The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGrant Lake Falls Creek PAD Comments 2010Kenai Hydro, LLC 2525 C Street, Suite 500 Anchorage, AK 99503 February 8, 2010 Ms. Kimberly Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE Washington, DC 20426 FILED ELECTRONICALLY Subject: Summary of comments received on the PAD and proposed studies for the Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project (FERC Project No. 13212/13211) Dear Secretary Bose, On August 6, 2009, Kenai Hydro, LLC (KHL) submitted its Pre-Ann 1 ;~-~· m Document (PAD) and Notice oflntent to file a License Aonlil'!:l~~-L' :reek Hydroelectric Project. The Commission a1 :>cess, with early scoping, on September 15, 21 ~ 1/ _.. •int Meeting to discuss the proposed Grant L / V es, and Tribes on November 12, 2009 in Sewar. r comment period on ~~~~~~~ ~~~ resource agency representativt j I u J' lptured in the transcript of the meeting filed · ~-.utK ~ A summary of the potential res f .Y . taking into consideration existing informat ~ived at public meetings is included as Attach• ration consultation with an Instream Flow Technica tseline study report results from 2009 work, a oped by KHL as the next step in the Traditional L •jtted to establishing resource specific wo ~ntified issue areas. In response to requests received a\. u1t: November 12, 2009 meeting, KHL held an additional public meeting in the community of Moose Pass on January 13,2010. KHL shared the materials presented at the November Joint Meeting and accepted additional public comment on the proposed studies. A summary of questions and comments received, a copy of the sign-in sheet, and the presentation from the January 13 meeting in Moose Pass are included with this letter (Attachment B). KHL also met with and provided a summary of Project information and study issues to the Kenai-Soldotna Alaska Department of Fish and Game Advisory Committee Meeting on January 11,2010 and the Kenai River Special Management Area Board Meeting on January 14,2010. In response to KHL's PAD and proposed study issues, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska Center for the Environment, the Resurrection Bay Conservation Alliance, Friends of Cooper Landing, Mike Cooney, the Aigeldnger Family, Adrienne Meretti, Marion Glaser, and William Brennan have provided comments to KHL on the Project proposal, and filed these comments directly with the Commission. In addition, KHL received comments and additional February 8, 2010 Ms. Kimberly Bose, Secretary Kenai Hydro, LLC 2525 C Street, Suite 500 Anchorage, AK 99503 FILED ELECTRONICALLY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE Washington, DC 20426 Subject: Summary of comments received on the PAD and proposed studies for the Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project (FERC Project No. 13212/13211) Dear Secretary Bose, On August 6, 2009, Kenai Hydro, LLC (KHL) submitted its Pre-Application Document (PAD) and Notice oflntent to file a License Application for the Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project. The Commission approved the use of the Traditional Licensing Process, with early scoping, on September 15, 2009. Pursuant to 18 CFR §4.38, KHL held a Joint Meeting to discuss the proposed Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project with the public, agencies, and Tribes on November 12, 2009 in Seward, Alaska. The Joint Meeting initiated a 60-day comment period on the PAD and proposed studies for the licensing process. The meeting was attended by local resource agency representatives and the public, and comments received are captured in the transcript of the meeting filed with the Commission on December 4, 2009. A summary of the potential resource issues that have been identified by KHL taking into consideration existing information summarized in the PAD and comments received at public meetings is included as Attachment A. This issues list also takes into consideration consultation with an Instream Flow Technical work group and fisheries and water quality baseline study report results from 2009 work, and will inform the draft study plans to be developed by KHL as the next step in the Traditional Licensing Process consultation. KHL has committed to establishing resource specific work groups to review draft study plans for the identified issue areas. In response to requests received at the November 12, 2009 meeting, KHL held an additional public meeting in the community of Moose Pass on January 13,2010. KHL shared the materials presented at the November Joint Meeting and accepted additional public comment on the proposed studies. A summary of questions and comments received, a copy of the sign-in sheet, and the presentation from the January 13 meeting in Moose Pass are included with this letter (Attachment B). KHL also met with and provided a summary of Project information and study issues to the Kenai-Soldotna Alaska Department of Fish and Game Advisory Committee Meeting on January II, 20 I 0 and the Kenai River Special Management Area Board Meeting on January 14,2010. In response to KHL's PAD and proposed study issues, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska Center for the Environment, the Resurrection Bay Conservation Alliance, Friends of Cooper Landing, Mike Cooney, the Aigeldnger Family, Adrienne Meretti, Marion Glaser, and William Brennan have provided comments to KHL on the Project proposal, and filed these comments directly with the Commission. In addition, KHL received comments and additional information on the proposed Project area from the City of Seward, William Coulson, Brita Mjos, Bruce Jaffa, and Irene Lindquist. Copies of the comments provided to KHL that have not been filed with the Commission are included with this letter (Attachment C). At this time, KHL is suspending major activities to consider how best to proceed with its schedule and scope of work given its financial constraints and reorganization. KHL will continue to keep the Commission apprised of its plans, progress and timeline for developing draft study plans, so that the Commission may plan and schedule its early scoping meeting. If you have questions about this filing, please contact Brad Zubeck, Kenai Hydro (907.335.6204, bzubeckraihomerelectric.com). Sincerely, lsi Brad Zubeck Brad Zubeck Project Engineer Kenai Hydro, LLC Enclosures Attachment A Potential Resource Impacts-Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project (FERC No. 13211/13212) Geology and Soils • Impact of Project construction and operation on possible erosion and sedimentation in the zone above normal full pool in Grant Lake. • Impact of Project operation (changes in Grant Lake levels) on the Inlet Creek delta. • Impact of Project construction on sediment releases into Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek, Trail Lake and Trail Creek. • Impact of Project road and transmission line construction and operation