Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project 2013 Wildlife Studies Work Group Meeting Summary Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:30 AM Agenda Members Attending, Agency Dianne Rodman, FERC John Matkowski Dennis Chester, USFS Ryan Scott, ADFG Shawn Johnson, ADFG Neil Barton, ADFG Stephanie Sell, ADFG Members invited but not attending: Richard Enriquez, USFWS Sadie Wright, NMFS Barb Stanley, USFS Meeting Objectives and Agenda Items: 1. Review additional draft wildlife surveys and flight surveys from JHI. 2. Beavers, that were not raised at last meeting 3. Discuss and follow up from April 17, 2013 meeting on ADFG licensing wildlife agreement, mitigation or out of license agreement for wildlife under the Alternative License Process. The additional wildlife surveys and flight surveys for wildlife are attached. The following minutes are transcribed from the meeting.
Lower Sweetheart Lake Wildlife Survey 1 2013 Survey 1. Both north and south shores of Sweetheart Lake Outlet and a boat trip to furthest end of Sweetheart Lake. Principal purpose of surveys was for engineering and surveying purposes. However, the secondary purpose of the survey was to observe and record animal and bird presence. Survey Date: June 16, 2012 through June 23, 2012 Personnel: Cameron Mitchell, JHI; Ryan Walker, JHI, Max Schillinger P.E. Schillinger Surveying, Stewart Forrest, Schillinger Surveying. Weather: Conditions: Sunny, Clear Skies, Calm, warm 50-65 s most days. Other days, rain, calm 40-50 s. Dry terrain (forest condition)at lake elevation. At higher elevations, snow pack varied by elevation from a depth of 1 foot to several feet to areas where trees were covered. Snow was covered with debris. Lake condition was ice free. No avalanches were in the area walked but there was evidence of avalanches in areas adjacent in and around Sweetheart Lake. Route Method: Survey 1A Boat ride to outlet of lake and explored, surveyed both northern and southern shores of Sweetheart Creek up to elevation no higher than 900 feet. Terrain is very steep requiring rope in some areas. Devil club is prominent on both shores, but is more prominent on the southern shore. Survey 1B Boat ride to outlet of lake (southern side of Sweetheart Creek). Docked boat near outlet and ascended to an elevation of no higher than 900 feet. Most of the route was a walk of the ridgeline of the area. Purpose of investigation was to survey the proposed dam site. Snow pack was hard. Survey 1C Boat ride from camp to the most eastern portion of Sweetheart Lake. Docked boat at the delta alluvial fan on lake shore. Most of the route was directly within the same elevation as the surveying station. Purpose of the investigation was to check equipment of the survey station. 1
Results: No evidence of mountain goats throughout this survey. Ridges and mountains were observed with binoculars available. No evidence of bear sign through the survey area. Game Trails were investigated, but no track, hair or scat of any animal was found. No eagle nests, eagles or goshawks were observed. There was sign of beaver along lake shoreline. 2
Lower Sweetheart Lake 2013 Survey 2 Southern Shore of Sweetheart Creek proposed Dam facility location. Principal purpose of surveys was for engineering and surveying purposes. However, the secondary purpose of the survey was to observe and record animal and bird presence. Survey Date: June 23 and June 24, 2012 Personnel: Cameron Mitchell, JHI; Ryan Walker, JHI, Max Schillinger P.E. Schillinger Surveying, Stuart Weather: Conditions: Sunny, Clear Skies, Calm, warm 50-60 s Dry terrain (forest condition)at lake elevation. At higher elevations, snow pack varied by elevation from a depth of 1 foot to several feet to areas where trees were covered. Snow was covered with debris. Lake condition was ice free. No avalanches were in the area walked but there was evidence of avalanches in areas adjacent. Route Method: Survey 2 Boat ride to outlet of lake (southern side of Sweetheart Creek). Docked boat near outlet and ascended to an elevation of 2500 feet. Most of the route was a walk of the ridgeline of the area. Purpose of investigation was to survey the proposed dam site. Snow pack was hard. Same route was covered on two separate days. June 23, June 24, 2012. Results: Survey 2. No evidence of mountain goats throughout this survey. No evidence of bear sign through the survey area. Game Trails were investigated, but no track, hair or scat of any animal was found. There was sign of past porcupine activity as evidence by some trees that had chew marks, but no porcupine were found.. No eagle nests, eagles or goshawks were observed. One ptarmigan was spotted at the highest elevation of this survey.
