Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC Reservoir … Final... · Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project May...

Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project May 22, 2013 FERC No. 2911 Final Meeting Summary

Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No 2911)Reservoir Expansion Joint Meeting and Public Meeting Summary May 22, 2013

ATTENDANCE:

Name Organization Attended Site Visit

Attended Joint Meeting

Attended Public Meeting

Steve Lindamood US Army Corps of Engineer

No Yes Yes

Ted Deats Alaska Department of Natural Resources

No Yes Yes

Mark Manillo Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Yes Yes No

Monte Miller Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Yes Yes Yes

Barbara Stanley USDA Forest Service No Yes Yes

Jennifer Holstrom Ketchikan Public Utilities

No Yes No

Shawn Johnson Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Yes Yes Yes

Steve Negri Tetra Tech No Yes Yes

Clint Gundelfinger Alaska Department of Natural Resources

No Yes No

Finlay Anderson McMillen LLC No Yes Yes

Cory Warnock McMillen LLC Yes Yes Yes

Andy Rauwolf Tongass Construction No Yes Yes

Andy Donato Ketchikan Public Utilities

No Yes Yes

Tim McConnell Ketchikan Public Utilities

No Yes Yes

Mark Fairhart Hatch Acres No Yes Yes

Eric Wolfe SEAPA Yes Yes Yes

Italics indicates that the participant joint by conference call/web meeting

Background and Meeting Objectives

The Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) owns the Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project; FERC

Project No. 2911), on the Northeast side of Carroll Inlet in Southeast Alaska. SEAPA is currently

evaluating the engineering feasibility and value of increasing the reservoir’s storage capacity through an


increase in dam height. SEAPA is proposing to raise the dam height by up to 15 feet. Powerhouse

operations would not change and the nameplate capacity will remain at 22 MW. Under the proposed

operations, the reservoir could fluctuate annually from 271.5 feet to 345 feet, depending on

precipitation, load, and operations at other facilities associated with the Southeast Alaska Intertie (STI).

In order to increase the size of the reservoir, a non‐capacity amendment application will need to be filed

with and approved by FERC.

SEAPA filed an Initial Consultation Document (ICD) with agencies, Indian tribes and affected

stakeholders on April 15, 2013. The ICD initiates consultation pursuant to 18 CFR 4.38. This

consultation process requires an opportunity for a site visit, and a joint meeting that was open to the

public. Additionally, SEAPA hosted a public meeting for interested parties in the evening to discuss the

proposal.

As provided for in 18 CFR 4.38, the meetings were noticed two weeks prior to the meeting in local

newspapers. Affidavits of Publication from the Petersburg Pilot, the Wrangell Sentinel, and the

Ketchikan Daily News are attached. By letter dated February 7, 2013, SEAPA notified FERC of the

proposed site visit and Joint Meeting. The purpose of the Joint Meeting was to:

Respond to questions raised by the Initial Consultation Document (ICD)

Provide confirmation that SEAPA and stakeholders are in agreement on path forward, since

SEAPA “front‐loaded” the ICD with study results and informal consultation.

Confirm or amend “process” and schedule identified in the Initial Consultation Document (ICD) –

i.e., waivers.

Joint Meeting Summary

The definitive meeting record for both the Joint Meeting and Public Meetings are the distributed

material and presentations and the audio/video recordings provided to FERC. These are available to the

public upon request (contact SEAPA). For convenience, a summary of discussions and action items from

the meeting follows.

Discussion included:

Purpose of meeting and path forward

Permitting and anticipated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process

Construction methods

Summary of consultation to date and Initial Consultation Document (ICD)

processes/stages

Feedback from Site Visit

Action Items and Agreements:

There was discussion about how the NEPA process will be informed by the Resource Reports.

Table 3 of the ICD is a schedule with draft Resource Reports and an opportunity for agency


review, but did not show issuance of final Resource Reports. Stakeholders requested that

SEAPA issue revised and final Resource Reports prior to issuance of the Preliminary Draft

Environmental Assessment (PDEA). Action Item: SEAPA will revise the ICD Table 3 to include

this additional step (note: the revised Table 3 is attached). SEAPA noted that updated schedules

will be posted on the Project website as modifications are required.

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) discussed observations from the site visit.