on erosion in the Project area. Water Resources • Impact of Project construction and operation (lake level fluctuations, changes in flow) on Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek water quality, hydrology, and water temperature. • Impact of Project construction and operation on water quality, hydrology, and ice conditions of Lower Trail Lake and Trail Creek. • Impact of Project operation (changes in flows) on domestic water use in Falls Creek. Fish and Aquatic Resources • Impact of Project operation on sediment transport (relative to the availability of spawning gravels) due to changes in flow in Grant Creek. • Impact of Project operation (fluctuating flows in Grant Lake, changes in seasonal flow on Grant and Falls Creek, reduced flows between the dam and powerhouse on Grant Creek, reduced flows below the Falls Creek diversion) on fish abundance and distribution • Impact of Project construction and operation on biological productivity and abundance of fish food organisms in Grant Creek and Grant Lake. • Impact of Project intake structure operation on fish populations. • Impact of Project construction on fish habitat in Grant Creek. • Impact of Project facilities (increased access) on fish populations due to potential increased recreational fishing. • Impact of Project construction and operation on commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries supported by the Kenai River watershed. Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project FERC No. 13211/13212 Page 1 Kenai Hydro, LLC February 8, 2010 Botanical, Wildlife, and Wetland Resources • Impact of Project studies, construction and operation (including potential disturbance to wildlife) on wildlife distribution and abundance. • Impact of Project construction and operation on wildlife during critical life stages. • Impact of Project construction and operation (lake level fluctuations) on Grant Lake shoreline vegetation and/or habitats used by wildlife species. • Impact of Project construction and operation (lake level fluctuations, Project roads and facilities) on distribution and abundance of invasive plant species • Impact of Project construction and operation (lake level fluctuations, Project facilities) on distribution and abundance of rare plant species. • Impact of Project operation on abundance and distribution of fish used by wildlife species. • Impact of Project construction and operation on breeding and rearing habitat and nesting success of waterbirds in Grant Lake and Inlet Creek. • Impact of Project construction and operation (lake level fluctuations, hydrologic changes in Grant and Falls Creek, road and facilities construction and maintenance) on wetland, forest/scrub, riparian, and littoral habitats on Grant Lake (including at Inlet Creek), Grant Creek, and Falls Creek. • Impact of Project construction and operation on wildlife use of wetland, riparian, and littoral habitats. • Impact of Project operation on littoral habitats at the narrows between Upper and Lower Trail Lakes. • Impact of Project construction and operation on wildlife movement across the bench between Grant Lake and Trail Lake. • Impact of Project transmission lines on bird populations (potential collision deaths). Quality of Life, Recreation, Land Use, and Visual Resources • Impacts of Project construction and operation on distribution of local and tourist recreational use, access, and experience on Grant Lake, Grant Creek, V agt Lake, and Falls Creek. • Impacts of Project construction and operation on the distribution and abundance of fish and wildlife for anglers and hunters. • Impacts of Project construction and operation (including facilities) on visual quality in the area. Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project FERC No. 13211/13212 Page2 Kenai Hydro, LLC February 8, 2010 • Impacts of Project roads and transmission line corridors on aesthetic and visual resources (including impacts on Scenic Byway viewpoints and views from existing recreational trails and use areas). • Impacts of Project construction and operation on local and regional recreation resources. • Impacts of Project facilities and operation (including road access, safety, and use) on local residential land use on Grant Creek and Falls Creek. • Impact of Project construction and operation on quality of life characteristics of the area (i.e., noise, changed access to remote area, light pollution). • Socioeconomic overview of potential effects of Project construction and operation on the area economy. Cultural Resources • Impacts of Project construction and operation (including changes in flows and lake level fluctuation and potential for increased recreational use and access in the area) on cultural resources in the Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek area. • Assessment of existing subsistence use, and impacts of Project construction and operation on subsistence use in the area. Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project FERC No. 13211/13212 Page 3 Kenai Hydro, LLC February 8, 2010 Attachment B-Materials from January 13, 2010 Meeting in Moose Pass, Alaska • Summary of Issues • Power Point Presentation • Sign-In Sheet KHL Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydro Project Public Meeting, Moose Pass Community Center, Moose Pass, Alaska 1-13-10 1. Transmission Line underground option? Consider an underground transmission line between the powerhouse and the grid intertie. 2. Visual-aesthetic study. 3. Will an in-stream flow study be performed for Falls Creek? 4. When will comments/issues be addressed? 5. Will there be follow-up studies, assuming the project is constructed, that will verify study impacts or predicted results/trends? 6. Will the studies or project address Kenai River Special Management Restrictions? Fish, Aquatics & Water Resources 7. What affect will the project have on Vagt Lake? 8. What affect will the project have on water temperature, changes? 9. Water quantity study out of Grant Lake/Falls Creek? (i.e., how much does Grant Creek contribute to the water flowing out of Lower Trail Lake?) 10. Who quantifies parameters of flow studies? 11. Concern about Falls Creek resources? 12. What remediation/reclamation would be required if project is decommissioned? 13. Water quality certification -would KHL consider obtaining a 404(??) water quality certification? 14. Relationship of AEA Hydro projects to KHL project? Terrestrial/Plant Resources 15. Will trees be cleared on the banks of Grant Lake due to raising the lake level, what affect will this have? 16. How do you mitigate loss of habitat due to raising level of Grant Lake (e.g., nesting bird habitat in particular)? 17. How will the project affect brown bears (Brown Bear Denning Study)? 18. Are lynx being studies for impact from project? 19. What affects on Ptarmigan (birds)? RecreationaiNisual Resources 20. How will the project affect access by Airplane, ski-planes, hiking? What affect or impact to Grant Lake Portage Trail? 