Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project; App for License for Major Uncon Project 1996_ Before the » FEDERAL ENERGY a REGULATORY COMMISSION City of Saxman, Alaska ” FERC Project No. 11393-000 May 1996 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project ) application for License HDR Engineering, | BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR LICENSE FOR MAJOR UNCONSTRUCTED PROJECT MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 11393 CITY OF SAXMAN, ALASKA Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. 500-108th Avenue N.E. Suite 1200 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Copyright © City of Saxman, Alaska, 1996. All rights reserved. This document, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form, for any purpose, without the prior written consent of the City of Saxman, Alaska. AR Application for License Table of Contents MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 11393 APPLICATION FOR LICENSE FOR MAJOR UNCONSTRUCTED PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page INITIAL STATEMENT IT-1 EXHIBIT A - PROJECT DESCRIPTION A-1 EXHIBIT B - PROJECT OPERATION AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION B-1 EXHIBIT C - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE C-1 EXHIBIT D - COSTS AND FINANCING D-1 EXHIBIT F - GENERAL DESIGN DRAWINGS F-1 EXHIBIT G - PROJECT BOUNDARY MAPS G-1 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 i _ FERC No. 11393 Application for License Table of Contents TABLE OF Continu APPENDICES Volume I A Geology and Soils Report B Exosion and Sediment Control Plan Cc Water Quality and Temperature Monitoring Report D Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Report E ISER - Electric Load Forecast for Ketchikan, Metlakatla, Petersburg, and Wrangell, Alaska: 1990-2010 F Wetland Analysis G Recreational Resources Study H Economic and Financial Feasibility Assessment of the Swan/Tyee Lakes Intertie Project I Permit/Certification Applications J Cultural Resources Report Volume IT K Agency Consultation Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 ii May 1996 INITIAL STATEMENT Application for License - Initial Statement INITIAL STATEMENT BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR LICENSE FOR MAJOR UNCONSTRUCTED PROJECT 1. The City of Saxman, Alaska, applies to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a license for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 11393) as described in the attached exhibits. 2. The location of the proposed project is: State: Alaska County (Borough): Ketchikan Gateway Township or nearby town: Ketchikan Stream or other body of water: Upper Mahoney Creek 3a. The exact name, business address, and telephone number of the Applicant are: City of Saxman Route 2, Box 1 Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-4166 3b. The exact name, business address, and telephone number of each person authorized to act as agent for the Applicant in this application are: Mr. Tom Fitzgerald Mr. Doug Campbell City Administrator Cape Fox Corporation City of Saxman 2851 S. Tongass Route 2, Box 1 P.O. Box 8558 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-4166 (907) 225-5163 (907) 225-6450 (Fax) (907) 225-3137 (Fax) Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 I-1 FERC No. 11393 Application for License - Initial Statement 5.@) 5.Gi) Mr. Michael V. Stimac Mr. John Braislin Manager, Licensing & Environmental Services Betts, Patterson & Mines HDR Engineering, Inc. 800 Financial Center 500 - 108th Ave. NE 1215 Fourth Avenue Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98161-1000 Bellevue, WA 98004 (206) 292-9988 (206) 453-1523 (206) 343-7053 (Fax) (206) 453-7107 (Fax) Mr. Donald H. Clarke Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer & Quinn 1735 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 783-4141 (202) 783-5851 (Fax) The Applicant is a municipality organized under the laws of the State of Alaska and is claiming preference under section 7(a) of the Federal Power Act. The statutory or regulatory requirements of the State of Alaska that affect the project as proposed with respect to bed and banks and to the appropriation, diversion, and use of water for power purposes, and with respect to the right to engage 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 presented in Table I-1. Table I-1 also lists approvals not required under the Federal Power Act, but which the Applicant will seek if such actions are helpful for efficient and timely project development. It is the intent of the Applicant to continue to consult with permitting agencies and comply fully with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. The steps which the Applicant has taken or plans to take to comply with each of the laws cited in Table I-1 are described below. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 1-2 May 1996 Permit to appropriate public waters 401 Water Quality Certification Approval for Facilities on Federal Lands/Special Use Permit Section 404 Permit | Fish Habitat Permit Application for License - Initial Statement APPLICABLE PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED BY THE STATE Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation U.S. Forest Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) OF ALASKA 111 AAC 93.040 and 111 AAC 93.050 Federal Clean Water Act Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 AND FEDERAL AGENCIES Application (LAS # 14359) submitted in May 1993. Amended application submitted in May 1996. Application made as part of Section 404 Permit Application. Application for Facilities on Federal Lands was submitted in May 1996. Federal Clean Water Act Application submitted in May 1996. Alaska Dept. of Governmental Coordination (ADGC) Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) AS 16.05.840 Fishway Act; AS 16.05.870 Anadromous Fish Act Coastal Project Questionnaire and Certification Statement submitted in May 1996. Application submitted in May 1996. Section 810 Subsistence Evaluation Cultural Preservation May 1996 U.S. Forest Service State Historic Preservation Office Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 AS 41.35 Alaska Historic Preservation Act; AS 41.35.090 Notice Required of Private Persons Approved by Forest Service on March 11, 1996. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project 1-3 FERC No. 11393 Application for License - Initial Statement A Water Rights permit application (LAS #14359) was submitted to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources in May 1993. An amended application (see Appendix I) was filed in May 1996. In accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, application must be made for certification from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation that the project will comply with the Clean Water Act, the Alaska Water Quality Standards, and other applicable state laws. By agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Environmental Conservation, application for a Department of Army Permit to discharge dredged or fill material into navigable waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may also serve as application for State Water Quality Certification. An application for a Section 404 permit was submitted to the COE in May 1996, which triggers the application for Water Quality Certification (see Appendix I). Approval will be required from the U.S. Forest Service for development of the upper portion of the project, a majority of the transmission line, and a small portion of the new access road. Specifically, the upper portion of the project on federal lands includes the lake tap, upper tunnel, vertical shaft, and about 2900 feet of the lower tunnel. The project area that will affect federal lands is located in Sections 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, and 36, Township 74S, Range 91E; Sections 30 and 31, Township 74S, Range 92E; and Sections 5, 6, and 8, Township 75S, Range 92E, Copper River Meridian. The total area of the project on federal lands is 113.97 acres. The Application for Facilities on Federal Lands (see Appendix I) was submitted to the Forest Service in May 1996. An Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) Section 810 Subsistence Evaluation was approved by the U.S. Forest Service on March 11, 1996. The evaluation is included as Appendix A to the Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment. A Section 404 Permit is required from the COE by the Federal Clean Water Act if activities include discharge of dredge or fill materials into waters of the U.S and wetlands. The application (see Appendix I) was filed in May 1996. Consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program is required and the necessary review is conducted by the ADGC. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough will teview the project as part of the consistency review process for compliance with the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Coastal Management and Comprehensive Plans. An Alaska Coastal Project Questionnaire and Certification Statement (see Appendix I) was submitted to ADGC in May 1996. