Kenai Hydro, LLC · FERC No. 13212 3 April 2016 Volume 3 includes the portion of Exhibit F which includes preliminary design drawings of principal Project works, for which, pursuant

Kenai Hydro, LLC

Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212)

Final License Application for an Original License

Volume I: Public

April 15, 2016

Kenai Hydro, LLC 3977 Lake Street

Homer, AK 99603

ELECTRONICALLY FILED April 15, 2016 Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 RE: Final License Application for Kenai Hydro, LLC - Grant Lake Hydroelectric

Project (FERC No. 13212) Dear Secretary Bose: Kenai Hydro, LLC (KHL) hereby submits its Final License Application (FLA) pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 4.41 for the proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212) (the “Project”). The proposed Project would be located near the city of Moose Pass, Alaska, on Grant Creek and have an installed capacity of 5.0 megawatts (MW). KHL is proud of the quality science and engineering that has gone into the evaluation of this Project and is extremely encouraged by the results and collaboration that has taken place during the licensing process. Our extensive record and associated filings of reports, numerous meetings minutes, comment responses, presentations, etc. speak to this and are directly reflective of our commitment to operate the Project in an environmentally conscious and dependably efficient manner consistent with all requirements put forth in a FERC license order. KHL filed a Draft License Application for the Project on March 27, 2015. On May 15, 2015, KHL filed a set of natural resource management/monitoring plans (Plans) and Biological Evaluation (BE). Since those filings and based on comments received and subsequent collaboration with stakeholders, KHL has revised the aforementioned documents. The FLA includes the Plans and BE as attachments to Exhibit E, which will allow for a synonymous review process. The entire FLA submittal is being e-filed, as specified below in Table 1. In addition, an original FLA and 2 copies have been mailed to the Secretary. One copy has also been sent to the Regional Engineer in FERC’s Portland, Oregon office. KHL is emailing notification of the

Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 2 April 2016

FLA’s submittal and availability on FERC’s e-library and KHL’s Project website (http://www.kenaihydro.com/) to each person on FERC’s official service and mailing lists and each person on the attached Distribution List. These entities include those resource agencies, Native tribes, non-governmental organizations, and members of the general public that have expressed continued interest in the licensing proceedings. Within 14 days of this filing, KHL will be publishing two notices in the Peninsula Clarion newspaper notifying the public of the FLA filing. A copy will also be distributed to a Kenai Peninsula Borough public library for display. Table 1. Grant Lake Project e-Filing contents

Volume Security Designation Content Volume 1 Public • Initial Statement

• Exhibit A • Exhibit B • Exhibit C • Exhibit D • Exhibit E, attachments:

o Attachment E-1, Responses to Draft License Application Comments

o Attachment E-2, Summary of Licensing Consultation and Associated Formal Comment Letters

o Attachment E-3, Summary of Proposed PM&E Measures and Schedule for Implementation and Construction

o Attachment E-4, Final Biological Evaluation o Attachment E-5, Final Operation Compliance and

Monitoring Plan o Attachment E-6, Final Biotic Monitoring Plan o Attachment E-7, Final Vegetation Management Plan o Attachment E-8, Final Avian Protection Plan o Attachment E-9, Final Historic Properties Management

Plan Cover Page • Exhibit F Preliminary Supporting Design Report [preliminary

design drawings provided in Volume 3 (see below)] • Exhibit G

Volume 2 Privileged • Final Historic Properties Management Plan • Summary of Licensing Consultation and Associated

Formal Comment Letters (Privileged) • Appendices 2 and 3 of the VMP

Volume 3 Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII)

Exhibit F Preliminary Design Drawings

Volume 2 includes consultation records containing sensitive, detailed information on location of historic and archeological resources, for which, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. §§ 388.112(b) and 388.113(c)(1), we accordingly request designation and special treatment as Privileged material.


Volume 3 includes the portion of Exhibit F which includes preliminary design drawings of principal Project works, for which, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. §§ 388.112(b) and 388.113(c)(1), we accordingly request designation and special treatment as CEII. KHL looks forward to continuing consultation and collaboration on this licensing effort with FERC and the interested stakeholders. If you have any questions regarding KHL’s FLA, I can be contacted via email at [email protected] or by phone at (907) 283-2375. Sincerely:

Mikel Salzetti Manager of Fuel Supply & Renewable Energy Development Kenai Hydro, LLC 3977 Lake Street Homer, AK 99603 Enclosures Cc: Distribution List (see attached)

mailto:[email protected]


[This page intentionally left blank.]


Distribution List for Final License Application (FERC No. 13212)

Jeffry Anderson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Kenai Field Office 43655 Kalifornsky Beach Road Soldotna, AK 99669 [email protected] Andrew Bacon [email protected] Robert Baldwin Friends of Cooper Landing P.O. Box 815 Cooper Landing , AK 99572-0815 [email protected] Katie Baldwin-Johnson [email protected] Robert Begich Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game 43961 Kalifornsky Beach Rd., Ste. B Soldotna, AK 99669 [email protected] Roger Birk USDA Forest Service P.O. Box 21628 Juneau, AK 99802-1628 [email protected] Judith Bittner Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources 550 W. 7th Ave., Suite 1310 Anchorage, AK 99501 [email protected]

Brian Blossom Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game 514 Funny River Rd. Soldotna, AK 99669 [email protected] Tim Bristol Trout Unlimited 419 Sixth St., Ste. 200 Juneau, AK 99801 [email protected] Jason Brune Cook Inlet Region, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 500 Anchorage, AK 99503 [email protected] John Burke SSRAA 14 Borch St. Ketchikan, AK 99901 Dave Bryson 125 Spring Drive Lovelock, NV 89419-6508 [email protected] Penny Carty Salamatof Native Association, Inc. 100 N. Willow St. Kenai, AK 99611 [email protected] Angela Coleman U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [email protected]

Dawn Collinsworth USDA Forest Service P.O. Box 21628 Juneau, AK 99802-1628 [email protected] Mike Cooney Friends of Cooper Landing P.O. Box 169 Moose Pass, AK 99631 [email protected] Adam Cross U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [email protected] John Czarnezki KPB Kenai River Center 514 Funny River Rd. Soldotna, AK 99669 [email protected] Shina Duvall Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources 550 W. 7th Ave., Suite 1310 Anchorage, AK 99501 [email protected] Sean Eagan National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, AK 99802-1668 [email protected] John Eavis USDA Forest Service P.O. Box 390 Seward, AK 99664 [email protected]


Richard Encelewski Ninilchik Trad Council P.O. Box 39070 Ninilchik, AK 99567 [email protected] Jeff Estes City of Seward [email protected] Gary Fandrei Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association [email protected] Sara Fisher-Goad AEA [email protected] Ricky Gease Kenai River Sportfishing Association 224 Kenai Ave., Ste. 102 Soldotna, AK 99669 [email protected] Kate Glaser 32262 Lakestor Seward, AK 99664 [email protected] Brent Goodrum [email protected] Office of the Governor of Alaska P.O. Box 110001 Juneau, AK 99811-0001 Governor of Alaska Office of the Governor of Alaska P.O. Box 110001 Juneau, AK 99811-0001

David Griffin Alaska State Parks 550 W. 7th Ave., Suite 1380 Anchorage, AK 99501 [email protected] Jeanette Hannenan [email protected] Daniel Hertrich AEA 813 W. Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503 [email protected] Jeff & Rose Hetrick Inn at Tern Lake [email protected] Ken Hogan Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington DC 20426 [email protected] Mike Iasalaco [email protected] Ben Ikerd KPB Area Planning P.O. Box 8 Moose Pass, AK 99631 [email protected] Bruce & Carole Jaffa Jaffa Construction P.O. Box 107 Moose Pass, AK 99631 [email protected]

Brad Janorschke Homer Electric Association 280 Airport Way Kenai, AK 99611 [email protected] Douglas Johnson Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Portland Region Office 805 SW Broadway, Suite 550 Portland, OR 97205 Phillip Johnson U.S. Dept. of the Interior Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance 1689 C St., Rm. 119 Anchorage, AK 99501-5947 Lynnda Kahn U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 43655 Kalifornsky Beach Road P.O. Box 1670 Soldotna, AK 99669 [email protected] Kevin Keeler Bureau of Land Management 4700 BLM Rd. Anchorage, AK 99507 [email protected] Peter Keller U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [email protected] Sherry Kime USFS - Seward Ranger District P.O. Box 390 Seward, AK 99664 [email protected]


Joe Klein Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game 333 Raspberry Rd. Anchorage, AK 99501 [email protected] Jan Konigsberg National Heritage Institute – HRC 7511 Labrador Cr. Anchorage, AK 99502 [email protected] Denise Koopman U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [email protected] Ellen Lance U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [email protected] John Lang U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [email protected] Kevin Laves USDA Forest Service [email protected] Bryce Leroy 125 Spring Drive Lovelock, NV 89419-6508 Irene Lindquist [email protected] Ginny Litchfield Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game 514 Funny River Rd. Soldotna, AK 99669 [email protected]

Soch Lor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4700 BLM Road Anchorage, AK 99507 [email protected] Mark Luttrell Resurrection Bay Conservation Alliance Box 511 Seward, AK 99664 [email protected] Daniel Mahalak KPB Capital Project/Hydrology P.O. Box 2646 Seward, AK 99664 [email protected] Katherine McCafferty U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 44669 Sterling Highway, Suite B Soldotna, AK 99669-7915 [email protected] Monte Miller Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game 333 Raspberry Rd. Anchorage, AK 99518-1565 [email protected] John Mohorcich KPB Kenai River Center 514 Funny River Rd. Soldotna, AK 99669 [email protected] Moose Pass Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 147 Moose Pass, AK 99631 [email protected]

Travis Moseley USFS – Seward Ranger District 334 Fourth Ave. P.O. Box 390 Seward, AK 99631 [email protected] Jason Mouw Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game 333 Raspberry Rd. Anchorage, AK 99518 [email protected] Marcus Mueller KPB 144 North Binkley Street Soldotna, AK 99669 [email protected] Douglas Mutter U.S. Dept. of the Interior 1689 C St., Rm. 119 Anchorage, AK 99501 [email protected] Jerry Nassen [email protected] Judith Odhner P.O. Box 176 Moose Pass, AK 99631 [email protected] Karen O'Leary USFS – Chugach National Forest 3301 C St., Ste 300 Anchorage, AK 99503 [email protected] Doug Ott AEA 813 W. Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99501 [email protected]


Mona Painter Cooper Landing Community Club P.O. Box 711 Cooper Landing , AK 99572 [email protected] Jaylene Peterson-Nyren Kenaitze Indian Tribe P.O. Box 988 Kenai, AK 99611-0988 Carl Reese Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources 400 Willoughby Ave., #400 P.O. Box 111020 Juneau, AK 99811-1020 [email protected] Karen Rogina Chenega Corp 3000 C St, Suite 301 Anchorage, AK 99503 [email protected] Pamela Russell Alaska State Parks 514 Funny River Rd. Soldotna, AK 99669 [email protected] Mike Salzetti Kenai Hydro, LLC 280 Airport Way Kenai, AK 99611 [email protected] David Schade Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources [email protected]

Lesli Schick Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources 550 W 7th Ave., Suite 900C Anchorage, AK 99501 [email protected] John Seebach American Rivers / HRC 1025 Vermont Ave. Washington DC 20005 [email protected] Bob Shavelson Cook Inlet Keeper P.O. Box 3269 Homer, AK 99603 [email protected] Harold Shepherd Center for Water Rights Advocacy P.O. Box 331 Seward, AK 84532-0331 [email protected] Claire Shipton P.O. Box 44 Moose Pass, AK 99631 [email protected] Heather Smith Homer Electric Association 280 Airport Way Kenai, AK 99611 [email protected] Vernon Standford Kenai Natives Association 215 Fidalgo Ave., Ste. 101 Kenai, AK 99611

Barbara A. Stanley USDA Forest Service 648 Mission Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 [email protected] Lee Stephan Native Village of Eklutna 26339 Ekluyna Village Road Chugiak, AK 99567 [email protected] Robin Swinford Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources [email protected] Cassie Thomas National Park Service 11081 Glazanof Dr. Rm. 108 Anchorage, AK 99507 [email protected] Ryan Thomas Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources 550 West 7th Ave., Ste. 1380 Anchorage, AK 99501 [email protected] Paul Torgerson Grant Lake Mining 5223 E. 24th Avenue #14 Anchorage, AK 99508-3828 [email protected] Brenda Trefon Kenaitze Indian Tribe 150 N. Willow P.O. Box 988 Kenai, AK 99611 [email protected]


USACE Attn: CEPOA-RD-S-K 44669 Sterling Highway, Suite B Soldotna, AK 99669-7915 U.S. Dept. of the Interior Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 1689 C St., Rm. 119 Anchorage, AK 99501-5947 U.S. Dept. of the Interior Office of the Solicitor 4230 University Dr., Ste. 300 Anchorage, AK 99508 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office 1011 East Tudor, MS 331 Anchorage, AK 99503 [email protected] Katherine Van Massenhove USFS – Chugach National Forest 161 E. 1st Avenue, Door B Anchorage, AK 99501 [email protected] Susan Walker National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, AK 99802-1668 [email protected] Rachel Werner PO Box 242782 Anchorage, AK 995240-2782

Frank Winchell Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Routing Code PJ-14.6 Washington DC 20426 [email protected] Donna Wottlin [email protected] Brad Zubeck Kenai Hydro, LLC 280 Airport Way Kenai, AK 99611 [email protected]

FINAL LICENSE APPLICATION DISTRIBUTION LIST



Final License Application Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212)

Kenai Hydro, LLC

April 2016

FINAL LICENSE APPLICATION

Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 i April 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS AND DEFINITIONS List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... xiv List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................... xix

INITIAL STATEMENT

EXHIBIT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1 Contents and Purpose of This Exhibit .............................................................................. A-1

2 General Project Description ............................................................................................... A-1

3 Project Area and Vicinity ................................................................................................... A-2

4 Proposed Project Facilities ................................................................................................. A-5

4.1. Grant Creek Diversion ................................................................................................. A-10 4.2. Grant Lake Intake ........................................................................................................ A-11 4.3. Tunnel and Surge Chamber ......................................................................................... A-11 4.4. Penstock ....................................................................................................................... A-12 4.5. Tailrace ........................................................................................................................ A-12 4.6. Tailrace Detention Pond .............................................................................................. A-13 4.7. Powerhouse ................................................................................................................. A-14 4.8. Transmission Line/Switchyard .................................................................................... A-15 4.9. Appurtenant Facilities ................................................................................................. A-15 4.10. Access Roads ............................................................................................................... A-16

5 Project Lands .................................................................................................................... A-17

EXHIBIT B: PROJECT OPERATIONS AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION

1 Contents and Purpose of This Exhibit ...............................................................................B-1

2 Project Site Selection and Proposed Operations ...............................................................B-1

2.1. Project Site Alternatives ................................................................................................ B-1


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 ii April 2016

2.1.1. Crescent Lake................................................................................................... B-1 2.1.2. Ptarmigan Lake/Creek ..................................................................................... B-1 2.1.3. Falls Creek ....................................................................................................... B-1 2.1.4. Grant Lake/Creek ............................................................................................. B-2

2.2. Project Facility Designs, Processes, and Operations Alternatives ................................ B-3 2.2.1. Configuration Alternatives............................................................................... B-3 2.2.2. Proposed Design .............................................................................................. B-7 2.2.3. Grant Lake Operational Model ........................................................................ B-7

2.3. Project Operations During Adverse, Average, and High Water Years ......................... B-8 2.3.1. Adverse Water Years ....................................................................................... B-8 2.3.2. Average Water Years ....................................................................................... B-8 2.3.3. High Water Years ............................................................................................ B-8

3 Existing Resource Utilization ..............................................................................................B-9

3.1. Plant Control .................................................................................................................. B-9 3.2. Annual Plant Factor ....................................................................................................... B-9 3.3. Dependable Capacity and Average Annual Energy Production ................................... B-9

3.3.1. Project Flow Data ............................................................................................ B-9 3.3.2. Flow Duration Curves .................................................................................... B-10 3.3.3. Critical Streamflow ........................................................................................ B-13 3.3.4. Storage Capacity ............................................................................................ B-13 3.3.5. Rule Curve ..................................................................................................... B-16 3.3.6. Tailwater Rating Curve .................................................................................. B-17 3.3.7. Power Plant Hydraulic Capacities and Capabilities....................................... B-18

4 System and Regional Power Needs ...................................................................................B-19

5 Future Resource Utilization ..............................................................................................B-21

6 References ...........................................................................................................................B-21

Exhibit B Attachments

Attachment B-1. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Power Generation Summary on a Monthly Basis for Period of Record

EXHIBIT C: CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

1 Contents and Purpose of This Exhibit .............................................................................. C-1

2 Construction Schedule ........................................................................................................ C-1


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 iii April 2016

3 Commencement of Commercial Operation ...................................................................... C-1

4 Previously Constructed, Unlicensed Water Power Structures or Facilities .................. C-1

EXHIBIT D: PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING

1 Contents and Purpose of This Exhibit .............................................................................. D-1

2 Original Costs ...................................................................................................................... D-1

3 Estimate of the Amount Payable if the Project were to be Taken Over Pursuant to Section 14 of the Federal Power Act ................................................................................. D-1

4 New Construction Costs ..................................................................................................... D-1

5 Average Annual Costs ........................................................................................................ D-4

5.1. Cost of Capital ............................................................................................................... D-4 5.2. Local, State and Federal Taxes ...................................................................................... D-4 5.3. Depreciation and Amortization ..................................................................................... D-4 5.4. Operations & Maintenance Expenses ............................................................................ D-4 5.5. Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Expenses (PM&E) ...................................... D-5

6 Value of Project Power ....................................................................................................... D-6

6.1. Contingency Spinning Reserve ..................................................................................... D-6 6.2. Estimated Average Annual Value of Power .................................................................. D-8

7 On-peak and Off-peak Values of Project Power .............................................................. D-8

8 Alternative Energy Sources ............................................................................................... D-9

9 Consequence of License Application Denial ................................................................... D-10

10 Sources and Extent of Financing ..................................................................................... D-10

11 Cost to Develop the License Application ........................................................................ D-10

EXHIBIT E: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................E-1


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 iv April 2016

1.1. Purpose of Exhibit E ....................................................................................................... E-1 1.2. Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) Schedule .............................................................. E-1 1.3. Document Organization ................................................................................................. E-3

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives ......................................................................................E-3

2.1. Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. E-3 2.1.1. Proposed Project Boundary............................................................................... E-3 2.1.2. Proposed Project Facilities ................................................................................ E-4 2.1.3. Proposed Project Safety .................................................................................. E-14 2.1.4. Proposed Project Operations ........................................................................... E-14 2.1.5. Proposed Environmental Measures................................................................. E-14

2.2. Requested PM&E Measures ......................................................................................... E-17 2.3. No Action ..................................................................................................................... E-18 2.4. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated ....................................................................... E-19

2.4.1. Project Site Alternatives ................................................................................. E-19 2.4.2. Project Facility Designs, Processes, and Operations Alternatives .................. E-21 2.4.3. Alternative Energy Sources ............................................................................ E-25 2.4.4. Consequence of License Application Denial .................................................. E-26

3 Consultation and Scoping .................................................................................................E-26

3.1. Consultation .................................................................................................................. E-26 3.2. Scoping ......................................................................................................................... E-28 3.3. Response to Comments on the Draft License Application ........................................... E-31 3.4. REA Notice .................................................................................................................. E-32

4 Environmental Analysis ....................................................................................................E-33

4.1. Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................... E-33 4.1.1. Geographic Scope ........................................................................................... E-33 4.1.2. Temporal Scope .............................................................................................. E-33

4.2. Applicable Laws ........................................................................................................... E-34 4.2.1. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act ............................................................... E-34 4.2.2. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ............................................................... E-34 4.2.3. Endangered Species Act ................................................................................. E-34 4.2.4. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ................... E-34 4.2.5. Coastal Zone Management Act ....................................................................... E-35 4.2.6. National Historic Preservation Act ................................................................. E-35 4.2.7. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act ............................................................................ E-35 4.2.8. The National Trails System ............................................................................ E-35

4.3. General Description of River Basin ............................................................................. E-36 4.3.1. Topography ..................................................................................................... E-36 4.3.2. Hydrology ....................................................................................................... E-39 4.3.3. Climate ............................................................................................................ E-40


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 v April 2016

4.3.4. Land and Water Uses ...................................................................................... E-41 4.4. Geological and Soil Resources ..................................................................................... E-45

4.4.1. Affected Environment ..................................................................................... E-45 4.4.2. Environmental Analysis .................................................................................. E-63 4.4.3. Proposed Environmental Measures................................................................. E-67 4.4.4. Cumulative Effects Analysis........................................................................... E-67 4.4.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ........................................................................ E-68

4.5. Water Quality and Quantity ......................................................................................... E-68 4.5.1. Affected Environment ..................................................................................... E-68 4.5.2. Environmental Analysis .................................................................................. E-98 4.5.3. Proposed Environmental Measures............................................................... E-102 4.5.4. Cumulative Effects Analysis......................................................................... E-103 4.5.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................... E-104

4.6. Aquatic Resources ...................................................................................................... E-104 4.6.1. Affected Environment ................................................................................... E-104 4.6.2. Environmental Analysis ................................................................................ E-214 4.6.3. Proposed Environmental Measures............................................................... E-292 4.6.4. Cumulative Effects Analysis......................................................................... E-297 4.6.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................... E-297

4.7. Terrestrial Resources .................................................................................................. E-298 4.7.1. Affected Environment ................................................................................... E-301 4.7.2. Environmental Analysis ................................................................................ E-363 4.7.3. Proposed Environmental Measures............................................................... E-391 4.7.4. Cumulative Effects Analysis......................................................................... E-400 4.7.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................... E-401

4.8. Recreation and Land Use Resources .......................................................................... E-401 4.8.1. Affected Environment ................................................................................... E-401 4.8.2. Environmental Analysis ................................................................................ E-421 4.8.3. Proposed Environmental Measures............................................................... E-431 4.8.4. Cumulative Effects Analysis......................................................................... E-437 4.8.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................... E-437

4.9. Aesthetic Resources ................................................................................................... E-437 4.9.1. Affected Environment ................................................................................... E-437 4.9.2. Environmental Analysis ................................................................................ E-451 4.9.3. Proposed Environmental Measures............................................................... E-462 4.9.4. Cumulative Effects Analysis......................................................................... E-463 4.9.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................... E-463

4.10. Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................... E-464 4.10.1. Affected Environment ................................................................................... E-464 4.10.2. Environmental Analysis ................................................................................ E-468 4.10.3. Proposed Environmental Measures............................................................... E-470 4.10.4. Cumulative Effects Analysis......................................................................... E-471 4.10.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................... E-471


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 vi April 2016

4.11. Socioeconomics .......................................................................................................... E-471 4.11.1. Affected Environment ................................................................................... E-471 4.11.2. Environmental Analysis ................................................................................ E-475 4.11.3. Proposed Environmental Measures............................................................... E-477 4.11.4. Cumulative Effects Analysis......................................................................... E-477 4.11.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................... E-477

4.12. Developmental Analysis ............................................................................................. E-477 4.12.1. Power and Economic Benefits of the Project ............................................... E-478 4.12.2. Costs of Environmental Measures ................................................................ E-479 4.12.3. Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................... E-479