21. How will the project affect the active mining claim on north side of Grant Lake, the "Case" mine and cabin. 22. What affect would project traffic noise have on recreation at Vagt Lake? 23. Value: Public integrity values considered... Residents would like to see scenic integrity values put in terms of local residents. 24. Impact of road construction of Falls Creek residents (e.g., dust, noise, increased traffic, etc)? 25. Studies address local interests in balance with overall project. 26. Look at existing amount of public use in area. 27. Consider giving increased weight to localized interests and opinions. 28. Could the dam structure be designed to look "natural"? Cultural Resources 29. Be aware that a group has received grant monies to designate or recommend sites in the area for a National Heritage Site. The group is call "Community Corridor Association" (see Bruce Jaffa). 30. Look at easements south of Falls Creek. Re-route access south of Falls Creek (rather than the north side of the creek where it is currently proposed). 31. Possibly deal directly with Falls Creek Road residents (i.e., consider individual negotiations with each resident along Falls Creek). 32. Electrical Conservation (i.e., demand-side management) needs to be a priority. Goals for Joint Meeting & Project Progress & Status Project Drivers FERC Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) & Early Scoping Filing Comments with FERC Project Description Resource Area Existing Information and Potential Effects Fish and Aquatic Resources Water Resources Break Terrestrial Resources Visual and Recreation Resources Cultural Resources Wrap-Up and Additional Time for Additional Public Comments Goals for the Meeting CJ ·c- • Summarize Existing Information Review & Identify Study Topics -Studies and information gathering efforts will focus on information needed to assess potential resource impacts of the proposed Project in a license application to FERC Gather Feedback on Identified Study Topics Finalize 2009 Baseline Study Work & Report Receive, Summarize and File Public Comments Schedule beyond tonight is tentative and dependent on obtaining additional funds to implement studies Wind Energy Alaska is in the process of withdrawing from the KHL partnership Project Drivers Diversify HEA's Generation Portfolio Desire to Add Renewable Generation Wind and Hydro-reliable, utility-ready technologies Displaces fossil fuels Reduces carbon emissions Stabilize energy prices, near & long term Why bother with 4.5MW? Hypothetical 2008 Energy Blend with Small Hydro CEA (i.e., Gas), 86% Crescent Lake, 3% Grant Lake, 3% Falls Creek, 1% Benefits of Small Hydro Hydro energy displaces fossil fuels & associated emissions Could displace 1 82,000 to 225,000 Md of gas per year Could save -$760,000 to $1,870,000 (w /gas at $4 to $8/Md) Could offset the equivalent of 12,000 -15,000 tons per year of C02 With Storage (i.e., Ability to fluctuate the lake level) HEA can provide more power when needed during winter months Provide consistent and increased winter stream flows to potentially benefit aquatic life ••• without storage this is not possible Strategic Benefit-When debt is retired, it is the cheapest power available (< $0.05/kWh). Why Moose Pass? Simply, that's where the resource is ••• Bradley Lake Comparison Located at the head of Kachemak Bay near Homer Serves all Railbelt Utilities: Anchorage (CEA, ML&P), Valley (MEA), Fairbanks (GVEA), and the Peninsula (HEA and Seward) Meeting Process and Comments ~~~----------~--~----------------- Please hold questions until the end of each resource segment Please be concise Please focus comments on identifying or clarifying potential issues that should be studied If you have extensive additional existing information on the Project area please submit in writing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has jurisdiction over hydroelectric development, guided by the Federal Power Act FERC outlines detailed licensing processes for applicants to use that include opportunities for agency, tribal, and public input throughout the Project development Kenai Hydro requested, and received authorization from FERC to use the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) with early scoping TLP has three stages of consultation TLP: First Stage Consultation File Notice of Intent and Pre-Application Document (PAD) Augnst 6, 2009 Public and Agency Comments on Use ofthe TLP Augnst 6-September 6, 2009 FE RC approval of request to use TLP Sej)tember 15, 2009 Joint Meeting November 12,2009 Public Comment on Stndy Issues and Available Information November 12, 2009-January 11, 2010 Parties provide comments on study detennination on necessary studies, and additional stndy requests with explanation how the studies and infonnation requested will be useful to the agency, Tnbe, or member of the public in furthering its resource goals and objectives D~•pute Resolution Process Following end of comment period • This is a fonnal step in the TLP regulations for the applicant or other parties to request FERC input if there is disagreement over which studies should be conducted. • FERC has committed to Early Scoping for this Project, so FERC will engage in reviewing the range of issues to be studied whether dispute resolution is requested or not. FERC Early Scoping Timing -Prior to initiation of study program FERC issues Scoping Document 1 and Meeting Notice at least 30-days prior to public meeting date Two meetings to be held (at least one will be held in close proximity to the Pro ject area) An envi r onmental site review w ill be schedu led in coordination with the early scoping meeting 60-day Comment Period follows scoping meeting If necessary, Scoping Document 2 with expanded range of studies to be conducted will be issued by FERC within 45- days follow i ng close of public comment 1-- TLP Second Stage Consultation (Tentative Schedule) KHL Flies Summary Respoue to Co..._•ts on SC.dy Requests KHL lnun Draft Shldy Plans for Acency and PubUc Review Public Workgroup Meedq(s) to dlscun 2010 draft stady piau KHL Issues final mdy pJ .. s January 2010 February -March 20 I 0 March -April 20 I 0 May2010 Conduct studies per stady plans and provide updates to workgrOtlps May 2010 -January 2011 Couultadon wltb worqroups reprdiJt& development of Draft License AppUcatlon Flle Draft Llcease Applkatlon • Includes study results to date • Include response to study requests received at Joint Meeting Publk Comment Period on Draft Lkeue Applkatlou FERC Dispute Resolution Process TLP Third Stage Consultation (Tentative Schedule) File Final Lkense Appli<ation Expiration of PreUmlnary Permit FERC Dispute Resolutlo• Process and Requests for Additional Information Janu81)'-April2011 May 2011 May-July 2011 (90-days following filing of draft license application] As requested September 29, 201 I September 30, 20 II