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 14 May 1996 Application for License - Initial Statement a An evaluation of potential project effects on historical, archeological, and cultural resources has been prepared. This evaluation will be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office, U.S. Forest Service, the Commission, and other appropriate patties. a A Fish Habitat Permit will be obtained from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for instream work. The application (see Appendix I) was submitted in May 1996. = A zoning permit will be obtained from the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. An application was submitted in May 1996. 6. The Applicant is seeking benefits under Section 210 of PURPA. This intent was stated in the Applicant’s Initial and Final Consultation Documents distributed via letters dated March 16, 1994, and August 8, 1994, respectively. The Applicant’s position was also presented in Scoping Document 2 (issued in September 1995) on page C-2 in response to a comment contained in a letter from Ketchikan Public Utilities dated April 12, 1995. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 1-5 FERC No. 11393 Application for License - Initial Statement STATEMENT OF APPLICANT IDENTITY AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISION INVOLVEMENT (S4.32(a)) () The Applicant for this project is: City of Saxman, Alaska Route 2, Box 1 Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-4166 (2) The entire project is located within the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska. There are no federal facilities that will be used by the project. (2)Gi)(A) The project is not located in any city, town, or similar local political subdivision. (2)(@i)B) The City of Ketchikan, Alaska (Pop. 14,000) is located within 15 miles of the project diversion. (2)(@iii) No irrigation district, drainage district, or similar special purpose political subdivision owns, operates, maintains, or uses any project facilities or any federal facilities that will be used by the project. (2)(iv) The City of Ketchikan may be interested in, or affected by, the application. (2)(v) Indian tribes that may be affected by the project include the Ketchikan Indian Corporation, Saxman L.R.A., and Metlakatla Indian Community. (4)(ii) This application is executed in the State of Alaska Ketchikan Gateway Borough by: City of Saxman, Alaska Route 2, Box 1 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 14 May 1996 Application for License - Initial Statement The following exhibits are filed herewith under the FERC regulations pursuant to 18 CFR, Subpart E, Section 4.41, and are hereby made a part of this application: Exhibit A - Project Description Exhibit B - Project Operation and Resource Utilization Exhibit C - Proposed Construction Schedule Exhibit D - Costs and Financing Exhibit F - General Design Drawings Exhibit G - Project Boundary Maps Appendices Preliminary Supporting Design Report Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment, in lieu of the Exhibit E, Environmental Report Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 I-7 FERC No. 11393 Application for License - Initial Statement VERIFICATION STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss. KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH _ ) Tom Fitzgerald and Mamie Markle, being duly sworn, depose and say that the contents of this application are true to the best of their knowledge or belief. The undersigned Applicants have signed the application this 22-day of __(J) eae , 1996. Draseius Drts ele Ze LED : Mamie Markle Tom Fitzgerald © Vice-Mayor City Administrator City of Saxman, Alaska City of Saxman, Alaska Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Alaska this aa day of SW a , 1996. SS y My commission expires plberr 1Y9/ Ty 7 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 1-8 May 1996 Application for License - Initial Statement CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE! I hereby certify that I have this day served the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Application for License, including the Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment, upon all persons listed below in bold type in accordance with the requirements of Section 385.2010(h) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District Office P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 Ms. Tamra Faris Supervisor-Protected Resources Management Division National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Region P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, AK 99602-1668 Mr. Nevin Holmberg U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 3000 Vintage Blvd., Suite 201 Juneau, AK 99801 National Park Service Alaska Region 2825 Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99503 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 U.S. Forest Service Region 10: Alaska Region Box 21628 Juneau, AK 99802-1628 Mr. Jim DeHerrera District Ranger U.S. Forest Service 3031 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Steve Sams U.S. Forest Service Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Department of the Interior Office of Environmental Affairs Anchorage Regional Office 1689 C Street, Room 119 Anchorage, AK 99501-5126 Federal Emergency Management Agency Region 10: Bothell Federal Regional Center 130 228th Street, SW Bothell, WA 98021-9796 ' Entries on the Certificate of Service shown in bold type received copies of the Application for License and Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment. Entries in regular type only received the letter of transmittal. May 1996 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project 1-9 FERC No. 11393 Application for License - Initial Statement Regional Director Portland Regional Office Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 101 S.W. Main St., Suite 905 Portland, OR 97204 Ms. Lois Cashell Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First St. NE, Room A-1 Washington, DC 20426 Mr. Vince Yearick Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 810 First St. NE, Room 504 Washington, D.C. 20426 Area Director Bureau of Indian Affairs P.O. Box 25520 Juneau, AK 99802-5520 Honorable Ted Stevens U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 Honorable Frank Murkowski U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 Honorable Don Young House of Representatives 2331 Rayburn Building House Office Boulevard Washington, D.C. 20515 Ms. Lorraine Marshall Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination P.O. Box 110030 Juneau, AK 99811-0030 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Mr. Dave Sturdevant Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105 Juneau, AK 99801 District Manager Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 540 Water Street, Suite 203 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Judith Bittner Alaska Department of Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Office P.O. Box 107001 Anchorage, AK 99510-7001 Mr. John Dunker Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Mining & Water Management 400 Willoughby Avenue Juneau, AK 99801-1796 Mr. Bill Garry Alaska Department of Natural Resources Parks & Outdoor Recreation 400 Willoughby Avenue Juneau, AK 99801-1796 Chris Westwood Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry 2030 Sea Level Drive, #217 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Frank Rue, Commissioner Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99802-5526 1-10 May 1996 Mr. Jack Gustafson Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Carol Denton Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commercial Fisheries Management and Development Division 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Glenn Freeman Alaska Department of Fish and Game Sport Fish Division 2030 Sea Level Drive, #205 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Honorable Tony Knowles Governor, State of Alaska P.O. Box 110001 Juneau, AK 99811-0001 Mr. Dick Emerman State of Alaska Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Energy 333 W. Fourth Avenue Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501-2341 Mr. Dennis Meiners State of Alaska Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Energy P.O. Box 112100 Juneau, AK 99811-2100 Application for License - Initial Statement Mr. Riley Snell Alaska Industrial Development & Export Authority 480 W. Tudor Anchorage, AK 99503 Mr. Jim Thrall Locher Interests, Ltd. 406 West Fireweed Lane, Suite 101 Anchorage, AK 99503 Alaska Public Utilities Commission 1016 W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 400 Anchorage, AK 99501 Director University of Alaska - Southeast Economic Development Center - UofASE 2600 - 7th Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Robert