Lower Sweetheart Lake 2013 Survey 3 Southern Shore of Eastern side of Lower Sweetheart Lake. Inlet 3a and Inlet 3b. Principal purpose of the survey was for investigating aquatic life and species. The secondary purpose of the survey was to observe and record animal and bird presence. Survey Date: July 9, 2012 and August 15, 2012 Personnel: Cameron Mitchell, JHI; Kyler Mitchell, JHI trip 1 Cameron Mitchell, JHI, Liz Flory ASI trip 2 Weather: Wet, rainy, Calm, warm 50-60 s trip 1 Warm, Sunny, Calm 50-60 s trip 2 Conditions: Wet terrain (forest condition). No avalanches were in the area walked. Route Method: Survey 3 Boat ride from Camp to Inlet 3a which is located on the eastern end of Lower Sweetheart Lake on the southern shore. As with all boat movement to and from camp with every investigation, ridges and shoreline were scanned for bear, goat and birds. Docked boat and walked through the creek and on shores of the creek. The primary purpose of investigation was to survey the creek for barriers of aquatic species. The secondary purpose of the investigation was to survey for wildlife sign. Results: Survey 3 of Inlet 3a, 3b. No evidence of mountain goats or bear throughout this survey. Very few game trails exist. No track, hair or scat of any animal was found. No eagle nests, eagles or goshawks were observed. Beaver were present at Lake shore line 1
Survey area is marked in red. Inlet 3A: Station and Elevation 30 = 552 31 = 557 32 = 557 33 = 561 34 = 572 35 = 574 36 = 577 37 = 582 38 = 594 2
Mouth of Inlet 3a. 3
Low gradient of Inlet 3a. Inlet 3a 4
Lower Sweetheart Lake 2013 Survey 4 Inlet 1 of the Eastern side of Lower Sweetheart Lake. Principal purpose of the survey was for investigating aquatic life and species. The secondary purpose of the survey was to observe and record animal and bird presence. Survey Date: August 13, 2012 and August 14, 2012 Personnel: Cameron Mitchell, JHI; Liz Flory, ASI Weather: Conditions: Sunny, Calm, warm 50-60 s Dry terrain (forest condition). No avalanches were in the area walked. Route Method: Survey 4 Boat ride from Camp to Inlet 1 which is located at the furthest eastern end of Lower Sweetheart Lake. As with all boat movement to and from camp with every investigation, ridges and shoreline were scanned for bear, goat and birds. Docked boat and walked through the creek and on shores of the creek. The primary purpose of investigation was to survey the creek for barriers of aquatic species. The secondary purpose of the investigation was to survey for wildlife sign. Results: Survey of Inlet 1. No sightings of mountain goats or bear throughout this survey. Ridges and mountains were scanned for goats. Very few game trails exist. Track of beaver were found. Bear scat was found. No other track, hair or scat of was found. No eagle nests, eagles or goshawks were observed. 1
Survey area is marked in red. 2
3
Mouth of Inlet 1 Inlet 1 at Station 3 4
Lower Sweetheart Lake 2013 Survey 5 Inlet 4 of the Eastern side of Lower Sweetheart Lake. Principal purpose of the survey was for investigating aquatic life and species. The secondary purpose of the survey was to observe and record animal and bird presence. Survey Date: August 14, 2012 Personnel: Cameron Mitchell, JHI; Liz Flory, ASI Weather: Conditions: Sunny, Clear Skies warm 50-60 s Dry terrain (forest condition). No avalanches were in the area walked. Route Method: Survey 5 Boat ride from Camp to Inlet 4 which is located at the furthest eastern end of middle Section of Lower Sweetheart Lake. As with all boat movement to and from camp with every investigation, ridges and shoreline were scanned for bear, goat and birds. Docked boat and walked through the creek and on shores of the creek. The primary purpose of investigation was to survey the creek for barriers of aquatic species. The secondary purpose of the investigation was to survey for wildlife sign. Results: Survey of Inlet 4. No sightings of mountain goats or bear throughout this survey. no game trails exist or were observed. No other track, hair or scat of was found. No eagle nests, eagles or goshawks were observed. 1
Survey area is marked in red. 2
Mouth of Inlet 4 3
Near Mouth of Inlet 4 Looking upstream of Inlet 4 at falls that begin at elevation 750 ft. 4
Lower Sweetheart Lake 2013 Survey 6 Inlet 2 of the Eastern side of Lower Sweetheart Lake. Principal purpose of the survey was for investigating aquatic life and species. The secondary purpose of the survey was to observe and record animal and bird presence. Survey Date: August 15, 2012 Personnel: Cameron Mitchell, JHI; Liz Flory, ASI Weather: Conditions: Sunny, Clear Skies warm 50-60 s Dry terrain (forest condition). No avalanches were in the area walked. Route Method: Survey 6 Boat ride from Camp to Inlet 2 which is located at the furthest eastern end of middle Section of Lower Sweetheart Lake. As with all boat movement to and from camp with every investigation, ridges and shoreline were scanned for bear, goat and birds. Docked boat and walked through the creek and on shores of the creek. The primary purpose of investigation was to survey the creek for barriers of aquatic species. The secondary purpose of the investigation was to survey for wildlife sign. Results: Survey of Inlet 2. No sightings of mountain goats or bear throughout this survey. Few game trails exist or were observed. No other track, hair or scat of was found. Some wood chewed by beavers were found. No eagle nests, eagles or goshawks were observed. 1
