants will become part of the public reference file. All written correspondence should be sent to TDX at the following address: Eric Yould Chakachamna Lake Project Licensing Manager TDX Power, Inc. Ste 402 4300 B Street Anchorage, AK 99503-5946 e-mail: eyould@alaska.net With a copy sent to: Finlay Anderson Long View Associates, Inc. 4022 NE 8th Avenue Portland, OR 97212 email: fanderson@longviewassociates.com and Chakachamna@longviewassociates.com V. Distribution of Licensing Documentation Distribution of licensing documents will be accomplished primarily by email, except when TDX receives a request for hard-copy mailings. If a Participant does not provide TDX with an email address, or if a Participant has indicated a preference to receive hard-copy mailings, TDX will send paper documents through regular mail. A Participant may also request to receive a paper copy of any specific licensing document by contacting Maxine Blake, by phone at (907) 762- 8450 or by email at mblake@tdxpower.com In addition to distribution to all Participants, all licensing documents will be posted on the licensing website ( www.chakachamna-hydro.com ). Distribution of licensing documents (aside from brief letters, notices, etc.) will include a copy of the distribution list. VII. Revisions to the Communications Protocol This protocol may be revised at any time upon general agreement of TDX and the Participants. VIII. Duration of the Communication Protocol Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 10 of 10 July, 2009 This Communications Protocol will remain in effect until FERC notices that the License Application is accepted for filing. IDTask Name1Preliminary Permit2Preliminary Permit Effective Date3Expiration of first preliminary permit4Effective date of 2nd Prelimary Permit (estimated)5Expiration of 2nd preliminary permit (estimated)6Pre-Application Activity7Pre-PAD/NOI8Initiate informal consultation with agencies, non-governmental organizations9Initiate due diligence in identifying and aquiring existing, reasonably available, relevantinformation for PAD10Reconnaissance Surveys11Hold first stakeholder workshop: stakeholder outreach and project orientation12Hold second stakeholder workshop: Conceptual Study Plan (CSP) development13Hold third stakeholder workshop: licensing process discussion14Hold fourth stakeholder workshop: Communication Protocol discussion (conference call)15Distribute revised Communication Protocol for final comments16Applicant Issues NOI/PAD17Initial Tribal Consultation Meeting18Comments on use of TLP/ALP19Commission Notices PAD/Issues SD120Commission Holds Scoping Meeting & Site Visits21Comments on PAD, study requests22Phase 1 Study Planning23Applicant Files Proposed Phase One Preliminary Study Plan (PSP-1); SD2 (if necessary) 24Study Plan Meeting (PSP-1)25Comments on Proposed Phase One Study Plan26Applicant Files Revised Phase One Study Plan (RSP-1)27Agencies comments on RSP-128Commission Issues Study Plan Determination (Phase 1 Studies)29Notice of Dispute (from Mandatory Conditioning Agencies)30Study Plan Dispute Resolution Process31Final Study Plan Determination (for disputed studies)32Study Season 1 (Phase 1 Studies)11/110/304/13/311/34/15/297/168/168/168/2910/1912/33/44/55/58/3H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020TaskSplitProgressMilestoneSummaryProject SummaryExternal TasksExternal MilestoneDeadlineTDX PowerChakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No 12660)Communications Protocol Process ScheduleChakachamna Hydrolectric Project (FERC 21660)TDX Power, June 2009Project: Communications Protocol-SchDate: Wed 7/15/09 IDTask Name33Phase 2 Study Planning34Study Requests35Applicant Files Proposed Phase Two Prelimianry Study Plan (PSP-2); SD2 (if necessary)36Study Plan Meeting (PSP-2)37Comments on Proposed PSP-238Applicant Files Revised Phase One Study Plan (RSP-2)39Agencies comments on RSP-240Commission Issues Study Plan Determination (Phase 2 Studies)41Notice of Dispute (from Mandatory Conditioning Agencies)42Study Plan Dispute Resolution Process43Final Study Plan Determination (for disputed studies)44Study Season 2 45Phase 1 Studies Initial Study Report (ISR-1)46Study Season (2)47Phase 2 Studies Initial Study Report (ISR-2)48Updated Study Report (USR) - Phase 1 studies only49Study Season (3)50Draft License Application (DLA)51DLA Comments Due52Joint Meeting (tribes, resource agencies, public)53Development of post-filing study plan54Comments on post-filing study plan55Revised post-filing study plan56License Application (include BA and HPMP)57Post Filing Activities58EIS Preparation59Additional Studies (Geotechnical and Environmental)60License Issuance61Construct Project62Final Design/Engineering63Project Construction64Project Configuration and Testing65Firm Power Delivered10/1912/33/24/15/27/318/299/147/31H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020TaskSplitProgressMilestoneSummaryProject SummaryExternal TasksExternal MilestoneDeadlineTDX PowerChakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No 12660)Communications Protocol Process ScheduleChakachamna Hydrolectric Project (FERC 21660)TDX Power, June 2009Project: Communications Protocol-SchDate: Wed 7/15/09 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 June 2009 APPENDIX 4-1 SOIL TAXONOMY IN THE PROJECT VICINITY Yentna Soil Survey and Surrounding Areabuilding site developmentLandscape Classfrom surve composition Taxonomic class Position on landscape slopedpth to water table (in)erosion hazardequipment limitation shallow excavation surface dwellings local roadssoil reactionsubsidence total (in)potential frost actionRiver basins and floodplains211 Hewitt peat Terric Borohemists muskegs on floodplains 0 to 20 to 6 n/a n/asevere: excess humus, wetnesssevere: flooding, wetness, low strength severe: wetness, flooding, frost action 5.1‐7.3 10 to 15 high214Killey and Hiline silt loamsTypic Cryaquentsfloodplains and stream terraces0 to 20 to 18n/an/a severe: cutbanks cave, severe: flooding wetness severe: wetness, flooding, frost action4.5‐5.5n/ahigh229 Riverwash. n/a Floodplains of riversanyn/a n/a n/a242 Susitna‐Niklason silt loams Typic Cryofluvents floodplains, alluvial terraces, and natural levees 0 to 2 >72245Wasilla silt loamHumic Cryaqueptsfloodplains and alluvial terraces0 to 212 to 36n/an/a severe: wetness severe: flooding, wetness severe: flooding, frost action4.5‐5.5n/an/aTidal flats207 Clunie peat Terric Borofibrists tidal flats 0 to 2 (+)12 to 12 n/a n/asevere: cutbanks cave, excess humus, ponding severe: subsides, flooding, ponding severe: subsides, ponding, flooding 5.1‐7.3 n/a high209 Cryaquents, tidal Cryaquents tidal flats 0 to 20 to 6 n/a n/a severe: wetness severe: flooding, wetness severe: wetness, flooding, frost action 6.1‐7.3 n/a high203Chichantna peatEuic Fluvaquentic Borosapristsmuskegs and depressional areas0 to 80 to 6n/an/a severe: excess humus, severe: subsides, wetness, low severe: subsides, wetness, frost action5.1‐6.515‐20high216Kroto‐Strandline‐Cryorthents Andic Haplocryods‐Cryorthentsmoraines, hills, and mountain footslopes and 30 to 45>72severe severe severe: slope severe: slope severe: slope, frost action 3.6‐5.5n/ahigh217 Lucile silt loam Andic Cryoaquods stream terraces 0 to 218 to 30 n/a n/asevere: cutbanks cave, wetness moderate: wetness severe: frost action 4.5‐5.5 n/a high218 Nancy‐Kashwitna complexAndic Haplocryodsalluvial terraces 0 to 2 >72 slight moderate severe: cutbanks cave slight severe: frost action 3.6‐5.5 n/a high219 Nancy‐Kashwitna complexAndic Haplocryodsalluvial terraces 2 to 7 >72 slight moderate severe: cutbanks cave slight severe: frost action 3.6‐5.5 n/a high239Strandline‐Spenard‐Kroto Andic Haplocryodsmoraines and moutain footslopes1 to 12>72; 0 to 24moderate slight severe: slope and wetness severe: slope and wetness severe: slope, frost action 3.6‐6.6n/ahigh240Strandline‐Spenard‐Kroto Andic Haplocryodsmoraines and moutain footslopes2 to 30>72; 0 to 24moderate slight severe: slope and wetness severe: slope and wetness severe: slope, frost action 3.6‐6.6n/ahighAlluvial terraces, moraines, mo218 Nancy‐Kashwitna complexAndic Haplocryodsalluvial terraces 0 to 2 >72 slight moderate severe: cutbanks cave slight severe: frost action 3.6‐5.5 n/a high219 Nancy‐Kashwitna complexAndic Haplocryodsalluvial terraces 2 to 7 >72 slight moderate severe: cutbanks cave slight severe: frost action 3.6‐5.5 n/a high220 Nancy‐Kashwitna complexAndic Haplocryodsalluvial terraces 7 to 12 >72 slight moderate severe: cutbanks cave moderate: slope severe: frost action 3.6‐5.5 n/a high221 Nancy‐Kashwitna complexAndic Haplocryodsalluvial terraces 12 to 20>72 slight moderate severe: cutbanks cave severe: slope severe: frost action 3.6‐5.5 n/a high222 Nancy‐Kashwitna complexAndic Haplocryodsalluvial terraces 20 to 30>72 slight moderate severe: cutbanks cave severe: slope severe: frost action 3.6‐5.5 n/a high231 Salamatof peat Dysic Sphagnic Borofibrists muskegs 0 to 2 (+)12 to 6 n/a n/asevere: excess humus, pondingsevere: subsides, ponding, low strength severe: subsides, ponding, frost action <4.5 30 to 60 high236 Starichkof peat Dysic Fluvaquentic Borohemists muskegs 0 to 7 (+)12 to 6 n/a n/asevere: excess humus, pondingsevere: subsides, ponding, low strength severe: subsides, ponding, frost action 3.6‐5.0 20 to 26 high238Strandline‐Kroto‐Chichantna complexAndic Haplocryods‐Euic Fluvaquentic Borosaprists moraines and moutain footslopes 1 to 20 >72; 0 to 6 moderate moderate moderate: slope moderate: slope severe: frost action 3.6‐5.5 n/a high240Strandline‐Spenard‐Kroto complex Andic Haplocryods moraines and moutain footslopes 2 to 30 >72; 0 to 24 moderate slight severe: slope and wetness severe: slope and wetness severe: slope, frost action 3.6‐6.6 n/a highMountain slopes and surroundi226 Puntilla silt loam Andic Humicryods mountain side slopes7 to 20>72 n/a n/a moderate: slope moderate: slope severe: frost action 3.6‐5.5 n/a high227 Puntilla silt loam Andic Humicryods mountain side slopes20 to 30>72 n/a n/a severe: slope severe: slope severe: slope, frost action 3.6‐5.5 n/a high228 Puntilla silt loam Andic Humicryods mountain side slopes30 to 45 >72 n/a n/a severe: slope severe: slope severe: slope, frost action 3.6‐5.5 n/a high240Strandline‐Spenard‐Kroto Andic Haplocryodsmoraines and moutain footslopes2 to 30>72; 0 to 24moderate slight severe: slope and wetness severe: slope and wetness severe: slope, frost action 3.6‐6.6n/ahigh206 Chuit and Nakochna silt loams Andic Humicryods and Lithic Humicryods mountain sideslopes 3 to 30 >72 n/a n/a severe: slope; depth to rock severe: slope; depth to rock severe: slope, frost action, depth to rock 4.5‐5.5 n/a highMoraines and moutain footslop203 Chichantna peat Euic Fluvaquentic Borosaprists muskegs and depressional areas 0 to 80 to 6 n/a n/asevere: excess humus, wetnesssevere: subsides, wetness, low strength severe: subsides, wetness, frost action 5.1‐6.5 15‐20 high226 Puntilla silt loam Andic Humicryods mountain side slopes7 to 20>72 n/a n/a moderate: slope moderate: slope severe: frost action 3.6‐5.5 n/a high237Strandline‐Kroto complexAndic Haplocryodsmoraines and moutain footslopes20 to 45>72severe severe severe: slope severe: slope severe: slope, frost action 3.6‐5.5n/ahigh240Strandline‐Spenard‐Kroto complex Andic Haplocryods moraines and moutain footslopes 2 to 30 >72; 0 to 24 moderate slight severe: slope and wetness severe: slope and wetness severe: slope, frost action 3.6‐6.6 n/a highToeslope of eastern bluff208 Doroshin peatTerric Borohemistsmuskegs 0 to 5211 Hewitt peat Terric Borohemists muskegs on floodplains 0 to 20 to 6 n/a n/asevere: excess humus, wetnesssevere: flooding, wetness, low strength severe: wetness, flooding, frost action 5.1‐7.3 10 to 15 high214Killey and Hiline silt loamsTypic Cryaquentsfloodplains and stream terraces0 to 20 to 18n/an/a severe: cutbanks cave, severe: flooding wetness severe: wetness, flooding, frost action4.5‐5.5n/ahigh216Kroto‐Strandline‐Cryorthents complex Andic Haplocryods‐Cryorthentsmoraines, hills, and mountain footslopes and sideslopes 30 to 45 >72 severe severe severe: slope severe: slope severe: slope, frost action 3.6‐5.5 n/a high217 Lucile silt loam Andic Cryoaquods stream terraces 0 to 218 to 30 n/a n/asevere: cutbanks cave, wetness moderate: wetness severe: frost action 4.5‐5.5 n/a high231 Salamatof peat Dysic Sphagnic Borofibrists muskegs 0 to 2 (+)12 to 6 n/a n/asevere: excess humus, pondingsevere: subsides, ponding, low strength severe: subsides, ponding, frost action <4.5 30 to 60 high232 Schrock silt loam Entic Haplocryodsstream terraces 0 to 2 >72 severe: cutbanks cave severe: floodingsevere: frost action 3.6‐6.0 n/a high235 Spenard silt loam Andic Cryoaquods moraines, mountain footslopes, and side slopes 0 to 7242 Susitna‐Niklason silt loams Typic Cryofluvents floodplains, alluvial terraces, and natural levees 0 to 2 >72 slight slight severe: cutbanks cave severe: flooding severe: flooding 4.5‐6.0 n/a moderate244 Tyonek peat Euic Fluvaquentic Borosaprists toeslopes of moraines 0 to 20 to 6 n/a n/asevere: excess humus, wetnesssevere: wetness, low strength, subsides severe: wetness, frost action, subsides 3.6‐6.0 15 to 40 highupper reaches of the Lowlands 211 Hewitt peat Terric Borohemists muskegs on floodplains 0 to 20 to 6 n/a n/asevere: excess humus, wetnesssevere: flooding, wetness, low strength severe: wetness, flooding, frost action 5.1‐7.3 10 to 15 high217 Lucile silt loam Andic Cryoaquods stream terraces 0 to 218 to 30 n/a n/asevere: cutbanks cave, wetness moderate: wetness severe: frost action 4.5‐5.5 n/a high218 Nancy‐Kashwitna complexAndic Haplocryodsalluvial terraces 0 to 2 >72 slight moderate severe: cutbanks cave slight severe: frost action 3.6‐5.5 n/a high231 Salamatof peat Dysic Sphagnic Borofibrists muskegs 0 to 2 (+)12 to 6 n/a n/asevere: excess humus, pondingsevere: subsides, ponding, low strength severe: subsides, ponding, frost action <4.5 30 to 60 high236 Starichkof peat Dysic Fluvaquentic Borohemists muskegs 0 to 7 (+)12 to 6 n/a n/asevere: excess humus, pondingsevere: subsides, ponding, low strength severe: subsides, ponding, frost action 3.6‐5.0 20 to 26 highlower reaches of the Lowlands 202 Chedatna silt loam Andic Cryochrepts alluvial terraces 0 to 2 >60 slight slight severe: cutbanks cave severe: floodingmoderate: flooding, frost actionn/a n/a moderate211 Hewitt peat Terric Borohemists muskegs on floodplains 0 to 20 to 6 n/a n/asevere: excess humus, wetnesssevere: flooding, wetness, low strength severe: wetness, flooding, frost action 5.1‐7.3 10 to 15 high214Killey and Hiline silt loamsTypic Cryaquentsfloodplains and stream terraces0 to 20 to 18n/an/a severe: cutbanks cave, severe: flooding wetness severe: wetness, flooding, frost action4.5‐5.5n/ahigh217 Lucile silt loam Andic Cryoaquods stream terraces 0 to 218 to 30 n/a n/asevere: cutbanks cave, wetness moderate: wetness severe: frost action 4.5‐5.5 n/a high218 Nancy‐Kashwitna complexAndic Haplocryodsalluvial terraces 0 to 2 >72 slight moderate severe: cutbanks cave slight severe: frost action 3.6‐5.5 n/a high231 Salamatof peat Dysic Sphagnic Borofibrists muskegs 0 to 2 (+)12 to 6 n/a n/asevere: excess humus, pondingsevere: subsides, ponding, low strength severe: subsides, ponding, frost action <4.5 30 to 60 high236 Starichkof peat Dysic Fluvaquentic Borohemists muskegs 0 to 7 (+)12 to 6 n/a n/asevere: excess humus, pondingsevere: subsides, ponding, low strength severe: subsides, ponding, frost action 3.6‐5.0 20 to 26 highInclusions: muskegs, depressional, stream and alluvial terraces, moraines and mountain footslopes PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 June 2009 APPENDIX 4-2 APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF TDX POWER, INC April 16, 2009 Gary Prokosch, Chief Water Management Section Division of Mining, Land, & Water 550 W 7th Ave; Suite 900a Anchorage, AK 99501‐3579 Dear Mr. Prokosch: Attached please find: • an application for water rights for the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project; • an application for a state right‐of‐way to convey the water from Chakachamna Lake to the McArthur River, a portion of which traverses state land; • an application for a federal right‐of‐way to convey the water from Chakachamna Lake to the McArthur River, a portion of which traverses state‐selected federal land; • a Coastal Policy Questionnaire and Related Information The Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project has been investigated for more than 60 years. There is significant information on the project, including hydrologic information such as stream flow and fisheries information. Yet the information is mostly 20 years old and involves project design that, while generally accurate, may change as a result of ongoing investigation and study. TDX Power, Inc is in the early stages of environmental and engineering investigations to provide the information required to design the project in a manner that is economically feasible and provides appropriate protection to the environment. Over the next few years, we will be developing updated hydrologic and fisheries information, as well as new geotechnical and design information, all of which is important for the FERC licensing and water rights evaluations. 4300 B Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 907‐762‐8450 Fax 907‐278‐2332 The project is applying for a water right today, even though the best information to evaluate the water right will be developed over the next few years. We understand that the appropriate time to evaluate the application will be during the FERC licensing, permitting, and NEPA evaluation processes. It is important to bring all of the best information to bear on the subject, and to involve the public when the best information is available so that the appropriate balance can be achieved between clean, affordable, renewable energy for the railbelt, and appropriate protection for the environment. We understand that it would mislead the public to piecemeal the analysis by reviewing any water rights applications ahead of the comprehensive evaluation. We understand that the FERC process, NEPA evaluation, and other state and federal permitting requirements including Alaska’s water rights statutes are designed to work toward this balance, and we are confident that the information we provide over the next few years will help. Finally, this water rights application is for the highest instantaneous flow that the project could process: 7,200 CFS. This is the capacity that we envision for the power tunnel. We know that this flow rate cannot be sustained over weeks or months by the hydrology of the system. Ultimately, project optimization studies along with the comprehensive fisheries and in stream flow analyses done as part of the FERC evaluation will sort out the daily and monthly flows required to provide clean, affordable, renewable energy and appropriate hydrologic flows that protect the environment. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you need further information. Sincerely, Nick Goodman Chief Executive Officer Enclosures: 1) Water Rights Application 2) State Right‐of‐Way Application 3) Federal Right‐of‐Way Application 4) Coastal Policy Questionnaire and Related Information cc: Richard Thompson, Southcentral Regional Manager; Division of Mining, Land &Water Peter Boyer, Division of Coastal and Ocean Management Harrison Griffin, Realty Specialist; Anchorage Field Office; BLM 4300 B Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 907‐762‐8450 Fax 907‐278‐2332 Prinl ............................................... , OM&OOOF IoIINING U ~ MrlWA1ER WA TE R R ESOU RC ES SEC TIO N APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGH T , , • , • , • • • TI))(_. ''''' " .. to::! , ... >001 _to .. A pp lica ti o n for Water Ri ll hl --- ·2- ~G NAruRAL · , "RESOURCES APR 1 7 200g 'mx Po we r . Inc. Application for Water Right - 3 - TDX Power, Inc. PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS iii Cha kacha m na La ke Ap prox : S .M 13N 1 7W 18 " McArthur River ; Location approx . the same as Water Use ~ I , Lake ME THOD OF TAKlNG WATER (IF KNOWN) Pump Gravity Ditc h Res erv oir D.m Pump Intake Inches Pump Output GPM P ipe Diameter Inches Head Feet L H ---- L H L H 102·102 (Rev. 2A:lS ) Page 201 4 W Feet -- W Feet W Feet i , I " i Chakachamna Lake See Attachment Hours Working Hours/Day Length of Pipe Feet (from pump to point of use) Length of Pipe Feet (take point to point of use) Diversi on Rat e IJ GPM or CleFS Water Sto rage AF W ater Sto ra ge AF PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS iii . I Chakachamna Lake Approx : S .M 13 N 1 7W 18 " McArthur River ; Location approx. the same as Water Use WATER ~ I , Lake METHOD OF TAKlNG WATER (IF KNOVVTIIJ Pu mp Gra vity Ditch Reservoir D.m Pump Intake Inches Pump Output GPM Pipe Diameter Inches Head Feet L H W Feet --- ----- L H L H 102·102 (Rev. 2KJ6) Page 2014 W Feet W Feet i i I " i Chaka c hamna Lake See Attachment Hours Working Hours/Day Length of Pipe Feet (from pump to lXIint of use) Length of Pipe Feet (take lXIint to lXIint of use) Diversion Ra te IJGPM or Cl eFS Water Storage AF W ater Sto ra ge AF Application for Water Right - 4 - TDX Power, Inc. AMnUNTOF See Attachment "u,., '~ ,mal Amoum Beg'" End , ,f1o:nr{, ~~":) , , I -_Ho"", X 500 GPO - I , I , HOrnE!-{~ --Ho"", X 250 GPD • I wet,,) -Ho"", X 75 GPO I. I uup'.'" "'P '" I -8Ida,. I x I 1000 GPO • I j La'ge, , ____ Units X 250 GPD · I Motel" "ewrt I -R, X 150 GPO - -People X 50 GPO • , I "~Gf'U,";;' I -Sq' X • , ,,~ -Acres X 0.5 AFY • mh ,w. 'ype m u,e :::, ,mal "",,urn I x " I x " 'YP" m u,. T~lal_unl Po w er Generation --See Attached I up to 7 ,2 00 cfs Expected date for wate r system and water use to be fully developed or date w hen existing use started C20=ci:17,=..,===_~ Note : Pursuant to AS 46 .1 5 .180(a)(1 ). Crimes, a person may not construct w orks for an appro priation , or divert, impound , withdraw, or use a s ign ificant amount of water from 8rfo{ source without a permit, certificate of appropr iation, o r authorization issued under this chapter. 11 Me 93 .040 sets Qui the required information on an application for a wate r right 11 Me 93 .050 authorizes the commissione r to decide what additional information is needed to process an application for a water right Th is information is made a part of the state public wate r records and becomes public information under AS 40 .25 .110 and 40.25 .120. Public informa tion is open to inspecti on by you or any member of the public. A person who is the subject of the information may challenge its accuracy or completeness under AS 44 .99.31 0, Df giving a writte n description of the ch allenged information , the changes needed to correct it, and a name and add ress where the person can be reached . False statements made in an application for a benefit are punishable under AS 11 .56 .210 102-102 (Rev. 2106) Pa ge J 01 4 AMnUNTOF S __ Attachment ,U,e, ,d Im,1 Amourn Amounts Requested Begio Eod i :;; .. i 'f1nn~ ~~";;'i i I -_Ho~ X SOD GPO " I i I i HO~-{~--Ho"", X 250 GPO - I w";;'i -Ho~ X 75 GPO I" I uuple, m "iple' I -Blda,. I x I 1000 GPO " I j ""g" i ____ Units X 250 GPD " I Molel 0' H~rt I -R, X 150 GPD " -People X 50 GPO " i I "~Gf",,":;' I-Sq ft . X - i .. ~ -Acres X 0 ,5 AFY " Olh ,Wa Iype m U,. ~::, I m,1 """u""' ~ Ix " Ix " , YF'" 0' u,,, T~ta l "",,uol Po w er Generation --See Attac hed I up to 7,200 cfs Expec ted date for wate r system and wa ler use to be fully developed or date when existing use started =20:=;,17=oc===_~ Note : Pursuant to AS 46 .1 5.180(8)(1). Crimes, a person may not construct works for an appropriation , or divert, impound, withdraw, or use a sign ificant amount of water from arT'{ source without a permit, certificate of appropriation, or authoriZation issued under th is chapler. 11 MC 93 .040 sets out the required information on an application for a water right. 11 Me 93.050 autl'()rizes the commissioner to decide what additional information is needed to process an application for a water right Th is information is made a part of the s ta te public water records and becomes public information under AS 40.25,110 a nd 40 .25.120 . Public informa tion is open to inspect ion by you or any member of the public. A person who is the subject of the information may challenge its accuracy or completeness under AS 44 ,99.31 D, I::¥ giving a written description of the challenged information, the changes needed to correct it, and a name and address whe re the person can be reached False statements made in an application for a benefit are punishable under AS 11 .56 .210 . 102-102 (Rev. 2I1J6) Page J of ~ Application for Water Right - 5 - TDX Power, Inc. SIGNATURE The information presented in this applicat ion is true and correct to the best of my kno w ledge , I understand that per 11 AAC 93.040 and 11 AAC 93.050 additional information may be requ ired by the departrnentto adjudicate this application . Failure to provide requested information could result in t his fi le being c losed. Signat ure Nick Goodman Name ease rint REFERENCES fJleasurement Units GPO '" gallons per day CFS " cubic feet per second GPM '" gallons per minute AF '" acre·feet AFY == acre·feet per year (325,851 gallons/year) A FO '" acre-feet per day (325,8 5 1 gallons/day) MGD :: mill ion ga llons per day r~~:i~~~o n ~ 3 .• 7 GPM S.60AFY 0 .2 MD 0.09 AFD 0 .01 MGO 0 .03 MGO 100 000 GPD~ 0 .2 CFS 69 .• GPM 112 .0AFY 0 .3 AFO 0 .1 MGO 500 000 GPOE O,aCFS 3.7 .2 GPM 560.1 AFY I .SAFO 0 .5 MGO Fees required by regulation 11 AAC 05.010(a)(8) 1 000 000 GPO" 1 ,5 CFS 69 •.• GPM 1 120.1 AFY 3 .1 MO 1.0MGD Date CEO Tille if a icable • $100 for one s ingle-famify reSidence or duplex, or for water use associat ed with one single-famity res idence or duplex • $1,200 for activ ities re lated to oil and gas a nd associa te d s u bstances • Fee varies for activities related to locatable minerals, unle ss the applicati on is filed under 11 Me 05010(a)(9)(E)(i) or (9)(F)(i) -ceotact Water Resources Section for pr&applicatieo meetirg • Fee varies for hydroelectric power generation -contact Wafer Resources Section for pr&applicatiOlJ meeting • Fee varies for water remov al out of a hydrologic unit under AS 46 .15.035 or 46.15.037 -COIltact Water Resources Sectieo for pr&application meeting • $200 for 5 ,000 GPO or less for a use not listed above • $450 for g reater than 5 ,000 GPO a nd no more than 30 ,000 GPO for a use nollisted above • $550 for g rea ter than 30 ,000 GPO and no more than 100,000 GPO for a use not listed above • $900 for g rea ter than 100,000 GPO for a use not listed above Make checks payable to "Department of Natural Resources.' COilstal Zone If this appropriation is wit hin the Coasta l Zone , and you are planning to use more than 1,000 GPO from a surface wa ter source or 5 ,000 GPO from a subsurface water source , you need to submit a completed Coastal Project QJestionnaire with this appl ication . For more informa ti on on the Coastal Zone, contact the Office of Project Management and Permitti ng ; Ancho rag e 269·7470, Juneau 465 3562 , wtfW d nr state ak us/acm Dl 102·102 (Rev. 2.106 ) P age 4 014 SIGNATURE The information presented in this application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge . I understand that per 11 AAC 93.040 and 11 AAC 93.050 additional inforl"Tl.3tion l"TI.3y be required by the department to adjudicate this application . Failure 10 provide requested inforl"Tl.3tion could result in I his file being closed. Signature Nic k Goo dm an Name ease rint REFERENCES r.JIea s urement Units GPO "" gallons per day CFS '" cubic feet per second GPM " gallons per m inute AF "" acre-feet AFY "" acre -feet per year (325,851 gallons/year) AFD '" acre-feet per day (325,851 gallons/day) MGO ::o million ga llons per day Conversion Table 5 000 GPO" ~ 100 000 GPO"' SOC! 000 GPO" 0 .01 CFS . 0 .2 CFS O,8CFS 3 .'" GPM 69.4 GPM 34 1.2 GPM 5 .SOAFY 112 .0AFY 560.1 N'Y O.2MD O.09AFO 0 .3 AFO 1 .5AFD 0 .01 MGD 0 .03 MGO 0.1 MeD 0 .5 MGD F ee s required b y regulation 11 AAC 05.010(a)(8) 1 000 000 GPO., 15CFS 694." GPM 1120.1 AFY 3 .1 AFO 1.0MeD Date C E O Title if a icable • $100 for one single-famify residence or duplex, or for water use associated with one single-family residence or duplex • $1 ,200 for activities related to oil and gas and associa ted substances • Fee varies for activities related to locatable minerals, unless the applicat ion is filed under 11 AAC 05.010(a)(9)(E)(i) or (9)(F)(i) -contact Water Resources Section for pret-applicatiOtJ meeting • Fee varies for hydroelectric power generation -contact Wafer Resources Section for pre--application meeting • Fee varies for water removal out of a hydrologic unit under AS 46 .15.035 or 46.15,037 -contact Wat8l" Resouroos SectiOtJ for pre-application meeting • $200 for 5 ,00 0 GPO or less for a use not listed above • $450 for greater than 5 ,000 GPO and no more than 30 ,000 GPO for a use not listed aoove · $550 for g reater than 30 ,000 GPO and no more than 100,000 GPO for a use not listed above · $900 for g reater than 100,000 GPO for a use not listed above Make checks payable to 'Department of Natural Resources.' COilstil l Zone If this appropriation IS within the Coasta l Zone , and you a re planning to use more than 1,000 GPO from a surface wa ter source or 5 ,000 GPO from a subsurface water source , you need to submit a completed Coastal Project QJestionnaire with this application . For more informa ti on on the Coastal Zone, contact the Q'fice of Project Management and Permitting ; Ancho rage 269-7 470, Juneau 465-3562 , WNW dO[ §!S!!!: iii!:; u§lii!l<rnr1i . 102-102 (Rev. 2Al6) Page 4 o f 4 Application for Water Right - 6 - TDX Power, Inc. Application for Water Right TDX Power, Inc. Attachment Introduction/Method of Taking Water. This water right application is to operate a hydroproject using water from Chakachamna Lake. The hydroproject would be a conventional lake-tap project taking water from beneath the surface of the lake, and diverting it via an approximately 12.3-mile power tunnel to a powerhouse before discharging the water to the McArthur River. The proposed intake would be located within the bed of Chakachamna Lake at approximately T13N, R17W, Section 18; Seward Meridian. The proposed powerhouse location would be located approximately 12 miles to the southeast on the north bank of the McArthur at approximately T12N, R16W, Section 30; Seward Meridian. (See Figure 1.) Land Ownership. The intake and powerhouse are on state land. The tunnel between them would also pass through state-selected land managed by BLM. Approximately 8 miles of the tunnel would be on state land. This distance includes the intake, powerhouse and tailrace, and much of the power tunnel: • Intake: T13N, R17W, S.M.; Section 18; and • Tunnel: T13N, R17W, S.M.; Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27,35, 36. Approximately 4.3 miles of power tunnel, powerhouse, and tailrace would also be on state- selected federal land managed by BLM: • Tunnel: T12N, R17W, S.M.; Sections 2, 11, 12, 13, 24; • Tunnel: T12 N, R16W, S.M.; Sections 19, 30; and • Powerhouse and tailrace: T12N, R16W, S.M.; Section 30. Amount of Water. The project is applying for the maximum potential instantaneous flow of the project: 7,200 CFS. This is the flowrate capacity of the proposed water diversion tunnel. The project cannot sustain this water flow over a month or year, but could reach this instantaneous flow. The annual, monthly, and even instantaneous water requirements for the project will eventually be determined as part of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing, NEPA evaluation and agency permitting processes. These extensive, data-intensive processes will use public and agency input to balance appropriate protection for fisheries and downstream resources on the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers with the public’s need for clean, renewable electricity generation. The eventual decision concerning water flows will be dependent on agency analysis, public input, and the significant hydrologic and fisheries investigations over the next few years. It is appropriate for the project, at this point, not to second-guess the results of the scientific analysis, public and agency input, the FERC process, NEPA evaluation, and the DNR requirements for making a water rights decision under AS 46.15.080. Rather, the project is applying for the maximum potential instantaneous amount to set the upper boundary for the forthcoming agency and public discussion. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 June 2009 APPENDIX 4-3 TABLE OF MAMMAL SPECIES IN THE PROJECT VICINITY PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 4-3, page 1 June 2009 Mammals Identified in the Project Vicinity During APA and Chuitna Coal Studies and by Other Sources 1 Mammals Identified in the Project Vicinity Common Name Scientific Name Moose Alces alces Barren ground caribou Rangifer arcticus Coyote Canis latrans Wolf Canis lupus Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Lynx Lynx canadensis Black bear Ursus americanus Brown bear Ursus arctos River otter Lutra canadensis Wolverine Gulo gulo Marten Martes americana Ermine Mustela ermina Least weasel Mustela nivalis Mink Mustela vison Beaver Castor canadensis Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Porcupine Erithizon dorsatum Marmot Mormota caligata Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus Arctic ground squirrel Spermophilus parryii Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius Singing vole Microtus miurus Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus Tundra vole Microtus oeconomus Red-backed vole Myodes rutilus Northern red-backed vole Chlethrionomys rutilus Northern bog lemming Synaptomys borealis Collared pika Ocotona collaris Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus Arctic shrew Sorex arcticus Cinereus (masked) shrew Sorex cinereus Pigmy shrew Sorex hoyi Dusky shrew Sorex monticolus Tundra shrew Sorex tundrensis Tiny shres Sorex yukonicus Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus Beluga whale (Cook Inlet Beluga) Delphinapterus leucas Harbor seal Phoca vitulina 1 Sources: APA 1983, ADF&G 1994, ABR 2007, Lanier pers. comm. 2008, Spencer pers. comm. 2008. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 June 2009 APPENDIX 4-4 TABLE OF BIRD SPECIES IN THE PROJECT VICINITY PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 4-4, page 1 June 2009 Birds Identified in the Project Vicinity During APA and Chuitna Coal Studies and by Other Sources 1 Birds Identified in the Project Vicinity Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Red-throated loon Gavia stellata Common snipe Gallinago gallinago Arctic loon Gavia pacifica Wilson’s snipe Gallinago delicata Common loon Gavia immer Red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus Horned grebe Podiceps auritus Long-tailed jaeger Stercorarius longicaudus Red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegena Pomarine jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Parasitic jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus Pelagic cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus Bonaparte’s gull Larus philadelphia Tundra swan Cygnus columbianus Mew gull Larus canus Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator Herring gull Larus argentatus Greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons Glaucous-winged gull Larus glaucescens Snow goose Chen caerulescens Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea Canada goose Branta canadensis Great horned owl Bubo virginianus Black brant Branta bernicla Snowy owl Nyctea scandiaca Green-winged teal Anas crecca Northern hawk owl Surnia ulula Mallard Anas platyrynchos Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Northern pintail Anas acuta Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus Northern shoveler Anas clypeata Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Gadwall Anas strepera Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens American widgeon Anas americana Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus Eurasian widgeon Anas penelope Three-toed woodpecker Picoides tridactylus Canvasback Aythya valisineria Black-backed woodpecker Picoides arcticus Redhead Aythya americana Northern flicker Colaptes auratus Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis Greater scaup Aythya marila Western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus Lesser scaup Aythya affinis Alder flycatcher Empidonax alnorum Common eider Somateria mollissima Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Long-tailed duck (oldsquaw) Clangula hyemalis Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina Black scoter Melanitta nigra Bank swallow Riparia riparia Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata Cliff swallow Hirundo pyrrhonota White-winged scoter Melanitta fusca Gray jay Perisoreus canadensis Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula Black-billed magpie Pica pica Barrow’s goldeneye Bucephala islandica Common raven Covrus corax Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Black-capped chickadee Parus atricapillus Common merganser Mergus merganser Boreal chickadee Parus hudsonicus PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 4-3, page 2 June 2009 Birds Identified in the Project Vicinity Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis Osprey Pandion haleaetus Brown creeper Certhia americana Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Ruby-crowned kinglet Rugulus calendula Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus Gray-cheeked thrush Catharus minimus Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis American robin Turdus migratorius Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus Varied thrush Ixoreus naevius Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos American pipit Anthus rubescens American kestrel Falco sparverius Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulus Merlin Falco columbarius Northern shrike Lanius excubitor Peregrine Falco peregrinus Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata Spruce grouse Dendragopus canadensis Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia Willow ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata Sandhill crane Grus canadensis Townsend’s warbler Dendroica townsendi American golden plover Pluvialis dominica Blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola Northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus Wilson’s warbler Wilsonia pusilla Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanolueca American tree sparrow Spizella arborea Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularius Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Wandering tattler Heteroscelus incanus Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla Marbled godwit Limose fedoa White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Hudsonian godwit Limosa haemastica Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres Lapland longspur Calcarius lapponicus Western sandpiper Calidris mauri Snow bunting Plectrophenax hyperboreus Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus Baird’s sandpiper Calidris bairdii Pine grosbeak Pinicola enucleator Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos White-winged crossbill Loxia leucoptera Rock sandpiper Calidris ptilocnemis Common redpoll Carduelis flammea Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla Pine siskin Carduelis pinus 1 Sources: APA 1983, ADF&G 1994, Spencer pers. comm. 2008, ABR 2007. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 June 2009 APPENDIX 4-5 TABLE OF PLANT SPECIES LIST IN THE PROJECT VICINITY PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 4-5, page 1 June 2009 Chuitna Coal Project Plant Species List with Wetlands Indicator Status, HDR 2007 (with addendum of additional species from APA study, 1981) Chuitna Coal Project Plan Species List with Wetlands Indicator Status Scientific Name1 Common Name Synonymous Name in the 1988 National Wetlands Indicator List2 Alaska Region Wetlands Indicator3 Achillea millefolium Common yarrow Achillea millefolium FACU Aconitum delphinifolium Monkshood Aconitum delphinifolium FAC Actaea rubra Baneberry NL Adoxa moschatellina Muskroot Adoxa moschatellina FAC Agrostis alaskana Alaska bentgrass Agrostis alaskana OBL Agrostis scabra Rough bentgrass Agrostis scabra FAC Agrostis sp. Unkeyed agrostis - Allium schoenoprasum Wild chives Allium schoenoprasum FAC Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia Thinleaf alder Alnus tenuifolia FAC Alnus viridis ssp. fruticosa Green alder Alnus crispa FAC Alnus viridis ssp. sinuata Sitka alder Alnus sinuata FAC Alopecurus aequalis Short-awn foxtail Alopecurus aequalis OBL Alopecurus pratensis 4 Meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis FACW Andromeda polifolia Bog rosemary Andromeda polifolia OBL Anemone richardsonii Yellow thimble-weed Anemone richardsonii FAC Angelica genuflexa Kneeling angelica Angelica genuflexa FACW Angelica lucida Seawatch angelica Angelica lucida FACU Arabis drummondii Drummond's rockcress Arabis drummondii FACU Arctagrostis latifolia Board-leaf arctic-bentgrass Arctagrostis latifolia FACW Arctophila fulva Pendent grass Arctophila fulva OBL Arnica latifolia Broadleaf arnica Arnica latifolia FAC Athyrium filix-femina Subarctic lady fern Athyrium filix-femina FAC Betula glandulosa Tundra dwarf birch Betula glandulosa FAC Betula kenaica Kenai birch Betula papyrifera FACU Betula nana ssp. exilis Swamp birch Betula nana FAC Betula hybrid Birch hybrid - Bistorta vivipara Viviparous knotweed Polygonum viviparum FAC Botrychium lanceolatum Triangle moonwort Botrychium lanceolatum FAC Botrychium lunaria Moonwort Botrychium lunaria FACW Botrychium multifidum Leathery grapefern Botrychium multifidum FAC Botrychium pinnatum 4 Northern moonwort Botrychium boreal FAC Bromus ciliatus Fringed brome Bromus ciliatus FACW Calamagrostis canadensis Blue-joint reedgrass Calamagrostis canadensis FAC Calla palustris 4 Water arum Calla palustris OBL Callitriche palustris Spiny water-starwort Callitriche verna OBL Cardamine oligosperma var. kamtschatica Umbel-flower bitter-cress Cardamine umbellata FACW Cardamine pratensis Cuckoo flower Cardamine pratensis OBL Carex aquatilis var. aquatilis Water sedge Carex aquatilis OBL Carex aquatilis var. dives Sitka sedge Carex sitchensis OBL Carex brunnescens Brownish sedge Carex brunnescens FAC Carex buxbaumii Brown bog sedge Carex buxbaumii FACW Carex canescens Hoary sedge Carex canescens OBL Carex chordorrhiza Creeping sedge Carex chordorrhiza OBL Carex diandra Lesser panicled sedge Carex diandra OBL Carex disperma Softleaf sedge Carex disperma FACW* Carex echinata ssp. phyllomanica Coastal stellate sedge Carex phyllomanica OBL Carex gynocrates Northern bog sedge Carex gynocrates OBL PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 4-5, page 2 June 2009 Chuitna Coal Project Plan Species List with Wetlands Indicator Status Scientific Name1 Common Name Synonymous Name in the 1988 National Wetlands Indicator List2 Alaska Region Wetlands Indicator3 Carex lenticularis var. lipocarpa Kellogg's sedge Carex kelloggii OBL Carex leptalea Bristly-stalk sedge Carex leptalea OBL Carex limosa Mud sedge Carex limosa OBL Carex livida Livid sedge Carex livida OBL Carex macrochaeta Alaska long-awn sedge Carex macrochaeta FACW Carex magellanica ssp. irrigua Boreal bog sedge Carex paupercula OBL Carex mertensii Merten's sedge Carex mertensii FACW Carex pachystachya Thick-head sedge Carex pachystachya FAC Carex pauciflora Few-flower sedge Carex pauciflora OBL Carex pluriflora Several flowered sedge Carex pluriflora OBL Carex rariflora Loose flowered sedge Carex rariflora OBL Carex rostrata Beaked sedge Carex rostrata OBL Carex rotundata Round-fruit sedge Carex rotundata OBL Carex saxatilis Russet sedge Carex saxatilis FACW Carex sp. Unkeyed sedge - Carex tenuiflora Sparse-flower sedge Carex tenuiflora OBL Carex utriculata Northwest Territory sedge Carex rhynchophysa OBL Carex vaginata Sheathed sedge Carex vaginata OBL Castilleja unalaschcensis Alaska Indian paintbrush Castilleja unalaschcensis FAC Chamaedaphne calyculata Leatherleaf Chamaedaphne calyculata FACW Chamerion angustifolium Fireweed Epilobium angustifolium FACU Chrysosplenium tetrandrum Northern golden-saxifrage Chrysosplenium tetrandrum OBL Cicuta virosa Mackenzie water-hemlock Cicuta mackenziana OBL Cinna latifolia 4 Drooping woodreed Cinna latifolia OBL Circaea alpina Small enchanter's nightshade Circaea alpina NI Comarum palustre Marsh cinquefoil Potentilla palustris OBL Conioselinum gmelinii Hemlock-parsley Conioselinum gmelinii FACW Coptis trifolia Alaska goldthread Coptis trifolia FAC Corallorrhiza trifida Yellow coralroot Corallorrhiza trifida FACW Cornus canadensis Canada bunchberry Cornus canadensis FACU Cornus sp. Unkeyed dogwood - Cornus suecica Swedish dwarf dogwood Cornus suecica FAC Danthonia intermedia Timber oatgrass Danthonia intermedia FAC Dasiphora fruticosa ssp. floribunda Shrubby cinquefoil Potentilla fruticosa FAC Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hairgrass Deschampsia cespitosa FAC Diphasiastrum complanatum 4 Groundcedar Lycopodium complanatum UPL Drosera anglica English sundew Drosera anglica OBL Drosera rotundifolia Round-leaf sundew Drosera rotundifolia OBL Dryopteris expansa Mountain woodfern Dryopteris dilatata FACU Eleocharis mamillata (Eleocharis palustris s.l.) Soft-stem spikerush Eleocharis mamillata OBL Eleocharis sp. Unkeyed spikerush - Elymus trachycaulus Slender wheatgrass Agropyron trachycaulum FACU Empetrum nigrum Black crowberry Empetrum nigrum FAC Epilobium ciliatum Hairy willow-herb Epilobium ciliatum FACU Epilobium lactiflorum White-flower willow-herb Epilobium lactiflorum NI Epilobium palustre Marsh willow-herb Epilobium palustre OBL Epilobium sp., s.l. Unkeyed epilobium - Equisetum arvense Field horsetail Equisetum arvense FACU Equisetum fluviatile Water horsetail Equisetum fluviatile OBL Equisetum palustre Marsh horsetail Equisetum palustre FACW Equisetum pratense Meadow horsetail Equisetum pratense FACW PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 4-5, page 3 June 2009 Chuitna Coal Project Plan Species List with Wetlands Indicator Status Scientific Name1 Common Name Synonymous Name in the 1988 National Wetlands Indicator List2 Alaska Region Wetlands Indicator3 Equisetum sylvaticum Woodland horsetail Equisetum sylvaticum FACU Equisetum variegatum Variegated horsetail Equisetum variegatum FACW Erigeron peregrinus Wandering fleabane Erigeron peregrinus FACW Eriophorum angustifolium Narrow-leaf cotton-grass Eriophorum angustifolium OBL Eriophorum angustifolium ssp. scabriusculum 4 Tall cottongrass Eriophorum angustifolium ssp. scabriusculum OBL Eriophorum chamissonis Russet cotton-grass Eriophorum chamissonis OBL Eriophorum gracile Slender cottongrass Eriophorum gracile OBL Eriophorum scheuchzeri Scheuchzer's cotton-grass Eriophorum scheuchzeri OBL Eriophorum sp. Unkeyed cotton-grass - Eriophorum viridicarinatum Green-keel cotton-grass Eriophorum viridicarinatum OBL Festuca altaica Rough fescue Festuca altaica FAC Fritillaria camschatcensis Kamchatka mission- bells/chocolate lily Fritillaria camschatcensis FAC Galeopsis bifida 4 Splitlip hempnettle NL Galium boreale Northern bedstraw Galium boreale FACU Galium kamtschaticum Boreal bedstraw NL Galium trifidum Small bedstraw Galium trifidum FACW Galium triflorum Sweet-scent bedstraw Galium triflorum FACU Gentiana douglasiana Swamp gentian Gentiana douglasiana FACW Gentianella amarella Autumn dwarf gentian Gentianella amarella FACW Geocaulon lividum False toadflax Geocaulon lividum FACU Geranium erianthum Woolly geranium Geranium pratense FAC Geum macrophyllum Large-leaf avens Geum macrophyllum FACW Glyceria borealis 4 Small floating mannagrass Glyceria borealis OBL Goodyera repens Dwarf rattlesnake-plantain Goodyera repens FAC* Gymnocarpium dryopteris Oak fern Gymnocarpium dryopteris FACU Heracleum maximum Cow-parsnip Heracleum lanatum FACU Hierochloe odorata Holy grass Hierochloe odorata FACU Hippuris vulgaris 4 Common mare's-tail Hippuris vulgaris OBL Honckenya peploides 4 Seaside sandplant Honckenya peploides OBL Impatiens noli-tangere Western touch-me-not Impatiens noli-tangere FACW Iris setosa Beach-head iris Iris setosa FAC Isoetes echinospora 4 Spiny-spore quillwort Isoetes echinospora OBL Juncus bufonius Toad rush Juncus bufonius OBL Juncus ensifolius Swordleaf rush Juncus ensifolius FACW Juncus filiformis Thread rush Juncus filiformis FACW Juncus mertensianus Merten's rush Juncus mertensianus OBL Juncus stygius Moor rush Juncus stygius OBL Juncus supiniformis 4 Hairyleaf rush Juncus supiniformis OBL Lathyrus palustris Vetchling peavine Lathyrus palustris OBL Ledum palustre ssp. decumbens Narrow-leaf Labrador-tea Ledum decumbens FACW Linnaea borealis Twinflower Linnaea borealis UPL Listera cordata Heart-leaf twayblade Listera cordata FACU Lupinus nootkatensis Nootka lupine Lupinus nootkatensis FAC Lupinus polyphyllus Bigleaf lupine Lupinus polyphyllus FAC Luzula multiflora Common woodrush Luzula multiflora FACU Luzula parviflora Small-flower woodrush Luzula parviflora FAC Lycopodium annotinum Stiff clubmoss Lycopodium annotinum FAC Malaxis paludosa Bog adder's-mouth Malaxis paludosa OBL Matteuccia struthiopteris Ostrich fern Matteuccia struthiopteris FACW Menyanthes trifoliata Buckbean Menyanthes trifoliata OBL PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 4-5, page 4 June 2009 Chuitna Coal Project Plan Species List with Wetlands Indicator Status Scientific Name1 Common Name Synonymous Name in the 1988 National Wetlands Indicator List2 Alaska Region Wetlands Indicator3 Menziesia ferruginea Mock-azalea Menziesia ferruginea UPL Mertensia paniculata Tall bluebells Mertensia paniculata FACU Mimulus guttatus Common large monkey- flower Mimulus guttatus OBL Moehringia lateriflora Grove sandwort Moehringia lateriflora NI Moneses uniflora Shy maiden NL Myrica gale Sweetgale Myrica gale OBL Nuphar polysepalum Yellow cow-lily Nuphar luteum OBL Nymphaea tetragona 4 Pygmy waterlily Nymphaea tetragona OBL Oplopanax horridus Devil's-club Oplopanax horridus FACU Orthilia secunda One-sided wintergreen Pyrola secunda UPL Parnassia kotzebuei Kotzebue's grass-of- parnassus Parnassia kotzebuei FACW Parnassia palustris Northern grass-of-parnassus Parnassia palustris FACW Pedicularis groenlandica Elephanthead lousewort Pedicularis groenlandica (National indicator) OBL Pedicularis labradorica Labrador lousewort Pedicularis labradorica FACW Pedicularis parviflora Small-flower lousewort Pedicularis parviflora FACW Pedicularis sp. Unkeyed lousewort - Phegopteris connectilis Narrow beech fern NL Phleum alpinum Alpine timothy Phleum alpinum FACU Picea glauca White spruce Picea glauca FACU Picea mariana Black spruce Picea mariana FACW Pinguicula villosa Hairy butterwort Pinguicula villosa OBL Platanthera aquilonis Northern green orchid Platanthera hyperborea FACW Platanthera dilatata Leafy white orchid Platanthera dilatata FACW Platanthera obtusata Small northern bog orchid Platanthera obtusata FACW Platanthera stricta 4 Slender bog orchid Platanthera stricta FACW Poa alpina 4 Alpine bluegrass Poa alpina FACU Poa palustris Fowl bluegrass Poa palustris FAC Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis FACU Polemonium acutiflorum Sticky tall Jacob's-ladder Polemonium acutiflorum FAC Populus balsamifera Cottonwood Populus balsamifera FACU Potamogeton alpinus Alpine pondweed Potamogeton alpinus OBL Potamogeton epihydrus 4 Ribbonleaf pondweed Potamogeton epihydrus OBL Potamogeton gramineus 4 Variableleaf pondweed Potamogeton gramineus OBL Potamogeton natans Floating-leaf pondweed Potamogeton natans OBL Potamogeton pusillus ssp. tenuissimus Small pondweed Potamogeton pusillus OBL Potamogeton sp., s.l. Unkeyed pondweed - Potentilla norvegica Norwegian cinquefoil Potentilla norvegica FAC Pyrola asarifolia Pink wintergreen Pyrola asarifolia FAC Pyrola minor Lesser wintergreen Pyrola minor FAC Pyrola sp., s.l. Unkeyed wintergreen - Ranunculus abortivus Little-leaf buttercup Ranunculus abortivus FAC Ranunculus flammula 4 Greater creeping spearwort Ranunculus flammula FACW Ranunculus gmelinii Gmelin's buttercup Ranunculus gmelinii FACW Ranunculus hyperboreus Arctic buttercup Ranunculus hyperboreus OBL Ranunculus macounii Macoun's buttercup Ranunculus macounii FACW Ranunculus sp. Unkeyed buttercup - Rhinanthus minor ssp. groenlandicus Little yellow rattle Rhinanthus arcticus FAC Rhynchospora alba White beaksedge Rhynchospora alba OBL PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 4-5, page 5 June 2009 Chuitna Coal Project Plan Species List with Wetlands Indicator Status Scientific Name1 Common Name Synonymous Name in the 1988 National Wetlands Indicator List2 Alaska Region Wetlands Indicator3 Ribes hudsonianum Hudson bay currant Ribes hudsonianum FAC Ribes laxiflorum Trailing black currant NL Ribes triste Swamp red currant Ribes triste FAC Ribes sp. (undetermined) Trailing black currant or skunk currant - Rorippa palustris Bog yellow-cress Rorippa palustris FAC Rosa acicularis Prickly rose Rosa acicularis FACU Rubus arcticus Arctic raspberry Rubus arcticus FAC Rubus arcticus ssp. stellatus Nagoonberry Rubus stellatus FAC Rubus chamaemorus Cloudberry Rubus chamaemorus FACW Rubus idaeus Common red raspberry Rubus idaeus FAC Rubus pedatus Strawberry-leaf raspberry Rubus pedatus FAC* Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis FACU Rumex arcticus Arctic dock Rumex arcticus FACW Rumex occidentalis Western dock Rumex occidentalis OBL Salix alaxensis Felt-leaf willow Salix alaxensis FAC Salix arbusculoides Little-tree willow Salix arbusculoides FACW Salix barclayi Barclay willow Salix barclayi FAC Salix bebbiana Bebb willow Salix bebbiana FAC Salix fuscescens Alaska bog willow Salix fuscescens FACW Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra Pacific willow Salix lasiandra FACW Salix pulchra Diamond-leaf willow Salix planifolia FACW Salix scouleriana Scouler willow Salix scoulerana FAC Salix sitchensis Sitka willow Salix sitchensis FAC Salix sp. Unkeyed willow - Sambucus racemosa European red elder Sambucus racemosa FACU Sanguisorba canadensis Canada burnet Sanguisorba canadensis FACW Scheuchzeria palustris 4 Rannoch-rush Scheuchzeria palustris OBL Schizachne purpurascens False melic Schizachne purpurascens FAC Selaginella selaginoides Club spike-moss Selaginella selaginoides FACU Senecio triangularis Arrow-leaf groundsel Senecio triangularis FACW Senecio sp. Unkeyed ragwort - Solidago lepida Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis FACU Solidago multiradiata Mountain goldenrod Solidago multiradiata FACU Solidago sp. Unkeyed goldenrod - Sorbus scopulina Greene's mountain-ash Sorbus scopulina NI Sparganium angustifolium Narrow-leaf burreed Sparganium emersum OBL Sparganium hyperboreum Northern burreed Sparganium hyperboreum OBL Spergularia rubra 4 Red sandspurry Spergularia rubra FAC Spiraea stevenii Beauvered spiraea Spiraea beauverdiana FAC Spiranthes romanzoffiana Hooded ladies'-tresses Spiranthes romanzoffiana OBL Stellaria borealis ssp. sitchana Sitka starwort Stellaria sitchana FAC Stellaria calycantha Northern starwort Stellaria calycantha FACW Stellaria crispa Crisp starwort Stellaria crispa FAC Streptopus amplexifolius Clasp-leaf twisted-stalk Streptopus amplexifolius FAC Swertia perennis Felwort Swertia perennis FAC Symphyotrichum subspicatum Douglas aster Aster subspicatus FAC Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion Taraxacum officinale FACU Thalictrum alpinum Alpine meadow-rue Thalictrum alpinum FAC Thalictrum sparsiflorum Few-flower meadow-rue Thalictrum sparsiflorum FACU Triantha occidentalis ssp. brevistyla Priest Lake tofieldia Tofieldia glutinosa FACW* Trichophorum alpinum Alpine cotton-grass Eriophorum alpinum OBL PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 4-5, page 6 June 2009 Chuitna Coal Project Plan Species List with Wetlands Indicator Status Scientific Name1 Common Name Synonymous Name in the 1988 National Wetlands Indicator List2 Alaska Region Wetlands Indicator3 Trichophorum cespitosum Tufted bulrush Scirpus cespitosus OBL Trientalis europaea European starflower Trientalis europaea FAC Trifolium hybridum 4 Alsike clover Trifolium hybridum FAC Triglochin maritimum Seaside arrow-grass Triglochin maritimum OBL Triglochin palustre Marsh arrow-grass Triglochin palustre OBL Urtica dioica ssp. gracilis California nettle Urtica dioica FACU Utricularia intermedia 4 Flatleaf bladderwort Utricularia intermedia OBL Utricularia macrorhiza Common bladderwort Utricularia macrorhiza OBL Utricularia minor Lesser bladderwort Utricularia minor OBL Vaccinium caespitosum Dwarf bilberry Vaccinium caespitosum FACW Vaccinium ovalifolium Early blueberry Vaccinium ovalifolium FAC Vaccinium oxycoccos Small cranberry Vaccinium oxycoccos OBL Vaccinium uliginosum Bog blueberry Vaccinium uliginosum FAC Vaccinium vitis-idaea Mountain cranberry Vaccinium vitis-idaea FAC Vahlodea atropurpurea Mountain hairgrass NL Valeriana capitata Clustered valerian Valeriana capitata FAC Veratrum viride American false-hellebore Veratrum viride FACU Veronica americana American speedwell Veronica americana OBL Veronica serpyllifolia Bright-blue speedwell Veronica serpyllifolia OBL Veronica wormskjoldii American alpine speedwell Veronica wormskjoldii FAC Viburnum edule Squashberry Viburnum edule FACU Viola adunca Hooked-spur violet Viola adunca FAC Viola epipsila Dwarf marsh violet Viola pallens NI Viola glabella 4 pioneer violet Viola glabella FACW Viola langsdorfii Alaska violet Viola langsdorffii FACW Viola renifolia White violet Viola renifolia FAC Viola selkirkii Selkirk's violet NL Viola sp. Unkeyed violet - Additional species identified in the Project area in 1981 but not in Chuitna Coal Project vegetation studies in 2006 and 2007: Amelanchier alnifolia Saskatoon serviceberry Amelanchier florida Pacific serviceberry Artemisia tilesii Sagebrush Echinopanax horridum Devil's club Ledum groenlandicum Labrador tea Populus tremuloides Quaking aspen Potentilla fruticosa Shrubby cinquefoil Salix barrattiana Barratt willow Salix brachycarpa Barren-ground willow Salix commutata Undergreen willow Salix glauca Grayleaf willow Salix lanata Richardson willow Viburnum edule Highbush cranberry 1 - Primary reference: Flora of North America (Flora of North America Editorial Committee 1993+). Secondary reference: USDA PLANTS database (NRCS 2007). Tertiary reference: Hultén (1968). 2 - Reed (1988) 3 - Obligate Wetland (OBL). Occur almost always (estimated probability >99%) under natural conditions in wetlands. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 4-5, page 7 June 2009 Facultative Wetland (FACW). Usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67%-99%), but occasionally found in non-wetlands. Facultative (FAC). Equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (estimated probability 34%- 66%). Facultative Upland (FACU). Usually occur in non-wetlands (estimated probability 67%-99%), but occasionally found in wetlands (estimated probability 1%-33%). Obligate Upland (UPL). Occur almost always (estimated probability >99%) under natural conditions in nonwetlands. No Indicator (NI). Insufficient information was available to determine an indicator status. An asterisk following an indicator (e.g. FAC*) identifies a tentative assignment based on limited Information from which to determine the indicator status. Not listed (NL). Plant species not on the list which also do not have a synonymous listing. These species are treated as upland species. 4 - Incidental observations made during wetland determination field work or during aquatic sampling. All referenced entries were observed within the project area. 5 - (s.l.) sensu lato, in the broad sense. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 June 2009 APPENDIX 5-1 CHAKACHAMNA LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT STUDY PLANNING APPROACH PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 5-1, page 1 June 2009 CHAKACHAMNA LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT STUDY PLANNING APPROACH 1 PREFACE The overall study program for the Chakachamna Project consists of 1) engineering and operations studies and 2) environmental studies. The purpose of this appendix is to present an approach to those studies that are environmental in nature and will therefore be part of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Proposed Study Plans (PSPs) as part of the formal licensing process described in Sections 2 and 5 of this PAD. TDX developed this appendix in response to stakeholder requests for a vision for how the overall study program will be approached and how key questions will be framed and answered. The following sections present the conceptual framework for study planning; outlines the study components and objectives for each of the 43 studies identified to date; and describes in general terms the timeframe TDX is anticipating for the completion of the study and for answering the identified Key questions 1.1. Introduction The proposed Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (“Project”) is a major development, potentially affecting the environment within a large, remote area containing two complex watersheds. As such, the study requirements are likewise complex. The ultimate goal of an environmental study program is to collect adequate information so that the licensing and permitting processes can proceed to a conclusion, regardless of what that conclusion might be. When developing a new project, time and financial resources are always limited to some extent; consequently, it is important that study efforts emphasize the collection of information that specifically informs the licensing process and minimizes the expenditure of effort on studies that do not inform the process. The purpose of the engineering and operations studies is to arrive at fully optimized project lay- out, to develop an adequate cost estimate, and to properly evaluate the feasibility of the project. The ensuing further project management and design activities will then be able to address adequately various aspects of project development such as; stakeholder’s requirements, environmental regulations, hazardous issues mitigation, and overall project risk management. The Project is somewhat unique in that there is little resource information currently available for the project area. It is desirable for studies to be carefully designed to answer specific overarching impact-related questions that could affect project design, operation, or overall viability. However, for some resource considerations, especially in relation to fish and aquatic habitat values, it is difficult to know which questions to ask without an adequate knowledge of the resource base. Additionally, there has been debate in recent years among the Alaskan resource agencies regarding appropriate study emphasis when assessing large development projects and making permit decisions. Some agencies feel strongly that a careful description, including the use of statistically supportable quantifications, of the existing environment (baseline condition) is most important so that existing conditions can be compared with future conditions and, thus, allow an assessment of post-project effects. Other agencies are of the PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 4-5, page 2 June 2009 opinion that it may be more important to place emphasis on addressing specific impact issues and answering questions that have a direct bearing on project viability, design, and mitigation needs. In actuality, all resource information adds to the baseline data base. The important consideration then becomes one of balancing the study program to address issues and, at the same time, collect sufficient quantitative baseline information to satisfy stakeholders. 1.2. Overarching Issues and Related Questions Stakeholder outreach and input from project scientists has resulted in a long list of potential impact issues that will need to be addressed during the licensing process as presented in Section 5 of the Pre-Application Document (PAD). Some issues are relatively routine and common to most large Alaskan development projects. Other issues are specific to the Project and highly significant in the sense that they may affect Project viability, Project design, and/or Project operations. TDX has identified 43 discreet study titles that attempt to respond to the identified impact issues and related questions. The most important study programs are those that specifically address the questions raised by these overarching issues. The following list is not comprehensive, but describes the most important questions by impact category and itemizes those that must be answered to gain a full understanding of the issue, determine specific project impacts, and/or design mitigation measures to minimize potential impacts. Issues Associated with potential impacts to aquatic resources within Chakachamna and Kenibuna Lakes and Lake Tributaries resulting from reservoir management and outflow of water into the power tunnel o Will salmon spawners be able to enter Chakachamna Lake and points beyond? o Will salmon spawners be able to reach spawning areas in lake tributary streams? o Will salmon and lake trout eggs incubating in lakeshore spawning areas be affected by lake draw-down? o Will juvenile salmon rearing in Chakachamna Lake be able to outmigrate into the Chakachatna River? o Will fish be entrained into the power inlet? o Will habitats for rearing salmon and resident fish be harmed by the changing conditions? Issues associated with transfer of water from the Chakachatna River into the McArthur River o Will fish habitat (spawning, rearing, over wintering) be maintained in the presence of reduced flow and altered water quality in the mainstem of the Chakachatna River and increased flow in the mainstem of the McArthur River o Will fish habitat (spawning, rearing, over wintering) be maintained in the presence of reduced or increased surface and/or groundwater flow in side channels, sloughs, wetlands, and tributaries to the rivers o Will spawning salmon be attracted to the tailrace discharge rather than to their normal spawning areas PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 4-5, page 3 June 2009 o Will transfer of water change the nature of wetland habitats within and adjacent to the Trading Bay State Game Refuge with consequent effects on the plants and animals supported by the refuge 1.3. Study Approaches The basic approach in designing an overall study program for the Project has been to first look at the most important questions and determine the kinds of information that will be needed to address the questions. In some cases, additional baseline resource information is needed to assess the existence or significance of an issue. For example, it is currently unknown whether sockeye salmon spawn along the Chakachamna Lake shoreline in significant number. Consequently, one task is to determine whether and to what extent spawning occurs. If spawning occurs, then extended information gathering will target the depth and timing of spawning which can be related to proposed reservoir operating characteristics to assess the likelihood of impact of draw-down on incubating eggs. On the other hand, it is known that substantial numbers of juvenile sockeye salmon outmigrate from Chakachamna Lake to the ocean each year. Consequently, studies can target the timing and duration of outmigration which is of particular interest relative to planning for the provision of downstream passage for juvenile fish. At the same time, it may be appropriate to include an aspect of juvenile salmon study that also incorporates the establishment of a quantitative measure of smolt outmigration as a convenient measure of lake productivity. This kind of approach balances the collection of baseline information with targeted studies directed toward addressing issues. Some complex sets of impacts require special multidisciplinary studies to integrate resource information and assist in the prediction of impacts or optimization of mitigation. The proposed Aquatic Habitat Modeling/Instream Flow study program is one such specialized study with multidisciplinary applications. A proposed 3-dimensional fluid dynamics study of Chakachamna Lake is another such study intended to help address numerous lake issues. In planning for the Proposed Study Plan (PSP), TDX will endeavor to make the inter-relationship between studies and key questions or issue areas apparent. 2 PROPOSED STUDIES AND THEIR COMPONENTS Attached below is a matrix which itemizes all of the study programs that are currently proposed, describes basic study components, describes the issues and/or questions that they address, and indicates a proposed general timeline for each study. The matrix list is intended to be fairly complete, but, it is expected that some changes will occur in response to stakeholder suggestion and as detailed study plans are reviewed during the licensing process. The timelines reflect the phased study planning approach with the selected Phase 1 (PSP-1) studies beginning in 2010 and, in some cases, continuing in future years. Phase 2 (PSP-2) studies will be primarily be conducted during the 2011-2013 period with some monitoring studies continuing beyond 2013. As with any large study program, the initial studies inform the later studies, and study plans will evolve as required by the needs of the project. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 4-5, page 4 June 2009 3 STUDY APPROACHES TO SELECTED ISSUE CATEGORIES In order to further illustrate the reasoning that has gone into the study planning process, three important issue areas have been selected for more detailed discussion. These discussions provide some indication of the complexity of impact issues and the kinds of inter-related multidisciplinary study programs that will be needed to completely address the issues. 3.1. Chakachamna Lake Aquatic Resource Issues The changes that might occur to Chakachamna Lake resulting from the proposed Project appear to be straight forward, consisting of increased lake level fluctuations, a new deep water outlet for water at the power intake, and an additional outlet structure to replace the Chakachatna Stream channel when water levels are low. However, the effects of these changes on lake physical characteristics and fish resources that depend on the lake are potentially complex and, in some cases, subtle. A list of general impact questions is presented below: Issues Related to Increased Lake Level Fluctuations o Will fish access to lake tributary spawning streams be blocked? o Will lakeshore spawning by lake trout and salmon be affected? o Will lake rearing habitats be adversely affected? Issues Related to Blockage of Upstream Fish Passage into Chakachamna Lake o Will adult sockeye salmon be prevented from reaching the lake or lake tributaries? o Will resident fish species be prevented from entering the lake? Issues Related to Interference with Downstream Fish Passage (Out Of Chakachamna Lake) o Will juvenile sockeye salmon be able to freely outmigrate from Chakachamna Lake? o Will resident fish species be able to move downstream into the Chakachatna River? Issues Related to the Presence of the Power Intake Structure o Will fish of any species be entrained into the intake and forced through the power generating equipment? o Will juvenile salmon be falsely attracted to the intake rather than the fish passage outlet structure? o Will the presence of the deep water outlet affect the physical characteristics (limnology) of Chakachamna Lake in such a way that fish resources are affected? The above list is probably not complete and some of the issues could be further subdivided. Figure A5.1-1 displays the above list, indicates the kinds of studies that have been proposed to answer these questions, and shows the complex interactions between studies and issues. The kinds of information required to answer any one of the questions is variable and, often, multidisciplinary. For example, getting at the question of whether fish might be blocked from PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 4-5, page 5 June 2009 entering tributaries during low lake levels requires a sequence of information acquisition that might look like the following: Determine from operations models the likely seasonal post-project lake level regime Examine lakeshore topography at tributary outlets – determine stream gradients at stream mouths at varying lake levels – determine whether gradients might prevent fish from stream entry Investigate the life history of anadromous and resident fish species – determine which species and/or life history stages would likely need to gain entry to the stream during periods when lake levels are sufficiently low to block access Estimate impacts to fish populations and/or plan mitigation measures Another set of potential impacts relates to changes in the physical characteristics of Chakachamna Lake, some of which may be subtle. For example, water temperatures; wind driven currents and mixing; and volume and turbidity of input streams all contribute to the formation of moving layers of water of different densities and turbidities within Chakachamna Lake. Distribution of fish food organisms and, consequently, distribution of pelagic juvenile sockeye salmon is likely related to the distribution of water layers (supported by evidence from the APA study program). The vulnerability of juvenile salmon to entrainment in the power intake and/or false attraction to the intake during outmigration is related to their depth distribution and seasonal proximity to the intake structure. The sequence of information required to assess impacts to juvenile salmon resulting from the intake structure might look like the following: Collect basic seasonal limnological data to determine key physical characteristics of the Chakachamna Lake water mass (temperature and turbidity profiles, currents, water quality) Determine seasonal depth and areal distribution of juvenile salmon Determine timing and behavior of outmigrating salmon smolts Construct 3-dimensional fluid dynamics model to indicate lake water mass conditions at various times of the year Predict locations of salmon and vulnerability to entrainment at various times of the year Predict location of salmon during the outmigration period and likelihood of false attraction 3.2. Chakachatna and McArthur River Aquatic Resource Issues Water departing Chakachamna Lake via the power tunnel will be removed from the Chakachatna River system and transferred to the upper McArthur River. At the same time, some water will be allowed to flow out of Chakachamna Lake into the Chakachatna River, either via the natural channel of the river at high lake levels or diverted into the Chakachatna River via a bypass structure to allow maintenance of instream flow when lake levels are low. The end result is that mean annual flow will be greatly reduced in the Chakachatna River and greatly increased in the McArthur River. Aquatic habitats will be significantly altered, but the overall changes to habitat PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 4-5, page 6 June 2009 value to the various species and life stages are complex. A list of general impact questions is presented below: Issues related to flow reduction in the Chakachatna River o Will changes to flow adversely affect fish habitat in the mainstem of the river o Will changes to flow adversely affect fish habitat in side channels, sloughs, and clear tributaries o Will changes to flow affect groundwater input to critical habitats o Will changes to flow adversely affect fish habitat in Noaukta Slough o Will changes to flow cause long term changes to stream geomorphology that might affect fish resources o Will changes in flow strand fish Issues related to flow increase in the McArthur River o Will changes to flow adversely affect fish habitat in the mainstem of the river o Will changes to flow adversely affect fish habitat in side channels, sloughs, and clear tributaries o Will changes to flow affect groundwater input to critical habitats o Will changes to flow cause long term changes to stream geomorphology that might affect fish resources o Will changes to flow adversely affect wetland and intertidal fish habitats o Will changes in flow strand fish Issues related to changes in water temperature and water quality o Will water transfer cause changes to water temperature regimes within various habitat areas o Will temperature alterations affect salmon spawning success o Will temperature alterations affect the timing and success for rainbow trout spawning Issues related to tailrace outflow o Will sockeye salmon en route to Chakachamna Lake be falsely attracted to the tailrace outflow o Will Chakachatna River salmon be falsely attracted to the tailrace outflow o What might be the consequences of false attraction o Will the outflow conditions create nitrogen gas saturation and consequent harm to fish The above list is probably not complete and some of the issues could be further subdivided. Figure A5.1-2 displays the above list, indicates the kinds of studies that have been proposed to answer these questions, and shows the complex interactions between studies and issues. Analysis of impacts to aquatic habitats requires a multidisciplinary approach to determine how the stream areas might be physically changed under different flow regimes. Then the data need to be combined with information regarding fish abundance, seasonal habitat utilization, and habitat requirements. One of the challenges of this analysis is presented by the wide variety of habitats in the study area and the presence of special habitat types, like side channels and clear tributaries, that likely account for a disproportionate amount of the highest value habitat. The planned Aquatic Habitat Modeling and Instream Flow study program is the most important study PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 4-5, page 7 June 2009 tool that will be utilized to provide the link between altered stream physical characteristics and fish habitat values. Instream flow studies also provide the ability to predict habitat values at varying flows so that design flow regimes can be optimized and/or negotiated to achieve best results for stakeholders. As an example of the complex issues involved, one of the specific questions relates to possible impacts of reduced flow on side channel spawning and rearing habitats that are known to depend in part on groundwater input. The sequence of information required to assess these kinds of impacts might look like the following: Determine source of groundwater to area Determine link (if any) between surface water volume and volume of groundwater in upwelling areas Model changes in surface area, depth, and upwelling that might occur under altered river flows Determine fish distribution, abundance, and habitat requirements relative to the specific area Model the changes in surface areas of suitable habitats for key species and life stages that might occur under a range of flow conditions Optimize selected flow regime to retain habitat values 3.3. Low-elevation Wetland Issues It has been evident from the beginning of discussions about Project area environmental resources, that one of the key resource impact concerns was how changes in Project area hydrology would affect downstream/downgradient wetlands. This concern has been reiterated in comments from agencies and stakeholders. Wetlands and riparian areas are the main features of the low-elevation landscape between the mountains and Cook Inlet. The importance of some of these areas that lie adjacent to Trading Bay on Cook Inlet has been recognized by the creation of the Trading Bay State Game Refuge. Therefore, one focus of our study program has been developing a suite of studies that would provide information to allow us to evaluate accurately the potential impacts of Project operations on these low-elevation wetlands and the resource values that they provide. Despite recognition of the importance of wetlands in the Project area there is little or no baseline information available on many biotic and abiotic wetland habitat factors. Because much information on environmental factors in the Project area is either non-existent or old, a number of the studies planned are for the purpose of gathering basic baseline data on Project area conditions. The ecology of the low-elevation wetlands and riparian areas is supported by the interrelationships of numerous biotic and abiotic factors. A group of sub-issues has evolved from consideration of these interrelationships: PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 4-5, page 8 June 2009 The contribution of water to the wetlands and associated clear water tributaries from the Chakachatna River and Noaukta Slough The influence of the McArthur River The amount and source of surface and sub-surface flow into the wetlands The effect of natural variability of channel migration of the Chakachamna River and distributaries The effects of climate The effect and extent of upstream glacial melt The effects of volcanic ash on soils The types of vegetation within the area of low-elevation wetlands and riparian areas The species of birds that breed, stage, or are resident in the wetlands The species of wildlife that are either residents or seasonal inhabitants of the wetlands The dependence of fish on special habitats provided by off-channel wetland areas. The interdependence of stream flow and fish habitat value on wetland function. The various types of wetlands and their functions Figure A5.1-3 displays the above list, indicates the kinds of studies that have been proposed to answer these questions, and shows the complex interactions between studies and issues. In addition to the list above, there are also potential secondary effects on subsistence and cultural resources, recreation use, and the aesthetic/visual resources values of the wetlands. The need to attempt to describe some of these interrelationships has driven the choice of studies. The interdisciplinary group of studies that will provide information to apply to wetlands issues questions includes surface and near surface hydrology; stream sediment transport and geomorphology; instream flow modeling; climatology/meteorology; glaciology and geological processes; various fish and aquatic habitat investigations; ash-derived hydric soils; vegetation mapping and classification; wetlands mapping and functional assessment; surveys for raptors, waterbirds/waterfowl, shorebirds, and passerines/songbirds; and wildlife surveys and habitat use mapping. PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 5-1, page 9 June 2009 CHAKACHAMNA STUDY MATRIX Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Study Matrix Study Title No. Study Components Objectives/Resource Area Applications Timeline Potential Impact Type Addressed Geology Soils and Climate Glaciology and Geological Processes 1 Utilize imagery historical records, and selected field investigation to: Examine recent glacial and erosional processes within the Project area and predict range of conditions that might be expected during the life of the project Examine potential interaction between long term climatic change, glaciology, and total and seasonal water availability for hydropower generation Examine geological conditions in relation to stability of lake shores and stream channels . Will provide information needed to assess: Hazard assessment of glacier damming of the Nagishlamina River Valley and potential for outburst floods that influence conditions at the outlet from Chakachamna Lake Potential changes in the mass balance of the Glaciers and resulting influence on the hydrologic balance of the lake-river system. Potential for flooding of the Chakachatna River Valley as a result of the melting of glacier ice on Mt. Spurr during an eruption and potential impacts on Project facilities Hazards associated with accelerating the retreat of Barrier Glacier due to the flow of hot volcanic debris onto the glacier. Potential changes to hydrologic regimes that could affect project engineering and operations. Potential Impacts to Chakachmna Lake fish resources that could be affected by changes in seasonal water availability, possibly affecting fish passage and productivity 2011 – 2012 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 14 Lake Shoreline Topography and Erosional Processes 2 Utilize information from Project imagery, bathymetric study, and selected field investigations to: Investigate soil composition and erodibility at selected sensitive locations. Will provide information needed to assess: Fish passage into lake tributary streams that may be blocked by steep shoreline topography during low lake levels Possible down-cutting of fluvial fan at outlet of 2011 1, 8, 9, 10 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 5-1, page 10 June 2009 Study Title No. Study Components Objectives/Resource Area Applications Timeline Potential Impact Type Addressed Integrate topography, soil characteristics, and operations modeling to predict erosion at sensitive sites Chilligan River and other tributaries Potential for down-cutting of the channel connecting Chakachamna and Kenibuna Lakes and probability of lake level variation in Kenibuna Lake Potential for impact to fish resources in Lake Clark National Park. Especially applies to possible fluctuations in Kenibuna Lake levels as they might affect lake and tributary stream productivity and access to fish. Potential impacts to shoreline spawning areas Sediment Transport and Geomorphology 3 Utilize information from Project imagery (LiDAR topography map), bathymetry and field investigations to: Investigate stream hydraulics and material movement potential within the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers. Model potential stream changes resulting from flow variations. Will provide information needed for: Input to instream flow model. Assessment of impact on wetland, intertidal, and off channel fish habitats. Assessment of Impact on stream morphology and channel maintenance, especially in the intertidal wetland area. Assessment of need for flood flow mitigation 2011-2012 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10 Meteorology/Climatology 4 Installation of several weather stations and collection of temperature and precipitation data at various locations throughout study area Will provide essential climate information that is needed for hydrologic and engineering analyses. Min. 2011 – 2016 Possible extension depending on needs 1, 2, 3, 14, 15 Water Resources Chakachamna Lake Bathymetry 5 Measure and chart the topography of the Chakachamna and Kenibuna Lake basins and fish bearing streams inlets to the lake between elevation 1142 to 1130 ft using sonar equipment and bathymetric software Will provide information essential to analyze the following resource issues: Accessibility of Chakachamna and Kenibuna Lake tributary streams to sockeye salmon and other species from Chakachamna Lake when water levels are low Possible down-cutting of channel between Kenibuna and Chakachamna lakes and subsequent lowering of Kenibuna Lake levels Flooding of spawning and incubation habitats in 2010 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 5-1, page 11 June 2009 Study Title No. Study Components Objectives/Resource Area Applications Timeline Potential Impact Type Addressed lower reaches of Chakachamna Lake tributary streams when lake water level is high Loss of spawning and incubation habitat value for lake spawning sockeye salmon and lake trout in Chakachamna Lake due to lake level fluctuation Loss of sockeye salmon rearing habitat value in Chakachamna Lake due to fluctuating water levels, including effects of fluctuations on fish food organisms Protection of fish resources in Lake Clark National Park Especially applies to possible fluctuations in Kenibuna Lake levels as they might affect lake and tributary stream productivity and access to fish Changes in vegetation in littoral, riparian, and wetland habitats around the shores of Chakachamna Lake due to fluctuation in the water surface elevation of the lake Potential for loss of, or increase in, shoreline habitats used by wildlife species due to lake level fluctuations; resulting effects on wildlife populations Provide essential input to fluid dynamics modeling study Provide data for studying fish passage facilities Chakachamna Lake Fluid Dynamics Modeling 6 Multidisciplinary study program that: Integrates information from bathymetry, hydrology and limnology studies to define water inputs, lake currents, temperature, turbidity and water chemistry. Constructs a 3-D fluid dynamics model of the seasonal behavior of lake water movements and related physical characteristics of water masses Integrates model output with information regarding fish distribution, seasonal presence, etc. Will provide input to several resource issues: Relationship between lake processes, fish distribution, and fish movements as related to potential for entrainment of fish at the power inlet Relationship between lake processes and migratory movements of outmigrating sockeye salmon as related to orientation to the outlet fish passage structure Relationship between lake processes and lake productivity under pre- and post-project conditions Assessment of alteration to lake currents and water quality caused by the power intake and/or downstream fish passage/water release structure 2011 - 2012 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 5-1, page 12 June 2009 Study Title No. Study Components Objectives/Resource Area Applications Timeline Potential Impact Type Addressed Chakachamna Lake Limnology 7 Collect basic limnological data to include: Water chemistry Seasonal Temperature and turbidity profiles Seasonal Lake current profiles and water density layers Zooplankton and productivity profiles Model seasonal conditions and integrate with fish distribution and fluid dynamics model Provides essential information required for: Fluid dynamics modeling Downstream water temperature modeling Assessing lake productivity Assessing reasons for fish distribution patterns Predicting behavior of fish relative to depth and season Assessment of vulnerability to entrainment at power intake Assess dissolved oxygen levels in the lake with depth and season Data collection 2010 – 2012 Model construction 2012/2013 Possible post-construction monitoring of selected parameters 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16 Stream Water Quality and Productivity Monitoring 8 Collect water samples from selected locations on the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers, including gage sites, to Establish a record of seasonal fluctuations in surface water chemistry, suspended solids, and productivity Sample basic water quality parameters and nutrients Sample chlorophyll-a Provides information required to understand impacts on water constituents of transferring water from Chakachamna Lake to the McArthur River drainage and impacts on aquatic habitat quality. Baseline sampling 2011 – 2013 Post-construction monitoring 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16 Integrated Surface and Groundwater Hydrology 9 Installation of continuously-recording stream gages and monitoring wells in selected locations throughout the study area to: Establish a record of both short-term and seasonal fluctuations in surface water flows and levels and water temperature Establish a record of both short-term and seasonal fluctuations in groundwater elevations to determine flow paths throughout the study area Investigate how much water is draining off hill slopes adjacent to river systems downstream of Chakachamna Lake Construct a model of area-wide water Will provide essential hydrologic information needed by analyses in several resource areas including: Aquatic habitat and instream flow modeling Stream geomorphology Wetland classification and function Fish spawning distribution Fish rearing and wintering areas Surface water gages 2010 - 2015 Groundwater instruments 2010-2012 Model construction 2012 – 2013 Possible post-construction monitoring at selected stations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 5-1, page 13 June 2009 Study Title No. Study Components Objectives/Resource Area Applications Timeline Potential Impact Type Addressed movements to provide insight into flow distribution between Chakachatna River and Noaukta Slough, downstream distributaries of the river, and adjacent wetland complexes. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Chakachamna Lake Juvenile Sockeye Salmon 10 Investigate the abundance, distribution, and life history of rearing sockeye salmon in Chakachamna and Kenibuna Lakes: Bioacoustic monitoring to determine distribution, abundance, and seasonal movement patterns Outmigration monitoring to determine timing and behavior of outmigrating smolts Integration with limnology and fluid dynamics studies to determine interactions of juvenile salmon with lake physical characteristics and model seasonal behavior Provide baseline data on Project area fish resources and provide insight into issues as follows: Assist in assessment of downstream fish passage impacts and design of fish passage facilities Assist in the assessment of entrainment impacts and design of intake structures Assist in the assessment of salmon rearing conditions as related to changing lake levels Develop standard methods for estimating or indexing outmigrating smolt numbers that can be used in future studies to evaluate project-induced changes 2010 - 2012 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Chakachamna Lake Sockeye Salmon Abundance, distribution, and Run Timing 11 Monitor passage of adult sockeye salmon into Chakachamna Lake using a sonar counter: Determine timing of migration Determine number of salmon entering Chakachamna Lake Integrate with system-wide salmon distribution study to determine overall proportion of sockeye salmon using the lake systems Integrate with system-wide study to help determine distribution of spawning fish within lake and tributaries Provide baseline data on Project area fish resources and provide insight into issues as follows: Determine number of salmon potentially at risk from upstream Project impacts Assist in assessment of upstream fish passage impacts and design of fish passage facilities Assist in the formulation of operating regimes that optimize reservoir fill timing as it might relate to upstream fish passage Assist in the assessment of drawdown impacts to shoreline spawning 2010 - 2012 1, 7, 8, 9, 10 Lake Trout Abundance, distribution, and Life History in Chakachamna Lake 12 Use a variety of methods to determine lake trout abundance, distribution, and life history: Estimate population size (if possible) Provide baseline data on Project area fish resources and provide insight into issues as follows: Determine size of population potentially at risk from lake alterations 2011 - 2013 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 5-1, page 14 June 2009 Study Title No. Study Components Objectives/Resource Area Applications Timeline Potential Impact Type Addressed Determine age and growth characteristics Determine seasonal distribution within lake Determine location, depth, and timing of spawning within Chakachamna Lake Integrate with limnology and fluid dynamics studies to model lake trout seasonal behavior as it relates to lake physical characteristics Determine vulnerability of lakeshore spawning areas to lake drawdown Assess potential ecological impacts to lake trout from lake alterations Assess vulnerability of lake trout to entrainment into the power intake System-wide Resident and Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance 13 Use a variety of methods to survey the distribution and abundance of resident and rearing fish within the whole study area: Expand on 1980’s reconnaissance to characterize fish use of the project area Develop standard techniques to estimate fish density within selected representative study sites including protected non-game species Determine seasonal use patterns Classify area-wide stream habitat values; identify sensitive areas, and special use areas Determine habitat preferences and fish use data Provide baseline data on Project area fish resources and provide insight into issues as follows: Establish quantitative baseline reference areas Identify sensitive habitats and seasonal use patterns for special consideration in impact analysis Identify sensitive habitats and seasonal use patterns for special consideration in habitat modeling and instream flow studies Provide habitat suitability information for input to instream flow analyses Primary effort 2011 – 2013 Selected sample sites 2013-2016 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 System-wide Salmon Spawning Distribution 14 Determine system-wide distribution of adult salmon using a combination of fish wheel capture, radio-tracking, and aerial surveys: Estimate relative numbers of various salmon species entering the Chakachatna and McArthur River systems Determine migration timing Identify primary spawning areas for all salmon species Integrate with Chakachamna Lake salmon studies to estimate total numbers Provide baseline data on Project area fish resources and provide insight into issues as follows: Determine size and species composition of salmon populations potentially at risk from Project impacts Identify sensitive spawning habitats for special consideration in impact analysis Identify spawning areas and seasonal use patterns for input to habitat modeling and instream flow analyses 2010 -2012 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 5-1, page 15 June 2009 Study Title No. Study Components Objectives/Resource Area Applications Timeline Potential Impact Type Addressed of sockeye salmon using project area Determine proportions of total salmon spawning in various Project area locations Fish Passage Structure Design Evaluation 15 Integrate fish study information, engineering design and specifications, lake fluid dynamics modeling, operations model, available literature, and other relevant information to assess the suitability and probable success of proposed fish passage structures Will provide input to environmental assessment and provide a framework for evaluating fish passage alternatives and optimizing design Literature review 2011 Completion of analysis 2012 - 2013 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Tailrace Attraction Risk Assessment 16 Integrate information from salmon distribution study, water quality study, hydrology study, instream flow study, experience from other projects, and other relevant information to provide an initial assessment of the risk of tailrace attraction. If needed, provide a study plan for post-project monitoring of tailrace attraction. Will provide input to overall environmental assessment Provide insight into possible mitigation measures Provide insight into the need for post-project monitoring 2012-2013 Post-construction monitoring TBD 3, 4, 5, 8, 10 Entrainment Risk Assessment 17 Integrate information from Chakachamna Lake juvenile salmon study, lake trout study, intake engineering design criteria, lake fluid dynamics model, and other relevant information to assess risk of entrainment of fish into the Project intake structure Will provide input to environmental assessment Will assess the level of risk to fish species Will provide a framework for optimizing intake design to minimize fish entrainment 2012 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 Nitrogen Saturation/Total Dissolved Gas Risk Assessment 18 Integrate information from fish studies, engineering design criteria, and the physics of water/gas interactions to assess the risk of impact to fish in the zone below the tailrace discharge Will provide input to environmental assessment Will assess the level of risk to fish species Will provide a framework for optimizing design of tailrace discharge structure to minimize fish impacts 2012 5, 8, 9, 10 Stream Macroinvertebrates 19 Sample benthic macroinvertebrate populations at selected locations in the Chakachamna and McArthur river drainages to Describe baseline population characteristics (e.g. taxa and density) Describe temporal and spatial variability Provide baseline benthic macroinvertebrate data for use in evaluating aquatic habitats and stream productivity. 2011 – 2013 Post Construction Monitoring: TBD 2, 3, 4, 5, 15 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 5-1, page 16 June 2009 Study Title No. Study Components Objectives/Resource Area Applications Timeline Potential Impact Type Addressed Employ variety of sampling methods to gather quantitative and qualitative information. Aquatic Habitat Modeling and Instream Flow 20 Multidisciplinary study program that will utilize various methods to model stream physical characteristics, combine with fish habitat suitability criteria, and predict aquatic habitat values under various flow regimes. Process involves: Stream classification/selection of appropriate model Field measurements at selected representative locations Collection of fish habitat suitability information for selected species and life stages Data processing using specialized software Model output Primarily an impact analysis tool that will: Create an index of baseline habitat conditions Provide predictions of relative habitat values for selected key species and life stages under various flow regimes Provide a framework for optimizing and/or negotiating post-project instream flow needs Provide insight into fish passage barriers related to minimum flows Provide insight into other potential mitigation needs that may be appropriate such as flushing flows, maintenance of off-channel habitats, etc. Field measurements 2011 – 2012 Data analysis 2013 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 Intertidal and Sub-tidal Habitat Survey 21 Study need will be determined by design and operating decisions. If no new marine structures, then a study may not be needed. If new structures, then surveys will be designed as appropriate to assess habitat value and organism presence. Will provide baseline data on biological characteristics of proposed port sites and will: Assist in environmental assessment Provide input to design process regarding sensitive habitats and inform mitigation planning 2012 8, 9, 10, 12 Ramping Rate Study 22 Analysis that will integrate the engineering aspects of flow transition duration and timing with the Aquatic Habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study Provide a framework for optimizing ramping rates and duration that will minimize impact to aquatic resources from scheduled changes in instream flows 2013 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 Terrestrial Resources Raptor Survey 23 Survey appropriate selected habitats in Project area for presence of raptors to Determine nesting sites of bald eagles, peregrine falcons, northern goshawks, others Determine distribution and habitat use in Project area Provide baseline data on raptor use of Project area habitats and to avoid disturbance (especially during nesting) and mitigate impacts. 2010 – 2011 Pre-construction nesting surveys: 2015, and every year 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 13, 17 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 5-1, page 17 June 2009 Study Title No. Study Components Objectives/Resource Area Applications Timeline Potential Impact Type Addressed of construction activity Shorebird Survey 24 Survey appropriate selected habitats in Project area for presence of shorebirds to Determine spring/fall staging areas Determine Project area migration flight paths Determine distribution and habitat use (e.g. nesting) Provide baseline data on shorebird use of Project area habitats – especially migration staging and nesting – to avoid disturbance, understand Project impacts (e.g. nesting on Chakachamna Lake shoreline), aid Project planning, and mitigate impacts. 2011– 2012 Post-construction monitoring 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 13, 17 Passerine/Songbird Survey 25 Survey representative habitats in Project area for presence of passerines to determine distribution and habitat use. Provide baseline data on passerine use of Project area habitats to avoid disturbance, understand Project impacts (e.g. construction in habitats with breeding birds), aid Project planning, and mitigate impacts. 2011– 2012 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 13, 17 Waterfowl/Waterbird Survey 26 Survey appropriate selected habitats in Project area for presence of waterfowl/waterbirds to Determine spring/fall staging areas Determine Project area migration flight paths Determine distribution and habitat use (e.g. nesting) Provide baseline data on waterfowl/waterbird use of Project area habitats – especially migration staging and nesting – to avoid disturbance, understand Project impacts (e.g. trumpeter swan breeding), aid Project planning, and mitigate impacts. 2011– 2012 Post-construction monitoring 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 13, 17 Chakachamna Lake Breeding Waterbird Survey 27 Survey Chakachamna Lake shoreline for breeding waterbirds to Determine presence, distribution, and timing of breeding waterbirds on Chakachamna Lake Provide baseline data on the presence of breeding waterbirds on Chakachamna Lake to avoid disturbance and understand the impacts of increased lake level fluctuation due to Project operations on breeding habitats. 2011– 2012 Post-construction monitoring 1, 17 Noxious Weeds/Invasive Plant Species Survey 28 Survey appropriate selected habitats in Project area for plants classified as noxious weeds or invasive species. Provide baseline data on presence of noxious weeds and invasive species in the Project area to aid in plans to avoid their spread due to Project construction or operations. 2011– 2012 Post-construction monitoring 11, 12, 13, 17 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plant Species Survey 29 Survey appropriate selected habitats in Project area for plants classified as rare, threatened or endangered. Provide baseline data on presence of rare, threatened or endangered plant species in the Project area to aid in plans to protect their populations from Project impacts. 2011– 2012 Post- 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 17 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 5-1, page 18 June 2009 Study Title No. Study Components Objectives/Resource Area Applications Timeline Potential Impact Type Addressed construction monitoring: If a rare species identified in an impact area Vegetation Mapping and Classification 30 Map and classify vegetation in the Project area using Orthorectified aerial photography Project topographic basemapping and geo-referenced imaging Sampling vegetation plots at representative locations throughout the Project area Classification based on Vierek, et al. 1992. Provide baseline data on Project area vegetation communities for use in describing habitats (e.g. riparian areas), understanding potential Project impacts, Project planning, and developing impact mitigation. Will be used in wildlife habitat use mapping Will be used in evaluation of impacts to Chakachamna and McArthur river riparian areas Will be used in forestry study 2011– 2012 Post-construction monitoring 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17 Wetlands Mapping and Functional Assessment 31 Map Project area wetlands and describe their functions using Study of ash-derived soils to describe hydric soil indicators for the Project area (linked to integrated hydrology study) Orthorectified aerial photography Project topographic basemapping and geo-referenced imaging Sampling representative wetland locations throughout the Project area Provide baseline data on Project area wetlands for use in describing habitats and their functions, understanding potential Project impacts, Project planning, and developing impact mitigation. Will be used in wildlife habitat use mapping Will be used in integrated hydrologic study Hydric Soils Indicators Study - 2010 2011– 2012 Post-construction monitoring 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17 Wildlife Survey and Habitat Use Mapping 32 Survey wildlife in the Project area using On the ground surveys at representative vegetation plots at locations throughout the Project area Aerial surveys of bear denning locations Aerial surveys of moose rutting locations Aerial surveys of winter use Orthorectified aerial photography Project topographic basemapping and geo-referenced imaging Provide baseline data on Project area wildlife and use of vegetation communities/habitats (e.g. riparian areas), to aid in understanding potential Project impacts, Project planning, and developing impact mitigation. 2011– 2012 Post-construction monitoring (e.g. bear denning) 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 5-1, page 19 June 2009 Study Title No. Study Components Objectives/Resource Area Applications Timeline Potential Impact Type Addressed Forestry 33 Study of commercially valuable timber species in the Project area using Orthorectified aerial photography Project topographic basemapping and geo-referenced imaging Vegetation mapping results Consultations with the Tyonek Native Corporation (has logged in the Project area in the past) and the State Forestry Dept. Provide information on Project area timber lands and their use, to aid in understanding potential Project impacts, Project planning, and developing impact mitigation. 2011– 2012 2, 3, 11, 13 Cultural Resources Subsistence and Cultural Use and Traditional Cultural Properties 34 Determination of subsistence and traditional cultural use of Project area through Section 106 consultation and consultation with SHPO Interviews with local Dena’ina Vegetation mapping Wildlife habitat use mapping Fish distribution and abundance studies Identify and describe subsistence use and areas with traditional/cultural significance within the Project area to aid in understanding potential Project impacts, Project planning, and developing impact mitigation. 2011– 2012 Post-construction monitoring 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Historical and Archaeological Resources Survey 35 Identification of historical and archaeological sites through consultation and field surveys Section 106 consultation, consultation with SHPO Development (through consultation) of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) Field survey of the APE Determination of eligibility for listing of sites identified Identify and describe historical and archaeological resources within the Project area to aid in understanding potential Project impacts, Project planning, and developing impact mitigation. 2011– 2012 Determination of elegibility (as needed) 2013 Post-construction monitoring (e.g. ensure protection of listed sites) 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Recreation Resources Recreational Use Assessment of current recreational use of Describe recreational use of the Project area to aid in 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 5-1, page 20 June 2009 Study Title No. Study Components Objectives/Resource Area Applications Timeline Potential Impact Type Addressed Assessment 36 Project area by Consultation with area land management agencies (e.g. Lake Clark National Park) Interviews with recreationists Tracking state hunting records Recreation Needs Assessment understanding potential Project impacts, Project planning, and developing impact mitigation. Development of Recreation Resources Management Plan 2011– 2012 Post-construction monitoring (e.g. may be required to limit access) 10,11, 12, 13 Land use 37 Site investigations to include: Right-of-ways, land rights and project boundary optimization and delineation Land ownership and status analysis Land management analysis and consistency with land management plans Provide the information required for impact assessment and mitigation for Exhibit E resources. Define project boundary to meet Exhibit G requirements and assure all rights can be obtained to operate the project. 2011 - 2012 11, 13, 18 Visual and Aesthetic Resources Aesthetic/Visual Resources 38 Assess the current aesthetic and visual resources of the Project area through field surveys and interviews with area users. Describe the aesthetic/visual resources of the Project area to aid in understanding potential Project impacts, Project planning, and developing impact mitigation. 2011– 2012 1, 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 13 Socioeconomic Resources Socioeconomics Survey [TBD] 39 [SM- take shot at outlining goals/objectives of socioeconomics study] Engineering and Operations Hazards Assessment 40 Investigates the potential for geologic and climatic hazards: Volcanic activity Glacial movement Seismic activity Flooding Glacial outbreak floods Will provide the information required to assess the probability of unlikely events that could create significant hazards for the Project: Potential for flooding of the Chakachatna River Valley as a result of the melting of glacier ice on Mt. Spurr during an eruption and potential impacts on Project facilities Hazards associated with accelerating the retreat of Barrier Glacier due to the flow of hot volcanic debris onto the glacier. Hazards associated with advance of Barrier glacier on the proposed weir structure 2012 Could relate to all issues depending on hazard event PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 5-1, page 21 June 2009 Study Title No. Study Components Objectives/Resource Area Applications Timeline Potential Impact Type Addressed Possible earthquake effects from local fault movement, soil liquifaction, etc Construction Methods Impacts Study/Best Management Practices 41 Update project cost and construction schedule, assess potential construction impacts and develop best management practices: Clearing and spoil handling procedures Erosion control Water quality control Obtain updated project cost information to support project planning Establishment of standard construction practices to minimize development impacts from all Project facilities. 2012-2013 11, 12, 13 Reservoir Operations Model a. Power Study Modeling b. Ramping Rate Analysis 42 Create a model that simulates operational water regimes including seasonal and inter-annual ranges: Seasonal lake levels including potential annual variation Seasonal Chakachatna River outflow Seasonal instream flow releases Seasonal powerhouse discharge Statistical evaluation of potential for water conditions to occur outside of normal operating ranges Effects of Ramping up/down on flow/ water level of McArthur River Establishes conditions under which Project impacts will be assessed: Conditions relating to upstream migration of salmon into Chakachamna Lake Conditions relating to downstream passage of juvenile salmon out of Chakachamna Lake Conditions relating to seasonal draw down and potential impacts to fish spawning, lake productivity, wildlife use of shore zone, etc. Conditions relating to seasonal flows in the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers Potential for unusual events that might affect fish passage or maintenance of downstream fish habitats 2011 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18 Geotechnical Study a. Hydropower Facilities b. Fish Passage Facilities 43 Utilize Satelite images and LiDar topography map and other existing data to: Prepare for surface mapping Prepare field investigation plan within the main project facilities and structures. Supervise field works and laboratory tests Interpretation and reporting of the field investigation results Assess engineering implication of studies done in item 1 (Glaciology and others Geological Processes and Hazards) Will provide information needed to design the general lay-out arrangement of the project Assess the hazards associated with the construction work 2011-2012 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Appendix 5-1, page 22 June 2009 Study Title No. Study Components Objectives/Resource Area Applications Timeline Potential Impact Type Addressed Determine geotechnical parameters. Define parameters for TBM Design. Project Site Topography and Bathymetry and topography 44 Develop digital mapping for the project site for engineering purposes. Note that this will be done in conjuction with identified needs of resource studies, but it is expected that there will be unique needs/specifications for engineering 2010 FIGURES Figure A5.1-1. Chakachamna Lake Aquatic Resource Issues. Diagram of impact issues important questions, and studies needed for issue resolution. PROJECT OPERATION: Transfer of water from the Chakachamna Lake/Chakachatna River Drainage to the McArthur River Drainage PROJECT EFFECT: Potential Impacts to Chakachamna Lake Fish Resources MAJOR ISSUE AREA: Increased Lake Level Fluctuations Other issues related to lake level fluctuations Other issues related to outlet flows QUESTIONS AND INFORMATION NEEDS Will there be loss of lakeshore spawning? Will there be changes to rearing habitats? Will access to lake tributaries be blocked? Will the upstream passage of adult sockeye salmon be blocked? Will the upstream or downstream passage of resident fish be blocked? Will downstream passage of juvenile salmon be blocked? What might be the changes to the limnological regime? What is the risk of fish entrainment at the intake? Lake Shoreline Topography and Erosional Processes System-wide Salmon Spawning Distribution STUDIES System-wide Resident and Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance Fish Passage Structure Design Evaluation Fluid Dynamics Modeling MAJOR ISSUE AREA: Upstream Fish Passage MAJOR ISSUE AREA: Intake Structure Effects MAJOR ISSUE AREA: Downstream Fish Passage What is the potential for false attraction of outmigrants to the intake?Operations Model Chakachamna Lake Juvenile Sockeye Salmon Bathymetry Lake Trout Abundance and Life History in Chakachamna Lake Chakachamna Lake Sockeye Salmon Abundance and Run Timing Chakachamna Lake Limnology Figure A5.1-2. Chakachatna and McArthur River aquatic resource issues. Diagram of impact issues important questions, and studies needed for issue resolution. PROJECT OPERATION: Transfer of water from the Chakachamna Lake/Chakachatna River Drainage to the McArthur River Drainage PROJECT EFFECT: Potential Impacts to Chakachatna and McArthur River Aquatic Resources MAJOR ISSUE AREA: Reduced flow in the Chakachatna River Terrestrial issues related to aquatic resources impacts Other issues related to transfer of water QUESTIONS AND INFORMATION NEEDS Will changes to flow adversely affect fish habitat in side channels, sloughs, and clrear tributaries? Will changes to flow affect groundwater input to critical habitats? Will changes to flow adversely affect fish habitat in rivers’ mainstems? Will changes to flow cause long term to changes to stream geomorphology that might affect fish resources? Will changes to flow adversely affect fish habitat in Noaukta Slough? Will potential temperature changes affect salmon spawning success? Will potential temperature changes affect the timing and success of rainbow trout spawning? MAJOR ISSUE AREA: Increased Flow in the McArthur River MAJOR ISSUE AREA: Potential Effects of Tailrace Outflow MAJOR ISSUE AREA: Potential Changes in Water Temperature and Water Quality Will water transfer cause changes to water temperature regimes within various habitats? Operations Model Nitrogen Saturation Risk Assessment Stream Water Quality and Productivity Monitoring What might be the outcome of false attraction? Aquatic Habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Will Changes to flow adversely affect wetland intertidal fish habitats? STUDIES System-wide Salmon Spawning Distribution Will sockeye salmon en route to the Chakachatna River and/or Chakachamna Lake be falselly attracted to the tailrace outflow? Will outflow conditions create nitrogen gas saturation? Tailrace Attraction Risk Assessment Sediment Transport and Geomorphology Integrated Surface and Groundwater Hydrology System-wide Resident and Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance Figure A5.1-3. Downstream wetland resource issues. Diagram of impact issues important questions, and studies needed for issue resolution. PROJECT OPERATION: Transfer of water from the Chakachamna Lake/Chakachatna River Drainage to the McArthur River Drainage PROJECT EFFECT: Less discharge in Chakachatna River PROJECT EFFECT: More discharge in McArthur River Other Issues Related to Chakachatna River flows Other Issues Related to McArthur River flows QUESTIONS AND INFORMATION NEEDS What types of vegetation communities are there? What are the species of birds and wildlife and how do they use the habitats? What is the amount and source of surface and sub-surface flow? What is Chakachatna River and Noaukta slough contribution to wetland hydrology? What are the effects of climate, glaciers, volcanic soils? What is the effect of natural channel migration? What is the dependence of fish on off channel habitats How does wetland function affect streamflow and fish habitat?What are the types of wetlands and what are their functions? Shorebird Survey Raptor Survey Wildlife Survey and Habitat Use Mapping Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plant Survey STUDIES Wetlands Mapping and Functional Assessment Meteorology and Climatology Passerine/Songbird Survey Waterfowl/Waterbird Survey Vegetation Mapping and Classification System-wide Resident and Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance Glaciology and Geological Processes Sediment Transport and Geomorphology System-wide Salmon Spawning and Distribution Integrated Surface and Groundwater Hydrology MAJOR ISSUE AREA: Potential impacts to downstream low-elevation wetlands Aquatic Habitat Modeling and Instream Flow PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT © 2009 TDX POWER, INC. Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 June 2009 APPENDIX 6-1 DOCUMENTATION OF CONTACTS RELATED TO PAD DEVELOPMENT Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Preliminary Consultation Meeting Organization ADF&G, State Hydro Coordinator 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage AK. 99518 Date/time Jan. 3, 2008, 1:30 PM Attendees For TDX Eric Yould Jim Thrall For ADF&G Jim Ferguson, Hydro Coordinator (tel. 267-2312) jim.ferguson@aslaka.gov Joe Klein (tel. 267-2148) joe.klein@alaska.gov Jason Mouw (tel. 267-2179) jason.mouw@alaska.gov Tammy Massie (tel. 267 2122) tammy.massie@alaska.gov Summary Eric Yould (EY) and Jim Thrall (JT) explained that the purpose of this meeting was to provide the Water Resource Section with a description of the proposed project and discuss TDX’s current plans for consultation activities and preliminary scoping and issue identification with potential stakeholders who would participate in licensing the project. EY then presented a short history of the Chakachamna Project and summary description of the project as proposed in the Preliminary Permit. JT then discussed the licensing process. He indicated that it was likely that licensing would require use of FERC’s recently adopted Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). This process assumes a collaborative effort between the licensee, the regulatory and resource agencies and other stakeholders. He explained that at present TDX was focusing on beginning the consultation and coordination process and preparation of the Pre- Application Document (PAD) which forms the basis for scoping and definition of the study plans for the project. Thus, over the coming months TDX would be requesting input in the following areas: 1. a description of the regulatory authority of ADF&G and a listing of permits that could be required during licensing, construction and operation of the proposed project, 2. assistance in identification of sources for existing resource information for the project area, 3. a listing of the resource issues of concern that ADF&G feels will need to be addressed in the licensing process, and, 4. identification of the primary point of contact for ADF&G along with other contacts to be included in the project service list. Jim Ferguson stated that his experience with the ILP was that the schedule was very tight and for a project such as Chakachamna. This could be a problem. JT agreed and indicated that it may be in the interest of all parties to request that FERC approve another approach. Issues of concern preliminarily identified by the attendees included the following: • Intended use of project and relation to area mining developments. • Interference with up- and downstream passage of fish (ADF&G doubts efficiency of Bechtel proposal for passage). • False attraction to powerhouse outflow • Effect of reservoir fluctuations on in reservoir habitat • Effect of reservoir fluctuations on connectivity with up stream habitat • Possible entrainment into lake tap outlet to tunnel and powerhouse • Habitat loss due to reduced flow and altered hydrological regime in Chakachatna River • Habitat effects of altered hydrological regime in Mc Arthur River. • Habitat effects of altered hydrological regime in wetland habitats of the lower Mc Arthur River. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Preliminary Consultation Meeting Organization ADNR , Water Resources Section 550West 7th Avenue, #1020 Anchorage, AK 99501 Date/time Jan. 3, 2008, 10:30 PM Attendees For TDX Eric Yould Jim Thrall For ADNR Patricia Bettis, Nat. Res. Mgr. I patricia.bettis@alaska.gov (tel. 269-8620) Mark Ingram, Hydrologist III mark.inghhram@alaska.gov (tel. 269-8638) Gary Prokosch Nat. Res. Mgr. III gary.prokosch@alaska.gov (tel. 269-8645) Summary Eric Yould (EY) and Jim Thrall (JT) explained that the purpose of this meeting was to provide the Water Resource Section with a description of the proposed project and discuss TDX’s current plans for consultation activities and preliminary scoping and issue identification with potential stakeholders who would participate in licensing the project. EY then presented a short history of the Chakachamna Project and summary description of the project as proposed in the Preliminary Permit. JT then discussed the licensing process. He indicated that it was likely that licensing would require use of FERC’s recently adopted Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). This process assumes a collaborative effort between the licensee, the regulatory and resource agencies and other stakeholders. He explained that at present TDX was focusing on beginning the consultation and coordination process and preparation of the Pre- Application Document (PAD) which forms the basis for scoping and definition of the study plans for the project. Thus, over the coming months TDX would be requesting input in the following areas: 1. a description of the regulatory authority of ADNR and a listing of permits that could be required during licensing, construction and operation of the proposed project, 2. assistance in identification of sources for existing resource information for the project area, 3. a listing of the resource issues of concern that ADNR feels will need to be addressed in the licensing process, and, 4. identification of the primary point of contact for ADNR along with other contacts to be included in the project service list. Gary Prokosh verified that temporary water use permits will be required for camp facilities established during the licensing study as well as for water required during construction. He also indicated that contracts with USGS for gaging would likely be done through ADNR. There is a possibility that TDX, as a subsidiary of a Native Corporation, may be able to contract directly with USGS or arrange to have it contracted through Tyonek. This needs to be explored. It was agreed that re-establishment of the gage site previously located at the lake outlet should be done as soon as is practical. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Preliminary Consultation Meeting Organization US Department of the Interior 605 West 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Date/time Jan. 7, 2008, 10:00 AM Attendees For TDX Jim Thrall For USDOI Jeff Anderson, USFWS jeffry_anderson@fws.gov Phil Brna, USFWS phil_brna@fws.gov Joan Darnell, NPS-AK Region joan_darnell@nps.gov (tel. 644-3526) Ken Lord, DOI Solicitor’s Office no email (tel. 271-4184) Doug Mutter, DOI douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov Bob Platte, USFWS bob_platte@fws.gov (tel. 786-3565) Page Spencer, NPS page_spencer@nps.gov Theresa Tanner, USFWS theresa_tanner@fws.gov Cassie Thomas, NPS, AK Region cassie_thomas@nps.gov (tel.644-3590) Summary Jim Thrall (JT) explained that the purpose of this meeting was to provide USDOI with a description of the proposed project and discuss TDX’s current plans for consultation activities and preliminary scoping and issue identification with potential stakeholders who would participate in licensing the project. JT then presented a short history of the Chakachamna Project and summary description of the project as proposed in the Preliminary Permit. JT then discussed the licensing process. He indicated that it was likely that licensing would require use of FERC’s recently adopted Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). This process assumes a collaborative effort between the licensee, the regulatory and resource agencies and other stakeholders. He explained that at present TDX was focusing on beginning the consultation and coordination process and preparation of the Pre- Application Document (PAD) which forms the basis for scoping and definition of the study plans for the project. Thus, over the coming months TDX would be requesting input in the following areas: 1. a description of the regulatory authority of DOI and a listing of permits that could be required during licensing, construction and operation of the proposed project, 2. assistance in identification of sources for existing resource information for the project area, 3. a listing of the resource issues of concern that DOI feels will need to be addressed in the licensing process, and, 4. the identification of the primary points of contact for agencies within DOI along with other contacts to be included in the project service list. Following the presentation on the project there was a general discussion of the proposed licensing process. The attendees indicated that the ILP schedule constraints would be a problem for this scale of development. They also indicated that until the coordination process was formalized they would not be able to formally respond to requests for information. Issues of concern preliminarily identified by the attendees included the following: • Intended use of project power and relation to area mining developments. • Future developments (T-lines) within park boundaries • Incursion of any project features into National Park lands. • Possible need for NPS to participate in the project EIS. • Fish passage through the project. • Effects on stream habitat below the lake. • Minimum flow releases from the lake. • Changes in lake levels, effects on fish use. • Possible effects of lake level changes on connectivity to upper water shed and/or incursion of reservoir into National Park. • Effects of reservoir fluctuations on wetlands up stream of Lake Chakachamna • Interference of the project with recreational use of the area, including effects on National Park visitor’s access to and use of the park. • Habitat effects of altered hydrological regime in wetland habitats of the lower Mc Arthur River/Trading Bay State Game refuge • Effects of road construction on wildlife due to traffic, erosion, increased visitation/hunting etc. • Hunting conflicts with subsistence use of area • Salmon impacts resulting in effects on brown bear • T&E species • Loss of white water rafting resource in Chakachatna River • Effects on archeological/cultural resources Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Preliminary Consultation Meeting Organizations Various Environmental and Resource Development NGOs. TDX Power Conference Room 4300 B Street, #402 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Date/time Jan. 11, 2008, 10:00 AM Attendees For TDX Jim Thrall Eric Yould For the NGOs Dennis Gann, Ak. Coal Work Group ddgann@hotmail.com (tel. 929-9371) Pat Lavin, Nat. Wildlife Fed. lavin@nwf.org (tel. 339-3909) Jan Konigsberg, Nat. Heritage Institute hydro@gci.net (tel. 248-3014) Tim Obst, Trustees for Alaska tobst@trustees.org ( tel. 276-4244 Ex 111) Trish Roth, Sierra club trish@sierraclubalaska.org (tel. 276-4044) Kate Troll, Ak. Conservation Alliance kate@akvoice.org (tel. 258-6174) Eric Uhde Alaska Energy Center eric@akcenter.org (tel. 274-3639) Summary Eric Yould (EY) explained that the purpose of this meeting was to provide a description of the proposed project and discuss TDX’s current plans for consultation activities and preliminary scoping and issue identification with potential stakeholders who would participate in licensing the project. EY then presented a short history of the Chakachamna Project and summary description of the project as proposed in the Preliminary Permit. JT then discussed the licensing process. He indicated that it was likely that licensing would require use of FERC’s recently adopted Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). This process assumes a collaborative effort between the licensee, the regulatory and resource agencies and other stakeholders. He explained that at present TDX was focusing on beginning the consultation and coordination process and preparation of the Pre- Application Document (PAD) which forms the basis for scoping and definition of the study plans for the project. Thus, over the coming months TDX would be requesting input in the following areas: 1. assistance in identification of sources for existing resource information for the project area, 2. a listing of the resource issues of concern that the stakeholders feel will need to be addressed in the licensing process, and, 3. identification of a primary point of contact for each stakeholder organization along with other contacts to be included in the project service list. \ Following the presentation on the project there was a general discussion of the proposed licensing process. Several of the attendees indicated that in light of their position on global warming and greenhouse gases they would look at this type of hydro development very seriously. However, they would want to see sound environmental work and thorough mitigation planning incorporated into the project. It was suggested that FERC would likely look favorably on a licensing process other than that required for the ILP. The understanding of some of the group was that the ILP was intended primarily to meet the needs of the re-licensing load currently facing FERC. Issues of concern preliminarily identified by the attendees included the following: • Intended use of project power and relation to area mining developments. • Amount of power to be produced in relation to rail belt energy needs. • Relation of this project to a possible Susitna development (does one of the two eliminate the need for the other, how does Susitna compare in cost and amount of power produced). • Relationship of this project to near by geothermal projects under investigation. • Communities that would be served by the project • Effects on fish habitat and fish populations in the project area. • Effects on hydrology and fish/wildlife use in the in the Trading Bay State Game Refuge. • Geotechnical risks of the area (Mt. Spurr, Castle Mountain Fault and Barrier, Blockade and Mc Arthur glaciers). "Sally Morsell" <smorsell@northernecological.com> To 01/16/2008 01:00 PM <phil_brna@fws.gov> cc Subject Wildlife info in Chakachamna Lake/Trading Bay area Hi Phil- As you know, John and I are working on an environmental overview for a possible hydro project that would affect the Chakachamna Lake and Trading Bay areas. I am looking for the most current wildlife information: bald eagle nest surveys, swan nesting surveys, bird migratory pathways, large and small mammal surveys. Who would be the best contact? Do you have a preferred habitat or vegetation classification method? Also, some small mammal trapping was done in the 1980’s. Would you require more current data if the habitat hasn’t changed? Please call or email if you have questions – 360-592-4267, smorsell@northernecological.com . I hope all is well with you. -Sally Phil Brna/R7/FWS/DOI@F WS To "Sally Morsell" 01/22/2008 09:37 <smorsell@northernecological.com> AM cc Debbie Groves/R7/FWS/DOI@FWS, Frances Mann/R7/FWS/DOI@FWS, jim.ferguson@alaska.gov, Judy Putera/LACL/NPS@NPS, Julian Fischer/R7/FWS/DOI@FWS, William Eldridge/R7/FWS/DOI@FWS, Robert E Gill/BRD/USGS/DOI@USGS, Steve Matsuoka/R7/FWS/DOI@FWS, douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov, Page Spencer/LACL/NPS@NPS, Cassie Thomas/AKSO/NPS@NPS, Joan Darnell/AKSO/NPS@NPS Subject RE: Wildlife info in Chakachamna Lake/Trading Bay area(Document link: Page Spencer) Sally, I think there is probably relatively little site specific wildlife information for the area around the lake and maybe a bit more in Trading Bay, specifically regarding waterfowl and large mammals. For the people I list contacts for, I will cc them so they know you might be calling and you will have email addresses. (the format for addresses is first_last@fws.gov) My biggest concerns (off the top of my head) related to wildlife are: vegetation changes (including wetland effects) along the rivers associated with altered stream flows; lake level increases and wildlife effects, especially inundation of tributary stream deltas; increased human caused disturbance associated with additional overflights, access roads, and construction; habitat fragmentation; and collision potential associated with a transmission line. Swans- USFWS conducts surveys every few years. Contact for this is Debbie Groves in Juneau- 586-7335. I think surveys were flown 2 or 3 years ago. Eagles- As far as I know we have no bald eagle nest information for this area. I'll ask Fran Mann who to contact to find out for sure. Mammals- Someone from the ADF&G is the contact for this information. You should probably start with Jim Ferguson (however he is on vacation). Judy Putera (wildlife bio for NPS- Lake Clark) may have some information relative to large mammals near the lake and park. Brown bears are likely to be a major issue. Waterbirds- ADF&G and USFWS fly waterfowl surveys and USGS also looks at shorebirds. I am not sure what is done in that specific area. You can contact Julian Fischer or Bill Eldridge of Mig Birds for waterfowl info and Bob Gill of USGS for shorebird info. I doubt that we know anything specific about migratory pathways in the area, but this will be an issue for transmission line location. Land Birds- Contact is Steve Matsuoka of USFWS, Mig Birds. I doubt that we have any site specific data. I have no recommendations regarding a vegetation or habitat classification methodology. Regarding data from 1983, my understanding, without looking at the reports, is that it is fairly cursory, and that agencies would likely recommend more specific and detailed studies. We'll have to review what is available first and we'll want to review project study plans. I hope this helps. __________________________________ Phil Brna Fish and Wildlife Biologist US Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage Field Office Conservation Planning Assistance 605 W. 4th Ave, Room G-61 Anchorage, AK 99501 phone: (907) 271-2440 fax: (907) 271-2786 email: phil_brna@fws.gov From: Page_Spencer@nps.gov Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:02 PM To: Phil_Brna@fws.gov; Sally Morsell Cc: Judy_Putera@nps.gov Subject: RE: Wildlife info in Chakachamna Lake/Trading Bay area Hello Sally I apologize for not getting to you last week; we were tied up in a park-wide meeting. We are pretty short on specific studies for wildlife and birds in the Chakachamna area, but I have done some reconnaissance up there and the following species have been observed, or are very likely to be in the area. moose black bear brown bear wolves probably wolverines river otter, muskrat mink, weasels probably martin beaver microtines hares marmots and pikas lots of swans waterfowl and shorebirds--nesting and migrating raptors the usual assembly of little brown birds from the perspective of Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, I am particularity concerned about the potential of lake level changes due to a dam at the outlet of Chakachamna. Kenibuna Lake and the Neacola River and delta are incredibly rich wetlands and habitat for all manner of wildlife and waterfowl. Rising water levels into Kenibuna Lake have the potential to alter or destroy these wetlands with consequences to fish, waterfowl and other birds, mammals and the vegetation communities that support them. On the vegetation classification front, in Alaska we generally map to the Vierick framework and crosswalk it into other systems as useful or required. Vegetation and habitat classifications are different things, so it would be good to be clear about mapping objectives before beginning. Also be aware that Lake Clark has done a general-level vegetation map of the park, and I think it stretches into Chakachamna. I agree with Phil that the agencies will likely have suggestions for studies and study design, but we need more specifics on the project design and locations. Judy--chime in if I have forgotten anything vital. Page Page Spencer, PhD Chief of Natural Resources Lake Clark National Park & Preserve 907-644-3629 Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Preliminary Consultation Meeting Organization NOAA, NMFS Anchorage AK. 99518 Date/time Feb 14, 2008, 10:00AM Attendees For TDX Eric Yould Jim Thrall For NMFS Jeanne Hanson, jeanne_hanson@noaa.gov (tel. 271-3029) Doug Limpinsel, doug_limpinsel@noaa.gov (tel. 271-6379) Summary Eric Yould (EY) and Jim Thrall (JT) explained that the purpose of this meeting was to provide the Water Resource Section with a description of the proposed project and discuss TDX’s current plans for consultation activities and preliminary scoping and issue identification with potential stakeholders who would participate in licensing the project. EY then presented a short history of the Chakachamna Project and summary description of the project as proposed in the Preliminary Permit. JT then discussed the licensing process. He indicated that it was likely that licensing would require use of FERC’s recently adopted Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). This process assumes a collaborative effort between the licensee, the regulatory and resource agencies and other stakeholders. He explained that at present TDX was focusing on beginning the consultation and coordination process and preparation of the Pre- Application Document (PAD) which forms the basis for scoping and definition of the study plans for the project. Thus, over the coming months TDX would be requesting input in the following areas: 1. a description of the regulatory authority of NMFS and a listing of permits that could be required during licensing, construction and operation of the proposed project, 2. assistance in identification of sources for existing resource information for the project area, 3. a listing of the resource issues of concern that NMFS feels will need to be addressed in the licensing process, and, 4. the identification of the primary point of contact for NMFS along with other contacts to be included in the project service list. NMFS had no comments concerning specific issues at this time. Jeanne Hanson emphasized the need for good consultation and coordination procedures during the licensing process. She cited the Cooper Lake Project as a successful example. Use of an on line site where participants can be kept up to date and review and comment on work products was felt to be important to the success of that project. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Preliminary Consultation Meeting Organization Kenai River Center (multi-agency permitting center) 614 Funny River Road Soldatna, AK 99669 Date/time Feb.20, 2008 10:00 AM Attendees For TDX Jim Thrall For KRC Dan Chay, priv. citizen chay@alaska.com (tel. 283-9227) John Czarnezki, Ken. Penn. Borough jczarn@borough.kenai.ak.us (tel. 260-4882) Jennifer Knowles, USACOE, jen.knowles@usacearmy.mil (tel. 283-3519) Ginny Litchfield, ADNR, Habitat ginny.litchfiel@alaska.gov (tel. 260-4882) Phil North, USEPA north.phil@epa.gov (tel.260-4882) Gary Williams, Coast. Zone Mgr. gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us (tel. 714-2216) Jan Yeager Ken. Watershed forum jyaeger@borough.kenai.ak.us (tel. 260-4882) Summary Jim Thrall (JT) explained that the purpose of this meeting was to provide a description of the proposed project and discuss TDX’s current plans for consultation activities and preliminary scoping and issue identification with potential stakeholders who would participate in licensing the project. JT then presented a short history of the Chakachamna Project and summary description of the project as proposed in the Preliminary Permit. JT then discussed the licensing process. He indicated that it was likely that licensing would require use of FERC’s recently adopted Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). This process assumes a collaborative effort between the licensee, the regulatory and resource agencies and other stakeholders. He explained that at present TDX was focusing on beginning the consultation and coordination process and preparation of the Pre- Application Document (PAD) which forms the basis for scoping and definition of the study plans for the project. Thus, over the coming months TDX would be requesting input in the following areas: 1. a description of the regulatory authority of the KRC agencies and a listing of permits that could be required during licensing, construction and operation of the proposed project, 2. assistance in identification of sources for existing resource information for the project area, 3. a listing of the resource issues of concern that KRC representatives feels will need to be addressed in the licensing process, and, 4. the identification of the primary points of contact for the agencies within the KRC group along with other contacts to be included in the project service list. Following the presentation on the project there was a general discussion of the proposed project and licensing process. Issues identified during this discussion included: • Intended use of project and relation to area mining developments. • Size of the project in relation to the rail belt requirements. • Ability of the project to contribute to the entire rail belt. • Effects on fisheries and area wildlife. • How will final project size and design features be adjusted to address issues identified during the environmental evaluation? • How will project design address the geotechnical risks of the area (Mt. Spurr, Castle Mountain Fault and Barrier, Blockade and Mc Arthur glaciers)? • What is the relationship of this project to the Susitna project? • Effect of project on the village of Tyonek. From: Maxine Blake [mailto:mblake@tdxpower.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 1:36 PM To: lawrence.pelz@noaa.gov; ginny.litchfield@alaska.gov; jeanne.hanson@noaa.gov; Nick Goodman; Hazen Baron; spadula@longviewassociates.com; wbley@longviewassociates.com; eandersen@longviewassociates.com; rfilbert@longviewassociates.com; fanderson@longviewassociates.com; ble@longviewassociates.com; jborovansky@longviewassociates.com; gboyle@longviewassociates.com; jjohns@longviewassociates.com; jbrooks@longviewassociates.com; asteirer@longviewassociates.com Subject: plz HOLD THE DATE To Whom It May Concern: Please hold October 29, 2008 for a full day workshop on the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660). The purpose of the meeting is to acquaint the agencies and interested members of the public with TDX Power and the proposed project. Additionally, this workshop will be used to help make plans for engaging with interested parties going forward. The meeting will be held in Anchorage and a more formal agenda and meeting announcement will be issued shortly. TDX Power is a subsidiary of Tanadgusix Corporation Inc, a shareholder-owned Aleut Alaska Native village corporation founded in 1973. In 2006 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) granted TDX Power a three year preliminary permit under Section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to study the proposed 330-megawatt (MW) Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project. The proposed project would be located at the existing Chakachamna Lake on the Chakachatna River in Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska. In order to help us with our planning, please RSVP to Maxine Blake at mblake@tdxpower.com / (907) 762-8450 For further information on this event or the Chakachamna Project, please contact: Eric Yould TDX Power eyould@starband.net (907) 242-0487 Maxine Blake <mblake@tdxpower.com> 10/02/2008 04:18 PM To "William.ashton@alaska.gov" <William.ashton@alaska.gov>, "wayne.biessel@alaska.gov" <wayne.biessel@alaska.gov>, "Tyonek@aitc.org" <Tyonek@aitc.org>, "trish@sierraclubalaska.org" <trish@sierraclubalaska.org>, "tomnamtredt@alaska.gov" <tomnamtredt@alaska.gov>, "tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov" <tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov>, "tobst@trustees.org" <tobst@trustees.org>, "Theresa_tanner@fws.gov" <Theresa_tanner@fws.gov>, "tammy.massie@alaska.gov" <tammy.massie@alaska.gov>, "Stephanie.ludwig@alaska.gov" <Stephanie.ludwig@alaska.gov>, "shaw.hanh@epa.gov" <shaw.hanh@epa.gov>, "Russell_kirkham@dnr.state.ak.us" <Russell_kirkham@dnr.state.ak.us>, "phil_brna@fws.gov" <phil_brna@fws.gov>, "patricia.bettis@alaska.gov" <patricia.bettis@alaska.gov>, "Pamela.russell@alaska.gov" <Pamela.russell@alaska.gov>, "page_spencer@nps.gov" <page_spencer@nps.gov>, "nve@eklutna-nsn.gov" <nve@eklutna-nsn.gov>, "north.phil@epa.gov" <north.phil@epa.gov>, "nina.brudie@alaska.gov" <nina.brudie@alaska.gov> To: "eric@akcenter.org" <eric@akcenter.org>, "ellen.simpson@alaska.gov" <ellen.simpson@alaska.gov>, "ed.weiss@alaska.gov" <ed.weiss@alaska.gov>, Douglas Mutter/PEP/OS/DOI@DOI, "Doug.Limpinsel@noaa.gov" <Doug.Limpinsel@noaa.gov>, "doug.gasek@alaska.gov" <doug.gasek@alaska.gov>, "donald.perrin@alaska.gov" <donald.perrin@alaska.gov>, "dnelson@borough.kenai.ak.us" <dnelson@borough.kenai.ak.us>, "ddgann@hotmail.com" <ddgann@hotmail.com>, "darrel@ninilchiktribe-nsn.gov" <darrel@ninilchiktribe-nsn.gov>, "cvepp@chickaloon.org" <cvepp@chickaloon.org>, "clark.cox@alaska.gov" <clark.cox@alaska.gov> cc Subject DATE CHANGE plz hold 6NOV To Whom It May Concern: On September 29th TDX asked you to please hold October 29, 2008 for a full day workshop on the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660). In response to feedback back we received about conflicts with the American Fisheries Society meetings being held the same week, we have moved the date of our workshop to November 6th. It is our hope that this date change will enable more of you to attend. The purpose of the meeting is to acquaint the agencies and interested members of the public with TDX Power and the proposed project. Additionally, this workshop will be used to help make plans for engaging with interested parties going forward. The meeting will be held in Anchorage and a more formal agenda and meeting announcement will be issued shortly. TDX Power is a subsidiary of Tanadgusix Corporation Inc, a shareholder‐owned Aleut Alaska Native village corporation founded in 1973. In 2006 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) granted TDX Power a three year preliminary permit under Section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to study the proposed 330‐megawatt (MW) Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project. The proposed project would be located at the existing Chakachamna Lake on the Chakachatna River in Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska. In order to help us with our planning, please RSVP to Maxine Blake at mblake@tdxpower.com / (907) 762‐8450 For further information on this event or the Chakachamna Project, please contact: Eric Yould TDX Power eyould@starband.net (907) 242‐0487 From: Maxine Blake [mailto:mblake@tdxpower.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 9:20 AM To: Ashton, William S (DEC); Biessel, Wayne A (DNR); Tyonek@aitc.org; Trish Rolfe; tom.namtredt@alaska.gov; tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov; tobst@trustees.org; Theresa_tanner@fws.gov; Massie, Tammy M (DFG); Stephanie.ludwig@alaska.gov; shaw.hanh@epa.gov; Kirkham, Russell A (DNR); phil_brna@fws.gov; Bettis, Patricia K (DNR); Russell, Pamela J (DNR); page_spencer@nps.gov; nve@eklutna-nsn.gov; north.phil@epa.gov; Brudie, Nina M (DNR) Subject: EVENT DATE 13NOV08 The event date has changed one last time. Thank you for your patience with us as we respond to the busy worlds of so many of you. Having as many of you participate as possible in this full day workshop on the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660) is important to us and therefore the date has been moved to November 13, 2008. The purpose of the meeting is to acquaint the agencies and interested members of the public with TDX Power and the proposed project. This workshop will be used to help make plans for engaging with interested parties going forward. The meeting will be held in Anchorage at the Coast International Inn and a more formal agenda and meeting announcement will be issued. TDX Power is a subsidiary of Tanadgusix Corporation, Inc., a shareholder‐owned Aleut Alaska Native village corporation founded in 1973. In 2006, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) granted TDX Power a three year preliminary permit under Section 4 (F) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to study the proposed 330‐megawatt (MW) Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project. The proposed project would be located at the existing Chakachamna Lake on the Chakachatna River in Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska. For planning purposes, please RSVP to Max Blake at mblake@tdxpower.com / (907) 762‐8450. For further information on this event or the Chakachamna Project, Please contact: Eric Yould TDX Power eyould@starband.net From: Maxine Blake [mailto:mblake@tdxpower.com] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 8:12 PM To: Nick Goodman; Hazen Baron; Steve Padula; Wendy Bley; Emily Andersen; Randall Filbert; Finlay Anderson; Bao Le; Jenna Borovansky; Gary Boyle; Jody Johns; Joyce Brooks; Anna Steirer Cc: Finlay Anderson; Joyce Brooks; Randall Filbert; Steve Padula Subject: Chakachamna Invitation and Agenda Please see the attached invitation and agenda. If you have not already done so, please RSVP to mblake@tdxpower.com or call 907‐762‐8450 no later than November 7, 2008. We hope you’ll join us! TDX Power is a leading energy generation and energy services provider wholly owned by Tanadgusix Corporation (TYDX), an Alaska Native corporation. 4300 B Street, Suite 303 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 907‐762‐8450 Fax 907‐378‐2332 An invitation to attend a full day workshop to acquaint the agencies and interested members of the public with TDX Power and the proposed project, as well as to help make plans for engaging with interested parties going forward. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Site Investigation and Licensing Stakeholder Outreach Meeting (FERC No. 12660) Coast International Inn McKinley East Conference Room 3450 Aviation Avenue Anchorage, Alaska Thursday, November 13, 2008 8:30a.m. – 5p.m. Please RSVP to mblake@tdxpower.com or call 907-762-8450 no later than November 7, 2008. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Initial Stakeholder Meeting Agenda FERC Project No. 12660 Page 1 of 2 11/13/08 Chakachamna Site Investigation and Licensing (FERC No. 12660) Stakeholder Outreach Meeting November 13, 2008 McKinley East Conference Room Coast International Inn 3450 Aviation Avenue, Anchorage Agenda 8:30 Coffee and Mingle 9:00 Steve Padula (Moderator/Long View Associates) • Welcome and goals for the day 9:15 Nicholas Goodman (CEO, TDX Power) • Introductions of the Chakachamna Team • Overview of Tunadgusix (TDX) Corporation and TDX Power 9:35 Eric Yould (Wood Canyon Group) • Why the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project • History of Chakachamna Project and previous site investigations • Conceptual Designs o Bechtel Report and preferred alternative design o Hatch feasibility report • Status of engineering and resource investigations 10:00 Robin Beebee (HDR) • Virtual Tour and Project Location Orientation 10:45 Break 11:00 Jim Thrall (TDX Power) • Current status of efforts under preliminary permit • Proposed licensing process 11:20 Steve Padula • Morning wrap up and afternoon plans 11:20 – 12:30 Break for Lunch (Provided) Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Initial Stakeholder Meeting Agenda FERC Project No. 12660 Page 2 of 2 11/13/08 12:30 Steve Padula (Long View Associates) • Goals for afternoon o Discuss goals, approaches and priorities for studies 2009 Longer term o Share draft agency/stakeholder communications plan o Share draft schedule for environmental studies and licensing activities 12:40 John Morsell (Northern Ecological Services) • Overview of resources/existing information • Fisheries & aquatic resources • Discussion: Resource questions and information needs 2:00 Sally Morsell (Northern Ecological Services) • Terrestrial resources • Discussion: Resource questions and information needs 2:50 Sally Morsell (Northern Ecological Services) • Human and cultural environment • Discussion: Resource questions and information needs 3:20 Break 3:35 John Morsell (NES)/Paul McLarnon (HDR) • Initial Concepts for 2009 Study Program • Schedule for study plan development and opportunities for agency/stakeholder involvement. 4:30 Steve Padula (Long View Associates) • Next steps, logistics o Licensing process approval and initiation o 2009 Study Program approval • Closing and housekeeping 4:45 Adjourn DATE: October 29, 2008 TO: Consultation file FROM: Finlay Anderson, Long View Associates SUBJECT: Telephone call with Melinda O’Donnell (DNR-ACMP) In response to email from Ms. O’Donnell on October 10, 2009 I called to assess the concerns of the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program over the scheduling of the November 13th stakeholder engagement. I offered to schedule a meeting with the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program on either November 12th or November 14th to discuss the proposed Chakachamna Project. Ms. O’Donnell confirmed that the week of the presentation coincided with a program review that would engage their entire department; therefore, no meeting was scheduled. We discussed the timing of the Project and the types of activities that would require a Consistency Determination from her office. Ms. O’Donnell agreed that since FERC Licensing was still several years away, her department’s participation in this first meeting was not critical. However, she cautioned that the study program may require permits and Consistency Determinations; while such determinations are fairly routine, its helpful to communicate with the DNR in advance. We confirmed that Christine Ballard would likely be the contact for this project and should be copied on relevant communications to stakeholders, but that Ms. O’Donnell should also be added to the contact list for future announcements. She also suggested that we add dnr.dcompraanc@alaska.gov to our contact list. I have forwarded this contact information to Maxine Blake for further action. From: Eric Yould [mailto:eyould@starband.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:07 PM To: wdcarmony@matanuska.com; tbarnum@cityofseward.net; bjanorschke@homerelectric.com; bnewton@gvea.com; brad_evans@chugachelectric.com; PoseyJM@Muni.org Cc: Maxine Blake Subject: Chakachamna FERC Licensing Meeting TDX Power will be conducting a one day Chakachamna Hydropower workshop on November 13, 2008. The purpose of the workshop is to provide environmental information to State and Federal agencies regarding the project. Eventually these agencies will help craft the detailed field investigations that will be needed in support of an ultimate Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license application for the project. While the focus of this workshop is environmental and FERC permitting, TDX Power felt that you or your staff may wish to attend to learn more about the project. If you would like to attend, please RSVP to mblake@tdxpower.com or call 907-762-8450 no later than November 7, 2008. Thanks Eric ____________________ Eric P. Yould Principal Wood Canyon Group, Inc. 907-242-0487 cell 907-745-8367 Palmer 907-822-5455 Richardson (Glennallen) 907-554-4495 Nizina (McCarthy) Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 1 November 13 2008, Final November 13, 2008 Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660) Stakeholder Engagement Meeting Summary-Final Coast International Inn Meeting Attendees Adele Lee, ADNR John McClellan, Tyonek Native Corporation Allen Kemplen, DOT & PF John Morsell, Northern Ecological Anne Leggett, HDR, Inc. Kenneth Lord, USDOI Betsy McCracken, ADF&G Sportfish Keven Kleweno, Regulatory Commission of AK Bob Day, HEA Kevin Dunham, Chugach Electric Association Bob Day, Homer Electric Assn Kimberly Klein, ADF&G Brad Zubeck, Homer Electric/Kenai Leroy Phillips, USACE Brian Carey, AEA, AIDEA Mark Fouts, Chugach Electric Association Cassie Thomas, US National Park Service Michael Daigneault, AK Dept of Fish and Game Chuck Akers, Tyonek Corporation, AK Division Michael Allwright, HDR, Inc. Dave Rutz, AK Fish and Game Michael Walton, AK DNR David Meyer, USGS, Alaska Science Center Mike O'Meara, Cook Inlet Keeper Don Perrin, ADNR Page Spencer, NPS Donna Robertson, HDR, Inc. Paul McLarnon, HDR, Inc. Doug Ott, AIDEA Paul Park, GVEA Douglas Mutter, OPEC-Anchorage Phil North, USEPA Eric Yould, TDX Power, Inc. Philip Brna, USFWS Finlay Anderson, Long View Associates Rich Wilson, Frances Mann, USFWS Robin Beebee, HDR, Inc. James Brady, HDR, Inc. Sally Morsell, Northern Ecological James Keen, Regulatory Commission of AK SaraEllen Hutchison, AK Center for the Environment Jason Mouw, ADF&G Scott Houk, DNR Jennifer Curtis, US EPA Sirena Brownlee, HDR, Inc. Jim Ferguson, ADF&G Steve Gelbert, Enxco Jim Walker, Matanuska Electric Association Steve Padula, Long View Associates Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 2 November 13 2008, Final Jim Thrall, TDX Power, Inc. Sue Walker, NOAA Fisheries Joe Balash, SOA Office of the Governor Tim Leach, MEA Ratepayers Alliance Toby Smith, AK Center for the Environment Introduction On November 13, 2008 TDX Power hosted an informational meeting with the public, resource agencies, and non-governmental organizations to discuss the status of the proposed Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660). The objectives of the meeting were to 1) acquaint stakeholders to the licensing team that TDX Power has assembled; 2) provide an overview of the Railbelt’s need for the Project’s power; 3) describe the proposed Project; 4) review key questions and information needs; and 5) propose a licensing approach that meets the needs of the Project proponent and the stakeholders. Meeting materials, including the agenda, handouts, and presentations may be found at www.chakachamna-hydro.com under the “Documents” heading. This summary is intended to capture significant discussions, questions, concerns, and ideas that were raised throughout the day. A list of meeting attendees is attached. Nick Goodman Presentation (Overview of TDX and TDX Power) Comments: John McClellan (Tyonek Native Corporation) stated that the Tyonek Native Corporation is supportive of the proposed Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project; the Tyonek Native Corporation has had several positive discussions with TDX Power about how to develop this resource in a way that is compatible with Tyonek’s needs. Tyonek is interested in power resources and socioeconomic benefits derived from development. Eric Yould Presentation (Proposed Chakachamna Project: History and Proposed Development) Question: what type of bedrock does TDX Power anticipate having to tunnel through? Response: mostly granitic; and likely to be very compatible with the proposed construction methods; however, a thorough understanding of geology limited by ice cap until a more in-depth study can be made. Comment: the U.S. Board on Geographic Domestic Names Committee changed the name of Chakachamna Lake to Ch’akajabena Lake in 2005 to reflect Dena’ina spelling of the name. Response: TDX Power has been made aware of this change, and will ensure that relevant licensing documents provide a discussion of geographic place names and their origin. For purposes of proceeding with the licensing of this project, TDX proposes to retain the more common nomenclature. Question: geothermal lease units are in, or nearby, the Project vicinity; they extend from near the outlet of the Lake towards Crater Peak; has TDX Power explored potential for jointly developing infrastructure (roads, transmission lines, support structure). Response: yes. Robin Beebee Presentation (Chakachamna Project Virtual Tour) Question: in light of historical geothermal activity on Mount Spur, is there potential for debris flow from some volcanic event to impact the proposed lake tap? Response: the NOVEMBER 13 MEETING SUMMARY-DRAFT LONGVIEW ASSOCIATES Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 3 November 13 2008, Final USGS hazard map identifies this as a possibility; however, the lake tap is not near any historical extent of debris flow. Question: can you speculate on what percent of flow in the Chakachatna River is derived from Chakachamna Lake versus coming from other sources (e.g., upwelling, runoff from nearby slopes)? Response: we expect that the majority of the flow comes from Chakachamna Lake -- potentially up to 90%. TDX Power will be most interested in identifying how that water is distributed throughout the lower reaches of the Chakachatna River. Question: is the outlet of Chakachamna Lake bound/constricted by glacier or moraine on the north side of the river? Response: we believe that this constriction is mostly defined by moraine; however, the activity of the Barrier Glacier is of great interest. Question: what can you say about the productivity of the Canyon reach of the Chakachatna River? Response: our initial impression is that the Canyon reach is likely not productive fish habitat because of velocity and energy of the system; however, the lower end of the Chakachatna River, as it begins to flatten but before it is diffused into the Noaukta Slough, begins to braid and is likely productive habitat. Comment (Dave Rutz, ADF&G): Be wary of assuming that stream reaches are poor fish habitat just because they are glacial and silty. Recent research has shown that turbid glacial rivers can be very productive. Question: can you clarify the storage concept for winter flow? Response: the top 42 feet of the lake would be active storage (approximately 1,000,000 acre feet of storage). During the winter/low water months the lake would be drawn down as much as 42 feet, with a mechanism at the outlet of Chakachamna Lake to provide for continuous in-stream flows. The lake would recharge during the freshet. Question: what is the impact of this proposed 42 foot drawdown on the channel which connects Kenibuna Lake to Chakachatna Lake? Response: we suspect that the drawdown will result in a longer and steeper gradient from the ordinary high water line to the water line when it is fully drafted; however, bathymetry for this area is not readily available. Question: Jim Ferguson (ADFG) asked what the drawdown would mean for mouths of tributaries to the lake. Response: likely the mouths between the historic low water line of the lake and the fully drafted pool would be steeper and more exposed, but will need more bathymetric data to confirm. Gaging information does not exist, however we expect that the exposed deltas have the capacity to handle high flows without geomorphic impacts. There could be fish impacts. Question: what will be the impact of increased winter flow to the MacArthur River, which traditionally has not had high winter flows? Response: there could be impacts however, no gaging data exists. Summer flows are typically much higher on the McArthur, and the system has capacity to carry high flows so likely no geomorphic impacts due to winter flows. However, there could be fisheries impacts. Jim Thrall Presentation (Proposed Licensing Process) Comment: General agreement that the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) appears to provide the most flexibility for the unique challenges of licensing the Project. Steve Padula Presentation (Communications, Stakeholder Participation and Proposed Schedule) NOVEMBER 13 MEETING SUMMARY-DRAFT LONGVIEW ASSOCIATES Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 4 November 13 2008, Final Comment: Phil Brna (USFWS) and Jim Ferguson (ADFG) commented that agencies will have difficulty allocating staff time to review study plans in April and May, as there are several large projects that will be demanding time and attention from agencies during that time. Response: TDX Power understands the time constraints that agencies may have to devote to substantive reviews, especially during this “pre-consultation” phase. A more detailed study plan development schedule will be presented later in the day, but conceptually TDX Power envisions having discussions with agency in the first quarter of next year regarding conceptual study plans and priorities. John Morsell Presentation (Fish & Aquatic Habitats) Comment: Dave Rutz (ADFG) commented that some of the older studies, for example the 1982 Bechtel study, likely under-represented salmonid presence in glacial waters, which are difficult to survey. Glacial waters were historically thought of as serving a migration purpose only, with limited productivity; how would you approach assessing turbid waters to get a more accurate abundance estimates? Response: we have thought about using telemetry to catch and tag fish, which would help us ascertain how fish are using different areas throughout the Project. We've also explored feasibility of sonar stations below the Chakachamna outlet. Comment: Phil North (EPA) commented that it may be important to conduct winter observations of fish movement. Response: agree, 1982 studies looked in open water areas during the winter; understanding overwinter behaviors will be important. Question: Phil North (EPA) asked is there any information on the upstream migration juveniles into Lake Chakachamna? Response: no, and we anticipate that the gradient and energy of the Canyon reach likely represents a velocity barrier to juveniles. Comment: ? Rutz (ADFG) commented that lower velocity flows in the Chakachatna River may impair the ability/willingness of fish to move into natal streams. Response: comment noted, this will need to be investigated; potentially through telemetry studies. Question: Jim Ferguson (ADFG) asked do you have any active gages in the system? Response: TDX Power is contracting with USGS to reactivate the gage at the outlet of Chakachamna Lake Comment: Jim Ferguson (ADFG) commented that given the questions about a proposed interbasin water transfer, it seems that more than one gage is needed in the system. Response: agreed -- right now we're focusing on this first gage, but beginning to record a period of record is a high priority throughout the Project area. Comment: Jason Mouw (ADFG) commented that there should be ground water wells installed to estimate the connectivity between rivers and sloughs and side channels. Response: agreed, investigation of hydrology is a priority Comment: Dave Rutz (ADFG) commented that 1982 records indicate relatively few chum salmon; however those numbers probably underrepresented the population, because chum salmon are main-stem spawners that can utilize glacial waters. Response: comment noted. Comments: Phil North (EPA) commented that hydrologic changes from the interbasin transfer of water will likely impact sensitive habitat; TDX Power should start thinking about mitigation now and talking to the agencies about options. Sally Morsell Presentation (Terrestrial and Wildlife Resources) NOVEMBER 13 MEETING SUMMARY-DRAFT LONGVIEW ASSOCIATES Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 5 November 13 2008, Final Comment: the vegetation types presented from previous studies likely overlooked willow components, and this is a key wildlife component. Response: agreed, presence of willows is identified in historic reports but not as a classification scheme that can be quantified. Question: Francis Mann (USFWS) asked about the date of the National Wetland Inventory data; because the newer data sets are better than the old ones. Response: HDR will confirm date and include in future presentations. Comment: ADF&G wildlife staff from the Palmer office are currently flying surveys for moose; this is typically unpublished data, but you can contact the Palmer office and get the data. Response: this information will be useful, and TDX Power will follow up. Comment: Sue Walker (NOAA) commented that she has seen hydrologic studies of wetland areas near Yakutat and Sitka similar to those wetlands in the Chakachamna Project area. Response: HDR and NES will try to find these studies. Sally Morsell (Human Environment) Question: regarding housing during construction, is the idea to house workers in existing housing or create housing? Response: undetermined at this time, but the village of Tyonek likely has limited capacity to house additional workers. Typically, construction camps are built and then removed entirely after completion; potentially a small amount of housing would have to be permanent to house operations staff. For upcoming field studies, HDR is planning on field camps. John Morsell (Study Plan Development) Comment: referring to the need to prioritize initial/2009 studies based on potential funding limitations, questioner suggested that organizations such as the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) should be advocates for, or provide, funding to support this type of program. Response: comment noted. Steve Padula (Discussion and Next Steps) Comment: agencies sought confirmation that the 2009 study efforts were not part of the formal FERC process. Response: the 2009 study efforts are in advance of any formal FERC process. Launching a formal FERC study program can take up to a year, and TDX Power believes it's important to not miss a 2009 field season. That said, any agency input will be very valuable. Comment: given the previous response, it should be noted that there will be a difference between an informal agency review of 2009 study program versus their review of a formal study program in 2010. The differences are in the level of review, and the involvement of expertise and resources within the agencies. However, agencies appreciate the opportunity to comment in 2009. Jim Ferguson (ADF&G) stated that the proposed schedule for development of conceptual study plans in the first quarter of 2009 to be followed by more detailed study plans that would be final in April or May of 2009 is consistent with the type of review that his agency could support in this informal stage. Comments: a more detailed description of fish passage facilities and related operations is requested. Response: TDX Power will develop a more detailed description of the proposed operation and use of the lake’s active storage for future discussions. Comment: Phil North (EPA) commented that the EPA had a lot of information on groundwater movement and modeling that might be useful for this project. Phil stated NOVEMBER 13 MEETING SUMMARY-DRAFT LONGVIEW ASSOCIATES Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 6 November 13 2008, Final that an adequate assessment of hydrology/groundwater would be critical. Response: TDX agrees that understanding the groundwater hydrology will be important and will look into the EPA models. Comment: Sue Walker (NOAA) commented regarding the use of flow data, there is a discussion of a recent relicensing of Blue Lake Hydroelectric Project, and predictive modeling for climate change (for example assumptions about snow pack); don't assume historical flows are predictive of future flows; it's possible to model impacts of global climate change. NOAA will likely ask TDX to consider global climate change models that predict more precipitation, flashier systems, and longer growing seasons. Response: TDX Power will review the Blue Lake proceedings, and agrees that an analysis of potential changes to the hydrograph resulting from global climate change will be important for understanding the feasibility of the Project. Question: Phil Brna (USFWS) asked what is the intended use of power generated by the Project -- will it be used to supply nearby industrial Projects? Response: TDX Power intends to connect this to the Railbelt, and as such it should be considered essentially a residential Project, it is possible that power generated by this Project may ultimately be used in an industrial capacity however that is not intended market. Comment: there appears to be a political will for this type of Project, but protecting resources is a huge priority. Don't short change research; agencies should be setting expectations of an adequate study effort to understand Project effects. Comment: Kim Klein (ADF&) it's not always possible to mitigate for impacts; we need to anticipate impacts on the front-end and not rely on post-construction "adaptive management". Response: agree that it's desirable to know as much about Project impacts before construction however, that's not always possible. Action Items HDR will coordinate with ADF&G to incorporate data from annual moose surveys into the existing literature TDX Power will develop a more comprehensive description of how the project will operate relative to the hydrograph HDR will confirm the date of the National Wetlands Inventory data referenced in the powerpoint TDX Power will capture potential changes to the hydrograph as a result of global climate change as an identified issue in is Preliminary Application Document (PAD) TDX Power will disseminate a list of data sources and existing information; stakeholders will contact TDX Power if there are additional sources of data (e.g., management plans, data sets, survey information) that are potentially relevant, and arrangements can be made to acquire the information at minimal inconvenience to the agency. NOVEMBER 13 MEETING SUMMARY-DRAFT LONGVIEW ASSOCIATES Chakachamna Project TDX Power FERC No. 12660 Page 7 November 13 2008, Final HDR Engineering, Inc. C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\My Documents\Chakachamna\Chack Consultation Record\111708_Brownlee Telephone Record.doc HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2632 Phone (907) 644-2000 Fax (907) 644-2022 www.hdrinc.com Page 1 of 1 Telephone Record Project: Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Project No: Date: November 17, 2008 Subject: Winter moose surveys in Unit 16B Call to: Tony Kavalok Phone No: 907-746-6325 Call from: Sirena Brownlee Phone No: 907-644-2070 Discussion, Agreement and/or Action: I called Tony Kavalok, Area Wildlife Biologist ADF&G Palmer office to request information on winter moose surveys in Game Management Unit 16B which contains the Chakachamna project area. Tony said they are planning to survey a few units in the Chakachamna Lake area this winter. They do not know exactly where they are going to survey yet but they have a model that they run to determine the exact units that they survey within each block. 16B is split into 3 blocks, within each block there are potentially 450 survey units of high and low strata. The model chooses a combination of high and low strata for the surveys. During milder winters, moose will stay up high until late winter/early spring but during heavy snow winters they will be down in the lower areas of the Trading Bay State Game Refuge. They are not planning on doing a grid level survey for the project area but they will survey individual blocks in the project area. ADF&G is currently finishing up surveys in the Palmer/Wasilla area and will start surveys in Unit 16 B as soon as there is adequate fresh snow. The moose population in unit 16B is depressed and therefore the ongoing black bear and wolf predator control will continue for the time being. They usually do not have budget to do surveys in Unit 16B during other times of the year but they occasionally go out in the spring to document calf numbers if they have budget. I asked Tony how we could get access to historic data and current data for this winters surveys. He said the survey data is in excel spreadsheets and may not be very user friendly unless we understand how the data was recorded. I asked if Donna Robertson or I could meet with him after the next moose mitigation committee meeting in Palmer and go over the data and he said that would be fine with him or he could e-mail it to me and we could call with questions. Tony is going to go through the data and see if it would be useful to us in the current format or if we need to meet with him to go over the data. He has data for Unit 16B back at least 15-20 years but there are gaps in the years when data was not collected. From: Maxine Blake [mailto:mblake@tdxpower.com] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 5:44 PM To: william.ashton@alaska.gov; wayne.biessel@alaska.gov; Tyonek@aitc.org; trish@sierraclubalaska.org; tom.namtredt@alaska.gov; tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov; tobst@trustees.org; tammy.massie@alaska.gov; stephanie.ludwig@alaska.gov; shaw.hanh@epa.gov; serena.e.sweet@poa02.usace.army.mil; russell_kirkham@dnr.state.ak.us; patricia.bettis@alaska.gov; pamela.russell@alaska.gov; page_spencer@nps.gov; nve@eklutna- nsn.gov; nina.brudie@alaska.gov; Nick Goodman; neil.shishido@alaska.gov; mike_bethe@alaska.gov; maureen_deZeeuw@fws.gov; mary_nation@fws.gov; mark.inghhram@alaska.gov; mark.fink@alaska.gov; linda.markham@alaska.gov; lawrence.peltz@noaa.gov; lavin@nwf.org; lacroix.matthew@epa.gov; kenneth.bouwens@alaska.gov; keeper@inletkeeper.org; kate@akvoice.org; jyaeger@borough.kenai.ak.us; justin.selvik@alaska.gov; joe.klein@alaska.gov; jgabler@borough.kenai.ak.us; jen.knowles@usacearmy.mil; jeffry_anderson@fws.gov; jeanne_hanson@noaa.gov; jczarn@borough.kenai.ak.us; irvin.t.joy@poa02.usace.army.mil; info@salamatof.com; Info@Chugachmiut.org; hydro@gci.net; gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us; ginny.litchfiel@alaska.gov; gary.prokosch@alaska.gov; fran.roche@alaska.gov; eric@akcenter.org; ellen.simpson@alaska.gov; ed.weiss@alaska.gov; Doug.Limpinsel@noaa.gov; doug.gasek@alaska.gov; dnelson@borough.kenai.ak.us; ddgann@hotmail.com; darrel@ninilchiktribe-nsn.gov; cvepp@chickaloon.org; clark.cox@alaska.gov; christine.ballared@alaska.gov; chay@alaska.com; ccollier@tribalnet.org; btrefon@kenaitze.org; bruce.buzby@alaska.gov; bob_platte@fws.gov; benjamin.hagedorn@alaska.gov; barbara.mahoney@noaa.gov; al.ott@alaska.gov Subject: Chakachamna Update and Website Information Greetings – Last month we contacted you about an informational meeting on the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project. We met on November 13 and had a very productive discussion about the Project, some of the resource questions that need to be answered in order to evaluate its feasibility, and our proposed approach for studies and licensing. At the meeting were members of the public, representatives from state and federal agencies, native corporations, and non‐ governmental organizations. You can see the notes of the day’s discussion, presentations and handouts by visiting the Documents section of our website, www.chakachamna‐ hydro.com/documents With the launch of this public process, TDX Power is pleased to announce that our licensing website, www.chakachamna‐hydro.com will play a key role in disseminating information about the Project and upcoming events. The website allows visitors to register to receive emails on areas of interest to them. The contact list we have used to contact you previously, and for this email, is being retired. If you do not wish to receive further communication about the Chakachamna Project, no further action from you is required. However, if you would like to continue to receive updates, please take a moment to register at http://www.chakachamna‐hydro.com/email_signup.php . You may register at any time. Please be assured that your privacy will be respected in accordance with our privacy policy. For further information, you may also contact: Eric Yould TDX Power eyould@tdxpower.com (907) 242‐0487 Max Blake Executive Assistant TDX Power, Inc. 907‐762‐8467 907‐382‐9888 cell 907‐278‐2332 fax Materials referenced in the November 24, 2008 email (meeting summary, presentations and handouts from the November 13, 2008 meeting) can be found on the Chakachamna Project website at http://www.chakachamna-hydro.com/documents. DATE: 11/24/08 TO: Cheryl Young, BLM Realty Specialist, 907-267-1246 FROM: Sally Morsell SUBJECT: Federal Power Site Withdrawal on Chakachatna River I called Ms. Young about the federal power site withdrawal that shows up on the land status maps for the project area. I explained that it is shown along the Chakachatna River in TNC lands. There has been discussion that it probably extends onto state lands up river and around Chakachamna Lake. She asked that I email her with the information I had about the location of the withdrawal and she would pass it on to one of her specialists. I sent her and email shortly after the phone call. From: Sally Morsell [mailto:smorsell@northernecological.com] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 9:33 AM To: 'cyoung@blm.gov' Subject: Federal withdrawal along Chakachatna River Hi Cheryl- I am interested in finding out the extent of a federal power site withdrawal along the Chakachatna River. Following is the information I have: Parcel ID: 20126037 Survey: USS 3970 Lat-long: 61.1812, -151.9502 I am also attaching a PDF file of the original survey for the portion that appears on the maps I have. There has been some discussion of whether the withdrawal extends upriver around Chakachamna Lake. Thank you for helping me locate this information. Regards, Sally Morsell Northern Ecological Services 360-592-4267 smorsell@northernecological.com 10 0 50 trt -~~-r--r= I CHAINS o BRASS CAPPED IRON POST 100 \ : \ , \ I I I I 1 I: , I , I I I I 1 I I I ! I ORIGINAL us. SURVEY No. 3970, ALASKA SITUATED ALONG THE SHOPES OF THE CHAKACHATNA RIVER, APPROXIMATELY TWENTY MILES NORTHWESTERLY OF TYONEK, ALASKA GEOGMPIIIC POSITION OF CORNER NO. J_ LA'l'ITlJDE 61°10'00.64" N., LONGITUDE 151°52'0'(.56" w. AREA: 6,109.90 ACRES EXECLJI'ED BY: Fl:lliDERlCK W. WARD, SUPERVISORY CADASTRAL SURVEYOR SEPTEMBER 4 TO SEPTEMBER 17, 1963 LJreder SpeciaJ. Instructions Dated 8Ild Approved September 21, 1961, and Supplemental Special Inr:;tructions Dated Dnd Approved Augur:;t 20, 196j. Eydrography shmm in this survey vras obtained from the best available U. S. Geological Survey Maps. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERI OR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMEN'l' Washington, D. C. March 19, 1965 This plat is strict_Ly conformable to the ap- proved. field notes, and the survey, having been correctly executed in accord_ance "rith the requirements of lavr and the regulations of this Burea:J., is hereby accepted. For the Director Chie f, Di vi si on of Engineering W -~ ~ -~ 0 0 lO l"- v) -u 0 CI> L- "U :J 0 -c <f> <:t -u c 0 ~ <f> L- CI> -0 E ::::J C '-- CI> C L- 0 () c CI> CI> 3: -CI> -0 CI> c c 0 0> C L- 0 CI> -0 .:£ () 0 II) 2 0 z LF~.W~.~~ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ----------~--------------------------------------------------------________ ~~0 ';oJ.U~?fllcJ -. "'" 7- -~; -;. :; w w ...... ~ ...... lO 0 ~ I"- <:t ~ ro (1) 0 E CI> ~ I L LEGEND BASE INFORMATION • • • • ---11----1 ~ I [ ] STREAM WATERBODY SURVEY SECTION LINE MAJOR ROAD SECOI~DARY ROAD TRAIL BOU~DARY RAILROAD ELECT PWR LINE TELEPHONE LINE PIPELINE HORIZ CONTROL LIMITS OF ACTION AIRPORTS OR LANDING STRIPS ST ATUS INFORMATION TITLE _._._.-CLASSIFICATION --------DISPOSAL, • IE MUNICIPAL RESTRICTIONS ,-_._-FEDERAL ACTIONS <> REMOTE CABIN PERMIT • TRAPPING CABIN PERMIT 0 C PER FROM TRESPASS X TRESPASS 0 GROUND. "APLN &> GROUND. PER • GROUND. CERT 0 DIV SURF ACE. APlN [gj DIV SURF ACE. PER III DIV SURF ACE. CERT t:" RESERVED, APlN A RESERVED. emT 0 DIV INSTALLATION. APlN 0 DIV INSTALLATION. PER • DIV INST ALLA TlON. CERT SECTION NUMBERING GRID 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 17 16 15 14 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 30 29 28 27 26 25 31 32 33 34 35 36 ---..... ------ '1 'I TOWNSHIP 13N RANGE 15W OF THE SEWARD MERIDIAN, ALASKA 7 (632) 18 (634) 19 1 (639) '-'-'-'-' -----------._._._. ._._._._._. ._._,_._. ---------------------------------.. _._. --------- I I I -+ I I -+ I 5 I I~--" ~ I 32 GS 405 .5o-S6-0143 -• IT ~ I I 4 9 I I I -+ I I -+ I 3 f 10 R A C ~T' ...... ~ ...... ~" A'~..1.·~' .. , .. zs;:,:"·,~"··"'~·""""::::,::::;s:, ... ~~ .' ........... . 16,220.58 21 22 SCALE 2640 1500 500 0 1000 2000 52BO RRAB' l!liliDNI==jWlllujW==BMS!ml!li2!:a1it======:::j1 1 Inch = 2540 f •• t 40 20 10 5 0 40 80 ~ta_:a;4II$rilI:4l::::lI==jjWjlV"1I11!lll!&1II4111.illllillliMImt.III~!IItl ====:=::J:J 1 Inch = 4-0 choins TIT I] I 1 I ] 2 11 23 26 1 5 '~~' ,'. ' ' ._.--'-'-'-'-' ---------------- I I I 11 Ii I. II I. II ~ I' II I' II ------..J. I I I +- I I I + I I I 12 13 24 25 I il r II • 4 STATUS PLAT CRAP/IC IllUSTRATION ONL Y. So.URCE DOCWENTS R£AlAlN mE OFfiCIAL RECORD 8ASED ON COOROINA TES: ALA5J(A STATE PLANE ZONE 5 SE CORNER or TOWNShiP; .r 816276.628 r zo2~s7o.809 tAr 61 10 00.639 N LONC 151 52 0.7.554 IV HYOROCRAPHY; USGS TYOM"K (AS). (Ao). (B5) & (Bo) 8t.M PHo.To. REVISED FIIOM AERIAL HICH AUITUOE: PHDTOCRAPHY 1978-1985 LAM) NET.' AD! PROTRACTIGN DIACRAM SIJ-4; APPROVED 05/18/1973 USR5; CREATING TRACT A; 16.220.58 ACRES; ANO CREAT!VC TR,1CT 8; 2.50.4.22 ACRES: £XCLUDP'lG PORTION OF USS 5970.; ACCEPTED 0.6/24/1965 USS 5970.' ACCEPTED GJ/I9/19tl5 OTHER ACTIONS AFFECTPYG DISPo.SAL OR OSE Of" STATE LANOs' tNTIII£! Y IV/IN KENAI PENINSIILA BOROI/OH ENTIR£! Y IV/IN ANCHORAGE RECORDINO {)!STRICT PLO 21112; ENTIfIE TOWNSHIP OR AREA FORMERL Y IV/IN COOK INLET BOMBING ANO C/J/wEIIY RANCE: lIIv7h7) STATES CANNOT ANO DOES NOT OIVE ASSIAl'AM7E THAT CONTAI.IINATION OOES NOT EXIST IN ANY PART OF THE AREA A PRODUCT OF THE 5TATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES REL-3 SP e DIVISION OF MANAGEMENT TWP 13N AUTOMATED DRAFTING SYSTEM RNG 15W 9:xt!i::'Y CONTROL CHECK[~ _ 9 2 SM BY: 1 DATE: :, 3. - --.. • J • 2..- 5 $ From: Sally Morsell <smorsell@northernecological.com> Date: Friday, December 5, 2008 1:49 pm Subject: Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project To: susan.walker@noaa.gov > Hi Sue- > > I am just following up on a couple of studies that you mentioned at > the November 13th meeting about the Chakachamna Project. They were > regarding groundwater/surface water interactions in other lowland or > delta type areas. > Also, do you have any other information that might be pertinent to > the project area? If you know of reports but don't have time to dig > for them we could possibly send someone to help with that task. > > > > It was great to meet you last month. Thanks for your help on this and > please feel free to call me anytime. > > -Sally > > 360-592-4267 > From: susan.walker@noaa.gov [mailto:susan.walker@noaa.gov] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 3:51 PM To: Sally Morsell Subject: Re: Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project thanks for the reminder email Sally. I'm in Anchorage right now but will for USGS's groundwater study reports for Ophir Creek in Yakutat and Duck Creek in Juneau once I'm back in the office Monday. They are small systems - very small! but the general concepts are valuable and techniques could possibly be used to study groundwater issues in the Chakachatna drainage - Sue ----- Original Message ----- From: Sally Morsell <smorsell@northernecological.com> Date: Friday, December 5, 2008 1:49 pm Subject: Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project To: susan.walker@noaa.gov > Hi Sue- > > I am just following up on a couple of studies that you mentioned at > the November 13th meeting about the Chakachamna Project. They were > regarding groundwater/surface water interactions in other lowland or > delta type areas. > Also, do you have any other information that might be pertinent to > the project area? If you know of reports but don't have time to dig > for them we could possibly send someone to help with that task. > > > > It was great to meet you last month. Thanks for your help on this and > please feel free to call me anytime. > > -Sally > > 360-592-4267 > DATE: December 8, 2008 TO: Phone contact to Phil Brna, US Fish and Wildlife Service FROM: John Morsell, Northern Ecological Services SUBJECT: November Stakeholder Meeting Follow-up Phil indicated that he had had little time to think about the Chakachamna Project because of the need for immediate attention to other large projects, specifically Pebble and Chuitna mine projects. He was not aware of any additional information regarding the Chakachamna project area. He had conducted a search earlier when TDX first started to introduce the project. The two issues that he is most concerned about are: 1. Impacts of changing water flows to the wetland complex within the Trading Bay Wildlife Refuge. 2. Optimizing instream flows for fish and wildlife resources within the very complex drainage area In spite of his concerns, he expressed enthusiasm for the Chakachamna Project relative to the other projects currently proposed for southcentral Alaska which are likely to have much greater impacts. DATE: 12/8/08 TO: Leroy Phillips, US ACOE, 907-753-2828 FROM: Sally Morsell SUBJECT: Chakachamna Project Area Information Mr. Phillips stated that he did not have any information related to the project area specifically. He recommended reviewing information from the Chuitna Coal and permitting from the expansion of the North Foreland Dock. Both those projects are in the same general geographical area. The Chakachamna Project may also make use of the North Foreland Dock. He suggested that I call Skip Joy (907-753-2744) who worked on the permitting for the North Foreland Dock expansion. Mr. Phillips also said that Serena Sweet would be assigned to Chakachamna Project permitting. He will continue to come to agency meetings, however. He is interested in the project because he feels the concepts are good, but that the resource issues (specifically the anadromous fish use) and potential impacts are considerable. DATE: 12/9/08 TO: Skip (Irvin) Joy , USACE, 907-753-2744 FROM: Sally Morsell SUBJECT: Chakachamna Project area information, specifically the North Foreland Dock Mr. Joy said that the dock was permitted before his time with the USACE. The only information he can supply us is structural information from the original permit. An EIS was not required at the time of the original permit. He will have Serena Sweet, who will be assigned to the Chakachamna Project find that file and send us the information. Mr. Joy has been involved with the Chuitna Coal Project EIS process, which evaluated the use of the North Foreland Dock. The engineers for the Chuitna Coal Project decided early on that the dock was not structurally sound enough for unloading the type of heavy equipment they would be using. Also, because the water is shallow in that area, the dock would need to be either extended or the area around it dredged. We also discussed the sensitivity of using a facility close to the native village of Tyonek. I mentioned that a barge landing at Trading Bay was another possibility, but that the project had not progressed to the point of evaluating either location. I said I would send him an email request also and asked if he could forward it on to Ms. Sweet and ask her to email me her contact information. DATE: 12/9/08 TO: Gary Prokosch, ADNR, 907-269-8645 FROM: Sally Morsell SUBJECT: Chakachamna Project area information Mr. Prokosch stated that DNR did not have any information on the project other than that collected by APA in the early 1980’s. He said that he would be the DNR contact for the project. He indicated that he hadn’t yet signed up for a working group and I directed him to the project website. From: Sally Morsell [mailto:smorsell@northernecological.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 3:28 PM To: 'gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us' Subject: Chakachamna Project area information request Hi Gary- I am contacting you to request information on the area of the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project. If you have or know of any information on the project area (Chakachamna Lake, Chakachatna River, and McArthur River drainages), could you let me know the best way to get it. If you have any questions please feel free to call me. Regards, Sally Morsell Northern Ecological Services 360-592-4267 From: North.Phil@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:North.Phil@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 12:43 PM To: Sally Morsell Subject: Re: Chakachamna Project information request Hi Sally, It was good to see you too. It had been a long time. I don't have any information to offer. Phil Phillip North Environmental Protection Agency Kenai River Center 514 Funny River Road Soldotna, Alaska 99669 (907) 714-2483 fax 260-5992 north.phil@epa.gov "To protect your rivers, protect your mountains." DATE: 12/11/08 TO: David Krantz FROM: Sally Morsell SUBJECT: Chakachatna River Federal Power Withdrawal Mr. Krantz returned my call of 12-10-08. I had sent an email to Cheryl Young describing the federal power site withdrawal that appeared on our landownership maps and asked her if the site extended up the Chakachatna River and around Chakachamna Lake. She assigned the task of researching this to David Krantz, a realty specialist. Mr. Krantz said that the original federal withdrawal did extend up river and around the lake but that the land was reclassified in 1999 prior to the state selecting lands in the area (if I understood him correctly). Currently, the federal lands that show up within the boundaries of the TNC lands along the Chakachatna River are the only federally owned power site lands in the project area. We have a copy of that survey. Mr. Krantz is going to send me an email describing the status of the federal power site withdrawal in the appropriate language. He also will include in the cc: line of the email the address of the BLM NEPA lead for our contact list. I will reply to his email with the link to the project website. I described the link to the working groups for their contact to sign-up if they wished to participate. From: David_Krantz@ak.blm.gov [mailto:David_Krantz@ak.blm.gov] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:24 PM To: smorsell@northernecological.com Cc: James_Moore@ak.blm.gov Subject: Chakachatna Lk Withdrawal Hi Sally-- I wasn't in on Friday to pass along the information we discussed concerning the Chakachatna Lk Withdrawal, so here's basically what I'm able to find: In 1999 11,900 acres of PSC 395 were Opened to Entry (OT) for State Conveyance, subject to Sec. 24 of the Federal Power Act. Sec. 24 of the Federal Power Act reserves to FERC the right to enter upon those previously withdrawn lands for purposes of constructing a power project w/o payment of compensation to the landowner for loss of use. The lands still under withdrawal are as follows: All lands within USS 3970 Portions of lands within T. 12 N., R. 20 W. Secs. 5, 6, 7, & 8. Portions of lands within T. 12 N., R. 21 W. Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, &11. Portions of lands within T. 13 N., R. 21 W. Secs. 23, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, & 36. Totaling approx. 8198 acres. You can get digital images of our Master Title Plats (MTP) from the state web page: http://plats.landrecords.info/. When entering information use the following format--e.g. for Seward Meridian T. 12 N., R. 20 W. enter in the search text box "s12n20w" then select federal records. I've attached five MTPs with the remaining PSC 395 withdrawn lands but if you need additional MTPs, this is the best way to access them. Hope this helps. If you need additional information, please feel free to contact us. I've also CC'd our Envt'l Coordinator and he is a good contact if you are having meetings or workshops concerning any impacts to BLM lands from the proposed future power project. (See attached file: S0120N0210W000.pdf)(See attached file: S0130N0210W000.pdf)(See attached file: S0120N0200W000.pdf)(See attached file: S0130N0150W000.pdf)(See attached file: S0120N0150W000.pdf) Take Care, David Krantz Lands and Realty BLM-Anchorage Field Office 6881 Elmore Rd. Anchorage, AK 99507 W (907)-267-1239 C (907)-230-4585 - TRACT .1 8 .• 2:t304.22 SURVEYED TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH RANGE 15 WEST OF THE SEWARD MERIDIAN, ALASKA IC 7754 Esmt T'RACT··14 1 IE~t220.58 ~ ICI154 ~£smt .~ USS 3970 ....... O:::::~ 4483.52 '-" .-"l-..... ).'---o~_ '~ 10 5 0 IIIIII SCALE in chains 1 0 20 30 E-----=J I 60 I \ ------ WARNING: This plat is the Bureau's Record of Title, and should be used only as a graphic display of the township survey data. Rec- ords hereon do not reflect title changes which may hove been effected by lateral movements of rivers or other bodies of water. Refer to the cadastral surveys for official survey information. Lot 61·10'OO.64"N Long 151'52'07.56"W STATUS OF PUBLIC DOMAIN LAND AND MINERAL TITLES MTP FOR ORDERS EFFEC71NG DISPOSAL OR USE OF UN- IDEN71F1ED LANDS WITHDRAWN FOR CLASSIFICA 710N MINERAL~ WA TER AND/OR OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES REFER TO INDEX OF MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS A058730 SS Min Estate entire Tp AA76960 SS Amdt PL 96-487 Sec 906(e) Tap Filed AA086536 Pwr Proj 72660 affects this Tp CURRENT TO I Sew Mer T 13 N 8-3-2006 I------------i '----______ ...1....-_____ -----' R 15 W > 0.- 6 599 7 601 18 603 19 605 30 606 31 608 UNSURVEYED TOWNSHIP 12 NORTH RANGE 21 WEST OF THE SEWARD MERIDIAN, ALASKA PROTRACTION DIAGRAM NO, S12-7 OFFICIALLY FILED 7/27/1959 5 4 8 9 10 17 16 20 22 23 28 27 26 32 33 34 35 SCALE in chains 10 5 0 10 20 30 60 IIIIII E-----=J I I WARNING: 12 .-,-' 475 13 24 25 36 --- I, I! I! II Ii PL 96-487 ~i Des Lake Clark Wdns I. PL 96-487 ~ Wdl Lake Clark NP This plat is the Bureau's Record of Title, and should be used only as a graphic display of the township survey data. Rec- ords hereon do not reflect title changes which may hove been effected by lateral movements of rivers or other bodies of water. Refer to the cadastral surveys for official survey information. Lot 61'04'48,689"N Long 152'54'22,564"W STATUS OF PUBLIC DOMAIN LAND AND MINERAL TITLES MTP FOR ORDERS EFFEC71NG DISPOSAL OR USE OF UN- IDEN71F1ED LANDS WITHDRAWN FOR CLASSIFICA 710N MINERALS. WA TER AND/OR OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES REFER TO INDEX OF MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS. PLO 5/79 Amdt by PLO 5250 Wdl Aid of Leg & C! offects Lds/'interests nDt cDnveyed o CURRENT TO I Sew Mer <C T 12 N U 8-14-2007 ~--------------~ '-----_____ ------'---_____ -------' R 21 W <C h ..--: " 7 601 18 603 19 605 30 606 31 608 UNSURVEYED TOWNSHIP 12 NORTH RANGE 20 WEST OF THE SEWARD MERIDIAN, ALASKA PROTRACTION DIAGRAM NO. S12-8 OFFICIALLY FILED 7/27/1959 ~ 5 520/; /5 /5 // 8 '\ I / AA6886 SS 17 20 29 32 4 9 16 21 28 33 PLO 5657 C! for SS SCALE in chains 10 5 0 10 20 30 IIIIII E-----=J I 3 10 15 22 27 34 60 I 2 11 14 23 26 35 T 13N R 20W R 19W 1 12 13 24 25 36 WARNING: This plat is the Bureau's Record of Title, and should be used only as a graphic display of the township survey data. Rec- ords hereon do not reflect title changes which may hove been effected by lateral movements of rivers or other bodies of water. Refer to the cadastral surveys for official survey information. Lat 61"04'48,689"N Long 152"43'43,736"W STATUS OF PUBLIC DOMAIN LAND AND MINERAL TITLES MTP FOR ORDERS EFFEC71NG DISPOSAL OR USE OF UN- IDEN71F1ED LANDS WITHDRAWN FOR CLASSIFICA 710N MINERALS. WA TER AND/OR OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES REFER TO INDEX OF MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS PLO 5174 Wdl c/ & V/Reg Sel affects Lds/interests not conveyed PLO 5255 Amend PLO 5174 affects Lds/interests not conveyed PLO 54!! Wdl Reg Sel offects Lds/interests not conveyed o CURRENT TO I Sew Mer <C T 12 N U 8-14-2007 ~--------------~ '---_____ ----'-_____ -----' R 20 W <C SURVEYED TOWNSHIP 12 NORTH RANGE 15 WEST OF THE SEWARD MERIDIAN, ALASKA TRACT IIAII 21,097.11 10 5 0 IIIIII 1C1I54 EsmI SCALE in chains 10 20 30 E-----=J I 60 I RI5W RI4W .. ~ TRACT" 8" ~ __ ~8.11 Ie 1154 ~.......::: Esml UIiS 3870 1,6210.38 .~. -...-: . ...., I ~~~e:;;:,1 WARNING: This plat is the Bureau's Record of Title, and should be used only as a graphic display of the township survey data. Rec- ords hereon do not reflect title changes which may hove been effected by lateral movements of rivers Dr other bodies of water. Refer to the cadastral surveys for official survey information. Lat 61'04' 48.69"N Long 151·50'29.60"W STATUS OF PUBLIC DOMAIN LAND AND MINERAL TITLES MTP FOR ORDERS EFFECTING DISPOSAL OR USE OF UN- IDENTIFIED LANDS WITHDRAWN FOR CLASSIFICA TlON MINERALS, WA TER AND/OR OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES REFER TO INDEX OF MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS A058730 55 Min estate entire Tp AA76960 SS Amdt PL 96-487 Sec 906(e) Top Filed AA086536 Pwr Prof 12660 affects this Tp CURRENT TO I Sew Mer T 12 N 8-3-2006 I------------j L-____________ -L ____________ ~ R 15 W > 0.- 6 630 7 632 18 634 19 636 30 637 31 639 UNSURVEYED TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH RANGE 21 WEST OF THE SEWARD MERIDIAN, ALASKA PROTRACTION DIAGRAM NO. S12-2 OFFICIALLY FILED 7/27/1959 5 4 8 9 17 16 20 21 29 28 I , r I I \ .". ,,, \ \ 3 10 15 " " 22,\ 560 "- /~~/'-/'-'\. \ \ \ \ \ 32 33 34 600 SCALE in chains 10 5 0 10 20 30 60 IIIIII E-----=J I I " " \ \ '\. " 80 \ \ \ 2 11 14 23 \ "-370 .......... 1 I· 12 I! II I' I! I! 13 24 25 630 .......... '-. WARNING: This plat is the Bureau's Record of Title, and should be used only as a graphic display of the township survey data. Rec- ords hereon do not reflect title changes which may hove been effected by lateral movements of rivers or other bodies of water. Refer to the cadastral surveys for official survey information. Lot 61"10'00.641 "N Long 152'56'42.507"W STATUS OF PUBLIC DOMAIN LAND AND MINERAL TITLES MTP FOR ORDERS EFFEC71NG DISPOSAL OR USE OF UN- IDEN71F1ED LANDS WITHDRAWN FOR CLASSIFICA 710N MINERALS. WA TER AND/OR OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES REFER TO INDEX OF MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS. PLO 5/79 Amdt by PLO 5250 Wdl Aid of Leg & C! offects Lds/'interests nDt cDnveyed o CURRENT TO I Sew Mer <C T 13 N U 8-14-2007 ~--------------~ '-----_____ -----'--_____ -------' R 21 W <C From: Sally Morsell [mailto:smorsell@northernecological.com] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:47 PM To: 'David_Krantz@ak.blm.gov' Cc: 'James_Moore@ak.blm.gov' Subject: RE: Chakachatna Lk Withdrawal Hi David- Thank you very much for the information and introduction to Mr. Moore. We will add him to our contact list for future meetings. If we have more questions we'll be in touch and, likewise, you may contact me with any questions you have about the project. -Sally Morsell Northern Ecological Services 360-592-4165 -----Original Message----- From: David_Krantz@ak.blm.gov [mailto:David_Krantz@ak.blm.gov] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:24 PM To: smorsell@northernecological.com Cc: James_Moore@ak.blm.gov Subject: Chakachatna Lk Withdrawal Hi Sally-- I wasn't in on Friday to pass along the information we discussed concerning the Chakachatna Lk Withdrawal, so here's basically what I'm able to find: In 1999 11,900 acres of PSC 395 were Opened to Entry (OT) for State Conveyance, subject to Sec. 24 of the Federal Power Act. Sec. 24 of the Federal Power Act reserves to FERC the right to enter upon those previously withdrawn lands for purposes of constructing a power project w/o payment of compensation to the landowner for loss of use. The lands still under withdrawal are as follows: All lands within USS 3970 Portions of lands within T. 12 N., R. 20 W. Secs. 5, 6, 7, & 8. Portions of lands within T. 12 N., R. 21 W. Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, &11. Portions of lands within T. 13 N., R. 21 W. Secs. 23, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, & 36. Totaling approx. 8198 acres. You can get digital images of our Master Title Plats (MTP) from the state web page: http://plats.landrecords.info/. When entering information use the following format--e.g. for Seward Meridian T. 12 N., R. 20 W. enter in the search text box "s12n20w" then select federal records. I've attached five MTPs with the remaining PSC 395 withdrawn lands but if you need additional MTPs, this is the best way to access them. Hope this helps. If you need additional information, please feel free to contact us. I've also CC'd our Envt'l Coordinator and he is a good contact if you are having meetings or workshops concerning any impacts to BLM lands from the proposed future power project. (See attached file: S0120N0210W000.pdf)(See attached file: S0130N0210W000.pdf)(See attached file: S0120N0200W000.pdf)(See attached file: S0130N0150W000.pdf)(See attached file: S0120N0150W000.pdf) Take Care, David Krantz Lands and Realty BLM-Anchorage Field Office 6881 Elmore Rd. Anchorage, AK 99507 W (907)-267-1239 C (907)-230-4585 From: Sweet, Serena E POA [mailto:Serena.E.Sweet@usace.army.mil] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:11 PM To: Sally Morsell Subject: RE: Chakachamna Project - North Foreland Dock Info Sally- I was finally able to locate the file. What exactly are you needing copies of? Serena From: Sally Morsell [mailto:smorsell@northernecological.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 10:19 AM To: Sweet, Serena E POA Subject: RE: Chakachamna Project - North Foreland Dock Info Hi Serena- Thanks for tracking that down. Skip thought that the only things in the file that would be useful were structural drawings and plans. He didn't think that any environmental review was done. Let me know if you have any other questions. We are having a big storm here and our internet is sometimes iffy. Sorry for any delays getting back to you. -Sally -----Original Message----- From: Sweet, Serena E POA [mailto:Serena.E.Sweet@usace.army.mil] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:11 PM To: Sally Morsell Subject: RE: Chakachamna Project - North Foreland Dock Info Sally- I was finally able to locate the file. What exactly are you needing copies of? Serena From: Sweet, Serena E POA [mailto:Serena.E.Sweet@usace.army.mil] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 12:26 PM To: Sally Morsell Subject: RE: Chakachamna Project - North Foreland Dock Info Sally- The original permit and modifications are attached. Let me know if you need anything else. Serena -----Original Message----- From: Sally Morsell [mailto:smorsell@northernecological.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 10:19 AM To: Sweet, Serena E POA Subject: RE: Chakachamna Project - North Foreland Dock Info Hi Serena- Thanks for tracking that down. Skip thought that the only things in the file that would be useful were structural drawings and plans. He didn't think that any environmental review was done. Let me know if you have any other questions. We are having a big storm here and our internet is sometimes iffy. Sorry for any delays getting back to you. -Sally -----Original Message----- From: Sweet, Serena E POA [mailto:Serena.E.Sweet@usace.army.mil] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:11 PM To: Sally Morsell Subject: RE: Chakachamna Project - North Foreland Dock Info Sally- I was finally able to locate the file. What exactly are you needing copies of? Serena -----Original Message----- From: Sally Morsell [mailto:smorsell@northernecological.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 6:51 PM To: Sweet, Serena E POA Subject: RE: Chakachamna Project - North Foreland Dock Info Thanks, Serena. I'll look for it. Call if you have any questions about the project. -Sally Morsell Northern Ecological Services 360-592-4267 -----Original Message----- From: Sweet, Serena E POA [mailto:Serena.E.Sweet@usace.army.mil] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 5:19 PM To: smorsell@northernecological.com Subject: FW: Chakachamna Project - North Foreland Dock Info Sally- I just wanted to let you know that I am trying to located the documentation and will let you know what I have been able to find. Serena E. Sweet Project Manager | (907) 753-2819 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CEPOA-RD-S P.O. Box 6898 Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-6898 Fax: (907) 753-5567 Email: Serena.E.Sweet@usace.army.mil www.poa.usace.army.mil/reg -----Original Message----- From: Joy, Irvin T POA Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 8:58 AM To: Sweet, Serena E POA Subject: FW: Chakachamna Project - North Foreland Dock Info Serena: Yesterday I received a call from Sally Morsell (Chakachama Project), asking for information on the North foreland dock (Tyonek), I told her that we would try to find the permit and see what information was in there. Naturaly we aren't able to find it, so I am putting it in your capable hands. Skip -----Original Message----- From: Sally Morsell [mailto:smorsell@northernecological.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:13 PM To: Joy, Irvin T POA Subject: FW: Chakachamna Project - North Foreland Dock Info Now I am trying a different spelling for your first name... ________________________________ From: Sally Morsell [mailto:smorsell@northernecological.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 2:08 PM To: 'ervin.t.joy@poa02.usace.army.mil' Subject: FW: Chakachamna Project - North Foreland Dock Info Hi Skip- The email I sent earlier was undeliverable, so I have added poa02 in the address, which is in the email address I have for Leroy Phillips. -Sally ________________________________ From: Sally Morsell [mailto:smorsell@northernecological.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:32 AM To: 'ervin.t.joy@usace.army.mil' Subject: Chakachamna Project - North Foreland Dock Info Hi Skip- Thanks for digging out the information on the North Foreland dock for me. Let me know if you have any questions about the project. -Sally Morsell Northern Ecological Services 360-592-4267 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT r---~~(:oo~rtn1eT111t:r-~~~~~~~-~----~--------~------------------------------ 7i/- Kodiak Lumber Mills, Inc. P.O. Box 339 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Referring to written request dated 6 February 1974 e recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, and under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of Congress approved March 3, 1899, (33 U.S.C. 403), entitled "An act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes," you are hereby authorized by the Secretary of the Army to construct a wharf and place four buoys ------------------~ orth Forelands approximately 1.5 miles southwest of Tyonek, Alask""a~======-- accordance with the plans and drawings attached hereto and marked .PROPOSED WHARF AND BUOYS IN COOK INLET, ALASKA AT NORTH FORELANDS n~~ s~ to the fOllOW~ng conditions: _~ ~ -~; -----------~--'.---'., 071 '~~-~~~~~"~,~,,~~-~.~~~~,,~-~,,~,~,,,,-,~,~,~,~,-~,.,~~~~~~ (a) That this instrument dces not convey 'any prcperty rights either in real estate or ! material, or any exclusive privileges; and that.it doe!;, not authorize any injury to. private preperty er invasien ef private rights, or any infringement ef Federal, state er lecal laws er regulatiens, ner dees it obviate the necessity ef ebtaining state er lecal assent required by law for the structure er werk authorized. (b) That the structure er wcrk authorized herein shall be in acccrdance with the plans and drawings attacfieQ.-heretoancrconst-ruction shall be subject to. the superv~sicn "nd apprcval cf the District Engineer, Cerps of Engineers, in charge cf the District in which the wcrk is to. be performed. (c) That the District Engineer may at any time make such inspecticns. as he may ,deem '-:!: _., --, ,'. :'. : ne,cessary to. assure that the ccnstructicn or werk is perfermed -in -accero-arice--w~th the' l cenditicns ef this permit and all expenses the.recf shall be berne by the perm'ittee.'" ,.' , (dl That the permittees,hall ccmply promptly with any lawful 're'gula't1:6-ris; cond1-tlonsj er instructiens affecting the structure or wcrk authorized herein if and when issued by the water Prcgrams Office cf the Environmental Protecticn Agency and/cr the state water pellutien centrol agency having Jurisdict,icn-,tcabateor prevent waterpelluticn, including thermal er radiatien pellutien. Such regulatiens, cenditions, er instructiens in effect er hereafter p'rescribed by the water Pregrams Office ef the Envirqnmental Protectien Agency and/er the State water pellutien centrol agency are hereby made a cenditien cf this permit. (e) That the permittee will ma~irLtain ,thewcrk authcrized herein in geed cenditien in accerdance with the appreved plans. (f) That this permit may" pr:i,cr to. the comp1e.tionofthe .structure er werk 'authorized herein, by suspended by autherity of the Secretary of the Army if it is determined that suspensien is in the .public :inte~s1,;. * (gl That this permit may at any t.1me be modii'iedby autherity ef the Secretary ef the Army if it is determined that,under ·exj,st,mgcircumstances,: modification is in the public interest.* The permittee, upcn receipt of a notice .. f modificatien, shall cemply therewith as directed by the Secretary of the , __ A:!-'myor, his .autho.rized 'representative;-- (h) That this permit may be revoked by authority of the Secretary of the Army if the permittee fails to. comply with any cf its provisions cr if the Secretary determines that, under the existing circumstances, such acticn is required in the public interest. * (i) That any medificatien, suspensicn cr revecaticn cf this permit shall net be the ba.~is f,,?~\a claim fer damages again:;;t the United States. , (,f) That the united states shall in no. way be liable fer any damage to. any structure or werk authorized here in which maybe .caused by cr result from future opera tioils! :under-' taken by the Gevernment in the Public interest. (k) That no. attempt shall be made by the permittee to. forbid the full and f-ree use by the public ef all navigable waters at er adjacent to. the structure er wcrk autherized by this permit. (1) That if the display ef lights and 'signals on any structure er werk authcrized herein is net etherwise previded fer by law, such lights and signals as may be prescribed by the United States Coast Guard shall be installed and maintained by and at the expense ef the permittee. __ ' .- (m) That t,he perm~tt~e ,s.hal,l nctifytheDistrict Engineer.at what time, the .censtruction er werk will be cemmenced, as far in advance cf the time ef commencement as the District Engineer may specify, and of its' cempleticn. (nl That if the structure er werk herein autherized is nct cempleted en cr befcre the 31st day cf December, 1911, this permit, if not previcusly revcked cr specifically ex~ tended, shall cease and be null and veid. - (0) That the legal requirements of all Federal agencies be met. (p) That this permit does not authorize or approve the construction of particular structures, the authorization or approval of vlhich may require action by the Congress or other agencies of the Federal government. in interest of the permittee. (r) That if the recording of this permit is possible under applicable state or local law, the permittee shall take such action as may be necessary to record this permit with the Registrar of Deeds or other appropriate official charged with the responsibility for main- taining records of title to and interests in real property. (s) That the 'permittee agrees to make every reasonable effort to prosecute the construction or work authorized herein in a manner so as to minimize any adverse impact of the construction or work on fish, wildlife and natural environmental values. (t) That the permittee agrees that it will prosecute the construction of work authorized herein in a manner so as to minimize any degradation of water qua11ty. (u) That the permittee, upon receipt of a notice of revocation of this permit or upon its expiration before completion of the authorized structure or work, shall, without expense to the United states, at the direction of the Secretary of the Army and in such time and manner as the Secretary or his authorized representative may direct, restore the waterway to its former condition. If the permittee fails to comply with the direction of the Secretary of the A~my or his authorized representative, the Secretary or his designee may restore the waterway to its former condition, by contract or otherwise, and recover the cost thereof from the permittee. UTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: ~.r:/77~ Date 7 \ Title *A judgment as to whether or not suspension, modification or revocation is in the public interest involves a consideration of the impact that any such action or the absence of any such action may have on factors affecting the public interest. Such factors include, 'but are not limited to navigation, fish and wildlife, water quality, economics, conservation, aesthetics, recreation, water supply, flood damage prevention, ecosystems and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. N . ,~ -. -.. ' "," , Moquawkt'e TYldt'oYl f?esey(/a/Jon .....•...•. : ' ; •••.•.•.•.•.•.. :~ .~f}·~: .• <)'-•..........• 1 : ," , ,', \ _/~ ~20 .. . , :. " , ; . ~ " ~, ".:'" ' ' .. '. , .. ' " :.,:' , . "', ' . -" ' • -',' I ~---... " '., ~ . -" -~: ~~, ' ............. Moor in 9 MOOrlY79.~ ~--~ PLHN ScaJe: I" ~ 20d 1----1 E"""""""3 I ~o 100 50 0 '. N 1 o I La/. (;,/ 02 N VICfN1TY MAP From US 65 TLfonek p-4- Sea Ie ,"yJ Fee-t BOCO 0 3000 H Ed i+d bA ~I LOVl9' I-S-I o /0' LV Oep-fhs aVId EleuCif'-ons C1 ve ,"y) ..,reef Or? d ye Fey- f-o MLLW. us C f65 Tidal Dala MHH.W 21.0 M Hl-t/ 2 D. 4 jYJT I/.2 ML[W 0.0 Ext-L -6.0 PROPOSED WHARF o.neJ 13 vo'r'S In COOK INLET) /9LRSkl1 Cll.r /\foRN·' FVRq LoAN!> S I.:JKOOll9k L ufV7 8ER M,/..Ls) INC. Fe byuorvtC /q 74 ) C. E. Sleen ¢ ;::j,SSOC. Coy/sul-f in9 EYJqt'Y7eeys ~ ·~~\~~I ... :J~;H';~ ~ ~ ~ -.. "'';;~'''''''''''''''''''''-=.,.,...,..,~..,....,.,---~~ '."""""'" .:---~-,-.. -=-~--=--'':~,",=--=-----. - ------•• --:;---------~----.------... __ .----- 20Q!-O" 300' !". 2@/eO=24o , ~ II Il I I I U £)( i 5//1'7 q Gvound SIDt £L£VATION 840'-0" 2@ leo~240 3@/20'= , 3100 300 -t LUhorr /' I--£/ev. -f 3S jV)HH IA! 7 ... ~ I~ } /\Buolj ~ ~ , ~ BuoLf~' 1!1~/1t //f';:"/I{ -; I I , If ::;/(/ " , I /IIC;;/II !( :: //I~{'f I : I I ///:=7"( , , I_j I I I, I I LJ LJ , , !..oj '-1 ,_ J '_J -8;~ -f/ev. G vound ,Eleu. 316 F /) C t F!.. E Vii T /0 N Scale: ,":: 200' F3 1-------. I ! eOO 150 /00 50 0 ZOO The LUhar-r and approach will be steel bOK 9,·rders U/i-fh ar7 C oot<IN LE T 153 //13({ ov-fhofvo,P,·c plafe deck. , II Foun d a +/on unifs 0'/./( be 5-0 5fee I ?fpe pi Ie s /Y} CoYi L. vefe -fdled sfeel sheef pile cells. PROPOS ED 'w""U::}RF AND (J <.(o~s . ltV COOk r N LET, /1f...ASKR The sfyuc-fuve U/dl he /rqhfed fo con-(orVYJ -fa CQ.~Jsf Guard at""" NORlrl PORELANDS , ye ?uiremeYJ is- I !(ODI,L(k LuMBER MILLS) INC.' Fe bruary r;" Iq 1 q C. E. 5 Teen ,f )9ss 0 c.. Consult-inC; En91Yleevs DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT Tyonek Native Corporation Permittee _____________ _ 1,!-740018 (Cook Inlet~8J_)____MOD_I£ICM_IGt\1'---~~~~~~~~~~~~~---~-- Issuing Office n. S A tn¥ EngiReQc District, Alaska NOTE: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee, The term "this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under the authority of the commanding officer, You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below, Project Description: In navigable \'Jaters I construct an extension to an existing dock • The extension would consist of an ~Lw shaped steel and concrete pile-su~lPOrted structure measuring approximately 1,000' long, 16'S-wide, pile-supported approach attached to a 700 f long, 50' wide main dock.. The purpose of the canpleted extension is to improve an existing dock facility and ultimatelY for use .in loading coal transport vessels. - All work will be perfomleO in accordal'lC'e '<'lith the attached plar.s, 2 sheets dated Cctoher 1989. Project Location: , Water\l,e.rd of an existing dade on the north side of Cook Inlet, approxunately 0.25 mile south\-.J;?st of TjOr~k, Alaska, at sections 13 arrl 14 t T. 11 N., R. 11 Fl., Seward Neridian, U93S Quad ':tYonek A-4. Permi t Conditions: General Conditions: . ,January 31 t 1993 L The time limit for completing the work authorized ends on _____________ , If you find that you need more time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least one month before the above date is reached, 2, You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and condi- tions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below, Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of this permit from this office, which may require restoration of the area, 3, If you discover any previou,sly unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit; you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and state coordina- tion required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 IS 08S0LETE, (33 CFR 325 (Appendix A)) 1 4. If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization. 5. If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project, you must comply with the conditions specified in the certification as special conditions to this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the certification is attached if it con- tains such conditions. 6. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permit. Special Conditions : rrbat you must install and maintain, at your expense, any safety lights and signals prescribed by the united States coast Guard (USCX;), through regulations or otherwise, on your authorized facilities. 'Itte Us:G may be reached at the following address and telephone number: u.s. coast GUard, 17theoast GUard District, Post Offi~ Box 3-5000 , Juneau, Alaska 99S02-1217 ; telephone (907) 586-7367. Further Information: 1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to: (x) Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). ( ) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). ( ) Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413). 2. Limits of this authorization. a. This permit does not obviate the need t9 obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law. b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the prop'erty or rights of others. d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project. 3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the following: a. Damages to the .permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from natural causes. b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest. c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity authorized by this permit. d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work. 2 e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit. 4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public interest was made in reliance on the information you provided. 5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the following: a. You'fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or inaccurate (See 4 above). c. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision. Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost. 6. Extensions. General condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this permit. Unless there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public interest decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit. cuo.....-.rJ1N1 ature below, as permittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. (DATE) This permit becomes effective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed below, f}~ FOR: (DISTRICT ENGINEER) Colonel Will iam W. Kakel ~()K: Timothy R. Jennings, Chief, Northern Unit Permit Processing Section Regulatory Branch , (DATE) When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, .the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property, To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below. (TRANSFEREE) (DATE) 3 «u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1986 -717·425 I~ PROPOSED I PIER r ,I SECTION A-A' SECTION 8 -Sl 5'diQG\PIPE PILE x 100·---_ LONG (Exi8t). FILL WITH - CONCRETE. ELEV.tIO--- COE 10# M-740018 DOLPHIN PILE DETAIL 1000' EXTENSION ~TRESTLE I' I 700' WHARF ELE.\£1"38.o PIER f£ APFROACH i WALKWAY I 1 6OC' / ~--U---~'----H----MHHW; 2LO ~N~--f....:lr-~~~---MLlW: 0.00' SUPERSTRUCTURE NOT SHOWN FiLL ANNULAR SPACE WITH CONCRETE r'diam. CAN 3' dium. PIPE STRUTS 4' diem. CAN FILL WITH CONCRETE o 200' 400' ----. SCALf IN FEET COOK INLET 183 PROPOSED TYONEK DOCK EXTENSION MOOIFICATION IN: rYON EK ALASKA AT: NORTH FORELAND LIGHT Lat.81°2·~oItN. Lono. 1~lo9·40"W. APPLICANT: o 20' 40' TYONEK NATIVE CORPORATON ~I~~~~~·~!~~,,"f' SCALE IN FEET SHEET 2 OF 2. oct 1989 (REV. NOTE- /. DOCl< MARKING AND LiGHTING WILL BE IN CONFORMANC~ WITH COAST GUARD REGULATIONS_ COOK INLET 183 I :zq- ~IO a: 10 CDE IO# M-740018 -~---.....,.....--------- ION .. __ -....:.:. Loke Clark. /'_ ~---~ Iliamna Lake -.:i~ VICINITY MAP ~o 11112 - 14 13 Sec_Coe NORTH FORELANOS~ t..IGHT ;;.t ~ SCALE IN MH .. ES o 50 100 TRESTL.E IG'6" DOl.PHIN PILES T'r'PICAL Sf ERN B f{EIl,ST l.INE (4 r.qd o l"- 2! -...- ------FROPOSED COCK------- ,-------EXTENSION 1000' __ -1r9~---.. --- NOTES: PLAN VIEW I. DATUM: MLLW Mean Lower Low Water = 0.00 BOW BREAST LINE (4req'd) 700' II eo' PROPOSED TYONEK DOCK EXTENSION MODI FICATION 2. PURPOSE: Modification for 0 1000' ~s>d [ FfU __ greater water depths nnli SCALE. IN FEET IN: TYON EK ALASKA larger ships. ~~-----------~ AT; NORTH FORELAND l;IGI-f.T 3.. ADJACENf PROPERTY QWNER: Lat_61 0 2'50"N. L.OnQ.I~IQ940 W. ADL No.063436 I Tyonek America North I nc., APPLICANT: Native Corporation • 4. LEGAL 0 IseRt PTICN: Ur,gurveyed 5umerged land od'C1cent to Alaska Tid@la d surve 19 Sec.14613 T.IIN. w AI ~d . -. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUL 71 NG / TYONEK NATIVE CORPORATION NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 201 E. '56th Suit. 2OOIAnct1,Ak.~18 -SHEeT I Of C! OCT.,lee9 (REV_) DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT Permit No. N-740018, Cook Inlet 183 Issuing Office U. S. Army Engineer District, Alaska NOTE: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The term "this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under the authority of the commanding officer. You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below. Project Description: To dredge up to 60,000 cub'ic yards of material in order to allm'; vessels to dock at the existing dock at all tidal stages. The area dredged \'Jould measure approximately 100' wide by 600' long, and would be approximately 38' below !-4ean lower low Water. The dredged material \"~nl be discrlarged into Cook Inlet at latitude N. 61° 02 t i7", longitude U. 151 0 lot 00 11 • Periodic maintenance dredging may be conducted as needed. All \'lOrk will be perfonned in accordance with the attached pl an, two sheets, dated Narch 25, 1993. Project Location: Dredging would take place off the face of the Tyonek Native Corpor-ati on Dock ~;.Jhich is located approximately 1.5 mil es southwest of Tyonek, Alaska in Cook Inlet, section 14, T. 11 r~., R. il W., Seward r1eridian. Permit Conditions: General Conditions: t,1av 31 s 1996 1. The time limit for completing the work authorized ends on ___ -'-"--_-'-_______ . If you find that you need more time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least one month before the above date is reached. 2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and condi· tions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of this permit from this office, which may require restoration of the area. 3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and state coordina· tion required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 IS OBSOLETE. (33 eRR 325 (Appendix A)) 1 4. If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization. 5. If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project, you must comply with the conditions specified in the. certification as sgecial cQnditiOJls~toJhis-permit.--Eo1"-y:our-conv.eniell~e,~Gop~f~the-eer-tifieat4on-is~ttaehetHf-it-conn~-~~~ tains such conditions. 6. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permit. Special Conditions: 1. Periodic maintenance dredging may be performed under this permit for ten years from the date of issuance of this permit. 2. That the permittee \1ill advise the District Engineer in uriting at least two weeks before he intends to undertake any maintenance dredging. Further Information: 1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to: (x) Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). (x) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). ( } Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1416). 2. Limits of this authorization. a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law. b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others. d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project. 3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the following: a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from natural causes. b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest. c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted ·or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity authorized by this permit. d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work. 2 fflB. e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit. 4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public interest was made in reliance on the information you provided. 5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the following: a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or inaccurate (See 4 above). c. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the ori~nal public interest decision. Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost. 6. Extensions. General condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this permit. Unless there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public interest decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit. Your signature below, as permittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. (PERMITTE ) AND TITLE (DATE) This permit becomes effective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed below. (DISTRICTENGlNEER) Colonel John W. Pierce Bill Abadie, Project Manager Project Evaluation Section -South Regulatory Branch q ) (DATE) When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below. (TRANSFEREE) (DATE) 3 «u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1986 -717·425 NORTH FORELAND OWNED BY TYONEK NATIVE ASSOC. MUD .. .. . . .. .. ' ............ ,," ...... I;: ) PLAN o 1000 2900 FEET ;T~I~I~I~I~'======~~I NOT·E' SCALE ALL ELEVATIONS .BASED UPON MLLW ALL ELEVATIONS ARE IN FATHOMS. 12 // 12 -! 13 / VICINITY MAP NOAA 16663 6'· 02' ""LONG. '5fiff LAT, . o 10 OFEET I I . __ ; _ COOK INLET Cook Inlet 183 N-740018 DREDGING PLAN FOR PORT OF TYONEK NORTH FORELAND, COOK INLET Tyonek, Alaska BY' CITIFOR, INC. 7272 COLUMBIA caR 701 FIFTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 -7090 SHEET I of 2.. MARCH 25, 1993 1,000 , DISPOSAL SITE PLA"N' o 2,OOOF , I WATER SURFACE NORTH :. 5 FOREL:ND ........ y\,/ c; / .~ l' .r~~ ~/"-:-_~ __ --·~-~ .. ···-·····;t X,AREA ~r ................ ~YL~~ ) ·····y-~r~ I~/j ~~5 ,--~" <" " " ~~ DISPOSAL SITE -./ 61°02'17'.' LAT. 151 0 10' 00" LONG. EXISTING DOCK PILING MHHW MLLW COOK INLET FLOOR SECTION A-A SCALE: HORIZONTAL 1"= 50' VERTICAL /"= 50' Cook Inlet 183 N -740018 DREDGiNG PLAN FOR PORT OF TYONEK NORTH FORELAND, COOK INLET. Tyonek, Alaska BY:· CITIFOR, INC. 7272 COLUMBIA caR 701 FIFTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 -7090 SHEET :lof 2.. MARCH 25, 1993 From: Maxine Blake [mailto:mblake@tdxpower.com] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 7:06 PM To: andrea@rareheron.com; andrea@adrury.com; tom@tundratech.net; betsy.mccracken@alaska.gov; susan.walker@noaa.gov; bday@homerelectric.com; jim.ferguson@alaska.gov; cakers@tyonek.com; Finlay Anderson; joe.balash@alaska.gov; robin.beebee@hdrinc.com; james.brady@hdrinc.com; phil_brna@fws.gov; bcarey@aidea.org; curtis.jennifer@epa.gov; michael.daigneault@alaska.gov; kevin_dunham@chugachelectric.com; mark_fouts@chugachelectric.com; steveg@enxco.com; scott.houk@alaska.gov; saraellen@akcenter.org; james.keen@alaska.gov; allen.kemplen@alaska.gov; kim.klein@alaska.gov; Jason Alexander; timkayaks@hotmail.com; adele.lee@alaska.gov; Anne.legget@hdrinc.com; ken.lord@sol.doi.gov; frances_mann@fws.gov; jmcclellan@tyonek.com; pmclarno@hdrinc.com; dfmeyer@usgs.gov; jason.mouw@alaska.gov; douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov; north.phil@epa.gov; mikeo@cosmichamlet.net; dott@aidea.org; Steve Padula; pmpark@gvea.com; gilbert.l.phillips@poa02.usace.army.mil; Donna.robertson@hdrinc.com Subject: Chakachamna-Hydro Update 12.19.08 Greetings, Thank you for your continued interest in the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660). We wanted to alert you to a couple of new additions to our website at www.Chakachamna‐hydro.com that may be of interest to you. In response to requests at our November stakeholder meeting in Anchorage, we've added some descriptive text that describes the proposed Project operations relative to lake levels and stream flows. We've also added some information about how the proposed smolt bypass facility would work during periods of low flows. Please visit http://www.chakachamna‐ hydro.com/about_the_project/proposed_development.php for this updated description of Project operations. Secondly, we've updated our documents section to include a list of all of the documents that we have collected and which we believe are potentially relevant for this project. We invite you to view this list at http://www.chakachamna‐hydro.com/documents/prelim_info_lib.pdf and let us know if there is additional material that you think we should be considering. In January of 2009 these documents will be available on the website through a searchable database. Please feel free to contact Eric Yould at (907) 242‐0487 or eyould@tdxpower.com with any question If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please email info@chakachamna‐hydro.com . Thank you and we hope you have a relaxing holiday. Materials referenced in the December 19, 2008 email can be found on the Chakachamna Project website (http://www.chakachamna-hydro.com): • updated description of Project operations at http://www.chakachamna- hydro.com/about_the_project/proposed_development.php • documents collected which are potentially relevant for the Chakachamna Project at http://www.chakachamna-hydro.com/documents/prelim_info_lib.pdf From: Maxine Blake [mailto:mblake@tdxpower.com] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 3:40 PM To: mikeo@cosmichamlet.net Cc: Finlay Anderson Subject: Chakachamna Project, FERC No. 12660 Good morning, The following letter is also coming to you via U.S. mail. Max Blake Executive Assistant TDX Power, Inc. 4300 B Street, Ste 402 Anchorage, AK 99503 907‐762‐8467 (direct) 907‐382‐9888 (cell) 907‐278‐2332 (fax) January 12, 2009 Sue Walker Hydropower Coordinator Habitat Conservation, Alaska Region NOAA‐Fisheries (NMFS) P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, AK 99801 RE: Chakachamna Project, FERC No. 12660 Support for Use of Traditional Licensing Process On November 13, 2008 TDX Power (TDX) hosted an informational meeting with the public, resource agencies, and non‐governmental organizations to discuss the status of the proposed Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660) (“Project”). The objectives of the meeting were to 1) acquaint stakeholders with the licensing team that TDX Power has assembled; 2) provide an overview of the Railbelt’s need for the Project’s power; 3) describe the proposed Project; 4) review key questions and information needs; and 5) propose a licensing approach that meets the needs of the Project proponent and the stakeholders. Copies of the presentations, as well as a meeting summary can be found at www.chakchachamna‐hydro.com/documents. At the meeting a presentation was made regarding the available FERC licensing processes and TDX’s desire and rationale for utilizing an enhanced traditional licensing process (TLP) for the Chakachamna licensing effort. TDX was encouraged by what it perceived as general agreement among those at the meeting that the TLP appears to provide the desired flexibility for the unique challenges of licensing the Project. TDX is continuing with its preparations for initiating the formal licensing phase of the Project. TDX anticipates filing its Notice of Intent (NOI), Pre‐Application Document (PAD) and request to utilize the TLP with FERC in April 2009. When making its request to use the TLP, TDX must provide FERC with justification for its request, along with any written comments it has received on the request. As part of its request TDX must address the following considerations: - Likelihood of timely license issuance, - Complexity of the resource issues, - Level of anticipated controversy, - Relative cost of the traditional process compared to the integrated process, - The amount of available information and potential for significant disputes over studies, and, - Other factors believed by the applicant to be pertinent. TDX believes that the TLP is the most appropriate approach for licensing the Project for the following reasons: Likelihood of timely license issuance The Project will require an extensive study program to collect the information necessary to address potential effects of construction and operation. TDX plans to initiate field studies in 2009, based on informal consultation with resource agencies and other interested stakeholders. The formal study planning elements of the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) would consume a year to achieve an approved study plan and would not accommodate this early initiation of studies. TDX has consulted with the resource agencies and believes that it will be a more effective approach to build upon the 2009 study results and continue with the formal study program in 2010 using the TLP. Complexity of the resource issues TDX believes, and resource agency personnel have advised, that gaining an understanding of the potential Project effects on hydrology in the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers and downstream in the Noatka Slough and other wetland areas will be a complex undertaking. It is anticipated that several years of pre‐construction monitoring will be required to establish an adequate baseline against which to compare post‐construction effects and to support future adaptive management decisions. The available time under the ILP, which allows for no more than two years of field study prior to preparation of a draft application or preliminary licensing proposal, is inadequate to accommodate the type of field study program that will be required to understand potential Project effects on hydrology and related resources. Level of anticipated controversy The anticipated level of controversy regarding this project is unknown. However, developing a solid base of information to evaluate potential Project effects will go a long way towards minimizing controversy, allowing the evaluation of effects and identification of appropriate impact avoidance and mitigation actions to be made in a non‐confrontational manner. The ILP does not provide the flexibility for TDX to work with resource agencies and other stakeholders to develop information needed to support the evaluation of a new project of this size. Relative cost of the traditional process compared to the integrated process TDX anticipates that its costs may be somewhat less utilizing the TLP versus the ILP due to the additional flexibility allowed by the TLP. We also anticipate that the costs to the resource agencies and other stakeholders will be lower utilizing the TLP as it is significantly less front end loaded in terms of required activity and participation. The amount of available information and potential for significant disputes over studies There is some existing resource information, particularly with regard to fisheries resources, from studies done in the early 1980s. However, significant additional information will need to be developed regarding the fisheries resources of the area as well as potential Project effects on the hydrology of the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers and related slough and wetland areas. TDX anticipates a significant multi‐year field program will be required to generate adequate baseline information to support the resource impact analysis for this Project. The potential for disputes over studies will be lower utilizing the TLP versus the ILP because TDX will undertake a significant informal study program in 2009 and utilize the knowledge gained from that effort to develop the formal study program (to be designed with agency and stakeholder input and initiated in 2010). Other factors believed by the applicant to be pertinent Based on its consultation to date with resource agencies and other stakeholders, TDX believes that there is significant concern with using the ILP for this Project. With limited staff resources and competing priorities of other large development projects in the next several years, agencies have expressed concern with their ability to meet all of the substantive and procedural requirements of the ILP within the FERC proscribed time constraints,. The TLP on the other hand provides more flexibility that TDX, the agencies and other stakeholders can use to provide for effective participation in the pre‐application activity while taking into consideration limited staff resources. TDX would appreciate receiving a written response from your organization presenting your perspective on the use of the TLP versus the ILP for the licensing of the Project. The response need not be extensive. However, we would appreciate your thoughts on the factors listed above to the extent possible. Any written responses we receive prior to March 31, 2009 will be included in TDX’s filing requesting authorization to use the TLP for the Project. As noted above, TDX will formally make the request to FERC together with filing the PAD and NOI; at that time FERC will issue a notice seeking comment on the PAD and the appropriateness of using a TLP for this Project. We appreciate your continued interest in the Chakachamna Project. If there are any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me at eyould@tdxpower.com or (907) 242‐0487. Sincerely, Eric Yould Program Director TDX Power Cc: Ann Rappaport, US Department of Agriculture Ann Wilde, Alaska Regulatory Commission Bob Dach, US Department of Interior Bob Shavelson, Cook Inlet Keeper Cassie Thomas, US National Park Service Charles Ahlrichs, MWH Americas Inc" Chuck Akers, Tyonek Corporation, AK Division Cynthia Bohn, US Department of Interior Douglas Mutter, US Department of Interior Gary Prokosh, Alaska Department of Natural Resources Gary Williams, Kenai Peninsula Borough Jan Konigsberg, Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition Jim Ferguson, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Joe Balash, Office of the Governor John McClellan, Tyonek Native Corporation Johni Blankenship, County of Kenai Peninsula Kenneth Lord, US Department of Interior Mike O'Meara, Cook Inlet Keeper Page Spencer, US National Park Service Philip Brna, US Fish and Wildlife Service Sue Walker, NOAA/ National Marine Fisheries Service Thomas Meyer, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service Toby Smith, Alaska Center for the Environment Tom Melius, US Department of Agriculture From: Sally Morsell [mailto:smorsell@northernecological.com] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 5:05 PM To: susan.walker@noaa.gov; Phil_Brna@fws.gov; jim_ferguson@fishgame.state.ak.us; gary_prokosch@dnr.state.ak.us; cassie_thomas@nps.gov; Serena.E.Sweet@usace.army.mil Cc: Finlay Anderson; 'John Morsell' Subject: Chakachamna Project study plans meeting Hi all- We are trying to schedule our next Chakachamna Project meeting where we will be discussing the draft conceptual study plans for 2009. We would like to hold the meeting the week of February 16. Can you let me know what days you would be able to attend? If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. See you again soon. -Sally Morsell Northern Ecological Services 360-592-4267 From: Phil_Brna@fws.gov [mailto:Phil_Brna@fws.gov] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 3:03 PM To: jmorsell@northernecological.com Cc: jim.ferguson@alaska.gov; Doug.Limpinsel@noaa.gov Subject: objectives __________________________________ Phil Brna Fish and Wildlife Biologist US Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage Field Office Conservation Planning Assistance 605 W. 4th Ave, Room G-61 Anchorage, AK 99501 phone: (907) 271-2440 fax: (907) 271-2786 email: phil_brna@fws.gov No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.7/1895 - Release Date: 1/16/2009 6:52 AM Guidelines for Establishing Project Objectives for Biological Fisheries Investigations Contributed by: Dr. David R. Bernard1 When developing biological fishery investigation proposal, there are often two types of objectives: management applications and statistical. They can be one in the same, but more often are not. Management objectives are usually expressed as a question, such as "Is this chinook salmon harvest sustainable?" "Are we meeting our escapement objectives?" or "Is infection by Ichthyophonus detrimental to production?" The issues are implicitly management hypotheses (" Harvest is sustainable," "Desired escapement is maintained," or "Ichthyophonus impairs production") that can be rephrased to become scientific objectives ("To determine if harvest is sustainable," "To assess if desired escapement has been achieved," or "To determine if Ichthyophonus impairs production.") These management objectives are essential when judging the importance and relevance of the proposed work. Statistical objectives concern evidence that would confirm or disconfirm a scientific hypothesis or explanation (confirm here means to increase the likelihood of being true). The evidence is in the form of estimates from sampling programs ("to estimate harvest"), from experiments ("to test the hypothesis that temperature increases mortality"), or from observational studies ("to test the hypothesis that infected fish suffer the same mortality rate as uninfected"). Statistical evidence must be relevant to the scientific hypothesis being tested and must be obtainable with the proposed methods and proposed levels of funding. For this reason, statistical objectives when feasible should be the centerpiece of detailed investigative plans, and these objectives should have statistical criteria. Detailed investigation proposals should develop objectives specified in terms of estimates and tests and each with criteria for the following reasons: 1. Statistical criteria will allow fisheries managers to determine what they believe to be an acceptable risk of obtaining bad evidence. 2. Sample sizes are linked to statistical criteria; and 3. Funding is linked to sample sizes. Having the project investigators describe in writing how they made these links will demonstrate that the problem or eventual application of the information has been thoroughly considered. In other words the investigator has considered how good an estimate or test needs to be to support their scientific hypothesis. They’ve calculated how intensively they need to sample or experiment to get such an estimate or test, and they have figured out how much money they will 1 Dr. Bernard is Supervisor of Research and Technical Services, Sport Fish Division, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and is a member of the Technical Review Committee. need to get the samples or run the experiment. In short, the detailed project proposal serves as evidence that project personnel are likely to successfully conclude the proposed project. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency not to require such rigor, especially statistical rigor, in plans by groups without access to statisticians, biometricians, or their advice. Collective experience of agencies with stock assessment, harvest monitoring, and surveys relative to fish populations and fisheries has shown that without this rigor the chance of failure greatly increased for these projects. Failure in this instance usually takes the form of gathering statistical evidence that is irrelevant to the scientific objective or, more often, obtaining statistical evidence that is too biased or imprecise to be useful. Management decisions made with this type of data are difficult to defend and more importantly may cause harm to the fishery resource or rural subsistence users who depend on the resource. Establishing Statistically Sound Project Objectives. Objectives concern estimates and tests that "drive" the study through determination of sample sizes, experimental designs, and/or sampling designs. If sampling is involved in attaining an objective, objective statements begin with the infinitives "to estimate" or "to test." Other infinitives, such as "to assess," "to determine," "to measure," and "to evaluate" are ambiguous and have no statistical meaning. Objective criteria are attached to each objective statement. For example: To estimate the ...(statistic)... such that the estimate is within d units (or d percent) of the actual ...(parameter)... (1-)x100 percent of the time. To estimate the abundance of mature burbot in Lake Louise such that the estimate is within 10% of the actual abundance 95% percent of the time. To test the hypothesis that ...such to detect at least a difference of d units between ...(treatment means)... with a and b probabilities of Type I and II errors, respectively. To test the hypothesis that survival rates of coho salmon hooked and released in the estuary of the Little Susitna River are the same as those coho salmon hooked and released farther upstream such to detect at least a difference of 0.10 between survival rates with = 0.05 and = 0.10. The quality of the desired estimate or test is specified through the objective criteria. These criteria and an a priori measure of variance and/or abundance obtained from a pilot study or from similar work will be used to set sample sizes. Specification of statistical criteria is of paramount importance; this is the means by which appropriate levels of sampling can be determined. Other ways to specify criteria are acceptable just so long as they are understandable and unambiguous. If populations are censused (every member handled), objectives do not have statistical criteria because the sample size and the population size are implicitly the same. To count the number of adult coho salmon entering Bear Lake to spawn. Some estimates or tests will not drive sampling. For instance, catch in a sport fishery can be estimated for two species with a creel survey, but only the harvest of one species may be important to management. If harvest of the secondary species will be calculated, these items are listed as tasks in a separate paragraph in this section. References: Bernard, D.R., W.H. Arvey, and R.A. Holmes. 1993. Operational planning: the Dall River and rescue of its sport fishery. Fisheries 18(2): 6-13. Statistical power can improve fisheries research and management.1990 Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47:2-15. To "Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov" <Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov>, "susan.walker@noaa.gov" <susan.walker@noaa.gov>, "bday@homerelectric.com" <bday@homerelectric.com>, "jim.ferguson@alaska.gov" <jim.ferguson@alaska.gov>, "cakers@tyonek.com" <cakers@tyonek.com>, "chakachamna@longviewassociates.com" <chakachamna@longviewassociates.com>, "joe.balash@alaska.gov" <joe.balash@alaska.gov>, "robin.beebee@hdrinc.com" <robin.beebee@hdrinc.com>, "james.brady@hdrinc.com" <james.brady@hdrinc.com>, "phil_brna@fws.gov" <phil_brna@fws.gov>, "bcarey@aidea.org" <bcarey@aidea.org>, "curtis.jennifer@epa.gov" <curtis.jennifer@epa.gov>, "michael.daigneault@alaska.gov" <michael.daigneault@alaska.gov>, "kevin_dunham@chugachelectric.com" <kevin_dunham@chugachelectric.com>, "mark_fouts@chugachelectric.com" <mark_fouts@chugachelectric.com>, "steveg@enxco.com" <steveg@enxco.com>, "scott.houk@alaska.gov" <scott.houk@alaska.gov>, "saraellen@akcenter.org" <saraellen@akcenter.org>, "james.keen@alaska.gov" <james.keen@alaska.gov>, "allen.kemplen@alaska.gov" <allen.kemplen@alaska.gov>, "kim.klein@alaska.gov" <kim.klein@alaska.gov>, "timkayaks@hotmail.com" <timkayaks@hotmail.com>, "adele.lee@alaska.gov" <adele.lee@alaska.gov>, "Anne.legget@hdrinc.com" <Anne.legget@hdrinc.com>, "ken.lord@sol.doi.gov" <ken.lord@sol.doi.gov>, "frances_mann@fws.gov" <frances_mann@fws.gov>, "jmcclellan@tyonek.com" <jmcclellan@tyonek.com>, "pmclarno@hdrinc.com" <pmclarno@hdrinc.com>, "dfmeyer@usgs.gov" <dfmeyer@usgs.gov>, "jason.mouw@alaska.gov" <jason.mouw@alaska.gov>, "douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov" <douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov>, "north.phil@epa.gov" <north.phil@epa.gov>, "mikeo@cosmichamlet.net" <mikeo@cosmichamlet.net>, "dott@aidea.org" <dott@aidea.org>, "spadula@longviewassociates.com" <spadula@longviewassociates.com>, "pmpark@gvea.com" <pmpark@gvea.com>, "gilbert.l.phillips@poa02.usace.army.mil" <gilbert.l.phillips@poa02.usace.army.mil>, "Donna.robertson@hdrinc.com" <Donna.robertson@hdrinc.com>, "david.rutz@alaska.gov" <david.rutz@alaska.gov>, "toby@akcenter.org" <toby@akcenter.org>, "Page_Spencer@nps.gov" <Page_Spencer@nps.gov>, "cassie_thomas@nps.gov" <cassie_thomas@nps.gov>, "jthrall@yahoo.com" <jthrall@yahoo.com>, "jlwalker@matanuska.com" <jlwalker@matanuska.com>, "michael.walton@alaska.gov" <michael.walton@alaska.gov>, "rich.wilson@alaska.gov" <rich.wilson@alaska.gov>, "Bzubeck@HomerElectric.com" <Bzubeck@HomerElectric.com>, "patricia.bettis@alaska.gov" <patricia.bettis@alaska.gov>, "chay@alaska.com" <chay@alaska.com>, "gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us" <gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us>, "ed.weiss@alaska.gov" <ed.weiss@alaska.gov>, "hydro@gci.net" <hydro@gci.net>, "gary.prokosch@alaska.gov" <gary.prokosch@alaska.gov>, "thomas.cappiello@alaska.gov" <thomas.cappiello@alaska.gov>, "dreiser@r2usa.com" <dreiser@r2usa.com>, "tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov" <tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov>, "lawrence.peltz@noaa.gov" <lawrence.peltz@noaa.gov>, "keeper@inletkeeper.org" <keeper@inletkeeper.org>, "robert.dach@bia.gov" <robert.dach@bia.gov>, "jblankenship@borough.kenai.ak.us" <jblankenship@borough.kenai.ak.us>, "ann.wilde@alaska.gov" <ann.wilde@alaska.gov>, "dpa@humbolt1.com" <dpa@humbolt1.com>, "gtquada@gci.net" <gtquada@gci.net>, "heather.r.williams@mwhglobal.com" <heather.r.williams@mwhglobal.com>, "sue.sander@wgint.com" <sue.sander@wgint.com>, "chris_lausten@mcgraw-hill.com" <chris_lausten@mcgraw-hill.com>, "Melinda.ODonnell@alaska.gov" <Melinda.ODonnell@alaska.gov>, "noldog17@yahoo.com" <noldog17@yahoo.com>, "john.dunker@alaska.gov" <john.dunker@alaska.gov>, "jtpietz@pcl.com" <jtpietz@pcl.com>, "dan_young@nps.gov" <dan_young@nps.gov>, "debby.burwen@alaska.gov" <debby.burwen@alaska.gov>, "samuel.ivey@alaska.gov" <samuel.ivey@alaska.gov>, "sean.palmer@alaska.gov" <sean.palmer@alaska.gov>, "am@aquacoustics.com" <am@aquacoustics.com>, "dpa@humboldt1.com" <dpa@humboldt1.com>, "byanity@whpacific.com" <byanity@whpacific.com>, "kirby.gilbert@mwhglobal.com" <kirby.gilbert@mwhglobal.com>, "jthompson@lachel.com" <jthompson@lachel.com>, "execdir@chugachconsumers.org" <execdir@chugachconsumers.org>, "Cortonj@hotmail.com" <Cortonj@hotmail.com>, "kmiller@tu.org" <kmiller@tu.org>, "kevin.schneider@barnard-inc.com" <kevin.schneider@barnard-inc.com> January 20, 2009 When we met on November 13, 2008 in Anchorage to discuss the proposed licensing process and study program for the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project, TDX Power outlined its intent to proceed with a robust study program in 2009 that would precede the formal study program that will be developed through the Traditional Licensing Process, once that is approved by FERC. Reasons for embarking on this early study program include the need for collecting baseline information for critical resource issues, confirming locations of important project features and an aggressive licensing schedule. At the meeting, we heard from the resource agencies that their ability to provide detailed review of study plans would be limited for such a pre‐formal study season, but that a chance to comment on a conceptual study program early in the study planning process would be appreciated. Northern Ecological Services (NES) and HDR Alaska have been working on a conceptual 2009 study program for the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project licensing process. A preliminary list of studies, objectives, and key tasks is attached for your review and comment. Additionally, we are developing and plan to issue conceptual study plans and would like to invite stakeholders and agency personnel to meet and discuss the proposed 2009 effort before study plans are finalized. TDX Power is requesting that you hold February 19 for a meeting in Anchorage; a time and location will be communicated with the agenda 10 days in advance of the meeting. Please RSVP your potential attendance to mblake@tdxpower.com by February 6, 2009. In order to facilitate discussion at the meeting, it would be helpful to collect comments on the proposed study list and the upcoming conceptual study plans by February 12, 2009. Comments and questions should be directed to: John Morsell Northern Ecological Services (360) 592‐4267 jmorsell@northernecological.com. Following the meeting detailed study plans will be developed that incorporate agency comments and recommendations. These detailed study plans will also be circulated for review. If there are any questions please don’t hesitate to contact John Morsell or me at eyould@tdxpower.com. Eric Yould Program Director TDX Power 907‐242‐0487 CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES LIST FOR 2009 OVERVIEW The first step in preparing the list of studies presented below was to determine which kinds of information have the highest priority for collection in 2009. The strategy used for prioritization was described at the November 13, 2008 stakeholder meeting and considered a combination of factors including: 1) information needed to address especially important environmental issues; 2) information needed to begin the period of record for key physical and biological baseline parameters; 3) information needed for early input to project design and operation; and 4) background information essential for all study programs. The second step was to agree on a level of effort and budget for study planning purposes. At Eric Yould’s suggestion it was agreed that study planning would assume a level of effort similar to that which was suggested by the original proposal that HDR submitted to TDX and NovaGreen. We have rounded the HDR effort down somewhat, and the list of studies presented in this document is based on an estimated total 2009 cost of about $2.5 million. This level of effort is less than would be optimal if the FERC licensing effort were being approached with an unconstrained budget, but it is, nevertheless, a significant effort that will provide essential information to the licensing process, provide a good basis for a continuing study program, and assure a good faith effort by TDX in the eyes of the permitting agencies. The 2009 study program could be cut back to a lesser effort with lower cost. It should be noted, however, that the relationship between information gained from studies and study cost is not necessarily linear. Large upfront costs are required for any study program because of the remote location, need for helicopter support, field camps, equipment purchase, and other logistical considerations. There is probably a threshold of costs below which it may no longer make sense to pursue a particular study or group of studies. This is especially true for the big salmon study (Study 4) which is very expensive and, also, very important. The level of detail presented in the study list (description of study tasks, etc.) was intended to be sufficient to provide basic direction during preparation of conceptual study plans. The list was prepared by Northern Ecological Services in collaboration with HDR Alaska, Inc. HDR provided input with regard to both study priority as well as practicality. PROPOSED 2009 STUDIES STUDY 1 - GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT Objectives – Develop preliminary base mapping to be used by all study programs in 2009. Initiate acquisition of refined imagery to be used for a variety of purposes in future years. Rationale for 2009 Priority – Base mapping and georeferencing capability is required for all field study programs. Maps will be needed for report presentation. Purchase of more accurate imagery to be incorporated into the GIS system for use in 2010 and beyond will need to occur in 2009 to be available in time for overall project permitting needs. Study Tasks a. Create initial base mapping to be used by all study programs based on existing imagery. Product to be georeferenced to allow GPS location of field locations. b. Begin acquisition of more accurate imagery to allow availability in 2010. Emphasis on purchase of imagery that requires significant lead time. STUDY 2 - INTEGRATED SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER STUDY Objectives – Begin collection of surface and ground water data as required for understanding the hydrology of the study area and to enhance planning of study efforts for future years. Rationale for 2009 Priority – Because of the importance of hydrological issues as well as lack of prior record and annual variability, the period of record for hydrological monitoring needs to begin as soon as possible to maximize the amount of information available prior to license application. Study Tasks a. Create a strategic monitoring plan based on a preliminary conceptual model of water movements. Multidisciplinary input (surface water hydrologists, groundwater hydrologists, wetland ecologists, and instream flow/fisheries specialists) will be required to develop the plan using available resources such as map and photo interpretation, 2008 reconnaissance, and 1980’s hydrology studies. Emphasis on interactions with Noaukta Slough and Trading Bay State Game Refuge. This collaborative inhouse effort will need to occur very early in the study period. b. Install surface water monitoring stations. Monitoring to include flow, temperature, and field water quality. c. Install groundwater monitoring stations. d. Conduct initial seep monitoring. e. Develop conceptual design for instream flow fish habitat modeling study to be initiated in 2010. STUDY 3 - CHAKACHAMNA LAKE BATHYMETRY AND SHORELINE TOPOGRAPHY Objectives – Develop a topographic/bathymetric map of the proposed lake fluctuation zone. Rationale for 2009 Priority – Shoreline geomorphology may affect the significance of important drawdown-related issues and, thus, impact project design or operation. Study Tasks a. Assess existing information regarding lake bathymetry and the topography of the proposed lake fluctuation zone. b. Collect additional topographic and bathymetric information as necessary to allow evaluation of shoreline impact issues such as Kenibuna Lake impacts, tributary fish access, impact to littoral fish habitats, impact to salmon and lake trout spawning areas, and impacts to bird nesting. Emphasis should be on the proposed drawdown zone (consider the top 100 feet below the average lake water surface elevation)-a full bathymetric study may not be needed. Collection of bathymetric information could be combined with bioacoustic studies of fish distribution or other study efforts. STUDY 4 - ADULT SALMON DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE Objectives – Determine numerical abundance, critical habitat locations, and timing of life history events for the adult (spawning) stage of all salmon species in the project area. Rationale for 2009 Priority – Salmon are one of the more critical resources in the project area, and mitigation measures relating to salmon protection will likely be incorporated into project design and/or operational requirements. A full delineation of salmon resource values and life history characteristics will be essential for the license application. Several years of information are generally considered necessary to fully describe fish resource values because of annual variability, consequently it is important to get studies under way as soon as possible. Study Tasks a. Area-wide Distribution of Salmon Spawners – Radio-telemetry study with downstream capture and tracking throughout the McArthur and Chakachatna drainages. Emphasis in 2009 should be on development of effective catch and tracking methods. Consider a minimum of 200 tagged fish with primary emphasis on sockeye salmon. Consider fish wheel or hoop net capture near the mouth of McArthur River, at least one fixed tracking station near Chakachamna Lake, and aerial tracking throughout on a periodic basis. Other possibilities include the use of more fixed stations and supplemental tracking by boat, if these methods are cost-effective. Length, weight, and scale samples should be collected from all trap or net-caught fish. Genetic sampling should also be considered in cooperation with Alaska Department of Fish and Game. b. Chakachamna Lake Sockeye Salmon Abundance and Run Timing – Sonar enumeration of salmon entering Chakachamna Lake. Emphasis in 2009 should be on establishment of a workable monitoring site, base camp, and optimal sonar equipment array. Effort should be sufficient to allow equipment calibration and provide preliminary information on numbers and timing of salmon entering Chakachamna Lake. Station setup should occur well before the peak of the sockeye salmon run. c. Salmon Escapement Monitoring within Clear Water Portions of Study Area – Employ a combination of aerial and ground surveys to determine number and location of salmon (all species) in clear tributaries, sloughs, and side channels where visual observations are feasible. Multiple surveys in key habitat areas such as Chilligan River and major clear tributaries to allow escapement estimation. Duplicate 1980’s surveys as much as possible. Develop standardized procedures that can be repeated from year to year. d. Chakachamna Lake Spawning Habitat – Investigate the extent, location, and depth of sockeye salmon spawning within Chakachamna Lake using bioacoustic surveys, telemetry, netting, and other methods. Possible shared methodology with juvenile salmon and lake trout studies. STUDY 5 -CHAKACHAMNA LAKE JUVENILE SOCKEYE SALMON STUDIES Objectives – Determine the timing of sockeye salmon smolt movements out of Chakachamna Lake into the Chakachatna River. Determine the distribution of juvenile salmon in Chakachamna Lake by location and depth. Rationale for 2009 Priority – Seasonal timing and duration of sockeye salmon smolt outmigration may affect the design and operating characteristics of fish passage structures associated with the proposed project. Location of rearing juvenile salmon within the Chakachamna Lake water column may affect the design and potential impact of the project intake structure. Study Tasks a. Outmigration Timing – Develop methods for determining the seasonal timing and duration of salmon smolt outmigration at the outlet of Chakachamna Lake. Collect preliminary information regarding smolt timing emphasizing relatively simple methods such as mobile sonar or fyke nets. Evaluate future use of other catch and monitoring techniques such as sonar smolt counters or rotary screw traps at outlet of Chakachamna Lake. Consider dual use of the adult sonar monitoring facility to also look at smolts. Study should begin at or before ice out in the lake. b. Distribution of Juvenile Salmon by Location and Depth – Bioacoustic study program. Recommend that ’09 effort be limited and combined with adult salmon spawning and lake trout study efforts. Special emphasis on deep waters adjacent to the power intake location. STUDY 6 - LAKE TROUT ABUNDANCE AND LIFE HISTORY IN CHAKACHAMNA LAKE Objectives – Provide a preliminary indication of abundance and vulnerability to capture. Develop methods to be used for future population estimates, if population size and catchability warrant additional study. Provide preliminary information regarding location, depth, and timing of spawning. Rationale for 2009 Priority – Lake trout may be especially vulnerable to reservoir drawdown impacts. Size of the potentially affected population as well as the vulnerability to drawdown is essential information for impact analysis and possible mitigation planning. Study Tasks a. Population and Age Structure – The 2009 study program will be limited to test netting to determine vulnerability to capture and feasibility of population estimation in future years (see Cooper Lake Arctic char study for example of techniques). Net design, net locations, and seasonal catch vulnerability should be evaluated to aid in planning 2010 studies. Incidental information regarding age, growth, and condition will be collected for all captured fish. b. Location and Depth of Lake Spawning Areas – Combine radio telemetry with bioacoustic monitoring during probable spawning period. Consider ’09 to be a preliminary study expending limited effort (see Cooper Lake Arctic char study for example of techniques). Catch effort for radio tagging should be combined with the test netting described above. STUDY 7 - RESIDENT AND REARING FISH DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE Objectives – Collect semi-quantitative information regarding species distribution and abundance of resident and rearing fish by season within representative habitats throughout the Chakachatna and McArthur River watersheds. Begin a period of record which will allow the establishment of baseline conditions in the project area. Gain insight into life history of key species along with habitat sensitivity and value. Rationale for 2009 Priority – Establishment of baseline biological conditions in aquatic environments requires several years of data to allow for annual variability. The period of record should begin as soon as possible to meet license application time constraints. Study Tasks a. Synthesis of Existing Information - Compile and digitize data by sample site from 1982 catch records. b. Selection of Standard Sampling Stations and Methods – Duplicate 1982 stations and methods as much as possible. Add new sample sites where applicable. Incorporate a variety of methods depending on site characteristics. c. Seasonal Sampling at Each Station – Conduct field sampling at each site at several times of the year (including winter where possible). Develop semi-quantitative measures of relative abundance so that seasonal and annual changes can be detected. STUDY 8 - WILDLIFE STUDIES Objectives - Identify specific nest sites that are especially sensitive to disturbance. Evaluate the value to birds of the Chakachamna Lake shoreline area. Rationale for 2009 Priority – Early identification of sensitive nest sites will allow project activities (including study programs) to avoid unnecessary impact and will provide information necessary to design future studies and mitigation measures, if needed. Study Tasks a. Raptor Surveys - Conduct aerial surveys to determine bald eagle nest locations and current activity within the full project area. Survey for the presence of other tree and cliff nesting raptors. b. Breeding Bird Use of Chakachamna Lake Shoreline Areas – Ground surveys of nesting song birds, waterfowl, and shorebirds associated with the Chakachamna Lake shoreline. STUDY 9 - WETLAND STUDIES Objectives – Begin initial collaboration between wetland scientists and hydrologists. Establish soil characteristics preliminary to wetland mapping in light of unusual volcanic conditions. Rationale for 2009 Priority – Provides essential information that will be needed for design of detailed wetland field work and analysis of wetland function to begin in 2010. Study Tasks a. Participation in the integrated hydrology study program. b. Determine whether ash-derived soils in the project area need to be interpreted differently from other wetland soil types. NEXT STEPS This discussion of the 2009 Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project study plan has been prepared for internal review with the intent of submitting a draft study list to stakeholders by the middle of January. After receiving informal review from stakeholders, HDR will begin to flesh out the list into conceptual study plans which will receive formal review from stakeholders and provide the basis for working group meetings to be held during the week of February 16-20, 2009. The primary schedule steps are presented below: • Complete internal review and client approval of study list. Electronically transmit the list to interested stakeholders – January 16 • Receive stakeholder input to study list. HDR begin preparation of conceptual study plans. – January 23 • Complete conceptual study plans. Submit to stakeholders for formal review – February 9 • Study plan review meetings by working group – week of February 16-20. • Complete final conceptual plans. Begin preparation of detailed study plans – March 2 • Complete draft detailed study plans – April 3 • Receive stakeholder comments on draft plans – April 24 • Begin study permit applications and equipment acquisition – April 24 • Complete final detailed study plans – May 15 • Initiate study mobilization – late May From: McCracken, Betsy W (DFG) [mailto:betsy.mccracken@alaska.gov] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 3:48 PM To: eyould@tdxpower.com Cc: jmorsell@northernecological.com; Mouw, Jason E B (DFG); Ferguson, Jim M (DFG); Cappiello, Thomas A (DFG); Klein, Kim J (DFG); Maclean, Scott H (DFG); Rutz, David S (DFG) Subject: FW: 2009 Preliminary Studies List / Conceptual Study Plan Meeting: February 19, 2009 Hi Eric, As follow up to a phone conversation with John Morsell (November 18, 2008), and in response to TDX Power and Northern Ecological Services request for stakeholder input on studies necessary to identify potential impacts to fish and wildlife from the proposed Chakachamna hydro-electric project by January 23rd, I am submitting recommendation pertaining to aquatic non-game species of concern*, identified in Alaska’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2006). The CWCS identifies the habitats of the species, threats to and actions needed to protect the viability of these habitats. It specifically identifies altered stream flows and restricted passages as significant challenges in maintaining the states fish and wildlife diversity and abundance. Species addressed within the context of this correspondence are some of those identified in the CWCS as being of greatest conservation need in Alaska. The CWCS is the department’s official policy to protect these species and their habitats. For the complete list of the State’s species of concern, please refer to http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/ngplan/ Please note that in addition to this correspondence, further input from the ADF&G regarding fish and wildlife issues will be submitted through the FERC review process. Non-Game Species Freshwater Fish I reviewed the Chakachamna Hydro-electric project Summary of Fish Passage Design Concepts and Preliminary Results of FY 1982-1983 Fish Studies conducted by Bechtel and Woodard and Clyde (December 1982) for the Alaska Power Authority. This report indicates that minnow trap and fyke net sampling during August, September and October 1982 was conducted throughout the project footprint. The reported trapping efforts captured the following species; Minnow trapping: Along with salmonid species (coho, sockeye, Chinook, pinks, chum, rainbow trout, Dolly varden), the following non-game species of concern*/resident species were documented to be caught in during minnow trapping within the project area: Three-spine stickleback* (In particular the Cook Inlet radiation) Nine-spine stickleback* (In particular the Cook Inlet radiation) Slimy sculpin* Pygmy whitefish* Lake trout Fyke netting: Along with salmonid species (Dolly varden, coho, pinks, chum, sockeye, Chinook, rainbow trout), the following non-game species of concern*/resident species were documented to be caught during fyke netting within the project area. Round whitefish Pygmy whitefish* Bering cisco* Longfin smelt* Slimy sculpin* Three-spine stickleback* Eulachon* In addition to those non-game species listed above, lamprey* species have been widely documented throughout Alaska’s waters. Five species of lamprey are known to inhabit Alaska’s waters, including both anadromous, and non-anadromous forms. Although lamprey are not reported to have been captured during the 1982 fish studies conducted in the project area, lamprey occurrence has been widely documented in the Cook Inlet area. Most recently, lamprey juveniles were captured on video during the Chuitna River Freshwater Fish Studies (LGL, 2008). Given what is known about lamprey occurrence, it seems likely that lamprey also inhabit the waters of the proposed Chakachamna Hydro- electric project area. It may also be likely that the use of minnow traps and fyke nets in the 1982 studies, selected against the capture of lamprey species, if present. Typical gear used to target ammoceotes, for example, include electro-fishers using standardized sampling protocols (Steves et. al. 2003). Screw traps, weirs, lamprey pots and video cameras have proven effective for capture and documentation of juvenile and adult migrants. Additionally, due to the complex life cycle of lamprey, seasonal temporal sampling is critical to their capture. The timing of sampling conducted during the 1982 fish studies (August, September and October) may have missed returning anadromous species runs that conceivable would occur during the spring/summer. Fall immigrating macropthalmia may also have been eluded due to gear selectivity of minnow traps or fyke net mesh size and/or sampling timing. Subsurface lamprey ammocoetes would not be detected using minnow traps or fyke nets during any time. Ecological, Economic and Cultural Significance The ecological significance of lamprey as both prey and predator is broad and varied. Lamprey are important as a food source for numerous animals. Because they are high in fat content, concentrations of adult and larval lamprey make them an important and dependable food source for birds, fish and mammals, especially seals and sea lions. Coho fry and burbot are known to prey on lamprey ammocoetes. Adult returning Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) also function as a buffer to reduce predation on adult migrating salmon from seals and sea lions, as well as other predators. Similarly, Pacific lamprey is found in the diets of other fish and gulls, that otherwise might prey more heavily on young salmon. Similar to salmon, anadromous lamprey transport important marine-derived nutrients such as nitrogen to freshwater ecosystems. In Alaska Arctic lamprey provide subsistence and commercial fisheries on the Yukon River. The Department currently permits the harvest and sale of up to 40,000 pounds of lamprey from local fisherman in this area. Lamprey are also being sought after by foreign countries such as France, for medicinal exploration; and are served as a seasonal delicacy in Seattle as a northern Spain regional cuisine offering (Kwipak Fisheries, Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association). The size of lamprey runs in Alaska are unknown. Currently, most lamprey in the lower 48 are either extinct or protected due to large declines in populations from human impacts, including hydro-electric dams. If lamprey inhabit the waters associated with the Chakachamna hydro-electric project, it is critical that informational gaps related to their biological, ecology, and passage requirements be addressed to prevent further decline of lamprey populations. Lamprey Passage Considerations Lamprey have been documented to have specialized passage requirements. Successful lamprey migration relies on safe passage, including through hydro-electric structures. Some of these are outlined below for consideration during project development. Temperature Effects Swimming speed of lamprey is positively related to temperature (range 5-15 degrees C). Maximum sustained swimming speed has been documented to decrease with a corresponding decrease in water temperature. Velocity Barriers Research confirms that the anguilliform (eel-like) mode of swimming is inefficient and that lampreys are poor swimmers when compared to teleosts (Stone, J., 2004).High velocities can be particularly restrictive to lamprey passage. Light Effects Both juvenile and adult lamprey are nocturnal. Some lamprey species also exhibit negative phototaxis. It is likely that both high light intensity and abrupt changes in lighting could affect lamprey movements. Role of Attachment (during passage/ migration) When confronted with rapid current velocities, adult Pacific lamprey use their suctorial disc to hold fast and rest between intervals of burst swimming. It is critical that lamprey are provided with adequate attachment surfaces in fishways where lamprey might encounter high current velocity. Lamprey Research Needs excerpted mostly from Stone, 2004: 1) Methodologies for juvenile lamprey species identification 2) Information on the mechanisms of migration initiation Several environmental cues dictate the timing of adult lamprey spawning migration. These include water temperature, discharge, photoperiod, and the presence of olfactory cues. To produce reliable adult abundance estimates continuous sampling throughout migration period may be needed. 