4.13. Consistency with Comprehensive Plans..................................................................... E-480 4.13.1. Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan ........................................... E-480 4.13.2. Kenai Area Plan ............................................................................................ E-480 4.13.3. Bureau of Land Management. South central Alaska water resources study: Anticipating water and related land resource needs. October 1981. ....................... E-480 4.13.4. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Fish Creek management plan. August 1984. ............................................................................................................. E-480 4.13.5. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge. December 2002. ........................................................................................................ E-481 4.13.6. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Susitna Flats State Game Refuge. March 1988. .......................................................................................................................... 481 4.13.7. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Catalog of waters important for spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fishes. June 2014. ........................ E-481 4.13.8. ...... Department of Fish and Game. Anchor River/Fritz Creek Habitat Area. June 1989. ............................................................................................................................ 481 4.13.9. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Mendenhall Wetlands State Game Refuge. March 1990. ............................................................................................... E-481 4.13.10. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. February 1991. .......................................................................................................... E-481 4.13.11. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Minto Flats State Game Refuge. March 1992. .......................................................................................................................... 481 4.13.12. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Kachemak Bay/Fox River Flats Critical Habitat Areas. December 1993. ............................................................................... E-481 4.13.13. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Trading Bay State Game Refuge and Redoubt Bay Critical Habitat Area. July 1994. ....................................................... E-481 4.13.14. .... Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Tugidak Island Critical Habitat Area. June 1995. ................................................................................................................. E-481 4.13.15. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. McNeil River State Game Refuge and State Game Sanctuary, draft. November 1995. ....................................................... E-482 4.13.16. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Kenai River comprehensive management plan. December 1997. ......................................................................... E-482 4.13.17. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Atlas to the catalog of waters important for spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fishes. 2014. ........................... E-482 4.13.18. ........ Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Yakataga State Game Refuge June 1999. .......................................................................................................................... 482


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 vii April 2016

4.13.19. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Kenai Peninsula brown bear conservation strategy. June 2000. ............................................................................ E-482 4.13.20. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Chugach National Forest revised land and resource management plan. May 2002. ........................................ E-482 4.13.21. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Alaska’s Outdoor Legacy: Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 2009-2014. July 2009. .. ....................................................................................................................... E-482 4.13.22. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fisheries USA: the recreational fisheries policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. December 1989. ............................... E-483

5 References .........................................................................................................................E-484

Exhibit E Attachments

Attachment E-1: Responses to Draft License Application Comments Attachment E-2. Licensing Consultation Record Attachment E-3. Summary of Proposed PM&E Measures and Schedule for

Implementation and Construction Attachment E-4. Final Biological Evaluation Attachment E-5: Final Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan Attachment E-6: Final Biotic Monitoring Plan Attachment E-7: Final Vegetation Management Plan Attachment E-8: Final Avian Protection Plan Attachment E-9: Final Historic Properties Management Plan

EXHIBIT F: GENERAL DESIGN DRAWINGS AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

1 Contents and Purpose of this Exhibit ................................................................................ F-1

Exhibit F Attachments

Attachment F-1. Preliminary Supporting Design Report Attachment F-2. Preliminary Facility Design Drawings

EXHIBIT G: PROJECT BOUNDARY MAPS

1 Contents and Purpose of This Exhibit .............................................................................. G-1


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 viii April 2016

Exhibit G Attachments

Attachment G-1. Project Boundary Maps


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 ix April 2016

List of Tables

Exhibit A – Project Description

Table A.4-1. General characteristics of the proposed Grant Lake Project facility. ................... A-9 Table A.4-2. Detention pond storage volume and filling time. ............................................... A-14 Table A.5-1. Tabulation of federal lands within the proposed Project boundary, by township,

range, and section.............................................................................................................. A-17

Exhibit B – Project Operations and Resource Utilization

Table B.3-1. Grant Creek monthly flow statistics, in cfs (calendar years 1948-2013). ........... B-10 Table B.3-2. Grant Creek annual and monthly daily average flow exceedance percentile, in cfs

(calendar years 1948-2013). .............................................................................................. B-11 Table B.3-3. Grant Lake storage and surface area relative to lake elevation. ......................... B-16 Table B.3-4. Grant Lake Project Maximum and Minimum Operating Conditions. ................ B-18

Exhibit C – Construction Schedule

[No tables.]

Exhibit D – Statement of Costs and Financing

Table D.4-1. Summary of estimated costs associated with construction of major Project works. (All costs in 2015 dollars.) .................................................................................................. D-2

Table D.5-1. Annual operation and maintenance costs. ............................................................ D-4 Table D.5-2. Summary of estimated costs associated with KHL’s PM&E proposal (All costs in

2015 dollars). ...................................................................................................................... D-5 Table D.6-1. Contingency spinning reserve. ............................................................................. D-6 Table D.8-1. HEA generation facilities. .................................................................................... D-9

Exhibit E – Environmental Analysis

Table E.1-1. Milestones associated with filing of the Project FLA. ........................................... E-2 Table E.2-1. General characteristics of the proposed Grant Lake Project facility. .................... E-7


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 x April 2016

Table E.2-2. KHL proposed environmental measures. ............................................................. E-15 Table E.2-3. PM&E measures requested by stakeholders as part of DLA comments and KHL’s

responses to those requests. ............................................................................................... E-18 Table E.2-4. HEA generation facilities. .................................................................................... E-25 Table E.3-1. List of consulted parties. ...................................................................................... E-26 Table E.3-2. Major consultation engagements to date. ............................................................. E-28 Table E.3-3. Stakeholder comments received on the DLA and draft BE and

management/monitoring plans. .......................................................................................... E-32 Table E.4-1. Mean monthly and annual discharge data for Grant Creek in cfs. (Calculation

period 9/1/1947–9/30/1958 at USGS Gage 15246000).1 ................................................... E-39 Table E.4-2. Mean monthly and annual discharge data for Grant Creek in cfs. (Calculation

period 1/1/1948–12/31/2013 based on 66-year composite record).................................... E-40 Table E.4-3. Mean monthly and annual precipitation and temperature based on NOAA records1

and Grant Creek weather station (GC 200 – based on 9/15/2011–6/17/2014 period of record). ............................................................................................................................... E-41

Table E.4-4. Relative erodability integrating erosion susceptibility with wave energy potential............................................................................................................................................. E-55

Table E.4-5. Summary of incipient motion calculations at 385 cfs. ......................................... E-62 Table E.4-6. Potential geomorphic responses from Project operational conditions. ................. E-66 Table E.4-7. Mean monthly and annual discharge data for Grant Creek in cfs. (Calculation

period 1/1/1948–12/31/2013 based on 66-year composite record).................................... E-73 Table E.4-8. Water quality parameters sampled in Grant Lake, Grant Creek and Trail Lakes

Narrows, calendar year (CY) 2013. ................................................................................... E-75 Table E.4-9. Water quality sampling results for the Grant Lake GLTS site – 2009, 2010, and

2013. 1,2 .............................................................................................................................. E-77 Table E.4-10. Water quality sampling results for the Grant Lake GLOut site – 2009, 2010, and

2013. 1,2 .............................................................................................................................. E-78 Table E.4-11. Water quality sampling results for the Grant Creek GC200 site – 2009, 2010, and

2013. 1,2 .............................................................................................................................. E-80 Table E.4-12. Water quality sampling results for the Trail Lake Narrows site – 2013. 1,2 ....... E-81 Table E.4-13. Comparison of mean monthly temperatures at shallow Grant Creek depths and

Grant Creek – 2009–2013. ................................................................................................. E-98 Table E.4-14. Proposed monthly and annual powerhouse flows and watershed inflows for the

Grant Lake ......................................................................................................................... E-99 Project. ....................................................................................................................................... E-99 Table E.4-15. Upstream, downstream, and net passage of pink, Chinook, sockeye, and coho

salmon across the weir in Grant Creek, 2013. ................................................................. E-111 Table E.4-16. Stream life estimates for the combined recovery of Floy tagged and radio tagged

Chinook, sockeye, and coho salmon in Grant Creek, 2013. ............................................ E-112 Table E.4-17. Visual counts of sockeye, Chinook, and coho salmon above and below the weir in

Grant Creek, 2013. ........................................................................................................... E-114 Table E.4-18. Escapement estimates for salmon in Grant Creek at the weir and estimated from

area-under-the curve with stream life and observer efficiency. ....................................... E-122 Table E.4-19. Run timing by week of the year for pink, Chinook, sockeye, and coho salmon

assessed at the weir on Grant Creek, 2013. ..................................................................... E-123


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 xi April 2016

Table E.4-20. Mean, maximum, and minimum length and weight of Chinook, sockeye and coho salmon measured at the weir on Grant Creek, 2013. 1 ..................................................... E-123

Table E.4-21. Age-at-return for coho, Chinook, and sockeye salmon sampled in Grant Creek, 2013.................................................................................................................................. E-124

Table E.4-22. Length-at-age for returning coho salmon sampled at the Grant Creek weir in 2013. Length (cm) was measured from mid-eye to the fork of the caudal fin. ......................... E-125

Table E.4-23. General freshwater life history of Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon returning to Grant Creek, 2013. ........................................................................................................... E-125

Table E.4-24. Number of Chinook, sockeye, pink, and coho salmon recovered during carcass surveys on Grant Creek, 2013. ......................................................................................... E-126

Table E.4-25. Number of new redds constructed in Grant Creek by week of the year for pink, Chinook, sockeye, and coho salmon in 2013. A designation of “MS” (Mass Spawning) means that new redds and old redds could not be distinguished in the mass spawning aggregates. ....................................................................................................................... E-127

Table E.4-26. Number and proportion of redds counted in each reach of Grant Creek for pink, Chinook, sockeye, and coho salmon in 2013. .................................................................. E-143

Table E.4-27. The number of unique detections of radio tagged adult salmon by species and reach within Grant Creek. ................................................................................................ E-143

Table E.4-28. Location of salmon redds within different channel areas of Grant Creek. ...... E-144 Table E.4-29. Location of pink, Chinook, sockeye, and coho salmon redds within reaches and

aquatic habitats of Grant Creek. A blank designation means that the habitat type was not available in that reach of Grant Creek. ............................................................................ E-145

Table E.4-30. Number of detections for radio tagged Chinook, sockeye, and coho salmon in aquatic habitats of Grant Creek, 2013.............................................................................. E-146

Table E.4-31. Weekly passage of rainbow trout and Dolly Varden across the weir in Grant Creek, 2013. ..................................................................................................................... E-147

Table E.4-32. The travel time and length of residence of radio tagged rainbow trout detected in Reach 5 of Grant Creek.................................................................................................... E-148

Table E.4-33. Number of minnow traps, total effort, and number of fish captured in Reach 5 of Grant Creek from April through October 2013. .............................................................. E-151

Table E.4-34. Number, proportion, and CPUE of fish caught in Reach 5 of Grant Creek with minnow traps from April through October 2013. ............................................................ E-151

Table E.4-35. Number of fish captured in minnow traps by month for upper Grant Creek from April through October 2013. ............................................................................................ E-152

Table E.4-36. The date of tagging, transmitter coding, capture method, sex, weight, and length of 20 adult rainbow trout tagging in Grant Creek, Alaska 2013. ......................................... E-156

Table E.4-37. Habitat use by location based on mobile telemetry surveys for radio tagged rainbow trout in Grant Creek, AK, 2014. ........................................................................ E-157

Table E.4-38. The number of radio tagged rainbow trout and Dolly Varden detected by reach within Grant Creek, Alaska 2013. .................................................................................... E-157

Table E.4-39. The date of last detection for 18 radio tagged adult rainbow trout in Grant Creek, Alaska, 2013. ................................................................................................................... E-161

Table E.4-40. Number of minnow traps, total effort, and number of fish captured in lower Grant Creek from April through October, 2013. ....................................................................... E-162

Table E.4-41. Number, proportion, and CPUE for fish caught in lower Grant Creek from April through October, 2013. .................................................................................................... E-163


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 xii April 2016

Table E.4-42. Number, proportion, and CPUE of fish caught in lower Grant Creek with minnow traps from April through October, 2013. ......................................................................... E-164

Table E.4-43. Numbers of fish collected from minnow trapping in lower Grant Creek from April through October, 2013. .................................................................................................... E-165

Table E.4-44. Number of fish captured in minnow traps in different reaches of lower Grant Creek from April through October, 2013. ....................................................................... E-166

Table E.4-45. CPUE for fish captured in minnow traps in different reaches of lower Grant Creek from April through October, 2013. .................................................................................. E-166

Table E.4-46. Number and density of salmonids observed during nighttime snorkel surveys in lower Grant Creek in April 2013. .................................................................................... E-169

Table E.4-47. Abundance of salmonids observed in 20-mm increments during nighttime snorkel surveys in lower Grant Creek in April and May, 2013. ................................................... E-170

Table E.4-48. Number and density of salmonids observed during nighttime snorkel surveys in lower Grant Creek in May 2013. ..................................................................................... E-170

Table E.4-49. The number of fish released and recovered by species for the two flow blocks and their corresponding trap efficiencies. ............................................................................... E-171

Table E.4-50. The number of juvenile migrants by species captured within the lower incline plane trap, and corresponding abundance estimates and standard errors based on capture efficiencies in Grant Creek. ............................................................................................. E-172

Table E.4-51. Number of minnow traps, total effort, number of fish captured, and CPUE in the Trail Lake Narrows in July 2013. .................................................................................... E-175

Table E.4-52. Number, proportion, and CPUE of fish caught in the Trail Lake Narrows with minnow traps in July 2013. .............................................................................................. E-175

Table E.4-53. Number and proportion of catch for fish seined in beach areas of the Trail Lake Narrows in July 2013. ...................................................................................................... E-179

Table E.4-54. Angling station and number and size and weight of rainbow trout and Dolly Varden observed in July 2013.......................................................................................... E-180

Table E.4-55. Mesohabitats found in Grant Creek. ................................................................ E-185 Table E.4-56. Aquatic habitats found in Grant Creek. ........................................................... E-185 Table E.4-57. List of macroinvertebrate taxa collected at Grant Creek sampling sites GC100 and

GC300, 2009 and 2013. ................................................................................................... E-207 Table E.4-58. Grant Creek macroinvertebrate population density and taxa richness metrics, 2009

and 2013. 1,2 ..................................................................................................................... E-208 Table E.4-59. Grant Creek macroinvertebrate population composition by percent metrics, 2009

and 2013.1 ........................................................................................................................ E-209 Table E.4-60. Grant Creek macroinvertebrate functional feeding group metrics based on entire

sample from each site, 2009 and 2013. ............................................................................ E-209 Table E.4-61. Grant Creek macroinvertebrate biotic indices and habitat assessments, 2009 and

2013.................................................................................................................................. E-211 Table E.4-62. Mean percent composition of the aquatic insect fauna in streams of the Cook Inlet

Basin, Alaska [modified from Oswood and others (1995)] (excerpted from Brabets et al. 1999) and in Grant Creek, 2009 and 2013. ...................................................................... E-212

Table E.4-63. Scoring thresholds for core metrics used to calculate ASCI scores (excerpted from Major et al. 2000), and Grant Creek: average of GC100 and GC300, 2009. .................. E-212

Table E.4-64. ASCI scores based on core metrics (excerpted from Major et al. 2000), and score for Grant Creek: average of GC100 and GC300, 2009. .................................................. E-213


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 xiii April 2016

Table E.4-65. Average1 concentrations of chlorophyll a from periphyton collected in Grant Creek, 2009 and 2013. ..................................................................................................... E-213

Table E.4-66. Grant Lake salmonid species and life history stages. ...................................... E-215 Table E.4-67. Results of the Grant Creek habitat time series analysis (KHL 2014h), which

depicts the post-Project WUA relative to the pre-Project conditions for anadromous and resident salmonids by life stage. ...................................................................................... E-220

Table E.4-68. Mesohabitat assessment sites (revised from KHL 2010c). .............................. E-228 Table E.4-69. Calibration flows, Grant Creek (as measured in the mainstem). ..................... E-229 Table E.4-70. Calculations of flow in side channels, lobes, and tributaries, as related to the Grant

Creek flow. 1 .................................................................................................................... E-229 Table E.4-71. Flow portioning in Grant Creek for PHABSIM study. .................................... E-230 Table E.4-72. Salmonid species and life history stages to be modeled in the Grant Creek

Instream Flow Study. ....................................................................................................... E-231 Table E.4-73. Life history stages modeled at each Grant Creek transect. .............................. E-232 Table E.4-74. Grant Lake salmonid periodicity.. .................................................................... E-233 Table E.4-75. Summary of transect and reach weighting. ...................................................... E-236 Table E.4-76. Modeled Grant Creek engineering flows and salmonid species and life history

periodicity. ....................................................................................................................... E-239 Table E.4-77. Chinook spawning, juvenile rearing, and fry rearing habitat duration. ............ E-242 Table E.4-78. Coho spawning, juvenile rearing, and fry rearing habitat duration. ................. E-243 Table E.4-79. Sockeye spawning habitat duration................................................................... E-244 Table E.4-80. Dolly Varden spawning and juvenile rearing habitat duration. ........................ E-245 Table E.4-81. Dolly Varden fry rearing and adult rearing habitat duration. ........................... E-246 Table E.4-82. Rainbow trout spawning and juvenile rearing habitat duration. ....................... E-247 Table E.4-83. Rainbow trout fry juvenile rearing and adult rearing habitat duration. ............ E-248 Table E.4-84. Grant Creek spawning WUA. .......................................................................... E-256 Table E.4-85. Grant Creek fry rearing WUA. ........................................................................ E-257 Table E.4-86. Grant Creek juvenile and adult rearing WUA. ................................................ E-258 Table E.4-87. Transects used to model spawning habitat on Grant Creek. ............................ E-272 Table E.4-88. Approximate flows at which certain percentages of spawning and incubation

habitat are protected, given an initial spawning flow of 450 cfs or median pre-Project and post-Project spawning flows (all values in cfs). .............................................................. E-273

Table E.4-89. Grant Creek pre-Project and with-Project WUA for life history stages. ......... E-289 Table E.4-90. Species evaluated for connectivity in Grant Creek. ......................................... E-290 Table E.4-91. Discharge (cfs) for meeting salmonid passage criteria in Reach 5, Grant Creek. ....

.......................................................................................................................................... E-291 Table E.4-92. Upland vegetation types, acres, and percentages within the vegetation study area.

.......................................................................................................................................... E-301 Table E.4-93. Wetlands and waters – summary within wetlands assessment area. ................ E-312 Table E.4-94. Wetlands and waters within the 2014 wetlands assessment area (detailed). ... E-325 Table E.4-95. Raptors detected during site specific studies and year of study. ....................... E-331 Table E.4-96. Bird species and breeding habitats in the 2013 wildlife study area. 1 .............. E-333 Table E.4-97. Qualitative assessment of avian species presence in sampled 2013 wildlife study

area vegetation classification. .......................................................................................... E-337 Table E.4-98. Qualitative assessment of avian species presence in non-sampled Project area

vegetation classification. .................................................................................................. E-341


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 xiv April 2016

Table E.4-99. Waterfowl species detected during 2010 studies. ............................................ E-344 Table E.4-100. Acres of upland vegetation types affected by the Project. ............................. E-367 Table E.4-101. Total area and percentages of upland vegetation types affected by the Project. ....

.......................................................................................................................................... E-367 Table E.4-102. Estimated direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and waters. ...................... E-371 Table E.4-103. Potential impacts to wetlands and waters by Project infrastructure type. ...... E-379 Table E.4-105. Numbers of summer trail users by type and location..................................... E-408 Table E.4-106. Harvest within Game Management Unit 7 (ADF&G 2013). ......................... E-412 Table E.4-107. Trail Use Recordings, October 2014-March 2015. ........................................ E-417 Table E.4-108. Viewer group and expected values for the viewshed. .................................... E-438 Table E.4-109. Distance zones (USFS 1995). ........................................................................ E-440 Table E.4-110. Viewer groups and exposure period. .............................................................. E-441 Table E.4-111. Attractiveness classes and description (USFS 1995). .................................... E-442 Table E.4-112. Scenic class matrix (USFS 1995)................................................................... E-442 Table E.4-113. Unit key matrix. ............................................................................................. E-443 Table E.4-114. AHRS sites located within the Project area. .................................................. E-465 Table E.4-115. Summary of cultural resources and their eligibility status. ............................ E-467 Table E.4-116. Case Mine District contributing and non-contributing elements. .................. E-468 Table E.4-117. Summary of the estimated effect of the Project on historic properties. ......... E-470 Table E.4-118. Kenai Peninsula Borough land ownership information (KPB 2005). ............ E-472 Table E.4-119. Population growth in the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB 2010). ................ E-474 Table E.4-120. Income and occupations in Kenai Peninsula Borough (2013 U.S. Census Data).

.......................................................................................................................................... E-474 Table E.4-121. Employment in the Kenai Peninsula Borough (2013 U.S. Census Data). 1 ... E-475 Table E.4-122. KHL monthly manpower estimates and associated payroll expenditures for

construction of the Grant Lake Project. ........................................................................... E-476 Table E.4-123. Summary of parameters and assumptions used for the economic analysis of the

Grant Lake Project. .......................................................................................................... E-478 Table E.4-124. Summary of estimated costs associated with KHL’s PM&E proposal (All costs

in 2015 dollars). ............................................................................................................... E-479 Table E.4-125. Summary of cost, power benefits, and net benefits of the Grant Lake Project.

(All costs in 2015 dollars). ............................................................................................... E-480

Exhibit F – General Design Drawings and Supporting Information

Table F.1-1. Summary of design drawings for the Grant Lake Project. ..................................... F-1

Exhibit G – Project Boundary Maps

[No tables.]


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 xv April 2016

List of Figures

Exhibit A – Project Description

Figure A.3-1. Location map of Project vicinity. ........................................................................ A-3 Figure A.4-1. General Project features and facilities. ................................................................ A-7

Exhibit B – Project Operations and Resource Utilization

Figure B.3-1. Grant Lake average annual hydrograph. ........................................................... B-10 Figure B.3-2. Grant Lake monthly flow duration curves (calendar years 1948-2013). ........... B-12 Figure B.3-3. Grant Lake annual flow duration curves with Project and without Project

conditions (calendar years 1948-2013). ............................................................................ B-13 Figure B.3-4. Grant Lake storage capacity curve. ................................................................... B-14 Figure B.3-5. Grant Lake surface area curve. .......................................................................... B-15 Figure B.3-6. Grant Lake rule curve. ....................................................................................... B-17 Figure B.3-7. Grant Lake tailwater rating curve. ..................................................................... B-18 Figure B.3-8. Project power generation vs. net head. .............................................................. B-19 Figure B.4-1. HEA’s load forecast. ......................................................................................... B-20 Figure B.4-2. HEA’s load duration curve. ............................................................................... B-20

Exhibit C – Construction Schedule

Figure C.2-1. Grant Lake Project, schedule. .............................................................................. C-3

Exhibit D – Statement of Costs and Financing

[No figures.]

Exhibit E – Environmental Analysis

Figure E.2-1. General Project features and facilities. ................................................................. E-5 Figure E.4-1. Location map of Project vicinity. ....................................................................... E-37 Figure E.4-2. Land status, ownership, water rights, and mineral claims in the Project vicinity. ....

............................................................................................................................................ E-43


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 xvi April 2016

Figure E.4-3. Geologic lineament, Grant Lake Project area. ..................................................... E-47 Figure E.4-4. Grant Lake shoreline geomorphology and relative erosion potential. ................. E-53 Figure E.4-5. Water quality, temperature, and hydrology study locations, 2013. .................... E-69 Figure E.4-6. Grant Creek stream profile generated from Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR;

2002). Vertical axis is in feet NAVD 88 and horizontal axis is in feet as measured from the outlet at Grant Creek. ......................................................................................................... E-71

Figure E.4-7. Comparison of historical and 2013 mean daily flow records. ............................ E-72 Figure E.4-8. Daily mean water temperatures all Grant Creek main channel sites – 2013–2014.