The tour included an exploration of Lost Creek, the area around the powerhouse and dam, and

an overhead flight in the Lost Creek drainage above Lost Lake. ADFG commented on the

significant amount of quality habitat in the Lost Creek drainage that is above the area to be

inundated by the proposed pool raise. They stated that they believe Lost Lake and its tributaries

are the most likely source of fish production, and noted that the proposed action does not

appear to limit access to this habitat; rather, access may be improved.

ADFG noted that because the drainage above the dam is a non‐catalogued water body, it falls

under AS 16.05.841 – Fish Passage. This project does not impact fish passage, and in fact would

improve access to habitat. Therefore, no need for permits has been identified.

There was discussion regarding the section of creek (Falls Creek) below the dam and associated

natural barriers. There are two barriers in Falls Creek, one of which is just above tidewater.

SEAPA noted that they have noticed fish milling in the tailrace below the dam, but that

historically, fish use in Falls Creek has been minimal; historic observations have noted milling

behavior at the mouth rather than any pre‐spawning or spawning activity. ADFG stated that

they believe no permits are necessary.

There was discussion about potential need for regulating construction to limit activity in the

creek. Eric Wolfe noted that most of the construction is in the laydown areas and near the dam.

There is minimal chance of any impact to the water and no need to cross the stream is currently

anticipated. There will be best practices for keeping sediment in the river (typically an Erosion

and Sediment Control Plan is a required submittal at FERC). SEAPA noted there are no

construction plans yet. As such, some of these construction methods not yet fully fleshed out.

The appropriate approach for tree removal is still being developed as well.

There was discussion about potential permitting needs from the US Army Corps of Engineers

(Corps).

o The Corps inquired about potential wetland impacts from construction and whether

there would be fill or removal below the ordinary high water (OHW) line.

SEAPA noted that the construction activities include 6 feet of material being

placed on top of the existing dam, and placement of gates in the spillway. A

road on the right abutment would need to be re‐graded.


SEAPA noted that fill material for road, and aggregate and sand for concrete

would be barged in.

While wetlands are inundated because of the raise, the impacts to wetlands are

not a result of fill.

o The Corp noted their responsibility to regulate discharge of fill material that is in the

waters of the United States, including wetlands. If there is no fill in waters regulated by

the Corps under Section 10 or Section 404, then they are likely not going to be requiring

a permit.

SEAPA indicated that there was not going to be any fill removed. There was

discussion about whether there might be excavation in tidelands to allow barge

access to the dock. SEAPA indicated that they did not know whether barge

access would be an issue, but would take a close look at this.

o USACE asked whether wetlands identified in the ICD and Resource Reports were

delineated using the Corps delineation manual and if a delineation report was available.

SEAPA indicated that they did not formally delineate the wetlands, though survey‐grade

Timble™ units were used. The Corps noted that area of concern with respect to this

project is if and where fill is being placed below the dam. The Corps is responsible for

determining if a wetland is present; if a formal delineation has not been conducted

below the dam where direct impacts are possible, there is some concern that there

might be wetlands. SEAPA has information below the dam assuming original staging

areas would be used; Tetra Tech indicated that they have information available on the

required parameters, but this has not been formed into a delineation reports. The

Corps will need site photos and datasheets. Tetra Tech confirmed that they can take the

information they have and put it in the required form.

o The Corps’ initial conclusion was that there would likely not be permits required, but

without plans to look at and the delineation of areas around the construction areas,

they can’t make a firm determination. The Corps could use plans and supporting design

report (when ready) as a “pre‐application” to advise SEAPA whether permits will be

required. A “no permit required” letter would be issued if appropriate.

SEAPA discussed the ICD and the approach taken to develop information for the document that

was consistent with discussions previously held with Agencies. As previously discussed, no new

field work is being planned for Stage 2 consultation in advance of the Draft License Application,

with the exception of continuing raptor surveys.

SEAPA noted that in one instance, the ICD references a minimum pool elevation of 290 feet

(section 5.4.1.2, page 44). This is incorrect; the minimum pool will be unchanged from its

current low of 271.5 ft.