3) The extent to which ammocoetes move upstream 4) Behavior of ammocoetes and macropthalmia in strong currents 5) The effects of lighting on lamprey behavior, and 6) The cues adult lamprey use to find spawning areas. 7) Instream/flow water volume needs for differing life history stages For reasons state above, and because lamprey are of specific concern, it is recommended that sampling be conducted for the presence/absence, distribution, and life stage occurrences (ammoceotes, juveniles, adults) of lamprey within the Chakachamna Hydro- electric project footprint and surrounding area of potential impact. Other non-game aquatic species of concern Prey Species Baseline documentation of prey species including those of whitefish, stickleback, and sculpin should occur to continue the period of record for these important species. For example, both Bering cisco (Coregonus laurettae) and pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulteri) are CWCS species of conservation concern, and both are documented to occur in the project waters. Several sculpin species are also of conservation concern including the slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) also documented in the project waters. Three-spine (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and nine-spine stickleback (Pungitius pungitius) are also species of concern, with the Cook Inlet radiation of the three-spine stickleback of particular interest. Marine Forage Fish Baseline documentation of presence of marine forage fish species including, longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) and eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) is needed. Other non-game forage species of conservation concern including sand lance (Ammodytes hexapturus), should be documented where present to establish a period of record. Invertebrates Bivalves Baseline presence/absence, distribution and abundance data of bivalves is needed. Many bivalve species are CWCS species and are also considered to be indicator species. From my understanding of the project, there maybe intertidal or marine impacts from the Chakachamna hydro-electric project. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT) Stoneflies, mayflies and caddisflies are also CWCS species of concern. Baseline assessments of EPT species are essential to document and monitor water quality, as well as to establish relative availability of fish food. I am providing the references used to develop the above recommendations as supporting documentation. The references are as follows, ADF&G, 2006. Our Wealth Maintained: A Strategy for Conserving Alaska’s Diverse Wildlife and Fish Resources. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. xvii + 824 p. http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/ngplan/ Kwipak Fisheries, Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association. November 2007. http://www.kiyu.com/news1107_2.htm LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. Chuit River Freshwater Fish Studies, 2008. Progress update and data report, April 21 – July 23. Prepared for PacRim Coal, LP. August 6 2008. Moser, M. L., J. M. Butzerin, D. B. Dey. 2007. Capture and collection of lampreys: the state of the science. Rev Fish Biol. Fisheries (2007) 17:45-56 Stone, Jen. 2004. Passage Considerations for Pacific Lamprey, USFWS. Response to request for Lamprey culvert passage criteria (February 18, 2004). http://columbiariver.fws.gov/lamprey.htm Woodward and Clyde. December 1982. A Summary of Fish Passage Facility Design Concepts and Preliminary Results of FY 1982-1983 Fish Studies. Chakachamna Dam Hydro-electric Project. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input regarding fish studies for the Chakachamna hydro-electric project. Feel free to reply to this email or give me a call if you have any questions (907) 267- 2238. Betsy Betsy W. McCracken Fishery Biologist Sport Fish Division Alaska Department of Fish and Game Phone: (907) 267 - 2238 Fax: (907) 267 - 2422 Betsy.McCracken@alaska.gov From: Maxine Blake [mailto:mblake@tdxpower.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:08 PM To: McCracken, Betsy W (DFG) Cc: chakachamna@longviewassociates.com Subject: 2009 Preliminary Studies List / Conceptual Study Plan Meeting: February 19, 2009 January 20, 2009 When we met on November 13, 2008 in Anchorage to discuss the proposed licensing process and study program for the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project, TDX Power outlined its intent to proceed with a robust study program in 2009 that would precede the formal study program that will be developed through the Traditional Licensing Process, once that is approved by FERC. Reasons for embarking on this early study program include the need for collecting baseline information for critical resource issues, confirming locations of important project features and an aggressive licensing schedule. At the meeting, we heard from the resource agencies that their ability to provide detailed review of study plans would be limited for such a pre-formal study season, but that a chance to comment on a conceptual study program early in the study planning process would be appreciated. Northern Ecological Services (NES) and HDR Alaska have been working on a conceptual 2009 study program for the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project licensing process. A preliminary list of studies, objectives, and key tasks is attached for your review and comment. Additionally, we are developing and plan to issue conceptual study plans and would like to invite stakeholders and agency personnel to meet and discuss the proposed 2009 effort before study plans are finalized. TDX Power is requesting that you hold February 19 for a meeting in Anchorage; a time and location will be communicated with the agenda 10 days in advance of the meeting. Please RSVP your potential attendance to mblake@tdxpower.com by February 6, 2009. In order to facilitate discussion at the meeting, it would be helpful to collect comments on the proposed study list and the upcoming conceptual study plans by February 12, 2009. Comments and questions should be directed to: John Morsell Northern Ecological Services (360) 592-4267 jmorsell@northernecological.com. Following the meeting detailed study plans will be developed that incorporate agency comments and recommendations. These detailed study plans will also be circulated for review. If there are any questions please don’t hesitate to contact John Morsell or me at eyould@tdxpower.com. Eric Yould Program Director TDX Power 907-242-0487 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.12/1911 - Release Date: 1/23/2009 6:54 PM From: Maxine Blake [mailto:mblake@tdxpower.com] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:25 PM To: phil_brna@fws.gov; Bryan Carey; Curtis.Jennifer@epa.gov; jim.ferguson@alaska.gov; kim.klein@alaska.gov; Lee, Adele R (DNR); jason.mouw@alaska.gov; Douglas Ott; Prokosch, Gary J (DNR); david.rutz@alaska.gov; Cassie_Thomas@nps.gov; susan.walker@noaa.gov; Walton, Michael L (DNR) Cc: Finlay Anderson; Nick Goodman; Eric Yould Subject: Chakachamna Conceptual Study Plan Discussion Hello All, The attached agenda has been finalized for the Study Plan Meeting and we welcome each of you. If you wish to forward this agenda or refer folks to the website to access information about the meeting, please feel free. We will consider each of you as a “Yes” RSVP to attend, unless you advise us otherwise. Please note that lunch will be provided. For questions or clarifications, you may wish to contact Eric Yould at 907‐242‐0487. Max Blake Executive Assistant TDX Power, Inc. 4300 B Street, Ste 402 Anchorage, AK 99503 907‐762‐8467 (direct) 907‐382‐9888 (cell) 907‐278‐2332 (fax) Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project 2009 Conceptual Study Plan Discussion FERC Project No. 12660 Page 1 of 2 02/19/09 Chakachamna Site Investigation and Licensing (FERC No. 12660) 2009 Conceptual Study Plan Discussion February 19, 2009 8:30 am to 4:30pm Multi-Purpose Room 4th Floor CIRI Building 2525 C Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2632 Agenda 8:30 Welcome and goals for the day Introduce Technical Team Schedule for development of detailed study plans 8:45 Geographic Information System Development (Robin Beebee, HDR) 9:15 Chakachamna Bathymetry & Shoreline Topography (James Brady & Scott Prevatte, HDR) 9: 45 Integrated Surface and Groundwater Study (Robin Beebee, HDR) 10:15 Break 10:45 Wildlife Studies (Sirena Brownlee & Donna Robertson, HDR) 11:15 Wetlands Studies (Anne Leggett, HDR) 12:00 Lunch (provided) 12:30 Area-wide distribution of Spawners-Radio Telemetry (James Brady & Erin Cunningham, HDR) Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project 2009 Conceptual Study Plan Discussion FERC Project No. 12660 Page 2 of 2 02/19/09 1:00 Chakachamna Lake Sockeye Abundance & Timing—DIDSON (James Brady & Scott Prevatte, HDR) 1:30 Salmon Escapement Monitoring Clear Water (James Brady & Heidi Weigner) 2:00 Chakachamna Lake Juvenile Sockeye Salmon (James Brady & Scott Prevatte, HDR) 2:30 Break 2:45 Lake Trout Abundance and Life History in Chakachamna Lake (James Brady & Heidi Weigner, HDR) 3:15 Resident & Rearing Fish Distribution & Abundance (James Brady & Heidi Weigner, HDR) 3:45 Study Prioritization and Scenario Development (John Morsell and Sally Morsell, Northern Ecological Services) 4:15 Next steps: • Summarize logistics and permitting needs (James) • Deadline for comments on Conceptual Study Plan • Development of detailed study plans- dates for agency reviews • Schedule fall agency meeting 4:30 Adjourn From: Maxine Blake [mailto:mblake@tdxpower.com] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 2:04 PM To: phil_brna@fws.gov; Bryan Carey; Curtis.Jennifer@epa.gov; jim.ferguson@alaska.gov; Klein, Kim J (DFG); hydro@gci.net; Lee, Adele R (DNR); McCracken, Betsy W (DFG); Douglas Ott; Prokosch, Gary J (DNR); Cassie_Thomas@nps.gov; Walton, Michael L (DNR); susan.walker@noaa.gov Subject: Chakachamna Study Plan Attached Hello all ‐‐ Attached is a 2009 Conceptual Study Plan for the proposed Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No 12660) that we will be discussing on Thursday, February 19. The study plan is 45 pages and expands on the Preliminary Study List that was previously distributed. The main goal of our discussion on Thursday is to get feedback regarding the purpose and methods for the 12 studies being proposed for the 2009 season. Additionally, we are anticipating discussing permitting issues and any possible constraints on study activities or timing. It will be helpful to know if there are any agency activities in the same area that of which TDX needs to be aware. We hope that our discussion on Thursday will address most of your questions, concerns, and suggestions. Should you wish to provide more detailed comments, please feel free to take additional time. Any written comments we receive by March 6, 2009 can be considered for the development of the more detailed study plan, which will be distributed in early April. The meeting details are as follows: 8:30 am to 4:30pm Multi‐Purpose Room 4th Floor CIRI Building 2525 C Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503‐2632 A box lunch will be provided. Eric Yould Program Director TDX Power 907‐242‐0487 Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Proposed Environmental Studies For 2009 Draft Conceptual Study Plans Prepared for: TDX 4300 B Street, Suite 402 Anchorage, AK 99503 Prepared by: HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503 Revised: February 15, 2009 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.0 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............................................................................................................. 2 1.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 CAMP EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION, MOBILIZATION / DEMOBILIZATION, AND FIELD SEASON SUPPORT .. 2 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Task Purpose......................................................................................................................................... 2 Design................................................................................................................................................... 2 Personnel and Responsibilities ............................................................................................................. 3 1.3 GIS DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Task Purpose......................................................................................................................................... 4 Assumptions.......................................................................................................................................... 4 Task Summary....................................................................................................................................... 4 Personnel and Responsibilities ............................................................................................................. 4 2.0 INTEGRATED SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY............................................. 5 2.1 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORING WORKSHOP ................................................................... 5 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Task Purpose......................................................................................................................................... 5 Task Summary....................................................................................................................................... 6 Personnel and Responsibilities ............................................................................................................. 6 2.2 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM ......................................................... 6 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Study Purpose....................................................................................................................................... 7 Field Methods....................................................................................................................................... 7 Data Management and Analysis........................................................................................................... 8 Reporting .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Personnel and Responsibilities ............................................................................................................. 8 2.3 LOWER CHAKACHATNA/MCARTHUR WATER BALANCE AND GROUNDWATER RECONNAISSANCE ...... 9 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Study Purpose....................................................................................................................................... 9 Field Methods....................................................................................................................................... 9 Data Management and Analysis......................................................................................................... 10 Reporting ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Personnel and Responsibilities ........................................................................................................... 10 3.0 FISHERIES........................................................................................................................................... 11 3.1 CHAKACHAMNA LAKE BATHYMETRY AND SHORELINE TOPOGRAPHY ............................................... 11 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 11 Study Purpose..................................................................................................................................... 11 Assumptions........................................................................................................................................ 12 Field Methods..................................................................................................................................... 12 Data Management and Analysis......................................................................................................... 13 Reporting ............................................................................................................................................ 14 Personnel and Responsibilities ........................................................................................................... 14 3.2 SYSTEM-WIDE SALMON SPAWNING DISTRIBUTION ............................................................................ 14 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 14 Study Purpose..................................................................................................................................... 15 Assumptions........................................................................................................................................ 16 Field Methods..................................................................................................................................... 16 Data Management and Analysis......................................................................................................... 18 iii Reporting ............................................................................................................................................ 19 Personnel and Responsibilities ........................................................................................................... 19 3.3 CHAKACHAMNA LAKE SOCKEYE SALMON ABUNDANCE AND RUN TIMING ....................................... 19 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 19 Study Purpose..................................................................................................................................... 20 Assumptions........................................................................................................................................ 20 Field Methods..................................................................................................................................... 21 Data Management and Analysis......................................................................................................... 22 Reporting ............................................................................................................................................ 22 Personnel and Responsibilities ........................................................................................................... 23 3.4 SALMON ESCAPEMENT MONITORING IN CLEAR WATER INDEX AREAS .............................................. 23 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Study Purpose..................................................................................................................................... 23 Field Methods..................................................................................................................................... 24 Data Management and Analysis......................................................................................................... 24 Reporting ............................................................................................................................................ 25 Personnel and Responsibilities ........................................................................................................... 25 3.5 CHAKACHAMNA LAKE JUVENILE SOCKEYE SALMON STUDIES ........................................................... 25 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 25 Project Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 26 Assumptions........................................................................................................................................ 26 Field Methods..................................................................................................................................... 26 Data Management and Analysis......................................................................................................... 28 Reporting ............................................................................................................................................ 28 Personnel and Responsibilities ........................................................................................................... 28 3.6 LAKE TROUT ABUNDANCE AND LIFE HISTORY IN CHAKACHAMNA LAKE .......................................... 29 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 29 Study Purpose..................................................................................................................................... 29 Field Methods..................................................................................................................................... 30 Data Management and Analysis......................................................................................................... 30 Reporting ............................................................................................................................................ 31 Personnel and Responsibilities ........................................................................................................... 31 3.7 RESIDENT AND REARING FISH DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE........................................................ 31 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 31 Study Purpose..................................................................................................................................... 31 Assumptions........................................................................................................................................ 32 Field Methods..................................................................................................................................... 32 Data Management and Analysis......................................................................................................... 33 Reporting ............................................................................................................................................ 33 Personnel and Responsibilities ........................................................................................................... 33 4.0 WILDLIFE............................................................................................................................................ 34 4.1 RAPTOR NESTING SURVEYS................................................................................................................ 34 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 34 Study Purpose..................................................................................................................................... 34 Assumptions........................................................................................................................................ 34 Field Methods..................................................................................................................................... 35 Data Management and Analysis......................................................................................................... 36 Reporting ............................................................................................................................................ 36 Personnel and Responsibilities ........................................................................................................... 36 4.2 CHAKACHAMNA LAKE BREEDING WATERBIRD STUDIES.................................................................... 36 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 36 Study Purpose..................................................................................................................................... 37 Assumptions........................................................................................................................................ 37 Field Methods..................................................................................................................................... 38 Data Management and Analysis......................................................................................................... 39 iv Reporting ............................................................................................................................................ 39 Personnel and Responsibilities ........................................................................................................... 39 5.0 WETLANDS......................................................................................................................................... 40 5.1 HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS IN ASH-DERIVED SOILS ............................................................................ 40 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 40 Study Purpose..................................................................................................................................... 41 Assumptions........................................................................................................................................ 41 Field Methods..................................................................................................................................... 41 Data Management and Analysis......................................................................................................... 42 Reporting ............................................................................................................................................ 43 Personnel and Responsibilities ........................................................................................................... 43 6.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................... 44 1 Introduction The hydroelectric power generating potential of the Chakachamna area was first evaluated in the 1960s by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Hatch 2008). The Project was reconsidered in the late 1970s and again in the early 1980s (Bechtel 1983a) by the Alaska Power Authority. Presently, TDX Power Inc. (TDX) has initiated the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing process and has been issued a preliminary license (P-12660) to build a hydroelectric facility at Chakachamna Lake. The Project area, which includes Chakachamna Lake, the Chakachatna River, and the McArthur River, is located approximately 85 miles southwest of Anchorage, Alaska. Long View Associates (LVA) is under contract to TDX to coordinate and manage the FERC licensing process. Northern Ecological Services (NES) is a subconsultant to LVA to develop and facilitate the required environmental studies. HDR Alaska Inc. (HDR), as part of the environmental studies team, is tasked with conducting the environmental studies in support of the licensing process. HDR conducted three sets of reconnaissance flights of the Project area during 2008 with the objectives of • Locating feasible instrumentation and base camp sites for detailed studies • Making general observations on the current condition of rivers, lakes, glaciers, wetlands, and wildlife habitat. One flight occurred during the spring/early summer, to observe post break up conditions during a period of low water (HDR 2009). A second flight occurred during the summer to observe high water. A third, late summer, flight coincided with migratory bird staging, salmon spawning, and late season water levels (HDR 2009). Information gained from the reconnaissance flights and an initial review of existing environmental literature was presented at a meeting to introduce the Project to agencies and other stakeholders on November 13, 2008. Using information from previous studies, literature reviews, and input from stakeholders at the November 13th meeting, NES developed a list of critical studies to begin during the 2009 field season. The studies fall under several disciplines: hydrology, fisheries, wildlife, and wetlands. Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping, essential to support the study effort, is also included for the 2009 study program. HDR has developed conceptual study plans for each of the proposed studies. 2 1.0 Program Management 1.1 Project Management The project management task will provide for general oversight of all disciplines and tasks associated with the 2009 environmental baseline studies program. This task will ensure that communications, staffing, logistics, schedules and budget controls are successfully managed. The quality control program and the development of Project safety plans will also fall under this task. 1.2 Camp Equipment Acquisition, Mobilization / Demobilization, and Field Season Support Introduction The Chakachamna Project will require multiple bases of operation to support field work for environmental data collection efforts. This plan describes the camps and outlines the major logistical considerations that are associated with the mobilization and supporting operations of remote field camps. Information obtained from the 2008 reconnaissance suggested that the proposed 2009 field studies will require up to three bases of operation. Tentative locations for the camps include: one camp located on the McArthur River below the Chakachatna confluence, one on the Chakachatna River approximately 3 miles downstream from the Chakachamna Lake outlet, and one at Chakachamna Lake. Studies to be conducted from each of these camps are described in subsequent chapters. Since optimal locations for siting field equipment have not been selected, flexibility in camp siting may be required to accommodate field conditions. Task Purpose The goals of this task are to ensure that field camps are established to meet the needs of each of the studies; establish field camps in advance of field studies so that field crews can initiate studies on schedule; and provide a safe working environment for field crews. Objectives of the camp support task are to • Provide a safe and comfortable living and working environment for field personnel • Protect sensitive equipment from damage due to weather and wildlife • Allow field crews to work efficiently on a daily basis while minimizing costs associated with travel from Anchorage. Design Camps will be located in accordance with existing land use and permit requirements. Camps will include weatherports and wall tents as described below, will be surrounded by bear exclusion fencing as needed, and will include waste management facilities in compliance with permits. Camps will have generators, solar panels, and batteries 3 sufficient for the operation of the electrical bear exclusion fencing, computers, and other electronic equipment specific to individual study needs. Elements of field camp design include: • Transportation – Heavy load transportation during camp mobilization and demobilization will be done with helicopter. Personnel transportation to the field camps will be accomplished with a combination of fixed wing and helicopter aircraft. Staff will be flown by fixed wing from Anchorage either to Shirelyville, Chakachamna Lake, or various unimproved airstrips along the McArthur and Chakachatna Rivers and then via helicopter to camps. Daily transportation to field sites will utilize helicopters and boats. • Shelter – Weatherport shelters will be used as office space and shared living space. Canvas wall tents will be used for sleeping and sensitive equipment storage as needed. Tarps will be used to cover other gear. • Facilities – Camps will be outfitted with facilities conditional to special use permits. Pit toilets and waste water holding and disposal systems will be constructed at each camp. Trash that can not be burned and buried will be transported back to Anchorage for disposal. • Supplies – Food and fuel will be distributed from Anchorage to each camp with a combination of fixed wing and helicopter aircraft as described previously for personnel transportation. • Communication – A radio communication system will be installed to allow camps and field crews to communicate with each other and with aircraft. Satellite phones will be used to communicate with Anchorage and other offsite locations. • Fuel – Propane will be used for cooking and heating. Gasoline will used for generators and boats. Helicopter fuel will be staged at some camps. • Safety – A complete safety program will be defined to include boating safety and bear protection. Personnel and Responsibilities • James Brady – Senior Scientist, responsible for Program management. • Jessica Manifold – Health and Safety Officer, responsible for preparing the health and safety plan for the field program, planning for necessary safety training for field crews, and monitoring safety throughout the field season. • Scott Prevatte – Field Biologist, responsible for camp logistics and management. • Field Crews – Multidisciplinary, responsible for assisting with camp set up and maintenance and maintaining a safe field program. 4 1.3 GIS Development Introduction A base map of the Project vicinity for displaying and analyzing geographic data layers is critical to the proposed 2009 field study effort. Imagery suitable for creating the initial base map needs to be acquired prior to detailed study planning and field mobilization. Task Purpose The primary purpose of the 2009 GIS task is to provide initial mapping that can be used by all disciplines as a base for 2009 field work, data analysis, and reporting. A secondary purpose is to provide direction for the preparation of a more sophisticated GIS system that will satisfy Project needs through the licensing phase. The objectives of the 2009 GIS study task are to • Acquire imagery, cost effectively, that will be adequate for 2009 field studies • Develop base maps for use in preparing detailed study plans and for use in the field • Make recommendations for a source of new high resolution imagery and topographic data for the ultimate Project area base map. Assumptions • Adequate imagery is available for 2009 Task Summary Two sources of imagery are currently available for the Project area. One source is 1978 high altitude infrared photography from Aero-Metric. The second source is low resolution Landsat imagery collected in the late 1990s available from Terra Map. The scanned data received from Aero-Metric will require processing to orthorectify and join. This task will be completed by HDR GIS specialists prior to the 2009 field season. Currently, HDR is in the process of acquiring quotes for obtaining custom satellite imagery of the entire Project area and LiDAR topography data for specific areas. This data is intended to be sufficient to meet the needs of the engineering and design and environmental study programs beginning in 2010. Personnel and Responsibilities • Bridget Brown – GIS Specialist, responsible for low-cost imagery acquisition, geo-referencing, and recommendations on new data acquisition. • Matt Cooper – GIS Specialist, responsible for geo-referencing and development of base maps. 5 2.0 Integrated Surface and Groundwater Hydrology The proposed 2009 hydrology study program is intended to initiate data collection that will ultimately provide insight into flow distribution between the Chakachatna River, McArthur River, Noaukta Slough, downstream distributaries of the Chakachatna River, and adjacent wetland complexes. Water leaving Chakachamna Lake ultimately supports a variety of aquatic and terrestrial wetland habitats along side channels, in adjacent wetlands, and in groundwater-fed distributary channels throughout the Chakachatna/McArthur Lowlands. Additionally, the Project area is a dynamic environment with significant apparent historical changes in streamflow patterns, floodplains, glacial extent, and input of volcanic debris. The potential impacts of the Project should be assessed within the framework of a changing rather than static environment. Delineating flow paths and quantifying water discharge between the outlet of Chakachamna Lake and the confluence with the McArthur River are prerequisites to understanding potential Project impacts and designing mitigation measures that might help offset those impacts The integrated surface and groundwater study is separated into three tasks: a planning task to identify and integrate the needs of wetlands, fisheries, and instream flow studies and create a strategic plan for 2009 monitoring: a monitoring task to install continuously-recording groundwater and surface water stations in selected areas identified under Task 1; and a mapping and reconnaissance-level field task to identify surface and groundwater features and large-scale trends where continuous gaging may not be feasible or necessary. 2.1 Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Workshop Introduction Initial site observations and reconnaissance-level mapping of floodplains and groundwater features have provided some insights into the processes that drive change in the hydrologic and geomorphic regime, and can help form the basis for more focused future studies. Because the system is dynamic and the Project may influence the hydrology of a large downstream area, it will be important to plan a surface and groundwater monitoring program that contributes to multiple Project information needs including aspects of the following disciplines: surface water hydrology, groundwater hydrology, wetlands science, fish biology, and instream flow modeling. The workshop described in this task will bring together key individuals in each of the disciplines to discuss study objectives and jointly develop a comprehensive strategy for monitoring and observation to occur in 2009. Task Purpose The task purpose is to develop a strategic plan for initial surface water and groundwater monitoring that emphasizes those elements that are considered to have high priority for 2009 start-up. Objectives of the workshop will be to 6 • Gather input from the affected disciplines regarding their interests and information needs • Develop a conceptual model of water movements throughout the Chakachatna and McArthur watersheds • Establish logical surface and groundwater monitoring sites based on the conceptual plan. Task Summary • Study Plan Workshop - Convene a one day meeting at the HDR office in Anchorage of HDR surface water hydrologists, groundwater hydrologists and wetland ecologists and a senior member of the instream flow consulting firm for the Project. The objective of this meeting will be to develop an integrated 2009 monitoring plan emphasizing surface and groundwater interactions that may affect conditions within mainstream side channel habitats, Noaukta Slough, and the extensive wetlands of Trading Bay State Game Refuge. • Study Plan - Write up monitoring strategy with the results of the workshop. Update the plan with ongoing consultation. Personnel and Responsibilities • James Brady – Senior Scientist, responsible for program management. • Robin Beebee – Hydrology Project Leader, responsible for surface water studies. • Mark Collins – Senior Hydrologist, responsible for groundwater studies. • Anne Leggett – Senior Wetland Scientist, responsible for wetland studies. 2.2 Surface Water and Groundwater Monitoring Program Introduction The 2009 field program focuses on initiating streamflow gaging and groundwater elevation monitoring to provide insight into flow distribution between the Chakachatna River, McArthur River, Noaukta Slough, downstream distributaries of Chakachatna River, and adjacent wetland complexes. This study will combine field reconnaissance, groundwater elevation and feature mapping, and measured flow at key locations in the lower McArthur and Chakachatna river valleys. Because most hydrologic analysis of streamflow data requires a significant period of record, stream gages at key sites will be established in 2009. Study sites established in 2009 will emphasize locations important to assessing interactions with fish habitats and wetland function. High flow months in glacial streams are usually July and August, while low flow occurs in late winter, just prior to break-up. In wetlands not strongly influenced by glacial streamflows, the near-surface water table is typically highest at breakup, drops during early summer, then rises again with late summer and autumn rains. Stream gages are proposed for the McArthur River near the proposed tailrace to establish the existing 7 flow regime on the McArthur River, on the Chakachatna River where it leaves the main valley and enters the lowlands, and in fish-bearing distributaries or upwelling streams in the Chakachatna/Noautka Slough floodplain area to support a water balance study downstream of the lake for fisheries, wetland, and wildlife habitat studies. Stream gages will be located with consideration of groundwater monitoring stations to best delineate surface water/groundwater flow paths. Gages will include both pressure and temperature transducers. Because unstable glacial streams are challenging to gage, specific locations for gages and the final number of gages will be determined after field reconnaissance. The budget assumes 6 continuous stream gages. Continuous surface and groundwater monitoring stations will provide a multi-year record of both short-term and seasonal fluctuations in water level and temperature throughout the study area. These stations will allow us to both quantify and compare seasonal flow rates within the Chakachatna/McArthur Lowlands, and to add a temporal understanding to our conceptual model of flow distribution in different habitats throughout the year. This will provide background information that will allow refinement of monitoring needs for future years. Study Purpose The study purpose is to begin the period of record for essential hydrological measurements that will ultimately contribute to a thorough description of surface and groundwater movements within the Project area. The objectives of this study are to • Collect surface water information at selected priority sites via the use of continuously recording temperature and flow monitoring equipment • Collect groundwater information at selected sites via instrumentation within shallow wells. Field Methods A reconnaissance trip to determine gaging and monitoring well locations and equipment for 2009 gage locations will occur early in the field season. We will coordinate location of groundwater monitoring stations in conjunction with wetland soil study (see Hydric Soil Indicators in Ash-derived Soils). Once the gage locations have been determined, this task includes equipment installation and initialization for continuously recording stream gages and groundwater monitoring wells. Installation of stream gages will include an initial flow measurement, installation of a staff gage and electronic stage sensors at each station, setting benchmarks and surveying gage elevation, and setting up a cableway and appropriate anchors where necessary. This task also includes removal of gages when and if they are likely to be damaged by ice. It is assumed that a helicopter or jet boat will be available to move crews between gages. Shallow groundwater monitoring wells will consist of driven sand points installed with a manual post driver and/or a mechanical vibratory driver. Most well locations will be 8 multi-well installations either nested vertically or arranged along a transect near a stream. Reference elevations will be established on each well. A submersible recording pressure transducer will be placed in each well to enable continuous monitoring. The submersible devices will also monitor temperature. A transducer monitoring barometric pressure will be placed above the water table in one well. In addition, a recording tipping-bucket rain gauge will be installed in the vicinity of one of the monitoring well stations to quantify the effects of local rainfall on water table elevation. Each surface and groundwater recording gage will require multiple site visits during high and low flow conditions to measure discharge and establish a preliminary rating curve. Discharge measurements will be made each month from June until ice-over. Following ice-over, three winter discharge measurements will be made to determine baseflow. The budget assumes that winter discharge measurements will be wading or by drilling through an ice-cover, while the five summer and fall discharge measurements will require a boat and an acoustic Doppler current meter. Stream site visits will be coordinated with groundwater well maintenance and sampling and the wetland soil site maintenance trips. Data Management and Analysis Pressure and temperature data for each stream gage and groundwater monitoring well will be downloaded monthly, entered into a Project database, and checked for errors. Field data for each discharge measurement will also be entered into the database and checked for errors and anomalies. Preliminary rating curves will be developed for stream gages when sufficient low and high flows have been captured to define a rating curve (6-9 months of data). Continuous discharge data for each station will be reported as daily and monthly averages at the end of the study cycle. Water level data collected from the wells will be used to generate groundwater hydrographs and, along with other water level data (e.g., stream stage and seep elevations), water table maps. The hydrographs will document the variability of groundwater levels and, when compared to other hydrologic data (e.g., streamflow records or climatologic data), will aid in understanding the influences on groundwater in the vicinity of the well. The water table maps will be used to spatially evaluate flow patterns. Water levels from nested pairs will be used to calculate vertical flow gradients. Reporting A report will be prepared describing methods and results for the 2009 field season. The information from this study will include time series of stream discharge, water table levels, and water temperature. The information will be used to refine the conceptual model of flow distribution and update the preliminary water table map. Personnel and Responsibilities • Robin Beebee – Hydrology Project Leader responsible for surface water studies. • Mark Collins – Senior Hydrologist, responsible for groundwater studies. 9 • Anne Leggett – Senior Wetland Scientist, responsible for coordinating monitoring stations with the needs of wetlands studies. • Field technicians – Assist with groundwater and surface water studies, data entry, QC. 2.3 Lower Chakachatna/McArthur Water Balance and Groundwater Reconnaissance Introduction The proposed Chakachamna Project would result in substantially increased flow in the McArthur River upstream of Noaukta Slough, and decreased flow in the Chakachatna River, Noaukta Slough, and downstream distributary channels. There would also be a seasonal change in flow due to the drawdown schedule of the lake. This decrease in flow may also affect clearwater channels, ponds, and wetlands associated with these distributaries. Proposed 2009 study tasks focus on reconnaissance-level mapping of floodplain and groundwater features, and combining the mapping with the results of Task 2.2 to refine the conceptual model of surface and groundwater flow. Study Purpose The purpose of this study is to help to determine sources of water for wetlands and critical fish streams outside of the Chakachatna and McArthur mainstems, and outside of areas gaged in Task 2.2. Information provided by this task will provide a more complete spatial picture of flow distribution along the Chakachatna River and adjacent lowlands, help to refine the conceptual model, and help evaluate the impact of diverting water from the Chakachatna River into the McArthur drainage. Information collected in 2009 will be used to refine the study program for future years. The objectives of the water balance and groundwater reconnaissance study are to • Use groundwater and surface water features to construct a reconnaissance-level water table map of the Chakachatna/McArthur lowlands connecting gaged sites with more distant features • Measure low flow discharges to determine stream reaches that lose or gain flow from groundwater in absence of surface runoff • Measure summer high flow discharges to indicate flow distribution during key surface runoff and fish movement periods. Field Methods This task includes reconnaissance and establishment of discharge estimation sites along the McArthur River between Blockade Glacier and Noautka Slough, between Noaukta Slough and Chakachatna River, and in Noautka Slough. These all appear to be unstable channels that are not conducive to continuous gaging, however, reconnaissance may yield another continuous gaging site. At least one high flow and one low flow discharge would be measured at each location. If high flows prevent direct discharge measurement, indirect methods may be used. Low flow discharge measurements are budgeted for 2009, 10 but may be taken in 2010 if fall runoff is high. A helicopter or jet boat will be available to move crews. The seeps and springs located in the field by other Project teams (e.g., fish or wetland sampling) will be documented by recording location coordinates with a global positioning system (GPS) and taking photographs. In remote areas that will not likely be visited again, water samples will be collected and held for possible future chemical or isotopic analysis (e.g., 3H, δ2H, δ15N, δ18O). Mapping will be updated when high- resolution imagery becomes available in 2010. Data Management and Analysis Approximate watershed areas will be mapped upstream of stream discharge measurement location along the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers. Surface water discharge profiles will be compiled from the discharge data showing surface runoff per watershed area for both high and low flow measurements. A preliminary water table contour map will be created from groundwater feature locations, existing topographic and geologic maps, and available geologic publications. Available data include, but are not limited to • Topographic maps • Geologic maps • 1978 high altitude infra-red aerial photographs • Low-resolution satellite imagery. Likely locations of water loss from surface to ground or gain to surface from ground will be estimated using a combination of discharge profiles and the groundwater map. Reporting A report will be prepared describing methods and results for the 2009 field season. A water table and groundwater feature map will be produced. In addition, low flow and high-flow discharge profiles along the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers will be produced and gaining/losing reaches indicated on the water table map. Personnel and Responsibilities • Robin Beebee – Hydrology Project Leader responsible for surface water studies. • Mark Collins – Senior Hydrologist, responsible for groundwater studies. • Field technicians -- assist with data collection, data entry, and QC. 11 3.0 Fisheries The 2009 fisheries program is composed of seven study components. The overarching goals of the fisheries program are to establish a pre-project baseline for fish utilization of the Lake Chakachamna, Chakachatna River and McArthur River watersheds, collect fisheries information that may influence the design and/or operation of the Lake Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project, and to address potentially sensitive issues. Specific focus is placed upon fish behaviors, migration timing, abundance, and species diversity in watershed habitats that will be most affected by the interbasin transfer of water and lake drawdown associated with the operation of the proposed hydroelectric plant. 3.1 Chakachamna Lake Bathymetry and Shoreline Topography Introduction Bathymetric information for Chakachamna Lake will be necessary for evaluating the relationship between Chakachamna Lake surface elevation and littoral habitat that is important to the life cycles of several fish species, including sockeye salmon and lake trout. Accurately determining the bathymetry and shoreline geomorphology will help address whether lake drawdown will affect salmon and lake trout beach spawning and tributary access. The 2009 study will not provide complete coverage of shoreline topography or lake bathymetry. Emphasis will be placed on littoral areas subject to drawdown influence and deep water areas in the vicinity of the proposed intake structure to help guide Project design and operation. Data gathered during the proposed in-lake bioacoustic study (see Juvenile Sockeye Outmigration and Distribution) to determine the distribution of sockeye within the lake will be used to supplement bathymetry data. Study Purpose The purpose of the 2009 bathymetry study is to begin development of a bathymetric map of the proposed lake fluctuation zone in order to allow evaluation of shoreline impact issues. such as fish access to tributaries, potential impacts to littoral fish habitats, and potential impacts to salmon and lake trout spawning areas and bird nesting. Emphasis will be on the proposed drawdown zone out to a depth of approximately 30 meters below the average lake water surface elevation.. The objectives of the 2009 bathymetry study are to: • Assess the accuracy and availability of existing data regarding lake bathymetry and the topography of the proposed lake fluctuation zone. • Collect selected information on the topography and geomorphology of the shore zone that will provide the basis for accurate mapping sufficient to address the above issues. 12 Assumptions The success of the lake bathymetry study is dependant on several factors: • Project area weather is unpredictable. Additional information such as heave, pitch, roll of the vessel will not be available to correct the position of the depth measurements during processing. Boat motion (yaw and heave) due to wave and wind action will be minimal. Delays due to weather will not exceed 5 days. • Satellite coverage will be sufficient to operate a differential GPS unit. Limited satellite coverage will slow survey time and could limit data survey for some sections of the lake. • Single-beam echosounders do not collect accurate data in very shallow water. Data collection will occur during high water in August to allow for the most coverage. The acoustic system will not determine the lake shoreline. Other information such as high resolution imagery or ground survey will be used to delineate the lake shoreline. Field Methods Hydrographic tools, hydroacoustic methods, and specialized software will be utilized to collect, analyze, and map lake bathymetry. A detailed study plan will be developed based on this conceptual design. System Equipment A single-beam echosounder coupled to a differentially-corrected GPS will be used to determine water depth. A single-beam bathymetry system measures the distance between the research vessel and the lake bottom. The transceiver transmits a high-frequency acoustic pulse in a beam directly downward into the water column. Acoustic energy is reflected off the substrate beneath the vessel and received at the transceiver. The depth under the vessel is then calculated from the two way travel time of pulses and the mean speed of sound over the water column. The acoustic system will consist of a single-beam echosounder, a differentially-corrected global positioning system, and a laptop computer with display software operated from a boat. System Configuration A survey map will be designed with a commercial navigation software package to guide data collection. The echosounder will be configured on a sidemount that swings alongside the boat to a vertical position directly over the rail. One transducer will be mounted in a down-looking configuration to sample from two meters below the surface to the bottom. In shallow littoral areas the transducer may be mounted in a side-looking configuration to sample from near-surface to approximately two meters in depth. 13 The system will be calibrated for depth and water temperature before beginning surveys. Lake water surface elevation will be determined from a local benchmark and lake depth will be calculated from this base. System Operation The bathymetry system will be mobilized and calibrated in June during the proposed in- lake bio-acoustics study (see Juvenile Sockeye Outmigration and Distribution). Dedicated bathymetry data collection will occur for 16 days coinciding with high water in August to allow for navigation into shallow areas of the lake. The navigation software will be operated simultaneously with the hydroacoustic acquisition software to collect data along predetermined transects. The signal from the onboard differential GPS will be fed into both the navigation package and acoustic data software so that all data collected will be accurately geo-referenced. As transects are driven over the study area, the echosounder system automatically records bottom depth. The data collected will be time-stamped, geo-referenced, and digitally stored. Bathymetric data will be collected over the navigable areas of Chakachamna Lake with a focus on the proposed fluctuation zone out to approximately 30 meters deep. Detail sufficient to describe potential beach spawning areas and tributary access will be collected. The hydroacoustic transects established in 1982 will be reestablished and a systematic approach will be used to focus the data collection on areas of importance. Chakachamna Lake is approximately 25 kilometers in length and averages 3 to 4 kilometers wide. Tracklines extending from shore out to 30 meter depth will be surveyed at approximately 250 meter intervals. The systematic data will be analyzed and used to focus additional survey effort on likely spawning areas and potential tributary access blockages. Data Management and Analysis The acoustic data will be stored automatically in the form of x-y-z coordinates on the laptop computer. Upon completion of the data acquisition, researchers will process the data to extract latitude, longitude, and depth and any incidental bottom substrate and fish distribution data. The bathymetry and differential GPS data will be mathematically transformed into a map projection system and integrated into a GIS map. Software processing will filter the raw data to eliminate, or reduce, noise and outliers, while accounting for sensor position and other adjustments. ArcGIS modules will be used to interpolate the data to fill in between data points to create a continuous surface and display the data visually. When available, high resolution aerial imagery and LiDAR data will be used to digitize the lake boundary and create a digital elevation model of the surrounding landforms. Fish size and distribution data will be extracted and used in the analysis of the juvenile sockeye and lake trout distribution studies. 14 Reporting Following data collection and quality assurance, a technical report will be produced to describe the field methods and data analysis. This report will include figures illustrating the study site and transect locations, tables of X-Y-Z data, and maps to support discussion of key findings. Personnel and Responsibilities • James Brady – Senior Fisheries Scientist, responsible for senior review, quality control, and reporting review. • Scott Prevatte –Lead Fisheries Biologist, HDR Alaska, responsible for project management, field crew management, site logistics, data collection, and analysis and reporting. • Don Degan – Acoustics Consultant, Aquacoustics, responsible for providing equipment, site selection and system calibration expertise, data quality control reviews, and analysis and reporting reviews. • Field Crew (2) – Biological Science Technician, HDR Alaska, responsible for assisting with equipment set up and maintenance, data collection, and data entry. • Bridget Brown – GIS Analyst, HDR Alaska, responsible for data quality control, and reporting. 3.2 System-wide Salmon Spawning Distribution Introduction In the early 1980s, biologists confirmed that all five species of Pacific salmon spawn in the Chakachatna and McArthur river drainages and identified sockeye salmon as the most abundant anadromous species in the Project area (Bechtel 1983a, 1983b). Biologists relied primarily on visual surveys in clear water areas to locate and enumerate spawning salmon. In 1982, biologists identified important salmon milling and spawning areas throughout the Project area (Bechtel 1983a). Limited visibility caused by glacially turbid water throughout most of the Chakachatna and McArthur river drainages creates difficulty in accurately identifying system-wide salmon spawning distributions and locations, and estimating salmon escapement. It is possible that some important spawning habitats in the Chakachatna and McArthur river drainages were missed during the 1980s surveys because of poor visibility. Identifying the distribution of spawning salmon and important spawning locations will provide useful baseline data from which more detailed studies can be designed. Ultimately the study is important for evaluating Project effects related to changes in flow in the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers. The extent of sockeye salmon spawning in Chakachamna Lake is currently not known. In the 1980s, biologists identified sockeye salmon milling areas along the north shore of the lake and indicated the presence of suitable spawning substrates in several areas of Chakachamna Lake (Bechtel 1983a). While investigators were unable to observe redds 15 due to poor visibility, the observation of a single female sockeye excavating a redd was reported. Information on the occurrence of shoreline spawning of sockeye salmon in Chakachamna Lake will influence Project design and operation. Lake level manipulation could influence spawning habitats in the lake and passage into tributaries. Details about where and when sockeye spawn are needed to guide the management of drawdown to minimize impacts to fisheries production. The application of radio telemetry to track salmon migration and determine salmon spawning locations and distribution in areas where direct observation is limited has been successful in other systems in Alaska (Burger 1981, Burger et al. 1994, Barton 1992, Eiler 1990). The presence of shoreline spawning sockeye salmon in other glacially turbid lakes in Alaska has been documented through the use of radio-telemetry equipment (Burger et al. 1994). Similar techniques will be used in this study. The tracking of sockeye salmon will be emphasized in 2009 with the intent of tracking other species in future years. However, some chum salmon may be tagged opportunistically as a means of identifying turbid water spawning areas and possible upwelling locations. Based on other telemetry studies it is recommended that a minimum of 200 spawning sockeye salmon be captured and radio tagged throughout the 2009 migration period. Although the study will focus on sockeye salmon, all salmon captured will be enumerated by species. These data will provide insight into the timing of migration for all salmon species into the McArthur and Chakachatna river drainages. Recording the relative migration times for all salmon species in the Project area will also provide useful baseline data from which more detailed studies can be designed. Study Purpose The purpose of the study is to provide system wide salmon spawning information for evaluation of Project effects related to flow changes in the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers and lake level fluctuations in Chakachamna Lake. The study is designed to determine run timing, relative species abundance, and identify spawning locations of salmon that enter the Chakachatna/ McArthur systems. The objectives of the study proposed for 2009 are to • Implant 200 radio tags in sockeye salmon in the lower McArthur River • Implant up to 20 radio tags in chum salmon in the lower McArthur River • Track to their fate up to 220 radio-tagged salmon in the McArthur and Chakachatna drainages • Evaluate the use of a fish wheel as a capture platform in the lower McArthur River • Collect information on location and timing of sockeye salmon spawning in Chakachamna Lake • Determine the proportion of tagged sockeye salmon that spawn in major geographic areas of the watershed • Determine run timing and relative species abundance of salmon entering the McArthur/Chakachatna Systems 16 • Provide information that will allow refinement of the study program in future years. Assumptions • Sockeye salmon enter the McArthur River in early June through mid-August. • Sockeye salmon enter Chakachamna Lake in early July. • Field conditions will be suitable to operate a fish wheel at the proposed location in the lower McArthur River, upstream of tidal influence but downstream of the confluence Noaukta Slough. • The permit necessary to build a fish camp in the Trading Bay Wildlife Refuge will be granted. • The permit necessary to operate a fish wheel in the Trading Bay Wildlife Refuge will be granted. • Inclement weather will not preclude field sampling. Field Methods Telemetry Tagging Biologists will capture adult sockeye salmon during their upstream migration into the McArthur River and implant 200 with radio tags. Since chum salmon run at approximately the same time as sockeye salmon, up to 20 chum salmon will also be fitted with radio tags. Biologists will rely primarily on a fish wheel to capture salmon; various types of nets may also be employed depending on the fish wheel’s capture success. The primary fish capture site will be located on the McArthur River at a point upstream from tidal influence and downstream of the Noaukta Slough (i.e., confluence with the Chakachatna River). For each tagged fish, biologists will measure fork length (from mid-eye to fork of tail); and identify its sex, if possible, and collect scales and tissue samples for age and genetics analysis. Biologists will enumerate all other fish captured by species. Based on the limited data available (i.e., run timing for other Cook Inlet streams (Shields 2007; Bechtel 1983a, 1983b), run-timing for migrating adult sockeye is presumed to begin in early June and continue through mid to late August. The tagging effort will be centered on the estimated peak of the timing curve. Tagging will begin in early June and continue through mid-August. Biologists will attempt to tag fish in relative proportion to the timing of the run, with more fish tagged during the peak of the run and less fish at the beginning and end of the run. However, long-term run timing and enumeration data for salmon returning to the Project area has not been recorded, so this goal may be difficult to achieve in 2009. Based on the limited run timing information, daily tagging goals will be developed. The duration of each tagging event will likely occur over five consecutive days each week. Since the accuracy of previous escapement estimates is uncertain, the number of telemetry tags selected is based on other sockeye salmon telemetry studies of similar magnitude. 17 Fixed Telemetry Towers Radio tagged fish will be relocated through a combination of fixed stations and mobile tracking (mobile tracking is discussed below). Receiving stations will be installed in four locations prior to the first tagging event. These four fixed-station receivers will help ensure that the goals of the study are achieved by providing an electronic record of fish movement past key points within the study area. Data from the fixed stations will be used to initiate and focus the mobile tracking surveys. The four fixed stations will be assembled the first week of June. The stations will be located at the following key locations: • McArthur River, upstream from its confluence with the Chakachatna River • Chakachamna Lake/Chakachatna River, approximately 3 miles downstream from the outlet of Chakachamna Lake (i.e., near the DIDSON site) • Chilligan River, near the mouth of this tributary to Chakachamna Lake • Kenibuna Lake’s outlet channel (i.e., channel that separates Chakachamna and Kenibuna lakes). In 1982, biologists reported that roughly 60 percent of the sockeye salmon enumerated were observed in the Chakachatna River drainage and 40 percent in the McArthur River drainage (Bechtel 1983a). The McArthur River tower will record the number of tagged sockeye salmon that ascend farther upstream into the drainage. The number of tagged fish that continue past this tower may allow us to estimate the proportion of fish that spawn in the McArthur River drainage relative to the Chakachatna River drainage. Mobile tracking (see below) will be used to determine the distribution of tagged sockeye salmon spawning in the McArthur River drainage and identify spawning locations. The Chakachamna Lake tower will be located near the proposed DIDSON site (see Chakachamna Lake Sockeye Salmon Abundance and Run Timing Study), located approximately three miles downstream from the lake. This tower will record the number of tagged fish that enter the Chakachamna Lake drainage and will be directly correlated with the DIDSON count. The number of fish that continue past this tower will provide insight into the proportion of the sockeye population that spawn in the lake or lake tributaries. Once tagged fish move upstream of the tower, biologists will begin mobile tracking surveys using a combination of boat and aerial travel, as discussed below. In 1982, biologists estimated that approximately 38,600 sockeye salmon spawned in the Chilligan River and 2,900 sockeye salmon spawned in the Igitna River (Bechtel 1983a). Although the presence of lake spawning sockeye salmon was not confirmed, biologists identified sockeye salmon milling areas along the northern shore of Chakachamna Lake and suitable spawning habitat in Kenibuna Lake (Bechtel 1983a). The Chilligan River tower will record the number of tagged fish that exit the lake to spawn in the Chilligan River. Biologists will compare this number to the total number of tagged fish that entered the lake minus the total number of fish that passed the Kenibuna Lake tower to estimate the proportion of tributary spawners versus lake spawners. 18 Biologists will need to service the fixed towers and download the data approximately once every two week throughout the season, from June until the towers are removed in October. The McArthur River tower will likely be accessed via boat; the remaining towers may need to be accessed via helicopter, depending on final site selection and field logistics. Tower service and data downloads will be completed in conjunction with mobile tracking surveys, when possible. Tower set-up will occur in June and will be completed using one crew (three biologists) for up to three days. The towers will be disassembled sometime in October, depending on weather, and will take one crew (two biologists) approximately two days. Aerial and Boat Telemetry Surveys Data collected at fixed telemetry stations will be refined by using aerial (fixed wing or helicopter) and boat surveys. Mobile surveys will enable biologists to track the tagged fish to their fate. Mobile tracking surveys will occur once every seven days. Although previous surveys in 1983 indicate sockeye may not begin to spawn until mid-July (Bechtel 1983b), surveys will begin shortly after tagging to document potential fish mortalities, regurgitated tags, and any marked changes in behavior due to the potential stress induced as a result of tagging. Once fish have passed the key areas, as indicated by the fixed receiving records, aerial surveys will be expanded to upstream areas. Biologists will track each tagged fish until that fish dies, or through mid-October; surveys may end sooner if weather precludes travel. Approximately four hours of flight time is estimated for each survey. A fixed wing aircraft will be used for the majority of mobile tracking surveys. Two fixed wing surveys will be scheduled for June, three surveys in July, August, and September, each, and two surveys in October. Helicopter travel will be used primarily to service and download the fixed stations, as discussed above, and refine potential spawning locations within Chakachamna and Kenibuna lakes. Helicopter surveys to refine locations of tagged fish will occur once per month from July through October. A boat will be used to access the tagged fish once the fish have reached suspected spawning locations in Chakachamna Lake. Boat surveys are scheduled to occur once per month from July through October. Biologists will use a fish finder to obtain depth information of tagged fish. Biologists will evaluate the feasibility of using the single- beam echo sounder; and possibly the DIDSON sonar, in late August through early September; to record potential spawning behavior in the lake. Data Management and Analysis Biologists will enter capture data associated with the tagging event for each fish captured and/or tagged. Fish capture information will be entered into a database from standard data collection forms. Data from the fixed stations and the mobile receiver will be downloaded in the field, as needed, and uploaded into the telemetry database. All telemetry data will be transferred to a task specific data base. 19 The primary output of the telemetry study will be the identification of spawning areas for those fish successfully tracked by illustrating the spatial distribution of tagged sockeye salmon. This will be accomplished using GIS software and will be based on a combination of data collected from fixed stations and mobile tracking surveys. Reporting The timing of migration to spawning areas and potential migration patterns of tagged salmon will be assessed and presented in a technical report. A series of fish locations, accompanied by the date and time that the fish was located will be illustrated, and a spread sheet will be developed listing each of the 200 radio tagged fish along with the tracking record for each fish. The information will be delivered in standard technical report format. Recommendations for future studies will be included. Personnel and Responsibilities • James Brady – Senior Fisheries Scientist, HDR Alaska, responsible for senior review, quality control, and reporting review. • Erin Cunningham – Lead Fisheries Biologist, HDR Alaska, responsible for project management, field crew management; site logistics; and data collection, analysis, and reporting. • Brian Bue – Bue Consultants will provide input during study plan development and provide senior review during analysis and reporting. • Field Biologist (6) – Biological Science Technician, HDR Alaska, responsible for assisting with equipment set up and maintenance, and data collection and entry. • Bridget Brown – GIS Specialist, HDR Alaska, responsible for producing maps associated with data analysis and reporting. 3.3 Chakachamna Lake Sockeye Salmon Abundance and Run Timing Introduction Sockeye salmon were found to be the most abundant anadromous fish in the Chakachatna River drainage and they are the most valuable commercial species in Upper Cook Inlet. Determining salmon escapement and migration timing into Chakachamna Lake is critical to assessing the effects of Project design and operation. Enumeration of salmon in large turbid rivers has been successfully accomplished using dual frequency identification sonar (DIDSON). In Alaska, this technology has been adopted and developed by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) and is currently being used to estimate escapement in rivers that are too wide or too deep for a weir and on rivers that are too turbid for visual enumeration. Preliminary assessment of the feasibility for using DIDSON to count upstream migrating sockeye in the Chakachatna River indicated that this technique is a viable method to achieve the study goals. The 20 DIDSON sonar will be used to determine the approximate number of sockeye salmon entering the lake and develop a chronology for the sockeye run. Study Purpose The study will ultimately determine migration timing and duration of sockeye salmon into Chakachamna Lake and acquire a data record sufficient to estimate sockeye salmon spawning escapement into Chakachamna Lake. An escapement estimate is necessary to minimize the Project’s potential impacts to fisheries by addressing issues related to fish passage, pool elevation, and spill. The 2009 study has three objectives: • Locate and evaluate sonar system sites with potential for long term DIDSON sonar operation in the upper Chakachatna River and install a complete sonar system at the preferred site • Optimize the sonar equipment with sufficient effort to provide preliminary information on species, numbers, and timing of salmon entering Chakachamna Lake • Collect information in 2009 for refinement of the study program in future years. Assumptions The success of the DIDSON sonar study is dependant on several factors that will be determined as the study moves forward: • Detailed site reconnaissance is needed to identify a location in the river that provides the appropriate channel geometry to operate the equipment. The scope of the site selection effort remains unknown. • Data collection will be halted during high flow events. The anticipated size and frequency of high flow events is not well documented. Extrapolated counts during high flow events will reduce data confidence. • Run-timing data are limited; data collection start and end dates are based on historical data and other enumerated rivers in Cook Inlet. Site selection and equipment calibration should occur in time to record a sufficient portion of the run. • Historical data describes sockeye as the only salmon species present in Chakachamna Lake except for one record of a small number of Chinook salmon in a lake tributary. The presence of multiple salmon species in the upper Chakachatna would require implementation of a test netting program and increased data analysis effort. • The number of fish in the river is not well documented. Time required for data management, quality control, and analysis will be influenced by the volume of data collected. 21 Field Methods Study Design Two DIDSON sonar units will be deployed on opposite river banks to provide a completely insonified cross section if the river. As fish migration behavior is documented the beams can be focused in specific areas to capture data at a higher resolution. A detailed study plan will be developed based on the conceptual design presented in this document. Site Selection In 2008, several sites were investigated for potential deployment of DIDSON in the upper Chakachatna River. The preliminary assessment indicated that a standard DIDSON unit could be used to sample sockeye out to the middle of the thalweg from one bank and a long range DIDSON unit deployed on the other bank would complete the coverage of the entire river. The site selection process will begin when the river is free of snow and ice, likely in early June, and last approximately two weeks. Site potential will be evaluated using the following criteria: • Bottom Mapping and Beam Coverage – Detailed depth profile surveys will be conducted using the DIDSON transducer and/or a single beam sonar unit to identify sites with suitable bottom topography. The proposed site requires a single channel and a uniformly sloping bottom from each bank to the middle of the river to avoid sound shadows. A small diameter substrate is needed because it limits sonar echo and is free of obstructions that could obscure fish. Channel width must be narrow enough (< 90 meters) to allow complete coverage with a two DIDSON unit system. Water depth must be deep enough to fit the beam (> one meter deep at 30 meters distant). • Stream Flow Characteristics and Fish Behavior – The site must have stream flow characteristics that reduce the probability of unwanted fish behavior such as milling or holding. Additionally, the site must be located above potential areas of river spawning to provide an estimate of fish entering Lake Chakachamna. • Access – The site must have a long-term sonar site camp area located above the floodplain. Bank slope should be minimal enough to allow personnel safe access to the sonar equipment at all flows. Boat access across the river is also necessary. Acoustic Sampling The DIDSON imaging system uses sound waves and a lens to produce near video-quality images of fish. The system has the benefit of being small and portable and it does not require extensive sonar expertise to set up and operate. Operators do not need specialized experience in acoustics to count fish and describe their behavior. The acoustic data collection will entail the following steps: • Sonar System Configuration – Two DIDSON units will be deployed on opposing river banks during the last week of June. The transducers will be mounted to 22 tripod frames weighted to the bottom with sand bags and oriented perpendicular to river flow. Aiming will be done manually along the vertical and horizontal axis. Each unit will employ a dedicated power supply. Laptop computers and wireless communication will be used for control of data collection and external hard drives will store data for analysis. • System Calibration – Beams will be aimed toward the river bottom to prevent fish passing below the beams. The vertical aim will be calibrated using targets (plastic balls filled with lead shot) moved along the river bottom at various distances within the insonified area, verifying that the targets are detected by the sonar. Horizontal aim will be checked by panning the transducer angle across the target and by drifting targets through the beams. Portable picket weirs will be used to direct fish away from the transducer and into the sonar beam. • Data Acquisition – Beginning July 1st through August 15th, the sonar units will be operated 24 hours a day seven days a week throughout sockeye migration except when stream flow is high enough to threaten the safety of personnel or equipment. Fish migration data will be recorded on an external hard drive for a minimum of 20 minutes per hour. Additional recordings will be made for behavior analysis and quality control reviews. A two to three person crew will remain onsite at all times to monitor and maintain the equipment, process data, and perform initial quality assurance on the data. Data Management and Analysis The sonar data will be recorded on external hard drives and reviewed for analysis and quality control. Data analysis will address the study objectives and produce passage estimates by following the following three steps: • Target Discrimination and Enumeration – The data record will be reviewed and individual fish will be counted on a daily basis using the DIDSON Topside Display software’s count composite functions. The software’s clustergram functions will be used for target size analysis to help ensure that mixed species are not present. • Temporal Distribution – The data record will be used to ascertain the proportion of upstream and downstream moving fish. Daily counts of upstream moving fish over time will provide run timing. • Passage Estimates – Standard passage estimate equations will be used to calculate hourly, daily, and seasonal passage of sockeye salmon. A variance estimate will also be calculated to address uncertainty associated with sampling error. • Spatial Distribution – Additionally, fish behavior data will be documented and analyzed to assist with system configuration. Fish distribution by range and will guide the focusing of the transducers and aid in future data collection efforts. Reporting The data collected by the sonar program, consisting of fish passage per day and system configuration overview, will be summarized weekly and made available in electronic format. 