............................................................................................................................................ E-82 Figure E.4-9. Comparison of daily mean water temperatures between two off-channel rearing

locations and the main channel of Grant Creek – 2013–2014. .......................................... E-84 Figure E.4-10. A comparison of daily mean water temperatures for Grant Creek, CY 2009 –

2014.................................................................................................................................... E-85 Figure E.4-11. Daily mean water temperature profiles in Grant Lake near the proposed intake

structure.............................................................................................................................. E-86 Figure E.4-12. Comparison of daily mean water temperatures in Grant Creek and Grant Lake

near the proposed intake structure at a depth of 0.2 m – Jan 2013–June 2014. ................. E-87 Figure E.4-13. Comparison of daily mean water temperatures in Grant Creek and Grant Lake



near the proposed intake structure at a depth of 3.0 m– Jan 2013–June 2014. .................. E-90 Figure E.4-16. Comparison of daily mean water temperatures in Grant Creek and Grant Lake


near the proposed intake structure at a depth of 9.0m – Jan 2013–June 2014. .................. E-92 Figure E.4-18. Comparison of daily mean water temperatures in Grant Creek and Grant Lake

near the proposed intake structure at a depth of 12.0 m – Jan 2013–June 2014. ............... E-93 Figure E.4-19. Comparison of daily mean water temperatures in Grant Creek and Grant Lake

near the proposed intake structure at a depth of 15.0 m– Jan 2013–June 2014. ................ E-94 Figure E.4-20. Comparison of daily mean water temperatures in Grant Creek and Grant Lake

near the proposed intake structure at a depth of 18.0 m– Jan 2013–June 2014. ................ E-95 Figure E.4-21. Comparison of daily mean water temperatures in Grant Creek and Grant Lake

near the proposed intake structure at a depth of 19.5 m– Jan 2013–June 2014. ................ E-96 Figure E.4-22. A comparison of daily mean water temperatures for shallow depths (< 3 meters)

of Grant Lake and Grant Creek in a) 2009 and b) 2013–2014. ......................................... E-97 Figure E.4-23. Proposed Grant Lake elevation rule curve during annual operations. ............. E-100 Figure E.4-24. Change in Grant Lake surface area with elevation. ......................................... E-101 Figure E.4-25. Grant Creek reaches. ....................................................................................... E-107 Figure E.4-26. The A-frame weir used on Grant Creek to count adult salmon, rainbow trout, and

Dolly Varden in 2013....................................................................................................... E-110 Figure E.4-27. Observer efficiency relationships for sockeye, Chinook, and coho salmon in Grant

Creek, 2013. ..................................................................................................................... E-113 Figure E.4-28. Visual surveys of Chinook salmon location in Grant Creek, 2013. ............... E-115 Figure E.4-29. Visual surveys of coho salmon location in Grant Creek, 2013. ..................... E-117


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 xvii April 2016

Figure E.4-30. Visual surveys of sockeye salmon location in Grant Creek, 2013. ................ E-119 Figure E.4-31. Plots of visual counts used to estimate area-under-the-curve for Chinook,

sockeye, and coho salmon in Grant Creek, 2013. ............................................................ E-121 Figure E.4-32. Spawning locations for Chinook salmon in Grant Creek, 2013. .................... E-128 Figure E.4-33. Spawning locations for coho salmon in Grant Creek, 2013. .......................... E-131 Figure E.4-34. Spawning locations for sockeye salmon in Grant Creek, 2013. ..................... E-133 Figure E.4-35. Spawning locations for pink salmon in Grant Creek, 2013. ........................... E-135 Figure E.4-36. Mobile telemetry detections for radio tagged Chinook salmon in Grant Creek,

2013.................................................................................................................................. E-137 Figure E.4-37. Mobile telemetry detections for radio tagged sockeye salmon in Grant Creek,

2013.................................................................................................................................. E-139 Figure E.4-38. Mobile telemetry detections for radio tagged coho salmon in Grant Creek, 2013.

.......................................................................................................................................... E-141 Figure E.4-39. Mobile telemetry detections for radio tagged rainbow trout in Reach 5 of Grant

Creek, 2013. ..................................................................................................................... E-149 Figure E.4-40. Location of minnow traps placed in Grant Creek, 2013. ................................ E-153 Figure E.4-41. Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) for juvenile Chinook (CK), coho (CO), Dolly

Varden (DV) and rainbow trout (RB) from minnow trapping in upper Grant Creek from April through October, 2013. ........................................................................................... E-155

Figure E.4-42. The length-weight relationship of radio tagged adult rainbow trout in Grant Creek, 2013. ..................................................................................................................... E-156

Figure E.4-43. Mobile telemetry detections for radio tagged rainbow trout in Reaches 1-4 of Grant Creek, 2013. ........................................................................................................... E-159

Figure E.4-44. CPUE for juvenile Chinook, coho, Dolly Varden, and rainbow trout from minnow trapping in lower Grant Creek from April through October, 2013. ................... E-165

Figure E.4-45. CPUE for fish captured in minnow traps placed in backwater, side channel, and mainstem areas of lower Grant Creek from April through October, 2013. ..................... E-167

Figure E.4-46. CPUE for salmonids captured in minnow traps placed in backwater, side channel, and mainstem areas of lower Grant Creek from April through October, 2013. .............. E-167

Figure E.4-47. CPUE for salmonids captured in minnow traps placed in different habitat unit types of lower Grant Creek from April through October, 2013. ..................................... E-168

Figure E.4-48. The distribution of size by date for Chinook, coho, rainbow trout, and Dolly Varden captured in the lower incline plane trap, Grant Creek, Alaska, 2013. ................ E-173

Figure E.4-49. Emigration timing for Chinook, coho, and Dolly Varden juveniles at the lower incline plane trap in Grant Creek, Alaska, 2013. Estimated or extrapolated values are highlighted in red. ............................................................................................................ E-174

Figure E.4-50. Location of minnow traps and angling stations in the Trail Lake Narrows, 2013........................................................................................................................................... E-176

Figure E.4-51. Grant Creek mesohabitats. .............................................................................. E-187 Figure E.4-52. Aquatic habitats. ............................................................................................. E-199 Figure E.4-53. Grant Creek instream flow transect locations. ................................................ E-223 Figure E.4-54. Average Grant Creek pre-Project and with-Project flows. ............................. E-241 Figure E.4-55. Chinook spawning habitat duration. ................................................................ E-248 Figure E.4-56. Coho spawning habitat duration. ..................................................................... E-249 Figure E.4-57. Sockeye spawning habitat duration. ................................................................ E-249 Figure E.4-58. Dolly Varden spawning habitat duration. ........................................................ E-250


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 xviii April 2016

Figure E.4-59. Rainbow trout spawning habitat duration. ....................................................... E-250 Figure E.4-60. Chinook juvenile rearing habitat duration. ...................................................... E-251 Figure E.4-61. Coho juvenile rearing habitat duration. ........................................................... E-251 Figure E.4-62. Dolly Varden juvenile rearing habitat duration. .............................................. E-252 Figure E.4-63. Rainbow trout juvenile rearing habitat duration. ............................................. E-252 Figure E.4-64. Chinook fry rearing habitat duration. .............................................................. E-253 Figure E.4-65. Coho fry rearing habitat duration. ................................................................... E-253 Figure E.4-66. Dolly Varden fry rearing habitat duration. ...................................................... E-254 Figure E.4-67. Rainbow trout fry habitat duration. ................................................................. E-254 Figure E.4-68. Dolly Varden adult rearing habitat duration. ................................................... E-255 Figure E.4-69. Rainbow trout adult rearing habitat duration. .................................................. E-255 Figure E.4-70. Grant Creek spawning WUA. ......................................................................... E-259 Figure E.4-71. Grant Creek fry rearing WUA. ....................................................................... E-259 Figure E.4-72. Grant Creek juvenile and adult rearing WUA. ............................................... E-260 Figure E.4-73. Reach 1, Main Channel spawning WUA. ........................................................ E-260 Figure E.4-74. Reach 1, Main Channel fry rearing WUA. ...................................................... E-261 Figure E.4-75. Reach 1, Main Channel adult and juvenile rearing WUA. .............................. E-261 Figure E.4-76. Reach 2, Main Channel spawning WUA. ........................................................ E-262 Figure E.4-77. Reach 2, Main Channel fry rearing WUA. ...................................................... E-262 Figure E.4-78. Reach 2, Main Channel adult and juvenile rearing WUA. .............................. E-263 Figure E.4-79. Reach 3, Main Channel spawning WUA. ........................................................ E-263 Figure E.4-80. Reach 3, Main Channel fry rearing WUA. ...................................................... E-264 Figure E.4-81. Reach 3, Main Channel adult and juvenile rearing WUA. .............................. E-264 Figure E.4-82. Reach 4, Main Channel spawning WUA. ........................................................ E-265 Figure E.4-83. Reach 4, Main Channel fry rearing WUA. ...................................................... E-265 Figure E.4-84. Reach 4, Main Channel adult and juvenile rearing WUA. .............................. E-266 Figure E.4-85. Main Channel, Grant Creek spawning WUA. ................................................. E-266 Figure E.4-86. Main Channel, Grant Creek fry rearing WUA. ............................................... E-267 Figure E.4-87. Main Channel, Grant Creek adult and juvenile rearing WUA. ....................... E-267 Figure E.4-88. Reach 1 Distributary spawning WUA. ............................................................ E-268 Figure E.4-89. Reach 1 Distributary fry rearing WUA. .......................................................... E-268 Figure E.4-90. Reach 1 Distributary adult and juvenile rearing WUA. .................................. E-269 Figure E.4-91. Reach 2/3 Side Channel spawning WUA. ....................................................... E-269 Figure E.4-92. Reach 2/3 Side Channel fry rearing WUA. ..................................................... E-270 Figure E.4-93. Reach 2/3 Side Channel adult and juvenile rearing WUA. ............................. E-270 Figure E.4-94. Chinook spawning WUA. ............................................................................... E-280 Figure E.4-95. Chinook fry rearing WUA. ............................................................................. E-280 Figure E.4-96. Chinook juvenile rearing WUA. ..................................................................... E-281 Figure E.4-97. Coho spawning WUA. .................................................................................... E-281 Figure E.4-98. Coho fry rearing WUA. .................................................................................. E-282 Figure E.4-99. Coho juvenile rearing WUA. .......................................................................... E-282 Figure E.4-100. Sockeye spawning WUA. ............................................................................. E-283 Figure E.4-101. Dolly Varden spawning WUA...................................................................... E-283 Figure E.4-102. Dolly Varden fry rearing WUA. ................................................................... E-284 Figure E.4-103. Dolly Varden juvenile rearing WUA. ........................................................... E-284 Figure E.4-104. Dolly Varden adult rearing WUA................................................................. E-285


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 xix April 2016

Figure E.4-105. Rainbow trout spawning WUA. ................................................................... E-285 Figure E.4-106. Rainbow trout fry rearing WUA. .................................................................. E-286 Figure E.4-107. Rainbow trout juvenile rearing WUA. .......................................................... E-286 Figure E.4-108. Rainbow trout adult rearing WUA. .............................................................. E-287 Figure E.4-109. Salmonid spawning WUA. ........................................................................... E-287 Figure E.4-110. Salmonid fry rearing WUA. ......................................................................... E-288 Figure E.4-111. Salmonid juvenile rearing WUA. ................................................................. E-288 Figure E.4-112. Salmonid adult rearing WUA. ...................................................................... E-289 Figure E.4-113. Reach 1 Distributary spawning WUA. .......................................................... E-294 Figure E.4-114. Reach 1 Distributary fry rearing WUA. ........................................................ E-294 Figure E.4-115. Reach 1 Distributary juvenile/adult rearing WUA. ....................................... E-295 Figure E.4-116. Natural resources study area. ........................................................................ E-299 Figure E.4-117. Upland vegetation types. .............................................................................. E-303 Figure E.4-118. Updated 2014 wetland assessment area. ....................................................... E-309 Figure E.4-119. Wetland and waters types - global indicator map. ......................................... E-313 Figure E.4-120. Wetland and waters types - Grant Creek. ...................................................... E-315 Figure E.4-121. Wetland and waters types - Grant Lake-intake.............................................. E-317 Figure E.4-122. Wetland and waters types - Grant Lake-NW elbow. ..................................... E-319 Figure E.4-123. Wetland and waters types - Grant Lake-island east....................................... E-321 Figure E.4-124. Wetland and waters types - Grant Lake-east end. ........................................ E-323 Figure E.4-125. Major brown bear forage and denning habitat (Ebasco 1984). ..................... E-347 Figure E.4-126. Major brown bear forage and denning habitat (USFS 2008). ...................... E-349 Figure E.4-127. Mountain goat observations in study area 1982 (Ebasco 1984). .................. E-355 Figure E.4-128. High value brown bear, mountain goat, moose habitat, and moose winter range

(USFS 2008). ................................................................................................................... E-357 Figure E.4-129. Dall’s sheep observations in study area 1982 (Ebasco 1984)........................ E-359 Figure E.4-130. Moose range on study area (Ebasco 1984). ................................................... E-361 Figure E.4-131. General Project features, facilities, adjacent cleared areas, and right-of-ways. ....

.......................................................................................................................................... E-365 Figure E.4-132. Impacts to wetlands/waters – overview. ........................................................ E-373 Figure E.4-133. Impacts to wetlands/waters – west. ............................................................... E-375 Figure E.4-134. Impacts to wetlands/waters – east.................................................................. E-377 Figure E.4-135. Proposed Grant Lake seasonal lake levels (solid line). Estimated natural lake

levels during the growing season shown as dashed line (approximately at or slightly above 703 feet NAVD 88). ......................................................................................................... E-384

Figure E.4-136. Project location. ............................................................................................ E-403 Figure E.4-137. Total trail users by month near Moose Pass AK. .......................................... E-405 Figure E.4-138. Project vicinity recreation resources. ............................................................ E-406 Figure E.4-139. Total summer trail users, 2014. .................................................................... E-407 Figure E.4-140. Summer trail users by type, 2014. ................................................................ E-408 Figure E.4-141. Case Mine Trail. ........................................................................................... E-409 Figure E.4-142. Case Mine Trail through meadow. ............................................................... E-409 Figure E.4-143. Floatplane tie up, Trail Lake. ........................................................................ E-410 Figure E.4-144. Game Management Unit 7. ........................................................................... E-411 Figure E.4-145. Snowmachine users along Trail Lake. .......................................................... E-415 Figure E.4-146. Vagt Lake trailhead. ...................................................................................... E-415


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 xx April 2016

Figure E.4-147. INHT along western side of Vagt Lake. ....................................................... E-416 Figure E.4-148. Trail users at trail camera locations from October 2014 to March 2015. ...... E-416 Figure E.4-149. Trail users by location and primary activity from October 2014 to March 2015.

.......................................................................................................................................... E-417 Figure E.4-150. Kenai Area Plan, enlargement of Grant Lake designation. .......................... E-420 Figure E.4-151. Existing INHT Route and Proposed Re-route. ............................................. E-429 Figure E.4-152. Proposed INHT re-route through the Project area. ........................................ E-435 Figure E.4-153. Unit keys. ...................................................................................................... E-443 Figure E.4-154. Looking south across Trail Lakes toward Kenai Lake-view from aircraft. .. E-444 Figure E.4-155. Unit 1: Trail Lakes Valley. ........................................................................... E-445 Figure E.4-156. Looking south across Grant Lake from Case Mine Trail. ............................ E-446 Figure E.4-157. Unit 2: Grant Lake West. .............................................................................. E-447 Figure E.4-158. Looking west across Grant Lake, view from aircraft. .................................. E-448 Figure E.4-159. Unit 3: Grant Lake East. ............................................................................... E-449 Figure E.4-160. Location of key views. .................................................................................. E-453 Figure E.4-161. Key View 1: Before. ..................................................................................... E-454 Figure E.4-162. Key View 1: After. ....................................................................................... E-455 Figure E.4-163. Key View 2: Before. ..................................................................................... E-456 Figure E.4-164. Key View 2: After. ....................................................................................... E-456 Figure E.4-165. Key View 3: Before. ..................................................................................... E-457 Figure E.4-166. Key View 3: After. ....................................................................................... E-458 Figure E.4-167. Key View 4: Before and after. ...................................................................... E-459 Figure E.4-168. General Kenai Peninsula land ownership delineation (KPB 2005). .............. E-473 Figure E.4-169. Land use in the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB 2005). .............................. E-473

Exhibit F – General Design Drawings and Supporting Information

[No figures.]

Exhibit G – Project Boundary Maps

[No figures.]


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 xxi March 2015

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACE Alaska Center for the Environment ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources ADOL Alaska Department of Labor ADOT&PF Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities AEA Alaska Energy Authority AEEC Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative AEIDC Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center AHRS Alaska Heritage Resources Survey ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act APDES Alaska Permit Discharge Elimination System APE Area of Potential Effect APLIC Avian Powerline Interaction Committee APP Avian Protection Plan ARRC Alaska Railroad ARWG Aquatic Resources Work Group ASCI Alaska Stream Condition Index ATV all-terrain vehicle AUC Area-Under-the-Curve AWC Anadromous Waters Catalog Bcf billion cubic feet BE Biological Evaluation BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management BMP Biotic Monitoring Plan CEA Chugach Electric Association CEII Critical Energy Infrastructure Information cf cubic feer CFC Cooperative Finance Corporation CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second

http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/oha/ahrs/ahrs.htm


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 xxii April 2016

CFWA Center for Water Advocacy CIAA Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association CIRI Cook Inlet Region, Inc. cm centimeter CMT culturally modified trees CNF Chugach National Forest CPUE catch-per-unit-effort CRWG Cultural Resources Work Group CSU Conservation Service Unit CWA Clean Water Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act CY Calendar year DEM Digital Elevation Model DOE determination of eligibility DLA Draft License Application DPOR Department of Parks and Outdoor Recreation DRMP Draft Resource Management Plan EA Environmental Assessment ECM Environmental Compliance Monitor EFH essential fish habitat EIS Environmental Impact Statement ENSO El Nino Southern Oscillation EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPT Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera ESA Endangered Species Act ESCP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FL fork length FLA Final License Application FPA Federal Power Act FPP Fire Prevention Plan fps feet per second FSH Forest Service Handboook ft feet GIS geographic information system GPS global positioning system GVEA Golden Valley Electric Association


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 xxiii April 2016

HBI Hilsenhoff Biotic Index HEA Homer Electric Association HGM hydrogeomorphic HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan HSC habitat suitability criteria HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning IFIM instream flow incremental methodology IFSG Instream Flow Subgroup ILF in-lieu fee ILP Integrated Licensing Process INHT Iditarod National Historical Trail INHTRP Iditarod National Historic Trail Re-routing Plan KAP Kenai Area Plan KPB Kenai Peninsula Bureau KHI Kenai Hydro, Inc. KHL Kenai Hydro, LLC km kilometer KOP Key Observation Point kV kilovolt KRCMP Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan KRSA Kenai River Sportfishing Association KRSMA Kenai River Special Management Area KRWF Kenai River Watershed Foundation LAS Land Administration System LB left blank LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging LWD large woody debris m meter MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MCC motor control center MCE maximum credible earthquake Mcf thousand cubic feet MEA Matanuska Electric Association mg/L milligrams/liter mi mile ML&P Municipal Light & Power mm millimeter


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 xxiv April 2016

MOA Memorandum of Agreement MP Management Plan MW megawatt MWh megawatt hour NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NAVD 88 National American Vertical Datum of 1988 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NGO non-governmental organization NGVD 29 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 NHI/HRC National Heritage Institute/Hydro Reform Coalition NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOI Notice of Intent NPS U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service NPV net present value NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory NRHP National Register of Historic Places NRWG Natural Resources Work Group NWI National Wetland Inventory O&M operation and maintenance OCMP Operational Compliance Monitoring Plan ORP Oxygen Reduction Potential PAD Pre-Application Document PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation PHABSIM Physical Habitat Simulation PM&E protection, mitigation and enhancement Project or Grant Lake Project

Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project

PSAP Public Safety and Access Plan RE Renewable Energy RB right bank RBCA Resurrection Bay Conservation Alliance RCA Regulatory Commission of Alaska REA Ready for Environmental Analysis RHABSIM Riverine Habitat Simulation


Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 xxv April 2016

RLRMP Revised Land and Resource Management Plan RMP Recreation Management Plan RNA research natural area ROW right-of-way RTE rare, threatened, and endangered RUS Rural Utilities Service SCORP State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan SD1 Scoping Document 1 SD2 Scoping Document 2 SDR Supporting Design Report SES Seward Electric System SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SMART Specific Measurable Achievable Realistic and Time-Bound SOA State of Alaska SPCCP Spill Prevention, Control and Containment Plan SRH Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Tcf trillion cubic feet TCF The Conservation Fund TCP traditional cultural property TDS Total Dissolved Solids TLP Traditional Licensing Process THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer TSS Total Suspended Solids TUS Transportation or Utility System TWG Technical Working Group USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey VMP Vegetation Management Plan WAA wetlands assessment area WDOE Washington Department of Ecology WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WOUS waters of the U.S. WSE water surface elevation WUA weighted usable area

Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 IS-1 April 2016

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Application for License for Major Project — Unconstructed

1. Kenai Hydro, LLC. (KHL) applies to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(Commission) for an original license for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.13212, as described in the attached exhibits. The following license application has beenprepared in accordance with Chapter 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section4.41, License for Major Project, Existing Dam and Section 5.18, Application Content.

2. The location of the Project is:

State: Alaska County: Kenai Peninsula Borough Township or Nearby Town: Moose Pass Streams or other body of water: Grant Lake, Grant Creek

3. The exact name, business address, and telephone number of the applicant are:

Kenai Hydro, LLC 3977 Lake Street Homer, AK 99603 (907) 283-2375

Mikel Salzetti Manager of Fuel Supply & Renewable Energy Development 280 Airport Way Kenai, AK 99611 (907) 283-2375

4. KHL, a wholly owned subsidiary of Alaska Electric and Energy Cooperative, Inc. (AEEC), isa limited liability company and is not claiming preference under section 7(a) of the FederalPower Act.

5. (i) The statutory or regulatory requirements of the state in which the Project would belocated and that affect the Project as proposed, with respect to bed and banks and to theappropriation, diversion, and use of water for power purposes, and with respect to the right toengage in the business of developing, transmitting, and distributing power and in any other


business necessary to accomplish the purposes of the license under the Federal Power Act are:

a. AS 42.05 – Alaska Public Utilities Regulatory Act

This act outlines the regulations for operating a public utility and defines the authority of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (“RCA”) along with basic rules for submitting and settling issues with the RCA.

b. AS 46.15 – Water Use Act

This act defines the authority of the Department of Environmental Conservation and sets regulations associated with pollution, hazardous substances and air and water issues. AS 46.15 specifically describes the regulations associated with the use of water in Alaska, how to apply and obtain a water right and also defines how priority is determined.

c. 11 AAC 93 – Water Management

These regulations define the procedural aspects of applying for a water right and detail the inspection of facilities and reporting measures required with the acquisition and utilization of a water right.

d. AS 16.10.10 – Interference with Salmon Spawning Streams and Waters

These statutes comprehensively address issues associated with spawning anadromous salmonids in Alaska. Both native, naturally reproducing populations and hatchery fish are addressed. AS 16.10.10 requires that an entity must obtain a permit or license from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation if they plan to divert, barricade or obstruct water used by salmon.

e. AS 41.14.870 – Protection of Fish and Game

AS 41.14.870 requires that notification be given to the deputy commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game if a hydraulic project may change the natural flow of a stream.


f. AAC – Fish and Game

This title contains the regulations set forth by the Alaska Department of Fish and Wildlife and includes everything from habitat issues to guided fishing to subsistence fishing and more.

g. 11 AAC 58 – Leasing of Lands

This regulation governs the leasing of land belonging to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.

h. 11 AAC 95.285-320 – Road Construction

These regulations contain the rules for construction of roads and includes rules to limit the amount of vegetation impacts and rules governing stream crossings/bridges, slope ratings and drainage ditches.

i. AS 38.05- Permits and Easements

This regulation governs permits and easements of land belonging to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.