ADFG asked if the 350 foot FERC boundary was adequate to accommodate project operations

and potential impacts (zones of influence) at the new normal maximum reservoir surface

elevation. SEAPA indicated that they believe that 5 feet of buffer between the boundary and

the normal maximum pool elevation should be adequate, but that was what motivated some of

the 2012 efforts, including the soils study. If agencies, in conducting their review of the

Proposed Action, feel that the boundary does not adequately contain impacts, then the parties

can discuss potential adjustments.

No new information needs requiring field studies were identified. Agencies and Indian tribes

will have until July 12 to make additional information needs known.

Public Meeting Summary

Following the joint meeting, a public meeting was held in the same location (see attendance list above).

Topics for this meeting included:

Background and need for the Proposed Action

Summary of the Proposed Action

Overview of the FERC and permitting process

Role of the agencies versus public in the process and opportunities for involvement

Review of natural resource information presented in the ICD.

Action items and discussion included:

Background discussion on electrical load in SE Alaska and the role Swan Lake will play in

preventing current and future hydroelectric power plants from being “stranded”.

Land surveys conducted in 2012 to confirm location of the FERC boundary and land ownership

boundary. It was noted that these surveys identified approximately 26 acres that are within the

existing FERC boundary on the Tongass National Forest that will be mostly inundated as a result

of the pool raise. This land will be the subject of a Special Use Permit to be issued by the Forest

Service.

A discussion of the engineering process with respect to dam safety. SEAPA outlined the role of

FERC and the Independent Board of Consultants in the iterative process of design.

A discussion of the Tongass National Forest Land Use Designations, and whether ICD Figure 5.7‐

1 might need some additional commentary/clarification. Action Item: Barb Stanley agreed to

include the US Forest Service’s suggestions in their comments on the ICD that will be submitted

mid‐July.

A discussion of wolf sightings in the area and whether there may be some confusion between

Management Indicator Species (MIS) that may occur in the vicinity and what species was

actually documented (see Table 5.5‐3 of the ICD). Action Item: SEAPA’s contractor will review

and discuss with appropriate agency resources.


Distributed /Attached Material

Agenda for 04‐22‐2013 Joint Meeting

Agenda for 05‐22‐2013 Public Meeting

PowerPoint Presentation (PDF) for Joint Meeting

PowerPoint Presentation (PDF) for Public Meeting

Draft Study Reports (available at www.seapahydro.org/slhp.htm)

Video/audio recording of both the ICD and the Public Meeting have been provided to FERC and

are available from SEAPA upon request.


RevisedTable3–ForAgencyComment

Proposed amendment schedule

Activity Responsible Party Schedule Regulatory Reference

First Stage Consultation

File ICD SEAPA Fri 4/15/13 18 CFR 4.38 (b)

Request designation as Non-Federal Representative status

SEAPA Fri 4/15/13 50 CFR 402.8

Agency Site Visit SEAPA, Agencies Weds 5/22/13 18 CFR 4.38(b)(3)

Notice Public Meeting (FERC) SEAPA Tue 5/7/13 18 CFR 4.38(b)(4)

Notice Public Meeting (Newspaper) SEAPA Wed 5/8/13 18 CFR 4.38(b)(4)

Joint Meeting (Public) SEAPA, Participants Wed 5/22/13 18 CFR 4.38 (b)(3)

Public Meeting SEAPA, Participants Wed 5/22/13 18 CFR 4.38 (b)(3)

Comments on ICD, Study Requests (if any)

Agencies Mon 7/12/13 18 CFR 4.38(b)(5)1/

Second Stage Consultation

Request to waive second stage consultation (as appropriate)

SEAPA, Participants Wed 5/09/13 18 CFR (e)

Draft Resource Reports SEAPA Thu 8/01/13

Agency Comments on Draft Resource Reports

Participants Mon 9/02/13

Final Resource Reports SEAPA Mon 10/07/13

Draft Amendment Application, including Preliminary Draft

Environmental Assessment (PDEA)

BE/BA

SEAPA Mon 11/04/13

18 CFR 4.201(b), 18 CFR 4.38, 18 CFR 4.61

Comments on Draft Amendment Application

Agencies Mon 01/06/13 18 CFR(c)(5)

Joint Meeting (as necessary) SEAPA, Agencies Mid-February 18 CFR 4.83(c)(6)(i)

Third Stage Consultation

File Application for Non-Capacity Amendment SEAPA April 2014

18 CFR 4.38(c)(9), and 18 CFR 4.38(d)

/1Per section 18 CFR 4.38(b)(5), agencies typically have 60 days following the Joint Meeting to provide comments and study requests. SEAPA proposes to truncate this to 50 days to conserve remaining field season, should additional work be necessary. In light of extensive informal consultation already completed, SEAPA requests that agencies support this modified schedule.