Survey area is marked in red. 2
Mouth of Inlet 2 3
Approximately 85 above lake elevation 4
Bedrock creek continues up to Upper Sweetheart Lake 5
Lower Sweetheart Lake 2013 Survey 7 Northern Shore of Sweetheart Creek proposed Dam facility location and area of proposed tunnel location. Principal purpose of surveys was for engineering and geologic investigation purposes. However, the secondary purpose of the survey was to observe and record animal and bird presence. Survey Date: July 26, 2012 Personnel: Weather: Conditions: Cameron Mitchell, JHI; Ryan Walker, JHI; Gary Rogers, Geologist, Schnabel Engineering; Carolyn Loar, Geologist, Lachel Engineering. Sunny, Clear Skies, Calm, warm 50-60 s Dry terrain (forest condition)at lake elevation. Old forested conditions with high canopy.. No avalanches or evidence of avalanches were in the area surveyed. Route Method: Survey 2 Boat ride from Camp to outlet of lake (northern side shore of Sweetheart Creek). Docked boat near outlet and ascended to an elevation of 2000 feet. Most of the route was a walk of the benches in the area. The terrain was very tough. Purpose of investigation was to survey the geologic aspects of the proposed dam site and tunnel. Secondary purpose was to observe wildlife and birds. Results: Survey 7. No evidence of mountain goats throughout this survey. Evidence of bear scat, three piles. Game trails were investigated, but no track, hair or scat of any animal was found other than the previously mentioned bear scat. No eagle nests, eagles or goshawks were observed. 1
2
Lower Sweetheart Lake 2013 Surveys. Southern shore of Sweetheart Creek to reconnaissance for upcoming field season surveying. Principal purpose of surveys was for engineering and surveying purposes. However, the secondary purpose of the survey was to observe and record animal and bird presence. Survey Dates: May 26, 2012 Personnel: Weather: Conditions: Max Schillinger P.E. Surveyor, Schillinger Surveying, Kriss Hart, Western Marine Construction. Sunny, Clear Skies, Calm, 40-50 s Dry terrain (forest condition)at lake elevation. At higher elevations, snow pack varied by elevation from a depth of 1 foot to several, to many several feet to areas where large trees were covered. Snow was covered with debris. Lake condition was ice. No avalanches were in the area walked but there was evidence of avalanches in areas adjacent to the lake shore. Route Method: Crew was flown in to Sweetheart Lake. No wildlife was spotted during the fly in. Upon landing, crew walked westerly on the southern shore of Sweetheart Lake until the mouth of the creek. The crew then ascended to above the 2500 foot elevation and then walked over deep packed snow to Gilbert Bay. Terrain was covered by deep snow pack (several feet deep and possibly up to 10 feet deep until lower elevations. Crew was then picked up from Gilbert Bay and returned to Juneau. Results: No evidence of mountain goats in the survey area. There was some bear track sign as the crew descended into the Gilbert Bay/ Lower altitude Sweetheart Creek area. No tracks of any kind were located on the snow. Devils club in areas was investigated for tufts of hair, but none were found. No porcupine marks on trees were observed on this survey. No eagles, eagle nests or goshawks were observed.
Juneau Hydropower Inc. Goat Flight Log 2013 Date 2-7-13 Personnel: Duff Mitchell, JHI; Three personnel from Dam Contractor Weather: Clear and cold. Some clouds were forming and moving in as we left the lake. However the lake and creek were clear while we flew the lake. Route/Method. Flew Beaver from Ward Air from Juneau Airport and over Snettisham. Flew over proposed transmission route of Sweetheart Hydropower Facility, up and down Sweetheart Creek, powerhouse and proposed road areas. Flew three circles around lake to include a cruise by upper peaks at most eastern shore of Sweetheart Lake. Pilot flew as slow as possible and changed circle patterns to let both sides of the airplane view the lake. Results. Despite that we could see the ground very clearly there were no sign of goats or tracks. We were able to see avalanche and snow trails in great detail. The snow pack was lighter this year than in 2012.
Juneau Hydropower Inc. Goat Flight Log 2013 Date 4-4-13 Personnel: Duff Mitchell, JHI; Three personnel from Dam Contractor Weather: Sunny, Clear and cold. Route/Method. Flew Beaver from Ward Air from Juneau Airport, over Stephens Passage and up through Port Snettisham to Gilbert Bay. Flew over proposed transmission route of Sweetheart Hydropower Facility, up and down Sweetheart Creek, powerhouse and proposed road areas. Flew three circles around lake. Flew additional passes at the peaks and noels at the eastern end Sweetheart Lake. Pilot flew as slow as possible and changed circle patterns to let both sides of the airplane view the lake. Results. Flew just over tree top level and very close to cliff faces on eastern end of the lake. Despite that we could see the ground very clearly there were no sign of goats, bear or tracks. We were able to see avalanche and snow trails in great detail and looked for any over snow trails that might have been created by an animal. The snow pack was lighter this year than in 2012 and there was less avalanches noticed than at this time last year.