As requested Proposed Work Groups p Fish and Aquatics, Water Quality and Hydrology Includes water quantity Human Environment Recreation Land use Socioeconomics Aesthetics Quality of Life Cultural Resources Terrestrial Environment Wildlife Vegetation Wetlands Purpose of Work Groups KHL will engage work groups during the development and implementation of study plans Draft study plans will be discussed with the work groups prior to study implementation Study results will be provided to the work groups Once study information is available, potential Protection, Enhancement, and Mitigation Measures for the License Application will be discussed with the work groups Filing Comments with FERC Use P-1 3211 and P-1 3212 Iii PERC e-filing at www.ferc.gov Three ways to comment: Written correspondence Electronic "Quick Comment" [limited to 6,000 characters] Register on ferc.gov to e-file longer documents Copy comments to applicant (KHL) Questions? PERC's Project Manager is Joe Adamson (joseph.adamson@ferc.gov) Tracking Project Progress and Comments Kenai Hydro. LLC website (www.kenaihydro.com) FERC E-Subscription Service (www.ferc.gov) ~ ·~-..:voR ~ ---- -< - '.: ·-,_ 0 "' ·--:-_-:.... ·- -------- Summary of Comments Rec' d after Nov. 1 2th Public Meeting Potential impacts of Project facilities and construction on traffic, access road alignment, and potential road improvements on residents along Falls Creek Potential impacts of Project operation on local domestic water use in/near Falls Creek (wells and surface water use) Potential impacts of noise (e .g ., change in Creek sounds and masking of traffic noise) due to changes in flow in Falls Creek Potential impacts of Project construction and operation of facilities on dark skies/potential light pollution from Project facilities Potential impacts of Project construction and operation on quality of life in Moose Pass and surrounding socioeconomic considerations -impacts on local business, tourism, and resident use of area Potential impacts and changes in accessibility to Falls Creek, Grant Creek, and Grant Lake (roads, trails, etc) Potential for residential service expansion in the local area and/or grid connection benefits from the Project (Note: A full transcript of the November 1 2 meeting was filed with FERC, and individuals and organizations have also filed written comments with FERC that are not included in this summary.) -- Proiect Area Proposed Project Facilities -"'--lldiMgMI'*'IIOM -· T ... Minlonu,. T-............. -AUC Goat Lake Hydro 4MW South Fork Hydro 2MW Kasidaya Creek Hydro 3MW A Run-of-River Project Questions and Comments? bllllll!llllning- "'"-" T.....,ltsiOnUne Tu""" l.Mda.-.lllp - Fish and Aquatic Resources Fish and Aquatic Resources ~•E•x•i •st.in.g._l .nf•o•r•m .. a .ti•o•" ........ t=========== Sources of existing information Fish and aquatic habitat data were collected in Grant Lake and Grant Creek as part of various studies in the 1960's and 1980's by USGS, USFS, USFWS, ADFG, and AEIDC Resource information derived from the above studies has been summarized in the Preliminary Application Document (PAD) Pre -licensing study program conducted by HDR in 2009 A final report of the 2009 studies should be available on the KHL web site soon. Information sources are available on the Kenai Hydro Project web site (w w w.kenaihydro.com) Study Areas Grant Creek Fish and Aquatic Resources Summary of Habitat Values Grant lake Sticklebacks and sculpins present. No salmon, trout, or Dolly Varden have been captured in the lake or its tributaries. Grant Creek Adult Salmon Lower 0.8 miles mapped as anadromous fish habitat by ADF&G; upstream passage blocked by an impassable waterfall Sockeye Salmon -Escapement estimates have ranged from 400 to 2,500 adult spawners Chinook Salmon-Escapement estimates have ranged from 33 to 230 adult spawners Coho -Count numbers have ranged from 55 to 300 adult spawners Fish and Aquatic Resources Summar of Habitat Values (cont.} Grant Creek (cont.) Juvenile Salmon Lower reach of Grant Creek contains limited scattered slow water habitats suitable for juvenile salmon rearing Rearing habitats consist mainly of undercut bank, side channel and backwater areas Chinook and coho fry abundant within limited available habitats Most Juvenile salmon are fry suggesting limited use by older juveniles Resident Fish Dolly Varden most abundant fish In stream. All size classes present. Adult and subadult Rainbow trout also common Fish and Aquatic Resources Summary of Habitat Values lcont.) p Falls Creek Lower 1 /3 mile mopped as onodromous habitat by ADF&G 2009 minnow trapping captured Dolly Verden only Spawning surveys in 2009 found no adult salmon present Fish and Aquatic Resources Issues Whet ore the potential effects of increased lake level fluctuation on Grant Lake fish resources? Whet are the potential effects of the project intake structure on Grant Lake fish resources? What are the potential effects of changes to the seasonal flow regime on the abundance end distribution of fish in Grant Creek? What are the potential effects of changes to Grant Creek flows on the ovoilobility of spawning grovels end/or sediment deposition rates in Grant Creek? CJ Fish and Aquatic Resource lss~es (cont.) What are the potential effects of project construction or operation on the overall productivity of Grant Creek as determined by the abundance of aquatic insects (macroinvertebrates) and/or algae (periphyton)? What are the potential effects of project construction activities on fish habitats in Grant Creek, Falls Creek, or Grant Lake? What are the potential effects of reduced flow in lower Falls Creek on the abundance and distribution of fish in the creek? What are the potential effects of increased access resulting from project roads on fish resources through increased recreational fishing opportunities? Fish and Aquatic Resources Proposed Studies Grant Creek Salmon Spawning Distribution and Abundance Grant Creek Resident and Rearing Fish Distribution and Abundance Grant Creek Aquatic Habitat Mapping and Critical Factors Analysis Grant Creek lnstream Flow Study Falls Creek Fish Distribution and Abundance Baseline Study of Benthic Invertebrates and Periphyton in Grant Creek Baseline Study of zooplankton and phytoplankton in Grant lake Other Issues and Comments c::l J.