23 Following data collection and analysis, a technical report will be produced to fully describe the methods and analysis. This will include figures illustrating the study site and sonar system configuration, tables of daily and cumulative upstream and downstream salmon passage estimates with 95% confidence intervals, and graphs depicting run- timing. A complete assessment of equipment operation and system calibration will be provided to address standard deviation and uncertainty in passage estimates. The DIDSON sonar data will also be analyzed and correlated with data from related studies including hydrology, radio telemetry, and historical investigations. Personnel and Responsibilities • James Brady – Senior Fisheries Scientist, responsible for senior review, quality control, and reporting review. • Scott Prevatte – Lead Fisheries Biologist, responsible for project management, field crew management, site logistics, data collection, and analysis and reporting. • Don Degan – Acoustics Consultant, Aquacoustics, responsible for providing equipment, site selection and system calibration expertise, data quality control reviews, and analysis and reporting reviews. • Field Crew (3) – Biological Science Technicians, responsible for assisting with equipment set up and maintenance, data collection, and data entry. 3.4 Salmon Escapement Monitoring in Clear Water Index Areas Introduction Salmon escapement is an estimate of the total number of adult salmon that enter a particular stream or tributary to spawn. Escapement estimates can be generated using several different field methods consisting of foot surveys, aerial counts, counting weirs or sonar equipment. Escapement estimates for this task will in large part repeat what was conducted in the 1981-83 baseline studies (Bechtel 1983a) and use aerial counts, supplemented by foot surveys in selected areas, to estimate the number of salmon that return to specific clear streams, sloughs, side channels, or tributaries in the Project area. Study Purpose The purpose of this study is to establish index streams to be used for aerial spawning surveys from year to year and to estimate the abundance of spawning adults for all species of salmon in clear water index areas of Chakachamna Lake, Chakachatna River, and McArthur River. The objectives of the study for 2009 are to • Define survey areas within clear water stream reaches and other habitat areas that that have clear water, such as spring-fed side channels and sloughs. The survey areas will duplicate and/or refine the areas surveyed in the 1980s Bechtel Studies (Bechtel 1983a) 24 • Conduct aerial survey counts in the designated survey areas; all five species of salmon will be targeted • Develop statistically defensible escapement estimates for each species and survey stream where the data are sufficiently complete • Develop standardized procedures that can be repeated from year to year. Field Methods Numbers of adult salmon escaping to selected clear water habitat areas will be estimated based on direct counts from aerial surveys, supplemented by ground observations where applicable. The priority will be on enumerating live salmon. Carcasses will be counted and identified as a secondary priority. Streams and other clear water areas to be surveyed will based in part on the 1982 study by Bechtel (1983a). Historic escapement data and success of the early counts will determine which streams initially receive the highest priority. New sites may be selected if fish presence and water clarity are favorable and old sites may be eliminated if conditions are poor. Longer stream segments will be divided into logical reaches based on length and hydrology characteristics. Emphasis will be placed on establishing repeatability from year to year. Returning adult salmon will be counted primarily from a helicopter. Selected areas, especially side channels and sloughs, may also be observed on foot to supplement the aerial counts and confirm species identification. Aerial surveys will begin in July and continue through the end of September as weather conditions allow. Aerial surveys will be conducted every 14 days. Biologists will fly over each survey stream and conduct counts for each salmon species present. Both live fish and carcasses will be counted. Fish distribution and spawning areas within each survey stream will be marked using a GPS. A digital video recorder with a polarized filter will be used to calibrate the observer efficiency. Observer efficiency will be conducted on one section of a subsample of streams surveyed. A recording will be made of the area of the stream. The recording will be made during peak run timing, so as to observe as many fish as possible. This recording will be viewed later and an exact count of the number of fish in the area will be made. This number will then be compared to the number the observer counted from the helicopter to determine observer efficiency. This video recording will also be used to train observers. Data Management and Analysis Biologists will record the following information on standardized data sheets for each area surveyed: • Date • Time (survey beginning and ending times) • Observer(s) Name • Weather Conditions (e.g., sun, clouds, fog, rain, wind) • Water Conditions (e.g., clear, turbid, high flow, low flow) 25 • Location (drainage name) • Beginning and ending latitudes and longitudes • Helicopter elevation (above ground level) and ground speed • Count calibration (recounts, photos taken, etc.) • Data sheets will have maps of the stream reach (survey area) showing start and stop locations. Observer can make notations on the survey maps where fish are concentrated. Survey data recorded in the field will be entered into a task specific database and proofed for quality control. Data sheets will be electronically scanned. Standard area-under-the-curve escapement estimates will be developed for each stream and salmon species where aerial surveys are conducted. Stream life estimates used in the previous escapement estimates (Bechtel 1983a) will be used. Maps will be prepared showing the distribution of fish and spawning areas. Reporting Area-under-the-curve estimates will be used to describe and illustrate high value salmon spawning areas. A technical report in standard scientific format will be submitted. This report will provided details on field methods used, data analysis methods, results, discussion of results and corresponding maps and graphics. Personnel and Responsibilities • James Brady – Senior Fisheries Scientist, responsible for senior review, quality control, and reporting review.. • Heidi Weigner – Lead Fisheries Biologist, responsible for project management, field crew management; site logistics; and data collection, analysis, and reporting. • Brian Bue – Bue Consultants will provide input during study plan development and provide senior review during analysis and reporting. • Patrick Blair – Fisheries Biologist, responsible for field equipment mobilization, data collection, entry, and QA/QC. • Field Biologist – Biological Science Technician, HDR Alaska, responsible for assisting with data collection, entry, and QA/QC. • Bridget Brown – GIS Specialist, HDR Alaska, responsible for producing maps. 3.5 Chakachamna Lake Juvenile Sockeye Salmon Studies Introduction Seasonal timing and duration of sockeye salmon smolt outmigration may affect the design and operating characteristics of fish passage structures associated with the proposed Project at the Chakachamna Lake outlet. Standard techniques for detecting smolt outmigration include capture with traps and nets or enumeration with sonar systems. Preliminary information on timing of juvenile sockeye emigration and site 26 specific physical environment conditions are required to properly design an outmigration study. Scientists need to test the various techniques for juvenile outmigration monitoring and will evaluate the feasibility through site investigation and testing of capture and non- capture detection techniques in the vicinity of the lake outlet. Location of rearing juvenile salmon within the Chakachamna Lake water column may affect the design of the Project intake structure and is needed to understand the potential effects of various lake drawdown scenarios. Bioacoustic surveys, supported by target verification netting, will be completed to determine the seasonal distribution of fish of various sizes within the lake. A correlation of size and age class will be done in future years. Fish location and depth data will be collected within littoral habitat along the lake shores as well as deep water habitat. Emphasis will be placed on areas and depths of the proposed drawdown influence and in the vicinity of the intake structure in order help guide the Project design and operation. Project Purpose The purpose of this program is to begin the process of acquiring the information on the life history of juvenile sockeye salmon in Chakachamna Lake that will be needed to assess impacts and mitigation needs related to outmigration passage and rearing productivity. The objectives of the studies proposed for 2009 are to • Develop methods for determining the seasonal timing and duration of sockeye salmon smolt outmigration at the outlet of Chakachamna Lake; incidentally acquire reconnaissance-level information on outmigration timing • Describe juvenile sockeye distribution within Chakachamna Lake using bioacoustics and netting in littoral and deep water habitats. Assumptions • Studies will begin at or before breakup of lake ice to coincide with the sockeye outmigration. This is assumed to be approximately the end of May through early June. • The data collection and analysis effort will be at a reconnaissance level and will be combined with the acoustic elements of other studies • Weather and lake conditions will be suitable for boat operation during the study period. • Satellite coverage will be sufficient to operate a differential GPS unit. Limited satellite coverage will slow survey time and could limit survey area. Field Methods Smolt outmigration timing Investigators will collect preliminary information regarding smolt outmigration timing using simple capture methods such as nets while evaluating the feasibility of future use of 27 other capture and monitoring techniques such as traps and sonar systems at the outlet of Chakachamna Lake. To assess outmigration timing, nets will be used at the adult sonar enumeration site located approximately 3 miles downstream from the lake outlet or at the lake outlet proper. Sampling will begin as soon as the area is relatively free of ice and a camp has been established, likely in early June. Test netting will occur every three days during June, July, and August. Fixed sampling stations will be established across the river and fyke net arrays will be fished for a standard duration such as 15 minutes every four hours during day and night. Arrays of nets will be attached to the established sampling stations with an anchor and buoy system. The upper portion of the water column will be targeted. The nets will be monitored for catch and debris accumulation. A subset of the sockeye catch will be measured for length and weight, and scale and genetic samples will be collected and preserved for future analysis. All incidental non-sockeye catch will be identified to species and enumerated. The DIDSON sonar system described in Study 3.3 will be evaluated for future use in outmigration studies incidental to the adult salmon studies. The ability of the system to detect small targets moving downstream will be tested during the period when the DIDSON is operating either by observing natural fish movements or by observing small test objects placed in the water column. Portable boat-mounted acoustic equipment may also be used at the lake outlet to detect juvenile sockeye aggregations or movements. Reconnaissance level surveys will be done on the channel and bank geometry at the lake outlet and at the sonar site to investigate the feasibility of installing traps and sonar arrays for future studies. Juvenile salmon distribution A bioacoustic study program will be used to determine the seasonal distribution of juvenile sockeye in the lake. The data collection and analysis effort will be at a reconnaissance level and will be combined with the acoustic elements of the bathymetry, adult salmon spawning, and lake trout spawning and distribution studies. In-lake bioacoustic sampling will be conducted for 10 days in July and 10 days in September. Focal sampling areas will include the proposed drawdown zone and area of the Project intake. Acoustic targets will be verified at various depths and habitat types by using tow net sampling. A subset of the tow net catch will be measured for length and weight, and scale and genetic samples will be collected and preserved for future analysis. All incidental catch will be identified to species and enumerated. Juvenile Sockeye distribution data may also be collected incidentally through the acoustic components of the proposed bathymetry, adult salmon spawning, and lake trout spawning and distribution studies. 28 The bioacoustic system will consist of a single-beam echosounder, a differentially- corrected global positioning system, and a laptop computer with display software operated from a boat. Data Management and Analysis Sonar Data The bioacoustic data will be stored automatically in the form of x-y-z coordinates on the laptop computer. Upon completion of the data acquisition, researchers will process the data to extract latitude, longitude, and depth of target fish along with incidental bottom surface elevation. Software processing will filter the raw data to eliminate, or reduce, noise and outliers, while accounting for sensor position and other adjustments. Juvenile sockeye density data will be mathematically transformed into a map projection system and integrated into a GIS database map to be used for comparison of areas of interest. Biological Data Fish characteristics data collected on paper field forms during the outmigration timing and target verification netting will be summarized to determine the average weight, length, and condition factor of sockeye fry and smolts. Outmigration timing will be estimated for each size/age class of smolt. Size and condition of fish collected in the river will be compared to that of fish collected in the lake. Catch per unit effort for each collection method will be calculated. Reporting Smolt outmigration timing A technical report will be produced to fully describe the field methods and data analysis. This report will include a summary of the preliminary data on outmigration timing, duration, and number of fish collected. A comparison of different netting techniques used will be provided and recommendations for techniques, locations and timing of future studies will be made. Juvenile salmon distribution A technical report will be produced to fully describe the field methods and data analysis. This report will include figures illustrating the study site and bioacoustic transect locations, tables of juvenile sockeye and incidental catch biological information, and maps to describe fish density within the lake at different times and depths. Recommendations for improvements and future studies will be made. Personnel and Responsibilities • James Brady – Senior Fisheries Scientist, responsible for senior review, quality control, and reporting review.. • Scott Prevatte – Lead Fisheries Biologist, responsible for project management, field crew management, site logistics, data collection, daily quality control, and analysis and reporting. 29 • Don Degan – Acoustics Consultant, Aquacoustics, responsible for providing equipment, site selection and system calibration expertise, data quality control reviews, and analysis and report reviews. • Field Crew (2) – Biological Technicians, responsible for assisting with equipment set up and maintenance, data collection, and data entry. • Bridget Brown – GIS Analyst, responsible for geographic data quality control, geographic analysis, and mapping. 3.6 Lake Trout Abundance and Life History in Chakachamna Lake Introduction Chakachamna Lake is a long, narrow mountain lake with a length of 14.5 miles and a maximum width of 2.4 miles. The water is turbid and cold and several glaciers are present on adjacent mountainsides. Chakachamna Lake provides habitat for resident lake trout, Dolly Varden, and round whitefish. Lake trout probably spend their entire lives in the lake, whereas Dolly Varden may use a combination of lake, lake and tributary, and Chakachatna River habitats. Lake trout in Alaska typically congregate in the fall to spawn on rocky shoals with small cobble. The life history and spawning locations of lake trout in Chakachamna Lake are poorly known. Population estimates for resident fish species in Chakachamna Lake, especially for lake trout will likely be required as part of the overall licensing study program. However, prior to the development of quantitative population studies, suitable catch methods will need to be determined. The 2009 lake trout study program will emphasize an evaluation of catch methods and catchability of lake trout in Chakachamna Lake. Study Purpose The long range goal of the multi-year lake trout study is to quantify the population size and age structure of lake trout in Chakachamna Lake and to identify the timing and location of lake trout spawning and to assess the vulnerability of lake trout to lake drawdown, through the location of spawning, incubation, and rearing areas. The purpose of the 2009 study program is to gather preliminary information which will contribute to the successful execution of a more intensive study in future years. The specific study objectives for 2009 are • Review relevant literature for lake trout studies in Alaska to identify capture methods and techniques best suited for the Project • Evaluate the effectiveness of a variety of methods for capturing lake trout in Lake Chakachamna including hoop nets/traps, beach seines, gill nets, and angling • Evaluate radio telemetry as a technique for tracking lake trout and identifying spawning areas 30 • Evaluate the use of Floy tags as a means of determining the recapture rate of lake trout and Dolly Varden to test the feasibility of a future mark recapture study. Field Methods Two sampling events will occur, one in June and one in September, to gather information on seasonal distribution of lake trout. Each sampling event will last 10 days. The June sampling event will focus on identifying the types of gear that are most efficient at catching lake trout. The September sampling will focus on identifying spawning locations. An acoustic fish finder on a boat will be used to help locate groups of fish. Capture methods will employ a combination of gear types such as variable mesh gill nets, hoop nets, beach seines, and angling. Net gear will emphasize non-lethal methods to avoid mortality and to test use for future mark/recapture study. Gill nets will only be used if other gear types are unsuccessful or to selectively test fish presence at depths not fished by other gear. Gear will be fished for standardized soak times. The level of effort for each gear type will be standardized for the purpose of evaluating catch per unit effort. Captured fish will be identified to species and fork length (FL) will be measured to the nearest millimeter. Incidental qualitative information regarding external characteristics and maturity will be recorded for all captured lake trout. Scales will be collected for aging in conformance with ADF&G guidelines. All data will be recorded on field data sheets. Floy tags and caudal fin marks will be placed on 100 lake trout and 100 Dolly Varden to determine the rate at which these fish are recaptured. If recapture appears to be high during 2009, we will consider using archival tags during the following years in addition to Floy tags. Knowledge gained in 2009 will be used to design a quantitative population study beginning in 2010. A total of 10 adult lake trout will be opportunistically radio tagged during the June sampling event. Radio tags will be surgically implanted into the abdominal cavity. Surgeries will be performed by trained biologists following strict protocols. Movements of radio tagged fish will be tracked over the summer in conjunction with the sockeye salmon radio telemetry study. In the fall radio tagged fish will be located in an effort to identify spawning areas. Biologists will conduct angling and test netting in the vicinity of these areas to verify the presence of sexually mature fish. If sexual maturity is not apparent from external characteristic, a few fish may be sacrificed to determine maturity. If these fish are determined to be sexually mature, the capture sites will be considered likely lake trout spawning areas. Data Management and Analysis Data will be collected, proofed for quality control, and electronically recorded for storage at the earliest opportunity. To ensure all necessary data are being collected, standardized data sheets will be developed that are specific to this task. 31 Catch per unit effort will be determined by gear type to evaluate the most efficient method for catching lake trout. Movements of radio tagged fish will be tracked and mapped to delineate seasonal fish movements and identify probable spawning area locations. Reporting Data will be summarized in tabular and graphic formats. A technical report in standard scientific format will be submitted. This report will provide details on field methods used, data analysis methods, results, discussion of results and corresponding maps and graphics. Recommendations for future population studies and efficient capture methods will be included. Personnel and Responsibilities • James Brady – Sr. Fish Biologist, responsible for senior review, quality control, and reporting review. • Heidi Weigner – Lead Fisheries Biologist, responsible for project management, developing the study plan, coordinating logistics, assisting with field work, data QC, data analysis, and report writing. • Scott Prevatte – Fish Biologist, responsible for implanting radio tags. • Fish Biologist – Fish Technician, responsible for mobilizing equipment, assisting with field work, data entry, and data QC • Bridget Brown – GIS specialist, responsible for developing maps. 3.7 Resident and Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance Introduction Understanding the seasonal distribution, habitat use, and abundance of resident and rearing fishes is essential for evaluating potential impacts from habitat alteration and for planning effective mitigation measures. Establishment of baseline aquatic conditions requires multiple years of data collection to accommodate annual variation. Previous baseline studies conducted in the McArthur and Chakachatna Rivers during the early 1980s (Bechtel 1983a, 1983b) provided a broad examination of critical habitats, fish species composition and relative abundance, distribution and migration timing for wide variety of fish species. Some habitat and environmental conditions have likely changed since the 1980’s studies were conducted. This Project begins a new period of record for establishing a pre-project baseline for resident and rearing anadromous fish species in the watershed. Study Purpose The purpose of this multi-year study is to establish a reference baseline for the distribution and relative abundance of resident species and rearing anadromous fish species throughout the Chakachatna and McArthur River watersheds. 32 The 2009 study objectives are • Compile and digitize historic data by sample site from 1982 and 1983 Bechtel catch records • Establish standard sampling stations and methods, duplicating the 1982 and 1983 stations and methods as much as possible • Begin the period of record sampling at each station in June, August, and October • Develop quantitative measures of relative abundance appropriate for each sample site that have sufficient statistical reliability such that they can be compared between years • Make recommendations for the 2010 season. Assumptions The success of the resident and rearing fish distribution and abundance studies is dependant on several factors that will be determined as the study moves forward: • Sufficient information can be gathered from the 1982 and 1983 reports and other sources to locate the previous sampling stations or a suitable proxy. • All sampling stations can be reached by boat or helicopter. Field Methods A one day reconnaissance trip will be conducted at the beginning of the study to evaluate sites and determine the best methods for catching fish. Bechtel (1983a, 1983b) sampled 37 sites in 1981 and 44 sites in 1982. Using the best available records from the 1981 and 1982 studies, an effort will be made to reestablish these sites in 2009. If information is not adequate to locate historic sites or landscape changes have made the sites no longer suitable, proxy sites will be established representing the habitat type from the original study. This study will incorporate a variety of sampling methods to determine presence and abundance of the various life stages of resident and rearing fishes. All potential species present will be targeted, and sample techniques will be adjusted to make sure that all species are sampled in a representative manner. Sampling techniques may include minnow trapping, beach seining, fyke netting, angling, and electrofishing. Additional techniques will be employed if necessary. A variety of techniques will be used to estimate absolute or relative abundance depending on habitat characteristics: • Electroshocker or minnow trap removal sampling – may be used on small, clear streams or within side channel and slough areas where the sample site can be isolated. • Short term mark and recapture – may be used in specialized areas where fish are abundant and the habitat lends itself to isolation from other areas. • Catch-per-unit-effort – may be used in mainstream areas that lend themselves to standardized sampling by a variety of methods. 33 One sample event will entail applying the prescribed fish capture and estimation methods at all stations. It is anticipated that it will take a two person field team 6-8 days to complete one sampling event at the 37 - 44 stations. Sampling events will occur in June, August, and October. Documentation of species, life stage, and fork length will be recorded for each fish captured during a sampling event. General information such as substrate size, cover type, and habitat type will be recorded for the location. Water quality parameters will also be recorded for each station. Data Management and Analysis Standardized data sheets will be developed for this study. All data sheets will be on water resistant paper. Survey results recorded in the field will be collected, photocopied, proofed for quality control, and electronically recorded for storage. All data will be entered into a task specific data base. The data will undergo QA/QC review. Reporting Data will be summarized in tabular form and represented geographically. Standardized metrics for relative abundance will be determined for each sampling station for each sampling event. Results for the 2009 season will be evaluated and recommendations will be made for 2010 and future years. Personnel and Responsibilities • James Brady – Sr. Fish Biologist, responsible for senior review, quality control, and reporting review. • Heidi Weigner – Lead Fisheries Biologist, responsible for project management, developing the study plan, coordinating logistics, collecting data, data QC, data analysis, and report writing. • Fish Biologist – Fish Technician, responsible for mobilizing equipment, assisting with field work, data entry, and data QC • Bridget Brown – GIS specialist, responsible for developing maps. 34 4.0 Wildlife 4.1 Raptor Nesting Surveys Introduction Many raptor species are susceptible to human disturbance during the nesting and chick rearing period. Determining the location of raptor nests in the study area is a critical item that needs to be established early in the 2009 field season so that impacts to nesting raptors from helicopter over flights are avoided. Bald eagle nests have been documented along rivers and lakes in the Trading Bay State Game Refuge and adjacent areas (ADF&G 1994). There are no data on raptor occurrence or nest sites in the Chakachamna or Kenibuna Lake area. Special emphasis will be placed on protected or sensitive species such as bald and golden eagle, American peregrine falcon, and northern goshawk. Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and all raptors are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Peregrine falcons have been delisted from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) since 1999 and currently they are listed as a Bird of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2002). The peregrine falcon and northern goshawk are typically included in pre- development wildlife inventory efforts in Alaska because they are high-profile species and are susceptible to disturbance at their nest sites. Study Purpose The purpose of the raptor nesting survey is to collect data on the species and distribution of tree and cliff nesting raptors in the Project area. The 2009 survey is part of the larger wildlife study program that is planned for 2010. Data from 2009 will be used to develop nesting season no fly zones for 2009 field studies and future construction and operations and help direct raptor surveys in future years. The objectives of the 2009 raptor survey are to • Develop a map of current raptor nest locations to establish no fly zones during the breeding season to avoid raptor nest impacts • Begin compiling data for a comprehensive list of raptor species and for detailed nest site location and status maps • Identify potential raptor nesting habitats in the Project area, and • Identify other issues and habitats related to raptors and other wildlife within the Project area that may warrant study in subsequent years. Assumptions • Each raptor aerial survey will be completed by two observers within a normal 8 hour working day, including travel to and from Anchorage. 35 • The 2009 survey will not include determining the status or abundance of small forest dwelling raptors (i.e. merlins and woodland owls), as identification of these species would require extensive ground based surveys. • Productivity surveys during the mid-to-late-nesting period for raptors are not included. Field Methods Before the field season begins, HDR will coordinate closely with resource agency and Trading Bay State Game Refuge biologists to finalize a study plan that will meet the stated objectives of the raptor surveys. We will also locate any Project area raptor nest data that may be available in the literature or in resource agency files. Helicopter-based aerial surveys will be conducted around Chakachamna and Kenibuna lakes, along drainages tributary to the lakes, and along the Chakachatna and McArthur river drainages. If other suitable habitat is identified that may be impacted by flight lines for the 2009 field study programs, the survey boundary will be extended to include it (up to but no more than 1 mile from original survey boundary). Two aerial surveys will be conducted in 2009. The first survey will emphasize early-nesting woodland-raptor, tree- nesting species (primarily northern goshawk and bald eagle) and should be conducted by late April or early May prior to the initiation of leaf-out. A second survey in late-May will focus on species that nest later on cliffs and trees (including peregrine falcons, golden eagles, and red-tailed hawks). Each survey is anticipated to require two days to complete. Standard operating procedures for conducting aerial surveys for raptors will be used to ensure complete coverage of all suitable woodland habitats, particularly riparian areas, lake shorelines, and cliff areas. During the surveys, the helicopter will be flown at an altitude of tree-top level to 76.2 meters aboveground. If a nest is observed, the helicopter will move to a position where nest status and species present can be determined. Efforts will be made to minimize disturbance to breeding raptors. Data recorded for each nest location will include species occupying the nest, nest status (e.g., inactive, bird incubating, young present, eggs present, adult present, unknown or other), nest substrate (e.g., cottonwood, spruce, birch, or cliff), nest type (e.g., stick, eyrie), number of young or eggs present, time and date of observation and the nest location (recorded with both a handheld GPS unit and an onboard GPS receiver). The locations and numbers of waterbird flocks and terrestrial mammals will be recorded as incidental observations during the raptor nest surveys. 36 Data Management and Analysis Researchers will enter field data into a study-specific database and review it for correctness and completion. GPS locations and field data will be linked in GIS. Data analysis will be primarily qualitative and consist of assessing abundance and distribution for each species observed. Buffers will be established around identified and mapped nesting sites to develop the no fly zones. Reporting Researchers will prepare a technical memorandum, emphasizing methodology, data collection, results of surveys, recommendations for no fly zones, and recommendations for further study related to raptors, if warranted. The report will include electronic data/shape files of all raptor nest locations and survey routes. With approval from TDX, the report and data will be submitted to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service for their review, comment, and records. Personnel and Responsibilities • Donna Robertson – Senior Wildlife Ecologist, responsible for quality control, field assistance, and reporting review. • Sirena Brownlee – Lead Wildlife Biologist, responsible for study planning, coordinating logistics, data collection, and analysis and reporting. • Bridget Brown – GIS Specialist, responsible for data quality control and map development. 4.2 Chakachamna Lake Breeding Waterbird Studies Introduction One hundred twenty-nine species of birds have been documented in the vicinity of the Trading Bay State Game Refuge. The majority of avian studies in the refuge area have focused on waterfowl staging and nesting in the marsh and shrub-bog habitats of the refuge. The refuge is an important staging area for ducks, geese, and cranes during spring and fall migration. Nesting surveys have been limited to aerial surveys for Trumpeter swan nests in the refuge. The lower Chakachatna River is a nesting concentration area for Trumpeter swans (ADF&G 1994). Trumpeter swan nesting has not been documented past the confluence of the Noaukta Slough and Middle River (Groves 2008 per. comm.). We are unaware of any prior surveys to quantify diversity and density of waterbirds in the vicinity of Chakachamna Lake. For the purposes of this study, waterbirds are waterfowl, loons, cranes, gulls and shorebirds. The 2009 breeding bird studies will be limited to the Chakachamna Lake shoreline and adjacent habitats affected by lake water level fluctuations and will focus only on waterbirds during the breeding season. The common loon, the Pacific loon, and the red-throated loon are probable breeders in the study area. Loons nest and raise their young on ponds or lakes and feed on fish and invertebrates. Both Chakachamna and Kenibuna lakes support anadromous and resident 37 fish species that could support nesting loons’ energetic requirements. Loons typically build nests immediately on shore in the grass or on islands (Mills 2004). The behavior and reproductive success of loons can be adversely affected by boat and floatplane activity near nesting areas (Evers 2003; Miconi et al. 2000). Common loon and Pacific loon populations in Alaska are stable but red-throated loon populations have declined by 47% during the past 30 years and the species is recognized by the USFWS as a species of special concern (Conant and Groves 2005). Harlequin ducks likely nest along streams adjacent to Chakachamna Lake. Harlequin ducks were formerly listed as a species of special concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Although their current conservation status is unclear, they are listed in the Sea Duck Joint Venture Species Status Report and are of particular concern to resource agencies (Seaduck Joint Venture 2008). Study Purpose The purpose of this study is to estimate the use of the Chakachamna Lake shoreline by nesting waterbirds and is part of the larger wildlife study program. This information will be used to plan further studies, if necessary, and may prove relevant to Project design and operation. The study is designed to identify waterbird species presence/absence, determine waterbird use of the lake study area, and identify the approximate location of bird nests to begin evaluating the potential effects of lake water level fluctuations on waterbird nesting habitat. A map of avoidance areas for boats used during the 2009 field season will be developed if applicable. Specifically, the waterbird surveys will accomplish the following objectives: • Collect baseline data on breeding waterbirds along the Chakachamna Lake shoreline and associated tributaries to determine abundance, distribution, and habitat-use during the breeding season • Begin to compile a comprehensive list of waterbird species in the study area, their probable status in the study area and location of nests • Describe and quantify habitat-use by waterbirds during the breeding season • Provide recommendations for additional breeding bird studies for Chakachamna and Kenibuna lakes and their tributaries (if warranted), Chakachatna River and its distributaries, McArthur River, and the Trading Bay State Game Refuge. Assumptions • The study area for the 2009 waterbird survey includes only the Chakachamna Lake shoreline and tributaries. • The waterbird surveys will include one reconnaissance trip in mid-May and five trips from June 1 through July 15, with each trip lasting approximately three days. Each trip will require two biologists for 10 hours per day plus travel and preparation time. • A boat will be available on Chakachamna Lake to conduct waterbird nest surveys. 38 Field Methods Before the field season begins, HDR will coordinate closely with resource agency biologists to finalize a study plan that will meet the objectives of the breeding waterbird surveys as identified above. A field reconnaissance flight will be conducted in mid-May to allow for accurate determination of accessible areas and extent of shoreline habitat that needs to be covered and on the ground investigations to determine areas with potential waterbird habitat. The surveys will be conducted weekly from early June through mid-July to coincide with peak breeding season for most waterbirds in Alaska. The survey methods will vary depending on the actual configuration of the shoreline. The survey methods for breeding waterbirds will employ a combination of ground and boat based surveys. Once aerial mapping is available a determination will be made as to which survey method would be used for specific areas in the lake study area. Two methods will likely be used: line transects and intensive area surveys. Line transects, at no more than 10 foot on center intervals (20 feet wide), will be used in flatter open areas such as the shorelines and the southern mudflat area. These transects will be identified on the GIS basemap and also flagged in the field. Intense area surveys will be used for irregular topographic areas such as islands or outcroppings. In addition, the entire shoreline of Chakachamna Lake will be surveyed by boat during mid-June to look for waterbird nest sites along the shoreline or in emergent vegetation in the nearshore waters. Waterfowl brood-rearing surveys will be conducted in the study area during the mid-July survey period. Two observers will circumnavigate the lake to identify, count, and age broods. Bird nests encountered will be identified and permanently marked with an identification number. For each nest we will record the vertical distance above the water surface of all nests (if applicable) or distance from ground nests to water edge, habitat type, number of eggs (if applicable), and fledging success. Fledgling success is not a specific component of this study and will be recorded as opportunistic observations while re-checking nests that were found early in the field season. While the 2009 field study will focus on waterbird nesting, biologists will watch and listen for all bird species that may be nesting and rearing young in the Project area. We will also evaluate the Project area for viable methods to conduct additional wildlife studies in the Project area. Incidental observations of all mammals and birds will be recorded. 39 Data Management and Analysis Researchers will enter field data into a study-specific database and review it for correctness and completion. GPS locations and field data will be linked in GIS. Data analysis will be primarily qualitative and consist of assessing distribution, abundance, and nesting habitat for each species observed. If nests for species that are particularly vulnerable to disturbance are observed (e.g., loons and grebes), nest locations will be provided to field crews working on the lake along with methods for avoiding disturbance to the nests. Reporting Researchers will prepare a technical memorandum, emphasizing methodology, data collection, results of surveys, and recommendations for further study related to breeding waterbirds and passerines, if warranted. The report will include electronic data/shape files of waterbird nest locations and survey transects and areas. With approval from TDX, the report and data will be submitted to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service for their review, comment, and records. Personnel and Responsibilities • Donna Robertson – Senior Wildlife Ecologist, responsible for quality control, field assistance, and reporting review. • Sirena Brownlee – Lead Wildlife Biologist, responsible for study planning, coordinating logistics, data collection, and analysis and reporting. • Lynn Spencer – Biologist, responsible for assisting with breeding bird surveys • Bridget Brown – GIS Analyst, responsible for GIS data quality control and map development. 40 5.0 Wetlands 5.1 Hydric Soil Indicators in Ash-Derived Soils Introduction The Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project will need to comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, under which discharge of fill in waterbodies and wetlands is regulated. Wetlands will need to be delineated in detail in the vicinity of all Project components in order to evaluate direct impacts of construction and to help design and site Project components to minimize impacts. In addition, Project-induced changes in the flow regimes of Chakachatna River and McArthur River could potentially affect the hydrology of nearby wetlands. Over the course of Project evaluation, scientists will need to develop an understanding of near-surface groundwater dynamics of areas subject to altered hydrology in order to accurately predict Project effects on wetland functions. Determination of a site’s regulated wetland status requires interpretation of soil features observed in shallow soil pits. To designate an area as wetland, hydric soils must be identified. In the Chakachamna Project area, soils are heavily influenced by volcanic ash. Ash may present unique problems for field recognition of hydric soils, and may require recognition of indicators different from those described in standard wetland delineation protocols. Some relatively simple studies could identify soil morphologic features that indicate hydric soils. These features are likely to indicate an average high water table in the soils and thus could provide information about near-surface groundwater dynamics and wetland functions throughout the lowlands in the Project area. Hydric soils must meet two conditions: saturation and anaerobic conditions for a certain portion of the growing season (USDA 2006). Soil saturation can be measured by open wells and examination of a soil pit. Anaerobic conditions in soils can be confirmed by measuring reduction-oxidation (redox) potentials or by a positive reaction to a chemical that indicates the presence of reduced iron: alpha, alpha-dipyridyl. Measuring redox potentials in the field is expensive and time-consuming when used at the landscape level. In most soils, there are recognizable colors associated with reduced conditions that can be used to identify hydric soils. Soil colors are a relatively easy and fast way to recognize the long-term anaerobic conditions of a soil and sometimes the water table, but in soils derived from some volcanic ash, these color changes may not occur (McDaniel et al. 1997), or the colors may not match those described in documents used to identify hydric soils. Previous studies, of which there are few, indicate that expression of redoximorphic features may be absent or more subtle than would be expected based on measured oxidation and reduction potentials. Ash soils may also develop dark colors due to organic material moving down through the soil, which masks the typical color indicators for hydric soils. In other instances, ash colors may be similar to those that develop in reduced soils, making it difficult to distinguish the reason for the characteristic color. Due to the difficulty of applying standard hydric soil indicators to soils formed in ash, morphologic 41 indicators specific to the Chakachamna study area may be required to identify hydric soils in the area. This study aims to relate the location and characteristics of soil morphologic features to the elevations of the water table, the zone of soil saturation, and the zone that is chemically reduced during the growing season. Study Purpose The goal of the wetland program is to develop information needed to evaluate the Project’s effects on wetlands and their functions, and to design the Project to minimize adverse effects. The necessary information includes accurate delineation of Project-area wetlands, an understanding of wetland hydrology, and an understanding of wetland functions and their importance. Accurately interpreting soil morphology is critical to wetland delineation, and may reveal information on the elevation of the typical high water table at a site. This study will help investigators accurately interpret soil morphologic characteristics in the Project area. This study will begin in 2009 in advance of wetland delineation (in future years) so that its results can help scientists interpret site soils. The objectives of the study proposed to begin in 2009 are to • Identify, in ash-derived soils, the relationship between the shallow groundwater table elevation and the elevations of soil saturation, measured reduction-oxidation potential, soil reduction as indicated by iron-oxide-coated tubes inserted into the soils, and soil redoximorphic features • Document the relationship between redoximorphic features found in study site soils and soil reduction so non-standard indicators may be used for wetland delineation, if appropriate • Compare various methods (visual, instrument-based) for determining whether ash-derived soils in the study area are chemically reduced • Coordinate site selection with the surface water and groundwater monitoring studies to maximize sharing of data across studies. Assumptions • Lowland soils in the study area are strongly influenced by volcanic ash. • Lowland soils are homogeneous enough to allow extrapolation of information gained at study sites to other parts of the study area. Field Methods Investigators will make an initial reconnaissance trip to examine representative soils and identify study sites. This study will use several methods and tools to measure soil and shallow groundwater parameters on one or more transects. The investigators will establish the transect(s) to span a gradient of depth to water table and will cross a wetland/upland boundary. They will also choose the transect(s) location to coordinate data collection with the surface water-shallow groundwater monitoring program. To the extent it is possible, the transect(s) will be designed so that the depth from the soil surface to the near-surface groundwater table is the primary substrate feature that changes along 42 the gradient; the difference in relative water table elevations is expected to drive other differences in site features along the transect(s). A transect will probably consist of four study sites. On one transect, scientists will measure the full suite of parameters; additional transects may be shorter, and all parameters may not be studied at each site. At each study site on the primary transect, investigators will install a shallow groundwater well and instrument for continuous measurement of the water table elevation. They will excavate a representative soil pit at each site adjacent to the water monitoring well and complete a detailed field description using the standard National Cooperative Soil Survey procedures (Soil Survey Staff 1993). They will collect samples from select sites for analysis at the UAF Experiment Farm Laboratory for Al and Fe content to confirm taxonomic classification according to the standards of the Soil Survey Staff (1993). Site documentation will also include a formal wetland determination according to the methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and the 2007 Alaska Regional Supplement to that manual (USACE 2007). At each site, scientists will install soil temperature and moisture sensors at multiple depths along with a tool called an Indicator of Reduction in Soils (IRIS) which shows where iron has been reduced, become soluble, and been removed from the tube surface. The IRIS tubes will be installed in replicates of three to five at each site. Instrumentation may include platinum electrodes at multiple depths to measure redox potential. The measurement of the same or similar parameters in multiple ways will aid in calibrating and interpreting the information gained on soil reduction, and will help investigators determine which methods are most effective. Two-person field teams will visit study sites to collect data, maintain the soil sensors, and replace the IRIS tubes at least monthly until the soils are frozen in autumn 2009. They will record data on standard forms developed to specify the data that will be collected at each site both when the site is established and during follow-up visits. Investigators will review data recorded on paper forms for completeness before leaving each site. They will download continuously recorded data onto a hand-held computer, and copy those data onto a separate computer each evening. Investigators will review digital data briefly while still in the study area to confirm that the sensors and recording devices are still functional. Each evening the field team leader will review paper data forms again, make any needed comments, and identify any deficiencies that need to be addressed. This review will be noted on each data sheet. Data Management and Analysis Upon return from the field, scientists will scan field data forms for safekeeping, and enter those data into a task-specific database. They will transfer field-downloaded data to a central server, copy it to a database, and archive the original data. After data have been entered and prior to analysis, a team member will check all data for data entry errors and completeness. The reviewer will document any changes and that the review was completed. Most of the data will be analyzed qualitatively. Data collected by multiple sensors at a single depth, such as redox potential, will be analyzed for statistically significant 43 differences among depths within the soil profile. Data collected continuously by a single sensor at each of multiple depths, such as soil moisture, will be analyzed for statistical differences among depths. Data outliers or inconsistencies identified during analysis will be evaluated to determine if they are erroneous or caused by natural variability. All data anomalies will be handled case-by-case for inclusion in subsequent analyses. Reporting Following data collection and quality assurance, a technical report will be produced to describe the field methods and analysis of the first year’s data. The report will present study site descriptions, soil profile descriptions, data summaries, state whether redoximorphic features (if found) can yet be related to any of the parameters measured in the soil profile or criteria for hydric soils, identify relationships that have been identified among other parameters, and include recommendations for refinement of the study to capitalize on the methods found to be most effective. Personnel and Responsibilities Staffing will be coordinated with other field programs to maximize efficiency and integration of the related studies. • Anne Leggett - Senior Ecologist -Task leader, will determine current and future needs of the study, oversee study design and transect selection, perform wetland determinations, lend an understanding of wetland functions, and assist with reporting. • Lorene Lynn - Soil Scientist - will be responsible for the detailed study design, study site installation, soil profile description, site maintenance, data analysis, and assist in reporting. • To be determined - Staff Scientist – will help test equipment and assist with site maintenance. • Spencer Lawley – Database Specialist – will develop the task database. 44 6.0 References Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Trading Bay State Game Refuge and Redoubt Bay Critical Habitat Area Management Plan. Prepared by Divisions of Habitat and Restoration and Wildlife Conservation. Barton, L.H. 1992. Tanana River, Alaska, Fall Chum Salmon Radio Telemetry Study. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Bechtel Civil & Mineral Inc. 1983a. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project, Interim Feasibility Assessment Report, Volumes I – III. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority. Bechtel Civil & Mineral Inc. 1983b. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project, Interim Feasibility Assessment Report, Volumes IV Addendum. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority. Burger, C.V. 1981. Locating Chinook salmon spawning sites in the Kenai River with radio telemetry. Pages 266-267 in N.B. Armantrout, editor. Proceedings of the symposium on the acquisition and utilization of aquatic habitat inventory information. Western Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Burger, C.V., James E. Finn and Leslie-Holland-Bartels. 1994. Pattern of Shoreline Spawning by Sockeye Salmon in a Glacially Turbid Lake: Evidence for Subpopulation Differentiation. National Biological Survey, Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, Alaska. Conant, B., and D. J. Groves. 2005. Alaska–Yukon waterfowl breeding population survey May 15 to June7, 2005. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, AK. 35 pp. Eiler, J.H. 1990. Radio transmitters used to study salmon in glacial rivers. American Fisheries Society Symposium 7:364-369. Evers, D. C., Kaplan, J.D., Reaman, P. S. 2000. A Demographic characteristics of the common loon in the upper Great Lakes In: McIntyre, J.W.; Evers, D.C., eds. Loons: old history and new findings, proceedings of a symposium from the 1997 meeting of the American Ornithologists' Union. Groves, D. 2008. Personal communication with Sirena Brownlee. Re: Trumpeter swan census data collected by USFWS in Trading Bay area. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, Alaska. 45 Hatch Ltd. 2008. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project: Independent Engineering Review of Feasibility Study, Draft Report. Prepared for Nova Green Power. HDR Alaska Inc. 2009. 2008 Field Reconnaissance Summary Report. Prepared for TDX Power. McDaniel, P. A., Huddleston, J. H., Ping, C. L., and S. L. McGeehan. 1997. Aquic conditions in Andisols of the Northwest USA. In: Aquic Conditions and Hydric Soils: The Problem Soils. SSSA Special Publication no. 50, Madison, WI. Miconi, R., Pokras, M., and K. Taylor. 2000. Mortality in breeding common loons: How significant is trauma? In: McIntyre, J.W.; Evers, D.C., eds. Loons: old history and new findings, proceedings of a symposium from the 1997 meeting of the American Ornithologists' Union. Mills, T. 2004. The effects of human disturbance on common loon and red-necked grebe breeding success in southcentral Alaska. M.S. Thesis. University of Alaska Anchorage. Ralph, C.J., G.R. Geupel, P. Pyle, T.E. Martin, and D.F. DeSante. 1993. Handbook of field methods for monitoring landbirds. USDA Forest Service Publication, PSW- GTR-144, Albany, CA. Seaduck Joint Venture. 2008. The website for the Sea Duck Joint Venture. Accessed at http://www.seaduckjv.org/infoseries/toc.html Shields, P. 2007. Upper Cook Inlet commercial fisheries annual management report, 2007. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 07- 64, Anchorage. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 143 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2007. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Alaska Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 115 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United Sates, Version 6.0. Ed. G. W. Hurt and L. M. Vasilas. Forth Worth, TX: USDA NRCS in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. (http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/). USFWS. 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp. Available online: http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/BCC02/BCC2002.pdf Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project 2009 Conceptual Study Plan Discussion FERC Project No. 12660 Page 1 of 6 Meeting Summary, Final Chakachamna Project (FERC No. 12660) Conceptual Study Plans Stakeholders Meeting Notes Final February 19, 2009 Meeting Attendees: Finlay Anderson Long View Associates Philip Brna US Fish and Wildlife Service Brian Carey AEA, AIDEA Jennifer Curtis US Environmental Protection Agency Jim Ferguson Alaska Department of Fish and Game Kimberly Klein Alaska Department of Fish and Game Jan Konigsberg Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition Anne Leggett HDR, Inc. Betsy McCracken Alaska Department of Fish and Game Jason Mouw Alaska Department of Fish and Game Doug Ott AIDEA Gary Prokosch Alaska DNR; Division of Mining, Land and Water; Water Resources Section Donna Robertson HDR, Inc. Dave Rutz Alaska Department of Fish and Game Page Spencer US National Park Service Sue Walker NOAA-Fisheries Michael Walton Alaska DNR; Division of Mining, Land and Water; Water Resources Section Sally Morsell Northern Ecological Services John Morsell Northern Ecological Services Jim Thrall TDX Erin Cunningham HDR Sam Ivey Alaska Department of Fish and Game Debby Burwen Alaska Department of Fish and Game Scott Prevatte HDR Heidi Weigner HDR James Brady HDR Eric Yould TDX The Project stakeholders were issued the draft Conceptual Study Plans (CSP) for their review on February 16, 2009. The meeting on February 19, 2009 was to present the CSP and field stakeholder questions and comments. Eric Yould, representative for TDX Power, opened the meeting by presenting a brief project overview and update. He informed meeting attendees of the ongoing review of SOQs for the Engineer-of-Record from prospective engineering firms. He also reported that as of December 2008 the USGS was again operating its gage at the outlet of Chakachamna Lake to collect discharge and temperature data. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project 2009 Conceptual Study Plan Discussion FERC Project No. 12660 Page 2 of 6 Meeting Summary, Final Points Raised Related to the CSP: General Comment- The Conceptual Study Plan (CSP) is a “pre-formal” effort to get into the Project area and start developing baseline information which will inform the development of future studies that may be required as part of the FERC licensing process. It should be emphasized that the 2009 is not a comprehensive effort, but is intended to begin the “period of record” for a number of important data-sets. Schedule for Development of Detailed Study Plan: While not required, participants may provide written comments on the CSP by March 6, 2009; comments should be delivered to John Morsell, jmorsell@northernecological.com , with copy to James Brady, James.Brady@HDRinc.com . HDR plans on issuing a Detailed Study Plan by April 3, 2009 and will again welcome any comments. Comments on detailed study plans due by April 24, 2009. Permitting for these studies will begin immediately. GIS Development –This task, described by Robin Beebee, is to provide a GIS map base for use by all disciplines including Project engineering, design, and environmental studies. There were no substantive comments about this task. Page Spencer of Lake Clark National Park volunteered some recent IKONOS imagery that she has obtained for eastern areas of the park, including Chakachamna Lake. Integrated Surface and Groundwater Hydrology Study – This task is composed of three components: strategizing and site identification workshop; gaging program; and reconnaissance level mapping of low and high flows in areas difficult to gage. The following comments or clarifications were noted: The workshop is intended primarily for the consultant team; however HDR expressed a desire to have technical input from agencies at the workshop if there are technical specialists that may have ideas to contribute. Recommendation that the program should look at how much water is draining off hill slopes adjacent to river systems downstream of Chakachamna Lake. Study team considering future analysis of isotopes to address this issue. The study area should have a weather station or at least one more raingage. The study team has planned one rain gage for 2009. Study team wants ideas from agencies on the type of data provided by a weather station that is considered critical, and how the data might be incorporated into the study program. It was noted that there is weather data available from Chuitna Coal Project and the Drift River station. Beavers were noted as an important influence on hydrology. Study team does not plan to map beaver dams in 2009, but new imagery and mapping for 2010 should help with identifying beaver dams. Aquatic habitat characterization is needed. Some preliminary aquatic habitat identification in 2009 to guide 2010 studies. High resolution mapping (acquired in 2009 for 2010) will be used when available. The proposed instream flow study, which will get fully underway in 2010, will answer fish habitat questions related to water availability under proposed operating regime. Recommend bear proofing wells. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project 2009 Conceptual Study Plan Discussion FERC Project No. 12660 Page 3 of 6 Meeting Summary, Final Wetlands Study – Anne Leggett describe the rational and methods for determining characteristics of ash-derived soils in wetland settings. There were no comments or questions. Wildlife Studies – Donna Robertson described the methods for the proposed Chakachamna Lake breeding bird and raptor nesting studies. The following comments or clarifications were noted: Habitat mapping is needed; thorough habitat mapping scheduled to begin in 2010 to evaluate Project effects from hydrology changes. Trumpeter swans should be included during raptor nesting survey and their nests avoided during Project overflights. Chakachamna Lake Bathymetry and Shoreline Topography – James Brady described the collection of bathymetric and shoreline topography data. The following comments or clarifications were noted: Questions of infiltration through the Shamrock Glacier moraine between Kenibuna and Chakachamna lakes will be investigated as part of the formal study program after collection of geotechnical data and obtaining LIDAR data. Surface flow has been noted between Shamrock Lake and Kenibuna Lake. Investigation of Project effects on Kenibuna Lake needed. There may be back-cutting into Kenibuna Lake from Chakachamna Lake during drawdown. NMFS requests complete bathymetric and limnological characterizations of Chakachamna Lake, specifically near proposed by-pass structure. Area-wide Distribution of Spawners – Radio Telemetry Study – This study focuses on the use of telemetry to track salmon in turbid Project area waters. The following comments or clarifications were noted: Sockeye salmon are used as the target species in 2009 and more species will be added as data indicate. The 2009 study will help determine study feasibility and run timing. Chum salmon were included in the 2009 efforts in order to get a preliminary idea of where they are spawning in turbid waters as recommended during November 13, 2008 meeting. Chakachamna Lake Sockeye Abundance and Timing Study – This study uses sonar to enumerate fish entering Chakachamna Lake. The following comments or clarifications were noted: DIDSON sonar will not determine species and study assumes all salmon entering the lake are sockeye; this assumption is based on observations from the 1983 Bechtel studies. Data indicate that Chilligan and Igitna river sockeye are distinctive stock. Salmon Escapement Monitoring in Clear Water – Aerial surveys of clear water habitats would be used to investigate salmon use and abundance in these habitats. The following comments or clarifications were noted: Pertinent to evaluating project effects by providing some baseline population and distribution data for use in o Future monitoring Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project 2009 Conceptual Study Plan Discussion FERC Project No. 12660 Page 4 of 6 Meeting Summary, Final o Informing the design of future studies. For example, experience with the aerial surveys may provide locations for weirs o Testing methods and equipment TDX intends to meet with stakeholders after the 2009 field season to discuss data, method validity, and future methods. Chakachamna Lake Juvenile Sockeye Salmon Study – Investigations using nets and traps of sockeye juvenile distribution and out migration timing. The following comments or clarifications were noted: Offer of screw traps for study use by ADF&G. Study team is considering different trapping methods for later in the season and in future years Ice out is in late May to early June. NPS has satellite data tracking ice out on Chakachamna and other lakes in the area. Lake Trout Abundance and Life History in Chakachamna Lake – Study would use a variety of methods to capture lake trout. The following comments or clarifications were noted: Capture methods need to be deep enough. Many lake trout studies exist in Alaska to use for guidance on the Project Consider use of thermistor string in lake for calculating “thermal volume” of lake that is suitable for lake trout spawning Resident and Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance – Study to determine species of resident and rearing fish and their distribution and abundance in the Project area. The following comments or clarifications were noted: Use of hoop nets was recommended The Crescent River is a similar system, information available from Soldotna ADF&G, such as anadromous Dolly Varden run-time dates Points Raised Related Project Process and Future Studies: FERC Process and Guidance It was noted that agencies should consider the differences in required public input between the ALP, ILP, and TLP. The modified TLP process worked for the Cooper Lake Project (FERC No. 2170) because owner and agencies wanted to determine the outcome through settlement. Stakeholders felt result was better than what FERC would have required. Some sort of resolution process is expected for the Chakachamna Project so that the application can go to FERC with issues and concerns settled as much as possible. TDX has requested input from agencies on their ideas and concerns about the FERC process to be used. Project boundary considered to be 200 feet from Chakachamna Lake shore and Project facilities. A Project Boundary has not been officially determined and FERC guidance is loose. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project 2009 Conceptual Study Plan Discussion FERC Project No. 12660 Page 5 of 6 Meeting Summary, Final There is a Federal Power Withdrawal around Kenibuna Lake where the lake is bounded by federal lands. Study Process and Future Study Recommendations We are at the beginning of a four to five year process that will include agency and NGO participation, to answer these project effects related questions and to consider all options for construction and mitigation. The hydrologic and fishery studies and engineering investigations must be coordinated to meet licensing schedule and FERC information needs. Therefore, we are not able to answer questions of feasibility in each discipline one at a time. In reviewing the CSP, agencies should consider whether the studies proposed will provide the foundation to answer their questions about potential effects. The CSP is for the preliminary study program for 2009 that will set the stage for 2010 formal study program. The study team welcomes all questions and study requests even if they pertain to 2010 and not 2009. The study team requests that any agency involved in permitting for study activities comment on what permits are required so that they can be obtained in time for 2009 field season. The following permitting requirements were discussed: o Trading Bay State Game Refuge requires a special use permit. o ADF&G requires a fish collection permit. o DNR requires permits for studies conducted on state lands. o Lake Clark National Park may require a special use permit. An assessment of nesting and staging of waterbirds in the Trading Bay State Game Refuge is needed. There should be general aerial surveys before leaf-out to observe wildlife. The Neacola River has had large numbers of nesting birds and other wildlife in the past. There appears to be a localized climate pattern, south of the Chuitna Highlands to the McArthur River, that causes part of the Project area to accumulate less snow in the winter and to green up earlier in the spring than surrounding areas. Areas to survey for brown bear use: o Many brown bears reported in the McArthur River drainage where they could be affected by increased streamflow. o Many brown bears reported in the lowland wetlands. o Apparent denning zone in the mountains at elevations between 1,000 and 1,200 feet and where the dens can be situated about 200 feet above the valley bottoms. NOAA/NMFS agreed to summarize in writing the requested studies that were discussed in the meeting, these include data needs for [note- see attachment]: o Bathymetry o Limnology o Fish passage Limnology study is planned for future (requested by NMFS and ADF&G) Instream flow studies will begin in 2010. o Should include characterization of channel just downstream of Chakachamna Lake to determine if impassible at low flows. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project 2009 Conceptual Study Plan Discussion FERC Project No. 12660 Page 6 of 6 Meeting Summary, Final o Consideration of different methods for instream flow studies needed. IFIM may not be appropriate throughout Project area. o High resolution mapping needed. Request for consistent use of citations in final study plans. If Coho are subjects of future studies should trap them farther upstream than 2009; plan and handle them with care to reduce mortality rates. Recommend using fish weirs where applicable. ADF&G recommends a minimum of seven years of aerial survey data to estimate sustainable escapement numbers. Provide section on study rationale in Detailed Study Plans. Provide section on data sheets for recording incidental observations of wildlife and human use of the Project area. Engineer of Record and Engineering Studies Geotechnical studies may begin in 2009, and could impact the scope and execution of some of the studies discussed Current information indicates that about 80 percent of the outflow from Chakachamna Lake will be diverted to the McArthur River during the highflow season. However, that figure may be revised after new engineering and optimization of Project operations. Cumulative effects There are a number of new hydroelectric projects proposed for southcentral Alaska that will all have some degree of impact. FERC has a cumulative impacts evaluation process to address this concern. Data ownership and sharing There is some state funding (which would make data public) but most of funding is expected to be private. Expect that most of the data will be available to public, maybe even posted on Project website. From: Susan Walker [mailto:susan.walker@noaa.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 8:54 PM To: Finlay Anderson; Heather Blough; Tom GCAK Meyer Cc: Ferguson, Jim M (DFG); Phil Brna; Cassie_Thomas@nps.gov; kim.klein@alaska.gov; eyould@tdxpower.com; jmorsell@northernecological.com; james.brady@hdrinc.com; Page_Spencer@nps.gov; bcarey@aidea.org; Larry.Swenson@noaa.gov; John.G.Williams@noaa.gov Subject: Re: NMFS questions re:- Chakachamna Now, if someone could please develop an application where use of the word "attachment" or "attached" in the body of an email triggers an an alert before the message is sent that says "DID YOU ATTACH THE FILE???" Susan Walker wrote: > Good Afternoon Finlay - > > I've attached the summary of my verbal comments from last week's > Chakachamna meeting, some of which was generated by our Northwest > Regional Office's hydropower licensing staff and staff of the > Northwest Fisheries Science Center. I will submit more thorough and > formal written comments on the conceptual study plans by March 6th, > these comments are intended only to summarize what was shared at last > week's meeting. > > I'm cc-ing everyone who gave me a business card, so I'm sure there are > others who might be interested. If you could please forward to the > entire list I would appreciate it greatly. Thank you and please feel > free to contact me if you have any questions. > Also, not related to study requests, but an issue we will address more > formally address is TDX's request to use the Traditional Licensing > Procedure. NMFS does not support using the TLP for this project, and > though the Integrated Licensing Procedure is FERC's default licensing > procedure, we see some significant limitations in using that process > for this project too. > > Sue Walker > > Finlay Anderson wrote: >> >> Hi Sue -- >> >> >> >> Good to see you last week, and appreciated all of your thoughts on >> key questions that NMFS will have regarding the Chakachamna >> Hydroelectric Project. I wanted to follow up and see if you are able >> to forward the email you read to us from your Portland engineering >> team (or excerpt it). This will help us ensure our notes from the >> meeting are accurate and also provides TDX with an early opportunity >> to think ahead. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> FMA >> >> >> >> >> >> Finlay Anderson >> >> Long View Associates <http://www.longviewassociates.com/> >> >> 4022 NE 8th Ave >> >> Portland, Oregon 97212 >> >> p: (503) 335-5806 >> >> f: (503) 914-1488 >> >> >> > -- Sue Walker Alaska Region Hydropower Coordinator Alaska Region, Habitat Conservation Division National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1668 907-586-7646 office 907-321-8991 cell ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ><{{{(°> Feb 19, 2009 Fundamentally, the proposed studies should be designed so that if successful they can yield the necessary information needed to accurately evaluate the effects of the project, and enable creation of a successful design. It is unclear what the overall goals and objectives of the studies are. Though the first paragraph of the attached studies list says that the overall goals and objectives were taken into account when designing this first season of pre-licensing studies, it remains unclear what those specific goals and objectives are. They need to be clearly identified and the list of studies needs to have clear connections to established overarching principles for shaping and evaluating the design of the project. TDX needs work with NMFS and the other reviewing agencies to anticipate the important design questions of the project and then create studies that will answer them. Two overarching questions regarding the design and operation of Chakachamna are: 1) how will the current fish migrations (of all species) into and out of the lake, it’s tributaries and the two upstream lakes be maintained given the proposed diversion of 80% of the lakes outflows into the penstock, and the drawdown of the lake level? and, 2) how will the proposed changes to Chakachamna Lake, Kenibuna Lake, Shamrock Lake, and the tributary streams to these lakes, as well as the significant changes to the Chakachatna River and the downstream fish habitat in the coastal forelands be designed to protect the significant fish spawning and rearing that is supported by the current habitat? The following comments do not apply to just the 2009 pre-licensing studies, but planning should begin for the following studies: The most important and fundamental study that is critical for designing a successful fish passage project in a lake/reservoir hydro environment is a complete 3-D hydrodynamic analysis of the flow fields in the lake under all expected operating conditions. Preparatory to that analysis it is necessary to complete a detailed bathymetric survey of the entire lake – from the bottom to the water surface. It is also necessary to complete a detailed hydrologic study of the lake at its tributaries and outflow streams. The proposed studies consistently discuss the need only to study the upper levels of the lake, above even the level of proposed drawdown with the assertion that this habitat is the only habitat important to fish. In order to create an effective lake fish passage project, it is essential that we have a very comprehensive understanding of the 3- dimensional flow fields everywhere in Chakachamna Lake - throughout all the seasons - during both the existing and proposed operating conditions. Based on NMFS experience in prior lake/reservoir passage projects, we can say with a very high level of confidence that some or all of the following types of studies are required in order to gain sufficient information for a successful fish passage design for the Chakachamna Hydro Project: a) Characterize flow rates, sediment content (sizes and densities) and temperatures of all significant lake tributary streams - by season; b) Collect long-term measurements of 3-D currents (velocities), temperature, and water quality parameters (turbidities, nutrients, others) - throughout the lake - from bottom to water surface - by season - the spatial and temporal resolution of the instrument arrays to be determined; c) Take sufficient fish tracking data simultaneously with the 3-D velocity data, water quality and temperature data - so the biologists can relate the hydrodynamics and chemical/physical data with fish behavior and movements. d) After completion of (a) and (b), prepare a 3-dimensional computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model of the reservoir. The model must be able to realistically simulate the important movements of water, heat, turbidity, and chemical/biological constituents - as created by river inflows, temperature-induced and sediment-induced density currents, wind, and operation of the penstock tunnel, lake outlet, and fish bypass structure. The model must be successfully calibrated and verified against the data in (b), above. It must be able to make reliable estimates of the important fluid motion-effects (in Chakachamna Lake) of the operation of the hydro scheme. All important CFD specifications (including spatial and temporal model parameters) must be selected with concurrence of the resource agencies. Finally, during detailed design stage some physical hydraulic models may be required - such as the juvenile bypass structure, and intake screens for keeping fish out of the penstock tunnel. From: Page_Spencer@nps.gov [mailto:Page_Spencer@nps.gov] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 8:40 AM To: Brady, James Subject: Chakachamna ice seasons Good Morning Jim Finally gathered up the numbers for ice seasons on Chakachamna. these data are derived by manual interpretation of MODIS imagery. Freezeup is >90% ice cover; breakup is <10% ice cover. winter 04-05 freezeup 1/16/05 breakup 5/18/05 winter 05-06 freezeup 1/11/06 breakup 5/30/06 winter 06-07 freezeup 1/1/07 breakup 5/21/07 winter 07-08 freezeup 1/4/08 breakup 6/3/08 call if you have questions. Page Page Spencer, PhD Chief of Natural Resources Lake Clark National Park & Preserve 907-644-3629 From: Page_Spencer@nps.gov [mailto:Page_Spencer@nps.gov] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 2:06 PM To: jmorsell@northernecological.com; James.Brady@HDRinc.com Cc: Dan_Young@nps.gov; Joel_Hard@nps.gov Subject: comments on Draft Conceptual Study Plans, Chakachamna Hydro Good Morning John and Jim I see I'm down to the wire to get comments to you on the Draft Conceptual Study Plans. I'll just list off some of the notes I made during the presentations. But this will likely not be the last comments from us as the project goes forward. First--many thanks for the agency meeting a couple weeks ago. It was very informative and provided an excellent opportunity for discussions, clarifications and general interchange in the early stages of data collection. Many of these comments may be premature, but I'll put them out there for consideration as the project develops. I concur with NMFS about the critical questions of fish passage given the proposed dewatering of the Chakachatna river, as well as ground/surface water questions. Additionally, we at Lake Clark are concerned about the potential effects into Kennibuna and its tributaries. Especially as the water levels in Chakachamna Lake vary seasonally. In no particular order of importance or immediate relevance: -I advocate for a study by a hydrologic geomorphologist to map and describe the surficial geology deposits and processes, with an eye to understanding the ground water movement, volume and wetlands. -It seems to me (from overflights and image interp) that the MacArthur River heads up in granitic bedrock, while the front range and outlet of Chakachatna river is more sedimentary. Not sure what the impacts of water chemistry, and thence fish migrations, from sending water from a sedimentary based watershed into a granitic based watershed. -Need to consider staging areas for migratory birds, spring and fall. Not just nesting and rearing habitat. Especially in that big wetland/marsh complex SE of the current Chakachatna surface channel. -Need to put in several weather stations to collect data especially for temp and precip at various locations in the study area. I'd suggest a RAWS-like configuration. Ideally--upper Chakachamna/Kennibuna, outlet of Chakachamna, and one or two more downstream. Plus one for the coast. Wildlife considerations: consider beavers (dams-->ground water, wetlands building etc), and land otters consider effects of loss of high flows in Chakachatna on early successional riparian habitat for beavers, moose, passerines etc. -We seem to have recent IKONUS images for Kennibuna and the Neacola, Igitna etc, but not east out to Chakachamna. It may exist and maybe could be bought, but we didn't get it. Acquired last summer. -Check the old 1950s B/W photos for the extent of Kennibuna. Would give some sense of filling in rate, lake loss, wetlands added etc --I sent Jim dates for ice seasons for Chakachamna. --I checked my photos to see what I have for the western side of the Shamrock moraine. Unfortunately, I was focused on the reflections of icebergs in the glassy water of the lake, and didn't photograph mere piles of dirt and silty water. Sorry... -I don't think you'll need a research permit for the tagged salmon which may swim into park tributaries. If you plan on landing a helicopter in the park, or setting up a camp or installing monitoring equipment, we'd probably need a permit. Otherwise, your plans for this summer seemed pretty innocuous. Here's the link to the research permit website if you want to look. http://science.nature.nps.gov/research/ac/ResearchIndex I copied the pertinent language below: "A Scientific Research and Collecting Permit is required for most scientific activities pertaining to natural resources or social science studies in National Park System areas that involve fieldwork, specimen collection, and/or have the potential to disturb resources or visitors." Feel free to call with questions, or if we have data you need. Page Page Spencer, PhD Chief of Natural Resources Lake Clark National Park & Preserve 907-644-3629 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.4/1976 - Release Date: 03/06/09 07:20:00 From: Ferguson, Jim M (DFG) [mailto:jim.ferguson@alaska.gov] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 2:44 PM To: james.brady@hdrinc.com; necosjwm@aol.com Cc: McCracken, Betsy W (DFG); susan.walker@noaa.gov; Finlay Anderson; robin.beebee@hdrinc.com; phil_brna@fws.gov; Carey, Bryan E (AIDEA); curtis.jennifer@epa.gov; Daigneault, Michael J (DFG); Anne.legget@hdrinc.com; pmclarno@hdrinc.com; Houk, Scott D (DNR); saraellen@akcenter.org; Keen, James A (RCA); Kemplen, Allen (DOT); Klein, Kim J (DFG); gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us; Page_Spencer@nps.gov; timkayaks@hotmail.com; Lee, Adele R (DNR); ken.lord@sol.doi.gov; frances_mann@fws.gov; dfmeyer@usgs.gov; Mouw, Jason E B (DFG); jmcclellan@tyonek.com; north.phil@epa.gov; Ott, Douglas C (AIDEA); Rutz, David S (DFG); Steve Padula; gilbert.l.phillips@poa02.usace.army.mil; Donna.robertson@hdrinc.com; toby@akcenter.org; cassie_thomas@nps.gov; jthrall@yahoo.com; Walton, Michael L (DNR); Bettis, Patricia K (DNR); Weiss, Edward W (DFG); chay@alaska.com; tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov; hydro@gci.net; Prokosch, Gary J (DNR); Cappiello, Thomas A (DFG); douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov; Burwen, Debby L (DFG); Ivey, Samuel S (DFG); Hasbrouck, James J (DFG); Vania, Tom D (DFG); Erickson, Jack W (DFG); Klein, Joseph P (DFG); kate@akvoice.org; Tom Papsidero Subject: ADF&G comments on 2-15 draft study plans for Chakachamna hydroelectric project, FERC #12660 John and James: Attached are comments on the draft conceptual study plan (2-15-09) for the Chakachamna hydroelectric project. Obviously, there will be a number of people, including a number of ADF&G staff, involved in discussing the specifics of the study plans. If you have questions between now and the release of the next draft, please contact me and I will either respond directly to you or put you in touch with a specialist who can answer your question. Regards, Jim _____________________________ Jim Ferguson, PhD Statewide Hydropower Coordinator Alaska Department of Fish and Game Sport Fish Division ‐ RTS 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518‐1565 907‐267‐2312 Fax: 267‐2422 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ><{{{(°> March 6, 2009 To: John Morsell and James Brady: From: Jim Ferguson, Statewide Hydropower Coordinator, Alaska Department of Fish& Game Re: Draft Conceptual Study Plan, Chakachamna hydroelectric project, FERC #12660 The Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) offers the following preliminary comments on the Draft Conceptual Study Plan (revised February 15, 2009) for the Chakachamna hydropower project. Our comments touch on certain areas of the plan and, as such, do not constitute a thorough review of every aspect of the plans. Nor should our comments be construed as covering all of the topics that will need to be addressed over the next several years. ADF&G and, I’m sure, TDX and its consultants, are aware that this first season’s work includes only part of the studies that are required, and that a much more comprehensive and formal process will occur when and if the NOI/PAD is issued. The 2009 study plan is a good effort at beginning some baseline data collection for some specific issues and in some specific areas, but does not represent the scope of the information needed to address the concerns surrounding this project. For example, the 2009 study plan does not address waterbird use of the Chakachatna floodplain, potential impacts to terrestrial wildlife, or species-specific impacts to fish other than sockeye and lake trout. The project proponents should remain willing to expand or redirect future research in order to answer critical questions regarding the impacts of the project. Two critical (albeit broad) questions are: how will the project impact the fish community, especially populations and distribution of anadromous fish, throughout the Chakachatna and McArthur watersheds, and how will the project affect the wetland habitat and bird populations of Trading Bay State Game Refuge (TBSGR). That being said, we offer the following comments, which were provided by the ADF&G Divisions of Sport Fish, Habitat, and Wildlife Conservation: Section 2, Surface and Groundwater Hydrology: ADF&G requires that sufficient seasonal stream flow be maintained in all waterbodies supporting river and floodplain species. Sufficient flows are needed to support seasonal uses of main channel and floodplain water bodies (e.g. spring channels and ponds) and the continuation of fluvial processes that maintain river and floodplain habitats. Alterations to flow magnitudes and timing can reduce access to aquatic habitats and the availability of food and interfere with the maintenance of riparian habitat. In order to identify characteristics of the natural flow regime that are important to fish and wildlife species and the maintenance of habitat, continuous flow data are needed. When locating gages, we request that you consult ADF&G. The number and locations of gages must be reviewed to ensure that the hydrology of the river and floodplain wetlands is adequately characterized. Because seasonal and inter-annual variability in stream flow is often high, we recommend that as many years of continuous flow data as practicable be collected from index gages. Ideally, a minimum of 10 years of continuous flow records are desired. Summaries of daily and monthly mean stream flows and estimates of flow duration are needed to assess characteristics of the flow regime and instream flow needs for river and floodplain species. This analysis provides information similar to that needed for your water right permit. To maintain seasonal uses of river and floodplain habitats by each of the life history stages and strategies of species, we recommend maintaining a flow regime that mimics the magnitude and timing of the natural flow regime. This approach is necessary to meet the needs of species’ life history stages that have coevolved and exhibit biological adaptations to the river’s flow regime. Flows ranging near historic median monthly or daily flows (50th percentile) represent the most common hydrologic condition. Therefore, we recommend flows at this level over time periods that mimic the seasonal flow variability of the natural flow regime. Reductions from these levels subject river and floodplain species to conditions that are increasingly uncommon. Instream flow studies are needed to assess how reductions below these flow conditions will alter habitat dynamics and to evaluate various water resources development scenarios and project alternatives. In addition to the flows needed to sustain seasonal uses of habitat by river and floodplain species, higher flows are periodically needed to maintain the river’s channel and the full range of aquatic and riparian habitats in the floodplain. This flow equates to the bankfull discharge, which has a return interval of 1.0 in a partial duration flood series. The timing and duration of this event is calculated from the instantaneous data archive from stream gages that are representative of the applicable stream reach. Refinements to these criteria depend on the length of hydrologic record. We encourage your consultant to contact our office for assistance when evaluating hydrologic data needs, as well as determining which method or methods would best be suited for estimating instream flow requirements. The following four issues are of concern to us, are directly related to fish and wildlife concerns and potential impacts, and will need to be studied and addressed in the design of the project: 1. The stage of Chakachamna Lake fluctuates approximately 15 feet on an annual basis with the annual minima occurring in spring. The proposal is to regulate this natural pattern of fluctuation by imposing an artificial reduction of approximately 60 feet below the annual maxima of the unregulated regime1. This is approximately 45 feet below the annual minimum stage, which means that outflow from the lake into the Chakachatna River should cease on a seasonal basis without artificial mechanisms in place. This also means that there potentially will be significant periods of the year in which there will be no passage for fish in and out of Lake Chakachamna. Furthermore, the lake would need to regain 45’ of head from late winter/early spring to the beginning of June in order to initiate significant outflow from the lake by June when adult Sockeye begin to return. Given the fact that flows were historically at their seasonal low in late April/early May, there is concern that the lake will fill quickly enough to provide adequate passage for 1 According to John Morsell, TDX fisheries consultant adult salmon into the lake. At the February 19 meeting, it was suggested that the proponents are assuming that adult salmon, particularly sockeye, will migrate into the lake via the existing natural stream channel. While it is possible that such passage could occur in some years, to state that it should be possible every year is an unrealistic assumption. 