(ii) The steps which KHL has taken or plans to take to comply with each of the laws cited above are:

a. AEEC is an electric cooperative organized under the laws of the State of Alaska ingood standing with the Alaska Secretary of State’s Office. AEEC was issued aCertificate of Public Convenience and Necessity No. 640 on June 19, 2002(attached to this initial statement). AEEC operates and abides by the authority ofAS 42.05 and, as a public utility, is regulated by the Regulatory Commission ofAlaska. AEEC will continue to comply with the statutes under AS 42.05 and theregulations and authority of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska.

b. KHL has applied for water rights on Grant Lake with a priority date of April of2009. AEEC will keep the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservationapprised of the progress of this Project. A series of management plans have beendeveloped and are appended to this application. Others have been committed to


being developed when a license is acquired. Many of these plans address variables associated with the Water Use Act. The plans include:

• Hazardous Materials Containment/Fuel Storage Plan• Spill Prevention, Control and Containment Plan• Operational Compliance Monitoring Plan

c. KHL has applied for water rights on Grant Lake with a priority date of April of2009. AEEC will keep the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservationapprised of the progress of this Project.

d. Once a FERC license has been issued to construct the Grant Lake HydroelectricProject, KHL will apply for the appropriate permit(s) from the Alaska Departmentof Environmental Conservation required of a project diverting water in a creek thatsalmon utilize. KHL has involved all requisite State and Federal agencies in thelicensing process and will continue to do during the filing, license acquisition,construction and operation phases.

e. KHL has undertaken a comprehensive engineering feasibility assessment of theproposed Project along with a robust natural resource study program. Results fromthese efforts along with collaboration with stakeholders have resulted in a Projectdesign that alters flows in Grant Creek with very little (if any) negative impact toexisting aquatic resources. That said and since the Project will change the naturalflow regime of Grant Creek, KHL will notify the deputy commissioner uponapproval of this FERC license application.

f. KHL has worked extensively and in a collaborative manner with the AlaskaDepartment of Fish and Game to ensure adherence of all rules and regulationsassociated with both the natural resource study program and the proposed Projectfeatures. An abundance of effort has been placed on collaborating with allstakeholders at every phase to ensure a robust study methodology and quantitativeresults that address potential impacts and any associated mitigation andenhancement options.


g. Upon license acquisition, KHL will collaborate with the Alaska Department ofNatural Resources to appropriately apply for a lease for the requisite land managedby their agency.

h. KHL will adhere to Best Management Practices (BMP) associated with theconstruction of the Grant Lake Project’s infrastructure, including all roads.

i. Upon license acquisition, KHL will apply for any appropriate permits, easementsand or leases on state lands from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.




Statement Pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 4.32 (a)

(1) Name and address of every person, citizen, association of citizens, domestic corporation,

municipality, or state that has or intends to obtain and will maintain any proprietary right

necessary to construct, operate, or maintain the Project:

Kenai Hydro, LLC 3977 Lake Street Homer, AK 99603 (907) 283-2375

(2) Name and address of every county in which any part of the Project, and any Federal facilities

that would be used by the Project would be located:

The Project is located in the Kenai Peninsula Borough, which has the following mailing

address:

Kenai Peninsula Borough

Borough Mayor: Mike Navarre

144 North Binkley Street, Soldotna, Alaska 99669

Lands occupied by the Project include federal lands managed by:

Chugach National Forest

PO Box 21628

Juneau, AK 99802-1628

(3) Name and address of every city, town, or similar local political subdivision in which any part

of the Project, and any Federal facilities that would be used by the Project, would be located:

There are no cities, towns, or subdivisions in which any part of the Project, or any

Federal facilities that would be used by the Project, would be located.


(4) Name and address of every city, town, or similar local political subdivision that has a

population of 5,000 or more people and is located within 15 miles of the Project dams:

There are no cities, towns, or subdivisions with population sizes of 5,000 or more within

15 miles of the proposed Project.

(5) Name and address of every irrigation district, drainage district, or similar special purpose

political subdivision in which any part of the Project, and any Federal facilities that would be

used by the Project, would be located:

None.

(6) Name and address of every irrigation district, drainage district, or similar special purpose

political subdivision that owns, operates, maintains, or uses any Project facilities or any

Federal facilities that would be used by the Project:

None.

(7) Name and address of every other political subdivision in the general area of the Project that

there is reason to believe would likely be interested in, or affected by, the application:

None.

(8) Name and address of all Indian tribes that may be affected by the Project:

Chenega Corporation

3000C Street, Suite 301

Anchorage, AK 99503

Chugach Alaska Corporation

3800 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 601

Anchorage, AK 99503


Cook Inlet Region Inc. (CIRI)

PO Box 93330

Anchorage, AK 99509-3330

Kenaitze Indian Tribe

PO Box 988

Kenai, AK 99611

Kenai Native Associations

2115 Fidalgo Ave., Suite 101

Kenai, AK 99611-7776

Native Village of Eklutna

26339 Eklutna Village Road

Chugiak, AK 99567

Ninilchik Traditional Council

PO Box 39070

Ninlichik, AK 99639

Qutekcak Native Tribe

PO Box 1467

Seward, AK 99664

Salamatof Native Association

PO Box 2682

Kenai, AK 99611

FINAL LICENSE APPLICATION INITIAL STATEMENT

Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 April 2016


FINAL LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT A

Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 A-1 April 2016

EXHIBIT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1 Contents and Purpose of This Exhibit

Kenai Hydro, LLC (KHL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alaska Electric and Energy Cooperative, Inc. (AEEC), is filing this Final License Application (FLA) for an original license for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212 [Project or Grant Lake Project]) under Part I of the Federal Power Act. Exhibit A of this FLA describes the proposed Project, including details about the Project structures, the reservoir, turbines and generators, transmission lines, and any additional equipment appurtenant to the Project.

2 General Project Description

The Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project would be a new 5-megawatt (MW) hydroelectric facility on Grant Lake and Grant Creek near Moose Pass, Alaska. The new Project would divert water from Grant Lake and deliver the flow to a powerhouse located near the outlet of the existing Grant Creek natural, incised rock canyon. The Project would include the following major components:

• An intake structure in Grant Lake. • A tunnel extending from the lake intake to just east of the powerhouse. • A 72-inch-diameter steel penstock from the downstream tunnel portal to the

powerhouse. • A powerhouse with two Francis turbines providing an anticipated combined 5-MW

output. The maximum design flow would be approximately 385 cubic feet per second (cfs).

• Tailrace detention pond. • Switchyard with disconnect switch and step-up transformer. • An overhead transmission line. • A pole-mounted disconnect switch where the transmission line intersects the main

power distribution line.

Ninety-one percent of Homer Electric Association’s (HEA’s) current generation needs (approximately 470,000 megawatt hour (MWh)/year) are met via fossil fuel generation. In recognition of the importance to the environment and the need to provide power for sustainable growth, HEA’s Board of Directors adopted a policy (HEA Board Policy 505 – Renewable Portfolio Goal) that set a renewable energy goal. The goal states that the cooperative will use best efforts to meet 22 percent of its annual peak generation with renewable energy by 2018. Furthermore, the State of Alaska and Legislature have adopted a renewable energy goal of 50 percent renewable energy by 2025. Additionally, HEA would like to diversify its fuel mix and reduce its dependence on the expensive natural gas supply (currently at $6.90/thousand cubic feet [Mcf]) available in the Cook Inlet area. While approximately 9 percent of HEA’s current generation needs are met through its stake in the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, the



operation of the Grant Lake Project would provide an additional 4 percent annually and represent HEA’s first fully-owned hydroelectric facility.

3 Project Area and Vicinity

The proposed Grant Lake Project would be located near the community of Moose Pass, Alaska (population 219) in the Kenai Peninsula Borough, approximately 25 miles north of Seward, Alaska (population 2,693), and just east of the Seward Highway (State Route 9)(Figure A.3-1); this highway connects Anchorage (population 291,826) to Seward. The Alaska Railroad (ARRC) parallels the route of the Seward Highway, and is located adjacent to the Seward Highway in the Project area. Grant Lake is located in the mountainous terrain of the Kenai Mountain Range and has a normal water surface elevation of 703 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) and surface area of approximately 1,741 acres. The proposed Project generating facilities would be located on Grant Creek, a natural outlet of Grant Lake, which flows approximately one mile to Lower Trail Lake at elevation 469 feet NAVD 88. The proposed Project lies within Section 13 of Township 4 North, Range 1 West; Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 18 of Township 4 North, Range 1 East; Section 12 of Township 5 North, Range 1 West; and Sections 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 of Township 5 North, Range 1 East, Seward Meridian (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] Seward B-6 and B-7 Quadrangles). The surrounding geographic features, land ownership, and proposed Project boundary are shown on the location map (Figure A.3-1).

30002500

3500

2000

4000 4500

1000

1500

1000

1500

500

40003500

30002500

4500

2000

Developed For:

Drawing Scale:

GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212LICENSE APPLICATION

Figure A.3-1Location Map of Project Vicinity

± 1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702

OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216

REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE SCALE:

DRAWING

ISSUED DATE

CHECKED

DRAWN

DESIGNED

0 0.5 10.25Miles 3/4/2016

Grant Creek

LegendAlaska RailroadSeward HighwayProject Boundary

Property OwnershipBoroughFederalPrivateState

Jake Woodbury

Moose Pass

1:35,000

Jake Woodbury

C. Warnock

Alaska!

ProjectVicinity

Gran

tLa

ke Grant LakeLo

wer

Trail

Lake

Uppe

rTr

a ilLa

ke

SolarsMountain

VagtLake

MAP NOTES:1. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FOR KENAI HYDRO, LLC AS PART OF THE GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRICPROJECT (FERC NO. 13212), LICENSE APPLICATION. THE LOCATIONS OF PROJECT FEATURES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND ARE SHOWN FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.2. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FROM THE FOLLOWING RESOURCES: A. AERIAL IMAGERY DEVELOPED BY USFS. B. PROJECT FEATURE LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY MCMILLEN. C. LAND OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES PROVIDED BY THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH'S GIS DEPARTMENT.3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD 83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE



4 Proposed Project Facilities

KHL was issued a preliminary permit to investigate a proposed hydropower development on Grant Creek near the outlet of Grant Lake. The Grant Lake Project would consist of the Grant Lake/Grant Creek development, an intake structure in Grant Lake, a tunnel, a surge chamber, a penstock, a powerhouse, tailrace detention pond and channel with fish exclusion barrier, access roads, a step-up transformer, a switchyard, and an overhead transmission line. The powerhouse would contain two Francis turbine generating units with a combined rated capacity of 5 MW with a maximum design flow of 385 cfs. The general proposed layout of the Project is shown in Figure A.4-1. Specific proposed facility characteristics are listed in Table A.4-1 and described in more detail in Sections 4.1 through 4.10 of this Exhibit. Individual proposed facility design drawings are provided in Exhibit F and proposed locations of facilities within the Project boundary are shown in Exhibit G of this FLA.




!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

Developed For:

Drawing Scale:

GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO.13212LICENSE APPLICATION

Figure A.4-1General Project Features And Facilities

± 1401 SHORELINE DRIVEBOISE, ID 83702

OFFICE: 208.342.4214FAX: 208.342.4216

REV DESCRIPTIONBYDATE SCALE:

DRAWING

ISSUED DATE

CHECKED

DRAWN

DESIGNED

0 500 1,000250Feet 3/4/2016

UpperTrailLake

Tailrace

LegendAlaska RailroadSeward HighwayProject Boundary

Property OwnershipBoroughFederalPrivateState

Jake Woodbury

1:5,500

MAP NOTES:1. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FOR KENAI HYDRO, LLC AS PART OF THE GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRICPROJECT (FERC NO. 13212), LICENSE APPLICATION. THE LOCATION OF PROJECT FEATURES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND ARE SHOWN FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.2. THIS MAP WAS DEVELOPED FROM THE FOLLOWING RESOURCES:

A. AERIAL IMAGERY DEVELOPED BY USFS. B. PROJECT FEATURE LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY MCMILLEN. C. LAND OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES PROVIDED BY THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH'S GIS DEPARTMENT.

3. THIS MAP PRESENTS DATA IN THE FOLLOWING GEOGRAHIC SYSTEMS: - HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 (NAD 83) - VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAVD 88) - PROJECTION: ALASKA 4 FIPS 5004 FEET STATE PLANE

Jake Woodbury

C. Warnock

Intake Tunnel

Intake Access R oad

Powerhouse Access Road

Surge Chamber

PowerhousePenstock

Parking Area

DetentionPond

Intake

GrantLake

TransmissionLine

LowerTrailLake

Grant Creek

Intake BypassTunnel

Chug

ach E

lectri

cTr

ansm

ission

Line



Table A.4-1. General characteristics of the proposed Grant Lake Project facility.

Number of Generating Units 2 Turbine Type Francis Rated Generator Output

Unit 1 2.5 MW Unit 2 2.5 MW Total 5.0 MW

Maximum Rated Turbine Discharge Unit 1 192.5 cfs Unit 2 192.5 cfs Total 385 cfs

Minimum Rated Turbine Discharge Unit 1 58 cfs Unit 2 58 cfs Total 116 cfs

Turbine Centerline Elevation 526 ft NAVD 88 Normal Tailwater Elevation in Grant Creek at the confluence with the powerhouse and tailrace channel

Minimum 517 ft NAVD 88 Maximum 518.3 ft NAVD 88

Average Annual Energy 18,600 megawatt-hours (MWh) Normal Maximum Lake Elevation 703 ft NAVD 88 Normal Minimum Lake Elevation 690 ft NAVD 88 Gross Head 184.7 ft Net Head at Maximum Rated Discharge 171.7 ft Grant Lake

Drainage Area 44.2 miles (mi)2 Surface Area 1,741 acres Active/Net Storage Volume 18,791 ac-ft (elevation 703 to 690 feet NAVD 88) Gross Storage Volume 260,120 ac-ft (elevation 703 feet NAVD) Average Annual Natural Outflow Volume 149,140 ac-ft Average Annual Natural Outflow 206 cfs

Water Conveyance Intake Intake structure at lake Approximate dimensions of intake structure 20 ft x 38 ft Invert Elevation 675 ft NAVD 88

Bypass Pipe for Instream Flows Type Directional bore with HDPE liner Length 900 ft Diameter 18 in

FINAL LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT A Table A.4-1, continued…


Pressure Tunnel Type 10-ft horseshoe Length 3,300 ft Velocity at Maximum Turbine Discharge 3.9 fps

Surge Chamber Diameter 120 in Base Elevation (preliminary) 675 ft NAVD 88 Top Elevation (preliminary) 790 ft NAVD 88

Penstock Type Welded steel Length 150 ft Diameter 72 in

Tailrace Type Open channel Length 95 ft

Fish Exclusion Barrier Type Picket barrier at tailrace outfall Maximum Design Flow 385 ft

Tailrace Detention Pond Approximate Acreage 3.6 acres Approximate Capacity 15 ac-ft

Powerhouse Approximate Dimensions 50 ft x 100 ft x 30 ft high Finished Floor Elevation 523 ft NAVD 88

Transmission Line Type Overhead Length Approximately 1.1 miles Voltage 115 kilovolt (kV)

Powerhouse Access Road Type Two-lane gravel surfacing with turnouts Width 24 feet Length One (1) mile from Seward Highway to powerhouse

Intake Access Road Type One-lane gravel surfacing with turnouts Width 16 feet Length One (1) mile from the powerhouse to the intake

4.1. Grant Creek Diversion

The proposed Project would consist of a reinforced concrete intake structure located east of the natural lake outlet adjacent to the south shore. No structural modifications would be made to the existing lake natural outlet. The Project would divert water up to a maximum of 395 cfs into the intake structure. Up to 385 cfs would flow to the powerhouse and up to 10 cfs would flow



through the bypass pipe. When the lake level exceeds the natural outlet of 703 feet NAVD 88, a maximum of 395 cfs could be diverted into the intake structure. Flow in excess of 395 cfs would then pass over the natural outlet to Grant Creek.

4.2. Grant Lake Intake

The Project water intake would be a concrete structure located approximately 500 feet east of the natural outlet of Grant Lake and adjacent to the south shore. The intake structure would consist of a reinforced concrete structure extending from approximately elevation 675 feet NAVD 88 up to a top deck elevation of 715 feet NAVD 88. The structure would have an outside dimension of 38 feet by 20 feet. The structure would include intake trashracks, selective withdrawal intake gates with wire rope hoist, and a roller gate located on the water conveyance intake. The intake would be divided into three bays, each fitted with an intake gate to provide flexibility for delivering the full flow range of 63 cfs to 395 cfs. The gate position within the water column would be set to deliver the required water temperature to Grant Creek below the powerhouse. The roller gate would be 11 feet tall by 11 feet wide and fitted with a wire rope hoist lift mechanism. Electrical power would be extended from the powerhouse to the intake to operate the intake and isolation gates. Pressure transducers would be installed to monitor the water level at the lake as well as within the intake tower. An access bridge 16 feet wide would be installed from the lake shore out to the intake structure. The intake would allow for drawdown of Grant Lake to elevation 690 feet NAVD 88, thereby creating approximately 18,791 acre-feet of active storage for the Project between elevations 703 feet NAVD 88 and 690 feet NAVD 88. The intake would be designed to allow the Project to draw water near the surface at various levels of storage, if deemed necessary to meet downstream temperature requirements. The invert of the intake would be at elevation 675 feet NAVD 88 to provide for adequate submergence to the tunnel. A bypass pipe would extend from the intake structure to the base of the existing waterfall in Grant Creek. The installed pipe would be 900 feet long and approximately 18 inches in diameter, allowing the minimum flow ranging from 5 to 10 cfs to be released. A control gate would be located within the intake structure to regulate and monitor the bypass flow releases. 4.3. Tunnel and Surge Chamber

The intake structure would connect to a tunnel extending to the Project powerhouse. The tunnel would be approximately 3,300 feet long with a 10-foot-horseshoe shape. Drill and shoot techniques would be used to construct the tunnel using an entrance portal at the powerhouse for access. The lower 900 feet of tunnel would be constructed at a 15 percent slope. This section of the tunnel would be concrete lined. The upper 2,400 feet of tunnel would be constructed at a 1 percent slope and would be unlined. This proposed arrangement provides a low pressure hydraulic conduit in the upper tunnel reaches suitable for an unlined tunnel. A surge chamber would be located at the transition between the two tunnel slopes. This chamber would be approximately 10 feet in diameter and would extend from the tunnel invert elevation of 675 feet NAVD 88 to the ground surface at approximately elevation 790 feet NAVD 88. The surge



chamber would provide a non-mechanical relief for hydraulic transients that could occur if a load rejection occurred at the powerhouse. Rock anchors and shotcrete stabilization techniques would be used to stabilize the tunnel exposed rock surface where required. A rock trap would be located at the surge chamber location to collect dislodged rocks from the unlined tunnel section. The surge chamber outlet at the existing ground elevation would be fitted with a pre-fabricated steel structure that would span the chamber. The steel frame structure would be covered with wire mesh, providing a fully screened structure capable of allowing air in for the surge chamber, while also excluding wildlife and the public from accessing the surge chamber. A removable roof structure would be located on the steel outlet, allowing access to remove material from the rock trap that would be located in the tunnel directly below the surge chamber. The surge chamber cover structure would be painted to blend into the natural forest environment. During operations, if/when a load rejection at the powerhouse occurs, the pressure wave and associated volume of water would be contained within the surge chamber. As the wave dissipated, the water level in the surge chamber would decrease until it matched the level in Grant Lake. The tunnel would transition to a 6-foot-diameter steel penstock approximately 150 feet from the powerhouse. The transition section would consist of a welded steel concentric structure that transitioned from the 10-foot tunnel section to the 72-inch-diameter penstock. A steel liner would extend from the downstream tunnel portal approximately 300 feet into the tunnel. The liner would be installed within the exposed rock surface, with grout pumped behind the liner to provide an impermeable and structurally sound tunnel section. A similar steel tunnel liner section would be installed at the connection to the intake structure for a total distance of approximately 150 feet. 4.4. Penstock

A 72-inch-diameter steel penstock would extend 150 feet from the downstream tunnel portal to the powerhouse. The welded steel penstock would be supported on concrete pipe saddles along the penstock route. The penstock would bifurcate into two 48-inch-diameter pipes feeding each of the powerhouse turbines. The penstock, fitted with welded steel thrust rings, would be encased in concrete thrust blocks at the tunnel portal as well as at the powerhouse. These thrust blocks would be designed to resist the full hydraulic load associated with the Project operation. An interior and exterior coating system would be applied to the penstock, providing full corrosion protection. An access manway would be provided on the exposed penstock section, allowing access for future inspection and maintenance. 4.5. Tailrace

The powerhouse draft tubes would connect to a tailrace channel located on the north side of the powerhouse structure. The draft tubes would extend from a low point elevation of approximately 509 feet NAVD 88 up to the tailrace channel invert elevation of 515 feet NAVD 88. The channel would continue to the south bank of Grant Creek. Each of the draft tubes would be gated, allowing the flow to be routed to the detention pond for spinning reserve operation. Isolation bulkheads would be provided, allowing dewatering of the draft tubes for inspection and maintenance of the turbine. The tailrace channel would be trapezoidal in shape with a bottom width of 43 feet, side slopes of 2H:1V, and a channel depth ranging from 13 feet



at the powerhouse to 7 feet at the creek. A concrete structure would be constructed at the confluence of the channel and Grant Creek. A picket-style fish barrier would be placed on this concrete structure as well as provision for installation of stoplogs, allowing the tailrace channel to be dewatered for inspection and maintenance. The channel would be excavated from native material and lined with riprap to provide a long term stable section. A staff gage and pressure transducer would be placed in the channel to monitor the water level in the channel. A wildlife exclusion fence approximately 8 feet tall and constructed from steel posts with heavy gage woven wire would be installed at the tailrace channel. The fence would be located at the top of the bank on both sides of the tailrace channel. The fence would also cross the top of the tailrace barrier access deck, providing full exclusion of wildlife from the tailrace channel. 4.6. Tailrace Detention Pond

An off-stream detention pond would be created to provide a storage reservoir for flows generated during the rare instance when the units being used for spinning reserve were needed for the electrical transmission grid. To prevent a sudden increase in the water surface levels of Grant Creek as a result of the increased flows generated, the additional powerhouse flows would be diverted into the detention pond and then released slowly back into Grant Creek. The discharge associated with a spinning reserve event would be dispersed via the tailrace channel that flows into Grant Creek. The detention pond would be located immediately south of the powerhouse, and would be bordered by the access road. Storing additional powerhouse flows up to an elevation of 521 feet NAVD 88, the detention pond would have a capacity of approximately 15 acre-feet and a surface area of approximately 3.6 acres. The powerhouse would contain two generating units. The turbines would discharge into a splitter box located at the outlet of the turbine draft tubes. Isolation gates would be provided to route the turbine discharge to the detention pond when a unit was brought online to support a spinning reserve demand. Typically, when a turbine was brought online for spinning reserve, the turbine would operate for an average period of 15 to 20 minutes to meet the instantaneous demand. For example, assuming one turbine was allocated to spinning reserve, the turbine would divert the full 192.5 cfs of flow into the detention pond with a total of 173,250 cubic feet (cf) discharged during a 15-minute period. Once the spinning reserve demand was met, the unit would be brought offline and the detention pond flow released slowly back into the powerhouse tailrace.