Warner Librarian University of Alaska - Southeast 7th Avenue and Madison Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Gary Freitag Southern SE Reg. Aquaculture Association 2721 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. William J. Halloran Southern SE Reg. Aquaculture Association 2721 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Senator Robin Taylor Alaska State Senate State Capitol Juneau, AK 99801 May 1996 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project I-11 FERC No. 11393 Application for License - Initial Statement Mr. Bill Williams Representative 352 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Honorable Jim Carlton Mayor Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Mike Rody Borough Manager Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Jennifer Carmen Coastal Coordinator Ketchikan Gateway Borough Planning Department 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Phyllis Yetka Assembly Member Ketchikan Gateway Borough Box 958 Ward Cove, AK 99901 Honorable Alaire Stanton Mayor City of Ketchikan 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Karl Amylon City Manager City of Ketchikan 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Mr. Fred D. Monrean City of Ketchikan Department of Public Works 334 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. John Magyar General Manager Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Rich Trimble Ketchikan Public Utilities 2930 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. and Mrs. Richard Andrew Ketchikan Advisory Committee P.O. Box 7211 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. and Mrs. Fred Athorp Ketchikan Advisory Committee 10 Creek Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Larry Painter Ketchikan Advisory Committee P.O. Box 6181 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Ralph C. Gregory Citizen's Advisory Committee Federal Areas P.O. Box 7011 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Bridget Stearns Ketchikan Public Library 629 Dock Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 I-12 May 1996 Application for License - Initial Statement Mr. Lew Williams Ms. Bea Watson, President Publisher Tongass Tribe Ketchikan Daily News Box 8634 P.O. Box 7900 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ketchikan Indian Corporation Ms. Belinda Chase 429 Deermount Ketchikan Daily News Ketchikan, AK 99901 P.O. Box 7900 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Chas Edwardsen Vice President Mr. Bob Konet Haida Society News Director 3213 Timberline Court KTKN Radio Ketchikan, AK 99901 526 Stedman Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Honorable Harris Atkinson Mayor, City of Metlakatla Ms. Nancy Watt Metlakatla Indian Comm. Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 8 P.O. Box 5957 Metlakatla, AK 99926 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. J. L. Bennett Mr. Bob Martin, Director Ketchikan Pulp Company Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrification P.O. Box 6600 Authority Ketchikan, AK 99901 P.O. Box 210149 Auke Bay, AK 99821 Mr. O. J. Graham Ketchikan Pulp Company Mr. John Arriola P.O. Box 6600 President Ketchikan, AK 99901 Tsimshian Tribal Association P.O. Box 7162 Ms. Allis May Davis Ketchikan, AK 99901 Tongass Conservation Society P.O. Box 1102 Mr. Richard Jackson Ward Cove, AK 99928 President Tongass Tribal Council Mr. Eric Hummel P.O. Box 3380 Tongass Conservation Society Ketchikan, AK 99901 P.O. Box 3377 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 1-13 FERC No. 11393 Application for License - Initial Statement Southeast Alaska Conservation Council 419 Sixth Street, Suite 328 Juneau, AK 99801 Ms. Kate Tessar Alaska Services Group P.O. Box 22754 Juneau, AK 99802 Alaska Environmental Lobby P.O. Box 521 Haines, AK 99827-0521 Mr. Don Chenhall Chenhall Surveying P.O. Box 5860 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. J. C. Conley Service Auto Parts, Inc. 3806 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. David Kiffer 123 Stedman Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Craig Moore KTN Area State Parks Advisory Board 9883 N. Tongass Highway Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. June Robbins Legislative Information Office 352 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Sherrie Slick Alaska Congressional Delegation 109 Main Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Tena Williams 755 Grant Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Ms. Mary Klugherz McDowell Group 320 Dock St., #201 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Hank Newhouse P.O. Box 9508 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Randall Ruaro Keene & Currall 540 Water Street, Suite 302 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Des Moore 8175 Sehome Road Blaine, WA 98230-9564 Mr. and Mrs. Forrest DeWitt Box 5252 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Tom Fitzgerald City Administrator City of Saxman Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Doug Campbell Cape Fox Corporation P.O. Box 8558 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Mr. Michael V. Stimac, Manager Licensing & Environmental Services HDR Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 91201 Bellevue, WA 98009 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 1-14 May 1996 Mr. John Braislin Betts, Patterson & Mines 800 Financial Center 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98161-1000 Mr. Don Clarke Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer & Quinn 1735 New York Ave NW Washington, DC 20006 Mr. Christopher Estes Alaska Department of Fish & Game Sport Fish Division 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518-1599 Ms. Lana Shea Flanders Alaska Department of Fish & Game P.O. Box 240020 Douglas, AK 99824-0020 Ms. Elizaveta Shadura Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Land 400 Willoughby Avenue Suite 400 Juneau, AK 99801-1724 Application for License - Initial Statement Mr. Duane Petersen U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 3000 Vintage Blvd., No. 201 Juneau, AK 99801 Mr. Stanley Sieczkowski, Manager Maintenance and Operations Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority 480 West Tudor Rd. Anchorage, AK 99503 Mr. Bob Bright Planning Director Ketchikan Gateway Borough 344 Front Street Ketchikan, AK 99901 Dated at Bellevue, Washington, this 31st day of May 1996. __ Bornip Kurdiny Bonnie Lindner May 1996 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project I-15 FERC No. 11393 EXHIBIT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION Exhibit A - Project Description EXHIBIT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 | PROPOSED PROJECT FACILITIES ask 2.2 Z3 2.4 2:3 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 3.0 LANDS OF THE UNITED STATEG...............ccccssccsccssccsccccscsoresccnnssssccccssescces A-6 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 Adi FERC No. 11393 Exhibit A - Project Description EXHIBIT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION This exhibit presents a description of project facilities. The project is located in southeast Alaska approximately 5 air miles northeast of the City of Ketchikan, as shown on Figure A-1. The site generally consists of two lakes, Upper and Lower Mahoney Lake, that are approximately one mile apart, but differ in elevation by over 1,800 feet. It is this difference in elevation that would be utilized by the proposed project to generate electricity. The proposed 9.6 MW project would involve construction of a lake tap that would enter Upper Mahoney Lake about 75 feet below its surface, a vertical shaft, and two tunnels to convey water from Upper Mahoney Lake to the powerhouse. The powerhouse would be located above Lower Mahoney Lake near the base of a large waterfall. Power generated from the project would be transmitted 4.6 miles over a combination of underground and overhead transmission lines. The project would not require construction of a dam. General arrangement drawings of proposed project features is presented are Exhibit F. Table A-1 summarizes characteristics of the proposed project features. 2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT FACILITIES 2.1 Lake Ta U Mahon Existing Upper Mahoney Lake would serve as the reservoir for the project. A natural outlet from the lake maintains the lake water surface elevation at about El. 1959. Surface area of the lake is 74 acres. The proposed project involves construction of a lake tap near the natural outlet and about 75 feet below the normal water surface elevation. A lake tap deeper than this level would provide more drawdown capability, but a deeper lake tap would require a much different, and more costly, tunnel and shaft arrangement with only a marginal increase in energy production. Preliminary surface investigations indicate the general rock quality in the vicinity to be competent for lake tap construction. Usable storage for power generating purposes is about 4,000 acre-feet based on the proposed lake tap elevation. 