JUNEAU HYDROPOWER Conference Call April 25, 2013-8:45 AM Mr. Ryan Scott: Shawn's here, Neil Barton and Stephanie Sell as well. Ms. Dianne Rodman: Oh, we're all here. Mr. Duff Mitchell: I was just waiting to make sure we had everybody so it looks like we have everybody here that has confirmed that they were going to dial in. So, let me pull up my agenda. And we also have John Matkowski joining us and John is--well, John, I think you come from the wildlife area or from that area of FERC, but you're also going to be taking over the Juneau Hydropower project as the lead here coming up shortly, correct? Mr. John Matkowski: That's correct. My background's in Aquatic Resources, but I'll be taking over for Jen Harper probably in July. I think that's when it's going to be. We're both working on it together so I can get a better understanding of everything. I came in late anyway. Mr. Duff Mitchell: We're glad to have you here. I apologize, when I set this up, I hit PM than AM, it was a scroll down box and that's why we had the thing. I value everyone's 1
time and I'm sorry for the delay. With that, we can jump into the meeting because I want to value everyone's time. Yesterday I was able to send out the draft minutes from the last meeting. The transcriber, I needed to go through there and fix some things because they have like Thomas National Forest rather than Tongass National Forest and I think Shawn was listed as Shawn Alexander throughout rather than Shawn Johnson. But, the draft minutes I was able to provide for you. And, hopefully, Ryan, that might have helped you since you weren't at the last meeting. And then, I got with our contractors that lived out at the Lake last year and had them go through their notes and dates and did the wildlife surveys for their specific hikes and movements in and around the Lake. And the flight surveys that we took this year. I got those out with the agenda. Following our last meeting, there was some E-mails afterwards that the beaver issues were not raised at our meeting. So, I put those on the agenda. And then on the agenda to discuss and follow up from our last meeting's discussion on mitigation in or out of license agreements for wildlife. I think this was primarily focused around the collaring of goats and bears. With that being the meeting agenda and objectives, does everyone concur with that or are there any other issues that anyone wants to put on there? 2
Mr. Ryan Scott: I think we're good here, Duff, in Douglas. Mr. Duff Mitchell: Great. And, Cathy, I did talk to Cathy yesterday and she was very thankful, out of professional courtesy if we could hold off anything on her report so that she can document and be involved with any questions that arise. I appreciate that. That is one reason why that is not on the agenda. With that, maybe I'll just ask some folks at Fish and Game, your comments or your review or just acknowledgement of the additional surveys and flight survey information from Juneau Hydropower. I know Neil was asking for that. Mr. Shawn Johnson: First, I didn t have a chance to look at anything you sent in the last day so I didn t get a chance to look at the minutes from the last meeting which probably would have been a good idea to summarize where we're at, where we started. Before we get into details about additional studies, I don't have any experience with site agreements so I have questions about what is a site agreement and what it means. At the last meeting, we stated that we felt there was some additional wildlife studies that needed to be done to provide some baseline information on wildlife use of the project area that we can use to assess impacts. And develop measures to avoid impacts and mitigation and all that stuff to help develop our terms and conditions. 3
In those study needs, we're in the Scoping Documents, the PAD, the Wildlife Study Plan and so forth. Obviously, we thought they were nexus to the study. Last meeting, we got to the point where we started entertaining the idea of doing these studies as a site agreement. And, like I said, I really don't know what that means. If we agree to that, does that mean that we at Fish and Game have changed our mind and decided those studies aren't nexus anymore? Or does it mean that we had a disagreement, we want these studies done, obviously, Duff, you want to file your application later this summer. If we go with the site agreement routes, does that just mean we reached a compromise with you to resolve the issue whether these studies needed to be done or not. Ms. Dianne Rodman: Do you want me to answer that? Mr. Duff Mitchell: Sure, Dianne. Then I can make a comment on that. Ms. Dianne Rodman: Off license agreements are often done when the nexus is tenuous or there is a possibility for enhancement outside the project area that the applicant is willing to do for the sake of the resource. And nothing that would fall within the scope of either the NEPA analysis or the license. But, as long as the applicant is in the area and, as I said, concerned about a given resource, they may decide to do it as a good citizen thing. 4
So, that does mean that we would not see a nexus for it with the project. If you feel that the nexus is there and that these studies must be done in order to make your recommendations, then that's a case to make now. Mr. Duff Mitchell: And I would like to comment. Shawn, at that last meeting, the premise was, if we agree that this project and its operations will one, impact goat habitat and two, impact bear habitat. Let's just go with that. Regardless of what studies, let's say we do impact, the question then arises rather than studying to determine if, in fact, they're going to be impacted, if we just agree that there is impact, then what are the measures that we can take thereof to allow the operation to go forward? Assuming that those impacts, in your mind, at today's level of knowledge would not be a show stopper. And then, this outside agreement--or going back to the mitigation measures. I reviewed Lake Dorothy's mitigation measures and they did have goats. And their mitigation measure was don't have construction activity or fly within one mile of goats. And, secondly, there was limitations on when they could blast and construct. So, if we go off the premise that there is goats, maybe that is part of the conditioning that we could deal with right now. Just assuming that there is goats and bears there and how do we mitigate any impact onto goats and bears. And 5