___ ____ _ ???????????????? Water Resources Water Resources Hydrology p .. - Sources of Existing Information Historical Grant Creek stream gage data (USGS 15246000) -11 years of continuous stream gage data from 1947-1958. Grant lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis, EBASCO, 1987, that includes modeled Falls Creek data. Historical Falls Creek discharge data includes continuous measurements during one summer in the mid-1 980s and several instantaneous discharge measurements made over various years including 1963-70, 1976, and 2007-2008. HDR Stream Gage data at USGS Station-2009 Water Resources H drolo ic Characteristics Grant Lake fed by several tributary streams, most of which terminate at glaciers Grant Lake water level fluctuates naturally over a several foot range Seasonal flow characteristics typical of glacial systems Most summer flow derived from snow and glacial melt • Most winter flow derived from ground water Historical Grant Creek (GC200) Hydrograph ( 1947 -1958) 700 Water Resources Water Qualit ~----._--~---------------------- Sources of existing information Water chemistry and temperature data collected in Grant Lake and Grant Creek as port of various studies in the 1 960's and 1980's by USGS, USFS, USFWS, ADFG, and AEIDC HDR's ongoing 2009 study has collected seasonal water chemistry data and continuous temperatures in Grant Creek and Grant Lake at several stations Water Resources Water Qua lit Characteristics p Water quality typical of cold Alaska drainages with glacial input Nutrient levels are generally low, indicating low biological productivity Turbidity varies with the season -moderately high in the summer during glacier melt and low during winter and spring No indication of water pollution or other unusual conditions Water Resources Issues What are the potential effects of Project construction and operation on Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Falls Creek water quality, hydrology, and water temperature? What are the potential effects of Project construction and operation on water quality and hydrology of Lower Trail Lake and Trail Creek? How will physical changes to Grant Creek, Falls Creek, and downstream water bodies affect fish resources? Water Resources Pro osed Studies Hydrology Continue the ongoing stream gaging in lower Grant Creek to increase the period of record, confirm earlier data, and provide essential input to the instream flow study Continue the ongoing stream gaging of Falls Creek Water Resources Pro osed Studies Water Quality Collect water chemistry data in Grant Creek, Falls Creek, and Grant Lake to define baseline water quality conditions. Continue the collection of continuous water temperature data in Grant Creek, Falls Creek, and Grant Lake to provide input to aquatic resource impact assessment models. Other Issues and Comments CJI...__ ___ _ ???????????????? TERRESTRIAL RESOURC ES ~ Terrestrial Resources Existing Information: Previous studies and agency surveys AEIDC, APA, US Forest Service, ADF&G Summarized in PAD Terrestrial Resources Plant Community Characteristics p .-- Wide range of plant communities represented in Project area Coniferous, deciduous, and mixed forest Shrublands, grasslands, and alpine tundra Muskeg, wetlands, and riparian areas Spruce bark beetle has affected spruce in the past 15 years Areas of dead trees are in or near the Project area Plant communities of special interest include: Forested areas with harvestable timber Wetland and riparian communities Rare or sensitive plant habitats Proiect Area: Grant Lake, Vagi Lake, Trail Lakes T errestria I Resources Wild life Community Characteristics c:::J r- Studies from the 1980's estimated 1 08 bird species, 34 mammal species, and one amphibian Habitats of interest: inlet delta, outlet area, bear use habitats, moose range, raptor nesting areas, and potential waterbird nesting areas Grant Lake Outlet Potential Raptor Nesting Habitat, 1 982 ------ Potential Waterbird Nesting Habitat, 1982 Brown Bear Foraging and Denning Habitats, 1 982 p Moose Range, 1 982 Terrestrial Resources Specia I Status USFS has identified two sensitive plant species that may be present in the Project area, but no sensitive, rare, threatened or endangered plants have been documented in Project area. - No threatened or endangered animals occur in the Project area. The USFS identifies three management indicator species: brown bear, moose, and mountain goat; and eight species of special interest. The state list of Species of Special Concern has several species that may occur in the Project area(e.g., Brown Bear). T errestria I Resources Issues What are the potential effects on wildlife from general disturbance associated with studies, construction, and operation? What are the potential effects of increased water level fluctuation in Grant Lake? What are the potential effects of changes in flow in Grant Creek and Falls Creek? Terrestrial Resources Issues {cont.) c:J ------------------------------___ - What are the potential effects of construction of the Project facilities? What are the potential effects on wildlife if the distribution and/or abundance of salmon changes? What are the potential effects of construction and maintenance of access roads and transmission lines? Terrestrial Resources Proposed Studies: Plants Studies will be designed to gather information for accurate evaluation of how the Project will affect terrestrial resources. Study topics: Refining existing vegetation mapping Conducting a timber stand survey in areas not previously surveyed Conducting a sensitive plant survey to produce a Biological Evaluation for Plants Conducting an invasive plant survey (concurrent with sensitive plant survey) Conducting wetland delineations The wetland survey will include a detailed survey of Project activity areas and a general survey of the larger Project area. Terrestrial Resources Proposed Studies: Wildlife o r--- Study topics: Quantifying the distribution and abundance of target wildlife species during key seasons of activity in the Project area Documenting the species composition of avian communities, particularly landbirds, shorebirds, and waterbird Classifying and mapping wildlife habitat in the Project area in conjunction with the Botanical Resources Study Conducting bear denning survey . Other Issues and Comments p l...__ ____ _ ???????????????? Recreational and Visual Resources Recreational and Visual Resources Existing Information: Previous studies and agency surveys ADNR, KPB, AEIDC, APA, USFS, ADF&G Summarized in PAD Recreational and Visua l Resources: Land Use USFS Land Use Designation (USFS Plan) Most of Project area watershed is on USFS land Grant Lake area (within FS boundaries) is Fish, Wildlife, and Recreation Prescription East end of Grant Lake is Backcountry Prescription State lands on either side of Trail Lakes includes locations of tunnel, penstock, powerhouse, access roads, and transmission line KPB has selected lands between Grant Lake and Upper Trail Lake Use to be determined by KPB Private property in Moose Pass, and along shores of Upper and Lower Trail Lakes Project Area Land Ownership ..... -- -------- Recreational and Visual Resources: Recreation Trails lditarod National Historic Trail traverses the Project area Grant Lake Trail, Falls Creek Road, Vagt Lake Trail, and Crown Point Mine Road and Trail Access Boat in summer Snowmachine or cross -country ski in winter No developed trailhead or signs Use Level-currently, both summer and winter use is light Falls Creek Area Hiking Trail Recreational and