2.2 Upper Tunnel Construction of the lake tap would first require construction of a 1,700-foot-long tunnel to access the tap. The alignment and profile of the lake tap and upper tunnel section are shown on Exhibits F- 1, F-2, and F-3. A 4-foot-diameter, 20-foot-long pipe would be encased in concrete about 200 feet downstream of the lake tap. The pipe would be closed off with a valve just prior to blasting out the last portion of the tunnel that would create the lake tap, to contain the immediate in-rush of flow Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 A-1 FERC No. 11393 Exhibit A - Project Description and rock from the blast. The valve would be opened once the upper tunnel pipeline is installed and is ready to be pressurized. Tunnel walls would be left unlined except in areas requiring additional support. Rock traps would be excavated in the tunnel invert to capture and retain rock debris from lake tap blasting operations, and from any future loose rock entering the ungated intake area. A 4-foot-diameter steel pipe would be installed from the lake tap pipeline valve to convey water from the upper tunnel to the vertical shaft. A 300-square-foot (approximately) concrete valve house would be constructed at the upper tunnel portal and immediately above the beginning of the vertical shaft. The valve house will contain two 48-inch-diameter butterfly valves and a vent pipe. One valve would act as the primary intake shut-off valve and the other as an emergency shut-off. Both valves would be motor-operated and connected by power and communication lines to the powerhouse. A 12-inch-diameter bypass pipeline would be constructed from the valve house back to Upper Mahoney Creek to provide flow continuation under certain plant shutdown conditions described in Exhibit B. Maximum discharge velocity in the 8-foot horseshoe section of the upper tunnel would be 1.4 feet per second. 2.3 Vertical Shaft A 1,370-foot-long partially lined vertical shaft would be constructed to connect the upper tunnel to the lower tunnel. Preliminary studies indicate the preferred method for excavating the shaft to be the Alimak raise climber method. This is a mining method that would excavate the shaft from the bottom up. A cross section of the shaft would be about 5 feet by 7 feet in unlined sections and 4- foot-diameter in concrete lined sections. It is assumed that half the shaft length can be left unlined. Ultimately, the shaft construction technique used by the construction contractor would dictate the size of the final shaft cross section. 2.4 Lower Tunnel Construction of the vertical shaft would initially require access to the lower end of the shaft. Such access would be provided by constructing an 8-foot horseshoe-shaped tunnel, 3,350-feet-long from the powerhouse portal area. The tunnel would be constructed at a 10% grade to shorten the required length of shaft and to provide positive drainage from the tunnel. The tunnel would provide access during construction and post-construction. Portions of the tunnel would be lined with shotcrete, and supported by rock bolts and steel sets as required. Roof drains and a floor gutter would be constructed to collect and contain tunnel drainage and/or seepage. Turbine flow would be conveyed in a 32-inch-diameter welded steel pipe supported on concrete saddles inside of the tunnel, as shown on Exhibit F-4. A concrete plug would be constructed at the upstream end of the tunnel (bottom of the vertical shaft) in order to pressurize the shaft. A 48-inch- diameter steel pipe would be embedded in the plug to convey flow to the 32-inch-diameter pipe and Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 A-2 May 1996 XREF/S: ML~TB SCALE: 1 = 1 DATE PLOTTED: FILENAME: M: \MAHONEY\FO0659H.0WG REVILLAGIGEDO ISLAND “REVILEAGIGEDO VICINITY MAP CHANNEL ARCTIC OCEAN PACIFIC OCEAN LOCATION MAP CITY OF SAXMAN, ALASKA APPLICATION FOR LICENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11393 PROJECT LOCATION AND VICINITY MAPS HDR Engineering, Inc. Figure Ael Exhibit A - Project Description TABLE A-I 7 ~ PROPOSED PROJECT FEATURES Project Location Sections 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, and 36, Township 74S, Range 91E; Sections 30 and 31, Township 74S, Range 92E; and Sections 5, 6, and 8, Township 75S, Range 92E, Copper River Meridian. Diversion Type | Lake Tap at El. 1880 Reservoir Upper Mahoney Lake: Normal Maximum Reservoir Elevation, El. 1959 Normal Minimum Reservoir Elevation, El. 1890 Drainage Area - 2.1 sq. mi. Active Storage Volume, 4,000 ac-ft Surface Area at El. 1959: 74 acres Surface Area at El. 1890: 45 acres Tunnels/Shaft/Pipeline Upper Tunnel: Type: Partially Lined Horseshoe Size: 8-ft. horseshoe; Max. Velocity: 1.4 fps @ 78 cfs Length: 1,700 ft. Pipeline Type: Welded Steel on Saddles Pipeline Diameter: 48 in. Pipeline Length: 1507 ft. Pressure Shaft: Type: Partially Lined Rectangular Size: 5-ft. by 7-ft. unlined; Max. Velocity: 2.2 fps @ 78 cfs 4-ft. Dia. lined; Max. Velocity: 6.2 fps @ 78 cfs Top of Shaft El.: 1850 Bottom of Shaft El.: 480 Lower Access Tunnel: Type: Partially Lined Horseshoe Size: 8-ft. horseshoe Tunnel Length: 3,350 ft. Invert Slope, percent: 10 Pipeline Type: Welded Steel on Saddles Pipeline Diameter: 32 in. | Pipeline Length: 3,350 ft. Powerhouse Type: Semi-underground Size: 40 ft. by 40 ft. by 28 ft. high Generator Floor El., fmsl: 147 Number of Units: 1 Turbine Type: Pelton Turbine Rating: Minimum Flow: 8 cfs Maximum Flow: 78 cfs Rated Net Head: 1,730 ft. Power: 12,900 hp Generator Rating: Output: 9.6 MW Voltage: 13,200 volts Transmission Line Buried Line Voltage to Switchyard: 13.2 kV Length of 13.2 kV Buried Line: 1.0 miles Length of 34.5 kV Buried Line: 0.5 miles Length of 34.5 kV Overhead Line: 3.1 miles Average Annual Energy 46,000,000 kWh Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 A-4 FERC No. 11393 Exhibit A - Project Description to provide permanent access to the bottom of the shaft for future inspection and maintenance. Permanent access to the lower tunnel would be provided from the powerhouse. 2.5 Powerhouse The powerhouse would be a semi-underground concrete structure constructed at the portal entrance to the lower tunnel. It would be essentially an over-excavated tunnel portal providing approximately 1,600 square feet of space for powerhouse equipment. Because the powerhouse would be set back into the surrounding rock formation, it would be protected from any potential avalanche hazards. Its location is near the base of the first waterfall on Upper Mahoney Creek, about 1,100 feet upstream of the lakeshore from Lower Mahoney Lake. 2.6 Turbine/Generator The powerhouse would contain a single twin-jet horizontal Pelton turbine. The turbine would be tated at 12,900 horsepower at a discharge of 78 cfs and rated net head of 1,730 feet. Minimum operating discharge would be 8 cfs. Centerline of the turbine shaft would be at Hl. 150. The turbine would be coupled to a 13.2 kV synchronous generator capable of continuous operation at 9,600 kw. 2.7 —‘ Tailrace Discharges from the powerhouse would be conveyed back to Upper Mahoney Creek in a 200-foot- long tailrace channel. The channel would be comprised of pre-cast concrete box culvert or corrugated metal pipe for approximately 70 feet immediately downstream of the powerhouse. The remaining channel length would be rip-rap lined earthen channel. The discharge would enter Upper Mahoney Creek at a large pool at the base of the waterfall. 2.8 Access Road A new 2.6 mile-long access road would be constructed between the end of the existing access road northeast of Lower Mahoney Lake and the powerhouse. The new access road would be routed to the south and east of Lower Mahoney Lake. The new road would be a single-lane gravel surfaced Toa¢ with turnouts. The new access road would require construction of two bridges. An approximate 80-foot-long, single-lane bridge would span Lower Mahoney Creek. A second single-lane bridge would span approximately 30 feet across South Creek, a major drainage on the south side of Lower Mahoney Lake. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 A-5S May 1996 Exhibit A - Project Description 2.9 Transmission Line/Switchyard The transmission line route would follow essentially the same route as the new access road between the powerhouse and switchyard. The switchyard would be located approximately one mile from the powerhouse in a low avalanche hazard area on the east side of Mahoney Lake adjacent to the access toad. The transmission line would be buried 13.2-kV conductor following the access road from the powerhouse to the switchyard. A power transformer would be located in the switchyard to step the voltage up to 34.5-kV transmission voltage. From the switchyard, the 3.6-mile-long, 34.5-kV transmission line would be constructed south as a combination of buried and overhead lines to the proposed intertie point with Ketchikan Public Utilities Beaver Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 1922) transmission line, located adjacent to that project's powerhouse. This line would be buried for the first one-half mile to minimize impacts to an existing eagle nesting site. After the first one-half mile, the line would move overhead onto poles. Pole-mounted transmission lines would be designed according to the latest raptor protection guidelines. 