Figure A.4-2. Detention pond storage volume versus water surface elevation (WSEL).

Table A.4-2. Detention pond storage volume and filling time.

Detention Pond Inflow Rate (cfs) Elev Area Volume Volume 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 192.5

Feet Acres Acre-Feet Feet^3 Time in Hours to Fill Detention Pond

518

3.00

6

260,991 3.62 1.81 1.21 0.91 0.72 0.60 0.52 0.45 0.40 0.38

519

3.18

9

391,487 5.44 2.72 1.81 1.36 1.09 0.91 0.78 0.68 0.60 0.56

520

3.37

12

521,982 7.25 3.62 2.42 1.81 1.45 1.21 1.04 0.91 0.81 0.75

521

3.60

16

688,660 9.56 4.78 3.19 2.39 1.91 1.59 1.37 1.20 1.06 0.99

522

3.83

20

855,338 11.88 5.94 3.96 2.97 2.38 1.98 1.70 1.48 1.32 1.23 4.7. Powerhouse

The powerhouse would be located on the south bank of Grant Creek immediately west of the downstream tunnel portal and adjacent to the detention pond. The powerhouse would lie at the top of the existing hill slope that occurs near the mouth of the Grant Creek canyon (Reach 5). This location was selected based on the presence of an existing rock outcrop that would provide an effective downstream portal location for the tunnel. The powerhouse would be located south of Grant Creek. A natural lower area is located immediately south of the proposed powerhouse site. The entire site is forested with areas of open meadow. The powerhouse concrete foundation would tie into the existing hillside with the majority of the powerhouse structure located on relatively flat ground. The powerhouse would consist of a concrete foundation and a pre-engineered metal building superstructure. The building would be approximately 100 feet



long (east to west) and 50 feet wide (north to south). The penstock would tie into the powerhouse on the south side and the tailrace channel on the north side of the building. The building floor would be set at approximately elevation 523 feet NAVD 88 and the centerline of the turbine runner at elevation 526 feet NAVD 88. The draft tube floor would be set at elevation 509 feet NAVD 88 with an operating tailwater inside the draft tubes ranging from 518.0 feet to 519.3 feet NAVD 88. Two horizontal Francis type turbine/generator units with a rated total capacity of 5,000 kilowatt (kW) would be housed in the powerhouse structure. The powerhouse flow would range from a maximum of 385 cfs to a minimum of 58 cfs with each turbine operating flow ranging from 192.5 cfs to 58 cfs. Associated mechanical and electrical equipment would include hydraulic power units, turbine isolation valves, penstock drain, utility water system, lube oil system, oil water separator, battery system, and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) system. A control room housing the motor control center (MCC), communication rack, fiber optic panels, computers, and related equipment would also be provided. The Project switchgear would be located within the powerhouse. A standby generator, transformer, and fused pad-mounted switch assembly would be mounted on an enclosed switchyard located on the south side of the powerhouse. Dewatering pumps would be provided to support dewatering of the turbine draft tubes. A 30-ton bridge crane would be provided for equipment maintenance. The crane would travel on rails mounted on the steel building support columns. An energy dissipation valve would extend off the penstock and provide bypass flows into the Project tailrace. 4.8. Transmission Line/Switchyard

An overhead 115-kV transmission line would extend from the powerhouse to the existing 115-kV transmission line located on the west side of the Seward Highway. In addition to overhead transmission structures, the facilities would include a switchyard at the powerhouse consisting of a 115-kV fused pad-mounted disconnect switch and a pad-mounted 115-kV GSU transformer. The transmission line would run from the powerhouse parallel to the access road where it would intersect Chugach Electric’s transmission line. The interconnection would have a pole-mounted disconnect switch. Wooden poles would be designed as tangent line structures on about 250-foot centers. Design of the line would also incorporate the latest raptor protection guidelines. Collision avoidance devices would be installed on the line at appropriate locations to protect migratory birds. 4.9. Appurtenant Facilities

The following pertinent mechanical and electrical equipment would be applicable to the Project:

• Intake selective withdrawal intake gate • Intake trashrack system • Intake roller gate used to isolate the tunnel and downstream generation facilities • Control gate located on the bypass pipeline • A 30-ton bridge crane in the powerhouse • Pumps located in the powerhouse used to dewater the draft tubes



• Pressure transducers located throughout the Project used to monitor the water level in the reservoir, tunnel, and tailrace, as well as pressures in the tunnel and penstock

• Security cameras at the intake and powerhouse • Sanitary waste holding tank or septic system at the powerhouse • A power line extending from the powerhouse to the intake to supply electrical power to

the gates and trashrack • Temperature instrumentation at the intake structure and at various stream locations to

monitor water temperature This equipment, along with other identified miscellaneous mechanical and electrical equipment, would be developed during the final design and included in the construction documents. 4.10. Access Roads

The Project would require an access road to both the powerhouse located near the base of the Grant Creek canyon and to the intake at Grant Lake. The access road would be used to construct the Project and afterwards, to maintain the facilities. It is anticipated that the powerhouse would be visited approximately once a month and the intake visited approximately once a month beginning just after the ice melts and continuing until just before freeze up. The powerhouse access road would be maintained year around. The intake access road would not be maintained in winter. The 24-foot wide access road would tie into the Seward Highway at approximately MP 26.9. The route would travel eastward to cross Trail Lakes at the downstream end of the narrows between Upper and Lower Trail lakes and then continue eastward to the powerhouse. This route would be approximately one mile long. It would cross the ARRC tracks near an existing railroad crossing for a private driveway. The road would cross the narrow channel connecting Upper and Lower Trail lakes with an approximately a 110-foot-long single lane bridge. This bridge is proposed as a clear span with the west abutment located on bedrock and the east abutment on fill. The proposed route would avoid cuts and travel along the base of some small hills on the south side of Grant Creek to the powerhouse. This proposed access road would have one 90-degree crossing of the proposed reroute of the commemorative Iditarod National Historic Trail (INHT) easement. The intake access road would be approximately one mile long, beginning at the powerhouse. The road would ascend a 230-foot bluff to reach the top of the southern rim of the Grant Creek canyon. A series of road switchbacks would be required to maintain a road grade of less than 8 percent. The road would then generally follow the southern edge of the canyon until it descends to Grant Lake. A small parking area and turn-a-round area would be provided at the intake structure. A 16-foot wide bridge would extend from the bank out to the intake structure. The road would be gravel with a 16-foot top width. Maximum grade would be 8 percent. Periodic turnouts would be provided to allow construction traffic to pass. Fifty-foot radius curves would be used to more closely contour around the small steep hills of bedrock to limit the extent of the excavation and the height of the embankments.



5 Project Lands

The proposed Project boundary, as shown in Figure A.3-1 and in more detail in Exhibit G of this FLA, consists of 1,798.7 acres. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) manages a total of 1,741.3 acres (96.8 percent) of this total. USFS lands are part of the Chugach National Forest, which surrounds most of Grant Lake. Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) owns the remainder of governmentally-controlled land totaling 57.4 acres (3.2 percent). A total of 0.6 acres of the Project boundary area (less than 0.1 percent) consists of transportation corridors occupied by the ARRC and the Seward Highway. Lands of the U.S. government to be used by the Project, as shown on the Exhibit G Project boundary drawings, are tabulated below (Table A.5-1). Table A.5-1. Tabulation of federal lands within the proposed Project boundary, by township, range, and section.

Location Owner/Agency Acreage Exhibit G Figure No. AK T4N R1E S1 USFS 67.8 G-2 AK T4N R1E S2 USFS 63.3 G-2 AK T4N R1E S5 USFS 92.7 G-2 AK T4N R1E S6 USFS 68.9 G-2 AK T5N R1E S28 USFS 41.1 G-2 AK T5N R1E S29 USFS 191.8 G-2 AK T5N R1E S31 USFS 39.4 G-2 AK T5N R1E S32 USFS 333.4 G-2 AK T5N R1E S33 USFS 168.6 G-2 AK T5N R1E S34 USFS 323.8 G-2 AK T5N R1E S35 USFS 308.1 G-2 AK T5N R1E S36 USFS 42.4 G-2

Total Acreage: 1,741.3




FINAL LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT B

Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 B-1 April 2016

EXHIBIT B: PROJECT OPERATIONS AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION


Kenai Hydro, LLC (KHL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alaska Electric and Energy Cooperative, Inc. (AEEC), is filing this Final License Application (FLA) for an original license for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212 [Project or Grant Lake Project]) under Part I of the Federal Power Act. Exhibit B of this FLA describes the proposed operations of the Project, water availability and use, and production and use of Project generation under an original license.

2 Project Site Selection and Proposed Operations

2.1. Project Site Alternatives

2.1.1. Crescent Lake

On October 1, 2008, KHL received a preliminary permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to study the potential development of a small hydroelectric project at Crescent Lake (P-13209) on the Kenai Peninsula. Crescent Lake is located 4 miles south of the community of Moose Pass, Alaska, and approximately 25 miles north of Seward, Alaska. KHL conducted a reconnaissance study to evaluate the feasibility of a hydroelectric project at this location. The reconnaissance study considered environmental conditions, recreation, subsistence use, cultural and historical resources, land ownership, mining claims and water rights, energy generation, anticipated development costs, and an economic evaluation of the proposed project. Based upon the results of this evaluation, agency input, and public comments, the Grant Lake/Creek project was considered the more viable resource and selected for further evaluation. 2.1.2. Ptarmigan Lake/Creek

On October 1, 2008, KHL received a preliminary permit from the FERC to study the potential development of a small hydroelectric project at Ptarmigan Lake/Creek (P-13210) on the Kenai Peninsula. Ptarmigan Lake is located 6 miles south of the community of Moose Pass, Alaska, and approximately 25 miles north of Seward, Alaska. KHL conducted a reconnaissance study to evaluate the feasibility of a hydroelectric project at this location. The reconnaissance study considered environmental conditions, recreation, subsistence use, cultural and historical resources, land ownership, mining claims and water rights, energy generation, anticipated development costs, and an economic evaluation of the proposed project. Based upon the results of this evaluation, agency input, and public comments, the Grant Lake/Creek project was considered the more viable resource and selected for further evaluation. 2.1.3. Falls Creek

On October 1, 2008, KHL received a preliminary permit from the FERC to study the potential development of a small hydroelectric project, Falls Creek (P-13211), on the Kenai Peninsula.



Falls Creek is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the community of Moose Pass, Alaska, and approximately 25 miles north of Seward, Alaska. KHL conducted a reconnaissance study to evaluate the feasibility of a hydroelectric project at this location. Two alternatives were considered: a stand-alone project that would discharge water back into Falls Creek; and a project that would divert water from Falls Creek north to Grant Lake, where water would be used to generate power from the Grant Lake Project. The reconnaissance study considered environmental conditions, recreation, subsistence use, cultural and historical resources, land ownership, mining claims, water rights, energy generation, anticipated development costs, and an economic evaluation of the proposed project. Based upon the results of this evaluation, agency input, and public comments, the Grant Lake/Creek project was considered the more viable resource and selected for further evaluation. Because the Grant Lake Project was selected for further evaluation, the Falls Creek diversion into Grant Lake was carried forward for further evaluation. Additional investigation into the engineering feasibility and the economics associated with the Falls Creek diversion led Kenai Hydro to determine that the Falls Creek diversion portion of the project was infeasible. On March 31, 2011, KHL petitioned FERC to surrender the Falls Creek project preliminary permit. 2.1.4. Grant Lake/Creek

Hydroelectric potential at Grant Lake has been evaluated several times as a potential power source for the Kenai Peninsula area. In 1954, R.W. Beck and Associates (cited by Ebasco 1984) prepared a preliminary investigation and concluded that a project at the site had significant potential. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted geologic investigations of proposed power sites at Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan, and Crescent Lakes in the 1950s (Plafker 1955). In 1980, CH2M Hill (CH2M Hill 1980) prepared a prefeasibility study for a Grant Lake project and concluded that a project developed at the site would be feasible. The Grant Lake Project was referenced in the 1981 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) National Hydroelectric Power Resources Study (USACE 1981). The most extensive study was performed by Ebasco Services, Inc. in 1984 for the Alaska Power Authority (now Alaska Energy Authority; Ebasco 1984). The studies included a detailed examination of water use and quality; fish resources; botanical and wildlife resources; historical and archaeological resources; socioeconomic impacts; geological and soil resources; recreational resources; aesthetic resources; and land use (Ebasco 1984). Two of the alternatives evaluated by Ebasco included the diversion of adjacent Falls Creek into Grant Lake to provide additional water for power generation. During the 1986–1987 period, a preliminary application document was filed by Kenai Hydro, Inc. (no relation to the current KHL) for a project at Grant Lake. Support for the application included an instream flow study. Because of competing projects, political considerations, and inexpensive natural gas, the project was never pursued beyond the preliminary application phase. On October 1, 2008, KHL received a preliminary permit from the FERC to study the potential development of a small hydroelectric project at Grant Lake/Creek (P-13212) on the Kenai Peninsula. KHL conducted a reconnaissance study to evaluate the feasibility of a hydroelectric project at this location. The reconnaissance study considered environmental conditions, recreation, subsistence use, cultural and historical resources, land ownership, mining claims and water rights, energy generation, anticipated development costs, and an economic evaluation of the proposed project. Based upon the results of this evaluation, agency input, and public



comments, the Grant Lake/Creek project was considered the more viable resource and selected for further evaluation. On August 6, 2009, KHL filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD), along with a Notice of Intent (NOI) to file an application for an original license for the Grant Lake/Falls Creek project (P-13211/13212) under Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA). On September 15, 2009, FERC approved the use of the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) for development of the license application and supporting materials. 2.2. Project Facility Designs, Processes, and Operations Alternatives

2.2.1. Configuration Alternatives

Grant Lake has been studied on multiple occasions since the 1950s as a potential hydropower site. The previous study efforts included:

• 1954 – R.W. Beck and Associates preliminary investigation (as cited in Ebasco 1984) • 1955 – USGS geological investigations of proposed power sites at Cooper, Grant,

Ptarmigan, and Crescent Lake (Plafker 1955) • 1980 – CH2M Hill prefeasibility study (CH2M Hill 1980) • 1984 – Ebasco Services Project Feasibility Analysis (Ebasco 1984)

Within these previous studies, development of the hydroelectric potential was considered under a range of alternative configurations. The alternatives analysis culminated with a more robust evaluation by Ebasco in its 1984 engineering evaluation (Ebasco 1984). The Ebasco analysis included size alternatives. Alternatives A, B, and C (below) focused on building a dam on the Grant Lake outlet as well as a saddle dam on the north of the natural outlet. These alternatives were designed to provide storage for power generation as well as increase the operating head on the powerhouse. Alternative D consisted of a lake tap near the existing Grant Lake outlet with no dams proposed. The final two alternatives, E and F, re-routed the adjacent Fall Creek flow into Grant Lake with a dam (Alternative A) and no dam (Alternative D) configuration. Alternatives A, B, C, and D would use only the natural inflow from Grant Lake. Alternatives E and F would use the Grant Lake inflow plus Fall Creek for power generation. KHL utilized these same alternatives as the starting point in the current licensing process. The previous work efforts were reviewed and updated, where required, to provide a basis for the alternatives development and analysis. A seventh alternative, Alternative G, was developed to reflect the additional environmental baseline data and the operational criteria required to address specific identified issues. A brief description of each alternative is presented in the following subsections. Further details regarding the configuration of alternatives are provided in the Supporting Design Report in Exhibit F (Attachment F-1) of this FLA.

2.2.1.1. Alternative A – Intake Upstream of Saddle Dam Alternative A consists of raising Grant Lake from its existing natural outlet at approximately elevation 703 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) to a normal maximum



lake elevation of 745 feet NAVD 88. The lake raise would be accomplished by constructing a main dam at the natural outlet of Grant Lake. A second dam would be constructed across a low saddle area located north of the main dam. Water would be conveyed from Grant Lake to a powerhouse located on the east shore of Upper Trail Lake via a power conduit approximately 3,840 feet long with an intake structure located upstream from the saddle dam. The intake to the power conduit would be a submerged circular vertical concrete structure with vertical trashracks, and would be located approximately 1,300 feet upstream from the toe of the saddle dam. A steel pipeline would extend from the intake to a surge tank. A steel penstock would continue from the surge tank to the powerhouse. The discharge from the powerhouse would be through a tailrace channel to Upper Trail Lake. The powerhouse would house a single vertical Francis turbine operating with a maximum hydraulic capacity of 385 cubic feet per second (cfs) at a net head of 247 feet. The powerhouse would have an installed capacity of 6 megawatts (MW). The substation would be located adjacent to the powerhouse. The transmission line would extend from the powerhouse south to Grant Creek, then cross the Trail Lake Narrows to the existing 115-kilovolt (kV) transmission line located adjacent to the Seward Highway. A total of 5.1 miles of access road would connect the Project features to the Seward Highway.

2.2.1.2. Alternative B – Intake at Main Dam with Tunnel and Surface Conduit Similar to Alternative A, the Grant Lake elevation would be raised from 703 feet NAVD 88 to a normal maximum operating elevation of 745 feet NAVD 88 by constructing the main dam and saddle dam as described under Alternative A. With this alternative, the intake would be located at the main dam location. Water would be conveyed from the Grant Lake intake to a power tunnel using a 7-foot-diameter low pressure penstock. The first 300 feet of penstock under the dam would be placed in a rock trench and encased in concrete. The remaining 400 feet to the power tunnel would be installed on the surface, supported by concrete saddles. The power tunnel would be horseshoe-shaped and 9 feet in diameter, fitted with an underground surge chamber. At the downstream end of the tunnel, a 5-foot-penstock would extend to a powerhouse with an installed capacity of 6 MW. The powerhouse would have essentially the same mechanical and electrical configuration as described for Alternative A. A short tailrace channel would carry the water from the powerhouse to the east bank of Upper Trail Lake. Approximately 2.0 miles of access roads would be required for the Project. The transmission line would follow the same approximate route across Trail Lakes Narrows.

2.2.1.3. Alternative C – Intake at Main Dam with Surface Conduit Similar to Alternatives A and B, Alternative C utilized the same two dams to raise Grant Lake from approximately 703 feet NAVD 88 to 745 feet NAVD 88. The intake would be located at the main dam using a similar intake configuration as Alternative B. A 6.75-foot-diameter steel power conduit would extend from the intake beneath the dam to a surge tank located at the downstream toe of the main dam. A 5.35-foot-diameter, 2,000-foot-long steel penstock would extend from the surge tank to the powerhouse. The powerhouse would be located approximately 80 feet from the east bank of Upper Trail Lake. The powerhouse would consist of a concrete foundation and a steel superstructure. The mechanical and electrical equipment would be similar to that of Alternatives A and B as well as the 6-MW rated capacity.



2.2.1.4. Alternative D – Lake Tap with Powerhouse at Upper Trail Lake With this alternative, the main dam and saddle dam proposed with Alternatives A, B, and C would be eliminated. A lake tap would supply water from a low level power tunnel and a short length of penstock to a powerhouse located on Upper Trail Lake. The lake tap would have an intake invert at approximately elevation 643 feet NAVD 88. The lake tap would consist of an inclined 10-foot-diameter circular tunnel that would incorporate a rock trap located just downstream of the intake portal. A trashrack would be placed on the intake portal to prevent debris from entering the power conduit. A 9-foot-diameter horseshoe-shaped power tunnel would extend approximately 3,300 feet from the lake tap to the powerhouse. A 5-foot-diameter, 500-foot-long steel penstock would then extend from the downstream tunnel portal to the powerhouse located on the east bank of Upper Trail Lake. A gate shaft would be located approximately 200 feet downstream from the lake tap. An isolation gate would be located in the gate shaft. A conventional powerhouse with a concrete foundation and steel superstructure would be located approximately 180 feet from the east bank of Upper Trail Lake. The powerhouse would have a single vertical Francis turbine operating under a net head of 198 feet with an installed capacity of 5 MW.

2.2.1.5. Alternatives E and F – Diversion of Falls Creek These alternatives would divert runoff from the Falls Creek drainage, located directly south of the Grant Lake drainage, into Grant Lake for additional power production. For both of these alternatives, the diversion of Falls Creek would be accomplished using a diversion dam and conduit to convey water from Falls Creek into Grant Lake. For Alternative E, the diversion of Falls Creek is used in combination with raising Grant Lake from its existing elevation of 703 feet NAVD 88 to a maximum normal operating elevation of 745 feet NAVD 88. This is accomplished with the same two dam configuration as presented for Alternative A. The power conduits, powerhouse, transmission, and access would be similar to the configuration proposed for Alternative A. The powerhouse would have a rated capacity of 7 MW. Alternative F consists of the Falls Creek diversion coupled with the no dam Alternative D configuration. The power tunnel, powerhouse, transmission, and access would be similar to the configuration proposed for Alternative A. The powerhouse would have a rated capacity of approximately 6 MW.

2.2.1.6. Alternative G – Lake Intake with a Powerhouse on Grant Creek Alternative G was developed essentially as an outgrowth of Alternative D with the basic features modified to address considerations raised as part of the environmental baseline studies completed in 2009 through 2014. These studies identified aquatic habitat and resources within Grant Creek from the confluence with Upper Trail Lake up to the outlet of the canyon area of Grant Creek (Reaches 1 through 4). The area within the canyon (Reach 5), though not identified as productive as the habitat in the lower area of Grant Creek, provided limited habitat for specific species. Measures to protect and enhance these areas were then identified and incorporated into Alternative G. This alternative consists of a conventional intake tower located in Grant Lake fitted with a selective withdrawal intake gate and an isolation bulkhead gate. Water would be conveyed via a 10-foot-diameter, 3,300-foot-long horseshoe-shaped tunnel. The upper reach of



the tunnel would be unlined and constructed on a 1 percent slope. The lower reach of the tunnel would be lined and constructed at 15 percent slope. A surge chamber would be located at the junction between the two tunnel sections. A rock trap would be located at the downstream end of the unlined tunnel directly under the surge chamber. Steel liners would be installed at both the upstream and downstream portals to provide structural strength to the tunnel through the transition areas. A 72-inch-diameter steel penstock would extend from the downstream tunnel portal to the powerhouse. The powerhouse would be a conventional concrete foundation with a steel superstructure. Two Francis turbines would be installed with a combined rated capacity of 5 MW at a maximum hydraulic capacity of 385 cfs and a net operating head of 171 feet. Water would be conveyed from the powerhouse back to Grant Creek in an excavated tailrace channel with a fish barrier located at the outfall back into Grant Creek. The tailrace channel would discharge into Grant Creek near the outlet of the canyon section of Grant Creek. A detention pond would be located on the south side of the powerhouse, providing the additional benefit of spinning reserve operation. The transmission line would extend approximately 1 mile from the substation located adjacent to the powerhouse west to the existing 115-kV transmission line. The transmission line would follow the powerhouse access road that extends from the Seward Highway across the Trail Lakes Narrows. An access road would also be provided to the intake structure.