2. The project proponents have state that, in order for the proposed Chakachamna hydropower project to be economically feasible, approximately 80% of the total annual runoff in the Chakachatna River below the lake would need to be transferred to the adjacent McArthur River basin through a tunnel to a powerhouse, for power production2. Assuming that 80% of the annual runoff is diverted, that percentage equates to 770,771,040 acre-feet per year3. The remaining 20%, or 192,692,579 acre-feet per year, would be discharged into the Chakachatna River. This figure equates to an average of 729 cfs available for each day of the year. Given the fact that there will be periods in winter where there will likely be no outflow from the lake, releases of greater than 729 cfs will likely occur in summer. Obviously, the exact figures will depend upon how the system is regulated. To put things in perspective, 729 cfs, historically, was an average flow condition under the ice in late December. The average minimum (lowest recorded flows) flows during the summer high flow season (July-August) were ~7,500 cfs and the average flows were ~12,000 cfs during this same time period. It cannot be expected that flows lower than the lowest recorded flows will sustain channel function and the aquatic resources of the Chakachatna River floodplain. Even if outflows cease for 4 months in winter, only ~1,100 cfs would be available on a daily basis in the remaining 8 months. Obviously, more detailed studies will be done of instream flows in the Chakachatna River. We provided the above analysis as an example of concerns that we have for project-related reductions in flows. 3. The inter-basin transfer of water from Chakachamna Lake to the McArthur River basin will affect two important conditions in the McArthur River: winter base-flow conditions and summer flood conditions. It is assumed that all of the diverted water will be discharged into the channel of the McArthur River in winter, when power demands are at their highest. During winter, the channel of the McArthur will be well under full capacity and, so, may be able to convey much of the transferred water without consequences to channel morphology. However, biota that are in the river during winter periods have adapted to stable base flow regimes. Flow fluctuations that are typical of hydropower project release schedules could have adverse affects to incubating fish eggs and rearing juveniles. In summer, releases from inter-basin transfer of Chakachamna Lake water during peak flows could exacerbate flooding in the McArthur River to an unknown extent. If these increases in flow are significant enough, it is possible that the channel of the McArthur River may not be able to accommodate such increases which would cause significant erosion of active river channels and the invasion and transformation of spring habitats supported by the McArthur River. 4. We are concerned that the inter-basin transfer of water from Chakachamna Lake into the McArthur River will lead to false attraction of Chakachatna River salmon populations to the McArthur River. In most hydropower projects where false attraction is an issue, the power house is located on the system from which the water is withdrawn and diverted. 2 According to Eric Yould, TDX project consultant 3 Based on USGS gage #15294500 (1959-1972) This leads to false and sometimes only temporary attraction to the powerhouse tailrace discharge, causing confusion to adults migrating upstream to spawn. Such delays have been demonstrated to reduce the efficiency and success of spawning within impacted populations. In the case of the proposed project, the powerhouse would be located in an entirely different river basin. In this case, false attraction would not merely confuse fish in route to spawning grounds. It is expected that they would be diverted entirely. It would not be expected that these flows would function to provide the same spawning conditions that currently exist in the Chakachatna River watershed and its floodplain. Section 3, Fisheries: ADF&G strongly recommends that the 2009 field season include a survey of both the Chakachatna (including lake tributaries) and McArthur River watersheds for geomorphic channel types, and that a map displaying these classifications be produced. Future studies should refine this work, and include habitat surveys, utilizing the U.S. Forest Service Region 10 Aquatic Habitat Management Handbook (FSH 2090.21). The proposed Chakachamna Lake Hydro-electric project area encompasses the watersheds of both the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers. The Chakachatna River drainage is flow-regulated by glacier melt and two large lakes. Complex processes of this watershed are similar to those exhibited in the highly productive and highly valued Kenai River watershed. It is interesting to consider that the Kenai River salmon escapement per unit channel length is between two and ten times that found for rain-and-snowmelt dominated rivers and glacier-fed rivers lacking lake regulation (Dorava and Milner, 2000). Lakes influence biological processes in glacier-fed rivers by attenuating peak flows, sustaining high flows through the summer, supplementing winter low flows, settling suspended sediment and increasing river temperatures. Glacial effects, Hydrology and Flow Regimes Glacier-fed rivers generally have greater daily and seasonal variations in flow than rain- dominated or snowmelt dominated rivers. When glacier-fed rivers flow through large lakes, the hydrologic pattern is substantially modified. Lakes supplement winter low-flows, and dampen or attenuate peak flows. This lake-modified hydrological pattern potentially enhances salmon productivity by providing additional access to spawning salmon through extended high summer flows and by supplementing low-flows in the winter, when juvenile salmon are rearing and eggs are incubating. The project study program needs to answer the following questions: How will the fish passage and flow diversion design criteria affect access to spawning, rearing and incubating salmonid habitats in the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers? How will important life history events such as rearing, residency, spawning and ocean recruitment be temporally and spatially impacted as a result? Sediment Transport Sediment transport is highly regulated on glacier-fed rivers where lakes occur, and contributes to the overall productivity of the watershed. Lake regulation serves to decrease turbidity and increase light penetration, allowing fish more effective feeding. Glacier-fed streams typically have coarser substrate, which provides better oxygen flow and nutrient transport to spawning areas. Coarser substrates also increases available habitat in the upstream reaches for fish food, particularly primary producers. Macroinvertebrates assemblages tend to be more diverse and abundant in glacier-fed rivers downstream of lakes, presumably due to increased water temperature and channel geomorphic stability typical of these reaches (Milner and Petts, 1994). Under the existing Bechtol Engineering design to divert water from Chakachamna Lake to the McArthur River, alteration of lake sediment transport to both the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers will likely occur. The project will need to be designed to address these potential impacts related to sediment transport and loss of primary production. Volcanic eruption magnitude of floods There are four volcanoes located in Cook Inlet basin. They are Mt. Spur, Redoubt, Iliamna, and Augustine. Mount Redoubt is currently active and rumbling. Mount Spur last erupted in 1992. Volcanic eruptions can significantly alter peak discharges from affected watersheds (Brabets et al., 1999). Project fish passage design features should demonstrate consideration for relative increases in flow magnitude due to natural flood events, including earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Lake Rearing and Aquatic Over-Winter Habitat The lake complex associated with the Chakachamna watershed provides rearing and overwintering habitat. The lake-regulated river also likely sustains usable habitat within the Chakachamna River during winter low flows. Additional draw down to the river system during the critical overwintering time-frame, has the potential to severely impact rearing fish and incubating eggs. Resident Fish Dolly Varden The population(s) of overwintering Dolly Varden the Chakachamna Lake system may potentially represent those from other drainages. The lake itself may serve as the wintering habitat for Dolly Varden populations of not only the Chakachamna drainage, but of surrounding drainages as well (Morrow, 1980). Studies should be developed to understand the overwintering population(s) of Dolly Varden utilizing the Chakachatna River and Chakachamna Lake system. Rainbow trout Once hatched, resident rainbows do not migrate very far. They may rear and spend the entirety of their lives a short distance from where they were hatched (Morrow, 1980; Bob Clark, ADF&G Fisheries Scientist, personal communciation). Studies that identify rearing locations of rainbow trout may help identify location and physical parameters of rainbow trout spawning habitat. . Lamprey and non-game aquatic species (Document attached, submitted previously via email to Eric Yould, January 23, 2009). References Brabets, Timothy P., Gordon L. Nelson, Joseph M. Dorava, and Alexander M. Milner. U.S. Geological Survey. 1999. Water-quality Assesssment of the Cook Inlet basin, Alaska- Environmental Setting. Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4025. National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Dorava, Joseph M. and Alexander M. Milner. 2000. Role of lake regulation on glacier-fed rivers in enhancing salmon productivity: the Cook Inlet watershed, southcentral Alaska, USA. Hydrological Processes 14, 3149-3159. Milner A. M. and G. E. Petts. 1994. Glacial rivers: physical habitat and ecology. Freshwater Biology 32: 295-308 Morrow, James E. 1980. The Freshwater Fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publishing Company. Box 4_EEE, Anchorage, Alaska 99509 The following comments were transmitted to Eric Yould, consultant to TDX Power, on January 23, 2009, from Betsy McCracken. They are reproduced here to allow recipients of ADF&G’s comments to see them, in case they have not already: Hi Eric, As follow up to a phone conversation with John Morsell (November 18, 2008), and in response to TDX Power and Northern Ecological Services request for stakeholder input on studies necessary to identify potential impacts to fish and wildlife from the proposed Chakachamna hydro-electric project, I am submitting information pertaining to aquatic non-game species of concern*, identified in Alaska’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2006). The CWCS identifies the habitats of the species, threats to and actions needed to protect the viability of these habitats. It specifically identifies altered stream flows and restricted passages as significant challenges in maintaining the states fish and wildlife diversity and abundance. Species addressed within the context of this correspondence are some of those identified in the CWCS as being of greatest conservation need in Alaska. The CWCS is the department’s official policy to protect these species and their habitats. For the complete list of the State’s species of concern, please refer to http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/ngplan/ In addition to this correspondence, further input from the ADF&G will be submitted through the FERC review process. Non-Game Species Freshwater Fish I reviewed the Chakachamna Hydro-electric project Summary of Fish Passage Design Concepts and Preliminary Results of FY 1982-1983 Fish Studies conducted by Bechtel and Woodard and Clyde (December 1982) for the Alaska Power Authority. This report indicates that minnow trap and fyke net sampling during August, September and October 1982 was conducted throughout the project footprint. The reported trapping efforts captured the following species; Minnow trapping: Along with salmonid species (coho, sockeye, Chinook, pinks, chum, rainbow trout, Dolly varden), the following non-game species of concern*/resident species were documented to be caught in during minnow trapping within the project area: Three-spine stickleback* (In particular the Cook Inlet radiation) Nine-spine stickleback* (In particular the Cook Inlet radiation) Slimy sculpin* Pygmy whitefish* Lake trout Fyke netting: Along with salmonid species (Dolly varden, coho, pinks, chum, sockeye, Chinook, rainbow trout), the following non-game species of concern*/resident species were documented to be caught during fyke netting within the project area. Round whitefish Pygmy whitefish* Bering cisco* Longfin smelt* Slimy sculpin* Three-spine stickleback* Eulachon* In addition to those non-game species listed above, lamprey* species have been widely documented throughout Alaska’s waters. Five species of lamprey are known to inhabit Alaska’s waters, including both anadromous, and non-anadromous forms. Although lamprey are not reported to have been captured during the 1982 fish studies conducted in the project area, lamprey occurrence has been widely documented in the Cook Inlet area. Most recently, lamprey juveniles were captured on video during the Chuitna River Freshwater Fish Studies (LGL, 2008). Given what is known about lamprey occurrence, it seems likely that lamprey also inhabit the waters of the proposed Chakachamna Hydro-electric project area. It may also be likely that the use of minnow traps and fyke nets in the 1982 studies, selected against the capture of lamprey species, if present. Typical gear used to target ammoceotes, for example, include electro-fishers using standardized sampling protocols (Steves et. al. 2003). Screw traps, weirs, lamprey pots and video cameras have proven effective for capture and documentation of juvenile and adult migrants. Additionally, due to the complex life cycle of lamprey, seasonal temporal sampling is critical to their capture. The timing of sampling conducted during the 1982 fish studies (August, September and October) may have missed returning anadromous species runs that conceivable would occur during the spring/summer. Fall immigrating macropthalmia may also have been eluded due to gear selectivity of minnow traps or fyke net mesh size and/or sampling timing. Subsurface lamprey ammocoetes would not be detected using minnow traps or fyke nets during any time. Ecological, Economic and Cultural Significance The ecological significance of lamprey as both prey and predator is broad and varied. Lamprey are important as a food source for numerous animals. Because they are high in fat content, concentrations of adult and larval lamprey make them an important and dependable food source for birds, fish and mammals, especially seals and sea lions. Coho fry and burbot are known to prey on lamprey ammocoetes. Adult returning Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) also function as a buffer to reduce predation on adult migrating salmon from seals and sea lions, as well as other predators. Similarly, Pacific lamprey is found in the diets of other fish and gulls, that otherwise might prey more heavily on young salmon. Similar to salmon, anadromous lamprey transport important marine-derived nutrients such as nitrogen to freshwater ecosystems. In Alaska Arctic lamprey provide subsistence and commercial fisheries on the Yukon River. The Department currently permits the harvest and sale of up to 40,000 pounds of lamprey from local fisherman in this area. Lamprey are also being sought after by foreign countries such as France, for medicinal exploration; and are served as a seasonal delicacy in Seattle as a northern Spain regional cuisine offering (Kwipak Fisheries, Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association). The size of lamprey runs in Alaska are unknown. Currently, most lamprey in the lower 48 are either extinct or protected due to large declines in populations from human impacts, including hydro-electric dams. If lamprey inhabit the waters associated with the Chakachamna hydro- electric project, it is critical that informational gaps related to their biological, ecology, and passage requirements be addressed to prevent further decline of lamprey populations. Lamprey Passage Considerations Lamprey have been documented to have specialized passage requirements. Successful lamprey migration relies on safe passage, including through hydro-electric structures. Some of these are outlined below for consideration during project development. Temperature Effects Swimming speed of lamprey is positively related to temperature (range 5-15 degrees C). Maximum sustained swimming speed has been documented to decrease with a corresponding decrease in water temperature. Velocity Barriers Research confirms that the anguilliform (eel-like) mode of swimming is inefficient and that lampreys are poor swimmers when compared to teleosts (Stone, J., 2004).High velocities can be particularly restrictive to lamprey passage. Light Effects Both juvenile and adult lamprey are nocturnal. Some lamprey species also exhibit negative phototaxis. It is likely that both high light intensity and abrupt changes in lighting could affect lamprey movements. Role of Attachment (during passage/ migration) When confronted with rapid current velocities, adult Pacific lamprey use their suctorial disc to hold fast and rest between intervals of burst swimming. It is critical that lamprey are provided with adequate attachment surfaces in fishways where lamprey might encounter high current velocity. Lamprey Research Needs excerpted mostly from Stone, 2004: 1) Methodologies for juvenile lamprey species identification 2) Information on the mechanisms of migration initiation Several environmental cues dictate the timing of adult lamprey spawning migration. These include water temperature, discharge, photoperiod, and the presence of olfactory cues. To produce reliable adult abundance estimates continuous sampling throughout migration period may be needed. 3) The extent to which ammocoetes move upstream 4) Behavior of ammocoetes and macropthalmia in strong currents 5) The effects of lighting on lamprey behavior, and 6) The cues adult lamprey use to find spawning areas. 7) Instream/flow water volume needs for differing life history stages For reasons state above, and because lamprey are of specific concern, it is recommended that sampling be conducted for the presence/absence, distribution, and life stage occurrences (ammoceotes, juveniles, adults) of lamprey within the Chakachamna Hydro-electric project footprint and surrounding area of potential impact. Other non-game aquatic species of concern Prey Species Baseline documentation of prey species including those of whitefish, stickleback, and sculpin should occur to continue the period of record for these important species. For example, both Bering cisco (Coregonus laurettae) and pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulteri) are CWCS species of conservation concern, and both are documented to occur in the project waters. Several sculpin species are also of conservation concern including the slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) also documented in the project waters. Three-spine (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and nine-spine stickleback (Pungitius pungitius) are also species of concern, with the Cook Inlet radiation of the three-spine stickleback of particular interest. Marine Forage Fish Baseline documentation of presence of marine forage fish species including, longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) and eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) is needed. Other non-game forage species of conservation concern including sand lance (Ammodytes hexapturus), should be documented where present to establish a period of record. Invertebrates Bivalves Baseline presence/absence, distribution and abundance data of bivalves is needed. Many bivalve species are CWCS species and are also considered to be indicator species. From my understanding of the project, there maybe intertidal or marine impacts from the Chakachamna hydro-electric project. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT) Stoneflies, mayflies and caddisflies are also CWCS species of concern. Baseline assessments of EPT species are essential to document and monitor water quality, as well as to establish relative availability of fish food. I am providing the references used to develop the above recommendations as supporting documentation. The references are as follows, ADF&G, 2006. Our Wealth Maintained: A Strategy for Conserving Alaska’s Diverse Wildlife and Fish Resources. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. xvii + 824 p. http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/ngplan/ Kwipak Fisheries, Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association. November 2007. http://www.kiyu.com/news1107_2.htm LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. Chuit River Freshwater Fish Studies, 2008. Progress update and data report, April 21 – July 23. Prepared for PacRim Coal, LP. August 6 2008. Moser, M. L., J. M. Butzerin, D. B. Dey. 2007. Capture and collection of lampreys: the state of the science. Rev Fish Biol. Fisheries (2007) 17:45-56 Stone, Jen. 2004. Passage Considerations for Pacific Lamprey, USFWS. Response to request for Lamprey culvert passage criteria (February 18, 2004). http://columbiariver.fws.gov/lamprey.htm Woodward and Clyde. December 1982. A Summary of Fish Passage Facility Design Concepts and Preliminary Results of FY 1982-1983 Fish Studies. Chakachamna Dam Hydro-electric Project. Section 4, Wildlife: 1. A general comment is that there should ultimately be more work done on the projects effects on wildlife species downstream of the project in the Trading Bay State Game Refuge. A few pertinent information needs are effects on waterfowl and bird habitat within the refuge, effect on bears (there are some bear concentration areas that will be affected), effects of increased user access and hunting / fishing opportunities on refuge (there are a number of cabin users, commercial and recreational fishing uses on the TBSGR, McArthur and Chakachatna Rivers). Since this is just the initial year’s data gathering, we understand that not all of these issues will be addressed. However, we expect that these and other wildlife-related issues will be addressed in later years. We also would like more information on what project facilities and other features are proposed that lie within the boundaries of the TBSGR. 2. It might be prudent to do some reconnaissance work on waterfowl staging and nesting areas in the initial year so that work needs for future years could be assessed. 3. Regarding the waterbird nesting surveys: The field crew should be careful about how and where they mark nests during their study. The plan notes that they will be permanently marking the nest sites and then rechecking nests and opportunistically checking on fledgling success. A very important component of this approach is how and where they are marking the nests. Nest sites should not be marked in any visible manner in close proximity to the nest. Ravens, gulls, foxes and other predators key into these markers and predate the nests. Increased predation, in addition to the loss of the resource, will also taint any results of the study regarding fledgling success. There may be other specific standards that are used. However, what we have done in the past is to mark the nest with a flag set at a measured distance such as 50 feet a certain direction from the nest. (i.e. 50 ft. west of actual nest location). Ideally, with very accurate GPS one could avoid any marking. However, it is unlikely that the field crews will be utilizing the survey grade GPS that would be necessary to get this accuracy. ADF&G appreciates the opportunity to comment on these draft plans, and appreciates the outreach by and interaction with the project proponents over the past four to five months. We understand that a second draft of the 2009 study plans will be available in early April, with a second round of comments due in late April. Brady, James From: Walton, Michael L (DNR) [michael.walton@alaska.gov] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 4:16 PM To: jmorsell@northernecological.com Cc: Brady, James; Prokosch, Gary J (DNR) Subject: Chakachamna Project (FERC No. 12660) Conceptual Study Plans, Stakeholders Meeting Notes, February 19, 2009 Attachments: 11 AAC 93.035.pdf Page 1 of 1Chakachamna Project (FERC No. 12660) Conceptual Study Plans, Stakeholders Meeting ... 3/6/2009 John and James, In regard to the request for comment (contained in the above referenced Stakeholders Meeting Notes) on permits needed for study activities associated with the Chakachamna Project 2009 Conceptual Study Plans, I have attached a copy of Section 11 AAC 93.035 from the Alaska Administrative Code. In a non-emergency situation, if a significant amount (as defined in 11 AAC 93.035) of fresh water will be withdrawn from a surface or subsurface water source (e.g. for field camp use or other study activities), diverted or impounded, then the applicant will need to submit one or more Application for Temporary Use of Water to the DNR, DML&W, Water Resources Section and be issued a temporary water use authorization before water withdrawal, diversion or impoundment begins. Application forms are available online at dnr.alaska.gov (under the heading of Authorizations & Permits, click water rights, then click water forms, and then click application for temporary water use). I can be reached at telephone number (907) 269-8609 if you have questions about this matter. Also, I would like to request that you correct the agency information next to my name in the Meeting Attendees section on page one of the above referenced Stakeholders Meeting Notes. My agency is the Alaska DNR; Division of Mining, Land and Water; Water Resources Section. I am not with NOAA Fisheries, which is currently typed next to my name on said meeting notes. Michael Walton Natural Resource Specialist Alaska DNR, DML&W, Water Resources Section <<11 AAC 93.035.pdf>> From: Maxine Blake [mailto:mblake@tdxpower.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:58 PM To: ann.wilde@alaska.gov; cakers@tyonek.com; cassie_thomas@nps.gov; douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov; gary.prokosch@alaska.gov; gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us; hydro@gci.net; jblankenship@borough.kenai.ak.us; jim.ferguson@alaska.gov; jmcclellan@tyonek.com; joe.balash@alaska.gov; keeper@inletkeeper.org; ken.lord@sol.doi.gov; mikeo@cosmichamlet.net; Page_Spencer@nps.gov; phil_brna@fws.gov; robert.dach@bia.gov; susan.walker@noaa.gov; toby@akcenter.org; tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov Subject: Invitation: Chakachamna Licensing Discussion 31MAR Good Morning ‐‐ Please see the attached memo from Eric Yould, inviting you to participate in a discussion on March 31, 2009 about the proposed licensing process for the Chakachamna Hydropower Project. The meeting will be from 9:00am to 12:00pm and will be hosted at the Coast International Inn (3450 Aviation Avenue, Anchorage). For planning purposes, please RSVP to me at mblake@tdxpower.com or (907) 762‐8467. Thanks. Max Blake Executive Assistant TDX Power, Inc. 4300 B Street, Ste 402 Anchorage, AK 99503 907‐762‐8467 (direct) 907‐382‐9888 (cell) 907‐278‐2332 (fax) DATE: 12 March, 2009 TO: Chakachamna Stakeholders FROM: Eric Yould SUBJECT: March 31, 2009 Meeting to Discuss Selection of FERC Licensing Process for the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project On January 12, 2009, TDX Power (TDX) wrote to you to solicit your input on TDX’s proposed use of the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) for obtaining an original license for the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660) (Project). TDX proposed the TLP because it believes this process provides the necessary flexibility to meet the challenging information development demands of a new large development while also giving TDX the best opportunity to meet the critical time requirements for bringing this new energy resource on line. TDX also acknowledged the concerns expressed by agencies and other interested parties regarding the need for adequate opportunities to be involved in study design and information review and committed itself to going beyond the basic TLP requirements to ensure effective communications over the course of pre-filing consultation. On February 26, 2009, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) communicated its opposition to the use of the TLP for the Project, while also expressing concern with the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP), which is the default licensing process. The communication appears to be a request for TDX to use, instead, the Alternative Licensing Process (ALP). Based on comments heard at the February 19 Conceptual Study Planning meeting it appears that others may have continuing questions or concerns with regard to which process TDX will use for the Project. As you may recall, at the public meeting held on November 13, 2008, where process questions were discussed, TDX communicated the results of its assessment of the three licensing process options, including the ALP. TDX noted that this approach has some benefits, including built-in mechanisms for collaboration, and early FERC involvement (if requested). However significant disadvantages were noted as well--including the challenges of meeting rigorous schedule requirements and lack of incentive for timely action by all participants. In addition, we discussed some of the potential concerns that might develop due to the project proponent being responsible for NEPA scoping and preparation of the preliminary environmental review documents. Given the balance that TDX is attempting to strike between meeting FERC deadlines; investor desires for delivering firm power; and agencies’ expectations for sufficient 1 July 13, 2004 Page 2 environmental data and studies, TDX continues to believe that the ALP is not the best process fit for this Project. Given NMFS’s concerns, as well as the feedback heard at the February 19, 2009 meeting, TDX believes it would be useful to meet at the earliest opportunity to further discuss the questions and concerns that exist with regard to the licensing process to be utilized for the Project. TDX is especially interested in hearing stakeholder’s specific concerns with the TLP, so TDX can consider how they might be addressed in ways that those with continuing concerns to support TDX in this process choice. TDX is also re-evaluating the ILP and assessing how this process can be made to work should agreement on use of a modified TLP be unattainable. Based on feedback regarding availability, the follow up meeting on licensing process options is scheduled on March 31, 2009, from 9:00 am to 12:00 pm. The meeting will be at the Coast International Inn (3450 Aviation Avenue, Anchorage). Please RSVP to Maxine Blake at your earliest convenience ( mblake@tdxpower.com ). We will also have a conference phone available for those unable to travel. Thank you for your continued interest in the Chakachamna Project. Attachments: 1-12-09 TDX Letter to stakeholders RE: Proposed Use of TLP 11-13-08 Presentation on proposed FERC process 1 January 12, 2009 «First_name» «Last_name» «Title» «Organization» «Division» «Address» «Address2» «City», «State» «Zip» RE: Chakachamna Project, FERC No. 12660 Support for Use of Traditional Licensing Process On November 13, 2008 TDX Power (TDX) hosted an informational meeting with the public, resource agencies, and non-governmental organizations to discuss the status of the proposed Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660) (“Project”). The objectives of the meeting were to 1) acquaint stakeholders with the licensing team that TDX Power has assembled; 2) provide an overview of the Railbelt’s need for the Project’s power; 3) describe the proposed Project; 4) review key questions and information needs; and 5) propose a licensing approach that meets the needs of the Project proponent and the stakeholders. Copies of the presentations, as well as a meeting summary can be found at www.chakchachamna- hydro.com/documents. At the meeting a presentation was made regarding the available FERC licensing processes and TDX’s desire and rationale for utilizing an enhanced traditional licensing process (TLP) for the Chakachamna licensing effort. TDX was encouraged by what it perceived as general agreement among those at the meeting that the TLP appears to provide the desired flexibility for the unique challenges of licensing the Project. TDX is continuing with its preparations for initiating the formal licensing phase of the Project. TDX anticipates filing its Notice of Intent (NOI), Pre-Application Document (PAD) and request to utilize the TLP with FERC in April 2009. When making its request to use the TLP, TDX must provide FERC with justification for its request, along with any written comments it has received on the request. As part of its request TDX must address the following considerations: - Likelihood of timely license issuance, - Complexity of the resource issues, - Level of anticipated controversy, - Relative cost of the traditional process compared to the integrated process, 2 - The amount of available information and potential for significant disputes over studies, and, - Other factors believed by the applicant to be pertinent. TDX believes that the TLP is the most appropriate approach for licensing the Project for the following reasons: Likelihood of timely license issuance The Project will require an extensive study program to collect the information necessary to address potential effects of construction and operation. TDX plans to initiate field studies in 2009, based on informal consultation with resource agencies and other interested stakeholders. The formal study planning elements of the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) would consume a year to achieve an approved study plan and would not accommodate this early initiation of studies. TDX has consulted with the resource agencies and believes that it will be a more effective approach to build upon the 2009 study results and continue with the formal study program in 2010 using the TLP. Complexity of the resource issues TDX believes, and resource agency personnel have advised, that gaining an understanding of the potential Project effects on hydrology in the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers and downstream in the Noatka Slough and other wetland areas will be a complex undertaking. It is anticipated that several years of pre-construction monitoring will be required to establish an adequate baseline against which to compare post-construction effects and to support future adaptive management decisions. The available time under the ILP, which allows for no more than two years of field study prior to preparation of a draft application or preliminary licensing proposal, is inadequate to accommodate the type of field study program that will be required to understand potential Project effects on hydrology and related resources. Level of anticipated controversy The anticipated level of controversy regarding this project is unknown. However, developing a solid base of information to evaluate potential Project effects will go a long way towards minimizing controversy, allowing the evaluation of effects and identification of appropriate impact avoidance and mitigation actions to be made in a non-confrontational manner. The ILP does not provide the flexibility for TDX to work with resource agencies and other stakeholders to develop information needed to support the evaluation of a new project of this size. Relative cost of the traditional process compared to the integrated process TDX anticipates that its costs may be somewhat less utilizing the TLP versus the ILP due to the additional flexibility allowed by the TLP. We also anticipate that the costs to the resource agencies and other stakeholders will be lower utilizing the TLP as it is significantly less front end loaded in terms of required activity and participation. 3 The amount of available information and potential for significant disputes over studies There is some existing resource information, particularly with regard to fisheries resources, from studies done in the early 1980s. However, significant additional information will need to be developed regarding the fisheries resources of the area as well as potential Project effects on the hydrology of the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers and related slough and wetland areas. TDX anticipates a significant multi-year field program will be required to generate adequate baseline information to support the resource impact analysis for this Project. The potential for disputes over studies will be lower utilizing the TLP versus the ILP because TDX will undertake a significant informal study program in 2009 and utilize the knowledge gained from that effort to develop the formal study program (to be designed with agency and stakeholder input and initiated in 2010). Other factors believed by the applicant to be pertinent Based on its consultation to date with resource agencies and other stakeholders, TDX believes that there is significant concern with using the ILP for this Project. With limited staff resources and competing priorities of other large development projects in the next several years, agencies have expressed concern with their ability to meet all of the substantive and procedural requirements of the ILP within the FERC proscribed time constraints,. The TLP on the other hand provides more flexibility that TDX, the agencies and other stakeholders can use to provide for effective participation in the pre-application activity while taking into consideration limited staff resources. TDX would appreciate receiving a written response from your organization presenting your perspective on the use of the TLP versus the ILP for the licensing of the Project. The response need not be extensive. However, we would appreciate your thoughts on the factors listed above to the extent possible. Any written responses we receive prior to March 31, 2009 will be included in TDX’s filing requesting authorization to use the TLP for the Project. As noted above, TDX will formally make the request to FERC together with filing the PAD and NOI; at that time FERC will issue a notice seeking comment on the PAD and the appropriateness of using a TLP for this Project. We appreciate your continued interest in the Chakachamna Project. If there are any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me at eyould@tdxpower.com or (907) 242-0487. Sincerely, Eric Yould Program Director TDX Power 4 Cc: Ann Rappaport, US Department of Agriculture Ann Wilde, Alaska Regulatory Commission Bob Dach, US Department of Interior Bob Shavelson, Cook Inlet Keeper Cassie Thomas, US National Park Service Charles Ahlrichs, MWH Americas Inc" Chuck Akers, Tyonek Corporation, AK Division Cynthia Bohn, US Department of Interior Douglas Mutter, US Department of Interior Gary Prokosh, Alaska Department of Natural Resources Gary Williams, Kenai Peninsula Borough Jan Konigsberg, Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition Jim Ferguson, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Joe Balash, Office of the Governor John McClellan, Tyonek Native Corporation Johni Blankenship, County of Kenai Peninsula Kenneth Lord, US Department of Interior Mike O'Meara, Cook Inlet Keeper Page Spencer, US National Park Service Philip Brna, US Fish and Wildlife Service Sue Walker, NOAA/ National Marine Fisheries Service Thomas Meyer, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service Toby Smith, Alaska Center for the Environment Tom Melius, US Department of Agriculture LicensingPreliminary Permit StatusApproach to LicensingProposed Licensing Process©2008 by TDX Power Preliminary Permit Status and Activities©2008 by TDX PowerT~ o T~ • <> 3Current Preliminary Permit• Preliminary permit application submitted on 3/10/06• FERC Issued Preliminary Permit on 11/14/06• Expiration in 11/09©2008 by TDX Power 4Activities to Date• Consultation/briefings– Resource agencies– Environmental community– Utilities/consumer groups– Congressional delegation– FERC©2008 by TDX Power 5Activities to Date• Preliminary studies and analyses– Engineering due diligence– Environmental reconnaissance– Issue identification for scoping– Mitigation options– Land status– Market and rate analysis©2008 by TDX Power Selection of a Licensing Approach©2008 by TDX PowerT~ o T~ • <> 7TDX Approach• Deliberate, stepwise approach– A major commitment of resources– Large, expensive complex project– Unique geotechnical, environmental, logistical and financial challenges©2008 by TDX Power 8TDX Approach• Aggressively seek early and continued stakeholder involvement– Issue identification– Study plan development– Mitigation strategy– Settlement process– Post licensing monitoring©2008 by TDX Power 9TDX Approach• Aggressively seek early and continued stakeholder involvement– Resource work groups– Web site (www.chakachamna-hydro.com)– FTP site©2008 by TDX Power 10TDX Approach• Emphasis on an Alaskan solution– Schedule flexibility– Post licensing refinements– Adaptive management approach“Things are different in Alaska”©2008 by TDX Power Available approaches to licensing http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower.aspIntegrated Licensing Process (ILP)FERC’s current “default process,” designed for timely completionAlternative Licensing Process (ALP)Designed to improve communication with stakeholdersTraditional Licensing ProcessFERC’s original three step process©2008 by TDX Power Advantages of the ILP• Early FERC involvement• Study dispute resolution process clear, final and early• Established time frames shorten process• FERC’s preferred process©2008 by TDX Power 13Challenges of the ILP• Designed with re-licensing in mind• Very tight schedules, can be a burden for applicant and stakeholders• Not a good fit for major new projects with complex issues©2008 by TDX Power Advantages of the ALP• Early FERC involvement if requested• Emphasis on collaborative approach• NEPA format©2008 by TDX Power Challenges of the ALP• Few internal deadlines, few incentives for timely action by stakeholders• Settlements rarely reached within established FERC time lines• NEPA format• Requires stakeholder support to obtain FERC approval©2008 by TDX Power 16Advantages of the TLP• Better opportunity to engage with stakeholders• Better accommodates extension of study programs beyond ILP time, as necessary• More flexibility to address changing circumstances• Higher likelihood of achieving an Alaskan Solution ©2008 by TDX Power Challenges of the TLP• Three stage process can be seen as cumbersome• Early FERC involvement not a given• Requires stakeholder support to obtain FERC approval©2008 by TDX Power Best fit for TDX Power• Enanced TLP with early FERC involvement• Emphasis on extensive stakeholder involvement• Continue staged approach to resource studies• Use 2008 – 2009 results to refine study program• Work to achieve settlement agreements with stakeholders• Commitment to post licensing and operational studies as appropriate©2008 by TDX Power Implications for Schedule• Application will not be ready when current Preliminary Permit expires• Will have to file for new Preliminary Permit• Meets TDX philosophy of deliberate development of this major resource©2008 by TDX Power FERC’s Feedback • Met with FERC in mid-October• Open to use of approach other than the ILP• Will require stakeholder buy-in for use of an alternative to the ILP©2008 by TDX Power 21TDX will be requesting support from stakeholders• Staged approach to study programs– 2008 - field reconnaissance– 2009 - substantial field studies– 2009 – initiate formal licensing process– 2009 - development of formal study programs– 2010 – formal study programs underway• 2009 application for 2nd Preliminary Permit• Use of Traditional Licensing Process ©2008 by TDX Power DATE: March 13, 2009 TO: Stephanie Ludwig (Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Office of History and Archaeology, Review and Compliance) FROM: Elizabeth Grover (HDR, Cultural Resource Specialist) SUBJECT: Chakachamna Project CPQ In order to complete the cultural resource sections in the CPQ, I called Stephanie to ask her if the Chakachamna Project is located in an area that DNR's Office of History and Archaeology (OHA) considers to be "important to the study, understanding, or illustration of national, state, or local history or prehistory, including natural processes" (11 AAC 112.320). I provided her with a brief introduction to the project, the project area, and previous surveys and documented cultural resources in the vicinity of the project area. Stephanie stated that she believed that due to the significant cultural resources in the project vicinity, this is an area that OHA would consider to be important for cultural resources. She suggested that I send her an email with a brief summary of the project, project area, known sites, and previous surveys as well as a map depicting the project. Stephanie also asked if any cultural resources studies were going to be conducted this summer as they would require a State of Alaska archaeology permit. I stated that there were not going to be archaeological studies, but there would be other studies conducted during the 2009 field season. Stephanie suggested that these studies could have an impact on cultural resources and SHPO should be consulted with to help ensure that these studies do not damage cultural resources. From: Maxine Blake [mailto:mblake@tdxpower.com] Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 3:32 PM To: Ferguson, Jim M (DFG); Phil_Brna@fws.gov; hydro@gci.net; Cassie_Thomas@nps.gov; Klein, Kim J (DFG); Page_Spencer@nps.gov; Carey, Bryan E (AIDEA); Prokosch, Gary J (DNR); curtis.jennifer@epa.gov; Wilde, Ann (RCA); cakers@tyonek.com; douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov; gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us; jblankenship@borough.kenai.ak.us; jmcclellan@tyonek.com; Balash, Joseph R (DNR); keeper@inletkeeper.org; ken.lord@sol.doi.gov; mikeo@cosmichamlet.net; robert.dach@bia.gov; toby@akcenter.org; tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov Cc: fanderson@longviewassociates.com; jthrall@yahoo.com; Eric Yould; Nick Goodman; spadula@longviewassociates.com Subject: NEW DATE - Invitation to Chakachamna Process Discussion Enclosed is the invitation notice with the new date of April 10, 2009 for this meeting and once again, we would appreciate your RSVP. Spring is here – it says so on the calendar! Max Blake Executive Assistant TDX Power, Inc. 4300 B Street, Ste 402 Anchorage, AK 99503 907‐762‐8467 (direct) 907‐382‐9888 (cell) 907‐278‐2332 (fax) 1 DATE: 12 March, 2009 TO: Chakachamna Stakeholders FROM: Eric Yould SUBJECT: March 31, 2009 April 10, 2009 Meeting to Discuss Selection of FERC Licensing Process for the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (note new date) On January 12, 2009, TDX Power (TDX) wrote to you to solicit your input on TDX’s proposed use of the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) for obtaining an original license for the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660) (Project). TDX proposed the TLP because it believes this process provides the necessary flexibility to meet the challenging information development demands of a new large development while also giving TDX the best opportunity to meet the critical time requirements for bringing this new energy resource on line. TDX also acknowledged the concerns expressed by agencies and other interested parties regarding the need for adequate opportunities to be involved in study design and information review and committed itself to going beyond the basic TLP requirements to ensure effective communications over the course of pre-filing consultation. On February 26, 2009, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) communicated its opposition to the use of the TLP for the Project, while also expressing concern with the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP), which is the default licensing process. The communication appears to be a request for TDX to use, instead, the Alternative Licensing Process (ALP). Based on comments heard at the February 19 Conceptual Study Planning meeting it appears that others may have continuing questions or concerns with regard to which process TDX will use for the Project. As you may recall, at the public meeting held on November 13, 2008, where process questions were discussed, TDX communicated the results of its assessment of the three licensing process options, including the ALP. TDX noted that this approach has some benefits, including built-in mechanisms for collaboration, and early FERC involvement (if requested). However significant disadvantages were noted as well--including the challenges of meeting rigorous schedule requirements and lack of incentive for timely action by all participants. In addition, we discussed some of the potential concerns that might develop due to the project proponent being responsible for NEPA scoping and preparation of the preliminary environmental review documents. Given the balance that TDX is attempting to strike between meeting FERC deadlines; investor desires for delivering firm power; and agencies’ expectations for sufficient 3/20/2009 Page 2 environmental data and studies, TDX continues to believe that the ALP is not the best process fit for this Project. Given NMFS’s concerns, as well as the feedback heard at the February 19, 2009 meeting, TDX believes it would be useful to meet at the earliest opportunity to further discuss the questions and concerns that exist with regard to the licensing process to be utilized for the Project. TDX is especially interested in hearing stakeholder’s specific concerns with the TLP, so TDX can consider how they might be addressed in ways that those with continuing concerns to support TDX in this process choice. TDX is also re-evaluating the ILP and assessing how this process can be made to work should agreement on use of a modified TLP be unattainable. Based on feedback regarding availability, the follow up meeting on licensing process options is scheduled on April 10, 2009, from 1:30 – 4:00 pm. (note: due to a request from NMFS to reschedule, we have indicated a new date and time for this meeting) The meeting will be at the Coast International Inn (3450 Aviation Avenue, Anchorage). Please RSVP to Maxine Blake at your earliest convenience ( mblake@tdxpower.com ). We will also have a conference phone available for those unable to travel. Thank you for your continued interest in the Chakachamna Project. Attachments: 1-12-09 TDX Letter to stakeholders RE: Proposed Use of TLP 11-13-08 Presentation on proposed FERC process 1 January 12, 2009 «First_name» «Last_name» «Title» «Organization» «Division» «Address» «Address2» «City», «State» «Zip» RE: Chakachamna Project, FERC No. 12660 Support for Use of Traditional Licensing Process On November 13, 2008 TDX Power (TDX) hosted an informational meeting with the public, resource agencies, and non-governmental organizations to discuss the status of the proposed Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660) (“Project”). The objectives of the meeting were to 1) acquaint stakeholders with the licensing team that TDX Power has assembled; 2) provide an overview of the Railbelt’s need for the Project’s power; 3) describe the proposed Project; 4) review key questions and information needs; and 5) propose a licensing approach that meets the needs of the Project proponent and the stakeholders. Copies of the presentations, as well as a meeting summary can be found at www.chakchachamna- hydro.com/documents. At the meeting a presentation was made regarding the available FERC licensing processes and TDX’s desire and rationale for utilizing an enhanced traditional licensing process (TLP) for the Chakachamna licensing effort. TDX was encouraged by what it perceived as general agreement among those at the meeting that the TLP appears to provide the desired flexibility for the unique challenges of licensing the Project. TDX is continuing with its preparations for initiating the formal licensing phase of the Project. TDX anticipates filing its Notice of Intent (NOI), Pre-Application Document (PAD) and request to utilize the TLP with FERC in April 2009. When making its request to use the TLP, TDX must provide FERC with justification for its request, along with any written comments it has received on the request. As part of its request TDX must address the following considerations: - Likelihood of timely license issuance, - Complexity of the resource issues, - Level of anticipated controversy, - Relative cost of the traditional process compared to the integrated process, 2 - The amount of available information and potential for significant disputes over studies, and, - Other factors believed by the applicant to be pertinent. TDX believes that the TLP is the most appropriate approach for licensing the Project for the following reasons: Likelihood of timely license issuance The Project will require an extensive study program to collect the information necessary to address potential effects of construction and operation. TDX plans to initiate field studies in 2009, based on informal consultation with resource agencies and other interested stakeholders. The formal study planning elements of the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) would consume a year to achieve an approved study plan and would not accommodate this early initiation of studies. TDX has consulted with the resource agencies and believes that it will be a more effective approach to build upon the 2009 study results and continue with the formal study program in 2010 using the TLP. Complexity of the resource issues TDX believes, and resource agency personnel have advised, that gaining an understanding of the potential Project effects on hydrology in the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers and downstream in the Noatka Slough and other wetland areas will be a complex undertaking. It is anticipated that several years of pre-construction monitoring will be required to establish an adequate baseline against which to compare post-construction effects and to support future adaptive management decisions. The available time under the ILP, which allows for no more than two years of field study prior to preparation of a draft application or preliminary licensing proposal, is inadequate to accommodate the type of field study program that will be required to understand potential Project effects on hydrology and related resources. Level of anticipated controversy The anticipated level of controversy regarding this project is unknown. However, developing a solid base of information to evaluate potential Project effects will go a long way towards minimizing controversy, allowing the evaluation of effects and identification of appropriate impact avoidance and mitigation actions to be made in a non-confrontational manner. The ILP does not provide the flexibility for TDX to work with resource agencies and other stakeholders to develop information needed to support the evaluation of a new project of this size. Relative cost of the traditional process compared to the integrated process TDX anticipates that its costs may be somewhat less utilizing the TLP versus the ILP due to the additional flexibility allowed by the TLP. We also anticipate that the costs to the resource agencies and other stakeholders will be lower utilizing the TLP as it is significantly less front end loaded in terms of required activity and participation. 3 The amount of available information and potential for significant disputes over studies There is some existing resource information, particularly with regard to fisheries resources, from studies done in the early 1980s. However, significant additional information will need to be developed regarding the fisheries resources of the area as well as potential Project effects on the hydrology of the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers and related slough and wetland areas. TDX anticipates a significant multi-year field program will be required to generate adequate baseline information to support the resource impact analysis for this Project. The potential for disputes over studies will be lower utilizing the TLP versus the ILP because TDX will undertake a significant informal study program in 2009 and utilize the knowledge gained from that effort to develop the formal study program (to be designed with agency and stakeholder input and initiated in 2010). Other factors believed by the applicant to be pertinent Based on its consultation to date with resource agencies and other stakeholders, TDX believes that there is significant concern with using the ILP for this Project. With limited staff resources and competing priorities of other large development projects in the next several years, agencies have expressed concern with their ability to meet all of the substantive and procedural requirements of the ILP within the FERC proscribed time constraints,. The TLP on the other hand provides more flexibility that TDX, the agencies and other stakeholders can use to provide for effective participation in the pre-application activity while taking into consideration limited staff resources. TDX would appreciate receiving a written response from your organization presenting your perspective on the use of the TLP versus the ILP for the licensing of the Project. The response need not be extensive. However, we would appreciate your thoughts on the factors listed above to the extent possible. Any written responses we receive prior to March 31, 2009 will be included in TDX’s filing requesting authorization to use the TLP for the Project. As noted above, TDX will formally make the request to FERC together with filing the PAD and NOI; at that time FERC will issue a notice seeking comment on the PAD and the appropriateness of using a TLP for this Project. We appreciate your continued interest in the Chakachamna Project. If there are any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me at eyould@tdxpower.com or (907) 242-0487. Sincerely, Eric Yould Program Director TDX Power 4 Cc: Ann Rappaport, US Department of Agriculture Ann Wilde, Alaska Regulatory Commission Bob Dach, US Department of Interior Bob Shavelson, Cook Inlet Keeper Cassie Thomas, US National Park Service Charles Ahlrichs, MWH Americas Inc" Chuck Akers, Tyonek Corporation, AK Division Cynthia Bohn, US Department of Interior Douglas Mutter, US Department of Interior Gary Prokosh, Alaska Department of Natural Resources Gary Williams, Kenai Peninsula Borough Jan Konigsberg, Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition Jim Ferguson, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Joe Balash, Office of the Governor John McClellan, Tyonek Native Corporation Johni Blankenship, County of Kenai Peninsula Kenneth Lord, US Department of Interior Mike O'Meara, Cook Inlet Keeper Page Spencer, US National Park Service Philip Brna, US Fish and Wildlife Service Sue Walker, NOAA/ National Marine Fisheries Service Thomas Meyer, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service Toby Smith, Alaska Center for the Environment Tom Melius, US Department of Agriculture LicensingPreliminary Permit StatusApproach to LicensingProposed Licensing Process©2008 by TDX Power Preliminary Permit Status and Activities©2008 by TDX PowerT~ o T~ • <> 3Current Preliminary Permit• Preliminary permit application submitted on 3/10/06• FERC Issued Preliminary Permit on 11/14/06• Expiration in 11/09©2008 by TDX Power 4Activities to Date• Consultation/briefings– Resource agencies– Environmental community– Utilities/consumer groups– Congressional delegation– FERC©2008 by TDX Power 5Activities to Date• Preliminary studies and analyses– Engineering due diligence– Environmental reconnaissance– Issue identification for scoping– Mitigation options– Land status– Market and rate analysis©2008 by TDX Power Selection of a Licensing Approach©2008 by TDX PowerT~ o T~ • <> 7TDX Approach• Deliberate, stepwise approach– A major commitment of resources– Large, expensive complex project– Unique geotechnical, environmental, logistical and financial challenges©2008 by TDX Power 8TDX Approach• Aggressively seek early and continued stakeholder involvement– Issue identification– Study plan development– Mitigation strategy– Settlement process– Post licensing monitoring©2008 by TDX Power 9TDX Approach• Aggressively seek early and continued stakeholder involvement– Resource work groups– Web site (www.chakachamna-hydro.com)– FTP site©2008 by TDX Power 10TDX Approach• Emphasis on an Alaskan solution– Schedule flexibility– Post licensing refinements– Adaptive management approach“Things are different in Alaska”©2008 by TDX Power Available approaches to licensing http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower.aspIntegrated Licensing Process (ILP)FERC’s current “default process,” designed for timely completionAlternative Licensing Process (ALP)Designed to improve communication with stakeholdersTraditional Licensing ProcessFERC’s original three step process©2008 by TDX Power Advantages of the ILP• Early FERC involvement• Study dispute resolution process clear, final and early• Established time frames shorten process• FERC’s preferred process©2008 by TDX Power 13Challenges of the ILP• Designed with re-licensing in mind• Very tight schedules, can be a burden for applicant and stakeholders• Not a good fit for major new projects with complex issues©2008 by TDX Power Advantages of the ALP• Early FERC involvement if requested• Emphasis on collaborative approach• NEPA format©2008 by TDX Power Challenges of the ALP• Few internal deadlines, few incentives for timely action by stakeholders• Settlements rarely reached within established FERC time lines• NEPA format• Requires stakeholder support to obtain FERC approval©2008 by TDX Power 16Advantages of the TLP• Better opportunity to engage with stakeholders• Better accommodates extension of study programs beyond ILP time, as necessary• More flexibility to address changing circumstances• Higher likelihood of achieving an Alaskan Solution ©2008 by TDX Power Challenges of the TLP• Three stage process can be seen as cumbersome• Early FERC involvement not a given• Requires stakeholder support to obtain FERC approval©2008 by TDX Power Best fit for TDX Power• Enanced TLP with early FERC involvement• Emphasis on extensive stakeholder involvement• Continue staged approach to resource studies• Use 2008 – 2009 results to refine study program• Work to achieve settlement agreements with stakeholders• Commitment to post licensing and operational studies as appropriate©2008 by TDX Power Implications for Schedule• Application will not be ready when current Preliminary Permit expires• Will have to file for new Preliminary Permit• Meets TDX philosophy of deliberate development of this major resource©2008 by TDX Power FERC’s Feedback • Met with FERC in mid-October• Open to use of approach other than the ILP• Will require stakeholder buy-in for use of an alternative to the ILP©2008 by TDX Power 21TDX will be requesting support from stakeholders• Staged approach to study programs– 2008 - field reconnaissance– 2009 - substantial field studies– 2009 – initiate formal licensing process– 2009 - development of formal study programs– 2010 – formal study programs underway• 2009 application for 2nd Preliminary Permit• Use of Traditional Licensing Process ©2008 by TDX Power From: Ferguson, Jim M (DFG) [mailto:jim.ferguson@alaska.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:35 PM To: Finlay Anderson Subject: RE: NEW DATE - Invitation to Chakachamna Process Discussion Hi Finlay: I haven’t heard from anyone yet, but I assume so. Plan on having five of us total. I’ll let you know if anything changes. I have one request for you: Could you please provide a summary at the meeting, showing just how a “modified” TLP differs from a traditional TLP (now that’s rather redundant, isn’t it?). Things such as timeline, deadlines, responsibilities and authorities in the study plan development and approval process, FERC and stakeholder involvement at different stages, who does the EA, NEPA process timing, etc. That would be extremely helpful. I went back through my voluminous Cooper files, and couldn’t find such a summary. I know what we actually did, but not having been through a TLP prior to that project, I had nothing with which to compare it. Thanks, Jim _____________________________ Jim Ferguson, PhD Statewide Hydropower Coordinator Alaska Department of Fish and Game Sport Fish Division ‐ RTS 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518‐1565 907‐267‐2312 Fax: 267‐2422 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ><{{{(°> From: Ferguson, Jim M (DFG) [mailto:jim.ferguson@alaska.gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 1:37 PM To: james.brady@hdrinc.com; necosjwm@aol.com Cc: McCracken, Betsy W (DFG); susan.walker@noaa.gov; Finlay Anderson; robin.beebee@hdrinc.com; phil_brna@fws.gov; Carey, Bryan E (AIDEA); curtis.jennifer@epa.gov; Daigneault, Michael J (DFG); Anne.legget@hdrinc.com; pmclarno@hdrinc.com; Houk, Scott D (DNR); saraellen@akcenter.org; Keen, James A (RCA); Kemplen, Allen (DOT); Klein, Kim J (DFG); gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us; Page_Spencer@nps.gov; timkayaks@hotmail.com; Lee, Adele R (DNR); ken.lord@sol.doi.gov; frances_mann@fws.gov; dfmeyer@usgs.gov; Mouw, Jason E B (DFG); jmcclellan@tyonek.com; north.phil@epa.gov; Ott, Douglas C (AIDEA); Rutz, David S (DFG); Steve Padula; gilbert.l.phillips@poa02.usace.army.mil; Donna.robertson@hdrinc.com; toby@akcenter.org; cassie_thomas@nps.gov; jthrall@yahoo.com; Walton, Michael L (DNR); Bettis, Patricia K (DNR); Weiss, Edward W (DFG); chay@alaska.com; tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov; hydro@gci.net; Prokosch, Gary J (DNR); Cappiello, Thomas A (DFG); douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov; Burwen, Debby L (DFG); Ivey, Samuel S (DFG); Hasbrouck, James J (DFG); Vania, Tom D (DFG); Erickson, Jack W (DFG); Klein, Joseph P (DFG); kate@akvoice.org; Tom Papsidero; Clark, Robert A (DFG); eyould@starband.net Subject: RE: ADF&G comments on 2-15 draft study plans for Chakachamna hydroelectric project, FERC #12660 John and James: Attached is a slightly modified version of our comments that were submitted on March 6 (see below). We made a small change to the second paragraph on page 2, to correct an error that resulted from a text mix-up between different drafts. Please consider this updated version as our official comments. Thanks, Jim _____________________________ Jim Ferguson, PhD Statewide Hydropower Coordinator Alaska Department of Fish and Game Sport Fish Division ‐ RTS 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518‐1565 907‐267‐2312 Fax: 267‐2422 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ><{{{(°> From: Ferguson, Jim M (DFG) Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 10:44 AM To: james.brady@hdrinc.com; John Morsell (necosjwm@aol.com) Cc: McCracken, Betsy W (DFG); susan.walker@noaa.gov; fanderson@longviewassociates.com; robin.beebee@hdrinc.com; phil_brna@fws.gov; Carey, Bryan E (AIDEA); curtis.jennifer@epa.gov; Daigneault, Michael J (DFG); Anne.legget@hdrinc.com; pmclarno@hdrinc.com; Houk, Scott D (DNR); saraellen@akcenter.org; Keen, James A (RCA); Kemplen, Allen (DOT); Klein, Kim J (DFG); gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us; Page_Spencer@nps.gov; timkayaks@hotmail.com; Lee, Adele R (DNR); ken.lord@sol.doi.gov; frances_mann@fws.gov; dfmeyer@usgs.gov; Mouw, Jason E B (DFG); jmcclellan@tyonek.com; north.phil@epa.gov; Ott, Douglas C (AIDEA); Rutz, David S (DFG); spadula@longviewassociates.com; gilbert.l.phillips@poa02.usace.army.mil; Donna.robertson@hdrinc.com; toby@akcenter.org; cassie_thomas@nps.gov; jthrall@yahoo.com; Walton, Michael L (DNR); Bettis, Patricia K (DNR); Weiss, Edward W (DFG); chay@alaska.com; tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov; hydro@gci.net; Prokosch, Gary J (DNR); Cappiello, Thomas A (DFG); douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov; Burwen, Debby L (DFG); Ivey, Samuel S (DFG); Hasbrouck, James J (DFG); Vania, Tom D (DFG); Erickson, Jack W (DFG); Klein, Joseph P (DFG); kate@akvoice.org; Tom Papsidero Subject: ADF&G comments on 2-15 draft study plans for Chakachamna hydroelectric project, FERC #12660 John and James: Attached are comments on the draft conceptual study plan (2-15-09) for the Chakachamna hydroelectric project. Obviously, there will be a number of people, including a number of ADF&G staff, involved in discussing the specifics of the study plans. If you have questions between now and the release of the next draft, please contact me and I will either respond directly to you or put you in touch with a specialist who can answer your question. Regards, Jim _____________________________ Jim Ferguson, PhD Statewide Hydropower Coordinator Alaska Department of Fish and Game Sport Fish Division ‐ RTS 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518‐1565 907‐267‐2312 Fax: 267‐2422 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ><{{{(°> March 31, 2009 To: John Morsell and James Brady: From: Jim Ferguson, Statewide Hydropower Coordinator, Alaska Department of Fish& Game Re: Draft Conceptual Study Plan, Chakachamna hydroelectric project, FERC #12660 Updated version The Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) offers the following preliminary comments on the Draft Conceptual Study Plan (revised February 15, 2009) for the Chakachamna hydropower project. Our comments touch on certain areas of the plan and, as such, do not constitute a thorough review of every aspect of the plans. Nor should our comments be construed as covering all of the topics that will need to be addressed over the next several years. ADF&G and, I’m sure, TDX and its consultants, are aware that this first season’s work includes only part of the studies that are required, and that a much more comprehensive and formal process will occur when and if the NOI/PAD is issued. The 2009 study plan is a good effort at beginning some baseline data collection for some specific issues and in some specific areas, but does not represent the scope of the information needed to address the concerns surrounding this project. For example, the 2009 study plan does not address waterbird use of the Chakachatna floodplain, potential impacts to terrestrial wildlife, or species-specific impacts to fish other than sockeye and lake trout. The project proponents should remain willing to expand or redirect future research in order to answer critical questions regarding the impacts of the project. Two critical (albeit broad) questions are: how will the project impact the fish community, especially populations and distribution of anadromous fish, throughout the Chakachatna and McArthur watersheds, and how will the project affect the wetland habitat and bird populations of Trading Bay State Game Refuge (TBSGR). That being said, we offer the following comments, which were provided by the ADF&G Divisions of Sport Fish, Habitat, and Wildlife Conservation: Section 2, Surface and Groundwater Hydrology: ADF&G requires that sufficient seasonal stream flow be maintained in all waterbodies supporting river and floodplain species. Sufficient flows are needed to support seasonal uses of main channel and floodplain water bodies (e.g. spring channels and ponds) and the continuation of fluvial processes that maintain river and floodplain habitats. Alterations to flow magnitudes and timing can reduce access to aquatic habitats and the availability of food and interfere with the maintenance of riparian habitat. In order to identify characteristics of the natural flow regime that are important to fish and wildlife species and the maintenance of habitat, continuous flow data are needed. When locating 2 gages, we request that you consult ADF&G. The number and locations of gages must be reviewed to ensure that the hydrology of the river and floodplain wetlands is adequately characterized. Because seasonal and inter-annual variability in stream flow is often high, we recommend that as many years of continuous flow data as practicable be collected from index gages. Ideally, a minimum of 10 years of continuous flow records are desired. Summaries of daily and monthly mean stream flows and estimates of flow duration are needed to assess characteristics of the flow regime and instream flow needs for river and floodplain species. This analysis provides information similar to that needed for your water right permit. To maintain seasonal uses of river and floodplain habitats by each of the life history stages and strategies of species, we recommend maintaining a flow regime that mimics the magnitude and timing of the natural flow regime. This approach is necessary to meet the needs of species’ life history stages that have coevolved and exhibit biological adaptations to the river’s flow regime. Reductions in flow below natural levels, and changes in the natural timing of flows subject river and floodplain species to conditions that are increasingly uncommon. Instream flow studies are needed to assess how reductions below these natural flow conditions will alter habitat dynamics and to evaluate various water resources development scenarios and project alternatives. In addition to the flows needed to sustain seasonal uses of habitat by river and floodplain species, higher flows are periodically needed to maintain the river’s channel and the full range of aquatic and riparian habitats in the floodplain. This flow equates to the bankfull discharge, which has a return interval of 1.0 in a partial duration flood series. The timing and duration of this event is calculated from the instantaneous data archive from stream gages that are representative of the applicable stream reach. Refinements to these criteria depend on the length of hydrologic record. We encourage your consultant to contact our office for assistance when evaluating hydrologic data needs, as well as determining which method or methods would best be suited for estimating instream flow requirements. The following four issues are of concern to us, are directly related to fish and wildlife concerns and potential impacts, and will need to be studied and addressed in the design of the project: 1. The stage of Chakachamna Lake fluctuates approximately 15 feet on an annual basis with the annual minima occurring in spring. The proposal is to regulate this natural pattern of fluctuation by imposing an artificial reduction of approximately 60 feet below the annual maxima of the unregulated regime1. This is approximately 45 feet below the annual minimum stage, which means that outflow from the lake into the Chakachatna River should cease on a seasonal basis without artificial mechanisms in place. This also means that there potentially will be significant periods of the year in which there will be no passage for fish in and out of Lake Chakachamna. Furthermore, the lake would need to regain 45’ of head from late winter/early spring to the beginning of June in order to initiate significant outflow from the lake by June when adult Sockeye begin to return. Given the fact that flows were historically at their seasonal low in late April/early May, there is concern that the lake will fill quickly enough to provide adequate passage for adult salmon into the lake. At the February 19 meeting, it was suggested that the proponents are assuming that adult salmon, particularly sockeye, will migrate into the 1 According to John Morsell, TDX fisheries consultant 3 lake via the existing natural stream channel. While it is possible that such passage could occur in some years, to state that it should be possible every year is an unrealistic assumption. 2. The project proponents have state that, in order for the proposed Chakachamna hydropower project to be economically feasible, approximately 80% of the total annual runoff in the Chakachatna River below the lake would need to be transferred to the adjacent McArthur River basin through a tunnel to a powerhouse, for power production2. Assuming that 80% of the annual runoff is diverted, that percentage equates to 770,771,040 acre-feet per year3. The remaining 20%, or 192,692,579 acre-feet per year, would be discharged into the Chakachatna River. This figure equates to an average of 729 cfs available for each day of the year. Given the fact that there will be periods in winter where there will likely be no outflow from the lake, releases of greater than 729 cfs will likely occur in summer. Obviously, the exact figures will depend upon how the system is regulated. To put things in perspective, 729 cfs, historically, was an average flow condition under the ice in late December. The average minimum (lowest recorded flows) flows during the summer high flow season (July-August) were ~7,500 cfs and the average flows were ~12,000 cfs during this same time period. It cannot be expected that flows lower than the lowest recorded flows will sustain channel function and the aquatic resources of the Chakachatna River floodplain. Even if outflows cease for 4 months in winter, only ~1,100 cfs would be available on a daily basis in the remaining 8 months. Obviously, more detailed studies will be done of instream flows in the Chakachatna River. We provided the above analysis as an example of concerns that we have for project-related reductions in flows. 3. The inter-basin transfer of water from Chakachamna Lake to the McArthur River basin will affect two important conditions in the McArthur River: winter base-flow conditions and summer flood conditions. It is assumed that all of the diverted water will be discharged into the channel of the McArthur River in winter, when power demands are at their highest. During winter, the channel of the McArthur will be well under full capacity and, so, may be able to convey much of the transferred water without consequences to channel morphology. However, biota that are in the river during winter periods have adapted to stable base flow regimes. Flow fluctuations that are typical of hydropower project release schedules could have adverse affects to incubating fish eggs and rearing juveniles. In summer, releases from inter-basin transfer of Chakachamna Lake water during peak flows could exacerbate flooding in the McArthur River to an unknown extent. If these increases in flow are significant enough, it is possible that the channel of the McArthur River may not be able to accommodate such increases which would cause significant erosion of active river channels and the invasion and transformation of spring habitats supported by the McArthur River. 4. We are concerned that the inter-basin transfer of water from Chakachamna Lake into the McArthur River will lead to false attraction of Chakachatna River salmon populations to the McArthur River. In most hydropower projects where false attraction is an issue, the power house is located on the system from which the water is withdrawn and diverted. This leads to false and sometimes only temporary attraction to the powerhouse tailrace discharge, causing confusion to adults migrating upstream to spawn. Such delays have 2 According to Eric Yould, TDX project consultant 3 Based on USGS gage #15294500 (1959-1972) 4 been demonstrated to reduce the efficiency and success of spawning within impacted populations. In the case of the proposed project, the powerhouse would be located in an entirely different river basin. In this case, false attraction would not merely confuse fish in route to spawning grounds. It is expected that they would be diverted entirely. It would not be expected that these flows would function to provide the same spawning conditions that currently exist in the Chakachatna River watershed and its floodplain. Section 3, Fisheries: ADF&G strongly recommends that the 2009 field season include a survey of both the Chakachatna (including lake tributaries) and McArthur River watersheds for geomorphic channel types, and that a map displaying these classifications be produced. Future studies should refine this work, and include habitat surveys, utilizing the U.S. Forest Service Region 10 Aquatic Habitat Management Handbook (FSH 2090.21). The proposed Chakachamna Lake Hydro-electric project area encompasses the watersheds of both the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers. The Chakachatna River drainage is flow-regulated by glacier melt and two large lakes. Complex processes of this watershed are similar to those exhibited in the highly productive and highly valued Kenai River watershed. It is interesting to consider that the Kenai River salmon escapement per unit channel length is between two and ten times that found for rain-and-snowmelt dominated rivers and glacier-fed rivers lacking lake regulation (Dorava and Milner, 2000). Lakes influence biological processes in glacier-fed rivers by attenuating peak flows, sustaining high flows through the summer, supplementing winter low flows, settling suspended sediment and increasing river temperatures. Glacial effects, Hydrology and Flow Regimes Glacier-fed rivers generally have greater daily and seasonal variations in flow than rain- dominated or snowmelt dominated rivers. When glacier-fed rivers flow through large lakes, the hydrologic pattern is substantially modified. Lakes supplement winter low-flows, and dampen or attenuate peak flows. This lake-modified hydrological pattern potentially enhances salmon productivity by providing additional access to spawning salmon through extended high summer flows and by supplementing low-flows in the winter, when juvenile salmon are rearing and eggs are incubating. The project study program needs to answer the following questions: How will the fish passage and flow diversion design criteria affect access to spawning, rearing and incubating salmonid habitats in the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers? How will important life history events such as rearing, residency, spawning and ocean recruitment be temporally and spatially impacted as a result? 5 Sediment Transport Sediment transport is highly regulated on glacier-fed rivers where lakes occur, and contributes to the overall productivity of the watershed. Lake regulation serves to decrease turbidity and increase light penetration, allowing fish more effective feeding. Glacier-fed streams typically have coarser substrate, which provides better oxygen flow and nutrient transport to spawning areas. Coarser substrates also increases available habitat in the upstream reaches for fish food, particularly primary producers. Macroinvertebrates assemblages tend to be more diverse and abundant in glacier-fed rivers downstream of lakes, presumably due to increased water temperature and channel geomorphic stability typical of these reaches (Milner and Petts, 1994). Under the existing Bechtol Engineering design to divert water from Chakachamna Lake to the McArthur River, alteration of lake sediment transport to both the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers will likely occur. The project will need to be designed to address these potential impacts related to sediment transport and loss of primary production. Volcanic eruption magnitude of floods There are four volcanoes located in Cook Inlet basin. They are Mt. Spur, Redoubt, Iliamna, and Augustine. Mount Redoubt is currently active and rumbling. Mount Spur last erupted in 1992. Volcanic eruptions can significantly alter peak discharges from affected watersheds (Brabets et al., 1999). Project fish passage design features should demonstrate consideration for relative increases in flow magnitude due to natural flood events, including earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Lake Rearing and Aquatic Over-Winter Habitat The lake complex associated with the Chakachamna watershed provides rearing and overwintering habitat. The lake-regulated river also likely sustains usable habitat within the Chakachamna River during winter low flows. Additional draw down to the river system during the critical overwintering time-frame, has the potential to severely impact rearing fish and incubating eggs. Resident Fish Dolly Varden The population(s) of overwintering Dolly Varden the Chakachamna Lake system may potentially represent those from other drainages. The lake itself may serve as the wintering habitat for Dolly Varden populations of not only the Chakachamna drainage, but of surrounding drainages as well (Morrow, 1980). Studies should be developed to understand the overwintering population(s) of Dolly Varden utilizing the Chakachatna River and Chakachamna Lake system. 6 Rainbow trout Once hatched, resident rainbows do not migrate very far. They may rear and spend the entirety of their lives a short distance from where they were hatched (Morrow, 1980; Bob Clark, ADF&G Fisheries Scientist, personal communciation). Studies that identify rearing locations of rainbow trout may help identify location and physical parameters of rainbow trout spawning habitat. . Lamprey and non-game aquatic species (Document attached, submitted previously via email to Eric Yould, January 23, 2009). References Brabets, Timothy P., Gordon L. Nelson, Joseph M. Dorava, and Alexander M. Milner. U.S. Geological Survey. 1999. Water-quality Assesssment of the Cook Inlet basin, Alaska- Environmental Setting. Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4025. National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Dorava, Joseph M. and Alexander M. Milner. 2000. Role of lake regulation on glacier-fed rivers in enhancing salmon productivity: the Cook Inlet watershed, southcentral Alaska, USA. Hydrological Processes 14, 3149-3159. Milner A. M. and G. E. Petts. 1994. Glacial rivers: physical habitat and ecology. Freshwater Biology 32: 295-308 Morrow, James E. 1980. The Freshwater Fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publishing Company. Box 4_EEE, Anchorage, Alaska 99509 The following comments were transmitted to Eric Yould, consultant to TDX Power, on January 23, 2009, from Betsy McCracken. They are reproduced here to allow recipients of ADF&G’s comments to see them, in case they have not already: Hi Eric, As follow up to a phone conversation with John Morsell (November 18, 2008), and in response to TDX Power and Northern Ecological Services request for stakeholder input on studies necessary to identify potential impacts to fish and wildlife from the proposed Chakachamna hydro-electric project, I am submitting information pertaining to aquatic non-game species of concern*, identified in Alaska’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2006). The CWCS identifies the habitats of the species, threats to and actions needed to protect the viability of these habitats. It specifically identifies 7 altered stream flows and restricted passages as significant challenges in maintaining the states fish and wildlife diversity and abundance. Species addressed within the context of this correspondence are some of those identified in the CWCS as being of greatest conservation need in Alaska. The CWCS is the department’s official policy to protect these species and their habitats. For the complete list of the State’s species of concern, please refer to http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/ngplan/ In addition to this correspondence, further input from the ADF&G will be submitted through the FERC review process. Non-Game Species Freshwater Fish I reviewed the Chakachamna Hydro-electric project Summary of Fish Passage Design Concepts and Preliminary Results of FY 1982-1983 Fish Studies conducted by Bechtel and Woodard and Clyde (December 1982) for the Alaska Power Authority. This report indicates that minnow trap and fyke net sampling during August, September and October 1982 was conducted throughout the project footprint. The reported trapping efforts captured the following species; Minnow trapping: Along with salmonid species (coho, sockeye, Chinook, pinks, chum, rainbow trout, Dolly varden), the following non-game species of concern*/resident species were documented to be caught in during minnow trapping within the project area: Three-spine stickleback* (In particular the Cook Inlet radiation) Nine-spine stickleback* (In particular the Cook Inlet radiation) Slimy sculpin* Pygmy whitefish* Lake trout Fyke netting: Along with salmonid species (Dolly varden, coho, pinks, chum, sockeye, Chinook, rainbow trout), the following non-game species of concern*/resident species were documented to be caught during fyke netting within the project area. Round whitefish Pygmy whitefish* Bering cisco* Longfin smelt* Slimy sculpin* Three-spine stickleback* Eulachon* In addition to those non-game species listed above, lamprey* species have been widely documented throughout Alaska’s waters. Five species of lamprey are known to inhabit Alaska’s waters, including both anadromous, and non-anadromous forms. Although lamprey are not reported to have been captured during the 1982 fish studies conducted in the project area, lamprey occurrence has been widely documented in the Cook Inlet area. Most recently, lamprey 8 juveniles were captured on video during the Chuitna River Freshwater Fish Studies (LGL, 2008). Given what is known about lamprey occurrence, it seems likely that lamprey also inhabit the waters of the proposed Chakachamna Hydro-electric project area. It may also be likely that the use of minnow traps and fyke nets in the 1982 studies, selected against the capture of lamprey species, if present. Typical gear used to target ammoceotes, for example, include electro-fishers using standardized sampling protocols (Steves et. al. 2003). Screw traps, weirs, lamprey pots and video cameras have proven effective for capture and documentation of juvenile and adult migrants. Additionally, due to the complex life cycle of lamprey, seasonal temporal sampling is critical to their capture. The timing of sampling conducted during the 1982 fish studies (August, September and October) may have missed returning anadromous species runs that conceivable would occur during the spring/summer. Fall immigrating macropthalmia may also have been eluded due to gear selectivity of minnow traps or fyke net mesh size and/or sampling timing. Subsurface lamprey ammocoetes would not be detected using minnow traps or fyke nets during any time. Ecological, Economic and Cultural Significance The ecological significance of lamprey as both prey and predator is broad and varied. Lamprey are important as a food source for numerous animals. Because they are high in fat content, concentrations of adult and larval lamprey make them an important and dependable food source for birds, fish and mammals, especially seals and sea lions. Coho fry and burbot are known to prey on lamprey ammocoetes. Adult returning Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) also function as a buffer to reduce predation on adult migrating salmon from seals and sea lions, as well as other predators. Similarly, Pacific lamprey is found in the diets of other fish and gulls, that otherwise might prey more heavily on young salmon. Similar to salmon, anadromous lamprey transport important marine-derived nutrients such as nitrogen to freshwater ecosystems. In Alaska Arctic lamprey provide subsistence and commercial fisheries on the Yukon River. The Department currently permits the harvest and sale of up to 40,000 pounds of lamprey from local fisherman in this area. Lamprey are also being sought after by foreign countries such as France, for medicinal exploration; and are served as a seasonal delicacy in Seattle as a northern Spain regional cuisine offering (Kwipak Fisheries, Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association). The size of lamprey runs in Alaska are unknown. Currently, most lamprey in the lower 48 are either extinct or protected due to large declines in populations from human impacts, including hydro-electric dams. If lamprey inhabit the waters associated with the Chakachamna hydro- electric project, it is critical that informational gaps related to their biological, ecology, and passage requirements be addressed to prevent further decline of lamprey populations. Lamprey Passage Considerations Lamprey have been documented to have specialized passage requirements. Successful lamprey migration relies on safe passage, including through hydro-electric structures. Some of these are outlined below for consideration during project development. 