2.10 Other Mechanical, Electrical, and Transmission Equipment Hlectrical accessory equipment would include medium voltage switchgear, station service equipment, d.c. power supply, ventilation equipment, and lighting. Instrumentation would include continuous readout of upper reservoir pool elevation, valve status indicators, drain sump level controls, and ventilation controls. A battery back-up system with an on-line charger would be provided to supply control power sufficient to shutdown the plant in the event of a power outage. Battery backups would be at both the powerhouse and the valve house. Power and communications cables for instrument signals would be run in conduit from the powerhouse to the valve house through the lower tunnel and shaft. Level signals from Upper Mahoney Lake, and signals to open and close the pipeline shutoff valves would be sent over the communication cable. The power line would provide power to operate the instruments, valve motor operators, and small space heaters in the valve house. A computer-based plant control panel located in the powerhouse would monitor all plant functions and would shutdown the turbine if any problems arise. A telephone autodialer would then call out to the plant operator to report the problem. The fail-safe operation mode would be to shut down the project in the event of an emergency. Remote monitoring of all plant functions and equipment condition would be performed via a SCADA system over telephone lines. 3.0 | LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES The Mahoney Lake Project would occupy approximately 113.97 acres of federal land managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The location of these lands is shown in Exhibit G. The following are metes and bounds descriptions of federal lands within the project boundary. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 A6 FERC No. 11393 Exhibit A - Project Description LAKE TAP AND TUNNELS That portion of the southwest quarter of Section 26, southeast quarter of Section 27, northeast quarter of Section 34, and northwest quarter of Section 35, Township 74 S., Range 91 E., Copper River Meridian, more fully described as follows: Beginning at the South quarter comer of Section 26, thence north along the quarter section line 765.5 feet more or less to a point along the centerline of the lower tunnel and the true point of beginning. Upper Lake Area Thence north along the quarter section line 25.92 feet, Thence S 73°05'37" W, 2,587.11 feet, Thence N 16°54'23" W, 105.00 feet, Thence S 73°05'37" W, 387.2 feet, Thence § 16°54'23" E, 279.18 feet, Thence S 18°36'46" W, 619.13 feet, Thence N 71°23'14" W, 173.98 feet more or less to El. 1970, on the west bank of Upper Mahoney Creek, approximately 160 feet downstream of the outlet to Upper Mahoney Lake, Thence following contour El. 1970 around Upper Mahoney Lake to a point at an unnamed drainage approximately 535 feet southeast of the outlet to Upper Mahoney Lake, Thence N 8°07'07" E, 486.36 feet, Thence N 18°36'46" E, 757.60 feet, Thence N 73°05'37" E, 344.20 feet, Thence N 16°54'23" W, 150.00 feet, Thence N 73°05'37" E, 2573.46 feet more or less to the Section 26 south quarter section line, Thence north along the quarter section line 25.92 feet to the true point of beginning. Total area is 84.0 acres. ACCESS ROAD AREA That portion of the northeast quarter of Section 25, Township 74 S., Range 91 E., Copper River Meridian, more fully described as follows: Beginning at the east 1/16th comer of the northwest quarter of Section 25, thence east along the 1/16th line 1,060.96 feet to the centerline of the new access road right-of-way and the true point of beginning. Thence N 88°22'12" E, 50.85 feet, Thence S 8°51'50" W, 300.43 feet, Thence S 50°58'49" W, 444.72 feet to the property boundary with Cape Fox Corporation, Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 A-7 May 1996 Exhibit A - Project Description Thence N 50°58'49" E, 374.92 feet, Thence N 8°51'50" E, 243.4 feet, Thence N 88°22'12" E, 50.85 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Total area is 1.6 acres. TRANSMISSION LINE AREA Those portions of Section 5 and 6, Township 75 S., Range 90 E., and Section 30 and 31, Township 74 S., Range 91 E., Copper River Meridian, more fully described as follows. Beginning at the southeast comer of Section 5, Township 75 S., Range 90E., thence east 690 feet to the centerline of the new transmission line right-of-way and the true point of beginning, thence the new right-of-way would be 100-feet wide, 50 feet either side of the centerline described as follows, beginning at the true point of beginning. Thence N 5° E, 1040 feet, Thence N 36° W, 3330 feet, Thence N 13 ° W, 2940 feet, Thence N 37° W, 1090 feet, Thence N 55° W, 640 feet, Thence N 32° W, 1550 feet, Thence N 49° W, 1770 feet to the property boundary with Cape Fox Corporation, the end of the centerline. Total area is 28.37 acres Total project area on National Forest system lands is 113.97 acres. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 A-8 FERC No. 11393 EXHIBIT B PROJECT OPERATION AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization EXHIBIT B PROJECT OPERATION AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 ned 3.0 Sel 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 5.0 Dell 5:2 333 5.4 SD 6.0 Projected KPU System Energy Requirements ...............cccsssssseeeeeeeceeeeeeceeeeeeeeeees B-34 Project Economics and Resource Utilization...............::ssseccseseceeeeseceeeeeceeeeeeeeeees B-38 Conservation PrOgrathi IMPACIS)o15+-se<coca cases scosesscccrcosecsersonccevesrscccencoseccccceseee B-39 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 Bi FERC No. 11393 Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization EXHIBIT B PROJECT OPERATION AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION TABLE OF Figure B-l Mahoney Lake: Drainage Basins <2. << .<<-<5-00s.0+.00s-.0+-00c00ss00secscessvceseossossseesse B-2 Upper Mahoney Lake, Flow-Duration Curve .................:secseeceeesseceeeeeseeeeees B-3 Upper Mahoney Lake, Stage-Area Curve ...............:sccecceceeceeeeceeceeeeeceeeeececs B-4 Upper Mahoney Lake, Stage-Capacity Curve .............:scccsecsssesscssceeseseceeeees B-5_ Tailwater Rating Curve scccesse sass: ssassrssescoscocescessooecsrcoeceoceosecyrrecysoeceestos B-6 Bypass Reach Average Monthly Flows Due to Drainage Basin Inflows............... B-7 Upper Mahoney Lake, Average Monthly Flows, Downstream of Powerhouse ...... B-8 Upper Mahoney Lake, Flow Duration Curve, Downstream of Powerhouse, Pre= anil POB-PIO}OCE 56 sc cscen cos coe sas5r05sseee Soeceeasieeseaecaeawes¥esccsssausesessertes B-9 Lower Mahoney Creek, Pre- and Post-Project Average Monthly Flows ............. B-10 Lower Mahoney Creek, Pre- and Post-Project Flow Duration Curves ............... B-11 Previous Projections of KPU System Load Growth ...............cscsesseceeceeceeeeeees B-12 -KPU-Forecast-Loads-and ResOurces-...<<<<5..5.00cc0scsc0sc0ssoessssscsscosssevscssoecsactes Table B-1 Average Annual Energy Generation, Year 2000 ................ccceeeeceeeceececeeceecees B-2 Average Annual Energy Generation, Year 2005 and Beyond .................ceeceeeees B-3_ Energy Generation with Year 2000 Load and Low Water Year ................:000008 B-4 Energy Generation with Year 2000 Load and High Water Year ..................0.04 B-5 Days Plant Could Run at Full Load with Various Inflows...................essceeeeeees B-6 Upper Mahoney Lake, Average Monthly Flow .................sccceececsseeeceeceeeeeees B-7 Turbine Discharge versus Generator Output ..................cceeceececceeceeeceeeeeecees B-8 Average Flow Contributed to Bypass Reach from Upper Lake Spill................... B-9 Effects of Plant Shutdown on Average Stream Flow Regimes (with No Flow Continuation) ................:cccsececceececceccecececeececeecsceecesceece B-10 Effects of Plant Short-term Full Load Operation on Average WeCaM HlOW REGIMES \....secenccoscyseoecccteasnescoscnssccroseescatosertnsettece meee nents B-11 Rated Capacity and Energy Generation Capability of KPU's Generating RESOUICES o..c.ncccncnesececcccecsicnscossccestescuccteesevetetceetoeteennteeete B-12 KPU's Annual Energy Requirements and Annual Maximum Demands ............... B13 APA: FOTOCARt «cn vscsecr sconcccterececccccaccocsronccaeroneccostecseeerecenitceeseee erent B-14) CH2M Pill Borecast ccc .cocscoscssessscssessecesecesccecoccceesccesssccsseestavecosssecetes B15 | KEU Rorecast (1992-1996) xcss0ssccsss scosscosecccoccccccsseststcneecetrsceteeeececerees B-16 ISER Forecast (1990-2010) ..............cssssssscssssssssscccssessccenscseccessscccconsesece Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 B-ii May 1996 Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization EXHIBIT B PROJECT OPERATION AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE SITES AND PROJECTS One alternative project site was considered by the Applicant, but was eliminated from further study due to poor economics and low developable plant capacity. The alternative site is located on the White River in Sections 20 and 21, Township 74S, Range 91E, Copper River Meridian. The site is approximately 3 miles northwest of the proposed project site. The alternative site would consist of a 15-foot-high diversion dam and intake, about 2,000 feet of 28-inch diameter buried steel penstock, and a powerhouse containing a single 750-kW Francis turbine. Power would be transmitted approximately 1,000 feet to an intertie point with the existing 115-kV transmission line of the Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2911). Other alternatives to the proposed project have been studied and documented by others in past reports. Alternatives include: 1. Lake Tyee (FERC No. 3015)-Swan Lake (FERC No. 2911) Intertie Project. 