Visual Resources: Recreation Hunting and Fishing No game fish in Grant Lake Some hunting and fishing in area Mining Abandoned mine in the area Active mining claims near Falls Creek Area designated for mining use with approved plan near Falls Creek Road Access Type Motorized travel in winter permitted, except in Backcountry area where only helicopters are approved Limited motorized travel during summer on Falls Crk/Crown Pt mining trail Helicopter use permitted all year Recreational and Visual Resources: Visual and Aesthetics p Scenic designation by USFS Scenic Integrity Values are "moderate" except in eastern Backcountry Prescription area where values are "high" Scenic features described by ADNR Waterfall at the outlet of Grant Lake High mountain walls surround lake on east shore Visibility Project area not visible from Seward Highway, ARRC line, or other easily accessible vantage points Cascade Below Outlet of Grant Lake Grant Lake Looking East to Backcountry Recreational and Visual Resources Issues What are the potential effects of increased water level fluctuation in Grant Lake? What are the potential effects of changes in flow in Grant Creek and Falls Creek? What are the potential effects of construction of the intake, sluiceway, penstock, tunnel, and powerhouse? What are the potential effects on recreation if the distribution and /or abundance of fish changes? What are the potential effects of construction and maintenance of access roads and transmission lines? - Recreation and Vi sua I Resources Proposed Studies ~·~~--------------------------------- Studies will be planned to gather information for accurate evaluation of how the Project will affect recreational and visual resources Study Topics Determine level of recreational use, and predict trends To understand public use and perception of recreational opportunities To determine recreational opportunities in terms of the USFS Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and other designations as defined by the Chugach Notional Forest Plan (2005) To determine the visual quality of the Project area in terms of the USFS Scenic Integrity Values To understand public perception of the visual and aesthetic quality of the area Other Issues and Comments ???????????????? CULTURAL RESOURCES Cultural Resources l=J L Existing information: Thirteen previous cultural resource surveys in general project area AEIDC, APA, USFS, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO} Summarized in PAD Cultural Resources Kenai Peninsula occupied prehistorically and historically by Eskimo and Dena'ina Athapaskan groups. Historic mining, logging, and settlement in Project area. Nine historic properties in Project area; several on the shores of Grant Lake. One site determined eligible for listing in the NRHP: the Solars Sawmill on Grant Lake at head of Grant Creek. No prehistoric archaeological sites recorded in Project area. Cultural Resources Issues Are there any cultural sites that may be affected by Project activity, construction, or operation? Are there any cultural sites that may be affected by the construction and maintenance of access roads and transmission lines? Are there any cultural sites that may be affected by increased lake level fluctuation? Do subsistence activities occur in the Project area and will there be any effects on subsistence? Cultural Resources Proposed Studies The Project must meet the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act and consult with tribal entities with interest in the Project. Study topics: Determining if historic properties are present in the proposed project Area of Potential Effect (APE) Determining if the Project will have an effect on identified historic properties (those cultural resources evaluated and recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP) Study topics continued: Determining if additional investigations are necessary for evaluation historic properties, and determining a recommendation on potential mitigation and consultation strategies in resolving any possible adverse effects Determining if the Project will have an effect on either sites of cultural significance or subsistence activity Other Issues and Comments c:::J !....._ ____ _ ???????????????? Filing Comments with FERC Use P-1 3211 and P-1 3212 ii ·-..,1 - FERC e-filing at www.ferc.gov Three ways to comment: Written correspondence Electronic "Quick Comment" [limited to 6,000 characters] Register on ferc.gov to e-file longer documents Copy comments to applicant Questions? PERC's Project Manager is Joe Adamson (joseph.adamson@ferc.gov) Tracking Project Progress and Comments Kenai Hydro. LLC website (www .kenaihydro.com) FERC £-Subscription Service (www.ferc .gov) I ;;__ -- 1 .Jvo~~ _ .. __ : -~~T-~ . ~-- -·--41---·--·--~- -------- Thank You ! Comments and Questions? KENAI HYDRO, llC. MOOSE PASS PUBUC MEETING SIGN IN SHEET LOCATION: MOOSE PASS DATE: 1·13-2010 PAGE# Vz... ! N .Signature Firs !Name l.astName Email Company/Agency Division Title Address Cltv St Zill )r((/.£L ~fl'"lQ.S A111£rcs,.. he. 111 b ros:e P>liomel"~/ecfr:..~ dJ r4£r~t;C. Pfor lJ,t-~r:for 1013 4%c, _JJ~. uc t.nc.. . ~k 91011 \v~ I .. , Bt ... ;::.~ fefe -s~,U<?t.o+-l"! .. d·C.D"-1 rPI'-t.O,:i•~ '!i.+-· A""'-'--J< AI<: '1-7~os 2 ~ ~ J!/4-!ff/;Jfj ~~{C-5)Ac,lfe 5t<t "<We.{;) ""tic 'he:. /Cel .a~ JtJiltJ £/fv't£ .J II cQ fk._rt "'· ;1 c;-c._, .'f_£-f ~-1 ·~ J£1'7 /:..o.; JI.A.a .f:'rJul'tBtJnw.:J. {.#)rl .L~) / -;:r;:-, ....... .,..;.; A1"r<-IJ~ j ...... .....,;~··"1.o. Q ,...._.__ c..- ~L/./1~ l111c!E, CA?v.ey· JMcaMe_j@ a.l!'ld-i'c. uet;;; ?. tJ. a:ox.lto 9 H,-;1.£ 171.: ??'6f ff!JS' I ~0~_12_ ?.Jc. -~-.. , ~~ t--t~~'f -· ..... ,t~~. C.Otw\ pt:J!i!p. ;}.?Sf!, 14: '7't&. ~I . 1/dnt/~ Vt~l1!.! t c: I') Yjld( ,..., ' c ..... .,..,,.-~ 'i'O 'f 6 Sf -k.;fL {&() l vttleri t!f&ql(ce.., h.-._ur"l:.-! .+e.G' /JkecW /tJ( If t,,_rt;;t'. q'f5&-'. ,. d-:(r;o~ ,)pf.-P ;;;:::..;.:1 ~s .J~ i;rotk(}J(TfJr~ e+ Or vo -ltt-N«~~ <:::iper- biJ.fJC!f e ~r-1 b 7 §el;Jt!.cl .!tlr '9f6b/ ~~~ w~ ~ J/dr.·.J _j_; L ::> Jevot-1. A..J-/:.j· " 0 ,;a...,., .. ~/) .--=J/J....tt. ,j I-TZU~~ A--#:...6/W J6-J:.. ~~a...,J;c, If(),(:;~ 7¢ H./. ~f#k r· rrtf)r .. ~~d M.~~~ I ~ \( <( ,. ~ 41~nn ;4 MJ E)\1 1J 1:: 1M. Dti=-··n , o.d.vi~VII'Ii.'-¥\1()1{e.l:t'd~, "!~l.a~~'-{JD ~ Z.bl-1 .,c.t~o~ -Pl'l'!>S -:) J'Hc 9CJ,s ,[/~~~ IP--f I J ? R!\ li'VI "';:b(ll..l'\"' .,_,..,c.;;v ... """; \. C01...., I t I r I \ I ( .. ~~\-· ~ Jv..lit l1 "d ~ 1·rt-· r~t.\:Jqw~t(ll J~tb~\. (OvrJ ?lon )~ 11w...~ 5~ iftk ~14~Y !(rw.-~~ Thv.·v! t7J/7t'Vf v ·u v· ,J..v.Jr:,J'?r:<V$pv) & '1-,f .LtJV'I I ~~11 (/ ~1.rtcll etA V'IA~ r J ~ d. R-V #t lttil 1--: I'M J.Y,_)"' \'t.....><V?.J ~-4 3:7'7vl ,5b7U ~ /j p..-~ ..... , ··~w z-111~ fki/1/cl ,~hA+;v t.r>t1V' Q c;.rchc.., "d-'3o>rCf 101<.