Joint Meeting

Proposal to Increase Storage Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project

(FERC Project No. 2911)

Page 1. 1900 First Avenue, Suite 318, Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 • P (907) 228-2281 F (907) 225-2287 • www.seapahydro.org

Date May 22, 2012

Location

Best Western Sunny Point Conference Ball Room 3434 Tongass Avenue, Ketchikan

Conference Call Information

See below Agenda 3:00 pm Convene and Coffee 3:15 pm Welcome and Introductions

Goals for the day Review purpose and need for pool raise Proposed action Recap of site visit

3:30 pm Review Discussions to Date

2012 scoping and studies Review of study results, understandings of next steps

4:00 pm Initial Consultation Document Discussion

Approach Process steps and schedule Questions/suggestions

4:30 pm Adjourn (Note: Public meeting to follow in same location)

Process for joining Web meeting (note, if conference call can be joined separately if you are unable to or don’t want to join the webmeeting):

1. Join GOTO meeting ‐ Wednesday, May 22, 2013 at 3:00 PM Alaska Daylight Time. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/685241597

2. Join the conference call: 1‐800‐315‐6338; Use access code: 73272# Meeting ID: 685‐241‐597

6/17/2013

1

Joint MeetingMay 22, 2013

Joint Meeting is required by 18 CFR 4.38(b) To be open to the public and recorded Intended to respond to questions raised by the

Initial Consultation Document (ICD) Because SEAPA has “front-loaded” ICD with

study results and informal consultation, this meeting provides confirmation that we are in agreement on path forward Confirms or amends “process” identified in the

Initial Consultation Document (ICD) – i.e., waivers.

Additional height to existing dam, resulting in 15 additional feet of storage in Swan Lake

Full pool changes from EL. 330 ft. to 345 (PMF at 347). Minimum pool remains at EL. 271.5 ft.

Increase water right by 97,000 acre-feet to fully utilize storage

Update on Corps of Engineers (CWA, 404, Section 10)

Confirm ADFG / Permitting needs Water Rights USFS Special Use Permit DNR/Timber SHPO Clearance EFH Analysis Debrief of Site Visit

Early consultation with agencies in spring of 2012 Issue Identification Study Panning

Information Gathering Land Ownership Surveys 2012 Natural Resource Surveys Study Reports

February 2012 Study Results Meeting Initial Consultation Document (ICD)

ICD Filed April 15, 2013 Intended to summarize information developed

in 2012 on a level sufficient to meet consultation requirements

Incorporated final study reports by reference As much as possible, directed readers to

Response to Comments (Attachment 1 to each report) for planned/agreed to approach to resolving questions discussed in agency review and February 27 2013 meeting.

6/17/2013

2

Limited additional fieldwork needed to complete natural resource studies

A series of desktop exercises will be completed in advance of comprehensive reporting

A series of natural resource specific Resource Reports will be created prior to development of NEPA documents and the License Amendment

An agency review process associated with formal NEPA documents was established

General consensus: Except where noted, additional field data collection and surveys are not necessary given relatively small risk of impacts

Water Resources SEAPA has filed for an additional water right of 97,000 acre-feet to take advantage of

increased storage No additional fieldwork needs ADNR indicated that they had all the data needed to analyze water use in the Project

area

Fish and Aquatic Resources No additional fieldwork needs Effects to fish and fish habitat on and off National Forest Service lands will be

documented Additional GIS analysis to quantify existing fish habitat and document existing

conditions outside FERC boundary will be done Changes to tributary spawning availability as a result of the proposed action will be

analyzed

Botanical Resources No additional fieldwork needs Appropriate management measures will be identified for the two

newly documented plant species A Biological Evaluation (BE) will be developed associated with the

three sensitive plant species with potential habitat in the Project area

Wetland acreage on and off National Forest Service land will be delineated

Wildlife Resources Goshawk and bald eagle surveys in June 2013 Reach an agreement on appropriate analysis area Time construction activities to minimize potential impacts to

migratory birds Site staging area to minimize potential impacts to wildlife

Geology and Soils No additional fieldwork needs Resource Report will Distinguish between soil types and associated abundances

on and off National Forest Service land Clarify methods associated with the assessment of mass

wasting

Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species No additional fieldwork needs Additional work in Resource Reports to expand area of

analysis

Cultural Resources No additional fieldwork needs SEAPA will forward the Cultural Resource Report to

the State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) after formal designation as the non-federal representative