2.2.1.7. Proposed Configuration In the previous alternatives analysis (Ebasco 1984), Alternative D was the recommended alternative with a consideration for diverting Falls Creek as presented within Alternative F. With this alternative, the powerhouse would be located approximately 180 feet from the east bank of Upper Trail Lake. Under most operating conditions, Grant Creek would have been dewatered. As outlined in the alternatives description, development of Alternative G incorporated a number of design modifications that provided a net benefit in environmental conditions. These design modifications included:

1) Relocate the powerhouse from the bank of Upper Trail Lake on the north side of Grant Creek to the south side of Grant Creek at the outlet of the canyon reach (Reach 5).

2) Relocate the intake from the north side of the natural outlet of Grant Lake to the south

side and replace the lake tap with a conventional intake structure with the capabilities of selective water withdrawal for downstream temperature control.

3) Re-align the access road to eliminate parallel alignment of the Iditarod National

Historic Trail (INHT). 4) Eliminate the 2-foot-tall diversion structure at the top of the Grant Creek natural

outlet. 5) Provide a bypass pipe from the lake intake to the base of the existing falls at the Grant

Lake outlet to provide a minimum flow of 5 cfs to 10 cfs in Reach 5.



6) Reroute the transmission line to follow the powerhouse access road directly west to

the existing 115-kV transmission line. 7) Modify the proposed single Francis unit 5-MW powerhouse to a two-unit

configuration to provide more flexibility to release flows to meet downstream flow considerations for aquatic habitat in the winter months.

Alternative G has been selected as the preferred alternative for the Project. This site configuration was selected because it represents the optimum environmental configuration by eliminating the dams, places the powerhouse tailrace upstream of the prime aquatic habitat, and eliminates the Falls Creek water diversion. 2.2.2. Proposed Design

The proposed Project would divert water from Grant Lake and deliver the flow to a powerhouse located near the outlet of the existing Grant Creek natural, incised rock canyon. The proposed Project consists of the following primary components:

• An intake structure in Grant Lake. • A 72-inch-diameter penstock from the downstream tunnel portal to the powerhouse. • A tunnel extending from the lake intake to a steel penstock. • A powerhouse with two Francis turbines providing an anticipated combined 5-MW

output with a maximum design flow of approximately 385 cfs. • A tailrace detention pond. • Switchyard with disconnect switch and step-up transformer. • An overhead 115-kV transmission line. • A pole-mounted disconnect switch where the transmission line intersects the main

power distribution line. Detailed descriptions of the proposed Project facilities are provided in Exhibit A and the preliminary design drawings of the proposed Project are provided in Exhibit F of this FLA. 2.2.3. Grant Lake Operational Model

An operations model was developed for the Project. The model takes into account the natural inflows, habitat constraints, the Project engineering details, and operational preferences to simulate Project operations. The model outputs include discharge, reservoir elevations, and energy production on a daily time step. The gross annual energy production is adjusted to account for transmission losses, unplanned outages, and station service. The operations model was used to simulate operations of the proposed Project using historic hydrologic data. To develop the hydrologic data set, a record extension procedure was utilized to correlate 11 years of USGS gage data on Grant Creek with 66 years of USGS gage data on the Kenai River, resulting in a composite hydrologic data set that represents 66 years of data for Grant Creek. The record extension was collaboratively developed with the Grant Lake Instream



Flow Subgroup using a recognized methodology known as the maintenance of variance extension procedure. 2.3. Project Operations During Adverse, Average, and High Water Years

The Project would operate to generate power throughout the calendar year based on inflow, available storage, lake elevation, and minimum flow requirements in Grant Creek. The lake would operate from the natural Grant Lake outlet elevation of 703 feet NAVD 88 down to a minimum lake elevation of 690 feet NAVD 88. The lake would be drawn down in the winter months utilizing a combination of Grant Creek inflows and stored water to meet the instream flows in Reach 5 while also maintaining power production. Water flow predictions would be used to estimate snowpack and the corresponding runoff volume. The Project operation would then be tailored to maximize winter power production while also ensuring the lake refilled to elevation 703 feet NAVD 88. 2.3.1. Adverse Water Years

During adverse flow years, the lake elevation would be monitored closely in relation to anticipated inflow and predicted lake fill rates. The powerhouse production could be reduced in adverse flow years to maintain the instream flow requirements and hit target lake levels during the spring runoff period. The estimated annual generation analysis reflected this operation scenario using a dry period year to determine the estimated powerhouse production and required lake refill sequence. 2.3.2. Average Water Years

During average water years, the Project would be operated to maximize power production and minimize spill conditions. The lake would be operated within the maximum lake elevation of 703 feet NAVD 88 and a minimum of 690 feet NAVD 88. The lake would be drawn down in the winter to the minimum elevation 690 feet NAVD 88 to provide the maximum storage volume to capture spring runoff. Flow predictions would be utilized based on snowpack and environmental conditions to optimize the rule curve for filling the lake. The lake would refill reaching the maximum operating elevation of 703 feet NAVD 88 while maximizing the powerhouse production as close to the 385-cfs maximum powerhouse flow for as long a duration as possible. The average water year was reflected in the estimated power production forecasts by selecting an average flow year as part of the generation analysis. 2.3.3. High Water Years

During high water years, the Project would likely spill a larger quantity for a longer duration than in average flow years. As indicated previously, flow prediction methods would be utilized to estimate the total volume of runoff as well as the rate of inflow. The powerhouse would then be operated to create adequate storage volume in the lake to capture the predicted volume. When the lake reached elevation 703 feet NAVD 88, the excess flow would spill over the natural outlet. During spill conditions, the powerhouse would be operated at the maximum hydraulic capacity of 385 cfs.



3 Existing Resource Utilization

3.1. Plant Control

The Project would operate in a fully automated manner with no onsite personnel. The system could be monitored remotely using a fiber optics tie to the KHL system. The powerhouse control room would include a computerized system that would monitor the lake elevation, water temperature, system pressures, wicket gate settings, and plant output. These parameters, along with the system alarms, would be monitored remotely. Adjustments to the system operating parameters would be made remotely based on the Project operations rule curves and system integration. The site would be visited monthly for standard maintenance and confirmation of appropriate operations. It is fully recognized that anomalous conditions associated with equipment malfunction, natural conditions, or a combination might dictate additional visits that would be sporadic and undefinable from a schedule perspective. Those visits would occur immediately upon the issue being identified. 3.2. Annual Plant Factor

The annual plant factor is computed using the following equation:

Annual Plant Factor = Annual Energy Production (MW-hours) / [Rated Capacity (MW) x 8760 (hours/year)]

Based on the average annual energy production, simulated for 1948 through 2013, and the rated generation capacity, the annual plant factor is 0.43. 3.3. Dependable Capacity and Average Annual Energy Production

The dependable capacity is based on the discharge that can be maintained more than 95 percent of the time, the minimum available head, conduit head loss, machine efficiency, and station service load. Based on these constraints, the Project has a dependable capacity of 0.15 MW. Based on 66 years of streamflow data run through the Project operations model, the average annual energy production is anticipated to be 18,600 megawatt hours (MWh). The monthly power generation for the 66-year composite record used in the Project operations model is provided in Attachment B-1. 3.3.1. Project Flow Data

The streamflow record utilized for the generation analysis was a composite of recorded streamflow and record extension. Grant Creek has an 11-year USGS streamflow gage record for water years 1948–1958 at USGS gage 15246000. Intermittent streamflow monitoring was conducted in 1981–1983, 2009, and from 2013 to present. A record extension was performed based on the USGS gage 15258000, Kenai River at Cooper Landing, record. A composite streamflow record was created for Grant Creek that represents 66 years of daily streamflow data for calendar years 1948 through 2013. The monthly and annual flow statistics for the 66-year composite record are provided in Table B.3-1. The composite streamflow record was also used



to generate an average annual hydrograph based on the average of the daily flow values (Figure B.3-1). The average hydrograph was utilized in the generation analysis, in addition to the individual years of streamflow data. Table B.3-1. Grant Creek monthly flow statistics, in cfs (calendar years 1948-2013).

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Maximum 326 227 116 160 566 2,140 1,210 1,383 1,731 1,295 851 570 2,140

Mean 52 43 33 36 146 409 503 444 367 233 123 73 206 Minimum 12 11 6 13 17 102 210 173 65 45 28 18 6

Figure B.3-1. Grant Lake average annual hydrograph.

3.3.2. Flow Duration Curves

A flow duration analysis was conducted for Grant Creek based on the 66-year composite data set of recorded streamflow and record extension described in Section 3.3.1. Exceedance percentiles were computed for annual and monthly daily average flows and are provided in Table B.3-2. The monthly flow duration curves are plotted in Figure B.3-2. Annual flow duration curves with Project and without Project conditions are provided in Figure B.3-3.



Table B.3-2. Grant Creek annual and monthly daily average flow exceedance percentile, in cfs (calendar years 1948–2013).

Exceedance Percentile Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

0% 326 227 116 160 566 2,140 1,210 1,383 1,731 1,295 851 570 2,140 5% 110 108 65 71 340 649 718 685 804 579 294 162 575

10% 87 70 51 61 286 582 644 595 612 427 234 119 499 15% 74 57 45 53 242 546 597 552 525 359 181 99 448 20% 64 51 41 47 215 512 573 524 480 317 151 87 402 25% 57 48 39 43 193 487 551 498 440 281 134 78 353 30% 54 45 37 40 176 463 533 480 405 255 123 73 303 35% 50 42 35 36 162 439 520 464 370 233 114 70 243 40% 48 39 33 34 149 425 509 447 346 212 105 65 186 45% 47 38 32 33 139 412 499 433 329 196 99 63 142 50% 45 36 30 31 127 398 488 422 313 182 94 59 110 55% 43 34 29 29 114 382 479 411 298 170 89 57 87 60% 41 32 27 28 103 363 467 398 282 158 85 54 71 65% 38 31 25 26 93 342 458 387 266 148 80 51 59 70% 36 29 23 25 83 323 447 372 250 137 76 49 49 75% 34 27 22 24 72 308 433 360 231 125 72 45 43 80% 32 25 21 22 62 290 419 346 215 115 67 42 37 85% 29 23 19 21 53 270 400 330 193 102 60 39 32 90% 25 20 18 19 45 238 382 316 166 90 55 36 27 95% 20 17 15 18 36 204 361 289 139 76 44 28 21

100% 12 11 6 13 17 102 210 173 65 45 28 18 6



Figure B.3-2. Grant Lake monthly flow duration curves (calendar years 1948–2013).



Figure B.3-3. Grant Lake annual flow duration curves with Project and without Project conditions (calendar years 1948–2013).

3.3.3. Critical Streamflow

The critical streamflow value used to compute the dependable capacity was 96 cfs. This flow corresponds to the 95 percent exceedance probability for Grant Creek under proposed operating conditions with the Project in place (see Figure B.3-3). 3.3.4. Storage Capacity

The Project would utilize the natural storage capacity of Grant Lake and would not include any additional impoundment. The gross storage volume of Grant Lake at the normal maximum lake elevation (703 feet NAVD 88) is 260,120 acre-feet. The Project would draw Grant Lake down a maximum depth of 13 feet, from the normal maximum lake elevation of 703 feet NAVD 88 to a lake elevation of 690 feet NAVD 88. The net storage volume between normal maximum lake elevation, and the lake elevation of 690 feet NAVD 88, is 18,791 acre-feet. Figure B.3-4 illustrates the storage capacity for Grant Lake. When Grant Lake is full, elevation 703 feet NAVD 88, the surface area is 1,741 acres. Figure B.3-5 illustrates the storage area curve for Grant Lake. The storage and surface area curve information for Grant Lake is also tabulated in Table B.3-3.



Figure B.3-4. Grant Lake storage capacity curve.



Figure B.3-5. Grant Lake surface area curve.



Table B.3-3. Grant Lake storage and surface area relative to lake elevation.

Lake Elevation feet, NAVD 88

Gross Storage acre-feet

Net Storage acre-feet

Surface Area acres

703 260,120 18,791 1,741 702 258,675 17,345 1,733 701 257,229 15,900 1,726 700 255,784 14,455 1,718 699 254,338 13,009 1,710 698 252,893 11,564 1,703 697 251,447 10,118 1,695 696 250,002 8,673 1,688 695 248,556 7,227 1,680 694 247,111 5,782 1,672 693 245,665 4,336 1,665 692 244,220 2,891 1,657 691 242,775 1,445 1,650 690 241,329 -- 1,642

3.3.5. Rule Curve

The anticipated operational curve for the Project is intended primarily to provide for instream flows and power generation. Grant Lake would be drafted in fall and winter and refilled in spring and summer. The normal maximum lake elevation would be 703 feet NAVD 88 and the minimum lake elevation would be 690 feet NAVD 88. Figure B.3-6 illustrates the anticipated operational curve on an annual basis.



Figure B.3-6. Anticipated Grant Lake operational curve.

3.3.6. Tailwater Rating Curve

Tailwater elevations were developed for the confluence of the powerhouse tailrace channel and Grant Creek. The tailrace channel would enter Grant Creek at the end of the incised canyon at the transition from Reach 5 to Reach 4. Figure B.3-7 provides the tailwater rating curve for Grant Creek.



Figure B.3-7. Grant Lake tailwater rating curve.

3.3.7. Power Plant Hydraulic Capacities and Capabilities

The Project power plant would consist of twin horizontal Francis turbines each paired with an electric generator. Each of the two units would have a rated generation capacity of 2.5 MW and a hydraulic capacity of 192.5 cfs. The minimum operating flow for the plant is estimated at 30 percent of the hydraulic capacity of a single unit, 58 cfs. Table B.3-4 provides the flow, efficiency, and generator output under maximum and minimum operating conditions. Figure B.3-8 provides the power plant capacity curve, which plots power generation versus net head. Table B.3-4. Grant Lake Project Maximum and Minimum Operating Conditions.

Hydraulic capacity Flow (cfs) Efficiency (%) Generator output (kW) Maximum 385 89% 4,986 Minimum 58 33% 42



Figure B.3-8. Project power generation vs. net head.

4 System and Regional Power Needs

Homer Electric Association (HEA) has over 22,400 member-owners and provides power to over 33,300 meters located throughout the Kenai Peninsula. HEA generates the power needed to serve members from its 12 percent share of the Bradley Lake hydroelectric facility, the Nikiski Combine Cycle Plant, the Soldotna Combustion Turbine Plant, and the Bernice Lake Power Plant. With the exception of HEA’s 12 percent share of Bradley Lake, power which accounts for 9 percent HEA’s generation needs, HEA is highly dependent on natural gas. The Cook Inlet of Alaska faces declining natural gas production and directly associated increasing natural gas prices. HEA is seeking to diversify its generation portfolio, add additional sources of renewable energy, and reduce its exposure to increasing natural gas prices. For reasons of environmental stewardship and sustainable long term generation, HEA’s Board of Directors has set a renewable energy goal: 22 percent of HEA’s power will be provided from renewable resources by 2018. HEA’s load forecast is depicted in Figure B.4-1. The projections are taken from HEA’s Equity Management Plan.



Figure B.4-1. HEA’s load forecast.

HEA’s load duration curve is depicted in Figure B.4-2.

Figure B.4-2. HEA’s load duration curve.



HEA is interconnected to a regional Alaskan grid known as the “Railbelt” via a three phase, 115-kV transmission line. The Railbelt is generally defined as the service areas of six regulated public utilities: Anchorage Municipal Light & Power (ML&P), Chugach Electric Association (Chugach), Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), HEA, Matanuska Electric Association (MEA), and the City of Seward Electric System (SES). This region covers a significant area of the state and contains the majority of the state’s population and economic activity; it extends from Homer to Fairbanks and includes areas such as Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. HEA can provide power to Alaskan residents from Anchorage to Fairbanks via wholesale and economy energy sales to the other five interconnected electric utilities. Electricity generated at the Project would be transmitted via Chugach Electric’s 115-kV transmission line that extends from the Lawing Substation near the Project to the Quartz Creek Substation where it enters HEA’s transmission and distribution system. The Project would become an integral component of HEA’s overall generation portfolio. Except for the small amount of electricity used to power the auxiliary Project equipment and facilities, the power generated by the Project would be dispatched as a part of the entire HEA generation system. The Project generation would be pooled with other HEA generation resources and shared among retail and wholesale purchasers. As with all generation resources available to HEA, the Project would be dispatched economically to minimize total generation costs while meeting, licensing requirements, reliability requirements, and contractual service obligations. KHL’s objective in operating the Project is to optimize HEA’s ability to meet load throughout the integrated system, balancing its hydro and thermal energy sources. Within the constraints of the licensed operating levels, KHL would operate the Project in the temporal mode most advantageous to the system. The energy from the Project would primarily be used for base load as well as taking advantage of any available spinning reserve. It would occasionally be used for peaking where appropriate. This added source of generation that is quite distant from other generation sources on the Railbelt grid would improve power quality, reduce voltage drop, and provide a generation source to an area of the system that would otherwise be susceptible to an outage with a single transmission line interruption. Additionally, the location of the Project near the boundaries of two other electric utilities that currently wheel power across HEA’s systems sets up the possibility of future, mutually beneficial wheeling arrangements.

5 Future Resource Utilization

At this time, KHL has no plans for additional water power project developments.

6 References

CH2M Hill. 1980. Feasibility assessment – hydropower development at Grant Lake. City of Seward, Alaska.

Ebasco Services Incorporated. 1984. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis. Volume 2. Environmental Report. Rep. prepared for Alaska Power Authority.



Plafker. G. 1955. Geologic Investigations of Proposed Power Sites at Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan, and Crescent Lakes Alaska. Geological Survey Bulletin 1031-A.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1981. National Hydroelectric Power Study Regional Report: Volume XXIII – Alaska. USACE North Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon and Alaska District. Anchorage, Alaska.






Attachment B-1. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Power

Generation Summary on a Monthly Basis for Period of Record

Grant Lake Hydroelectric ProjectAnnual Power Generation

Attachment B-1 Page 1

January February March April May June July August September October November December Total Average

1948 418,027 268,807 304,557 397,136 2,070,272 2,709,380 3,429,784 3,279,869 1,347,466 2,296,834 1,127,854 325,921 17,975,909 1,497,992

1949 365,052 396,924 419,927 358,670 1,081,405 2,363,710 2,994,366 2,149,627 2,940,319 1,729,122 2,053,351 944,650 17,797,122 1,483,093

1950 489,705 230,207 216,941 345,364 1,114,683 2,048,901 3,431,713 3,479,252 2,932,248 741,176 426,076 257,541 15,713,807 1,309,484

1951 232,022 371,117 438,554 323,581 1,190,070 1,553,448 3,375,148 2,794,689 3,365,605 802,504 715,634 388,737 15,551,108 1,295,926

1952 224,474 270,772 368,835 436,216 552,533 1,873,303 3,385,161 3,252,677 2,237,766 2,689,014 2,560,981 1,482,880 19,334,612 1,611,218

1953 783,361 538,882 377,024 710,459 2,386,489 3,225,223 3,476,472 3,478,509 2,518,247 2,038,049 911,980 533,727 20,978,423 1,748,202

1954 411,820 383,090 348,469 354,281 1,519,896 2,237,402 2,446,827 2,786,146 1,679,337 1,380,036 1,627,897 703,650 15,878,852 1,323,238

1955 558,419 260,737 213,445 204,068 610,125 1,316,315 3,364,302 2,950,265 2,033,707 470,393 558,846 310,375 12,850,997 1,070,916

1956 242,821 184,621 445,938 279,824 1,149,207 1,138,543 2,969,003 3,081,126 1,779,568 368,422 710,297 688,862 13,038,233 1,086,519

1957 274,686 205,602 232,548 346,793 1,476,694 2,640,803 1,936,168 2,613,832 3,125,014 1,751,144 1,748,892 752,828 17,105,003 1,425,417

1958 599,674 325,937 307,266 827,362 1,614,043 2,997,811 3,165,632 2,844,016 1,321,623 2,146,299 980,960 562,197 17,692,820 1,474,402

1959 353,948 220,128 225,643 315,035 1,350,612 2,695,639 3,003,388 2,736,039 1,574,160 1,078,409 1,252,771 668,067 15,473,839 1,289,487

1960 376,032 300,216 230,556 271,348 1,873,839 2,327,487 3,046,169 3,304,345 2,044,720 1,051,571 1,209,276 1,194,975 17,230,534 1,435,878

1961 1,209,628 997,209 479,641 382,401 1,573,188 2,234,689 3,366,284 3,473,038 2,839,710 2,211,038 1,055,417 615,810 20,438,052 1,703,171

1962 383,961 294,778 249,338 329,184 656,074 1,747,808 2,977,095 2,381,255 1,654,689 818,245 1,634,098 953,484 14,080,008 1,173,334

1963 738,762 480,440 603,139 421,384 909,459 1,198,566 3,157,875 2,958,380 2,721,689 1,570,960 916,283 786,436 16,463,372 1,371,948

1964 697,663 401,077 299,538 533,637 771,541 2,727,902 3,439,125 3,478,984 3,217,421 2,157,910 1,412,980 1,104,213 20,241,989 1,686,832

1965 667,998 421,369 416,233 813,961 1,146,788 749,153 1,982,294 3,078,799 2,755,312 1,841,968 918,589 755,448 15,547,912 1,295,659

1966 482,701 277,793 256,723 330,919 592,678 1,652,921 2,388,022 3,442,409 3,111,460 2,333,436 1,161,824 714,879 16,745,765 1,395,480

1967 515,209 374,877 312,838 274,240 875,909 1,966,843 2,717,207 3,371,083 3,367,244 1,979,715 1,366,292 962,301 18,083,759 1,506,980

1968 708,233 598,682 759,613 433,760 1,388,306 1,876,892 2,634,254 2,932,793 1,620,703 695,486 814,363 479,999 14,943,085 1,245,257

1969 319,510 265,660 281,332 321,549 963,342 2,498,252 2,880,418 1,668,046 1,561,567 3,031,370 1,913,162 1,657,046 17,361,254 1,446,771

1970 1,231,743 790,029 887,498 824,187 1,353,957 2,120,165 3,202,677 3,469,911 3,311,494 1,086,172 2,032,690 871,327 21,181,851 1,765,154

1971 594,408 445,625 422,271 356,758 437,620 1,728,493 3,408,235 3,476,592 2,536,822 1,521,308 938,059 581,217 16,447,409 1,370,617

1972 388,634 233,849 240,565 233,292 372,595 817,209 2,992,708 3,101,778 2,857,738 1,359,667 1,087,937 648,186 14,334,158 1,194,513

1973 430,421 294,575 262,900 269,877 887,103 986,656 2,085,275 2,412,632 1,995,429 859,085 778,154 505,893 11,768,000 980,667

1974 387,469 241,979 245,160 299,695 876,185 1,582,774 2,217,285 2,428,872 3,195,348 1,720,199 1,549,133 858,366 15,602,464 1,300,205

1975 610,104 373,929 335,199 302,306 1,325,592 1,742,948 3,390,083 3,245,213 2,306,639 1,963,676 940,005 551,988 17,087,682 1,423,973

1976 435,333 283,610 248,729 243,671 893,707 1,624,972 2,874,984 3,104,008 3,293,169 2,298,697 2,234,628 2,131,158 19,666,667 1,638,889

1977 1,378,932 1,413,370 944,705 512,922 1,167,623 2,694,922 3,454,793 3,474,008 3,197,108 2,124,561 1,386,747 822,265 22,571,956 1,880,996