then, the off license agreement would be, as Dianne explained, it's maybe a less stronger nexus, but Juneau Hydropower's still committed to working with Fish and Game. At the end of the day, we want you guys to say, hey look, we were good developers. And part of that is our collaboration in the matters. We have some philosophical differences and, maybe I'm speaking out of line, but the Forest Service does protocols in the Habitat Analysis and you guys look at it from a little different approach. I'm not doing a judgment call that one's right or one's wrong, I'm just trying to, as a good developer, bridge the gaps of everybody's comfort level on the matter. So, I don't know if that helps. Mr. Shawn Johnson: Yeah, it's a tough one. Mr. Duff Mitchell: Also, Dianne, since Shawn is maybe not familiar--maybe you are familiar with the 10(j) and 10(a) conditioning. Ms. Dianne Rodman: I think they are. In any event, if you file a mitigation recommendation, an actual mitigative measure that does fall within the scope of section 10(j) of the Federal Power Act, if it is a legit. 10(j) recommendation and FERC does not buy it. Because, at this point, it's not even the applicant, it's FERC. Then, we would go to a meeting or attempt to resolve the inconsistency. And if your recommendation is outside the scope of 10(j), then we would still look at the 6
recommendation, but we would consider it under 10(a) and we would not have our requirement that we seek to reach agreement. And I think you've probably been through that whole thing on many other projects. Is that correct? Mr. Shawn Johnson: Never any dispute issues. Ms. Dianne Rodman: Typically we do either a face-to-face meeting or a conference call. Given that it's Alaska, probably conference call. And we provide the agency with the opportunity to--we tell them, here's the EA. We point out what we had heartburn with, we tell you why we had heartburn. We've got a problem here, do you have an alternative recommendation? Could you tweak your recommendation in some way? Do you have other information to substantiate your argument? We have the meeting, we do an official summary that we put on the record. And this would come between the draft and final NEPA document. And then, in the final NEPA document, we would either go your way or say, no, we just could not buy it. And that's, basically, the 10(j) procedure. It's on us, it would not be on Juneau Hydropower. Mr. Shawn Johnson: I know from other projects we've had terms and conditions, let's say monitoring a fish population because we didn't know if the project was going to have a negative impact, no impact, or a positive impact. So, one of our terms and conditions was you need to do some post-project 7
monitoring to see if there was an impact. Then, go from there if mitigation was needed. So, could these studies, monitoring the bears down to creek and goats up the Lake, and black bears at the Lake, could those be considered terms and conditions? Or would that be mitigation? Ms. Dianne Rodman: I think you're thinking of 10(a) versus 10(j). Let me take a look at some--i'm trying to remember if they are or not. Because there are many things if they don't directly affect the species, we do not consider them part of 10(j). Of course, anything you say, we will look at seriously. And there are certain loopholes. Like if you could not do the studies before the application was filed because the project was not there and so you could gather all the baseline data you want, but it would not give you an answer about what the project is. John, have you had any familiarity with this? Mr. John Matkowski: If you can show that you cannot do the study during pre-filing. And then, yes, it could be filed as a 10(j) to do post-filing studies. But, is it possible to do the study now? I can answer your question on that right now. But, then again, we really look at them because there are a lot of questions that come up before a project is developed. But, not all of them, necessarily, need to be done at the post licensing part of the proceeding. So, it's still up to a judgment call. 8
Mr. Duff Mitchell: I want to just jump in here. At one of the licensing conditions for Lake Dorothy was they needed to either bury or elevate their penstock to provide unimpeded migration of mountain goats. One, our penstock is not in a normal terrain area where mountain goats would traverse that we're aware of, but then, it's completely buried. And I'm just trying to drive back to, if we assume that we're going to have impact on goats and bears. We know that in the powerhouse and in the coastal road and the dock area, there's going to be an additional human footprint operationally. There's also going to be a human footprint and impact during construction. We will be moving heavy equipment in there, doing a road. Even if we try to do it as delicately as possible and the timing is such that it's not during the middle of fish harvesting season, we still know that we're going to have an impact in the construction. Thankfully, our tunnel is all underground so it's a matter of while we're doing the tunnel, there's no surface disturbance, but there will be 500 or 1,000 feet below the surface. But, there will still be rock being hauled out and piled in and/or around the powerhouse and/or the road. That's on the bear side impacts. And then, after operations, it's bear/human mitigation, reducing the attractive nuisance and those kinds of things which are standard plans for any development in a bear habitat. And I think we've attempted 9
to mitigate the noise, the light, and we're committed to those common sense factors to try to make our infrastructure fit with a heavy bear environment. So, our impact on bears, are bears going to like it? We don't know. We know that bears will be around infrastructure facilities, we just don't want to get into situations where bears put themselves at hazards because we've attracted nuisances by leaving trash out and/or other things which create problems. Especially with the number of people that go down there in July and August, we don't want to create problem bears. So, we're sensitive to all those issues. So, the impact on the bear habitat, is it going to change their mating? Is it going to change their feeding? Is it going to change something in their lifecycle? Perhaps, but those might be negligible or small. Now, if we go up to the Lake to the dam, where we're constructing the dam is not considered a goat kidding or a goat lifecycle habitat. I'm speaking specifically where the dam is. Most of the goats, as I understand, Ryan, have been found up on the ridges or more toward the other end of the Lake. Although, I'm sure that they will come along the ridge line where there's feed. But, right at that mouth, at the lower elevations there's probably not a whole lot of goats in there that we have encountered or seen sign from. 10