&>.1-~ Y f'i"lr $'5 /JIC fr7"j'f ~~~ ---I ~ ;, ! f_j--=s:-· (co~ ~ i ~S~~~e..G"--. ( ( l'fY 5~, 1-f.....u ~ 1ft<. ffb?'l --~-----·· KENAI HYDRO, LLC. MOOSE PASS PUBUC MEETING SIGN IN SHEET LOCATION: MOOSE PASS DATE: 1·13-2010 PAGE# Y~ H Signature I Flrs!Name I Las!Neme I Email I Company/Agency! Division I Ti Ue OJ£{~ L4-1 l ;(;J~ I ,i.i-i<11t~@~·~l I I lotf8'~&ew1Wc/~~~~l'1~ tl~~l ?;;~ lffd~ v~~~V~JJ0i'J11---I -I m!;;~;~~'iw VI~~-~--~ ' -""" .... , -,~-r------·····~ , ' ~\tt.lce; ~F?A ~n#! ~.f'n:~. #Jr;'i ~~~'-1---tw-J~J-~. ~a..el~i""c..i.C ~"~~P4~·~ ~ r /.1 v Jr; , 1 y 1· '-J • ~~ '-l .I~ .?Ad~ hlA'L L:l\~ -IPsh~@_ct.clc;,. I IMp l~kl 7f{.JJ .I~?'~ I 7r.w,:, I mt)Jtll I ill'ft>3(1~.,r:; f:s.AJ.JJ_s I I I ll.o. A~ ).3S I~~ lkl ~(3'} l:~J ~kN ~~tLjrf;~Nk.1~-J I~,;: ~pij"~ I:Er~ I~~ l5-!5r ~1~Zst~ l . I ~~1ii~~~1 I I r I I I I I . I. -1 I .. ~ !le.. ;!vudr... KII'-/Mt:4- ([,~ &..,;, ../-t-~~ 1/24- " J.~ 4A'~ .I/ ..of ,. •• ,. --"··-------+---------1-----+------f-------------+------+--+----l " " •• "' Attachment C-Comments Received on PAD and Study Issues Not Filed with the Commission From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Hi Jeff, Zubeck, Brad [BZubeck@HomerEiectric.com] Tuesday, November 24, 2009 3:16PM 'Jeff Estes' Jenna Borovansky RE: Grant Lake comment.ppt 2009-11-24 City of Seward-Jeff Estes Grant Lake comment.ppt Thanks for the information. I agree, the best place to connect may be the City of Seward's Lawing substation. The t-line directly out to the highway may still be a possibility and is a place-holder at this time, but I understand that you and others in the Moose Pass community would not like to see an overhead line passing through the "rapids" section as currently shown on the Project Features figure in our PAD. Kenai Hydro (KHL) will consider bring the power out to interconnect at the substation using a low voltage line, possibly underground. As you note, there are several voltage levels present at the Lawing substation: 12.5kV, 24.9kV, 69kV & 115kV, with the two lower voltages available via a load-tap changer. The transformer is currently rated at 1 OMVA, but with forced cooling, is rated up to 18MVA. l'lllook further into the location of the proposed phased residential development on the bench area up Crown Point Mine road. I wrote down that this is included as part of the Moose Pass Comprehensive Plan on file at the Borough. If this is incorrect, send me a note correcting the source document. Thanks again for the information and willingness to work with Kenai Hydro as the concept develops. Have a Happy Thanksgiving! Best Regards, Brad Z. From: Jeff Estes [mailto:jestes@cityofseward.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 2:02PM To: Zubeck, Brad Subject: Grant Lake comment.ppt Please call with questions, and excuse my ineptness in power point. oposea proJeCt racumes ana 1ana ownersmp Gratlt La lee .... -. --~·--.:-----------... I i •, I i ... , . •··.· .......... : ,,,........ . ··: I I . · . · · : · : · .. ·. · ·. . .. . :. -: · · :,:;·i:-~ ~ ..•. : : .• : ~-· ~~·. ~-:~ : •. -•• \::::, :;; ;~ .<; ::<': .-.. : ;·;'' xf:·\ .;~~ ::: ! I ~H~~~':;~;~~..;;·~~ ~<~ !·-. ~~-.--->·· !· ···:·.::-'· · ·-.. ~;s-~~~~Z"<J~/:·~1~:;(~~~~f;;.~:<;~\: .. \~.:~·:$:.:~'!-:::.~'(~~-:-~ .. ·,: .-:<~.-. ..:<';'::-·'-. ·~ :~'">:" . .:.~::::<-'j! ·J~·.-,.-r...,;p.;:t::.JUii..S.:l.t\;!IJ ~-·-""·· ... ~~-·."·" \ ..,, '·' ....... ~'< ~ ..... .,~·:'·"' ... : ........... ·.·~· .. •• .. ·:\.~,.,:...<.;~~ ... ~, ..... '..,:·· '~ X"C ........ :"-,·.' .... , . ~ -.......... , j' · ·. ·· • .-. · • : :··, • . , •: :.-.,'\: '. . -....:.-~ . · ·. --~~-~--.;-.. ,...,. ... -~ '-j.·:'~;_.:-....~"":k·,::;:;:~>-. ''" -~ .. > ... ·,-· ::x· ·.'·(·->-~~\: · .. · · ,,:,.::., . , Pfj}}~ ,CJJ>;J.;;Jh 1}HW.t~r I • ' • .' ·~,· · '.,_. ·' ....,. "".·.·.~' . . ...... ,·, ·"'--7 . .' •,: .. ,• '\. .... '"~,:""~, ........ :::;"~"~,__,·-\·, .... · •• .. _. \.: ... ·2."'. ,t. ~ ...... .,.~".""."",' ·"",-~-~ , ·~ • ...::· •• ~s ..... r.-~ l ~ ..... :.;,~~;~~t:-illl':f~-.-~·: ,.-· · , : · · ·.-.. . .:·. · -;-_~· :. · ;:~,·-.:~<·"'·@Jl'-~l.1Jl.u.l/~J::S!.£1 .6~: Ht>-;1it _.~~ · ·:·~~:'::-::·.·. : 'l .:.:\~~@k~:~\it~3.~·nOO!o ·:·':_. ..... -:· . ,, .-:, . -··.::::.-.~·:_.. (' ::·:.:~~:irl~\GJ_g 'i3J~~tlP~~;~~-i\J4pW'i~il)'f~;> 69KV on ·!' '"' ,.. -.· :~·~<> :; ·. <.: ~:,~ -<~~<-,f:~ ~> :; · }: :;;:~L'~~~ ::·:,.;_; . '·: :·· ':> ' *0' · •.. ,~;~~'L. , :~ •· ~~5e~ .1 I P,1\YE jii jDQ}_:::·:·.;·.·: :~--.. -:·.~>-. ···· .. _, :-.:--:'·:.:.-._.-<·'· · ·. ·'·\S·~:,'.:.:~\·c'~..:::...-.·. · '·-,"-:,.:·~-~~:· ... '··--~~>:_.<~~\ \>-.::~>.:,. Seward 11 . . . C)· ...... ~. -'L.... '-..... - . ..., --~ .. .-if -~ ..... ~ \. \. ... l ~ . . ~ ' -.. ~ ' ' . . . . . . ·~ ·. . . . ' . . ... .. ' "1. • 9-. • . • • '. ~ ' .. , '• • , ' . • , • ... -;-. ' ' • •-:. •, ~. , . ' . " -~ ..,. ~ I ·:. ·. ·.:-•. : ..... ,.-_. ·:,:.: ... ;· .. , .·...... . ···:. ":: .::-· .... :·-:·.(':·,., .: ... -. . ... '·' .. ' .. . -··~---<'-,·. ~' .. --·· ·T~m;'tiBl -·-· .. .. . · ·"-.. , ~~::;c:~~::_:~~i_,~-:~~<~.:-~·-'::':.~::·.:~~~.-:~~-~~:·;~~(~~·t," · . -~~·-· ._.·· ... ::_ .. ·.;_:_·.: .:_~}::,:\E;:~~~~.-. -.. --:;;:.~~:-, -· r'.&f,X,.~f lFJ.!J!.\:I!);'Ol: ·: :., . ·.· ···~.JoiJ'~.l"' Ji'J.JJ~~·· . ' ~\~:~~;·i~J~~~{t:~ .. :~<-\·:·.1:_. . : '-;·_<:; :;,_:·:;·.'<. ··<·:P~:t1.'3'Jo~f<~--· · · ,_ ~--~ · · . ..... \log tLakc ~ .... ... l~ ~ 69KV T-Une to Lawing Substation I Project Features Intake -Power HOUSE Access Road aumu Diversion Existing Min Penstock Transmissio1 Tunnel Land Ownership State ARRC iR!l.ll BLM USFS -Private Seward High Alaska Railrc . .., .·.~·-. :'· i · ,. iP.:~.Y -tfJ}.Jci~-1~ · .. :-.: -~ .. · .... '. ·'· .: ~.p . ~ :" . . • •, ': ._': . ;> .. . 'f"'u~~W.:5,t9ir t ;Jlt;{·::, . .:...:. · -:-. · .;... -~ · :-. ·· ·: · ' .... ,· '. !,,; ' . ~ : . " : .: . <:'· < ?.'::.> ~ '.~; .~: . ·:.. . . :·: ':· .. ··.·- t.-,:--~· ... ·, ; ..... ~ ;~~0 ~('C ! l.OOC ··:·:, ~ ;:.. .. ·I! . ·.<~. -~:.·:~ ,.: l. ~.> < ~- '' ...· . ..:.. :·:::. ,~/ ,;z;:'~, ·'~~ Jl~:': : ,. ·, .. ..... ·· -.· :·--;: .... -=:·. .\ ... ·.~::,:~~~;:;·~ :~~-~~3 .. : ~~:,·.:_· ...... <:~~· ; -~~~;~>k?:~·-~.:: :~::~::~~-•'1.,• :,~, \ . ·. : l ; 'olap Pr<)jf't.II<W'. '.I A!l .U ASP ~;. 'j i !Ja'a '>O~rc t s lll.lK i\<Uka , Upper Trail Lake ··~··. ... ·J. -.j" ·:-. .. ~ ·~ :"\ ... .-,_; ": .. :~l ... .: ... · ... '-. :· .. ~ '; ........ ~. Lower T't·ail l.ake ... '· ~ .< .. :·! : l UUll \lXU'j .Jnd A:,~oc:illte!i · ·. : i • Sor<>ugh. AA DNR . i.'~f~ -.: .. ·. ' l 0\uthor: HOR Al••k~. Inc . :·.:.I ; Datt": ~i luiy ~OC:9 -·.-.t 1 ,_; ~-r-li ! n14!'-t-•rut at. .u 1:" fur r t'viiP¥. pt _:;.·;I .. i ! Kmmi Huflt1JI.I.I: 1 I l ' . 1'-VULV LV , l .. I ... . -~;. Subst. ~! Anchorage ~ -· . . > -" • • "' ' ~ <:> ' -' :. -~·.: : ~;::;;:, ,. '",. . -~ :' --. . '.<'-j ·· . · ,· ... ·. . .. ,·,_,:-:::, ... ~... LawingSubst ,: ..... <··· • . . , ~ ~. . ' :: .... •. Project J. \.._,• Slow"-! lioml" ··' .· .. ..:~ ... •.-· ... ,,;·_: :::; . .; .. ~--:-·.·.:. .-...... ~~.-:~:> :\>-;-.'.', 115-69-24.9-12.5Kv }:~~~:f~:~:,'1 . .. -. . .. .. . ;, .. . .... . ' .. -....... : -... ~ ... :.:::--::· .. ·~ ... :--·· .. · .. -----... ... .. n-~-----~ n ___ ! __ .._,~ __ !1!.