23 Swan-Quartz Hill Intertie Project. 3. Lake Grace Hydroelectric Project. 4. Additional Diesel Generation. Descriptions and evaluations of these alternatives are presented in the following references: 1, Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. November 1994. Economic and Fi F ent of the Sw: ee Lakes Intertie Project. 2. R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc., Dames & Moore Power Technologies, Inc. June 1992. Feasibility Study. Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Transmission Intertie. 3. R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. March 1986. Appraisal Study 1985 Update. Future Hydropower Resources. Ketchikan, Petersburg, Wrangell and Quartz Hill. 4. Alaska District Corps of Engineers, Anchorage, Alaska. July 1983. Rivers and Harbors in Alaska. Draft Interim Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement. Hydroelectric Power for Sitka, Petersburg/Wrangell, and Ketchikan, Alaska. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 ; FERC No. 11393 B-1 Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization 5. R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. June 1977. Appraisal Report. Swan Lake, Lake Grace and Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Projects. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE FACILITY DESIGNS The proposed project arrangement was selected following study of alternative facility designs. Alternatives to the lake tap, conveyance facilities, powerhouse and transmission line were studied. The following are descriptions of each alternative. 2.1 Alternatives to Proposed Lake Tap Three alternatives to the proposed lake tap were considered. These are: I, Construct a dam at the outlet to Upper Mahoney Lake. 2. Construct a dam approximately 2,000 feet downstream of the Upper Mahoney Lake outlet. 3. Construct a deeper lake tap. A dam constructed at the outlet to Upper Mahoney Lake would be subjected continually to the threat of damage or failure from rockslide. The left abutment is an unstable, talus covered slope that rises over 600 feet at an average slope of 1:1. The rockslide potential is great in this area, and any attempt to stabilize the existing left abutment slope would be impractical and economically prohibitive. Constructing a dam at the lower location would shorten the required tunnel length, but the rockslide potential remains high. Alternatives involving dams would be operated as run-of-river projects, otherwise a high dam would be required to develop the approximate 4,000 acre-feet (ac.-ft.) of active storage provided by the proposed project. If additional storage becomes attractive economically in the future, a small dam near the lake outlet could be added to the project at that time through the license amendment process. Constructing the lake tap at a deeper level was also considered, but studies show there would be little economic advantage to the Applicant to creating a greater active storage pool. Additional annual generation would be insignificant, and there would be a greater chance of not completely filling Upper Mahoney Lake each year. Reservoir level fluctuations would be over 200 feet, potentially causing rim stability and water siltation concerns. A deeper lake tap also presents greater design and construction challenges in accurately locating where the tap should be made, making the tap, and in controlling water seepage into the tunnel. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 May 1996 B-2 Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization 2.2 Alternative Water Conveyance Configurations Three alternative water conveyance configurations were evaluated. These alternatives are: 1. Instead of constructing the proposed upper tunnel, construct a low height dam and intake at the outlet of Upper Mahoney Lake and divert flow into a 500-foot-long Pipeline to the top of the proposed vertical shaft. The proposed vertical shaft and lower tunnel would remain the same. 2. Same as Alternative 1, except divert flows into a different shaft and tunnel arrangement approximately 2,000 feet downstream of the dam. 35 Constructing a pipeline the full length from a low-height dam at the outlet of Upper Mahoney Lake to the proposed powerhouse location. 2.2.1 Alternative 1 In place of the upper tunnel and lake tap in the proposed project, consideration was given to constructing a low height dam about 500 feet downstream from Upper Mahoney Lake. In this arrangement project operation would also be strictly run-of-river. Any dam constructed on the stream will be susceptible to damage by rockslide or avalanche, particularly from the steep left abutment. For this reason, the minimum size structure necessary to divert streamflow into the intake was selected. The dam would consist of a grouted gabion structure with an upstream steel plate impervious barrier. The dam would be about 20-feet-high and be designed to withstand overtopping flows. The spillway crest would be located 3 feet above the normal maximum water surface elevation to provide a small amount of flood control storage, about 220 ac.-ft. Streamflow would be diverted into a concrete and rock-walled intake structure located in the tight abutment. A motor-operated 36-inch butterfly valve would be located in an underground vault on the right bank immediately downstream of the dam. A 32-inch buried steel pipeline would convey diverted streamflow a distance of 450 feet to the vertical shaft. The shaft location would not change with the lake tap or dam alternative. The primary disadvantages of the dam alternative include investment in a structure that has a high risk of partial or total damage at some time during its economic life, and the inability of this arrangement to supply firm energy due to run-of-river operation and the lack of storage. A higher dam could be constructed to provide storage, but this increases the potential economic loss in the event of a rockslide or avalanche event. By constructing the minimum height dam necessary, the potential economic loss due to replacement costs and lost generation is minimized. Considerable rock excavation would be required to construct the 450-foot pipeline from the dam to the shaft. Construction cost estimates and energy generation estimates for this alternative were prepared and showed that the run-of-river operating mode of this alternative reduced its cost effectiveness considerably. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 FERC No. 11393 B-3 Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization 2.2.2 Alternative 2 This alternative would involve construction of the same low height dam described in Alternative 1. A 2,000-foot-long, 32-inch-diameter steel pipeline would be constructed following the south and east ends of a natural bowl formed just north of Upper Mahoney Lake. At the downstream end of the pipeline a vertical shaft would be constructed from about El. 1900 to Hl. 400. A 2,700-foot-long tunnel would connect the bottom of the shaft to the powerhouse, and would contain a 32-inch-diameter steel pipe supported on concrete saddles. The principal disadvantages of this alternative are the landslide and avalanche hazard threats to the dam as described in Alternative 1, additional threats to the 2,000 feet of pipeline constructed partially through talus slopes, and lower annual generation than the proposed project arrangement. 