The issue that I see from the project impact on goat habitat, albeit we're more than a mile away, so let's say we even agreed that we wouldn't do any construction if a goat was two miles and just doubled the Lake Dorothy sound and noise or sight barrier that they had. Because they only had a mile away. Let's say we went to two miles. The other end of the lake is 5 and a half miles away so I think the construction issues and the noise and the things are going to be far enough away from the summer habitat, the spring habitat, the winter habitat. The issue, though, is the elevation of the lake. We're going to raise the lake elevation by 85 feet. And I think the nexus of the project, or where it has the most potential to affect goat habitat, is the raising of the lake if that is wintering habitat for goats. Am I circling in on the major concern, Ryan? Mr. Ryan Scott: You are, yeah. Mr. Shawn Johnson: With respect to the bears at the creek, you mentioned that we don't know at this point if the project and the infrastructure and the construction and the operation will have an effect on bears' lifecycle, breeding habits, feeding patterns, whatever. We don't know if there will be an impact. The point of this is we need baseline information to know what they're doing now and then, afterwards, figure out with some more monitoring if the project has had an impact. 11
Obviously, we think these studies were nexus and that's why they were in the Scoping Documents and the PAD and the Wildlife Study Plan. So, it's not a question do we think they were nexus or not, we thought they were, obviously, it seems like everybody did because they were in all those documents. But, I think we're comfortable with doing a site agreement to get these studies done and then you can proceed with the licensing. I guess I'm hung up on the fact that if we go that route and am I saying Fish and Game has changed their mind, we no longer think those studies are nexus. We're willing to do the site agreement, get these studies done and, like I said, if we start the studies now, we'll have the information I think we'll need to help us manage and evaluate post-project conditions if we start the studies now. We'll get exactly what we want, it's just a matter of what we're calling it, what we're actually agreeing to. If that makes any sense. Ms. Dianne Rodman: Well, what concerns me is that, apparently, Alaska Fish and Game, no matter what our conclusion is,is going to say, we don't know what the project's going to do. And, if FERC thinks that they know, then that's unfounded. And that, apparently, is what you're saying, isn't it? Mr. Shawn Johnson: Could you explain that again? Ms. Dianne Rodman: With the information that we have now, you're saying that you have no idea what the project is going to 12
do to bears or goats. So, and that is the position of your agency. And you really can't provide anything but, say, general mitigative measures suitable to instances in which bears and goats are involved in some sort of an action. So, if I say in our EIS that, yeah, I know what's going to happen. There's going to be this much of a loss of habitat and it's going to have a, pick your adjective, effect on the species. Your position would be that I'm making an unfounded statement, is that correct? Or whatever biologist is making that statement. Mr. Shawn Johnson: Well, I'd have to see what the statement is, but we don't have baseline information so how can we say much of anything about impacts? Ms. Dianne Rodman: Well, how much information would you want? Mr. Shawn Johnson: What we had agreed to throughout the whole process up to this point. The Wildlife Study Plan said they were going to collar bears and now they're not going to collar bears. So, now we have to argue why we want to collar bears even though we'd already been through that. Mr. Duff Mitchell: Let me just interject a hair. We have never said that we won't collar bears. What we have said is we will collar bears and then was we got through into more of this, there's been discussion of the value of it. But, it's been Juneau Hydropower's position to do whatever Fish and Game wanted 13
us to do. Unfortunately, and it's water over the dam, we haven't collared goats or bears in 2010 or 2011. Okay, I'll take 50 percent or 75 percent of that blame. We, obviously, did not write a check to go do that for Fish and Game so that's 100 percent our hit there. The issue is that we know there's bears prevalent. So, the baseline information is we know we have bear habitat and we have goat habitat. And if we just agree that even though we don't know if there's kidding habitat and/or goats actually use the habitat at the far end, let's just agree that the project will change that habitat. It will make it unuseful for goats. I think when Dennis was explaining some things, they look at the habitat analysis of what is potentially, and maybe I'm not using the right terminology, but what is potential habitat for these particular organisms, mammals? Then, they assume that those are habitat for those bears and goats. So, from the baseline point of view, from our viewpoint, the baseline point of view is, yes, we know they exist. We don't know the intricacies of their movements, we don't know the intricacies of timing. Well, we know that they're there in the July and August period, but you know what I'm saying. We don't know where they den, we don't know where they go, we don't know those kinds of things. Those are definitely unknown. We want to work with Fish and Game on that, but we also--i guess the 14
difference is what is the baseline information and what is that information thereto and then grow from that. If the information is to say, okay, Duff and Juneau Hydropower, you have now built this thing. We now have goat collaring information and we have bear collaring information and we suggest that there's additional measures that you should take to either reduce human interference or help with the lifecycles with bears. Short of ripping out the tunnel and short of removing the powerhouse, I think that we're committed to having a long-term relationship that is beneficial to the environment. You're not going to find a party, us being the party, of digging our heels in and saying, oh, well we're not going to do anything more, that wasn't in the conditioning. And if that needs to be spelled out in the off license agreement, we're trying to be what I would call a good steward of the developer of the resources. Now, how does that get codified in the agreement? That's a matter of writing it up. And that's our position. Ms. Dianne Rodman: If you think that the baseline information is critical to evaluating the project's effect, then no, it's not appropriate as an off license agreement. Off license agreements are more for enhancement. I would be uneasy with having something you feel is that important to your analysis and my analysis be off license. 15
Mr. Shawn Johnson: So, can you describe enhancement again? Ms. Dianne Rodman: Well, again, let me go back to the example that I was talking about last time. This is a project at a Corp. dam. At a Corp. dam or any other agency, the commission typically licenses the powerhouse, the transmission line alignment, we do not include another agency's dam or reservoir in our license. So, you have this peculiar project boundary. The navigation pool of the Corp. included a creek that came into the navigation--it was a big sucker. It was about a 25 mile long reservoir. The licensee during relicensing agreed to plant riparian vegetation and, I think, do some aquatic work to enhance habitat on that one embayment. And so, in the license application, they filed information saying we would do it, but this is not part of our licensing. And this is good neighbor enhancement, not mitigation, enhancement that the licensee agreed to with the state. So, that's an example. If it's mitigation, then there becomes the question of should it be within the project boundary? Does that help you? Mr. Shawn Johnson: Yeah. I'm trying to put all the pieces of the puzzle together and do the right thing so to say. Ms. Dianne Rodman: And off license agreements may or may not be appropriate for the sweetheart-like project. That's up to you all to figure out. Maybe it'll help, maybe it won't. 16