1978 643,122 579,244 619,196 441,930 1,392,345 1,551,196 2,888,795 3,403,282 3,196,823 2,154,423 1,376,885 915,253 19,162,494 1,596,874

1979 606,342 282,034 265,251 314,457 1,389,626 1,707,564 3,141,887 3,432,749 2,956,722 3,479,140 2,572,032 1,688,307 21,836,110 1,819,676

1980 1,075,858 1,250,011 762,570 862,505 1,959,312 2,917,763 3,445,282 3,475,650 2,325,915 3,101,462 1,992,705 945,677 24,114,710 2,009,559

1981 2,036,810 1,361,229 934,345 721,713 2,025,284 2,887,711 3,397,298 3,478,940 3,365,720 1,599,427 1,887,789 1,304,491 25,000,757 2,083,396

1982 797,928 531,153 366,119 258,278 692,927 1,492,549 2,846,689 2,613,945 3,130,468 1,895,293 1,186,889 1,302,399 17,114,637 1,426,220

Year

Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Power Generation Summary on a Monthly Basis for Period of Record

Power Generation (kWh) - Including Misc. Loses (3% Annual Outage, 3% Transformer and T-Line Losses, 10 kW Station Service)

Grant Lake Hydroelectric ProjectAnnual Power Generation

Attachment B-1 Page 2

January February March April May June July August September October November December Total AverageYear

Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Power Generation Summary on a Monthly Basis for Period of Record

Power Generation (kWh) - Including Misc. Loses (3% Annual Outage, 3% Transformer and T-Line Losses, 10 kW Station Service)

1983 798,067 541,123 409,798 514,946 1,604,279 2,704,720 3,030,307 2,847,224 1,441,243 1,077,436 1,344,257 1,068,534 17,381,934 1,448,494

1984 815,528 662,569 770,814 772,102 1,266,706 1,658,635 2,644,396 2,867,889 2,377,062 2,585,618 1,094,991 757,387 18,273,696 1,522,808

1985 853,195 737,875 455,199 267,915 578,988 1,653,334 3,353,515 3,002,500 2,140,115 1,717,071 1,138,771 2,471,465 18,369,944 1,530,829

1986 1,335,373 786,711 533,915 333,959 864,535 1,934,771 3,195,996 2,661,023 2,437,544 2,704,211 1,559,679 1,580,222 19,927,939 1,660,662

1987 1,239,521 806,674 510,025 610,598 1,427,355 2,131,517 3,277,771 3,376,466 2,357,655 2,480,866 1,449,429 899,638 20,567,516 1,713,960

1988 656,519 457,162 468,551 399,964 1,598,783 2,857,579 3,416,064 3,479,533 2,986,159 2,593,360 1,770,060 948,618 21,632,354 1,802,696

1989 640,410 431,173 357,830 390,808 1,329,763 1,319,828 3,183,891 3,311,083 3,350,261 2,994,145 1,252,128 937,051 19,498,370 1,624,864

1990 716,773 512,996 509,066 709,193 2,160,673 3,000,639 3,010,754 3,057,104 3,190,934 1,418,042 2,141,403 680,618 21,108,197 1,759,016

1991 452,859 353,492 346,756 312,192 976,939 1,639,101 2,589,095 2,923,881 3,037,546 1,774,897 1,033,116 847,711 16,287,588 1,357,299

1992 750,690 527,322 426,171 512,080 1,376,878 2,543,624 3,359,687 3,446,674 1,516,663 648,206 1,262,983 1,296,319 17,667,298 1,472,275

1993 585,516 425,394 509,694 771,541 2,038,823 2,503,411 2,843,820 3,008,666 3,366,794 2,352,976 1,382,664 978,386 20,767,685 1,730,640

1994 849,953 724,793 499,860 578,886 1,462,472 2,362,825 3,383,277 3,471,940 2,623,093 1,311,905 895,722 683,240 18,847,965 1,570,664

1995 499,729 351,129 370,561 603,710 2,048,550 2,547,409 3,356,149 3,443,865 3,150,435 2,201,878 1,146,236 614,286 20,333,937 1,694,495

1996 442,385 254,253 220,631 313,468 1,031,084 909,393 1,852,609 3,058,020 1,967,491 709,692 624,609 401,035 11,784,671 982,056

1997 300,183 301,080 289,075 314,261 1,214,168 1,606,630 2,862,457 2,816,192 3,086,904 1,346,367 1,376,897 907,566 16,421,779 1,368,482

1998 493,698 448,945 477,415 790,505 1,383,485 2,930,625 3,451,189 3,052,371 2,767,535 2,499,424 1,341,041 846,659 20,482,892 1,706,908

1999 627,500 445,389 371,739 372,360 1,106,607 2,358,177 3,389,428 3,327,272 3,174,872 1,868,117 1,055,123 893,313 18,989,898 1,582,491

2000 924,726 602,788 519,164 493,631 1,363,205 2,359,139 3,398,135 3,118,711 1,592,778 1,386,014 1,176,886 996,785 17,931,962 1,494,330

2001 1,493,199 867,110 558,240 561,465 1,158,188 2,754,455 3,472,165 3,479,290 3,367,140 2,119,890 879,474 657,298 21,367,913 1,780,659

2002 1,309,344 727,269 527,370 372,439 1,618,926 3,002,642 3,133,570 2,949,118 2,271,234 2,225,007 3,354,882 3,026,420 24,518,222 2,043,185

2003 1,047,824 1,396,815 902,032 602,162 1,435,568 1,945,246 3,295,798 2,846,772 2,002,527 2,727,284 2,611,374 1,082,014 21,895,417 1,824,618

2004 731,151 619,663 630,057 736,435 2,555,200 2,543,608 3,393,619 2,797,011 1,512,765 2,030,676 1,214,073 1,038,059 19,802,317 1,650,193

2005 680,353 385,699 423,739 559,008 2,430,385 2,625,672 2,730,778 2,788,856 2,578,400 1,853,914 1,746,090 1,235,917 20,038,808 1,669,901

2006 889,091 542,206 402,560 340,479 1,043,522 2,574,825 2,998,613 3,187,241 3,115,032 2,570,329 999,297 784,484 19,447,678 1,620,640

2007 547,376 382,044 290,377 539,598 1,477,951 2,242,186 2,171,153 2,722,259 1,879,934 624,388 2,545,096 1,212,055 16,634,417 1,386,201

2008 530,074 356,142 422,883 334,429 1,118,161 2,050,022 3,282,830 3,000,229 3,247,277 1,528,804 968,767 648,283 17,487,900 1,457,325

2009 643,617 562,993 346,009 240,854 1,415,921 1,669,296 3,009,409 3,234,420 2,662,206 2,391,689 1,201,066 980,537 18,358,017 1,529,835

2010 541,864 415,544 613,389 489,732 1,649,383 2,579,918 3,225,790 3,343,069 1,726,515 2,130,930 1,200,398 784,106 18,700,638 1,558,387

2011 574,395 383,431 276,232 296,121 906,251 1,529,463 1,935,061 2,999,019 3,364,658 2,603,822 2,275,561 959,590 18,103,604 1,508,634

2012 574,358 367,621 349,830 526,255 1,459,882 2,222,721 3,435,759 3,478,576 3,011,681 2,555,104 1,207,691 799,253 19,988,731 1,665,7282013 822,488 521,144 406,202 227,666 1,286,168 3,213,479 3,477,389 3,194,738 2,766,630 2,278,037 1,589,936 689,203 20,473,080 1,706,090

FINAL LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT C

Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 C-1 April 2016

EXHIBIT C: CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE


Kenai Hydro, LLC (KHL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alaska Electric and Energy Cooperative, Inc. (AEEC), is filing this Final License Application (FLA) for an original license for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212 [Project or Grant Lake Project]) under Part I of the Federal Power Act. Exhibit C of this FLA describes the proposed schedule for development of the Project. Because no portion of the proposed Project consists of previously constructed, unlicensed water power structures or facilities, 18 CFR §4.41(d)(3) does not apply (see below).

2 Construction Schedule

Construction of the Grant Lake Project would commence after the final issuance of a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), currently anticipated to occur in March 2017. The pre-construction activities, such as equipment procurement and shop drawing preparation, would begin at that time. Mobilization for field construction activities would begin in April 2019. Construction work for the Project would continue for 18 months followed by a two-month startup and commissioning period. Construction milestones and other significant events related to the proposed construction of the Grant Lake Project are summarized in Figure C.2-1.

3 Commencement of Commercial Operation

Consistent with the schedule outlined in Figure C.2-1, commercial operation of the Project would begin in January 2021.

4 Previously Constructed, Unlicensed Water Power Structures or Facilities

The regulation 18 CFR §4.41(d)(3) does not apply because no portion of the proposed Project consists of previously constructed, unlicensed water power structures or facilities.

FINAL LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT C

Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 C-2 April 2016


ID Task No. Task Name Start Finish

1 FERC LICENSING Fri 4/15/16 Fri 3/31/17

2 100 FERC NEPA Preparation Fri 4/15/16 Thu 9/15/16

3 110 Issue Draft EA/EIS for Public Comment Thu 9/1/16 Thu 9/1/16

4 120 Public Comment Period Thu 9/1/16 Fri 12/2/16

5 130 Issue Final EA/EIS and License Order Thu 12/1/16 Fri 3/31/17

6 LAND ACQUISITION AND PERMITTING Fri 7/1/16 Fri 5/31/19

7 200 Acquire Construction Easements Sat 4/1/17 Wed 1/30/19

8 202 Acquire Permanent Land Easements Sat 4/1/17 Fri 5/31/19

9 205 404 Permit Sat 7/1/17 Tue 4/2/19

10 210 USFS Special Use Fri 7/1/16 Wed 4/4/18

11 220 EPA NPDES Permit Thu 3/1/18 Mon 4/2/18

12 FINAL ENGINEERING AND FERC PLANS Mon 5/1/17 Wed 1/30/19

13 300 Geotechnical Field Explorations Sat 7/15/17 Fri 10/13/17

14 310 Additional Topographic Mapping Mon 5/1/17 Mon 7/31/17

15 320 Prepare 50% Plans and Specifications Tue 10/3/17 Wed 1/31/18

16 330 Prepare 90% Plans and Specifications Thu 2/1/18 Mon 6/4/18

17 340 Prepare 100% Plans and Specifications Sat 6/2/18 Fri 8/31/18

18 350 Issue Stamped/Signed Construction Documents Thu 11/1/18 Thu 11/1/18

19 360 Prepare QCIP Sat 9/1/18 Wed 10/31/18

20 370 Prepare Environmental Plans Thu 2/1/18 Mon 9/3/18

21 380 Prepare Construction Plans Sat 6/2/18 Wed 10/31/18

22 390 FERC Review and Approval to Construct Thu 11/1/18 Wed 1/30/19

23 EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT Tue 10/3/17 Mon 6/1/20

24 400 Prepare Water-to-Wire Bid Package Tue 10/3/17 Wed 1/3/18

25 410 Bid Period Tue 1/2/18 Thu 3/1/18

26 420 Review and Select Vendor Thu 3/1/18 Tue 4/3/18

27 430 Limited Award for Shop Drawings Thu 3/1/18 Thu 3/1/18

28 440 Shop Drawing Preparation and Approval Thu 3/1/18 Mon 7/30/18

29 450 Notice to Proceed for Fabrication Tue 9/4/18 Tue 9/4/18

30 460 Fabrication Wed 9/5/18 Thu 4/30/20

31 470 Shipping Fri 5/1/20 Mon 6/1/20

32 480 Delivery to Site Sun 5/31/20 Sun 5/31/20

33 PRECONSTRUCTION Tue 9/4/18 Tue 6/2/20

34 500 Coordinate Turbine/Generator Equipment Tue 9/4/18 Tue 6/2/20

35 510 Shop Drawing Preparation Fri 2/1/19 Mon 6/3/19

36 520 Early Material Procurement Fri 3/1/19 Mon 6/3/19

37 530 Prepare and Final Selection of Subcontractors Tue 4/2/19 Wed 7/3/19

38 CONSTRUCTION Tue 4/2/19 Thu 10/1/20

39 1000 Mobilization Tue 4/2/19 Wed 5/1/19

40 1100 Powerhouse Access Road Tue 4/30/19 Thu 8/15/19

41 1110 Clear and Grubbing Alignment Tue 4/30/19 Tue 5/14/19

42 1120 Construct Railroad Crossing Tue 5/14/19 Fri 6/14/19

43 1130 Construct Bridge Tue 5/14/19 Wed 8/14/19

44 1140 Construct Powerhouse Access Road Tue 7/2/19 Thu 8/15/19

45 1200 Intake Access Road Tue 7/2/19 Fri 9/27/19

46 1210 Clear and Grubbing Alignment Tue 7/2/19 Wed 7/31/19

47 1220 Construct Intake Access Road Tue 7/16/19 Tue 9/17/19

48 1230 Construct Surge Shaft Access Sat 9/14/19 Fri 9/27/19

49 1240 Construct Tunnel Lower Portal Access Sat 8/31/19 Fri 9/27/19

50 1300 Transmission Line Fri 5/31/19 Tue 10/1/19

51 1310 Clear and Grub Fri 5/31/19 Mon 7/1/19

52 1320 Install Poles Tue 7/2/19 Thu 8/15/19

53 1330 String Wire Thu 8/15/19 Mon 9/16/19

54 1340 Tie to Existing Transmission Thu 8/15/19 Tue 10/1/19

55 1350 Drop Temporary Power Transformer @ Powerhouse Sat 9/14/19 Fri 9/27/19

56 1360 Tie to New Powerhouse Substation Sat 9/14/19 Fri 9/27/19

57 1400 Tunnel Sat 8/31/19 Tue 9/1/20

58 1410 Mobilize Tunnel Subcontractor Sat 8/31/19 Fri 9/27/19

59 1420 Develop Lower Portal Access Sat 8/31/19 Fri 9/27/19

9/1

11/1

M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Figure C.2-1 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 13212, Project Schedule

Page 1

ID Task No. Task Name Start Finish

60 1430 Develop Lower Portal Tue 10/1/19 Fri 11/1/19

61 1440 Construct Tunnel to Lake Intake Vertical Shaft Thu 10/31/19 Mon 3/30/20

62 1450 Install Tunnel Steel Liner Inserts Wed 4/1/20 Tue 6/2/20

63 1460 Develop Intake Vertical Shaft Chamber Wed 4/1/20 Tue 6/2/20

64 1470 Drill Low Flow Release Microbore Wed 6/3/20 Thu 7/2/20

65 1480 Construct Lined Tunnel Sections Wed 7/1/20 Tue 9/1/20

66 1490 Tunnel Complete Tue 9/1/20 Tue 9/1/20

67 1500 Intake Structure Tue 9/3/19 Wed 9/30/20

68 1510 Construct Cofferdam Tue 9/3/19 Tue 10/1/19

69 1520 Excavate Vertical Rock Shaft Wed 4/1/20 Tue 6/2/20

70 1530 Construct Concrete Intake Tower Wed 6/3/20 Tue 8/4/20

71 1540 Install Gates Sun 8/2/20 Fri 8/28/20

72 1550 Remove Rock at Intake Wed 9/2/20 Wed 9/30/20

73 1560 Intake Complete Wed 9/30/20 Wed 9/30/20

74 1600 Powerhouse Fri 5/1/20 Wed 9/30/20

75 1610 Clear and Grub Fri 5/1/20 Thu 5/7/20

76 1620 Excavation Fri 5/8/20 Fri 5/15/20

77 1630 Construct Concrete Foundation Sat 5/16/20 Tue 6/30/20

78 1640 Erect Metal Building Wed 7/1/20 Fri 8/14/20

79 1650 Install Bridge Crane Sun 7/19/20 Wed 8/12/20

80 1660 Install Turbine-Generator Equipment Wed 7/1/20 Thu 9/17/20

81 1670 Electrical Installation Wed 7/15/20 Thu 9/17/20

82 1680 Mechanical Installation Wed 7/15/20 Thu 9/17/20

83 1690 Balance of Plant Sat 8/15/20 Wed 9/30/20

84 1700 Construct Substation Wed 7/1/20 Thu 10/1/20

85 1710 Excavation Wed 7/1/20 Fri 7/10/20

86 1720 Construct Structure Concrete Foundations Fri 7/10/20 Fri 8/14/20

87 1730 Install Electrical Equipment Fri 8/14/20 Tue 9/15/20

88 1740 Complete Tie-In to Transmission Line Wed 9/16/20 Thu 10/1/20

89 1800 Tailrace Channel and Fish Barrier Fri 8/14/20 Thu 10/1/20

90 1810 Construct Cofferdam and Dewatering Fri 8/14/20 Tue 9/1/20

91 1820 Excavate Tailrace Channel Wed 9/2/20 Thu 9/17/20

92 1830 Construct Fish Barrier Wed 9/2/20 Thu 10/1/20

93 1840 Remove Cofferdam Wed 9/30/20 Wed 9/30/20

94 1900 Construct Detention Pond Thu 5/7/20 Mon 7/27/20

95 1910 Clear and Grub Thu 5/7/20 Wed 5/20/20

96 1920 Install Dewatering System Wed 5/20/20 Tue 6/2/20

97 1930 Excavate Pond Wed 6/3/20 Tue 6/23/20

98 1940 Construct Inlet Structure Sun 6/21/20 Mon 7/27/20

99 1950 Construct Outlet Structure Sun 6/21/20 Mon 7/27/20

100 STARTUP AND COMMISSIONING Thu 10/1/20 Fri 1/1/21

101 4000 Dry Commissioning Thu 10/1/20 Tue 11/3/20

102 4100 Wet Commissioning Sun 11/1/20 Fri 11/27/20

103 4200 Full Startup and Documentation Wed 12/2/20 Tue 12/29/20

104 4300 Commercial Power Production Fri 1/1/21 Fri 1/1/21

105 PROJECT CLOSEOUT Wed 9/2/20 Sun 1/31/21

106 5000 Final O&M Manuals Wed 9/2/20 Thu 12/31/20

107 5100 As-Constructed Drawings Fri 11/20/20 Tue 1/19/21

108 5200 Final Documentation Wed 12/2/20 Sat 1/30/21

109 5300 Project Complete Sun 1/31/21 Sun 1/31/21

1/1

1/31

M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Figure C.2-1 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 13212, Project Schedule

Page 2

FINAL LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT D

Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 D-1 April 2016

EXHIBIT D: PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING


Alaska Electric and Energy Cooperative, Inc. (AEEC) provides wholesale power supplies to Homer Electric Association (HEA). AEEC is wholly-owned by HEA. HEA is the sole distribution cooperative that is served by AEEC. Kenai Hydro, LLC (KHL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of AEEC, is filing this Final License Application (FLA) for an original license for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212 [Project or Grant Lake Project]) under Part I of the Federal Power Act. Exhibit D of this FLA is a statement of costs and financing for the construction and operation of the Grant Lake Project, including estimated costs of new construction, modification, or repair; estimated annual costs of the Project; the value of the Project power; and identification of the sources and extent of financing. Because no portion of the proposed Project consists of previously constructed, unlicensed water power structures or facilities, or because KHL is not applying for a new license related to an existing project, 18 CFR §4.41(2) and (3), respectively, do not apply (see below).

2 Original Costs

The regulation 18 CFR §4.41(e)(2) does not apply to the Project because no portion of the proposed Project consists of previously constructed, unlicensed water power structures or facilities. Costs associated with the proposed new construction are summarized in Section 4 of this Exhibit D.

3 Estimate of the Amount Payable if the Project were to be Taken Over Pursuant to Section 14 of the Federal Power Act

The regulation 18 CFR §4.41(e)(3) states that if the applicant is a licensee applying for a new license, and is not a municipality or a state, an estimate of the amount which would be payable if the project were to be taken over pursuant to Section 14 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) 16 U.S.C. 807 upon expiration of the license in effect must be provided. Given that KHL is not applying for a new license, but rather an original one, this section does not apply.

4 New Construction Costs

KHL would not need to purchase any lands. The Project would occupy lands of the State of Alaska and U.S. Forest Service (USFS). KHL would discuss the terms of lease agreements with these entities once a license to construct the Project has been granted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). KHL has applied for water rights on Grant Lake with a priority date of April 2009. There was a $900 application fee associated with the application process; however, there are no fees associated with the water used in hydroelectric generation because it is not classified as a consumptive use.



Estimated costs for construction of major Project works for the Grant Lake Project are summarized in Table D.4-1. It is expected that land rights would need to be acquired for construction of the Project, but the extent and cost of these land rights is unknown at this time. Table D.4-1. Summary of estimated costs associated with construction of major Project works. (All costs in 2015 dollars.)

Project Component Total Capital Cost

Final Engineering $3,548,601

Overhead $447,927

Construction

General Conditions $4,709,000

Mobilization/Demobilization $1,400,000

Project Access $2,490,000

Tunnel and Bypass Boring $15,116,000

Steel Penstock $769,000

Intake Structure $3,919,000

Powerhouse and Switchyard Site Civil $249,000

Powerhouse $3,886,000

Detention Pond $342,000

Substation/Switchyard $384,000

Electrical $3,405,000

Transmission Line $1,105,000

Turbine/Generator Equipment $4,974,000

Construction Supervision and Administration $4,175,200

Owner Administration $300,000

Interest During Construction $855,000

Subtotal Construction Costs $48,078,200

Anticipated Total Project Cost $52,074,728 In developing the budget estimates for final engineering and construction, the recent hands-on experience KHL’s engineering and construction consultant (McMillen Jacobs Associates) gained at the Allison Creek and Blue Lake Hydroelectric projects was used as the foundation for developing the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project cost estimates. The thorough understanding gained from these projects of the environmental, regulatory, and FERC requirements for the design and construction of a hydroelectric project in Alaska were applied to ensure a comprehensive and representative Project cost. The site-specific challenges for construction at the Project were then incorporated into the estimate. These included the integration of site-



specific environmental conditions/impacts, establishing access, short construction windows, challenging weather conditions, and manpower/equipment acquisition. Specific assumptions and sources used in developing the estimate include the following:

• Equipment costs for the turbine/generator equipment were obtained from manufacturers for the proposed two-unit powerhouse configuration. Quotes assumed a water to wire package, which included all required mechanical and electrical equipment for the powerhouse. These budget estimates were then compared to other similarly constructed projects to ensure consistency.

• Tunnel costs were based on the actual completed production rates for the Allison Creek and Blue Lake tunnels. The estimate included both the linear foot cost as well as cubic yard cost to determine average cost per linear foot. Rock projected at Grant Lake is similar to that found at Allison.

• Transmission line costs were based on actual bids received for Allison Creek, which were then adjusted to account for easier access for the line construction, as compared to the Allison line where access had to be constructed.

• Powerhouse costs were developed based on a developed footprint of the powerhouse and unit costs developed for similar projects for concrete placement, powerhouse building, etc. The Allison Creek project provided a solid basis for production rates such as concrete placement, excavation, and building costs including electrical and balance of plant.

• General conditions and mobilization/demobilization costs were based on actual costs from the Allison and Blue Lake projects for equipment and material shipment from Seattle via barge. Housing and administrative costs were developed reflecting the short summer construction season and limited housing availability near the Project site.

• Engineering costs to complete final field investigations and prepare construction plans and specifications were developed based on a detailed scope and labor breakdown to reflect the Project. Specifically, the engineering level of detail and documentation to meet FERC expectations was incorporated into the estimate.

• Construction administration and supervision costs for the Allison Creek and Blue Lake projects were reviewed and taken into consideration when developing these site-specific costs for the Grant Lake Project. Staffing levels were developed to provide a FERC-mandated level of oversight in the field.