Socioeconomics No additional fieldwork needs Tongass National Forest (TNF) has reviewed their

special use permits and provided contacts with hunting/fishing guides using the area

Aesthetic Resources No additional fieldwork needs SEAPA will work with the TNF to acquire a special use

permit at the appropriate time

Tribal Resources No additional fieldwork needs Three Tribes were identified as needing inclusion in

initial consultation: Ketchikan Indian Corporation (KIC) Organized Village of Saxman (OVS) Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC)

6/17/2013

3

ICD filed with FERC on April 15, 2013

At this point, SEAPA is assuming that the ICD accurately captures all agreements made on Feb. 27

Observations from site visit

Next step

Activity Responsible Party Schedule

File ICD SEAPA 4/15/13

Request Non-Federal Representative Status SEAPA 4/15/13

Public Meeting Notice SEAPA 5/7-5/8/13

Agency Site Visit SEAPA, Agencies 5/22/13

Joint Meeting and Public Meeting SEAPA, Agencies,Public

5/22/13

Comments on ICD (if any) Agencies 7/12/13

Draft Resource Reports SEAPA 8/1/13

Comments on Draft Resource Reports Agencies 9/2/13

Draft Amendment Application (DEA) SEAPA 10/14/13

Comments on DEA Agencies 12/2/13

Joint Meeting (if needed) SEAPA, Agencies Mid-January 2014

File Amendment Application SEAPA 3/14

Public Meeting

Proposal to Increase Storage Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project

(FERC Project No. 2911)

Page 1. 1900 First Avenue, Suite 318, Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 • P (907) 228-2281 F (907) 225-2287 • www.seapahydro.org

Date May 22, 2012

Location

Best Western Sunny Point Conference Ball Room 3434 Tongass Avenue, Ketchikan

Conference Call Information

See below Agenda 5:00 pm Convene and Coffee 5:15 pm Welcome and Introductions

Goals for the day 5:30 Presentation

SE Alaska Energy Picture Proposed action Project description FERC process and other regulatory steps Summary of existing information and outstanding analysis needs

6:30 pm Discussion

7:00 pm Adjourn

Process for joining Web meeting (note, if conference call can be joined separately if you are unable to or don’t want to join the webmeeting):

1. Join GOTO meeting ‐ Wednesday, May 22, 2013 at 3:00 PM Alaska Daylight Time. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/685241597

2. Join the conference call: 1‐800‐315‐6338; Use access code: 73272# Meeting ID: 685‐241‐597

6/17/2013

1

Public MeetingMay 21, 2013

2

Why it’s a good idea

How long will it take, what’s the process?

How much will it cost?

Introductions Project background FERC process and other regulatory steps Summary of existing information and

outstanding analysis needs Discussion

• Wholesale delivery rate is $68/MWh, same rate for 13 years

• We own the Tyee and Swan Lake projects and provide wholesale power and energy to the utilities in Ketchikan, Wrangell and Petersburg

• Also own the transmission lines linking those communities together – around 175 miles including 14 miles of submarine cable

• Hydro Projects were built by the State in the early 1980’s

5

Initiatives- to meet our future demand

• Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion• Request for Offers • DCCED Grant

6Note: KPU hydro and diesel generation is shown lumped simply as KPU generation for space saving reasons.

6/17/2013

2

7

Expansions (MWh)TYL CW....... 1,000TYL Outlet...4,000Whitman...16,000SWL Res......7,500Total 28,500 MWh

8

Expansions (MWh)TYL CW....... 1,000TYL Outlet...4,000Whitman...16,000SWL Res......7,500Total 28,500 MWh

These small projects give us time so we can plan the big expensive project

This would be a 10% offset if 30,000 MWh

A very involved FERC process governs dam safety: Dam Safety Surveillance Monitoring Plan and

Report requirements Each non-federal dam owner must certify the

DSSMP using independent consultant Probable Failure Mode Analysis requires a

painstaking review of construction records, current geology, earthquake, and flood values.