Mr. Ryan Scott: Hey, good morning, you guys. This is Ryan in Juneau. I guess I just wanted to point out a couple things. I appreciate all the dialog and I continue to learn more and more about hydro projects and various acronyms so it's all great information. When we talk about just making the assumption that an area is mountain goat habitat or is bear habitat, I don't think any of us would disagree with that. We could look at it and say that's likely goat habitat. Lo and behold, we have goats on the mountains during summer and fall. It's bear habitat because we see them all summer and, especially, during the peak fish runs. My question or my comment really focuses on, I'm trying hard to stay away from the Wildlife analysis stuff so if I stray too far, tell me. Juneau Hydro has made good efforts at trying to gather some of this data. I appreciate the stuff Duff sent us, good conversations and good information from Kai Environmental as well. We just don't know--i'm not even looking forward to how bears and/or goats will respond once the project is in place or even during construction. At this point, it's hard to even think down the road without having some of this baseline information. And when I say baseline, I use that term differently than what I think Duff, he used it. And that's just a different perspective, I think. Baseline being we know they're there and that's it. 17
Baseline information for us, and somebody mentioned it earlier, we manage the species on the ground. That's our mandate. Brown bears, black bears, mountain goats, fur bears, whatever it might be there. So, without having any insight really, short of what we can see from the beach and gathering that data from the work JHI is doing, it's hard to even talk about monitoring, mitigation, potential impacts, things like that. I just see that we have to look more on--to call that area goat habitat and bear habitat is very broad and vague. I think we really have to come down to that next level. And I apologize, I wasn't at the last meeting, but I do believe some suggestions were put out there and we re prepared to talk more in depth about those stuff. We've had lots of time with Shawn and talked about how to go with this. I can't speak to the difference, are these nexus issues and does Fish and Game just acquiesce that these are no longer concerns and develop these things, but I think that we have to give some credence to the lack of species specific knowledge down there and we have to figure out how to get that information. I will go out on a limb here and we've said this several times. We don't believe that these concerns, at least on the wildlife side, are show-stoppers. That's not the point of this. The point is to try to understand what the animals are up to 18
down there, how they're using the habitat. And that creates the baseline data, frankly, that will let us move forward with any other requirements the state of Alaska will have as far as commenting and mitigation and things like that. I'm hoping, at least from me personally, that I can set the stage why I'm focused on bears and/or goats. And, frankly, the collaring thing, we can figure that out. If it's something we all agree on, lo and behold, great. But, there's other opportunities to gather just species specific information. Mr. Shawn Johnson: Let me just say, too, Duff, I totally appreciate your efforts. I know you want to do the right thing and I wish more applicants had your approach to licensing a project. That's not an issue and it sounds like you'd be willing to entertain these studies. It's just, for me, we want these studies done, it sounds like you'd entertain doing these studies, it's just how it all fits in with the FERC process and a site agreement entails. And if we can just say, okay, we think these studies are nexus, but we are willing to compromise and let the project move forward in licensing and call them site agreements, we're okay with that. Mr. Duff Mitchell: And from Keith's and my perspective, this hydropower is going to be there for 50 years. And that also provides Fish and Game and Juneau Hydropower an 19
opportunity, if we agree, to study how this evolves over the next 50 years. Now, that may not impact the project's construction or whatever, but it may be an experiment that's monitored to see how this infrastructure and how it, over not just one year or two years, but maybe over 15 or 25 years, how this piece of infrastructure impacts bears. Is that a nexus to the project for the FERC process? No. But, it's not something--it goes beyond the licensing where if there's something that we can tweak later or something we can do in conjunction with your recommendations or with long-term analysis, we're not against that. We want to, like I said, at the end of the day we want you guys to be able to say, hey these guys did it right and they are continuing to do it right. And that doesn't mean that there might not be a problem. I don't know if there would be whether it was with goats or bears or others. But, I guess what this boils down to is that we want to file a license, we're trying to wrap up our studies, there is room that we could have collared goats last year or done something to created some baseline information that may have been more, how Ryan said, I'll call it granular detail rather than generic detail on movements and on particular individuals. Or, at least, found some tendencies of, maybe if we did a couple individuals, we'd find tendencies of the larger population. I don't disagree. 20
And we're still willing to see what we can do. The issue that I'm running to, and this is more development and economic and whatnot, is that we're trying to file a license sooner than later. So, we don t want to do another study for a year or two that would preclude us from filing a license and, perhaps, getting that license conditioned in moving toward construction. I know Fish and Game doesn't manage based on timing and economics and the developer's needs, but I'm sharing what our needs are that I'm trying to make sure that I can do what Fish and Game is, I think, leading us to do. Or what you would like us to do, but find some ground where maybe we can accomplish both if it's possible. Mr. Shawn Johnson: Yes, I would agree to that. Let me just kind of throw out a what if to Dianne and John. Let's say, we agree to do a site agreement to do these wildlife studies. If Duff files a license this summer and during your environmental analysis, you folks say, boy we need some more information on bears and goats. Then, what happens? Ms. Dianne Rodman: The commission will do an adequacy review when the application comes in and, at that time, we'll ask for additional information if we think it's necessary. There is an opportunity in the ALP process when the application has been filed to, again, ask for studies. Let me check on that. I believe that there is one. Yeah, we can ask for 21