9 Temperature Effects Swimming speed of lamprey is positively related to temperature (range 5-15 degrees C). Maximum sustained swimming speed has been documented to decrease with a corresponding decrease in water temperature. Velocity Barriers Research confirms that the anguilliform (eel-like) mode of swimming is inefficient and that lampreys are poor swimmers when compared to teleosts (Stone, J., 2004).High velocities can be particularly restrictive to lamprey passage. Light Effects Both juvenile and adult lamprey are nocturnal. Some lamprey species also exhibit negative phototaxis. It is likely that both high light intensity and abrupt changes in lighting could affect lamprey movements. Role of Attachment (during passage/ migration) When confronted with rapid current velocities, adult Pacific lamprey use their suctorial disc to hold fast and rest between intervals of burst swimming. It is critical that lamprey are provided with adequate attachment surfaces in fishways where lamprey might encounter high current velocity. Lamprey Research Needs excerpted mostly from Stone, 2004: 1) Methodologies for juvenile lamprey species identification 2) Information on the mechanisms of migration initiation Several environmental cues dictate the timing of adult lamprey spawning migration. These include water temperature, discharge, photoperiod, and the presence of olfactory cues. To produce reliable adult abundance estimates continuous sampling throughout migration period may be needed. 3) The extent to which ammocoetes move upstream 4) Behavior of ammocoetes and macropthalmia in strong currents 5) The effects of lighting on lamprey behavior, and 6) The cues adult lamprey use to find spawning areas. 7) Instream/flow water volume needs for differing life history stages For reasons state above, and because lamprey are of specific concern, it is recommended that sampling be conducted for the presence/absence, distribution, and life stage occurrences (ammoceotes, juveniles, adults) of lamprey within the Chakachamna Hydro-electric project footprint and surrounding area of potential impact. Other non-game aquatic species of concern Prey Species Baseline documentation of prey species including those of whitefish, stickleback, and sculpin should occur to continue the period of record for these important species. For example, both Bering cisco (Coregonus laurettae) and pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulteri) are CWCS 10 species of conservation concern, and both are documented to occur in the project waters. Several sculpin species are also of conservation concern including the slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) also documented in the project waters. Three-spine (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and nine-spine stickleback (Pungitius pungitius) are also species of concern, with the Cook Inlet radiation of the three-spine stickleback of particular interest. Marine Forage Fish Baseline documentation of presence of marine forage fish species including, longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) and eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) is needed. Other non-game forage species of conservation concern including sand lance (Ammodytes hexapturus), should be documented where present to establish a period of record. Invertebrates Bivalves Baseline presence/absence, distribution and abundance data of bivalves is needed. Many bivalve species are CWCS species and are also considered to be indicator species. From my understanding of the project, there maybe intertidal or marine impacts from the Chakachamna hydro-electric project. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT) Stoneflies, mayflies and caddisflies are also CWCS species of concern. Baseline assessments of EPT species are essential to document and monitor water quality, as well as to establish relative availability of fish food. I am providing the references used to develop the above recommendations as supporting documentation. The references are as follows, ADF&G, 2006. Our Wealth Maintained: A Strategy for Conserving Alaska’s Diverse Wildlife and Fish Resources. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. xvii + 824 p. http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/ngplan/ Kwipak Fisheries, Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association. November 2007. http://www.kiyu.com/news1107_2.htm LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. Chuit River Freshwater Fish Studies, 2008. Progress update and data report, April 21 – July 23. Prepared for PacRim Coal, LP. August 6 2008. Moser, M. L., J. M. Butzerin, D. B. Dey. 2007. Capture and collection of lampreys: the state of the science. Rev Fish Biol. Fisheries (2007) 17:45-56 Stone, Jen. 2004. Passage Considerations for Pacific Lamprey, USFWS. Response to request for Lamprey culvert passage criteria (February 18, 2004). http://columbiariver.fws.gov/lamprey.htm Woodward and Clyde. December 1982. A Summary of Fish Passage Facility Design Concepts and Preliminary Results of FY 1982-1983 Fish Studies. Chakachamna Dam Hydro-electric Project. 11 Section 4, Wildlife: 1. A general comment is that there should ultimately be more work done on the projects effects on wildlife species downstream of the project in the Trading Bay State Game Refuge. A few pertinent information needs are effects on waterfowl and bird habitat within the refuge, effect on bears (there are some bear concentration areas that will be affected), effects of increased user access and hunting / fishing opportunities on refuge (there are a number of cabin users, commercial and recreational fishing uses on the TBSGR, McArthur and Chakachatna Rivers). Since this is just the initial year’s data gathering, we understand that not all of these issues will be addressed. However, we expect that these and other wildlife-related issues will be addressed in later years. We also would like more information on what project facilities and other features are proposed that lie within the boundaries of the TBSGR. 2. It might be prudent to do some reconnaissance work on waterfowl staging and nesting areas in the initial year so that work needs for future years could be assessed. 3. Regarding the waterbird nesting surveys: The field crew should be careful about how and where they mark nests during their study. The plan notes that they will be permanently marking the nest sites and then rechecking nests and opportunistically checking on fledgling success. A very important component of this approach is how and where they are marking the nests. Nest sites should not be marked in any visible manner in close proximity to the nest. Ravens, gulls, foxes and other predators key into these markers and predate the nests. Increased predation, in addition to the loss of the resource, will also taint any results of the study regarding fledgling success. There may be other specific standards that are used. However, what we have done in the past is to mark the nest with a flag set at a measured distance such as 50 feet a certain direction from the nest. (i.e. 50 ft. west of actual nest location). Ideally, with very accurate GPS one could avoid any marking. However, it is unlikely that the field crews will be utilizing the survey grade GPS that would be necessary to get this accuracy. ADF&G appreciates the opportunity to comment on these draft plans, and appreciates the outreach by and interaction with the project proponents over the past four to five months. We understand that a second draft of the 2009 study plans will be available in early April, with a second round of comments due in late April. From: Maxine Blake [mailto:mblake@tdxpower.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:18 PM To: betsy.mccracken@alaska.gov; susan.walker@noaa.gov; bday@homerelectric.com; jim.ferguson@alaska.gov; cakers@tyonek.com; Finlay Anderson; joe.balash@alaska.gov; robin.beebee@hdrinc.com; phil_brna@fws.gov; bcarey@aidea.org; curtis.jennifer@epa.gov; michael.daigneault@alaska.gov; kevin_dunham@chugachelectric.com; pmclarno@hdrinc.com; steveg@enxco.com; scott.houk@alaska.gov; saraellen@akcenter.org; james.keen@alaska.gov; allen.kemplen@alaska.gov; kim.klein@alaska.gov; gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us; Page_Spencer@nps.gov; timkayaks@hotmail.com; adele.lee@alaska.gov; Anne.legget@hdrinc.com; ken.lord@sol.doi.gov; frances_mann@fws.gov; jmcclellan@tyonek.com; dfmeyer@usgs.gov; jason.mouw@alaska.gov; north.phil@epa.gov; dott@aidea.org; Steve Padula; pmpark@gvea.com; gilbert.l.phillips@poa02.usace.army.mil; Donna.robertson@hdrinc.com; david.rutz@alaska.gov; toby@akcenter.org; cassie_thomas@nps.gov; jthrall@yahoo.com; jlwalker@matanuska.com; michael.walton@alaska.gov; rich.wilson@alaska.gov; Bzubeck@HomerElectric.com; patricia.bettis@alaska.gov; chay@alaska.com; ed.weiss@alaska.gov; hydro@gci.net; gary.prokosch@alaska.gov; thomas.cappiello@alaska.gov; dreiser@r2usa.com; tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov; lawrence.peltz@noaa.gov; keeper@inletkeeper.org; douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov; robert.dach@bia.gov; jblankenship@borough.kenai.ak.us; ann.wilde@alaska.gov; dpa@humbolt1.com; heather.r.williams@mwhglobal.com; sue.sander@wgint.com; chris_lausten@mcgraw-hill.com; Melinda.ODonnell@alaska.gov; noldog17@yahoo.com; john.dunker@alaska.gov; jtpietz@pcl.com; dan_young@nps.gov; debby.burwen@alaska.gov; samuel.ivey@alaska.gov; james.brady@hdrinc.com; mark_fouts@chugachelectric.com; mikeo@cosmichamlet.net; am@aquacoustics.com; gtquada@gci.net; sean.palmer@alaska.gov Cc: Eric Yould; Nick Goodman Subject: Detailed Draft Study Plan - Chakachmana As follow up to our Conceptual Study Plan Workshop on February 19, 2009 Hydroelectric Project, HDR Alaska has now completed a more detailed draft of the study plan for the 2009 Chakachamna Environmental Studies Program. The Detailed Study Plan (DSP) incorporates the comments and suggestions collected at our workshop or that were provided in writing following the workshop. We thank you for your helpful comments and suggestions. We are making this study plan and supporting appendices available for your review at our website: http://www.chakachamna‐ hydro.com/documents/2009%20Detailed%20Study%20Plan.pdf . We are not expecting that agencies and stakeholders will provide detailed comments on this document; however any additional comments or suggestions you do have would be welcome. HDR will be finalizing the DSP in mid‐May. Therefore, should you have additional comments and suggestions please provide them by April 30 2009 to: John Morsell Northern Ecological Services (360) 592‐4267 jmorsell@northernecological.com. James Brady HDR Alaska 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503‐2632 (907) 644‐2011 James.Brady@HDRinc.com If there are any questions please don’t hesitate to contact John Morsell or Eric Yould at eyould@tdxpower.com Finlay Anderson Long View Associates 4022 NE 8th Ave Portland, Oregon 97212 p: (503) 335‐5806 f: (503) 345‐3418 Materials referenced in the April 8, 2009 email (Detailed Study Plan) can be found on the Chakachamna Project website at http://www.chakachamna-hydro.com/documents. From: Finlay Anderson Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 12:01 AM To: Ferguson, Jim M (DFG) Cc: Chakachamna Distribution List; Steve Padula; Jim Thrall; Eric P. Yould Subject: RE: NEW DATE - Invitation to Chakachamna Process Discussion Hi Jim ‐‐ Attached for your advanced consideration are some thoughts about process enhancements relative to TLP. The full matrix that I think you are recalling that describes the differences between the processes (timeline, deadlines, responsibilities and authorities in the study plan development and approval process, FERC and stakeholder involvement at different stages, who does the EA, NEPA process timing,) can be found at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen‐info/licensing/matrix.asp The essence of the "modified" TLP is really the agreements that the stakeholders and developers may want to put in place to meet each other's respective needs for transparency and flexibility. At Cooper, and in other instances this was described in the Communications Protocol (which I have attached here after finally locating some old files of Karen's!). Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Look forward to talking on Friday. FMA From: Ferguson, Jim M (DFG) [mailto:jim.ferguson@alaska.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:35 PM To: Finlay Anderson Subject: RE: NEW DATE - Invitation to Chakachamna Process Discussion Hi Finlay: I haven’t heard from anyone yet, but I assume so. Plan on having five of us total. I’ll let you know if anything changes. I have one request for you: Could you please provide a summary at the meeting, showing just how a “modified” TLP differs from a traditional TLP (now that’s rather redundant, isn’t it?). Things such as timeline, deadlines, responsibilities and authorities in the study plan development and approval process, FERC and stakeholder involvement at different stages, who does the EA, NEPA process timing, etc. That would be extremely helpful. I went back through my voluminous Cooper files, and couldn’t find such a summary. I know what we actually did, but not having been through a TLP prior to that project, I had nothing with which to compare it. Thanks, Jim _____________________________ Jim Ferguson, PhD Statewide Hydropower Coordinator Alaska Department of Fish and Game Sport Fish Division ‐ RTS 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518‐1565 907‐267‐2312 Fax: 267‐2422 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ><{{{(°> Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project FERC Process Comparison and TDX Enhancements FERC Project No. 12660 Page 1 of 4 02/19/09 Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC 12660) Licensing Process Discussion April 10, 2009 Background FERC’s Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) regulations define very specific procedures and timelines. FERC designed the ILP, the current default licensing process, to be a transparent process that involves all interested parties, including tribes, agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the public. However, because the ILP has limitations in addressing a project that does not have an existing development to study, TDX believes the ILP would not be optimal for the Chakachamna Project. FERC does allow applicants the ability to solicit approval to utilize the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) or the Alternative Licensing Process (ALP). TDX anticipates requesting the TLP as the preferred licensing approach, which will include additional opportunities to involve all interested parties, as in an ILP. The request for stakeholder comment on the use of TLP for inclusion in TDX’s Preliminary Application Document (PAD) was intended to provide a strong rationale to FERC for the selection of this process, and to help TDX assess whether this is an approach that would work for this licensing process. Moreover, the request was intended to comply with 18 CFR 5.3(b) (Process Selection), which states: A potential license applicant may file with the Commission a request to use the traditional licensing process or alternative procedures pursuant to this Section with its notification of intent pursuant to § 5.5. (c)(1)(i) An application for authorization to use the traditional process must include justification for the request and any existing written comments on the potential applicant’s proposal and a response thereto. (ii) A potential applicant requesting authorization to use the traditional process should address the following considerations: (A) Likelihood of timely license issuance; (B) Complexity of the resource issues; (C) Level of anticipated controversy; (D) Relative cost of the traditional process compared to the integrated process; (E) The amount of available information and potential for significant disputes over studies; and (F) Other factors believed by the applicant to be pertinent (2) A potential applicant requesting the use of § 4.34(i) alternative procedures of this chapter must: (i) Demonstrate that a reasonable effort has been made to contact all agencies, Indian tribes, and others affected by the applicant’s request, and that a consensus exists that the use of alternative procedures is appropriate under the circumstances; (ii) Submit a communications protocol, supported by interested entities, governing how the applicant and other participants in the pre-filing consultation process, including the Commission staff, may communicate with each other regarding the merits Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project FERC Process Comparison and TDX Enhancements FERC Project No. 12660 Page 2 of 4 02/19/09 of the potential applicant’s proposal and proposals and recommendations of interested entities… Goals for Agency and Stakeholder Engagement In evaluating the available licensing processes, TDX recognized that no FERC licensing process is well suited to a large new project that doesn’t presently have any project features or operations to study; this is especially true of the ILP. TDX established the following goals for its licensing process for the Chakachamna Project: • There must be frank and open discussion with agencies and stakeholders for any licensing to proceed effectively. • Initiating early NEPA activities required by an ILP is not as important as real opportunities for participation and sharing of information; this need can be met with the TLP. • The consultation process should involve agencies and stakeholders in developing issues lists and in ranking priorities for analysis. • Agencies should be involved in the design of studies to ensure that they will produce the information needed to support the license application. • Quantitative information should be utilized wherever possible to assess impacts and alternatives. • The selected process should, to the extent possible, address identified concerns from agencies regarding resources necessary for effective participation in the licensing process. • A process that offers enhanced opportunities for participation and input, and sharing of information must have benefits for agencies and participants, while also meeting the needs of TDX. The selected licensing process should provide the opportunity to pursue a pre-filing negotiated settlement agreement. The communicated needs of agencies for multiple years of pre-development monitoring appear should be accommodated to the extent possible. Proposed Communication Protocol and Process Enhancements (see chart) In an attempt to meet the goals identified above, TDX has identified the following process enhancements that can be incorporated into the TLP and captured in a communications protocol: • Conduct additional periodic informational meetings and updates and sharing information on important decision points. • Codify plans for what material is distributed, how comments will be handled, documented, and responded to. • Define general principles outlining continued study/monitoring activity between filing of the application and license issuance, as well as before construction. • Identify how input to study needs and approaches will be solicited and incorporated into study plans. • Document the opportunities for review of draft study plans and draft study reports will be accommodated. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project FERC Process Comparison and TDX Enhancements FERC Project No. 12660 Page 3 of 4 02/19/09 • Describe how periodic technical workshops and update meetings will be added to the required process steps. • Identify how opportunities for input to impact assessment and alternatives analysis will be provided. • Establish a website for effective sharing of relicensing documents and communication among interested parties. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project FERC Process Compariso FERC Project No. 12660 Page 4 of 4 Comparison of the ILP and TLP processes (FERC Website). Information in italics have been added as additional considerations; items in bold are proposed enhancements Integrated Licensing Process (ILP)Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) Deadlines - Defined deadlines for all participants throughout the process, including FERC - Pre-filing - some deadlines for participants Communications Protocol will codify expectations for what material is distributed, how comments will be handled, documented, and responded to. - Post-filing - defined deadlines for participants Schedule Flexibility Limited flexibility given many established deadlines for actions in the regulations Challenging to accommodate resource agencies’ desire for multiple years of monitoring before license issuance Envision a mechanism for continuing studies between filing application and license issuance as well as before start of construction Study Plan Development - Developed through study plan meetings - Plan approved by FERC - Developed by applicant based on early agency and tribal recommendations Communications Protocol will specify opportunities for agencies and stakeholders to participate in study plan development similar to ILP - No formal FERC involvement Study Reports Required before filing of annual reports Propose to follow ILP model: Communications Protocol would specify stakeholder participation in review of study results, and subsequent adjustments to study plan Application - Preliminary licensing proposal or draft application and final application include Exhibit E that has form and contents of an EA; FERC will conduct the NEPA analysis - Draft and final applications include Exhibit E, which provides technical information to support FERC’s NEPA analysis Timing of Resource Agency Terms and Conditions - Preliminary terms and conditions filed 30 to 60 days after REA notice - Modified terms and conditions 60 days after comments on draft NEPA document - Preliminary terms and conditions filed 60 days after REA notice - Schedule for final terms and conditions Communications Protocol For Relicensing Consultation Activities For the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2170) June 2003 The following protocol is intended to facilitate communication and cooperation among Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (Chugach), federal and state agencies, and other interested organizations and parties (collectively, Participants) during the preparation of Chugach’s Application for New License for the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project). The protocol will govern communications among all consultation Participants and provide public access to information regarding the consultation activities related to the relicensing of the Project. The protocol also applies to communications made by contractors or consultants on behalf of Chugach or any of the Participants. This protocol does not apply to communications solely between Participants, or to any party’s internal communications. I. Participation in the Relicensing Process The relicensing process for the Project is open to the general public and interested parties are encouraged to participate. A contact list, compiled by Chugach, will be maintained to identify those agencies, organizations, individuals or groups that have been identified as interested parties or who have requested to be included as Participants. The contact list will be used to provide notice of any public meetings, as well as notice of the availability of information for public review. The contact list will be updated periodically by Chugach and non-participating parties will be asked to re-affirm their interest in participating in the process. Chugach is using a traditional three-stage consultation process for the relicensing, enhanced with additional consultation. Chugach initiated informal consultation with potentially interested parties with an outreach effort in late 2001 and advertised and noticed public information meetings on the relicensing in March 2002. Additional informal consultation regarding the selection of specialty consultants to support Chugach’s relicensing efforts occurred in early 2002. Chugach initiated formal consultation with issuance of the Initial Consultation Package (ICP) in early June 2002. Further consultation since issuance of the ICP has included: a joint agency and public meeting in early July; issuance in mid-August 2002 of a document providing further conceptual information regarding planned relicensing studies; participants’ September 2002 written comments on the ICP and formal requests for relicensing studies; consultation with agency resource experts on technical details for study planning; issuance of draft 2003 study plans and supplemental information in late 2002/ early 2003; review and comment on the draft study plans by relicensing participants; and issuance of final 2003 study plans in May 2003. II. Maintenance of the Public Reference File Chugach has developed and will maintain a public reference file at Chugach’s offices in Anchorage. The public reference file will include copies of all written correspondence (including e-mails), documentation of phone conversations, meeting notices, agendas and summaries, study plans, study reports, status reports, and other documents developed during consultation or Cooper Lake Project (FERC No. 2170) Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Communications Protocol for Relicensing Consultation July 2003 Page 1 submitted for inclusion in the public reference file. All documents in the public reference file will be submitted to FERC as part of the formal relicensing record. Chugach will also maintain a website (www.chugachelectric.com/relicensing) for access to key documents developed during the course of the relicensing consultation, such as the NOI, the ICP, meeting notices, meeting summaries, study plans and study reports. The current contact list will also be available on Chugach’s website. III. Meetings Chugach shall be responsible for scheduling all consultation meetings involving Chugach and Participants. For the meeting specified in 18 CFR Section 16.8(b)(2)(i), Chugach will provide the required notice in appropriate local and other forums. Chugach will solicit input on meeting agendas and objectives and will seek to locate meetings to facilitate Participant attendance to most effectively accomplish those objectives. Chugach will endeavor to notify all Participants of meetings scheduled by Chugach at least 30 days prior to the meeting date. This notification may be made in writing, via fax, via email, or by telephone conversation. Under special circumstances, Chugach may hold a meeting with less than 30 days notice so long as all Participants are notified of the meeting, and all those interested in attending are able to do so, or can participate by conference call. Chugach shall establish the meeting agenda and will endeavor to provide a written meeting agenda to all Participants at least two weeks prior to a scheduled meeting. Participants may submit comments on the agenda to Chugach up to one week before the scheduled meeting. Chugach will endeavor to incorporate any proposed changes to the agenda and will distribute a final agenda at the meeting. In addition, the agenda may be modified at the beginning of the meeting. Chugach and all Participants will endeavor to make available all documents and other information necessary to prepare for a consultation meeting at least two weeks prior to the scheduled meeting. In the alternative, materials can be provided at the meeting. IV. Documentation All of the documentation requirements described below apply to substantive communications regarding the relicensing of the Project; communications related to procedural matters (e.g., responding to inquiries regarding meeting scheduling) are not subject to the same documentation requirements. A. Meeting Summaries Chugach will be primarily responsible for providing a written summary of the matters addressed at all meetings involving Chugach and Participants. A draft meeting summary will be distributed to all meeting attendees within 15 days of the meeting. Any corrections to the draft meeting Cooper Lake Project (FERC No. 2170) Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Communications Protocol for Relicensing Consultation July 2003 Page 2 summary should be submitted to Chugach within 15 days. Chugach will finalize the meeting summary within 30 days after receiving corrections. If no corrections are submitted, the meeting summary will become final 30 days after the date of the meeting. Final meeting summaries will be posted on the relicensing website. B. Oral Communications Any oral communication (i.e., telephone conversations) between Chugach and any Participant regarding any substantive aspect of the Project relicensing shall be documented in writing by Chugach and included in the public reference file, with a copy provided to those participating in the oral communication. C. Technical Documents A variety of technical documents will be produced during the course of relicensing consultation, including the Initial Consultation Package (ICP), study plans, study reports, and draft license application. Whenever comments are solicited on documents, review periods will be established and communicated to Participants. Review periods will typically be 30 days, unless longer periods are required by FERC regulations (e.g., 90 day comment period on the draft application), although shorter periods may be established under special circumstances, with the concurrence of the affected Participants. Participants will endeavor to provide comments to Chugach within the timeframes specified for comment periods. D. Written Correspondence Any written correspondence (including e-mails) regarding the relicensing of the Project between Chugach and Participants will become part of the public reference file. All written correspondence should be sent to Chugach at the following address: Burke Wick Cooper Lake Project Relicensing Manager Chugach Electric Association, Inc. 5501 Minnesota Drive P.O. Box 196300 Anchorage, AK 99519-6300 e-mail: burke_wick@chugachelectric.com With a copy sent to: Karen Demsey Long View Associates, Inc. 3055 NE Everett Street Portland, OR 97232 email: kdemsey@longviewassociates.com Cooper Lake Project (FERC No. 2170) Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Communications Protocol for Relicensing Consultation July 2003 Page 3 Cooper Lake Project (FERC No. 2170) Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Communications Protocol for Relicensing Consultation July 2003 Page 4 VI. Distribution of Relicensing Documentation Distribution of relicensing documents will be accomplished primarily by email, except by request to receive hard-copy mailings. If a participant does not provide Chugach with an email address, or if a participant has indicated a preference to receive hard-copy mailings, Chugach will send the participant paper documents through regular mail. A participant may also request to receive a paper copy of any specific relicensing document by contacting May Clark, Relicensing Secretary, by phone at 907-762-4547 or by email at relicensing@chugachelectric.com. In addition to distribution to all relicensing participants, all relicensing documents will be posted on the relicensing website (www.chugachelectric.com/relicensing). Distribution of relicensing documents (aside from brief letters, notices, etc.) will include a copy of the distribution list. VII. Revisions to the Communications Protocol This protocol may be revised at any time upon general agreement of Chugach and the Participants. VIII. Duration of the Communication Protocol This Communications Protocol will remain in effect until FERC notices that the Project license application is accepted for filing with FERC as set forth in 18 CFR 16.9(d)(1). Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project 4/10/09 Licensing Process Discussion FERC Project No. 12660 Page 1 of 3 Meeting Summary, Final Chakachamna Project (FERC No. 12660) FERC Licensing Process Discussion Stakeholders Meeting Notes April 10, 2009 Meeting Attendees: Finlay Anderson Long View Associates Philip Brna US Fish and Wildlife Service Brian Carey AEA, AIDEA Jim Ferguson Alaska Department of Fish and Game Jan Konigsberg Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition Scott Maclean Alaska Department of Fish and Game Megan Marie Alaska Department of Fish and Game Betsy McCracken Alaska Department of Fish and Game Tom Meyer NOAA Fisheries (by phone) Karen O’leary USDA Forest Service Doug Ott AIDEA Steve Padula Long View Associates Bob Shavelson Cook Inlet Keeper Jim Thrall TDX Sue Walker NOAA-Fisheries (by phone) Michael Walton DNR Water Resources Eric Yould TDX On January 12, 2009 the TDX requested stakeholder feedback on the anticipated request to use the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) for the Chakachamna Project. At a February 19, 2009 meeting in Anchorage and through email correspondence, questions were raised about the choice of process. TDX arranged this meeting to talk with stakeholders about their questions and goals for a licensing process. Discussion Nick Goodman (TDX) opened the meeting by presenting a brief project overview and update. He informed meeting that Entrix had been retained as the in-stream flow consultants and that MWH has been brought on board as the Engineer of Record for the Project. Nick described the current energy situation in the Railbelt and provided a rationale for the aggressive schedule that TDX has adopted for pursuing the Project. Steve Padula (LVA) summarized the Project Team’s thinking with respect to the best fit for a licensing process. The main criteria TDX has considered are 1) the ability of the selected process to adhere to a schedule; 2) a desire for flexibility to continue analysis and data gathering beyond submittal of a license application. The TLP has specific provisions that appear to fit the unique study needs of the Project for a) studies that need to extend after filing the license application but before issuance of a license and b) studies that can be conducted or information obtained only after construction of the proposed Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project 4/10/09 Licensing Process Discussion FERC Project No. 12660 Page 2 of 3 Meeting Summary, Final facilities (e.g. post construction monitoring studies). Steve referred stakeholders to 18 CFR 4.38(c)(i)-(iii) for a description of how FERC envisions this three stage consultation working. Steve noted that should FERC deny TDX’s request to use the TLP, TDX is making plans to conduct consultation utilizing FERC’s default process which is the Integrated Licensing Procedure (ILP). Steve asked stakeholders for feedback on their questions or concerns about the process. He distributed a handout that outlined TDX’s proposal for ways that a traditional TLP could be enhanced with additional consultation opportunities. There was discussion about the differences between the Alternative Licensing Procedure (ALP), the ILP and the TLP. Concerns and questions expressed with the TLP were identified as: 1. Consequences of not doing early NEPA scoping (as would be done with ILP or ALP) 2. Ability to reach resolution on study plan disputes and the distinction between “advisory opinion” (available through TLP/ALP) versus a study plan determination (ILP) 4. Difficulty in developing an administrative record upon to which stakeholders could easily refer and reference in future proceedings 5. Desirability/questions about the significance of early FERC staff involvement (available through ILP and ALP; uncertain for TLP) NMFS noted that the FERC’s ILP final rule, which lays out the criteria for selection of the TLP or ALP, does not appear to be a good fit for the Chakachamna Project. Stakeholders expressed an interest in pursuing an ALP, and asked TDX to explain its reluctance to pursue this approach. Steve responded that the main concern of TDX is implications to schedule since it is really an open-ended process and the applicant would not be able to move forward on key steps without concurrence of all of the participants. While stakeholder concurrence on key steps is highly desirable, TDX, as a private developer, has determined that it needs to retain control of the licensing schedule. NMFS expressed concern that the Project had not been adequately described and that TDX’s planned informal 2009 environmental study program represents a narrowing in scope of future planned studies from what might be necessary. Jim Thrall (TDX) agreed that the description of the proposed project and operation needs to be confirmed and that with MWH on board they are being tasked with developing this information for the Pre- Application Document (PAD). Jim indicated that no decisions had been made by TDX to narrow the ultimate scope of study and that the intent of the 2009 study program was simply to begin gathering needed baseline data on which future study designs would depend. TDX has been gathering a detailed list of issues and potential studies which will be identified in the PAD and further described in the formal study plan after additional consultation with stakeholders (Note: see Appendix B to the April 7 2009 Detailed Study Plan for treatment of comments received on the conceptual study plan). Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project 4/10/09 Licensing Process Discussion FERC Project No. 12660 Page 3 of 3 Meeting Summary, Final Stakeholders asked if TDX was anticipating that a negotiated settlement would be an outcome of this process, and how that potential figures into the selection of a process. Steve responded that TDX believes that while a settlement process is a possibility, it is far too early to plan on it; that said, the TLP appears to provide for more flexibility that the ILP does for moving into a settlement process. Next Steps TDX offered to disseminate a Consultation Protocol that responded to the questions and desires expressed by the group; Finlay Anderson (Long View) will try to schedule a meeting for the week of May 11, 2009 to review the Protocol. From: Maxine Blake [mailto:mblake@tdxpower.com] Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 2:36 PM To: betsy.mccracken@alaska.gov; susan.walker@noaa.gov; bday@homerelectric.com; jim.ferguson@alaska.gov; cakers@tyonek.com; Finlay Anderson; joe.balash@alaska.gov; robin.beebee@hdrinc.com; phil_brna@fws.gov; bcarey@aidea.org; curtis.jennifer@epa.gov; michael.daigneault@alaska.gov; kevin_dunham@chugachelectric.com; pmclarno@hdrinc.com; steveg@enxco.com; scott.houk@alaska.gov; saraellen@akcenter.org; james.keen@alaska.gov; allen.kemplen@alaska.gov; kim.klein@alaska.gov; gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us; Page_Spencer@nps.gov; timkayaks@hotmail.com; adele.lee@alaska.gov; Anne.leggett@hdrinc.com; ken.lord@sol.doi.gov; frances_mann@fws.gov; jmcclellan@tyonek.com; dfmeyer@usgs.gov; jason.mouw@alaska.gov; north.phil@epa.gov; dott@aidea.org; Steve Padula; pmpark@gvea.com; gilbert.l.phillips@poa02.usace.army.mil; Donna.robertson@hdrinc.com; david.rutz@alaska.gov; toby@akcenter.org; cassie_thomas@nps.gov; jthrall@yahoo.com; jlwalker@matanuska.com; michael.walton@alaska.gov; rich.wilson@alaska.gov; Bzubeck@HomerElectric.com; patricia.bettis@alaska.gov; chay@alaska.com; ed.weiss@alaska.gov; hydro@gci.net; gary.prokosch@alaska.gov; thomas.cappiello@alaska.gov; dreiser@r2usa.com; tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov; lawrence.peltz@noaa.gov; keeper@inletkeeper.org; douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov; robert.dach@bia.gov; jblankenship@borough.kenai.ak.us; ann.wilde@alaska.gov; dpa@humboldt1.com; heather.r.williams@mwhglobal.com; sue.sander@wgint.com; chris_lausten@mcgraw-hill.com; Melinda.ODonnell@alaska.gov; noldog17@yahoo.com; john.dunker@alaska.gov; jtpietz@pcl.com; dan_young@nps.gov; debby.burwen@alaska.gov; samuel.ivey@alaska.gov; james.brady@hdrinc.com; mark_fouts@chugachelectric.com; mikeo@cosmichamlet.net; am@aquacoustics.com; gtquada@gci.net; sean.palmer@alaska.gov; kirby.gilbert@mwhglobal.com; byanity@whpacific.com; jthompson@lachel.com; Chakachamna Distribution List Subject: "Status of the 2009 Environmental Studies Program: Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project" Hello All ‐ Please hold Tuesday, May 12 at 2:00 AST for a one‐hour telephone conference as follow up to our April 10th discussion on proposed FERC process. Additional information, including call‐in information will be forthcoming. Thank you. Eric Yould Program Director TDX Power eyould@tdxpower.com DATE: 4/24/2009 TO: Chakachamna Stakeholders FROM: Eric Yould SUBJECT: Status of Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Licensing and 2009 Field Effort TDX Power has been seeking Project partners to help develop the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No 12660), and the state has been an active partner in our discussions. It had been our anticipation that TDX would be able to forge a relationship with the State of Alaska in time to support initiation of field studies this summer. Unfortunately, the global economy has significantly affected the State’s ability to fund other than essential state services and federal stimulus appropriations. Therefore, TDX has made the decision to suspend our planned 2009 field investigations but continue with our preparations to enter the formal FERC licensing process and develop a scope of work with agencies and other interested participants that will kick off a robust field program starting in the summer of 2010. Because the 2009 effort is being put on hold, HDR Alaska will be contacting agencies to cancel or amend 2009 study related permits, as appropriate. It is our intent over the next year to incorporate and expand upon the goals, objectives, and methods of which had been developed for the 2009 study season as part of the formal study and licensing program and to also use this time to secure a TDX - State partnership and funding program. This was a difficult decision to make. We are proud of the engineering, technical, and regulatory team we have put together and of the efforts that have been made to date. Most significantly, we are greatly appreciative of your efforts and input which we emphasize will have significant long term value in designing the formal licensing study program. We look forward to continuing to work with you. From: Maxine Blake [mailto:mblake@tdxpower.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:17 AM To: betsy.mccracken@alaska.gov; susan.walker@noaa.gov; bday@homerelectric.com; jim.ferguson@alaska.gov; cakers@tyonek.com; Finlay Anderson; joe.balash@alaska.gov; robin.beebee@hdrinc.com; phil_brna@fws.gov; bcarey@aidea.org; curtis.jennifer@epa.gov; michael.daigneault@alaska.gov; kevin_dunham@chugachelectric.com; pmclarno@hdrinc.com; steveg@enxco.com; scott.houk@alaska.gov; saraellen@akcenter.org; james.keen@alaska.gov; allen.kemplen@alaska.gov; kim.klein@alaska.gov; gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us; Page_Spencer@nps.gov; timkayaks@hotmail.com; adele.lee@alaska.gov; Anne.legget@hdrinc.com; ken.lord@sol.doi.gov; frances_mann@fws.gov; jmcclellan@tyonek.com; dfmeyer@usgs.gov; jason.mouw@alaska.gov; north.phil@epa.gov; dott@aidea.org; pmpark@gvea.com; gilbert.l.phillips@poa02.usace.army.mil; Donna.robertson@hdrinc.com; david.rutz@alaska.gov; toby@akcenter.org; cassie_thomas@nps.gov; jthrall@yahoo.com; jlwalker@matanuska.com; michael.walton@alaska.gov; rich.wilson@alaska.gov; Bzubeck@HomerElectric.com; patricia.bettis@alaska.gov; chay@alaska.com; ed.weiss@alaska.gov; hydro@gci.net; gary.prokosch@alaska.gov; thomas.cappiello@alaska.gov; dreiser@r2usa.com; tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov; lawrence.peltz@noaa.gov; keeper@inletkeeper.org; douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov; robert.dach@bia.gov; jblankenship@borough.kenai.ak.us; ann.wilde@alaska.gov; dpa@humbolt1.com; heather.r.williams@mwhglobal.com; sue.sander@wgint.com; chris_lausten@mcgraw-hill.com; Melinda.ODonnell@alaska.gov; noldog17@yahoo.com; john.dunker@alaska.gov; jtpietz@pcl.com; dan_young@nps.gov; debby.burwen@alaska.gov; samuel.ivey@alaska.gov; james.brady@hdrinc.com; mark_fouts@chugachelectric.com; mikeo@cosmichamlet.net; am@aquacoustics.com; gtquada@gci.net; sean.palmer@alaska.gov; Chakachamna Distribution List; Steve Padula Subject: Chakachamna Draft Communications Protocol Conference Call 12MAY All ‐‐ On April 10th, 2009 we met to discuss options for licensing processes to be used for the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project. We heard some good feedback from you on the type of safeguards and procedures that were important to your organizations; our notes from the meeting are attached. We committed to drafting a proposed Communications Protocol that would be responsive to your needs while still providing TDX with the ability to manage the Project's licensing schedule. We have scheduled a conference call for May 12, at 2:00 pm AST (800‐882‐3610; passcode 4158145) to discuss with you our draft protocol. Attached is the draft Communication Protocol, and a memo summarizing our approach. We would welcome additional suggestions you may have. We regret that this date and time did not work for everyone. If you are unable to attend the call, but would like to discuss the approach, please contact Steve Padula (spadula@longviewassociates.com) at (360) 576‐3579. Thanks, Eric Yould Project Director eyould@tdxpower.com Chakachamna Project (FERC No. 12660) FERC Licensing Process Discussion Stakeholders Meeting Notes April 10, 2009 Meeting Attendees: Finlay Anderson Long View Associates Philip Brna US Fish and Wildlife Service Brian Carey AEA, AIDEA Jim Ferguson Alaska Department of Fish and Game Jan Konigsberg Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition Scott Maclean Alaska Department of Fish and Game Megan Marie Alaska Department of Fish and Game Betsy McCracken Alaska Department of Fish and Game Tom Meyer NOAA Fisheries (by phone) Karen O’leary USDA Forest Service Doug Ott AIDEA Steve Padula Long View Associates Bob Shavelson Cook Inlet Keeper Jim Thrall TDX Sue Walker NOAA-Fisheries (by phone) Michael Walton DNR Water Resources Eric Yould TDX On January 12, 2009 the TDX requested stakeholder feedback on the anticipated request to use the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) for the Chakachamna Project. At a February 19, 2009 meeting in Anchorage and through email correspondence, questions were raised about the choice of process. TDX arranged this meeting to talk with stakeholders about their questions and goals for a licensing process. Discussion Nick Goodman (TDX) opened the meeting by presenting a brief project overview and update. He informed meeting that Entrix had been retained as the in-stream flow consultants and that MWH has been brought on board as the Engineer of Record for the Project. Nick described the current energy situation in the Railbelt and provided a rationale for the aggressive schedule that TDX has adopted for pursuing the Project. Steve Padula (LVA) summarized the Project Team’s thinking with respect to the best fit for a licensing process. The main criteria TDX has considered are 1) the ability of the selected process to adhere to a schedule; 2) a desire for flexibility to continue analysis and data gathering beyond submittal of a license application. The TLP has specific provisions that appear to fit the unique study needs of the Project for a) studies that need to extend after filing the license application but before issuance of a license and b) studies that can be conducted or information obtained only after construction of the proposed Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project 4/10/09 Licensing Process Discussion FERC Project No. 12660 Page 1 of 3 Meeting Summary, Draft facilities (e.g. post construction monitoring studies). Steve referred stakeholders to 18 CFR 4.38(c)(i)-(iii) for a description of how FERC envisions this three stage consultation working. Steve noted that should FERC deny TDX’s request to use the TLP, TDX is making plans to conduct consultation utilizing FERC’s default process which is the Integrated Licensing Procedure (ILP). Steve asked stakeholders for feedback on their questions or concerns about the process. He distributed a handout that outlined TDX’s proposal for ways that a traditional TLP could be enhanced with additional consultation opportunities. There was discussion about the differences between the Alternative Licensing Procedure (ALP), the ILP and the TLP. Concerns and questions expressed with the TLP were identified as: 1. Consequences of not doing early NEPA scoping (as would be done with ILP or ALP) 2. Ability to reach resolution on study plan disputes and the distinction between “advisory opinion” (available through TLP/ALP) versus a study plan determination (ILP) 4. Difficulty in developing an administrative record upon to which stakeholders could easily refer and reference in future proceedings 5. Desirability/questions about the significance of early FERC staff involvement (available through ILP and ALP; uncertain for TLP) NMFS noted that the FERC’s ILP final rule, which lays out the criteria for selection of the TLP does not appear to be a good fit for the Chakachamna Project. Stakeholders expressed an interest in pursuing an ALP, and asked TDX to explain its reluctance to pursue this approach. Steve responded that the main concern of TDX is implications to schedule since it is really an open-ended process and the applicant would not be able to move forward on key steps without concurrence of all of the participants. While stakeholder concurrence on key steps is highly desirable, TDX, as a private developer, has determined that it needs to retain control of the licensing schedule. NMFS expressed concern that the Project had not been adequately described and that TDX’s planned informal 2009 environmental study program represents a narrowing in scope of future planned studies from what might be necessary. Jim Thrall (TDX) agreed that the description of the proposed project and operation needs to be confirmed and that with MWH on board they are being tasked with developing this information for the Pre- Application Document (PAD). Jim indicated that no decisions had been made by TDX to narrow the ultimate scope of study and that the intent of the 2009 study program was simply to begin gathering needed baseline data on which future study designs would depend. TDX has been gathering a detailed list of issues and potential studies which will be identified in the PAD and further described in the formal study plan after additional consultation with stakeholders (Note: see Appendix B to the April 7 2009 Detailed Study Plan for treatment of comments received on the conceptual study plan). Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project 4/10/09 Licensing Process Discussion FERC Project No. 12660 Page 2 of 3 Meeting Summary, Draft Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project 4/10/09 Licensing Process Discussion FERC Project No. 12660 Page 3 of 3 Meeting Summary, Draft Stakeholders asked if TDX was anticipating that a negotiated settlement would be an outcome of this process, and how that potential figures into the selection of a process. Steve responded that TDX believes that while a settlement process is a possibility, it is far too early to plan on it; that said, the TLP appears to provide for more flexibility that the ILP does for moving into a settlement process. Next Steps TDX offered to disseminate a Consultation Protocol that responded to the questions and desires expressed by the group; Finlay Anderson (Long View) will try to schedule a meeting for the week of May 11, 2009 to review the Protocol. DATE: 5 May, 2009 TO: Chakachamna Stakeholders FROM: Eric Yould SUBJECT: Proposed Communications Protocol When we met on April 10, 2009 to discuss TDX’s proposed licensing process, we committed to distributing a draft Communications Protocol (Protocol) for your review and comment. The Protocol will accompany our request to use the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) for the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project. Absent approval for a TLP, TDX will proceed with consultation through FERC’s default process, the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). We have drafted the attached Protocol in an effort to be responsive to concerns and questions that we heard at our April 10th meeting. As discussed, we are scheduling a conference call on May 12, 2009 (AST) to receive your feedback and learn how we could further improve the licensing process. The phone number for the conference call will be 1-800-882-3610; passcode 4158145 Concerns and questions expressed with the TLP from stakeholders were identified as: 1. Consequences of not doing early NEPA scoping, as would be done with ILP or Alternative Licensing Process (ALP); 2. Ability to reach resolution on study plan disputes and the distinction between “advisory opinion” that is available through TLP/ALP versus a study plan determination (ILP); 4. Difficulty in developing an administrative record upon to which stakeholders could easily refer and reference in future proceedings; 5. Desirability/questions about the significance of early FERC staff involvement (available through ILP and ALP; uncertain for TLP) We understand that the TLP has a mechanism, described in §4.38(e)(4), to enhance the TLP with ILP elements that could address these concerns. This provision allows for a potential licensee to request that FERC incorporate into pre-filing consultation elements of the ILP provided for under 18 CFR 5, et. seq. TDX is willing to consider requesting that FERC include early NEPA scoping, study plan development consultation requirements, and a more concrete ILP-style dispute resolution process, and the accompanying Draft Consultation Protocol reflects our thoughts about how this process might work. 1 5/5/2009 Page 2 We look forward to talking to you on May 12th and hearing your feedback. If we can reach consensus on the proposed protocol TDX will reflect that consensus to FERC in its request to utilize an enhanced TLP approach. Absent consensus, TDX will still request the use of the TLP, but make plans to use the ILP should the request be denied. Communications Protocol For Licensing Consultation Activities For the Chakachamna Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660) The following Communication Protocol (Protocol) is intended to facilitate communication and cooperation among TDX Power, Inc. (TDX), federal and state agencies, and other interested organizations and parties (collectively, Participants) during the preparation of TDX’s Application for Original License for the Chakachamna Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project). The Protocol will govern communications among all consultation Participants and provide public access to information regarding the consultation activities related to the licensing of the Project. The Protocol also applies to communications made by contractors or consultants on behalf of TDX or any of the Participants. This Protocol does not apply to communications solely between Participants, or to any Participant’s internal communications. I. Participation in the Licensing Process The licensing process for the Project is open to the general public and interested parties are encouraged to participate. A contact list, compiled by TDX, will be maintained to identify those agencies, organizations, individuals or groups that have been identified as interested parties or who have requested to be included as Participants. The contact list will be used to provide notice of any public meetings, as well as notice of the availability of information for public review. The contact list will be updated periodically by TDX and inactive Participants will be asked to re-affirm their interest in participating in the process. TDX is requesting FERC to authorize use of a traditional three-stage consultation process for the licensing, enhanced with additional consultation opportunities. TDX initiated informal consultation with potentially interested parties with an outreach effort that began in 2007. Additional informal consultation regarding the proposed licensing process, and the need and goals for early field studies in 2009 began in late 2008. TDX plans to initiate formal consultation with issuance of the Notice of Intent (NOI) and Preliminary Application Document (PAD) in June 2009. The TLP, if approved, will require a Joint Meeting with the agencies, Tribes and public and will provide opportunities for the Participants to provide comments on the PAD and to make study requests. Should the TLP not be approved, TDX will continue with consultation utilizing the default ILP. In response to concerns with the TLP identified by agencies and other interested parties, TDX proposes to supplement the TLP process with additional consultation steps to provide an enhanced level of transparency. As allowed under 18 CFR §4.38(e)(4), TDX will request that the following ILP elements be incorporated into the Chakachamna licensing process: Early NEPA Scoping by FERC as described under 18 CFR §5.8;Study Criteria under 18 CFR §5.9; Study Plan Development (18 CFR §5.11); stakeholder comments on study plans and revised study plans (18 CFR §5.12 though 18 CFR §5.13); and a formal study dispute resolution process as described in 18 CFR §5.14. In order to provide a clear administrative record, TDX will issue an Initial Study Report (ISR) and Updated Study Reports (USR) pursuant to 18 CFR §5.15 and file those with the Commission along with Participant review comments and suggested modifications to the study plan. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 1 of 4 Draft, May 5, 2009 II. Maintenance of the Public Reference File TDX has developed and will maintain a public reference file at TDX’s offices in Anchorage. The public reference file will include copies of all written correspondence (including e-mails), documentation of phone conversations, meeting notices, agendas and summaries, study plans, study reports, status reports, and other documents developed during consultation or submitted for inclusion in the public reference file. All documents in the public reference file will be submitted to FERC as part of the formal licensing record. TDX will also maintain a website (www.chakachamna-hydro.com) for access to key documents developed during the course of the licensing consultation, such as the PAD and NOI, meeting notices, meeting summaries, study plans and study reports. III. Meetings TDX shall be responsible for scheduling all consultation meetings involving TDX and Participants. For the meeting specified in 18 CFR Section 4.38(b)(3), TDX will provide the required notice in appropriate local and other forums. TDX will solicit input on meeting agendas and objectives and will seek to locate meetings to facilitate Participant attendance to most effectively accomplish those objectives. TDX will endeavor to notify all Participants of meetings scheduled by TDX at least 30 days prior to the meeting date. This notification may be made in writing, via fax, via email, or by telephone conversation. Under special circumstances, TDX may hold a meeting with less than 30 days notice. TDX shall establish the meeting agenda and will endeavor to provide a written meeting agenda to all Participants at least two weeks prior to a scheduled meeting. Participants may submit comments on the agenda to TDX up to one week before the scheduled meeting. TDX will endeavor to incorporate any proposed changes to the agenda and will distribute a final agenda at the meeting. In addition, the agenda may be modified at the beginning of the meeting. TDX and all Participants will endeavor to make available all documents and other information necessary to prepare for a consultation meeting at least two weeks prior to the scheduled meeting. In the alternative, materials can be provided at the meeting. IV. Documentation All of the documentation requirements described below apply to substantive communications regarding the licensing of the Project; communications related to procedural matters (e.g., responding to inquiries regarding meeting scheduling) are not subject to the same documentation requirements. A. Meeting Summaries TDX will be primarily responsible for providing a written summary of the matters addressed at all meetings involving TDX and Participants. A draft meeting summary will be distributed to all meeting attendees within 15 days of the meeting. Any corrections to the draft meeting summary should be submitted to TDX within 15 days. TDX will finalize the meeting summary within 30 days after receiving corrections. If no corrections are submitted, the meeting summary will become final Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 2 of 4 Draft, May 5, 2009 30 days after the date of the meeting. Final meeting summaries will be posted on the licensing website. B. Oral Communications Any oral communication (i.e., telephone conversations) between TDX and any Participant regarding any substantive aspect of the Project licensing shall be documented in writing by TDX and included in the public reference file, with a copy provided to those participating in the oral communication. C. Technical Documents A variety of technical documents will be produced during the course of licensing consultation, including the Preliminary Application Document (PAD), study plans, study reports, and draft license application or preliminary licensing proposal (in the case of the ILP). Whenever comments are solicited on documents, review periods will be established and communicated to Participants. Review periods will typically be 30 days, unless longer periods are required by FERC regulations (e.g., 90 day comment period on the draft application), although shorter periods may be established under special circumstances, with the concurrence of the affected Participants. Participants will endeavor to provide comments to TDX within the timeframes specified for comment periods. D. Written Correspondence Any written correspondence (including e-mails) regarding the licensing of the Project between TDX and Participants will become part of the public reference file. All written correspondence should be sent to TDX at the following address: Eric Yould Chakachamna Lake Project Licensing Manager TDX Power, Inc. Ste 402 4300 B St Anchorage, AK 99503-5946 e-mail: eyould@alaska.net With a copy sent to: Finlay Anderson Long View Associates, Inc. 4022 NE 8th Ave Portland, OR 97212 email: fanderson@longviewassociates.com and Chakachamna@longviewassociates.com V. Distribution of Licensing Documentation Distribution of licensing documents will be accomplished primarily by email, except when TDX receives a request to receive hard-copy mailings. If a participant does not provide TDX with an email address, or if a participant has indicated a preference to receive hard-copy mailings, TDX will send the participant paper documents through regular mail. A participant may also request to receive a paper copy of any specific licensing document by contacting Maxine Blake, by phone at (907) 762- 8450 or by email at mblake@tdxpower.com Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 3 of 4 Draft, May 5, 2009 Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 4 of 4 Draft, May 5, 2009 In addition to distribution to all licensing participants, all licensing documents will be posted on the licensing website (www.chakachamna-hydro.com). Distribution of licensing documents (aside from brief letters, notices, etc.) will include a copy of the distribution list. VII. Revisions to the Communications Protocol This protocol may be revised at any time upon general agreement of TDX and the Participants. VIII. Duration of the Communication Protocol This Communications Protocol will remain in effect until FERC notices that the Project license application is accepted for filing. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project 5/12/09 Licensing Process Discussion FERC Project No. 12660 Page 1 of 2 Meeting Summary, Final Chakachamna Project (FERC No. 12660) FERC Licensing Process Discussion Stakeholders Meeting Notes (Via Conference Call) April May 12, 2009 Meeting Attendees: Finlay Anderson Long View Associates Philip Brna US Fish and Wildlife Service Jim Ferguson Alaska Department of Fish and Game Jan Konigsberg Natural Heritage Institute/Hydropower Reform Coalition Gary Prokosh Alaska Department of Natural Resources Gary Kuhn Matanuska Electric Association Scott Maclean Alaska Department of Fish and Game Betsy McCracken Alaska Department of Fish and Game Joe Klein Alaska Department of Fish and Game Steve Padula Long View Associates Jim Thrall TDX Sue Walker NOAA-Fisheries (by phone) Eric Yould TDX On May 12, 2009 the TDX and stakeholders met via conference call to discuss TDX’s proposed Communications Protocol (Protocol) that will accompany the request to use alternative licensing procedures when the Pre-Application Document (PAD) and Notice of Intent (NOI) are submitted. TDX intends to request the use of a traditional three stage consultation process (TLP). Stakeholders previously met on April 10; the purposes of this conference call was to discuss how TDX proposes to structure the Protocol to address concerns and questions expressed at that meeting. Discussion Steve Padula (LVA) summarized the discussion from April 10 and asked if there were any comments or clarification on the notes of that meeting. Steve summarized the Project Team’s evolution of thinking with respect to the Protocol since April 10. He noted provisions within the TLP rules [18 CFR §4.38(e)(4)] that allow TDX to request, as part of its proposal to utilize the TLP, that the Commission approve the addition of ILP elements into the licensing process for the Project. To address stakeholder concerns, TDX proposes that the following ILP elements be added: o Early NEPA Scoping by FERC as described under 18 CFR § 5.8; o Study Criteria under 18 CFR §5.9; o Study Plan Development (18 CFR §5.11); o Stakeholder comments on study plans and revised study plans (18 CFR § 5.12 though 18 CFR § 5.13); Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project 5/12/09 Licensing Process Discussion FERC Project No. 12660 Page 2 of 2 Meeting Summary, Final o Formal study dispute resolution process as described in 18 CFR § 5.14; and o Initial Study Report (ISR) and Updated Study Reports (USR) pursuant to 18 CFR § 5.15. Stakeholders generally agreed that these additions will address many of their concerns, but had some questions. It was noted that “element” is not defined in the regulations, and therefore there many need to be some additional clarification and detail. Stakeholders expressed concern about tight timeframes for commenting on the TLP request; 60 days may not be a sufficient time for a response from agencies. Steve responded that the applicant could request that stakeholders be given more time to respond, and that in general this modified TLP approach should allow stakeholders and TDX to work together to extend review periods when needed, while still providing the clear administrative record that has been requested. There were questions about the extent of studies that were going to be detailed in the PAD. Stakeholders noted that their study requests would be influenced by how detailed TDX was able to be in the PAD with respect to specific studies and approach to studies. It was emphasized that stakeholders would really like to see TDX attempt to lay out “key questions” and identify how the study program will systematically respond to those questions. TDX agreed to revise the Protocol to include more detail on the ILP elements that will be included, and how this hybrid process will work. TDX agreed to issue a revised protocol within 2 weeks, and requested that Stakeholders provide any final comments and suggestions by June 12. From: Maxine Blake [mailto:mblake@tdxpower.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 2:18 PM To: Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov; susan.walker@noaa.gov; bday@homerelectric.com; jim.ferguson@alaska.gov; cakers@tyonek.com; Chakachamna Distribution List; joe.balash@alaska.gov; robin.beebee@hdrinc.com; james.brady@hdrinc.com; phil_brna@fws.gov; bcarey@aidea.org; curtis.jennifer@epa.gov; michael.daigneault@alaska.gov; kevin_dunham@chugachelectric.com; mark_fouts@chugachelectric.com; steveg@enxco.com; scott.houk@alaska.gov; saraellen@akcenter.org; james.keen@alaska.gov; allen.kemplen@alaska.gov; kim.klein@alaska.gov; timkayaks@hotmail.com; adele.lee@alaska.gov; Anne.legget@hdrinc.com; ken.lord@sol.doi.gov; frances_mann@fws.gov; jmcclellan@tyonek.com; pmclarno@hdrinc.com; dfmeyer@usgs.gov; jason.mouw@alaska.gov; douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov; north.phil@epa.gov; mikeo@cosmichamlet.net; dott@aidea.org; Steve Padula; pmpark@gvea.com; gilbert.l.phillips@poa02.usace.army.mil; Donna.robertson@hdrinc.com; david.rutz@alaska.gov; toby@akcenter.org; Page_Spencer@nps.gov; cassie_thomas@nps.gov; jthrall@yahoo.com; jlwalker@matanuska.com; michael.walton@alaska.gov; rich.wilson@alaska.gov; Bzubeck@HomerElectric.com; patricia.bettis@alaska.gov; chay@alaska.com; gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us; ed.weiss@alaska.gov; hydro@gci.net; gary.prokosch@alaska.gov; thomas.cappiello@alaska.gov; dreiser@r2usa.com; tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov; lawrence.peltz@noaa.gov; keeper@inletkeeper.org; robert.dach@bia.gov; jblankenship@borough.kenai.ak.us; ann.wilde@alaska.gov; dpa@humbolt1.com; gtquada@gci.net; heather.r.williams@mwhglobal.com; sue.sander@wgint.com; chris_lausten@mcgraw-hill.com; Melinda.ODonnell@alaska.gov; noldog17@yahoo.com; john.dunker@alaska.gov; jtpietz@pcl.com; dan_young@nps.gov; debby.burwen@alaska.gov; samuel.ivey@alaska.gov; sean.palmer@alaska.gov; am@aquacoustics.com; dpa@humboldt1.com; byanity@whpacific.com; kirby.gilbert@mwhglobal.com; jthompson@lachel.com; execdir@chugachconsumers.org; Cortonj@hotmail.com; kmiller@tu.org; kevin.schneider@barnard-inc.com Subject: "Revised Draft: Chakachamna Enhanced TLP Communications Protocol" I apologize – I forgot the attachment. Max/TDX Power. All ‐ As requested on our May 12th conference call, TDX has revised the draft Communications Protocol that you previously reviewed. You requested that TDX add additional detail to the elements of the ILP that are being proposed for inclusion in our "enhanced TLP". These enhancements address questions or concerns you have expressed with use of the TLP; while providing a basis for deviating from the rigid ILP process or schedule should circumstances demand. The questions and concerns you expressed were 1. consequences of not doing early NEPA scoping, as would be done with ILP or Alternative Licensing Process (ALP); 2. ability to reach resolution on study plan disputes and the distinction between “advisory opinion” that is available through TLP/ALP versus a study plan determination (ILP); 4. difficulty in developing an administrative record upon to which stakeholders could easily refer and reference in future proceedings; 5. desirability/questions about the significance of early FERC staff involvement (available through ILP and ALP; uncertain for TLP) We are open to making additional modifications or clarifications as needed. In order to make our goal for PAD filing, we request that you provide any comments by Friday, June 12. In the intervening period, please feel free to contact Steve Padula (spadula@longviewassociates.com ; 360‐576‐3579) directly should you wish to discuss the proposed approach. You also requested that TDX provide more treatment, in its Pre‐Application Document (PAD), of its approach to study plan development. Accordingly, TDX will include with the PAD an appendix that describes, at a high level • an approach and philosophy for addressing potential resource impacts (or in many cases, a basic lack of information) • a description of the goals / objectives of identified studies • our general impressions of time‐frames necessary for these studies. Thank you all for your continued involvement with the Chakachamna Project and your thoughtful comments on this protocol. Thanks Eric Yould eyould@alaska.net Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 1 of 8 Draft, May 29, 2009 Proposed Communications Protocol For Licensing Consultation Activities For the Chakachamna Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660) [note: text in blue is new since the 5-12-09 conference call] TDX is requesting FERC to authorize use of a traditional three-stage consultation process for the licensing, enhanced with additional process commitments and consultation opportunities. TDX initiated informal consultation with potentially interested parties with an outreach effort that began in 2007. Additional informal consultation regarding the proposed licensing process, and the need and goals for early field studies began in late 2008. TDX plans to initiate formal consultation with issuance of the Notice of Intent (NOI) and Preliminary Application Document (PAD) in June 2009. The TLP, if approved, will require a Joint Meeting with the agencies, Tribes and public and will provide opportunities for the Participants to provide comments on the PAD and to make study requests. This Communication Protocol (Protocol) is intended to facilitate communication and cooperation among TDX Power, Inc. (TDX), federal and state agencies, and other interested organizations and parties (collectively, Participants) during the preparation of TDX’s Application for Original License for the Chakachamna Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project). This Protocol is structured based on the assumption that FERC will approve the use of a modified Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) for the pre-filing consultation period for the Project. Given that the Project is a large new development in an area for which relatively little information exists, TDX believes that the TLP, as modified by the provisions outlined below, would be the most effective process for completing the necessary pre- filing work while providing for meaningful participation by agencies and other interested organizations. Should the TLP not be approved for use, TDX will continue with consultation utilizing the default ILP and follow the applicable regulations. This Protocol will govern communications among all Participants and provide public access to information regarding the consultation activities related to the licensing of the Project. The Protocol also applies to communications made by contractors or consultants on behalf of TDX or any of the Participants. This Protocol does not apply to communications solely between Participants, or to any Participant’s internal communications. I. Participation in the Licensing Process The licensing process for the Project is open to the general public and interested parties are encouraged to participate. A contact list, compiled by TDX, will be maintained to identify those agencies, organizations, individuals or groups that have been identified as interested parties or who have requested to be included as Participants. The contact list will be used to provide notice of any public meetings, as well as notice of the availability of information for public review. The contact list will be updated periodically by TDX and inactive Participants will be asked annually to re-affirm their interest in participating in the process. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 2 of 8 Draft, May 29, 2009 In response to concerns with the TLP identified by agencies and other interested parties, TDX proposes to supplement the TLP process with additional consultation steps to provide an enhanced level of engagement and transparency. As allowed under 18 CFR §4.38(e)(4), TDX is requesting as part of its proposal to utilize the TLP that the Commission approve the addition of the following ILP elements into the licensing process for the Project: - Early NEPA Scoping by FERC as described under 18 CFR § 5.8; - Study Criteria under 18 CFR §5.9; - Study Plan Development (18 CFR §5.11); - Stakeholder comments on study plans and revised study plans (18 CFR § 5.12 though 18 CFR § 5.13); - Formal study dispute resolution process as described in 18 CFR § 5.14; and - Initial Study Report (ISR) and Updated Study Reports (USR) pursuant to 18 CFR § 5.15. A proposed process schedule that incorporates these elements of the ILP into the enhanced TLP for the Project is located in section 2.2.1 (Summary of Licensing Milestones) of the PAD. Early NEPA Scoping by Commission Staff As outlined in the ILP regulations at 18 CFR § 5.8(b)(3)(vii), TDX requests that the Commission, as part of its notice of receipt of the Notice of Intent (NOI) and the Pre-Application Document (PAD), commencement of proceeding and its approval of TDX’s request to use the traditional licensing process as enhanced by the provisions identified herein, issue a statement with regard to its intent to prepare an environmental impact statement on the ultimate license application. TDX also requests that the Commission prepare and issue Scoping Document 1 concurrent with its notice. Study Criteria TDX requests that the Commission incorporate the study criteria identified in 18 CFR § 5.9(b) into the licensing process for the Project and require that any information gathering and study requests meet these criteria. Study Plan Development TDX requests that the Commission incorporate the requirements of 18 CFR § 5.11 regarding the development of the Proposed Study Plan (PSP) and the conduct of study plan meetings into the licensing process. This will require that TDX file its PSP with the Commission within 45 days following the deadline for the filing of comments and study requests on the Pre-Application Document. The PSP will meet the following specific requirements of 18 CFR § 5.11(b), (c) and (d): - For each proposed study: o A detailed description of the study and the methodology to be used, o A schedule for conducting the study, o Provisions for periodic progress reports, including the manner and extent to which information will be shared and sufficient time for technical review of the analysis and results, and, o If TDX does not adopt a requested study, an explanation of why the request was not adopted, with reference to criteria set forth in 18 CFR § 5.9(b) Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 3 of 8 Draft, May 29, 2009 - Provisions for the Initial and Updated Study Reports (ISR and USR, respectively) and meetings provided for in 18 CFR § 5.15 - For each proposed study: o Describe the goals and objectives, o Address any known resource management goals of the agencies or Indian tribes with jurisdiction over the resource to be studied, o Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study proposal and the need for additional information, o Explain any nexus between project operations and effects (direct, indirect and/or cumulative) on the resource to be studied, o Explain how any proposed methodology is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community or, as appropriate, considers any known tribal interests, and o Describe considerations of level of effort and cost, as applicable. - Provisions for conducting study plan meeting(s) during the 90-day period provided for in 18 CFR § 5.12 for the purpose of clarifying TDX’s proposed study plan and any initial information gathering or study requests, and to resolve any outstanding issues with respect to the proposed study plan. - The initial study plan meeting must be held no later than 30 days after the deadline date for filing of the proposed study plan. Stakeholder Comments on Proposed Study Plans and Revised Study Plans Comments on the PSP, including any revised information or study requests, shall be filed within 90 days after the PSP is filed. Comments shall include an explanation of any study plan concerns and any accommodations reached with TDX regarding those concerns. Any proposed modifications to TDX’s PSP shall address the criteria in 18 CFR § 5.9(b). Within 30 days following the deadline for filing comments on the PSP, TDX will file a Revised Study Plan (RSP) for Commission approval. The RSP will include comments received on the proposed study plan and a description of efforts made to resolve differences over study requests. If TDX does not adopt a requested study, it will explain why the request was not adopted, with reference to the criteria in 18 CFR § 5.9(b). Within 15 days following filing of the RSP, Participants may file comments thereon. Within 30 days following filing of the RSP, the Director of Energy Projects will issue a study plan determination, including any modifications determined to be necessary in light of the record. If no notice of study dispute is filed pursuant to 18 CFR § 5.14 within 20 days of the study plan determination, the study plan as approved in the study plan determination will be deemed approved and TDX will proceed with the approved studies. Formal study dispute resolution process Within 20 days of the study plan determination, any Federal agency with authority to provide mandatory conditions on a license pursuant to FPA section 4(e), or to prescribe fishways pursuant to FPA section 18, or any agency or Indian tribe with authority to issue a water quality certification for the project license under section 401 of the Clean Water Act may file a notice of study dispute with Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 4 of 8 Draft, May 29, 2009 respect to studies pertaining directly to the exercise of their authorities under sections 4(e) and 18 of the FPA or section 401 of the CWA. Any notice of study dispute shall explain how the disputing agency’s or Indian tribe’s study request satisfies the criteria set forth in 18CFR5.9(b), and shall identify and provide contact information for the panel member designated by the disputing agency or Indian tribe, as discussed in 18 CFR § 5.14(d). TDX will request that the Commission follow the formal dispute resolution process as described in 18 CFR § 5.14(d) – (l). Initial Study Report (ISR) and Updated Study Reports (USR) Pursuant to the Commission-approved study plan and schedule or no later than one year after Commission approval of the study plan, whichever comes first, TDX will prepare and file with the Commission an ISR describing its overall progress in implementing the study plan and schedule and the data collected, including an explanation of any variance from the study plan and schedule. The report will also include any modifications to ongoing studies or new studies proposed by TDX. Given the nature of the anticipated study program as outlined in Section 5 and Appendix X of the PAD, the scopes of some studies, primarily related to impact assessment, will rely significantly on the results of other studies designed to generate basic existing resource information. TDX is committed to working with Participants to refine the scopes of such impact assessment studies based on the new resource information that is generated, and documenting these refinements in the ISR. Within 15 days following the filing of the ISR, TDX will hold a meeting with Participants and Commission staff to discuss the study results and TDX’s and/or other Participants’ proposals, if any, to modify the study plan in light of progress of the study plan and data collected. Within 15 days of this meeting, TDX will file a meeting summary, including any modifications to ongoing studies or new studies proposed by TDX. Any Participant or the Commission staff may file a disagreement concerning TDX’s meeting summary within 30 days, setting forth the basis for the disagreement. Any disagreement filing shall include any modifications to ongoing studies or new studies proposed by the Commission staff or other participant. Responses to any disagreement filings shall be made within 30 days. No later than 30 days following the due date for responses, the Director will resolve the disagreement and amend the approved study plan as appropriate. If no Participant or Commission staff files a disagreement concerning the meeting summary or requests to amend the approved study plan within 30 days, any proposed amendment will be deemed to be approved. TDX will request that the Commission apply the criteria located in 18 CFR § 5.15(d) and (e), with regard to requests to modify an approved study or for new studies. Pursuant to the Commission-approved study plan and schedule, or no later than two years after Commission approval of the study plan and schedule, whichever comes first, TDX will prepare and file with the Commission a USR that meets the requirements of 18 CFR § 5.15(f). Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 5 of 8 Draft, May 29, 2009 TDX acknowledges that due to the nature of some of the resource study efforts described in the PAD that all study efforts needed to support the development of the license application may not be completed within two years of the initiation of the study program. TDX is committed to working with agencies and other Participants to generate sufficient information regarding project effects to support the license application without jeopardizing the overall project schedule. To that end, the USR will include any modifications to ongoing studies proposed by TDX based on consultation with Participants. Similar to the ISR, TDX will hold a meeting with Participants and Commission staff and prepare and file a meeting summary. Any Participant or the Commission staff may file a disagreement concerning TDX’s meeting summary within 30 days, setting forth the basis for the disagreement. Any disagreement filing shall include any modifications to ongoing studies or new studies proposed by the Commission staff or other Participant. Responses to any disagreement filings shall be made within 30 days. No later than 30 days following the due date for responses, the Director will resolve the disagreement and amend the approved study plan as appropriate. If no Participant or Commission staff files a disagreement concerning the meeting summary or requests to amend the approved study plan within 30 days, any proposed amendment will be deemed to be approved. TDX will repeat these process steps as necessary for any studies which extend beyond the end of the second year of the study program. TDX acknowledges that many of the strict deadlines outlined above, particularly with regard to study planning, report review, and modifications to the approved study plan may be difficult to meet. To the extent possible without jeopardizing the ability to effectively utilize available field time, TDX is committed working with agencies and other Participants to identify opportunities to make adjustments to these standard timeframes. Given that this effort will occur within a modified TLP, these decisions regarding adjustments to timeframes can be made by TDX in coordination with Participants. To the extent that any study efforts aimed at developing additional baseline information as the basis for long term monitoring of Project effects after construction continue past the filing of the License Application, TDX will work with the Commission to establish a process similar to that described above for continued Participant review of applicable study reports. II. Maintenance of the Public Reference File TDX has developed and will maintain a public reference file at TDX’s offices in Anchorage. The public reference file will include copies of all written correspondence (including e-mails), documentation of phone conversations, meeting notices, agendas and summaries, study plans, study reports, status reports, and other documents developed during consultation or submitted for inclusion in the public reference file. All documents in the public reference file will be submitted to FERC as part of the formal licensing record. TDX will also maintain a website (www.chakachamna-hydro.com) for access to key documents developed during the course of the licensing consultation, such as the PAD and NOI, meeting notices, meeting summaries, study plans and study reports. The licensing website will also have an information library that allows stakeholders to access relevant information that TDX has gathered through its due diligence process. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 6 of 8 Draft, May 29, 2009 For the duration of the licensing proceeding TDX will also make available to the public for inspection in a form that is readily accessible, reviewable and reproducible during regular business hours, the PAD, materials referenced in the PAD and other information that will make up the complete application for license, including all exhibits, appendices, and any amendments, pleadings, supplementary or additional information, or correspondence filed by TDX with the Commission n connection with the application. III. Meetings TDX shall be responsible for scheduling all consultation meetings involving TDX and Participants. For the meeting specified in 18 CFR § 4.38(b)(3), TDX will provide the required notice in appropriate local and other forums. TDX will solicit input from Participants on meeting agendas and objectives and will seek to locate meetings to facilitate Participant attendance to most effectively accomplish those objectives. TDX will endeavor to notify all Participants of meetings scheduled by TDX at least 30 days prior to the meeting date. This notification may be made in writing, via fax, via email, or by telephone conversation. Under special circumstances, TDX may hold a meeting with less than 30 days notice. TDX shall establish the meeting agenda and will endeavor to provide a written meeting agenda to all Participants at least two weeks prior to a scheduled meeting. Participants may submit comments on the agenda to TDX up to one week before the scheduled meeting. TDX will endeavor to incorporate any proposed changes to the agenda and will distribute a final agenda at the meeting. In addition, the agenda may be modified at the beginning of the meeting. TDX and all Participants will endeavor to make available all documents and other information necessary to prepare for a consultation meeting at least two weeks prior to the scheduled meeting. In the alternative, materials can be provided at the meeting. IV. Documentation All of the documentation requirements described below apply to substantive communications regarding the licensing of the Project; communications related to procedural matters (e.g., responding to inquiries regarding meeting scheduling) are not subject to the same documentation requirements. A. Meeting Summaries TDX will be primarily responsible for providing a written summary of the matters addressed at all meetings involving TDX and Participants. A draft meeting summary will be distributed to all meeting attendees within 15 days of the meeting. Any corrections to the draft meeting summary should be submitted to TDX within 15 days. TDX will finalize the meeting summary within 30 days after receiving corrections. If no corrections are submitted, the meeting summary will become final 30 days after the date of the meeting. Final meeting summaries will be posted on the licensing website. B. Oral Communications Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 7 of 8 Draft, May 29, 2009 Any oral communication (i.e., telephone conversations) between TDX and any Participant regarding any substantive aspect of the Project licensing shall be documented in writing by TDX and included in the public reference file, with a copy provided to those participating in the oral communication. C. Technical Documents A variety of technical documents will be produced during the course of licensing consultation, including the Preliminary Application Document (PAD), study plans, study reports, and draft and license applications. Whenever comments are solicited on documents, review periods will be established and communicated to Participants. Review periods will typically be 30 days, unless longer periods are required by FERC regulations (e.g., 90 day comment period on the draft application). Participants will endeavor to provide comments to TDX within the timeframes specified for comment periods. TDX will consider adjusting comment periods, making them either longer or shorter, to better utilize available time within the course of pre-filing consultation, without jeopardizing the overall project schedule. Any such adjustments will be made with the concurrence of the Participants. D. Written Correspondence Any written correspondence (including e-mails) regarding the licensing of the Project between TDX and Participants will become part of the public reference file. All written correspondence should be sent to TDX at the following address: Eric Yould Chakachamna Lake Project Licensing Manager TDX Power, Inc. Ste 402 4300 B St Anchorage, AK 99503-5946 e-mail: eyould@alaska.net With a copy sent to: Finlay Anderson Long View Associates, Inc. 4022 NE 8th Ave Portland, OR 97212 email: fanderson@longviewassociates.com and Chakachamna@longviewassociates.com V. Distribution of Licensing Documentation Distribution of licensing documents will be accomplished primarily by email, except when TDX receives a request for hard-copy mailings. If a Participant does not provide TDX with an email address, or if a Participant has indicated a preference to receive hard-copy mailings, TDX will send paper documents through regular mail. A Participant may also request to receive a paper copy of any specific licensing document by contacting Maxine Blake, by phone at (907) 762-8450 or by email at mblake@tdxpower.com Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 8 of 8 Draft, May 29, 2009 In addition to distribution to all Participants, all licensing documents will be posted on the licensing website (www.chakachamna-hydro.com). Distribution of licensing documents (aside from brief letters, notices, etc.) will include a copy of the distribution list. VII. Revisions to the Communications Protocol This protocol may be revised at any time upon general agreement of TDX and the Participants. VIII. Duration of the Communication Protocol This Communications Protocol will remain in effect until FERC notices that the License Application is accepted for filing. From: chakachamna [mailto:chakachamna@tdxpower.com] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:50 PM Cc: chakachamna Subject: Upcoming Filing for the Chakachamna Project All ‐ TDX Power (TDX) is preparing to file its the Pre‐Application Document (PAD) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to file an Application for Original License for the proposed Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660). TDX will be e‐filing the documents on FERC's elibrary, and will be posting the documents in the Documents section of the licensing website (www.chakachamna‐ hydro.com/documents). For those of you on this distribution list, TDX will also be distributing CD's of the documents, provided that your postal address is on file at the website (or on file with FERC as part of the service and mail lists). If you wish to receive a CD, please take a minute to visit the website at http://www.chakachamna‐hydro.com/members/login.php and verify that we have your contact information. Your username is your email address, and if you have forgotten or do not know your password, there is a "forgot your password" utility that will allow you to gain access. This is also a good time to confirm your affiliation, title, and other contact details. If, for any reason, you wish to be removed the distribution list, please reply to this message with the request and we will remove your information. Also note that this email box (chakachamna@tdxpower.com) has been established as a dedicated, shared email box for the Project. Emails to or from this address will be made part of the consultation record for the Project as we proceed, so copying the address in emails would be a helpful practice. Thanks, Maxine Blake Executive Assistant TDX Power From: O'Donnell, Melinda J (DNR) [mailto:melinda.odonnell@alaska.gov] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 1:43 PM To: chakachamna Subject: RE: Upcoming Filing for the Chakachamna Project Thanks for the information. Which licensing process has been selected? From: chakachamna [mailto:chakachamna@tdxpower.com] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:50 AM Cc: chakachamna Subject: Upcoming Filing for the Chakachamna Project All ‐ TDX Power (TDX) is preparing to file its the Pre‐Application Document (PAD) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to file an Application for Original License for the proposed Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660). TDX will be e‐filing the documents on FERC's elibrary, and will be posting the documents in the Documents section of the licensing website (www.chakachamna‐ hydro.com/documents). For those of you on this distribution list, TDX will also be distributing CD's of the documents, provided that your postal address is on file at the website (or on file with FERC as part of the service and mail lists). If you wish to receive a CD, please take a minute to visit the website at http://www.chakachamna‐hydro.com/members/login.php and verify that we have your contact information. Your username is your email address, and if you have forgotten or do not know your password, there is a "forgot your password" utility that will allow you to gain access. This is also a good time to confirm your affiliation, title, and other contact details. If, for any reason, you wish to be removed the distribution list, please reply to this message with the request and we will remove your information. Also note that this email box (chakachamna@tdxpower.com) has been established as a dedicated, shared email box for the Project. Emails to or from this address will be made part of the consultation record for the Project as we proceed, so copying the address in emails would be a helpful practice. Thanks, Maxine Blake Executive Assistant TDX Power From: Steve Padula [mailto:spadula@longviewassociates.com] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:55 PM To: phil_brna@fws.gov; cassie_thomas@nps.gov; Prokosch, Gary J (DNR); susan.walker@noaa.gov Cc: Ferguson, Jim M (DFG) Subject: FW: "Revised Draft: Chakachamna Enhanced TLP Communications Protocol" Hi folks. I thought I would send out a quick note to you based on a conversation I had with Jim Ferguson today. Jim indicated that the efforts to address the process concerns that had been noted in our earlier discussions were appreciated but that there remains a concern about the strict deadlines that come with the elements of the ILP that TDX is proposing to incorporate into the TLP framework. In other words if we have simply imported the problems associated with tight and inflexible timeframes that exist in the ILP into the TLP then maybe we haven't really addressed this concern. I wanted to confirm with you that TDX appreciates this concern and is willing to do what it reasonably can to be flexible. The following statements are included in the proposed changes to the communication protocol on page 5: "TDX acknowledges that many of the strict deadlines outlined above, particularly with regard to study planning, report review, and modifications to the approved study plan may be difficult to meet. To the extent possible without jeopardizing the ability to effectively utilize available field time, TDX is committed working with agencies and other Participants to identify opportunities to make adjustments to these standard timeframes. Given that this effort will occur within a modified TLP, these decisions regarding adjustments to timeframes can be made by TDX in coordination with Participants. To the extent that any study efforts aimed at developing additional baseline information as the basis for long term monitoring of Project effects after construction continue past the filing of the License Application, TDX will work with the Commission to establish a process similar to that described above for continued Participant review of applicable study reports." Given Jim's feedback I wanted to make sure that you all saw this commitment. No doubt the licensing process will be challenging, but a key benefit that we see of the proposed TLP approach is that TDX together with the agencies and other stakeholders will be able to make adjustments to deadlines and timeframes, particularly related to the studyprogram without needing FERC approval. Obviously we can't speak for FERC in terms of how it will establish schedules for activities that are strictly theirs (e.g., NEPA scoping), but TDX is committed to being flexible where it can, so long as the overall project schedule and in particular utilization of field time is not jeopardized. I know we have asked for any additional feedback, and hopefully support for the revised protocol by COB tomorrow. We want to include your thoughts, along with the proposed protocol, with the PAD. Our challenge is that we start burning CDs of the PAD early in the week of June 22. Jim has asked for a few extra days to provide his response which I'm happy to oblige. If you also think a little extra time would help please take it although we appreciate getting your responses at your earliest convenience. Thanks, Steve Steve Padula Long View Associates, Inc. p‐360‐576‐3579 f‐360‐576‐0308 c‐360‐607‐0770 spadula@longviewassociates.com From: Maxine Blake [mailto:mblake@tdxpower.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 11:18 AM To: Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov; susan.walker@noaa.gov; bday@homerelectric.com; jim.ferguson@alaska.gov; cakers@tyonek.com; Chakachamna Distribution List; joe.balash@alaska.gov; robin.beebee@hdrinc.com; james.brady@hdrinc.com; phil_brna@fws.gov; bcarey@aidea.org; curtis.jennifer@epa.gov; michael.daigneault@alaska.gov; kevin_dunham@chugachelectric.com; mark_fouts@chugachelectric.com; steveg@enxco.com; scott.houk@alaska.gov; saraellen@akcenter.org; james.keen@alaska.gov; allen.kemplen@alaska.gov; kim.klein@alaska.gov; timkayaks@hotmail.com; adele.lee@alaska.gov; Anne.legget@hdrinc.com; ken.lord@sol.doi.gov; frances_mann@fws.gov; jmcclellan@tyonek.com; pmclarno@hdrinc.com; dfmeyer@usgs.gov; jason.mouw@alaska.gov; douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov; north.phil@epa.gov; mikeo@cosmichamlet.net; dott@aidea.org; Steve Padula; pmpark@gvea.com; gilbert.l.phillips@poa02.usace.army.mil; Donna.robertson@hdrinc.com; david.rutz@alaska.gov; toby@akcenter.org; Page_Spencer@nps.gov; cassie_thomas@nps.gov; jthrall@yahoo.com; jlwalker@matanuska.com; michael.walton@alaska.gov; rich.wilson@alaska.gov; Bzubeck@HomerElectric.com; patricia.bettis@alaska.gov; chay@alaska.com; gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us; ed.weiss@alaska.gov; hydro@gci.net; gary.prokosch@alaska.gov; thomas.cappiello@alaska.gov; dreiser@r2usa.com; tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov; lawrence.peltz@noaa.gov; keeper@inletkeeper.org; robert.dach@bia.gov; jblankenship@borough.kenai.ak.us; ann.wilde@alaska.gov; dpa@humbolt1.com; gtquada@gci.net; heather.r.williams@mwhglobal.com; sue.sander@wgint.com; chris_lausten@mcgraw-hill.com; Melinda.ODonnell@alaska.gov; noldog17@yahoo.com; john.dunker@alaska.gov; jtpietz@pcl.com; dan_young@nps.gov; debby.burwen@alaska.gov; samuel.ivey@alaska.gov; sean.palmer@alaska.gov; am@aquacoustics.com; dpa@humboldt1.com; byanity@whpacific.com; kirby.gilbert@mwhglobal.com; jthompson@lachel.com; execdir@chugachconsumers.org; Cortonj@hotmail.com; kmiller@tu.org; kevin.schneider@barnard-inc.com Subject: "Revised Draft: Chakachamna Enhanced TLP Communications Protocol" I apologize – I forgot the attachment. Max/TDX Power. All ‐ As requested on our May 12th conference call, TDX has revised the draft Communications Protocol that you previously reviewed. You requested that TDX add additional detail to the elements of the ILP that are being proposed for inclusion in our "enhanced TLP". These enhancements address questions or concerns you have expressed with use of the TLP; while providing a basis for deviating from the rigid ILP process or schedule should circumstances demand. The questions and concerns you expressed were 1. consequences of not doing early NEPA scoping, as would be done with ILP or Alternative Licensing Process (ALP); 2. ability to reach resolution on study plan disputes and the distinction between “advisory opinion” that is available through TLP/ALP versus a study plan determination (ILP); 4. difficulty in developing an administrative record upon to which stakeholders could easily refer and reference in future proceedings; 5. desirability/questions about the significance of early FERC staff involvement (available through ILP and ALP; uncertain for TLP) We are open to making additional modifications or clarifications as needed. In order to make our goal for PAD filing, we request that you provide any comments by Friday, June 12. In the intervening period, please feel free to contact Steve Padula (spadula@longviewassociates.com ; 360‐576‐3579) directly should you wish to discuss the proposed approach. You also requested that TDX provide more treatment, in its Pre‐Application Document (PAD), of its approach to study plan development. Accordingly, TDX will include with the PAD an appendix that describes, at a high level • an approach and philosophy for addressing potential resource impacts (or in many cases, a basic lack of information) • a description of the goals / objectives of identified studies • our general impressions of time‐frames necessary for these studies. Thank you all for your continued involvement with the Chakachamna Project and your thoughtful comments on this protocol. Thanks Eric Yould eyould@alaska.net From: Finlay Anderson Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:38 PM To: melinda.odonnell@alaska.gov Cc: Steve Padula; Maxine Blake; Eric Yould; Finlay Anderson; Joyce Brooks Subject: RE: Upcoming Filing for the Chakachamna Project Hi Melinda ‐‐ Maxine forwarded me your question for a response. Please see the attached e‐mail that explains the general approach that TDX is pursuing. In brief, TDX will be requesting the use of the TLP, but FERC approval of that process is by no means certain. The attached e‐mail outlines measures TDX has proposed to gain stakeholder support for the proposed process; any agency input (even informally) on the attached approach would be welcome. Thanks please feel free to call with any questions Finlay Anderson Long View Associates 4022 NE 8th Ave Portland, Oregon 97212 p: (503) 335‐5806 f: (503) 345‐3418 From: O'Donnell, Melinda J (DNR) [mailto:melinda.odonnell@alaska.gov] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 1:43 PM To: chakachamna Subject: RE: Upcoming Filing for the Chakachamna Project Thanks for the information. Which licensing process has been selected? From: chakachamna [mailto:chakachamna@tdxpower.com] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:50 AM Cc: chakachamna Subject: Upcoming Filing for the Chakachamna Project All ‐ TDX Power (TDX) is preparing to file its the Pre‐Application Document (PAD) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to file an Application for Original License for the proposed Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660). TDX will be e‐filing the documents on FERC's elibrary, and will be posting the documents in the Documents section of the licensing website (www.chakachamna‐ hydro.com/documents). For those of you on this distribution list, TDX will also be distributing CD's of the documents, provided that your postal address is on file at the website (or on file with FERC as part of the service and mail lists). If you wish to receive a CD, please take a minute to visit the website at http://www.chakachamna‐hydro.com/members/login.php and verify that we have your contact information. Your username is your email address, and if you have forgotten or do not know your password, there is a "forgot your password" utility that will allow you to gain access. This is also a good time to confirm your affiliation, title, and other contact details. If, for any reason, you wish to be removed the distribution list, please reply to this message with the request and we will remove your information. Also note that this email box (chakachamna@tdxpower.com) has been established as a dedicated, shared email box for the Project. Emails to or from this address will be made part of the consultation record for the Project as we proceed, so copying the address in emails would be a helpful practice. Thanks, Maxine Blake Executive Assistant TDX Power From: Maxine Blake [mailto:mblake@tdxpower.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 2:18 PM To: Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov; susan.walker@noaa.gov; bday@homerelectric.com; jim.ferguson@alaska.gov; cakers@tyonek.com; Chakachamna Distribution List; joe.balash@alaska.gov; robin.beebee@hdrinc.com; james.brady@hdrinc.com; phil_brna@fws.gov; bcarey@aidea.org; curtis.jennifer@epa.gov; michael.daigneault@alaska.gov; kevin_dunham@chugachelectric.com; mark_fouts@chugachelectric.com; steveg@enxco.com; scott.houk@alaska.gov; saraellen@akcenter.org; james.keen@alaska.gov; allen.kemplen@alaska.gov; kim.klein@alaska.gov; timkayaks@hotmail.com; adele.lee@alaska.gov; Anne.legget@hdrinc.com; ken.lord@sol.doi.gov; frances_mann@fws.gov; jmcclellan@tyonek.com; pmclarno@hdrinc.com; dfmeyer@usgs.gov; jason.mouw@alaska.gov; douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov; north.phil@epa.gov; mikeo@cosmichamlet.net; dott@aidea.org; Steve Padula; pmpark@gvea.com; gilbert.l.phillips@poa02.usace.army.mil; Donna.robertson@hdrinc.com; david.rutz@alaska.gov; toby@akcenter.org; Page_Spencer@nps.gov; cassie_thomas@nps.gov; jthrall@yahoo.com; jlwalker@matanuska.com; michael.walton@alaska.gov; rich.wilson@alaska.gov; Bzubeck@HomerElectric.com; patricia.bettis@alaska.gov; chay@alaska.com; gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us; ed.weiss@alaska.gov; hydro@gci.net; gary.prokosch@alaska.gov; thomas.cappiello@alaska.gov; dreiser@r2usa.com; tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov; lawrence.peltz@noaa.gov; keeper@inletkeeper.org; robert.dach@bia.gov; jblankenship@borough.kenai.ak.us; ann.wilde@alaska.gov; dpa@humbolt1.com; gtquada@gci.net; heather.r.williams@mwhglobal.com; sue.sander@wgint.com; chris_lausten@mcgraw-hill.com; Melinda.ODonnell@alaska.gov; noldog17@yahoo.com; john.dunker@alaska.gov; jtpietz@pcl.com; dan_young@nps.gov; debby.burwen@alaska.gov; samuel.ivey@alaska.gov; sean.palmer@alaska.gov; am@aquacoustics.com; dpa@humboldt1.com; byanity@whpacific.com; kirby.gilbert@mwhglobal.com; jthompson@lachel.com; execdir@chugachconsumers.org; Cortonj@hotmail.com; kmiller@tu.org; kevin.schneider@barnard-inc.com Subject: "Revised Draft: Chakachamna Enhanced TLP Communications Protocol" I apologize – I forgot the attachment. Max/TDX Power. All ‐ As requested on our May 12th conference call, TDX has revised the draft Communications Protocol that you previously reviewed. You requested that TDX add additional detail to the elements of the ILP that are being proposed for inclusion in our "enhanced TLP". These enhancements address questions or concerns you have expressed with use of the TLP; while providing a basis for deviating from the rigid ILP process or schedule should circumstances demand. The questions and concerns you expressed were 1. consequences of not doing early NEPA scoping, as would be done with ILP or Alternative Licensing Process (ALP); 2. ability to reach resolution on study plan disputes and the distinction between “advisory opinion” that is available through TLP/ALP versus a study plan determination (ILP); 4. difficulty in developing an administrative record upon to which stakeholders could easily refer and reference in future proceedings; 5. desirability/questions about the significance of early FERC staff involvement (available through ILP and ALP; uncertain for TLP) We are open to making additional modifications or clarifications as needed. In order to make our goal for PAD filing, we request that you provide any comments by Friday, June 12. In the intervening period, please feel free to contact Steve Padula (spadula@longviewassociates.com ; 360‐576‐3579) directly should you wish to discuss the proposed approach. You also requested that TDX provide more treatment, in its Pre‐Application Document (PAD), of its approach to study plan development. Accordingly, TDX will include with the PAD an appendix that describes, at a high level • an approach and philosophy for addressing potential resource impacts (or in many cases, a basic lack of information) • a description of the goals / objectives of identified studies • our general impressions of time‐frames necessary for these studies. Thank you all for your continued involvement with the Chakachamna Project and your thoughtful comments on this protocol. Thanks Eric Yould eyould@alaska.net Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 1 of 8 Draft, May 29, 2009 Proposed Communications Protocol For Licensing Consultation Activities For the Chakachamna Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12660) [note: text in blue is new since the 5-12-09 conference call] TDX is requesting FERC to authorize use of a traditional three-stage consultation process for the licensing, enhanced with additional process commitments and consultation opportunities. TDX initiated informal consultation with potentially interested parties with an outreach effort that began in 2007. Additional informal consultation regarding the proposed licensing process, and the need and goals for early field studies began in late 2008. TDX plans to initiate formal consultation with issuance of the Notice of Intent (NOI) and Preliminary Application Document (PAD) in June 2009. The TLP, if approved, will require a Joint Meeting with the agencies, Tribes and public and will provide opportunities for the Participants to provide comments on the PAD and to make study requests. This Communication Protocol (Protocol) is intended to facilitate communication and cooperation among TDX Power, Inc. (TDX), federal and state agencies, and other interested organizations and parties (collectively, Participants) during the preparation of TDX’s Application for Original License for the Chakachamna Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project). This Protocol is structured based on the assumption that FERC will approve the use of a modified Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) for the pre-filing consultation period for the Project. Given that the Project is a large new development in an area for which relatively little information exists, TDX believes that the TLP, as modified by the provisions outlined below, would be the most effective process for completing the necessary pre- filing work while providing for meaningful participation by agencies and other interested organizations. Should the TLP not be approved for use, TDX will continue with consultation utilizing the default ILP and follow the applicable regulations. This Protocol will govern communications among all Participants and provide public access to information regarding the consultation activities related to the licensing of the Project. The Protocol also applies to communications made by contractors or consultants on behalf of TDX or any of the Participants. This Protocol does not apply to communications solely between Participants, or to any Participant’s internal communications. I. Participation in the Licensing Process The licensing process for the Project is open to the general public and interested parties are encouraged to participate. A contact list, compiled by TDX, will be maintained to identify those agencies, organizations, individuals or groups that have been identified as interested parties or who have requested to be included as Participants. The contact list will be used to provide notice of any public meetings, as well as notice of the availability of information for public review. The contact list will be updated periodically by TDX and inactive Participants will be asked annually to re-affirm their interest in participating in the process. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 2 of 8 Draft, May 29, 2009 In response to concerns with the TLP identified by agencies and other interested parties, TDX proposes to supplement the TLP process with additional consultation steps to provide an enhanced level of engagement and transparency. As allowed under 18 CFR §4.38(e)(4), TDX is requesting as part of its proposal to utilize the TLP that the Commission approve the addition of the following ILP elements into the licensing process for the Project: - Early NEPA Scoping by FERC as described under 18 CFR § 5.8; - Study Criteria under 18 CFR §5.9; - Study Plan Development (18 CFR §5.11); - Stakeholder comments on study plans and revised study plans (18 CFR § 5.12 though 18 CFR § 5.13); - Formal study dispute resolution process as described in 18 CFR § 5.14; and - Initial Study Report (ISR) and Updated Study Reports (USR) pursuant to 18 CFR § 5.15. A proposed process schedule that incorporates these elements of the ILP into the enhanced TLP for the Project is located in section 2.2.1 (Summary of Licensing Milestones) of the PAD. Early NEPA Scoping by Commission Staff As outlined in the ILP regulations at 18 CFR § 5.8(b)(3)(vii), TDX requests that the Commission, as part of its notice of receipt of the Notice of Intent (NOI) and the Pre-Application Document (PAD), commencement of proceeding and its approval of TDX’s request to use the traditional licensing process as enhanced by the provisions identified herein, issue a statement with regard to its intent to prepare an environmental impact statement on the ultimate license application. TDX also requests that the Commission prepare and issue Scoping Document 1 concurrent with its notice. Study Criteria TDX requests that the Commission incorporate the study criteria identified in 18 CFR § 5.9(b) into the licensing process for the Project and require that any information gathering and study requests meet these criteria. Study Plan Development TDX requests that the Commission incorporate the requirements of 18 CFR § 5.11 regarding the development of the Proposed Study Plan (PSP) and the conduct of study plan meetings into the licensing process. This will require that TDX file its PSP with the Commission within 45 days following the deadline for the filing of comments and study requests on the Pre-Application Document. The PSP will meet the following specific requirements of 18 CFR § 5.11(b), (c) and (d): - For each proposed study: o A detailed description of the study and the methodology to be used, o A schedule for conducting the study, o Provisions for periodic progress reports, including the manner and extent to which information will be shared and sufficient time for technical review of the analysis and results, and, o If TDX does not adopt a requested study, an explanation of why the request was not adopted, with reference to criteria set forth in 18 CFR § 5.9(b) Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 3 of 8 Draft, May 29, 2009 - Provisions for the Initial and Updated Study Reports (ISR and USR, respectively) and meetings provided for in 18 CFR § 5.15 - For each proposed study: o Describe the goals and objectives, o Address any known resource management goals of the agencies or Indian tribes with jurisdiction over the resource to be studied, o Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study proposal and the need for additional information, o Explain any nexus between project operations and effects (direct, indirect and/or cumulative) on the resource to be studied, o Explain how any proposed methodology is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community or, as appropriate, considers any known tribal interests, and o Describe considerations of level of effort and cost, as applicable. - Provisions for conducting study plan meeting(s) during the 90-day period provided for in 18 CFR § 5.12 for the purpose of clarifying TDX’s proposed study plan and any initial information gathering or study requests, and to resolve any outstanding issues with respect to the proposed study plan. - The initial study plan meeting must be held no later than 30 days after the deadline date for filing of the proposed study plan. Stakeholder Comments on Proposed Study Plans and Revised Study Plans Comments on the PSP, including any revised information or study requests, shall be filed within 90 days after the PSP is filed. Comments shall include an explanation of any study plan concerns and any accommodations reached with TDX regarding those concerns. Any proposed modifications to TDX’s PSP shall address the criteria in 18 CFR § 5.9(b). Within 30 days following the deadline for filing comments on the PSP, TDX will file a Revised Study Plan (RSP) for Commission approval. The RSP will include comments received on the proposed study plan and a description of efforts made to resolve differences over study requests. If TDX does not adopt a requested study, it will explain why the request was not adopted, with reference to the criteria in 18 CFR § 5.9(b). Within 15 days following filing of the RSP, Participants may file comments thereon. Within 30 days following filing of the RSP, the Director of Energy Projects will issue a study plan determination, including any modifications determined to be necessary in light of the record. If no notice of study dispute is filed pursuant to 18 CFR § 5.14 within 20 days of the study plan determination, the study plan as approved in the study plan determination will be deemed approved and TDX will proceed with the approved studies. Formal study dispute resolution process Within 20 days of the study plan determination, any Federal agency with authority to provide mandatory conditions on a license pursuant to FPA section 4(e), or to prescribe fishways pursuant to FPA section 18, or any agency or Indian tribe with authority to issue a water quality certification for the project license under section 401 of the Clean Water Act may file a notice of study dispute with Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 4 of 8 Draft, May 29, 2009 respect to studies pertaining directly to the exercise of their authorities under sections 4(e) and 18 of the FPA or section 401 of the CWA. Any notice of study dispute shall explain how the disputing agency’s or Indian tribe’s study request satisfies the criteria set forth in 18CFR5.9(b), and shall identify and provide contact information for the panel member designated by the disputing agency or Indian tribe, as discussed in 18 CFR § 5.14(d). TDX will request that the Commission follow the formal dispute resolution process as described in 18 CFR § 5.14(d) – (l). Initial Study Report (ISR) and Updated Study Reports (USR) Pursuant to the Commission-approved study plan and schedule or no later than one year after Commission approval of the study plan, whichever comes first, TDX will prepare and file with the Commission an ISR describing its overall progress in implementing the study plan and schedule and the data collected, including an explanation of any variance from the study plan and schedule. The report will also include any modifications to ongoing studies or new studies proposed by TDX. Given the nature of the anticipated study program as outlined in Section 5 and Appendix X of the PAD, the scopes of some studies, primarily related to impact assessment, will rely significantly on the results of other studies designed to generate basic existing resource information. TDX is committed to working with Participants to refine the scopes of such impact assessment studies based on the new resource information that is generated, and documenting these refinements in the ISR. Within 15 days following the filing of the ISR, TDX will hold a meeting with Participants and Commission staff to discuss the study results and TDX’s and/or other Participants’ proposals, if any, to modify the study plan in light of progress of the study plan and data collected. Within 15 days of this meeting, TDX will file a meeting summary, including any modifications to ongoing studies or new studies proposed by TDX. Any Participant or the Commission staff may file a disagreement concerning TDX’s meeting summary within 30 days, setting forth the basis for the disagreement. Any disagreement filing shall include any modifications to ongoing studies or new studies proposed by the Commission staff or other participant. Responses to any disagreement filings shall be made within 30 days. No later than 30 days following the due date for responses, the Director will resolve the disagreement and amend the approved study plan as appropriate. If no Participant or Commission staff files a disagreement concerning the meeting summary or requests to amend the approved study plan within 30 days, any proposed amendment will be deemed to be approved. TDX will request that the Commission apply the criteria located in 18 CFR § 5.15(d) and (e), with regard to requests to modify an approved study or for new studies. Pursuant to the Commission-approved study plan and schedule, or no later than two years after Commission approval of the study plan and schedule, whichever comes first, TDX will prepare and file with the Commission a USR that meets the requirements of 18 CFR § 5.15(f). Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 5 of 8 Draft, May 29, 2009 TDX acknowledges that due to the nature of some of the resource study efforts described in the PAD that all study efforts needed to support the development of the license application may not be completed within two years of the initiation of the study program. TDX is committed to working with agencies and other Participants to generate sufficient information regarding project effects to support the license application without jeopardizing the overall project schedule. To that end, the USR will include any modifications to ongoing studies proposed by TDX based on consultation with Participants. Similar to the ISR, TDX will hold a meeting with Participants and Commission staff and prepare and file a meeting summary. Any Participant or the Commission staff may file a disagreement concerning TDX’s meeting summary within 30 days, setting forth the basis for the disagreement. Any disagreement filing shall include any modifications to ongoing studies or new studies proposed by the Commission staff or other Participant. Responses to any disagreement filings shall be made within 30 days. No later than 30 days following the due date for responses, the Director will resolve the disagreement and amend the approved study plan as appropriate. If no Participant or Commission staff files a disagreement concerning the meeting summary or requests to amend the approved study plan within 30 days, any proposed amendment will be deemed to be approved. TDX will repeat these process steps as necessary for any studies which extend beyond the end of the second year of the study program. TDX acknowledges that many of the strict deadlines outlined above, particularly with regard to study planning, report review, and modifications to the approved study plan may be difficult to meet. To the extent possible without jeopardizing the ability to effectively utilize available field time, TDX is committed working with agencies and other Participants to identify opportunities to make adjustments to these standard timeframes. Given that this effort will occur within a modified TLP, these decisions regarding adjustments to timeframes can be made by TDX in coordination with Participants. To the extent that any study efforts aimed at developing additional baseline information as the basis for long term monitoring of Project effects after construction continue past the filing of the License Application, TDX will work with the Commission to establish a process similar to that described above for continued Participant review of applicable study reports. II. Maintenance of the Public Reference File TDX has developed and will maintain a public reference file at TDX’s offices in Anchorage. The public reference file will include copies of all written correspondence (including e-mails), documentation of phone conversations, meeting notices, agendas and summaries, study plans, study reports, status reports, and other documents developed during consultation or submitted for inclusion in the public reference file. All documents in the public reference file will be submitted to FERC as part of the formal licensing record. TDX will also maintain a website (www.chakachamna-hydro.com) for access to key documents developed during the course of the licensing consultation, such as the PAD and NOI, meeting notices, meeting summaries, study plans and study reports. The licensing website will also have an information library that allows stakeholders to access relevant information that TDX has gathered through its due diligence process. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 6 of 8 Draft, May 29, 2009 For the duration of the licensing proceeding TDX will also make available to the public for inspection in a form that is readily accessible, reviewable and reproducible during regular business hours, the PAD, materials referenced in the PAD and other information that will make up the complete application for license, including all exhibits, appendices, and any amendments, pleadings, supplementary or additional information, or correspondence filed by TDX with the Commission n connection with the application. III. Meetings TDX shall be responsible for scheduling all consultation meetings involving TDX and Participants. For the meeting specified in 18 CFR § 4.38(b)(3), TDX will provide the required notice in appropriate local and other forums. TDX will solicit input from Participants on meeting agendas and objectives and will seek to locate meetings to facilitate Participant attendance to most effectively accomplish those objectives. TDX will endeavor to notify all Participants of meetings scheduled by TDX at least 30 days prior to the meeting date. This notification may be made in writing, via fax, via email, or by telephone conversation. Under special circumstances, TDX may hold a meeting with less than 30 days notice. TDX shall establish the meeting agenda and will endeavor to provide a written meeting agenda to all Participants at least two weeks prior to a scheduled meeting. Participants may submit comments on the agenda to TDX up to one week before the scheduled meeting. TDX will endeavor to incorporate any proposed changes to the agenda and will distribute a final agenda at the meeting. In addition, the agenda may be modified at the beginning of the meeting. TDX and all Participants will endeavor to make available all documents and other information necessary to prepare for a consultation meeting at least two weeks prior to the scheduled meeting. In the alternative, materials can be provided at the meeting. IV. Documentation All of the documentation requirements described below apply to substantive communications regarding the licensing of the Project; communications related to procedural matters (e.g., responding to inquiries regarding meeting scheduling) are not subject to the same documentation requirements. A. Meeting Summaries TDX will be primarily responsible for providing a written summary of the matters addressed at all meetings involving TDX and Participants. A draft meeting summary will be distributed to all meeting attendees within 15 days of the meeting. Any corrections to the draft meeting summary should be submitted to TDX within 15 days. TDX will finalize the meeting summary within 30 days after receiving corrections. If no corrections are submitted, the meeting summary will become final 30 days after the date of the meeting. Final meeting summaries will be posted on the licensing website. B. Oral Communications Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 7 of 8 Draft, May 29, 2009 Any oral communication (i.e., telephone conversations) between TDX and any Participant regarding any substantive aspect of the Project licensing shall be documented in writing by TDX and included in the public reference file, with a copy provided to those participating in the oral communication. C. Technical Documents A variety of technical documents will be produced during the course of licensing consultation, including the Preliminary Application Document (PAD), study plans, study reports, and draft and license applications. Whenever comments are solicited on documents, review periods will be established and communicated to Participants. Review periods will typically be 30 days, unless longer periods are required by FERC regulations (e.g., 90 day comment period on the draft application). Participants will endeavor to provide comments to TDX within the timeframes specified for comment periods. TDX will consider adjusting comment periods, making them either longer or shorter, to better utilize available time within the course of pre-filing consultation, without jeopardizing the overall project schedule. Any such adjustments will be made with the concurrence of the Participants. D. Written Correspondence Any written correspondence (including e-mails) regarding the licensing of the Project between TDX and Participants will become part of the public reference file. All written correspondence should be sent to TDX at the following address: Eric Yould Chakachamna Lake Project Licensing Manager TDX Power, Inc. Ste 402 4300 B St Anchorage, AK 99503-5946 e-mail: eyould@alaska.net With a copy sent to: Finlay Anderson Long View Associates, Inc. 4022 NE 8th Ave Portland, OR 97212 email: fanderson@longviewassociates.com and Chakachamna@longviewassociates.com V. Distribution of Licensing Documentation Distribution of licensing documents will be accomplished primarily by email, except when TDX receives a request for hard-copy mailings. If a Participant does not provide TDX with an email address, or if a Participant has indicated a preference to receive hard-copy mailings, TDX will send paper documents through regular mail. A Participant may also request to receive a paper copy of any specific licensing document by contacting Maxine Blake, by phone at (907) 762-8450 or by email at mblake@tdxpower.com Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Communications Protocol FERC Project No. 12660 Page 8 of 8 Draft, May 29, 2009 In addition to distribution to all Participants, all licensing documents will be posted on the licensing website (www.chakachamna-hydro.com). Distribution of licensing documents (aside from brief letters, notices, etc.) will include a copy of the distribution list. VII. Revisions to the Communications Protocol This protocol may be revised at any time upon general agreement of TDX and the Participants. VIII. Duration of the Communication Protocol This Communications Protocol will remain in effect until FERC notices that the License Application is accepted for filing. From: Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov [mailto:Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 11:42 AM To: eyould@alaska.net; mblake@tdxpower.com; Steve Padula Cc: douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov; cassie_thomas@nps.gov; Susan.Walker@noaa.gov; Phil_Brna@fws.gov Subject: Re: "Revised Draft: Chakachamna Enhanced TLP Communications Protocol" Good Morning, In response to TDX's request for comment regarding the "Revised Draft: Chakachamna Enhanced TLP Communications Protocol" document , the Service would like to go on record as having "no comment" at this time. We look forward to reviewing the PAD, and reserve comment until more information is made available through the FERC process. Thank you, Betsy Betsy McCracken Fishery Biologist Conservation Planning Assistance Ecological Services US Fish and Wildlife Service/Region 7/Anchorage Field Office Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov (907) 271 - 2783 Maxine Blake <mblake@tdxpower.com> 05/29/2009 10:23 AM To "Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov" <Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov>, "susan.walker@noaa.gov" <susan.walker@noaa.gov>, "bday@homerelectric.com" <bday@homerelectric.com>, "jim.ferguson@alaska.gov" <jim.ferguson@alaska.gov>, "cakers@tyonek.com" <cakers@tyonek.com>, "chakachamna@longviewassociates.com" <chakachamna@longviewassociates.com>, "joe.balash@alaska.gov" <joe.balash@alaska.gov>, "robin.beebee@hdrinc.com" <robin.beebee@hdrinc.com>, "james.brady@hdrinc.com" <james.brady@hdrinc.com>, "phil_brna@fws.gov" <phil_brna@fws.gov>, "bcarey@aidea.org" <bcarey@aidea.org>, "curtis.jennifer@epa.gov" <curtis.jennifer@epa.gov>, "michael.daigneault@alaska.gov" <michael.daigneault@alaska.gov>, "kevin_dunham@chugachelectric.com" <kevin_dunham@chugachelectric.com>, "mark_fouts@chugachelectric.com" <mark_fouts@chugachelectric.com>, "steveg@enxco.com" <steveg@enxco.com>, "scott.houk@alaska.gov" <scott.houk@alaska.gov>, "saraellen@akcenter.org" <saraellen@akcenter.org>, "james.keen@alaska.gov" <james.keen@alaska.gov>, "allen.kemplen@alaska.gov" <allen.kemplen@alaska.gov>, "kim.klein@alaska.gov" <kim.klein@alaska.gov>, "timkayaks@hotmail.com" <timkayaks@hotmail.com>, "adele.lee@alaska.gov" <adele.lee@alaska.gov>, "Anne.legget@hdrinc.com" <Anne.legget@hdrinc.com>, "ken.lord@sol.doi.gov" <ken.lord@sol.doi.gov>, "frances_mann@fws.gov" <frances_mann@fws.gov>, "jmcclellan@tyonek.com" <jmcclellan@tyonek.com>, "pmclarno@hdrinc.com" <pmclarno@hdrinc.com>, "dfmeyer@usgs.gov" <dfmeyer@usgs.gov>, "jason.mouw@alaska.gov" <jason.mouw@alaska.gov>, "douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov" <douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov>, "north.phil@epa.gov" <north.phil@epa.gov>, "mikeo@cosmichamlet.net" <mikeo@cosmichamlet.net>, "dott@aidea.org" <dott@aidea.org>, "spadula@longviewassociates.com" <spadula@longviewassociates.com>, "pmpark@gvea.com" <pmpark@gvea.com>, "gilbert.l.phillips@poa02.usace.army.mil" <gilbert.l.phillips@poa02.usace.army.mil>, "Donna.robertson@hdrinc.com" <Donna.robertson@hdrinc.com>, "david.rutz@alaska.gov" <david.rutz@alaska.gov>, "toby@akcenter.org" <toby@akcenter.org>, "Page_Spencer@nps.gov" <Page_Spencer@nps.gov>, "cassie_thomas@nps.gov" <cassie_thomas@nps.gov>, "jthrall@yahoo.com" <jthrall@yahoo.com>, "jlwalker@matanuska.com" <jlwalker@matanuska.com>, "michael.walton@alaska.gov" <michael.walton@alaska.gov>, "rich.wilson@alaska.gov" <rich.wilson@alaska.gov>, "Bzubeck@HomerElectric.com" <Bzubeck@HomerElectric.com>, "patricia.bettis@alaska.gov" <patricia.bettis@alaska.gov>, "chay@alaska.com" <chay@alaska.com>, "gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us" <gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us>, "ed.weiss@alaska.gov" <ed.weiss@alaska.gov>, "hydro@gci.net" <hydro@gci.net>, "gary.prokosch@alaska.gov" <gary.prokosch@alaska.gov>, "thomas.cappiello@alaska.gov" <thomas.cappiello@alaska.gov>, "dreiser@r2usa.com" <dreiser@r2usa.com>, "tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov" <tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov>, "lawrence.peltz@noaa.gov" <lawrence.peltz@noaa.gov>, "keeper@inletkeeper.org" <keeper@inletkeeper.org>, "robert.dach@bia.gov" <robert.dach@bia.gov>, "jblankenship@borough.kenai.ak.us" <jblankenship@borough.kenai.ak.us>, "ann.wilde@alaska.gov" <ann.wilde@alaska.gov>, "dpa@humbolt1.com" <dpa@humbolt1.com>, "gtquada@gci.net" <gtquada@gci.net>, "heather.r.williams@mwhglobal.com" <heather.r.williams@mwhglobal.com>, "sue.sander@wgint.com" <sue.sander@wgint.com>, "chris_lausten@mcgraw-hill.com" <chris_lausten@mcgraw-hill.com>, "Melinda.ODonnell@alaska.gov" <Melinda.ODonnell@alaska.gov>, "noldog17@yahoo.com" <noldog17@yahoo.com>, "john.dunker@alaska.gov" <john.dunker@alaska.gov>, "jtpietz@pcl.com" <jtpietz@pcl.com>, "dan_young@nps.gov" <dan_young@nps.gov>, "debby.burwen@alaska.gov" <debby.burwen@alaska.gov>, "samuel.ivey@alaska.gov" <samuel.ivey@alaska.gov>, "sean.palmer@alaska.gov" <sean.palmer@alaska.gov>, "am@aquacoustics.com" <am@aquacoustics.com>, "dpa@humboldt1.com" <dpa@humboldt1.com>, "byanity@whpacific.com" <byanity@whpacific.com>, "kirby.gilbert@mwhglobal.com" <kirby.gilbert@mwhglobal.com>, "jthompson@lachel.com" <jthompson@lachel.com>, "execdir@chugachconsumers.org" <execdir@chugachconsumers.org>, "Cortonj@hotmail.com" <Cortonj@hotmail.com>, "kmiller@tu.org" <kmiller@tu.org>, "kevin.schneider@barnard-inc.com" <kevin.schneider@barnard- inc.com> cc Subject "Revised Draft: Chakachamna Enhanced TLP Communications Protocol" I apologize – I forgot the attachment. Max/TDX Power. All ‐ As requested on our May 12th conference call, TDX has revised the draft Communications Protocol that you previously reviewed. You requested that TDX add additional detail to the elements of the ILP that are being proposed for inclusion in our "enhanced TLP". These enhancements address questions or concerns you have expressed with use of the TLP; while providing a basis for deviating from the rigid ILP process or schedule should circumstances demand. The questions and concerns you expressed were 1. consequences of not doing early NEPA scoping, as would be done with ILP or Alternative Licensing Process (ALP); 2. ability to reach resolution on study plan disputes and the distinction between “advisory opinion” that is available through TLP/ALP versus a study plan determination (ILP); 4. difficulty in developing an administrative record upon to which stakeholders could easily refer and reference in future proceedings; 5. desirability/questions about the significance of early FERC staff involvement (available through ILP and ALP; uncertain for TLP) We are open to making additional modifications or clarifications as needed. In order to make our goal for PAD filing, we request that you provide any comments by Friday, June 12. In the intervening period, please feel free to contact Steve Padula (spadula@longviewassociates.com ; 360‐576‐3579) directly should you wish to discuss the proposed approach. You also requested that TDX provide more treatment, in its Pre‐Application Document (PAD), of its approach to study plan development. Accordingly, TDX will include with the PAD an appendix that describes, at a high level • an approach and philosophy for addressing potential resource impacts (or in many cases, a basic lack of information) • a description of the goals / objectives of identified studies • our general impressions of time‐frames necessary for these studies. Thank you all for your continued involvement with the Chakachamna Project and your thoughtful comments on this protocol. Thanks Eric Yould eyould@alaska.net Douglas_Mutter@ios.doi.gov To 06/12/2009 11:27 Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov AM cc cassie_thomas@nps.gov, eyould@alaska.net, mblake@tdxpower.com, Phil_Brna@fws.gov, spadula@longviewassociates.com, Susan.Walker@noaa.gov Subject Re: "Revised Draft: Chakachamna Enhanced TLP Communications Protocol" Thanks! Douglas Mutter Regional Environmental Assistant U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 1689 C Street, Room 119 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 907-271-5011 (fax: 907-271-4102) douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov From: Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov To: eyould@alaska.net, mblake@tdxpower.com, spadula@longviewassociates.com Cc: douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov, cassie_thomas@nps.gov, Susan.Walker@noaa.gov, Phil_Brna@fws.gov Date: 06/12/2009 10:42 AM Subje Re: "Revised Draft: Chakachamna Enhanced TLP Communications ct: Protocol" Good Morning, In response to TDX's request for comment regarding the "Revised Draft: Chakachamna Enhanced TLP Communications Protocol" document , the Service would like to go on record as having "no comment" at this time. We look forward to reviewing the PAD, and reserve comment until more information is made available through the FERC process. Thank you, Betsy Betsy McCracken Fishery Biologist Conservation Planning Assistance Ecological Services US Fish and Wildlife Service/Region 7/Anchorage Field Office Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov (907) 271 - 2783 Maxine Blake <mblake@tdxp ower.com> To "Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov" <Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov>, 05/29/2009 "susan.walker@noaa.gov" <susan.walker@noaa.gov>, 10:23 AM "bday@homerelectric.com" <bday@homerelectric.com>, "jim.ferguson@alaska.gov" <jim.ferguson@alaska.gov>, "cakers@tyonek.com" <cakers@tyonek.com>, "chakachamna@longviewassociates.com" <chakachamna@longviewassociates.com>, "joe.balash@alaska.gov" <joe.balash@alaska.gov>, "robin.beebee@hdrinc.com" <robin.beebee@hdrinc.com>, "james.brady@hdrinc.com" <james.brady@hdrinc.com>, "phil_brna@fws.gov" <phil_brna@fws.gov>, "bcarey@aidea.org" <bcarey@aidea.org>, "curtis.jennifer@epa.gov" <curtis.jennifer@epa.gov>, "michael.daigneault@alaska.gov" <michael.daigneault@alaska.gov>, "kevin_dunham@chugachelectric.com" <kevin_dunham@chugachelectric.com>, "mark_fouts@chugachelectric.com" <mark_fouts@chugachelectric.com>, "steveg@enxco.com" <steveg@enxco.com>, "scott.houk@alaska.gov" <scott.houk@alaska.gov>, "saraellen@akcenter.org" <saraellen@akcenter.org>, "james.keen@alaska.gov" <james.keen@alaska.gov>, "allen.kemplen@alaska.gov" <allen.kemplen@alaska.gov>, "kim.klein@alaska.gov" <kim.klein@alaska.gov>, "timkayaks@hotmail.com" <timkayaks@hotmail.com>, "adele.lee@alaska.gov" <adele.lee@alaska.gov>, "Anne.legget@hdrinc.com" <Anne.legget@hdrinc.com>, "ken.lord@sol.doi.gov" <ken.lord@sol.doi.gov>, "frances_mann@fws.gov" <frances_mann@fws.gov>, "jmcclellan@tyonek.com" <jmcclellan@tyonek.com>, "pmclarno@hdrinc.com" <pmclarno@hdrinc.com>, "dfmeyer@usgs.gov" <dfmeyer@usgs.gov>, "jason.mouw@alaska.gov" <jason.mouw@alaska.gov>, "douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov" <douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov>, "north.phil@epa.gov" <north.phil@epa.gov>, "mikeo@cosmichamlet.net" <mikeo@cosmichamlet.net>, "dott@aidea.org" <dott@aidea.org>, "spadula@longviewassociates.com" <spadula@longviewassociates.com>, "pmpark@gvea.com" <pmpark@gvea.com>, "gilbert.l.phillips@poa02.usace.army.mil" <gilbert.l.phillips@poa02.usace.army.mil>, "Donna.robertson@hdrinc.com" <Donna.robertson@hdrinc.com>, "david.rutz@alaska.gov" <david.rutz@alaska.gov>, "toby@akcenter.org" <toby@akcenter.org>, "Page_Spencer@nps.gov" <Page_Spencer@nps.gov>, "cassie_thomas@nps.gov" <cassie_thomas@nps.gov>, "jthrall@yahoo.com" <jthrall@yahoo.com>, "jlwalker@matanuska.com" <jlwalker@matanuska.com>, "michael.walton@alaska.gov" <michael.walton@alaska.gov>, "rich.wilson@alaska.gov" <rich.wilson@alaska.gov>, "Bzubeck@HomerElectric.com" <Bzubeck@HomerElectric.com>, "patricia.bettis@alaska.gov" <patricia.bettis@alaska.gov>, "chay@alaska.com" <chay@alaska.com>, "gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us" <gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us>, "ed.weiss@alaska.gov" <ed.weiss@alaska.gov>, "hydro@gci.net" <hydro@gci.net>, "gary.prokosch@alaska.gov" <gary.prokosch@alaska.gov>, "thomas.cappiello@alaska.gov" <thomas.cappiello@alaska.gov>, "dreiser@r2usa.com" <dreiser@r2usa.com>, "tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov" <tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov>, "lawrence.peltz@noaa.gov" <lawrence.peltz@noaa.gov>, "keeper@inletkeeper.org" <keeper@inletkeeper.org>, "robert.dach@bia.gov" <robert.dach@bia.gov>, "jblankenship@borough.kenai.ak.us" <jblankenship@borough.kenai.ak.us>, "ann.wilde@alaska.gov" <ann.wilde@alaska.gov>, "dpa@humbolt1.com" <dpa@humbolt1.com>, "gtquada@gci.net" <gtquada@gci.net>, "heather.r.williams@mwhglobal.com" <heather.r.williams@mwhglobal.com>, "sue.sander@wgint.com" <sue.sander@wgint.com>, "chris_lausten@mcgraw-hill.com" <chris_lausten@mcgraw-hill.com>, "Melinda.ODonnell@alaska.gov" <Melinda.ODonnell@alaska.gov>, "noldog17@yahoo.com" <noldog17@yahoo.com>, "john.dunker@alaska.gov" <john.dunker@alaska.gov>, "jtpietz@pcl.com" <jtpietz@pcl.com>, "dan_young@nps.gov" <dan_young@nps.gov>, "debby.burwen@alaska.gov" <debby.burwen@alaska.gov>, "samuel.ivey@alaska.gov" <samuel.ivey@alaska.gov>, "sean.palmer@alaska.gov" <sean.palmer@alaska.gov>, "am@aquacoustics.com" <am@aquacoustics.com>, "dpa@humboldt1.com" <dpa@humboldt1.com>, "byanity@whpacific.com" <byanity@whpacific.com>, "kirby.gilbert@mwhglobal.com" <kirby.gilbert@mwhglobal.com>, "jthompson@lachel.com" <jthompson@lachel.com>, "execdir@chugachconsumers.org" <execdir@chugachconsumers.org>, "Cortonj@hotmail.com" <Cortonj@hotmail.com>, "kmiller@tu.org" <kmiller@tu.org>, "kevin.schneider@barnard-inc.com" <kevin.schneider@barnard-inc.com> cc Subject "Revised Draft: Chakachamna Enhanced TLP Communications Protocol" I apologize – I forgot the attachment. Max/TDX Power. All - As requested on our May 12th conference call, TDX has revised the draft Communications Protocol that you previously reviewed. You requested that TDX add additional detail to the elements of the ILP that are being proposed for inclusion in our "enhanced TLP". These enhancements address questions or concerns you have expressed with use of the TLP; while providing a basis for deviating from the rigid ILP process or schedule should circumstances demand. The questions and concerns you expressed were 1. consequences of not doing early NEPA scoping, as would be done with ILP or Alternative Licensing Process (ALP); 2. ability to reach resolution on study plan disputes and the distinction between “advisory opinion” that is available through TLP/ALP versus a study plan determination (ILP); 4. difficulty in developing an administrative record upon to which stakeholders could easily refer and reference in future proceedings; 5. desirability/questions about the significance of early FERC staff involvement (available through ILP and ALP; uncertain for TLP) We are open to making additional modifications or clarifications as needed. In order to make our goal for PAD filing, we request that you provide any comments by Friday, June 12. In the intervening period, please feel free to contact Steve Padula (spadula@longviewassociates.com ; 360-576-3579) directly should you wish to discuss the proposed approach. You also requested that TDX provide more treatment, in its Pre-Application Document (PAD), of its approach to study plan development. Accordingly, TDX will include with the PAD an appendix that describes, at a high level · an approach and philosophy for addressing potential resource impacts (or in many cases, a basic lack of information) · a description of the goals / objectives of identified studies · our general impressions of time-frames necessary for these studies. Thank you all for your continued involvement with the Chakachamna Project and your thoughtful comments on this protocol. Thanks Eric Yould eyould@alaska.net [attachment "Chakachamna_Communications Protocol-draft-5-29-09.doc" deleted by Douglas Mutter/PEP/OS/DOI] -----Original Message----- From: Cassie_Thomas@nps.gov [mailto:Cassie_Thomas@nps.gov] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 1:56 PM To: Douglas_Mutter@ios.doi.gov Cc: Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov; eyould@alaska.net; mblake@tdxpower.com; Phil_Brna@fws.gov; Steve Padula; Susan.Walker@noaa.gov Subject: Re: "Revised Draft: Chakachamna Enhanced TLP Communications Protocol" Ditto for one of the other DOI Services, NPS. Thanks -- Cassie Thomas NPS Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program Hydropower Assistance Program Regional WSR Coordinator Anchorage, Alaska `·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸ 240 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Voice 907/644-3590 FAX 907/644-3807 http://www.nps.gov/rtca/ http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/hydro/ Douglas_Mutter@io s.doi.gov To 06/12/2009 11:27 Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov AM cc cassie_thomas@nps.gov, eyould@alaska.net, mblake@tdxpower.com, Phil_Brna@fws.gov, spadula@longviewassociates.com, Susan.Walker@noaa.gov Subject Re: "Revised Draft: Chakachamna Enhanced TLP Communications Protocol" Thanks! Douglas Mutter Regional Environmental Assistant U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 1689 C Street, Room 119 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 907-271-5011 (fax: 907-271-4102) douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov From: Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov To: eyould@alaska.net, mblake@tdxpower.com, spadula@longviewassociates.com Cc: douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov, cassie_thomas@nps.gov, Susan.Walker@noaa.gov, Phil_Brna@fws.gov Date: 06/12/2009 10:42 AM Subje Re: "Revised Draft: Chakachamna Enhanced TLP Communications ct: Protocol" Good Morning, In response to TDX's request for comment regarding the "Revised Draft: Chakachamna Enhanced TLP Communications Protocol" document , the Service would like to go on record as having "no comment" at this time. We look forward to reviewing the PAD, and reserve comment until more information is made available through the FERC process. Thank you, Betsy Betsy McCracken Fishery Biologist Conservation Planning Assistance Ecological Services US Fish and Wildlife Service/Region 7/Anchorage Field Office Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov (907) 271 - 2783 Maxine Blake <mblake@tdxp ower.com> To "Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov" <Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov>, 05/29/2009 "susan.walker@noaa.gov" <susan.walker@noaa.gov>, 10:23 AM "bday@homerelectric.com" <bday@homerelectric.com>, "jim.ferguson@alaska.gov" <jim.ferguson@alaska.gov>, "cakers@tyonek.com" <cakers@tyonek.com>, "chakachamna@longviewassociates.com" <chakachamna@longviewassociates.com>, "joe.balash@alaska.gov" <joe.balash@alaska.gov>, "robin.beebee@hdrinc.com" <robin.beebee@hdrinc.com>, "james.brady@hdrinc.com" <james.brady@hdrinc.com>, "phil_brna@fws.gov" <phil_brna@fws.gov>, "bcarey@aidea.org" <bcarey@aidea.org>, "curtis.jennifer@epa.gov" <curtis.jennifer@epa.gov>, "michael.daigneault@alaska.gov" <michael.daigneault@alaska.gov>, "kevin_dunham@chugachelectric.com" <kevin_dunham@chugachelectric.com>, "mark_fouts@chugachelectric.com" <mark_fouts@chugachelectric.com>, "steveg@enxco.com" <steveg@enxco.com>, "scott.houk@alaska.gov" <scott.houk@alaska.gov>, "saraellen@akcenter.org" <saraellen@akcenter.org>, "james.keen@alaska.gov" <james.keen@alaska.gov>, "allen.kemplen@alaska.gov" <allen.kemplen@alaska.gov>, "kim.klein@alaska.gov" <kim.klein@alaska.gov>, "timkayaks@hotmail.com" <timkayaks@hotmail.com>, "adele.lee@alaska.gov" <adele.lee@alaska.gov>, "Anne.legget@hdrinc.com" <Anne.legget@hdrinc.com>, "ken.lord@sol.doi.gov" <ken.lord@sol.doi.gov>, "frances_mann@fws.gov" <frances_mann@fws.gov>, "jmcclellan@tyonek.com" <jmcclellan@tyonek.com>, "pmclarno@hdrinc.com" <pmclarno@hdrinc.com>, "dfmeyer@usgs.gov" <dfmeyer@usgs.gov>, "jason.mouw@alaska.gov" <jason.mouw@alaska.gov>, "douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov" <douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov>, "north.phil@epa.gov" <north.phil@epa.gov>, "mikeo@cosmichamlet.net" <mikeo@cosmichamlet.net>, "dott@aidea.org" <dott@aidea.org>, "spadula@longviewassociates.com" <spadula@longviewassociates.com>, "pmpark@gvea.com" <pmpark@gvea.com>, "gilbert.l.phillips@poa02.usace.army.mil" <gilbert.l.phillips@poa02.usace.army.mil>, "Donna.robertson@hdrinc.com" <Donna.robertson@hdrinc.com>, "david.rutz@alaska.gov" <david.rutz@alaska.gov>, "toby@akcenter.org" <toby@akcenter.org>, "Page_Spencer@nps.gov" <Page_Spencer@nps.gov>, "cassie_thomas@nps.gov" <cassie_thomas@nps.gov>, "jthrall@yahoo.com" <jthrall@yahoo.com>, "jlwalker@matanuska.com" <jlwalker@matanuska.com>, "michael.walton@alaska.gov" <michael.walton@alaska.gov>, "rich.wilson@alaska.gov" <rich.wilson@alaska.gov>, "Bzubeck@HomerElectric.com" <Bzubeck@HomerElectric.com>, "patricia.bettis@alaska.gov" <patricia.bettis@alaska.gov>, "chay@alaska.com" <chay@alaska.com>, "gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us" <gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us>, "ed.weiss@alaska.gov" <ed.weiss@alaska.gov>, "hydro@gci.net" <hydro@gci.net>, "gary.prokosch@alaska.gov" <gary.prokosch@alaska.gov>, "thomas.cappiello@alaska.gov" <thomas.cappiello@alaska.gov>, "dreiser@r2usa.com" <dreiser@r2usa.com>, "tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov" <tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov>, "lawrence.peltz@noaa.gov" <lawrence.peltz@noaa.gov>, "keeper@inletkeeper.org" <keeper@inletkeeper.org>, "robert.dach@bia.gov" <robert.dach@bia.gov>, "jblankenship@borough.kenai.ak.us" <jblankenship@borough.kenai.ak.us>, "ann.wilde@alaska.gov" <ann.wilde@alaska.gov>, "dpa@humbolt1.com" <dpa@humbolt1.com>, "gtquada@gci.net" <gtquada@gci.net>, "heather.r.williams@mwhglobal.com" <heather.r.williams@mwhglobal.com>, "sue.sander@wgint.com" <sue.sander@wgint.com>, "chris_lausten@mcgraw-hill.com" <chris_lausten@mcgraw-hill.com>, "Melinda.ODonnell@alaska.gov" <Melinda.ODonnell@alaska.gov>, "noldog17@yahoo.com" <noldog17@yahoo.com>, "john.dunker@alaska.gov" <john.dunker@alaska.gov>, "jtpietz@pcl.com" <jtpietz@pcl.com>, "dan_young@nps.gov" <dan_young@nps.gov>, "debby.burwen@alaska.gov" <debby.burwen@alaska.gov>, "samuel.ivey@alaska.gov" <samuel.ivey@alaska.gov>, "sean.palmer@alaska.gov" <sean.palmer@alaska.gov>, "am@aquacoustics.com" <am@aquacoustics.com>, "dpa@humboldt1.com" <dpa@humboldt1.com>, "byanity@whpacific.com" <byanity@whpacific.com>, "kirby.gilbert@mwhglobal.com" <kirby.gilbert@mwhglobal.com>, "jthompson@lachel.com" <jthompson@lachel.com>, "execdir@chugachconsumers.org" <execdir@chugachconsumers.org>, "Cortonj@hotmail.com" <Cortonj@hotmail.com>, "kmiller@tu.org" <kmiller@tu.org>, "kevin.schneider@barnard-inc.com" <kevin.schneider@barnard-inc.com> cc Subject "Revised Draft: Chakachamna Enhanced TLP Communications Protocol" I apologize – I forgot the attachment. Max/TDX Power. All - As requested on our May 12th conference call, TDX has revised the draft Communications Protocol that you previously reviewed. You requested that TDX add additional detail to the elements of the ILP that are being proposed for inclusion in our "enhanced TLP". These enhancements address questions or concerns you have expressed with use of the TLP; while providing a basis for deviating from the rigid ILP process or schedule should circumstances demand. The questions and concerns you expressed were 1. consequences of not doing early NEPA scoping, as would be done with ILP or Alternative Licensing Process (ALP); 2. ability to reach resolution on study plan disputes and the distinction between “advisory opinion” that is available through TLP/ALP versus a study plan determination (ILP); 4. difficulty in developing an administrative record upon to which stakeholders could easily refer and reference in future proceedings; 5. desirability/questions about the significance of early FERC staff involvement (available through ILP and ALP; uncertain for TLP) We are open to making additional modifications or clarifications as needed. In order to make our goal for PAD filing, we request that you provide any comments by Friday, June 12. In the intervening period, please feel free to contact Steve Padula (spadula@longviewassociates.com ; 360-576-3579) directly should you wish to discuss the proposed approach. You also requested that TDX provide more treatment, in its Pre-Application Document (PAD), of its approach to study plan development. Accordingly, TDX will include with the PAD an appendix that describes, at a high level · an approach and philosophy for addressing potential resource impacts (or in many cases, a basic lack of information) · a description of the goals / objectives of identified studies · our general impressions of time-frames necessary for these studies. Thank you all for your continued involvement with the Chakachamna Project and your thoughtful comments on this protocol. Thanks Eric Yould eyould@alaska.net [attachment "Chakachamna_Communications Protocol-draft-5-29-09.doc" deleted by Douglas Mutter/PEP/OS/DOI] From: Ferguson, Jim M (DFG) [mailto:jim.ferguson@alaska.gov] Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 1:16 PM To: Steve Padula Cc: Klein, Joseph P (DFG); Prokosch, Gary J (DNR); phil_brna@fws.gov; susan.walker@noaa.gov; cassie_thomas@nps.gov; eyould@starband.net; Jan Konigsberg Subject: RE: "Revised Draft: Chakachamna Enhanced TLP Communications Protocol" Steve: Thanks for taking the time to discuss the Communications Protocol (CP) and licensing process with me, and for agreeing to the extra time in responding. In brief, ADF&G is OK with the language as proposed. Practically speaking, given the complexity of this project and the scale of some of the studies that will need to be done, I think it is certain that at least some studies will require review (by agencies) and revision (by TDX) for longer periods than those set out in the ILP and included in the draft CP. Some examples are; 1) Lake Chakachamna bathymetry and fish population/distribution, 2) effects of Lake Chakachamna drawdown on Kenibuna Lake and on fish access to inlet streams, 3) fish passage between Lake Chakachamna and the Chakachatna River, 4) instream flow and habitat characterization for different fish species and life stages in the Chakachatna and McArthur Rivers, and 5) wildlife investigations, including effects of changes to flows in the Chakachatna and McArthur River on wetlands. In approving the language in the draft CP, I am asking for the cooperation of TDX and its consultants to readily acknowledge that the scale and complexity of this project will, in some cases, necessitate allowing additional time beyond the ILP deadlines (as mentioned above), in order to develop thorough and scientifically sound studies. Having said that, I am frankly uncertain as to how FERC will interpret the inclusion of language allowing changes to the ILP-driven schedule. However, it is my experience that when the applicant and agencies are in agreement on asking for deadline extensions, they usually are approved. Also, to move forward with the requested hybrid TLP-ILP process, TDX will need agreement from the regulatory agencies and other stakeholders. Agreement to allow additional time for study development and review, where needed, is an extremely important step in licensing the project. Therefore, if TDX becomes aware that FERC will not grant additional time, then ADF&G would like to know as soon as possible, so that other options can be discussed. As always, I am available and open to discussing the licensing process and other project-related issues. Regards, Jim _____________________________ Jim Ferguson, PhD Statewide Hydropower Coordinator Alaska Department of Fish and Game Sport Fish Division ‐ RTS 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518‐1565 907‐267‐2312 Fax: 267‐2422 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ><{{{(°> From: Steve Padula [mailto:spadula@longviewassociates.com] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:55 PM To: phil_brna@fws.gov; cassie_thomas@nps.gov; Prokosch, Gary J (DNR); susan.walker@noaa.gov Cc: Ferguson, Jim M (DFG) Subject: FW: "Revised Draft: Chakachamna Enhanced TLP Communications Protocol" Hi folks. I thought I would send out a quick note to you based on a conversation I had with Jim Ferguson today. Jim indicated that the efforts to address the process concerns that had been noted in our earlier discussions were appreciated but that there remains a concern about the strict deadlines that come with the elements of the ILP that TDX is proposing to incorporate into the TLP framework. In other words if we have simply imported the problems associated with tight and inflexible timeframes that exist in the ILP into the TLP then maybe we haven't really addressed this concern. I wanted to confirm with you that TDX appreciates this concern and is willing to do what it reasonably can to be flexible. The following statements are included in the proposed changes to the communication protocol on page 5: "TDX acknowledges that many of the strict deadlines outlined above, particularly with regard to study planning, report review, and modifications to the approved study plan may be difficult to meet. To the extent possible without jeopardizing the ability to effectively utilize available field time, TDX is committed working with agencies and other Participants to identify opportunities to make adjustments to these standard timeframes. Given that this effort will occur within a modified TLP, these decisions regarding adjustments to timeframes can be made by TDX in coordination with Participants. To the extent that any study efforts aimed at developing additional baseline information as the basis for long term monitoring of Project effects after construction continue past the filing of the License Application, TDX will work with the Commission to establish a process similar to that described above for continued Participant review of applicable study reports." Given Jim's feedback I wanted to make sure that you all saw this commitment. No doubt the licensing process will be challenging, but a key benefit that we see of the proposed TLP approach is that TDX together with the agencies and other stakeholders will be able to make adjustments to deadlines and timeframes, particularly related to the studyprogram without needing FERC approval. Obviously we can't speak for FERC in terms of how it will establish schedules for activities that are strictly theirs (e.g., NEPA scoping), but TDX is committed to being flexible where it can, so long as the overall project schedule and in particular utilization of field time is not jeopardized. I know we have asked for any additional feedback, and hopefully support for the revised protocol by COB tomorrow. We want to include your thoughts, along with the proposed protocol, with the PAD. Our challenge is that we start burning CDs of the PAD early in the week of June 22. Jim has asked for a few extra days to provide his response which I'm happy to oblige. If you also think a little extra time would help please take it although we appreciate getting your responses at your earliest convenience. Thanks, Steve Steve Padula Long View Associates, Inc. p‐360‐576‐3579 f‐360‐576‐0308 c‐360‐607‐0770 spadula@longviewassociates.com From: Maxine Blake [mailto:mblake@tdxpower.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 11:18 AM To: Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov; susan.walker@noaa.gov; bday@homerelectric.com; jim.ferguson@alaska.gov; cakers@tyonek.com; Chakachamna Distribution List; joe.balash@alaska.gov; robin.beebee@hdrinc.com; james.brady@hdrinc.com; phil_brna@fws.gov; bcarey@aidea.org; curtis.jennifer@epa.gov; michael.daigneault@alaska.gov; kevin_dunham@chugachelectric.com; mark_fouts@chugachelectric.com; steveg@enxco.com; scott.houk@alaska.gov; saraellen@akcenter.org; james.keen@alaska.gov; allen.kemplen@alaska.gov; kim.klein@alaska.gov; timkayaks@hotmail.com; adele.lee@alaska.gov; Anne.legget@hdrinc.com; ken.lord@sol.doi.gov; frances_mann@fws.gov; jmcclellan@tyonek.com; pmclarno@hdrinc.com; dfmeyer@usgs.gov; jason.mouw@alaska.gov; douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov; north.phil@epa.gov; mikeo@cosmichamlet.net; dott@aidea.org; Steve Padula; pmpark@gvea.com; gilbert.l.phillips@poa02.usace.army.mil; Donna.robertson@hdrinc.com; david.rutz@alaska.gov; toby@akcenter.org; Page_Spencer@nps.gov; cassie_thomas@nps.gov; jthrall@yahoo.com; jlwalker@matanuska.com; michael.walton@alaska.gov; rich.wilson@alaska.gov; Bzubeck@HomerElectric.com; patricia.bettis@alaska.gov; chay@alaska.com; gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us; ed.weiss@alaska.gov; hydro@gci.net; gary.prokosch@alaska.gov; thomas.cappiello@alaska.gov; dreiser@r2usa.com; tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov; lawrence.peltz@noaa.gov; keeper@inletkeeper.org; robert.dach@bia.gov; jblankenship@borough.kenai.ak.us; ann.wilde@alaska.gov; dpa@humbolt1.com; gtquada@gci.net; heather.r.williams@mwhglobal.com; sue.sander@wgint.com; chris_lausten@mcgraw-hill.com; Melinda.ODonnell@alaska.gov; noldog17@yahoo.com; john.dunker@alaska.gov; jtpietz@pcl.com; dan_young@nps.gov; debby.burwen@alaska.gov; samuel.ivey@alaska.gov; sean.palmer@alaska.gov; am@aquacoustics.com; dpa@humboldt1.com; byanity@whpacific.com; kirby.gilbert@mwhglobal.com; jthompson@lachel.com; execdir@chugachconsumers.org; Cortonj@hotmail.com; kmiller@tu.org; kevin.schneider@barnard-inc.com Subject: "Revised Draft: Chakachamna Enhanced TLP Communications Protocol" I apologize – I forgot the attachment. Max/TDX Power. All ‐ As requested on our May 12th conference call, TDX has revised the draft Communications Protocol that you previously reviewed. You requested that TDX add additional detail to the elements of the ILP that are being proposed for inclusion in our "enhanced TLP". These enhancements address questions or concerns you have expressed with use of the TLP; while providing a basis for deviating from the rigid ILP process or schedule should circumstances demand. The questions and concerns you expressed were 1. consequences of not doing early NEPA scoping, as would be done with ILP or Alternative Licensing Process (ALP); 2. ability to reach resolution on study plan disputes and the distinction between “advisory opinion” that is available through TLP/ALP versus a study plan determination (ILP); 4. difficulty in developing an administrative record upon to which stakeholders could easily refer and reference in future proceedings; 5. desirability/questions about the significance of early FERC staff involvement (available through ILP and ALP; uncertain for TLP) We are open to making additional modifications or clarifications as needed. In order to make our goal for PAD filing, we request that you provide any comments by Friday, June 12. In the intervening period, please feel free to contact Steve Padula (spadula@longviewassociates.com ; 360‐576‐3579) directly should you wish to discuss the proposed approach. You also requested that TDX provide more treatment, in its Pre‐Application Document (PAD), of its approach to study plan development. Accordingly, TDX will include with the PAD an appendix that describes, at a high level • an approach and philosophy for addressing potential resource impacts (or in many cases, a basic lack of information) • a description of the goals / objectives of identified studies • our general impressions of time‐frames necessary for these studies. Thank you all for your continued involvement with the Chakachamna Project and your thoughtful comments on this protocol. Thanks Eric Yould eyould@alaska.net From: Sally Morsell [mailto:smorsell@northernecological.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:21 PM To: Chakachamna Distribution List Subject: Tribal outreach - Village of Salamatof Hi Finlay- I contacted the Village of Salamatof and spoke with Sharon Williford. Penny Carty, the listed contact, was not available. After I explained the reason for my call, Sharon stated that the Project is outside their area and that the Village of Salamatof had no interest in the Project. Date of Contact: 6/17/09 Tribe: Village of Salamatof Contact: Sharon Williford Number Called: 907-283-7864 - Sally From: Sally Morsell [mailto:smorsell@northernecological.com] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 2:17 PM To: Chakachamna Distribution List; Steve Padula Subject: Tribal outreach - Native Village of Tyonek Hi Finlay and Steve- Angela Sandstol, Council President and primary contact, was unavailable and I talked to Dennis Tiepelman (pronounced “Tippleman”), Tribal Administrator. The Native Village of Tyonek takes interest in the Project because of its proximity to the village. Their concerns include impacts to the salmon fishery and impacts to their traditional lifestyle. He said the village/tribe is concerned about impacts to their subsistence lifestyle and having the village “overrun.” He talked about the village being a “closed” community without facilities or the desire for having outsiders present. He was adamant that the tribe and traditional culture be respected and that their governmental status be respected through consultation. We agreed to add two names to the contact list to ensure that the appropriate coordination takes place: Dennis Tiepelman, Tribal Administrator, P.O. Box 82009, Tyonek AK 99682; (907) 583-2201; dennis_t@tyonek.net Robert Stephan, Jr., P.O. Box 82009, Tyonek AK 99682; (907) 583-2201; robert_s@tyonek.net Angela Sandstol’s email is angela_s@tyonek.net I mentioned that he may get a call from LongView to discuss the licensing process and opportunities for consultation and input by the tribe. Date of Contact: 6/18/09 Tribe: Native Village of Tyonek Contact: Dennis Tiepelman Number Called: 907-583-2201 From: Sally Morsell [mailto:smorsell@northernecological.com] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 2:11 PM To: dennis_t@tyonek.net; angela_s@tyonek.net; robert_s@tyonek.net Cc: Finlay Anderson; Chakachamna Distribution List Subject: Chakachamna Project website link Hello all- I was glad to have the opportunity to talk with you Dennis, and we appreciate the information on additional contacts. Below is the link to the project website. If you have any questions you can contact me or better yet, Finlay Anderson who, along with Steve Padula, is coordinating the licensing process. Chakachamna Project website: http://www.chakachamna-hydro.com/ Finlay Anderson: LongView Associates 503-335-5806 - phone fanderson@longviewassociates.com – email Thanks again, -Sally Morsell Northern Ecological Services 360-592-4267 – phone smorsell@northernecological.com - email From: Sally Morsell [mailto:smorsell@northernecological.com] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 5:13 PM To: Chakachamna Distribution List Cc: Finlay Anderson; Steve Padula Subject: Tribal outreach - Kenaitze Indian Tribe Hi Finlay- I talked to Sasha Lindgren regarding the interest of the Kenaitze Indian Tribe in the project. She said the tribe would be interested and that there are many cultural sites in the Kustatan area. I emailed her the link to the Project website so that she could get some more background on the Project. She is going to look up place names for the Project area and forward that information to us. She also asked what other tribes we were contacting and said that she thought the Village of Salamatof would be interested. Evidently the Kenaitze tribal government has assumed some of the responsibility for following Salamatof’s interests. I told her about my conversation with Salamatof and that they claimed not to have any interest in the Project. Sasha is going to double check with Penny Carty and get back to us regarding Salamatof’s position. Sasha’s email address is slindgren@kenaitze.org ; phone is (907) 335-0669. I mentioned in my email to her that LongView may call to discuss the licensing process and opportunities for consultation and input by the tribe. Date of Contact: 6/18/09 Tribe: Kenaitze Indian Tribe Contact: Sasha Lindgren Number Called: 907-335-0669 -Sally From: Sally Morsell [mailto:smorsell@northernecological.com] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:52 PM To: slindgren@kenaitze.org Cc: Finlay Anderson; Steve Padula Subject: Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project website Hi Sasha- Thanks for taking the time to talk to me about consultation with the Kenaitze Indian Tribe and their interest in the project. We (someone from LongView Associates) may give you a call to discuss the licensing process and opportunities for your input. Below is the address of the project website and contact information if you have any questions or information. Chakachamna Project website: http://www.chakachamna-hydro.com/ Finlay Anderson: LongView Associates 503-335-5806 - phone fanderson@longviewassociates.com – email Thanks again, -Sally Morsell Northern Ecological Services 360-592-4267 – phone smorsell@northernecological.com - email From: Sally Morsell [mailto:smorsell@northernecological.com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 12:30 PM To: Chakachamna Distribution List Subject: Tribal outreach - Eklutna, Inc. Hi Finlay- I talked to Curtis McQueen of Eklutna, Inc., the native corporation for Elkutna Native Village. He is on our list of contacts for tribal interests and cultural information but he is not a tribal representative. He stated that he was not aware of any interest in the Project area or issues that would affect the tribe. He did say that we needed to confirm this with the village and recommended that I talk to Maria Coleman. He said that she was out of town but should be in her office on Friday, June 19. I sent an email both to her and Dorothy Cook, who is on our list as the contact with Eklutna Native Village, and will call them on Friday. Dorothy Cook has also been out of town, but is expected in the office on the 19th. Date of Contact: 6/18/09 Village Corporation: Eklutna Inc. Contact: Curtis McQueen Number Called: 907-696-2828 -Sally From: Sally Morsell [mailto:smorsell@northernecological.com] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:02 PM To: 'nve@eklutna-nsn.gov' Cc: 'Finlay Anderson'; 'chakachamna@longviewassociates.com' Subject: Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project - tribal consultation For Dorothy Cook or Maria Coleman: The Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project is in the early stages of the licensing process. We are initiating tribal consultation for the project, which lies south east of Tyonek. I understand that you might be back in the office and will call you tomorrow, June 19, regarding whether or not the Native Village of Eklutna has any interest in the project, cultural sites in the area, or foresees any impacts to the tribe from the project. The website address for the project is http://www.chakachamna-hydro.com/ if you would like more information. I hope to talk to you tomorrow. Sally Morsell Northern Ecological Services 360-592-4267 smorsell@northernecological.com From: Sally Morsell [mailto:smorsell@northernecological.com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 5:39 PM To: Chakachamna Distribution List; Randall Filbert Cc: Finlay Anderson; Steve Padula Subject: Tribal outreach - Eklutan Native Village Hi Finlay- I was able to talk with Dorothy Cook, the listed contact for Eklutna Navite Village. She had no comment and suggested I talk to their tribal lands person, Mark Lamoreaux. Mark stated that the Project area was too far away for Eklutna to have an interest in the Project. He did say that Eklutna would support Tyonek’s tribal interests and become involved in the licensing process if Tyonek Native Village requested it. He did not feel it was necessary for me to send him the link the Project website because they are already on the mailing list and have received materials about the Project. Date of Contact: 6/19/09 Tribe: Eklutna Native Village Contact: Dorothy Cook Number Called: 907-688-6020 Contact: Mark Lamoreaux Number Called: 907-242-6967 (cell) -Sally From: Sally Morsell [mailto:smorsell@northernecological.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:38 PM To: Chakachamna Distribution List; Finlay Anderson; Steve Padula; Randall Filbert Subject: Tribal outreach - Knik Tribe Hi Finlay- I talked with Debra Call of the Knik Tribal Council about the tribe’s interest in the Project. She stated that there are no tribal lands in that area, but that Knik is the closest village to Tyonek. She said there is a lot of interaction between the villages. Knik tribal members with family in Tyonek go there for weddings, funerals, and other cultural events. She said that Knik tribal members do not currently hunt in the area because it is too expensive to go that far, but they may fish near Tyonek. They may hunt near Tyonek in the near future because of population pressures in their own area. We agreed that Knik Tribe has an interest in the Project and should remain on our list for consultation. Debra is emailing me contact information for our mailing/contact list and I emailed her the link to the Project website. Date of Contact: 6/22/09 Tribe: Knik Tribe Contact: Debra Call Number Called: 907-330-8016 -Sally From: chakachamna [mailto:chakachamna@tdxpower.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 1:17 PM To: adele.lee@alaska.gov; allen.kemplen@alaska.gov; am@aquacoustics.com; ann.wilde@alaska.gov; Anne.legget@hdrinc.com; bcarey@aidea.org; bday@homerelectric.com; Betsy_McCracken@fws.gov; byanity@whpacific.com; Bzubeck@HomerElectric.com; cakers@tyonek.com; cassie_thomas@nps.gov; cgamble@iuoe302.org; chay@alaska.com; chris_lausten@mcgraw-hill.com; Cortonj@hotmail.com; curtis.jennifer@epa.gov; dan_young@nps.gov; david.rutz@alaska.gov; dcall@alaskanative.net; debby.burwen@alaska.gov; dennis_t@tyonek.net; dfmeyer@usgs.gov; Donna.robertson@hdrinc.com; dott@aidea.org; douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov; dpa@humboldt1.com; dpa@humbolt1.com; dreiser@r2usa.com; ed.weiss@alaska.gov; execdir@chugachconsumers.org; frances_mann@fws.gov; gary.prokosch@alaska.gov; gilbert.l.phillips@poa02.usace.army.mil; grier.hopkins@legis.state.ak.us; gtquada@gci.net; gwilliams@borough.kenai.ak.us; isaactodd@gmail.com; james.brady@hdrinc.com; james.keen@alaska.gov; jan@hydroreform.org; jason.mouw@alaska.gov; jblankenship@borough.kenai.ak.us; jim.ferguson@alaska.gov; jlwalker@matanuska.com; jmcclellan@tyonek.com; joe.balash@alaska.gov; john.dunker@alaska.gov; jthompson@lachel.com; jthrall@yahoo.com; jtpietz@pcl.com; keeper@inletkeeper.org; ken.lord@sol.doi.gov; kevin.schneider@barnard-inc.com; kevin_dunham@chugachelectric.com; kim.klein@alaska.gov; kmiller@tu.org; laurasusanfrazer@aol.com; lawrence.peltz@noaa.gov; mark_fouts@chugachelectric.com; Melinda.ODonnell@alaska.gov; michael.daigneault@alaska.gov; michael.walton@alaska.gov; mikeo@cosmichamlet.net; north.phil@epa.gov; nve@eklutna-nsn.gov; nve@eklutna-nsn.gov; Page_Spencer@nps.gov; patricia.bettis@alaska.gov; phil_brna@fws.gov; pmclarno@hdrinc.com; pmpark@gvea.com; rich.wilson@alaska.gov; robert.dach@bia.gov; robert_s@tyonek.net; samuel.ivey@alaska.gov; saraellen@akcenter.org; scott.houk@alaska.gov; sean.palmer@alaska.gov; slindgren@kenaitze.org; Steve Padula; steveg@enxco.com; sue.sander@wgint.com; susan.walker@noaa.gov; thomas.cappiello@alaska.gov; timkayaks@hotmail.com; timothy.evans@acsalaska.net; tkerns@tundratech.net; toby@akcenter.org; tom.gcak.meyer@noaa.gov; Tyonek@aitc.org Cc: chakachamna Subject: Update on Chakachamna PAD Filing All -- Please see the attached notice from TDX, which provides an update on plans for filing the Pre-Application Document and Notice of Intent as well as provides new information on plans for initiating studies in 2010. Thanks, Eric Yould (907) 242-0487 1 DATE: 14 July 2009 TO: Chakachamna Stakeholders FROM: Eric Yould SUBJECT: Status of Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Licensing TDX Power will be filing the Pre-Application Document (PAD) and Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project (Project) within days. We appreciate the time our stakeholders have contributed to help us understand the key questions and issues around the Project and your input into the proposed licensing process. As we have discussed, a modified Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) will be proposed to address stakeholder concerns with the tight timeframes and perceived inflexibility of the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP), while retaining features of the ILP that stakeholders thought were important, such as the development of an administrative record and a FERC determination on the study program. We wanted stakeholders to know of an additional change in how TDX is proposing to address the development and implementation of the study program. The change is a result of Alaska Energy Authority’s (AEA) schedule for the development of a Regional Integrated Resources Plan (RIRP) which will be a 50-year, long-range plan to identify combinations of generation and transmission (G&T) capital improvement projects in the Railbelt Region of Alaska. This plan is not expected to be ready before next fall, and because TDX Power anticipates that the results of the RIRP will play a significant role in determining the role of the Project in providing power to the Railbelt we have modified our schedule and environmental studies approach to more closely align with the anticipated release of the RIRP. TDX is proposing that the formal study plan developed in support of the licensing process be conducted in two phases. Phase 1 will be initiated in 2009 with a Phase One Proposed Study Plan (PSP-1) that will describe key baseline environmental studies that will be initiated in the summer of 2010. The Phase Two Proposed Study Plan (PSP-2) will be initiated in 2010, following completion of the RIRP, taking advantage of the field experience and information from the Phase One effort. PSP-2 will describe the balance of the formal environmental study program, focusing on impact assessment studies and evaluation of Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement (PME) measures. TDX will be proposing discrete opportunities for stakeholders to make additional study requests prior to submittal the PSP-2, as well as opportunities to comment on the PSP-2.