6/17/2013

3

Modifications to existing dams Two separate FERC offices with dam safety

responsibilities will be involved Requires an independent review of the owners

plan using board of consultants Swan Lake’s Board of consultants includes a

member of the original dam design team

“One of the hardest things to do is time a hydro expansion”- Tim McCloud AEL&P

If you’re not burning some diesel, then you’re over-built. While diesel is bad, bad debt that doesn’t displace

diesel is a whole lot worse. The bad debt would be a stranded hydro plant.

Right now diesel is less than 6% of the KPU Load, and this was a strange hydro year.

Early consultation with agencies in spring of 2012 Issue Identification Study Panning

Information Gathering Land Ownership Surveys 2012 Natural Resource Surveys Study Reports

February 2012 Study Results Meeting Initial Consultation Document (ICD)

Additional height to existing dam, resulting in 15 additional feet of storage in Swan Lake

Full pool changes from EL. 330 ft. to 345 (PMF at 347). Minimum pool remains at EL. 271.5 ft.

Increase water right by 97,000 acre-feet to fully utilize storage

Project lands were conveyed to state in 1997 (except for small sliver that extends into forest)

Falls Creek has impassable falls at Carroll Inlet; salmon can’t access Swan Lake

Minimal sport fishery; area above dam occasionally used/accessed by hunters

Under proposed action Approximately 140 acres of lands inundated around

reservoir The lower 1.04 miles of Lost Creek inundated from

September to January

6/17/2013

4

FERC regulates non-federal dams Issues licenses that define what can be built,

how it can be operated, and imposes other conditions

FERC provides the structure whereby other agencies and regulatory processes come together

Other agencies have separate authorities that are independent of FERC but coordinated by FERC.

The Proposed Action requires a non-capacity license amendment of the existing project license from FERC

Because of the pool raise aspect, 3-stage consultation is required unless waived by the agencies. Stage 1- Project proponent educates stakeholders Stage 2 – Collection of information and analysis

requested by stakeholders at end of stage 1 Stage 3 – FERC conducts NEPA, consults with

agencies, issues order amending license

Internal Decision

FERC Dam Safety

Stage 3 Consultation



SEIRP – Identified need for hydro

storage

SEAPA –Analyzed

available options

Swan identified as viable

Engineering and economic feasibility

Begin FERC regulatory process

Collect relevant informationCompile for agencies and stakeholders

Informal consultation with

agencies

Initial Consultation Document

Study requests or requests for

additional analysis

Collect requested information

Submit amendment to

FERC

FERC prepares Environmental Assessment (EA)Consults with resource agenciesProduces Final EA

FERC issues Order Amending License

Provide draft amendment and

environmental analysis to agencies

Revise documents Meet as necessary to

resolve questions

Civil Design

Division of Dam Safety and Inspections

Regional Engineer

Independent Board of

Consultants

Start of Construction Letter

30%, 60%, 100%iterations

Internal Decision

FERC Dam Safety




SEIRP – Identified need for hydro

storage

SEAPA –Analyzed

available options

Swan identified as viable

Engineering and economic feasibility

Begin FERC regulatory process

Collect relevant informationCompile for agencies and stakeholders

Informal consultation with

agencies

Initial Consultation Document

Study requests or requests for

additional analysis

Collect requested information

Submit amendment to

FERC

FERC prepares Environmental Assessment (EA)Consults with resource agenciesProduces Final EA

FERC issues Order Amending License

Provide draft amendment and

environmental analysis to agencies

Revise documents Meet as necessary to

resolve questions

Civil Design

Division of Dam Safety and Inspections

Regional Engineer

Independent Board of

Consultants

Start of Construction Letter

30%, 60%, 100%iterations

Additional analysis and reporting

At this stage of FERC process, requests and comments from resource agencies and Tribes (Native groups) are weighed heavily since SEAPA must respond to their information requests in Stage 2 consultation

Following filing of amendment applications, public can “intervene” in proceeding and have comments considered by FERC