2.2.3 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 avoids the use of a tunnel concept completely and instead uses a combination of buried and surface pipeline to transport water from Upper Mahoney Lake to the powerhouse. The pipeline would follow the same route as in Alternative 2, but instead of constructing a shaft and tunnel, the pipeline would be constructed down the steep mountain slopes to the powerhouse at El. 150. However, inspection of the terrain revealed that the existing ground is a series of vertical cliffs between 50 and 200 feet high. There is considerable evidence of frequent avalanches across the whole cliff face during winter. This makes construction of a pipeline extremely dangerous, technically very difficult, and consequently more costly than underground alternatives. This alternative would operate strictly as a run-of-river facility. The diverted flow to the turbine would equal inflow to the lake, and the lake level would be generally held constant. A few feet of drawdown might be usable for daily peaking. The positive aspect of run-of-river operation is that there is minimal environmental impact since the lake is at constant levels at all times. After study, this alternative was rejected for two main reasons; 1) the pipeline route is very steep and would have to pass through a rockslide and snow avalanche-susceptible area making construction and maintenance of an above-ground pipeline almost impossible; and 2) the operating mode of this project, run-of-river, was much less beneficial to the local utility in meeting the power and energy needs of the region. 2.3 Alternative Powerhouse Types and Locations A conventional above-ground concrete powerhouse structure was considered in the studies. However, such a structure would be less protected from avalanche hazards and cost more than the semi-underground structure as proposed. Avalanches are prevalent in the area during winter, Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 May 1996 B-4 Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization and can topple and transport large trees in their path. Cost savings are realized by not having to construct heavy formed walls and a roof. Also, equipment required to excavate the lower tunnel could be used to excavate the proposed powerhouse. The powerhouse was sited with safety from avalanche and rockfall hazards foremost in mind. Other powerhouse locations were considered, including locations along the south side of the alluvial fan entering Mahoney Lake and on the north side of the stream. The proposed site was selected because it is less susceptible to avalanches, provides good rock cover immediately upstream of the powerhouse, and requires only a short tailrace channel to discharge flows back to Upper Mahoney Creek. 2.4 Alternative Transmission Line Routing An alternative to the proposed transmission line route would be to interconnect with AEA's existing Swan Lake Project (FERC No. 2911) with a new 115-kV transmission line that would mun to the north from Lower Mahoney Lake about 5.5 miles. This route would be about 1.5 miles longer in total length than the proposed 34.5-kV southern route. Most of the 115-kV northern transmission line would be constructed adjacent to an existing timber access road on lands owned by the Cape Fox Corporation, and would only require construction of about 2.6 miles of new road for joint transmission line construction and project site access. The disadvantage of routing the transmission line this way is that when the Swan Lake Project (FERC No. 2911) trips off-line, it would cause disruptions to the entire Ketchikan service area and prevent generation from Mahoney Lake. Routing the transmission line to the south via the Beaver Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 1922) adds redundancy to the system and would allow service to continue uninterrupted to the downtown Ketchikan area in the event of a Swan Lake Project line trip. This is of great benefit to KPU and the public because power would Temain uninterrupted in downtown Ketchikan. 2.5 Alternative ission Li nifi: tion The alternative of burying the entire transmission line was also reviewed to minimize: (1) the amount of tree clearing and vegetation disturbance, (2) alteration of the area's aesthetics, (3) disturbance to wildlife, and (4) potential soil erosion and sediment discharge. Because portions of the route contain bedrock, blasting would be required to create the trench. This, combined with the rugged, difficult terrain, would make undergrounding the entire line too costly. Due to these impacts, this alternative was not considered feasible. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 FERC No. 11393 Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF PLANT OPERATION 3.1 meral Plant tion It is planned that the Mahoney Lake Project will be integrated into the Ketchikan Public Utilities' (KPU) electrical generating system. KPU's system is an isolated network that includes Beaver Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 1922), AEA's Swan Lake Project (FERC No. 2911), several other small hydroelectric plants, and several diesel generating units. The system is not connected to any regional power grid, and operates as an isolated system. When insufficient hydropower is available to meet local needs, expensive diesel generators must be started and operated to make up any shortfall. The nameplate capacity of KPU's current generating resource mix is about 70% hydroelectric and 30% diesel. The Mahoney Lake Project will change the percentages to about 75% hydroelectric and 25% diesel, and will provide KPU additional seasonal flexibility in scheduling its resources because of the 4,000 ac.-ft. of useable storage developed in Upper Mahoney Lake. Under the Four-Dam Pool Agreement with the Alaska Energy Authority, KPU must purchase power from the Swan Lake Project (FERC No. 2911) before using power from any other resource, including KPU-owned diesel generation. KPU can, however, use power from its own existing hydroelectric resources before purchasing Swan Lake Project (FERC No. 2911) power. The requirement that KPU purchase Swan Lake Project (FERC No. 2911) power over other new resources, including the Mahoney Lake Project, is not a significant issue since KPU system loads have now grown to a level that requires use of the full energy output available from the Swan Lake Project (FERC No. 2911) every year as well as KPU's other hydroelectric resources. Furthermore, future energy forecasts indicate load growth will continue at a rate such that by year 1998, the year substantial construction of the project is anticipated to begin, KPU loads would exceed, by about 25,000,000 kWh, the average energy generation capability of all hydroelectric resources in its system. Because all of KPU's hydroelectric resources will be fully utilized under these scenarios, KPU will have some flexibility to adjust operations of their various hydroelectric resources in order to maximize the benefits of the Mahoney Lake Project to the community. The proposed power plant will be fully automated with remote operation control for dispatching changes and routine start-up and shut-down sequences. Pressure transducers located in the valve house will continually sense and transmit to the powerhouse the water surface elevation of Upper Mahoney Lake. A programmable logic controller (PLC) in the powerhouse will process the lake level signal, together with other input signals, and adjust the turbine nozzles according to a pre- programmed set of instructions. Depending on KPU's future dispatching preferences, the Mahoney Lake Project may be operated as a base load resource to maximize annual energy generation, or as a peaking facility to serve anticipated seasonal, weekly and daily capacity demands. The turbine for this project has been proposed as a two-jet pelton type turbine, with Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 May 1996 B-6 Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization capability to pass flows from about 8 cfs minimum to a maximum of 78 cfs, depending on power demands and water availability. The unit will be incapable of passing more than 78 cfs. The analysis of plant operations assumes that the project will be operated as a base load resource. The project is assumed to generate to meet the projected energy demand that is in excess of KPU’s current hydroelectric generation capabilities. Energy demand forecasts and current generation capabilities are described in Section 5 of this Exhibit. The seasonal variation of the annual demand is assumed to follow the recent historic variation in KPU generation. As an integrated resource in KPU’s system, variations of this operational scenario are possible. 