These costs are reflective of an imbedded contingency of approximately 15 percent.

5 Average Annual Costs

When the annualized capital costs identified in Table D.4-1, at an interest rate of 3 percent and a term of 50 years ($2,012,027), are summed with the annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs identified in Table D.5-1, the annualized costs for the construction, operation, and



maintenance of the Project totals $2,179,561 in 2015 dollars, resulting in an average cost of $117.18/megawatt hour (MWh). Costs associated with proposed protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures (both capital and O&M) are provided in Section 5.5. 5.1. Cost of Capital

The cost of capital is estimated at 3.0 to 4.65 percent and assumes a 50-year financing term. For every 100 basis point reduction (1 percent) the Project cost is estimated to reduce by 1.4¢ per kilowatt-hour (kWh). KHL intends to apply for low cost financing as available. As of March 1, 2015, KHL has received $2,100,000 in state grants. For every $1,000,000 in grant funds received, the Project cost is reduced 0.3¢ per kWh. In the future, KHL will be applying for any grant funds eligible for the Project. 5.2. Local, State, and Federal Taxes

HEA pays an Electric Cooperative Tax through the State of Alaska based on the amount of kilowatt-hours sold each year. This Project would not increase kilowatt-hours sold, therefore having no tax impact. As a non-profit corporation, AEEC is exempt from federal and state income taxes under the provisions of Section 501(c)(12) of the Internal Revenue Code. 5.3. Depreciation and Amortization

Depreciation rates are applied on a straight-line basis. The industry average annual depreciation rate applied to hydroelectric facilities is 2 percent, which equates to a 50-year life of the facilities. The annual depreciation expense is estimated at $1,041,495 per year. 5.4. Operations & Maintenance Expenses

Annual O&M expenses would be minimized by the use of existing HEA personnel, facilities, equipment, and tooling. Annual O&M costs are estimated at $167,534. Table D.5-1 summarizes these costs. Table D.5-1. Annual operation and maintenance costs.

O&M Item Cost Operations $22,000 Administrative & General $10,000 Insurance $50,000 Land Lease Fees $55,534 Interim Replacements $30,000 Total O&M Cost $167,534



The facility would be remotely operated and monitored from the existing HEA Dispatch Center, which is manned 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. The site would be visited monthly for inspection, and planned and unplanned maintenance by HEA’s existing roving O&M crew that currently maintains and operates HEA’s backup thermal generation plants in Nikiski, Soldotna, and Seldovia, Alaska. It is fully recognized that anomalous conditions associated with equipment malfunction, natural conditions, or a combination may dictate additional visits that would be sporadic and undefinable from a schedule perspective. Those visits would occur immediately upon the issue being identified. Existing personnel would provide the labor needed to operate and maintain the facility. Existing company vehicles, tooling, and equipment currently utilized by the roving operations and maintenance crew would be utilized to conduct onsite work. The Project would occupy 1,668.7 acres of federal lands; therefore, it is anticipated that an annual land use fee would be assessed by the FERC. The estimate provided in Table D.5-1 is based upon 2015 FERC fees for the Kenai Peninsula. 5.5. Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement (PM&E) Expenses

Costs associated with the proposed PM&E measures are summarized by resource area in Table D.5-2 and detailed by individual measure in Attachment D-1. Table D.5-2. Summary of estimated costs associated with KHL’s PM&E proposal (All costs in 2015 dollars).

Component Estimated

Capital Annualized

O&M Annualized

Cost 1 Overall Project Compliance NA $21,400 $21,400 Geological and Soil Resources NA NA NA Water Resources NA NA NA Aquatic Resources $20,000 $6,940 $7,340 Terrestrial Resources NA $3,460 $3,460 Recreation, Land Use and Aesthetics Resources $100,000 $900 $2,900 Cultural Resources $10,000 $1,060 $1,260 Socioeconomic Resources NA NA NA

PM&E Measures Total $130,000 $33,760 $36,360 Notes: 1 Annualized values based on a 50-year license term.

6 Value of Project Power

6.1. Contingency Spinning Reserve

The contingency spinning reserve capacity that the Project provides is a valuable ancillary asset to HEA. Using the methods described in the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL)



report on the “Fundamental Drivers of the Cost and Price of Operating Reserves”, HEA calculated the value of spin at $11.77/MWh. This value is calculated by determining the difference in cost between operating HEA’s most efficient unit at a level that could provide the necessary spin and operating two optimized thermal units in order to cover spin. The two-unit configuration is what would be required if the distributed load increased beyond the point in which the one most efficient unit could adequately provide the necessary spinning reserves. The $11.77/MWh value is higher than the 2011 range of $2.80 to $7.40/MWh reported in the 2013 NREL Report for lower 48 spin values. However, the cost of natural gas, which is the primary driver for spinning reserve costs, in the lower 48 at the time of the calculation averaged between $4.40 and $5.43/MMBtu, while HEA’s is currently paying between $7.1378 and $7.3182/delivered MMBtu. Additionally, there is no formal energy market for the interconnected South-Central Alaskan electric utilities (“Railbelt Grid”) and therefore no means of reliably purchasing spinning reserve. To estimate the annual value of the contingency spinning reserve, a model was developed to determine the amount of spin that the Project would produce. A summary of those results appears in Table D.6-1. Using the average value of 730 hours per month, the Project would produce between 8,322 and 14,559 MWh/year of spin capacity. Based upon HEA’s historical load data, the value of the system demand plus the operating reserve plus the contingency spin exceeded the capacity of the most efficient unit 41 percent of the time. Applying this percentage to the spin capacity and the calculated spin value results in an estimated annual value of contingency spin in the range of $40,159 to $70,257 in 2015 dollars. Table D.6-1. Contingency spinning reserve.

Available spinning reserve for the Project was determined by calculating the additional available generation of a unit that is already in operation, or spinning, for the daily flow and lake elevation.

Month

Avg Output - Unit 1 Lead

(kW)

Total Generation - Unit 1 Lead

(kWh)

Avg Spinning Res - Unit 1

(kW)

Avg Output - Load Share

(kW)

Total Generation - Load Share

(kWh)

Avg Spinning Res - Load Share (kW)

January 1062 789,918 1431 1062 789,918 1431February 821 551,829 1672 821 551,829 1672

March 597 444,523 1896 597 444,523 1896April 661 476,072 1832 661 476,072 1832May 1903 1,415,812 751 1513 1,125,711 3071June 3360 2,419,164 878 3373 2,428,809 1613July 4720 3,509,972 266 4719 3,510,733 267

August 4738 3,524,932 248 4751 3,534,680 235September 4761 3,428,026 225 4783 3,443,745 203

October 2791 2,076,283 828 2749 2,064,976 2237November 2188 1,575,264 305 1611 1,159,684 3375December 1421 1,057,574 1072 1107 823,912 2109

Annual 2419 21,269,369 950 2312 20,354,594 1662

Unit 1 Lead Unit Load Sharing Between Units 1 and 2



The available flow and head for each day was calculated by the primary project generation model for an average year. In order to qualify as available spinning reserve, the additional generation would only need to occur for a period of 15 minutes. During this period, the detention pond adjacent to the powerhouse would be filled and the water retained. Once the spinning reserve period was completed, the stored water within the detention pond would then be metered into the tailrace such to stay within the tailrace ramping rates. Due to the short duration in which the additional flow would be required for spinning reserve, minimal effect would result on the Project’s hydrology or result in changes to the Project operation. However, if numerous spinning reserve cycles were requested during lake drafting periods, the availability of the units for spinning reserve would need to be evaluated at that current time. During periods in which the facility was operating at or near peak generating capacity, no spinning reserve would be available. As previously stated, the model examined two operating conditions, one with equal load sharing between the two units and one with a traditional lead unit operation. The differences of these configurations, in terms of available spinning reserve, can be seen in Table D.6-1. While the traditional lead unit configuration provides additional generation due to operating at higher unit efficiencies, the load sharing approach would yield significantly more spinning reserve availability. 6.2. Estimated Average Annual Value of Power

HEA’s 2015 blended cost of power1 was $124.43/MWh. Total average energy output from the Project is projected to be 18,600 MWhs (see Exhibit B, Section 3.3 of this FLA). At HEA’s blended cost of power the generation from the Project is valued at$2,314,398. If the benefit of the spinning reserve capacity ($40,159, low estimate), identified in Section 6.1, is added in, the estimated average annual value of the power would be $2,354,557, based on 2015 dollars. With annualized costs for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project totaling $2,179,561 in 2015 dollars, this represents a cost savings of $134,837 per year in 2015 dollars. That calculated annual savings would continue to escalate as the cost to produce thermally generated power continues to increase as a result of the escalating Cook Inlet natural gas cost. As noted above, this does not include the cost of proposed PM&E measures. To assist in evaluating renewable energy grant applications, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) developed a model to complete a cost benefit analysis of renewable energy projects. The model is region-specific in order to determine the fuel type that the proposed project would offset. The Kenai Peninsula falls within the “Railbelt” south region, which utilizes natural gas as the offset fuel. The natural gas price projections utilized in the model were provided by the Alaska Center for Energy and Power. The model incorporates a carbon pricing mechanism and models the proposed renewable energy against the alternative fossil fuel generation taken into account, avoided generation costs, O&M costs, and fuel use costs. When the values from Table D.4-1 at a

1 The blended cost of power is derived by adding the fuel costs, the generation O&M, and the Bradley Lake hydro power purchases and dividing that by the total KWh generated each month. The monthly results are averaged to produce the blended cost of power.



discount rate of 3 percent and a term of 50 years, with the O&M costs identified in Table D.5-1 are input into the model, the model predicts a Net Present Value (NPV) Benefit for the Project of $63,116,780, a NPV Capital Cost of $49,198,439 with a NPV Net Benefit of $16,742,532, and a benefit to cost ratio of 1.28, which are exclusive of the spin benefit that the Project provides. None of these estimated and modeled values account for the potential grant funds and Legislative appropriations mentioned in Section 10. As noted in Section 5.1, for every $1,000,000 in grant funds or Legislative (State) appropriations received, the Project’s cost of power is reduced by 0.3¢ per kWh. The incremental cost of energy for the Project drops dramatically following the payoff of debt service in the initial 50 years. The incremental cost post year 50 drops to about $17/MWh.

7 On-peak and Off-peak Values of Project Power

There is no formal energy market for the interconnected South-Central Alaskan electric utilities (“Railbelt Grid”) and therefore no on-peak and off-peak power values. However, HEA’s load does fluctuate between day and night and seasonally as well. The power generated by the Project would be dispatched as a part of the entire HEA generation system. The Project generation would be pooled with other HEA generation resources and shared among retail and wholesale purchasers. As with all generation resources available to HEA, the Project would be dispatched economically to minimize total generation costs while meeting licensing requirements, reliability requirements, and contractual service obligations. KHL’s objective in operating the Project is to optimize HEA’s ability to meet load throughout the integrated system, balancing its hydro and thermal energy sources. Within the constraints of the licensed operating levels, KHL would operate the Project in the temporal mode most advantageous to the system.

8 Alternative Energy Sources

South-Central Alaska has benefited from a surplus of natural gas discovered primarily in the 1960s as a byproduct of oil exploration in the Cook Inlet area. As a result of abundant and affordable natural gas, the heating and electrical infrastructure for South-Central Alaska was developed around this resource. Approximately 90 percent of the electrical needs of South-Central Alaska are met with natural gas-fired turbines. However, gas production has dropped considerably since 2002 with a decline in annual production of 210 billion cubic feet (Bcf) to 103 Bcf in 2012. As a consequence of this precipitous production decline, the price of natural gas has gone from $2.50 to over $6.00/thousand cubic feet (Mcf) in that same time period. The current cost of gas in the region was about $6.90/Mcf in 2015, with the cost as high as $9.25/Mcf for contracted gas in 2019. The Alaska Division of Oil and Gas estimates that there are still proven and conventionally recoverable gas reserves in the Cook Inlet Region. Additionally, Alaska continues to work on ways to get North Slope gas to South-Central Alaska, but none of the potential solutions indicate a shrinking natural gas price for the region. HEA, like the rest of the electric utilities, will continue to generate a majority of its electricity from natural gas. That said, HEA has a strong



desire to diversify its energy mix, reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, and develop responsible renewable energy resources. AEEC’s power supply portfolio primarily consists of natural gas-fired generation and some hydroelectric power. The generation facilities are summarized in Table D.8-1. Table D.8-1. HEA generation facilities.

Generation Facility Capacity No Units/Age Nikiski Combined Cycle Plant (Steam/Gas) 80 MW CT 1984, ST 2014 Soldotna Combustion Turbine Plant (Gas) 48 MW 2014 Bernice Lake Combustion Turbine (Gas) 80 MW 3 Units 1971, 1978, 1981 Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project (hydro) 14 MW 1991 AEEC’s gas-fired generation makes up 91 percent of its current generation portfolio, strongly influences HEA’s rates, and is subject to significant price volatility. AEEC is seeking to diversify its generation portfolio. Part of this diversification is to develop renewable generation. The proposed Grant Lake Project would represent approximately 4 percent of HEA’s energy needs, and would represent a 45 percent increase in its renewable energy portfolio.

9 Consequence of License Application Denial

Denial of the license application for the Grant Lake Project would mean that the Project could not be constructed as proposed by KHL. This would mean a continued reliance on an increasingly scarce and expensive Cook Inlet (Alaska) natural gas supply. Denial of the license application would result in the continued release of approximately 10,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually to produce the equivalent amount of carbon-based energy. Denial of the license application would be a significant setback in AEEC’s and HEA’s goal of generating 22 percent of its power from renewable energy resources. It would also result in a setback to the State of Alaska’s renewable energy goal of 50 percent renewable energy by 2025. Denial of the license application would mean the loss of approximately $5,500,000 to AEEC ($3,400,000) and the State of Alaska ($2,100,000) in funds associated with the development of the Project. Lastly, it would mean that this low impact hydroelectric resource would remain undeveloped and of no benefit to the citizens of the State of Alaska.

10 Sources and Extent of Financing

KHL intends to utilize available grant funds, Legislative appropriations, and long-term, low-interest financing for the Project. KHL intends to apply for $4 million in grant funding through



AEA’s Renewable Energy Fund program, which limits individual project construction funding to $4 million. Additionally, KHL anticipates exploring other grant opportunities. The State of Alaska has historically supported the construction of hydroelectric projects by non-profit entities in the state through various levels of Legislative appropriations. KHL, through HEA, would explore this option. Any capital costs not covered by grant or Legislative appropriations would be financed through long-term, low-interest loans. AEEC has recently worked with both the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation (CFC) to secure low-interest loans for generation projects. Annual revenues received from the sale of energy on the HEA system would be used to repay the debt service as well as the ongoing operations and maintenance fees.

11 Cost to Develop the License Application

KHL has received $2,100,000 in AEA renewable energy grant funds for Project development. KHL has spent $3,400,000 of additional funds to develop the license application for a total estimated license application expense of $5,500,000.





Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC FERC No. 13212 April 2016

Attachment D-1. Summary of Estimated Costs Associated

with Proposed PM&E Measures



Summary of Estimates Costs Associated with Proposed PM&E Measures2,3

Capital O&M

Proposed PM&E Estimated Cost

Annualized Cost

Estimated Cost Frequency Annualized

Cost

Total Annualized

Cost

OVERALL PROJECT COMPLIANCE

• Designate an Environmental Compliance Monitor (ECM) NA NA NA One time NA NA

• Develop Annual Compliance Report

o Summary of compliance activities for the previous year

NA NA $12k Annually $12k $12k

o Annual stakeholder meeting presenting results NA NA $12k Annually (as deemed appropriate)4 $4.3k $4.3k

• Develop and implement a Fire Prevention Plan (FPP) NA NA Develop: $5k

Implement: $5k

Develop: One time

Implement: Ongoing

Develop: $100

Implement: $5k

Develop: $100

Implement: $5k

Overall Project Compliance Total NA NA - $21.4k $21.4k

GEOLOGICAL AND SOIL RESOURCES

• Develop and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) that includes measures to minimize erosion and sediment deposition during construction

NA NA NA5

NA5

Develop: One time

Implement: During Construction

NA

NA

NA

NA

2 All costs are in 2015 dollars. 3 Annualized values based on a 50-year license term. 4 Assume annually first 10 years, then on average every 5 years for duration of license (years 11-50). 5 Included in the Cost of Construction table (Table D.4-1).



Capital O&M


Annualized Cost


Cost

Total Annualized

Cost

• Develop and implement a Hazardous Materials Containment/Fuel Storage Plan that includes measures to contain all hazardous materials utilized during construction and operational activities

NA NA NA5

NA56

Develop: One time

Implement: Ongoing

NA

NA

NA

NA

• Develop and implement a Spill Prevention, Control and Containment Plan (SPCCP) that includes measures to minimize the potential for hazardous material spillage and methods for immediate, local containment should a spill occur

NA NA NA5

NA56

Develop: One time

Implement: Ongoing

NA

NA

NA

NA

• Restore areas to natural condition that have been utilized for temporary construction and infrastructure development

NA NA NA5 One time NA NA

Geological and Soil Resources Total NA NA NA56 NA NA

WATER RESOURCES

• Implement an Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan (OCMP). Components of the plan include:

o Continue monitoring and maintenance of existing Grant Creek stream gauge and confirm appropriate flow levels into the bypass reach

NA NA NA6

NA6

Monitor: Ongoing

Maintenance: Annual

NA

NA

NA

NA

o Monitor lake level and compare Grant Lake and Grant Creek water temperatures to confirm consistency

NA NA NA6 Ongoing NA NA

Water Resources Total NA NA NA6 NA NA

6 Included in Annual O&M cost in Table D.5-1.



Capital O&M


Annualized Cost


Cost

Total Annualized

Cost

AQUATIC RESOURCES

• Implement a Biotic Monitoring Plan. Components of the plan include:

o Biotic monitoring during construction

Juvenile salmonid investigations NA NA $25k Ongoing during year 1 of construction $500 $500

Adult salmonid investigations NA NA $25k Ongoing during year 1 of construction $500 $500

o Biotic monitoring during operations

Juvenile salmonid investigations NA NA $50k During years 2 and 5 of operations $2k $2k

Adult salmonid investigations NA NA $25k During years 2 and 5 of operations $1k $1k

• Biological monitoring for enhancement/mitigation measures

o Implement and maintain agreed upon bypass reach (Reach 5) flows during operation

NA NA NA7 Ongoing NA NA

Enhance flows in “Reach 2/3” side channels NA NA NA7 Ongoing NA NA

Additional flow in “Reach 1” distributary NA NA NA7 Ongoing NA NA

• Collaboratively develop plan NA NA $10k One time $200 $200

• Removal of upstream control at the head of the Reach 1 distributary

• Monitor habitat improvements

• Maintain habitat improvements

$20k

NA

NA

$400

NA

NA

NA

$15k

$5k

NA

During years 2 and 5 of operations

Conditional (every 5 years on average)

NA

$600

$1k

$400

$600

$1k

7 Integrated into the proposed operational regime.



Capital O&M


Annualized Cost


Cost

Total Annualized

Cost

Assessment of need for augmentation

• Conduct pebble counts and bulk sampling in the Grant Creek mainstem and Reach 1 distributary

NA NA $15k During year 1 of construction and years 5 and 10 of operations

$900 $900

• Coordinate with stakeholders to determine need for gravel augmentation in Grant Creek mainstream

NA NA $5k During years 2 and 5 post-construction $200 $200

• Coordinate with stakeholders to determine need for gravel augmentation in the Grant Creek mainstem

NA NA $2k After year 10 of operations survey $40 $40

• Gravel augmentation as deemed necessary in Grant Creek mainstem and/or Reach 1 distributary

NA NA TBD TBD (if needed)

TBD (if needed)

TBD (if needed)

Aquatic Resources Total $20k $400 - $6.94k $7.34k

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

• Implement a Vegetation Management Plan. Components of the plan include:

o Invasive plant management and control NA NA $20k First growing season after construction completion and 5 post-construction

$800 $800

o Revegetation NA NA NA5 Next growing season after construction completion

NA NA

o Vegetation maintenance NA NA $5k Prior to construction and every 8 to 10 years during the license term

$700 $700

o General sensitive plant species protection and monitoring

NA NA NA If needed prior to ground disturbing activities on USFS lands associated with

Project construction

NA NA

o Pale poppy population management NA NA $3k Years 1 and 5 after license issuance $120 $120



Capital O&M


Annualized Cost


Cost

Total Annualized

Cost

• Implement an Avian Protection Plan. Components of the plan include:

o Migratory species

Risk assessment of activity and timeline NA NA NA5 One time prior to construction commencing NA NA

Plan of construction and operation timeline NA NA NA56 Prior to each construction season commencing and as needed during

operations

NA NA

o Measures taken based on Project operations

Pre-vegetation removal surveys during nesting/breeding season

Measures undertaken for active bird nests

Powerlines and infrastructure design

o Powerline and infrastructural monitoring methodology

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

$10k

NA5

NA5

$12k

Prior to each construction season and as needed during operations as it coincides

with breeding/nesting season

Immediately after the pre-vegetation surveys associated with construction if an

active nest is documented

During final design and construction phases of the Project

Four times annually (seasonal) during years 1 and 5 of operations

$400

NA

NA

$240

$400

NA

NA

$240



Capital O&M


Annualized Cost


Cost

Total Annualized

Cost

• Bald eagles o Risk assessment of activity timeline

o Plan of construction

o Measures taken based on Project actions

Bald eagle monitoring methods

Vegetation removal associated with Project operation

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

$4k

NA5

$9k

NA7

Prior to first year construction efforts

commencing

Prior to first year construction efforts commencing

Three times each construction season during the nesting period

As needed during Project operations

$80

NA7

$180

NA

$80

NA7

$180

NA

• Risk assessment of activity and timeline NA NA $5k Prior to first year construction efforts commencing

$100 $100

• Nest detection and monitoring associated with construction

NA NA $20k Three times during the nesting season per construction year

$800 $800

o Nest detection and monitoring associated with operations

NA NA $2k As needed per Directive 503 $40 $40

Terrestrial Resources Total NA NA - NA $3.46k $3.46k



Capital O&M


Annualized Cost


Cost

Total Annualized

Cost

RECREATION, LAND USE, AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES

• Iditarod National Historic Trail re-route

o Draft INHTRP and consult with stakeholders

o Modify existing easements

o Confirm transfer of ownership of easements to USFS

o Confirm re-route specifics and finalize plan with USFS

• INHT construction through the Project area

NA

NA

NA

NA

$100k

NA

NA

NA

NA

$2k

$30k

NA5

NA5

$15k

NA

One time

One time

One time

One time

NA

$600

NA

NA

$300

NA

$600

NA

NA

$300

$2k

Recreation/Land Use/Aesthetics Resources Total $100k $2k - NA $900 $2.9k

CULTURAL RESOURCES

• Implement an Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP).

o Evaluation/revisions to existing HPMP

o Interpretive sign placement

o Monitor and maintain signs

o Monitor Solars Sawmill and Case Mine District sites

NA

$10k

NA

NA

NA

$200

NA

NA

$3k

NA

$1k

$1k

Within 6 months of license issuance and every 5 years during the license term

NA Once every 5 year upon commencement of

operations

Once every 5 year upon commencement of operations

$660

NA

$200

$200

$660

$200

$200

$200

Cultural Resources Total $10k $200 - NA $1.06k $1.26k

SOCIOECONOMICS – NO MEASURES PROPOSED

Grand Total $130k $2.6k - $33.76k $36.36k