Other regulatory requirements also have public process

6/17/2013

5

Website (www.seapahydro.org/slhp.htm) ICD, Study Reports, Background Documents

SEAPA Office (1900 First Ave., Suite 318) FERC Docket P-2911

elibrary at www.ferc.gov

Eric Wolfe (907) 230-1424

Process Step SEAPA Proposed schedule

“Pre-formal” consultation and information development

January 2012 through March 2013

File Initial Consultation Document (ICD) April 15, 2013

Joint Meeting May 22, 2013

Comments on ICD and requests for information

July 12, 2013

Develop Information per requests August 1, 2013

Draft Amendment October, 2013

Final Amendment March 2014

NEPA Consultation (FERC) (depending on supplemental information)

April 2014 - March 2015

Amended License Order April 2015

Inform Stakeholders and SEAPA of any natural resource assets that may be adversely impacted by the proposed pool raise

Collect natural resource information early in the process to assist in decision making

Potentially minimize the need for additional intensive studies during the formal process

Study plans finalized with agencies in May 2012 in advance of studies

SEAPA received comments on draft study reports, and met with agencies in February 2013 to discuss findings

Land Verification Survey Cultural Resources Wildlife Fish Community, Aquatic Habitat, Spawning

and Tributary Access Botany and Wetlands Soils Study

An inventory of cultural resources for the Project was conducted in August 2012

No cultural resource sites were located during the assessment

Contact with Native people indicated that the Swan Lake area was not an important location for hunting, trapping or harvesting

No additional surveys or studies are planned in advance of the proposed pool raise

Appropriate agencies will need to concur with findings

6/17/2013

6

None of the 6 Threatened/Endangered Species (TES) with potential to occur were observed Goshawk, yellow-billed loon and dusky Canada goose

have the potential to be impacted

Forest Service Management Indicator Species Observed: Alexander Archipelago Wolf Bald Eagle Black Bear Brown Creeper Red-breasted Sapsucker Red Squirrel Sitka Black-tailed Deer Vancouver Canada Goose

Complete goshawk surveys in 2013

Complete aerial bald eagle/raptor surveys at lake and Carroll Inlet in 2013

Agreements on appropriate analysis area for wildlife and timing of construction activities

Review results of these studies and comprehensively discuss any necessary management measures

Produce a Resource Report that comprehensively describes all data collected and analysis conducted in support of the pool raise

Dolly Varden, kokanee and sculpin present

Suitable spawning habitat available in the lake

Lost Creek the primary tributary related to fish productivity

Other tributaries provide limited fish habitat

No spawning observed

Quality habitat observed upstream to offset loss near mouth of Lost Creek

Swan Lake Kokanee

Swan Lake Dolly Varden

6/17/2013

7

Distinguish between effects to fish and fish habitat on National Forest Service lands versus state lands

Conduct additional GIS analysis to quantify fish habitat and document existing conditions outside the existing FERC boundary

Develop additional documentation associated with the changes in tributary spawning availability and location as a result of the pool raise


None of the 8 sensitive plant species with potential to occur were documented 3 previously documented in the (KMFRD)

2 rare plant species were observed Northern bugleweed Pacific buttercup

2 newly documented species in Alaska Wallace’s spikemoss bog St. John’s wort

No invasive species observed

Wetlands Wetlands -- 55% (77 acres) of impacted area Forested wetlands (43.4%) Emergent wetlands (10.7%) Moss muskeg (1.5%)

Identify appropriate analysis measures associated with the two newly documented species

Develop a Biological Evaluation (BE) associated with the 3 sensitive plant species with potential habitat in the Project area

Delineate the wetland acreage that will be affected National Forest Service land versus state lands


6/17/2013

8

A majority of the Swan Lake shoreline is steep; numerous mass wasting features are visible

Along existing shoreline, erosion occurs as a result of frequent inundation, erosive wave action, and variable lake levels; exposing unvegetated soil to erosion by rain drops, runoff and wind

The project will result in an irreversible loss of approximately 138 acres of soil productivity

Distinguish soil types and relative abundances on and off Nation Forest Service lands

Clarification of methods used to assess mass wasting potential

Collaboratively delineate locations for timber removal prior to pool raise


Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC Reservoir … Final... · Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project May...

Documents

Transcript of Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC Reservoir … Final... · Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project May...