additional information after the application is followed even in the ALP process. It's very much discouraged in the ILP, but in the ALP, you can. Mr. Shawn Johnson: FERC can ask for more studies or us commenting on the license can ask for more studies? Ms. Dianne Rodman: Basically FERC can. Mr. Shawn Johnson: Again, if we agree to the site agreement, then Duff files, you don't know if it's going to be another draft license or a final, but regardless, you could file another license application, environmental analysis. Do we not say anything about wildlife even though we're collecting more information because we've agreed to do these studies? Do we just in our commenting and terms and conditions or whatever, just ignore these wildlife issues because we're taking care of it on the side. Or we just say, we have some outstanding wildlife issues, but they're being addressed outside the FERC process? Mr. Duff Mitchell: This is just me talking. FERC can have their own answer, but I think it should be disclosed. We've done the analysis up to this point, there is still some gray area and/or concern or however it's phrased. This offline agreement is there to help, I think it should be disclosed however it's worded. I don't think that that means that you 22
should just go away and, okay, it's not an issue anymore. You tell me if I'm wrong, Dianne. Ms. Dianne Rodman: I have, occasionally, seen agencies, we got a letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service and they said, oh forget about it, we're just going to work with the licensee. We acknowledge that we totally disagree with you and we're going to work it out with the licensee separate from the process. You don't have to do it that way and I tend to think if you really feel that if you cannot make adequate recommendations to protect wildlife resources, that you should go on the record that that is the case. And you may, if you do post-licensing studies, and you don't have any baseline information to compare them to, I'm not real sure what those studies are telling you. Mr. Shawn Johnson: We could start these studies right away so it would be some pre-project construction, baseline information. Mr. Dennis Chester: To me, the critical thing is if we do these studies and the application process goes on if there's nothing, say outside of the application process, they really can't feed back to the NEPA process. Ms. Dianne Rodman: Exactly. Mr. Dennis Chester: The NEPA's already done. There's no loop to go back to that and I guess that's what's bothering me about this whole conversation is if Fish and Game is 23
uncomfortable with the level of analysis that will go into the NEPA, then we cannot complete the NEPA until this is done and that is not consistent with the timeline that Duff would like. That's, to me, the very basic issue and I haven't seen any way around that at this point. Ms. Dianne Rodman: If the information is important, then how can we come to a [unintelligible] with a straight face? Personally, it really makes me uncomfortable. Mr. Duff Mitchell: And we're I'm trying to visualize this, and maybe this is just my visualization, is that we've studied things, we've come up to a point where we're going to file license and we've mitigated some risk, although, we haven't ruled it out. And there's still some element of risk there and I guess it's the question that I roll back to the Fish and Game. What element of risk or high of that risk can you live with what we have done to date? If there is no show-stoppers and you think that the risk to the bear population and the goat population is minimal or small, then it might be okay. If it's large or enormous, then maybe that would be the preponderance for saying, yeah, Duff, the development still needs some more studying work. I'm hoping, based on what I've heard and whatnot, that we've done enough work to get to maybe the first point which is minimal or small or maybe really minor. But, we still would like to have that information to discern, to 24
get into more of the granularity. I don't want to put words in you guys' mouth, but I was trying to maybe qualify it on the risk side. Mr. Ryan Scott: Don t worry, you're not going to put words in our mouth. Mr. Duff Mitchell: I'm just throwing that out from the risk analysis point of view of the impact. Mr. Ryan Scott: I think Dennis Chester's comments are somewhat of a revelation to me. I don't know if it's not to anybody else and that's something that I won't even entertain, at this point, wagering a guess if it's going to be minimal, moderate, or significant risk. I'm not comfortable, at this point, based on what we know. I was very comfortable when we sat down this morning figuring out how to make this work for both Juneau Hydro Incorporated and for the Department of Fish and Game on these species specific things. So, if someone can explain to me how, if we gather this information as we go forward, Juneau Hydropower is allowed to move forward with their application process, how can we use that data and what assurance do we have that that data will be taken into account on permit type conditions or mitigation measures and things like that. What are our options if we move forward in that direction? 25
Mr. Duff Mitchell: And I don't know underneath--i think Dianne has explained there's 10(j) and there's 10(a) conditioning. And how that relates to a condition on the project where that information isn't going to be found till after the project is probably minor unless it's in the agreement between Juneau Hydropower and Fish and Game that's enforceable beyond the FERC licensing conditions. Ms. Dianne Rodman: I think we're actually not talking about so much 10(j) versus 10(a) as just this integrity of the NEPA process. Those are just hoops that FERC has to go through to meet our own internal requirements in making sure that we give due deference to the agencies that know the most about Alaska's wildlife. But, it is really--my name will probably be on the NEPA document in list of preparers and, as a person, I want to make sure that people don't look at my analysis and go, what's with her? Mr. Duff Mitchell: Well, Ryan, you raised something and let me ask you this. Let's say we collar five, 10, three bears this summer and we find that two of them go up to the 500 foot elevation and den. We find others go to other parts around Gilbert Bay and den. We may find one that goes up the Whiting or three go up the Whiting. So, we collar them. What 26