&!----..I •--..I --·-----L!_ From: William Coulson [mailto:william@alaskanscooperlanding.com] Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 7:47AM To: Zubeck, Brad Subject: Power project. The only thing that matters is that this project absolutely does not happen. The cost vs. benefit is ridiculous. Bill Coulson From: Sent: To: Cc: Zubeck, Brad [BZubeck@HomerEiectric.com] Friday, January 08, 2010 4:18PM 'Brita Mjos' Jenna Borovansky Subject: RE: Grant Creek Hydro Proposal Comments Ms. Mjos, Thank you for your comments. Kenai Hydro will include them in a summary that will be sent to FERC. Sincerely, Brad Z. From: Brita Mjos [mailto:britamjos@care2.com] Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 3:05 PM To: Zubeck, Brad Subject: Grant Creek Hydro Proposal Comments Mr. Zubeck, I am writing to share my opposition to the proposed Grant Creek/Falls Creek hydro project. Alternatives exist that would have a significantly lighter impact on the environment. The proposed project woul disturb salmon streams and lakes and introduce intrusive pipes to a popular and scenic recreation area. A hydroelectric system on Lowell Creek in Seward, or windmills closer to utility lines would be much more economical and have an ecologically lighter footprint. Please consider these comments along with the public meeting next week. Sincerely, Brita Mjos 1725 E. 24th Ave. Anchorage, AK 99508 http://toolbar.Care2.com Make your computer carbon-neutral (free). http://www.Care2.com Green Living, Human Rights and more-8 million members! -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Jaffa [mailto:jaffa@eagle.ptialaska.net] Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2818 12:89 PM To: Zubeck, Brad Cc: Janorschke, Brad; Ambrose, Harvey Subject: Re: Grant Lake Brad, I wish I knew the full history. Maybe Jeff or Lee Estes know more. This is an old and crude shack at the end of the lake. We used to have "poker" runs up to it in the winter. The walls are chinked with old Harper Bazarre magazines and I have found as many as a half dozens novels along with abandoned tools and misc. I think someone may have wintered there one year. I have stayed over nite only once but there are usually new signs of people coming and going. I do go up there summer and winter because, frankly its beautiful and very peaceful and just by chance out of cell phone range. There is no question this cabin would be impacted by raising the lake. The 4th photo is several years ago (before KHL) in the inlet stream area at the head of the Lake. This is a large fairly flat area that is slightly above the lake. Certainly there will need to be clearing in the area, but boat access may not be extended with the the higher lake level. Maybe some type of landing will need to be created for summer use. I would expect that there would be a increase in use if only due to the notoriety. This may also suggest the intake structure will need some thought paid to safety. I will ask around when I can and give you more on what I can learn. BJaffa Jaffa Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 187 Moose Pass, Alaska 99631 Jaffa@Eagle.PTIAlaska.net 987-224-8882 Zubeck, Brad wrote: >Tell me more about the "Social Club" cabin ... I'm guessing that we'll > be looking at it in our studies, but some background on use would be > good to know. Thanks! BZ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Jaffa [mailto:jaffa@eagle.ptialaska.net] > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 11:14 AM > To: Zubeck, Brad > Cc: Janorschke, Brad; Ambrose, Harvey > Subject: Re: Grant Lake > > Yup, > > Eastern Grant Lake near the Grant Lake "Social Club" cabin. > > > Jaffa Construction, Inc. > P.O. Box 107 Moose Pass, Alaska 99631 > Jaffa@Eagle.PTIAlaska.net > 907-224-8002 > > > > > > Zubeck, Brad wrote: > >> Hi Bruce, >> >> You are welcome. Thanks for your participation, comments last night, and follow-up email & photo. I'm pretty sure that it is photo of Carole alongside your plane on Grant Lake! We will capture your related comment in our summary when we send it to FERC. >> > > >> Thanks again and best wishes for a prosperous New Year! >> Brad Z. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bruce Jaffa [mailto:jaffa@eagle.ptialaska.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 10:17 PM >> To: Zubeck, Brad; Janorschke, Brad; Ambrose, Harvey >> Subject: Grant Lake >> >> Thanks to you all for a honest presentation. Good luck with this and >> when there is some place to invest in this project let me know where. >> >> Bruce Jaffa >> >> Jaffa Construction, Inc. >> P.O. Box 107 Moose Pass, Alaska 99631 Jaffa@Eagle.PTIAlaska.net >> 907-224-8002 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Zubeck, Brad [BZubeck@HomerEiectric.com] Thursday, January 14, 2010 1 :41 PM 'David Lindquist' Jenna Borovansky Subject: RE: Comments on Grant/Falls Hi Irene, Thanks again for comments on the project. Your comments will be included on our summary that will be filed with FERC. Regards, Brad Z. From: David Lindquist [mailto:toshi@arctic.net] Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 12:13 PM To: Zubeck, Brad Cc: Lindquist Irene & Dave Subject: Comments on Grant/Falls Hi Brad, Please include my comments in your file for Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydro project. After your presentation last night for Grant Lake and Falls Creek Hydro project I have come to the conclusion that the scope of this project is tremendous, much more than should be put upon any community in such close proximity to a Hydro project. While a person on the Seward Hwy might not see the footprints of all that's proposed, the visual impact is not reasonable for a person in the immediate area to have to see. Most of the project area is easily reached on foot and is in an area that is valued for hiking, hunting, berry picking, birding, canoeing, fishing, sight seeing and ice skating. I was there 4 days ago and enjoyed the wonderful ice skating on Grant Lake I have traveled the project area on many occasions over the past 28 years. I do not support this proposal and wish you luck in other areas. Much of the project area is easily accessible within an hours hike. In addition to the visual and recreational impacts I am concerned for to the wildlife/fish/terrestrials/avian this project WILL have. Please direct any funding in other directions that may be more appropriate and have less impact on local communities. Sincerely, Irene Lindquist PO Box 63 Moose Pass, Alaska 99631 z CT. I l ' ' I ( ~I 1 1• a 0 1 I ( 1 \ ,.,.. 0 (!l .,L.' ' O"t ~ . ~ •I ., . ' t N _._..~>~\ f . I I 0 t\ll\ ~ '• 0 . ';1, l' . ~-w l 149°22'0011 w TNj lMN v2oo Grant Lake Portage Trail 149°21'0011 w l' ,, -~ .....___----· , ~ f ~ . ,- ' ll ) ( 0 --~ I ' I ! \. , . I ·~ ' WGS84 149° 19' 00 11 W '-, z 0 0 O"t N f I I 0 I 0 ~ ' I I. . w )' ~