3.2. Normal Water Year tion Normal operation of the project would have the reservoir full, or at about elevation 1959, at the beginning of winter. Storage would be combined with local inflow to meet the winter energy demands. The pool would reach minimum elevations in late spring and refill with summer and fall runoff. In the early years of plant operation, the project would be capable of fully displacing the diesel generation requirements of the KPU system. During the first year of operation, only about 57% of the available water would be needed for generation based on the ISER forecasted load for year 2000. The remaining water would spill from Upper Mahoney Lake. As the system load grows, available water would be utilized for energy generation until the output from the project is maximized. Under the assumed seasonal variation of load, available water would be maximized when the annual energy demand on the system reached about 215,000 MWh. From the ISER base case forecast, this energy demand would occur in year 2017. Projected monthly operation of the project during the first year of operation is shown in Figure B-1. Operation of the maximized project is shown in Figure B-2. With an average water year and full system operations, the upper lake would be full in October and drafted to minimum pool level by the end of April. During these months flows downstream of the powerhouse would be above pre-project conditions as storage would be used to supplement natural inflow. From May through August, the upper lake will be refilling with spring and summer snowmelt and runoff. Plant releases; and the flow downstream of the powerhouse will be below pre-project flows during this period. Once the upper lake is full, the project will operate on runoffs and post-project flows will be similar to pre-project flows. The monthly average flows shown in Tables B-1 and B-2 represent the expected flow rates through the project on an average basis under the assumed energy demand profile. It should be noted, however, that other operation scenarios are possible. Circumstances may arise when KPU’s other energy resources are shutdown for a variety of reasons and the Mahoney Lake Project must be operated to help carry the electrical demand of Ketchikan. Under Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 FERC No. 11393 B-7 Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization these conditions, the project would likely be operated at full load, or 78 cfs. until the other resources can be brought back on-line. Another scenario to maximize the energy production from the project sooner would be to seasonally vary the distribution of the load placed on the project. Under this scenario, during the early years of the project, the project would produce more energy during the fall months than is depicted in Table B-1. The additional water that is used that would normally have gone as uncontrolled spill could be theoretically “banked” at other hydroelectric projects within KPU’s system and used to offset diesel generation later in the year. This flexibility to vary the plant output is critical to being able to provide power for the citizens of Ketchikan at the most economical rate. When fully utilized, the Mahoney Lake Project will operate at a 0.55 plant factor. For comparison, the Swan Lake Project (FERC No. 2911) operates at a 0.42 plant factor and the combined KPU-owned hydroelectric facilities operate at a 0.63 plant factor. 3.3. Low Water Year Operation Operation of the project will be coordinated with KPU's other operating resources to best use each resource during normal and extreme hydrologic conditions. The general operating criteria will stipulate minimum and maximum pool levels with the objective of minimizing "spill" through the natural lake outlet. During a low water year, the minimum pool level will be sustained for a longer period of time, and the plant will operate as a "run-of-river" project during that period, simulating pre-project conditions downstream of the powerhouse. An example of operation during a low water year is shown on Table B-3. The table is based on an annual load requirement of 215,000 MWh and recorded monthly inflows during Water Year 1978, the lowest year from a 35-year database. The table shows that the project can produce 29,600 MWh of energy, or 64% of the annual energy produced under similar conditions as shown in Table B-2. 3.4 High Water Year Operation During a high water year, insufficient storage volume and high inflow to Upper Mahoney Lake will exceed the turbine's maximum hydraulic capacity resulting in loss of runoff through the existing natural lake outlet. Table B-4 shows an example of project operation during the wettest year in the 35-year database, Water Year 1987. The table shows that the project can produce 52,400 MWh, or 113% of the annual energy produced under similar conditions as shown in Table B-2. Upper Mahoney Lake is restored to its normal maximum operating level by the end of June, and remains at this level until November, spilling some water down the bypass reach throughout this period. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 May 1996 B-8 “SLOWER LAKE ‘whe BYPASSED DRAINAGE AREA=0.67 SQ. MI. \/ fr. \ TOTAL EAREASD.7 SQ. MI UPPER L DRAINAGE A =2.1 SQ. MAHONEY LAKE DRAINAGE BASINS FIGURE B-1 Flow (cfs) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 FIGURE B-2 UPPER MAHONEY LAKE FLOW-DURATION CURVE 20 40 60 80 100 Exceedance (%) fig-b2.xIs Table B-1 MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Average Annual Energy Generation - Year 2000 Annual Demand 174,383 MWhrs Minimum Pool Elev.: KPU Hydro Capability 147,650 MWhrs Pool Starting Elev.: KPU Un-Met Demand 26,733 MWhrs Turbine Elev.: Assumed Head Loss: Assumed Eff. Ending Pool Elevation 1959 SUMMARY OF GENERATION KPU Un-Met Demand 26,733 MWhrs Mahoney Generation 26,733 100.0% Required Diesel Generation 0 0.0% Table B-2 MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Maximum Annual Energy Generation - Average Water Year Annual Demand 215,000 KPU Hydro Capability 147,650 MWhrs KPU Un-Met Demand 67,350 MWhrs Ending Pool Elevation SUMMARY OF GENERATION KPU Un-Met Demand Mahoney Generation Required Diesel Generation 1959 67,350 46,066 21,284 Minimum Pool Elev.: Pool Starting Elev.: Turbine Elev.: Assumed Head Loss: Assumed Eff. MWhrs 68.4% 31.6% Table B-3 MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Maximum Annual Energy Generation - Low Water Year Annual Demand 215,000 KPU Hydro Capability 147,650 MWhrs KPU Un-Met Demand 67,350 MWhrs Ending Pool Elevation SUMMARY OF GENERATION KPU Un-Met Demand Mahoney Generation Required Diesel Generation 1959 67,350 29,640 37,710 Minimum Pool Elev.: Pool Starting Elev.: Turbine Elev.: Assumed Head Loss: Assumed Eff. MWhrs 44.0% 56.0% Table B-4 MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Maximum Annual Energy Generation - High Water Year Annual Demand 215,000 KPU Hydro Capability 147,650 MWhrs KPU Un-Met Demand 67,350 MWhrs SUMMARY OF GENERATION KPU Un-Met Demand Mahoney Generation Required Diesel Generation 67,350 52,414 14,936 Minimum Pool Elev.: Pool Starting Elev.: Turbine Elev.: Assumed Head Loss: Assumed Eff. MWhrs 771.8% 22.2% Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization 4.0 AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY AND DEPENDABLE CAPACITY During an average water year, the project would be able to generate an average of 46,000,000 kWh and provide 9.6 MW of dependable capacity. This energy estimate excludes station service and transmission losses, and is based on 12 years of actual daily streamflow records at the outlet to Upper Mahoney Lake, and 23 years of synthesized daily records from a gage located at the outlet to Lower Mahoney Lake. Derivation of long-term project streamflow data is described in Section 4.1. Upper Mahoney Lake will provide about 4,000 ac.-ft. of active storage for power production. This amount of storage can provide continuous operation at full load, 9,600 kW, for 52 days assuming inflow to Upper Mahoney Lake averages 40 cfs over the same period. An inflow of 40 cfs is exceeded 39% of the time. In the worst case, assuming no inflow to Upper Mahoney Lake, it would take 26 days to draft the full pool if the unit is operated at full capacity. Table B-5 shows the number of days the plant can operate at full capacity as a function of Upper Mahoney Lake elevation for a range of inflow values. TABLE B-5 DAYS PLANT COULD RUN AT FULL LOAD WITH VARIOUS INFLOWS 1959 | 1959 (full) | [9990 [a [sso [| +f i 1959 (full) a 1959 (full) 1959 (full) Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 FERC No. 11393 B-15 Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization If power from the Swan Lake Project (FERC No. 2911) is not available during the time of peak load, the KPU system could currently supply 26,950 kW of capacity. The peak demand on KPU's system in 1992 was 27,400 kW, and has grown at an average rate of 3% over the last nine years. The 9.6 MW of firm capacity from the Mahoney Lake Project would provide valuable reserve capacity in the event of loss of the single largest generating resource in the KPU grid. 4.1 ivation of Term Daily Flows The proposed project will utilize runoff from a 2.1 square mile (sq. mi.) drainage area supplying Upper Mahoney Lake. The lake lies within the region of maritime influence of southeastern Alaska. The area receives limited sunshine, abundant precipitation, and generally moderate temperatures. The area's rugged terrain causes considerable variations over short distances for both precipitation and local temperatures. The attached drainage basin map, Figure B-1, shows the Mahoney Lakes drainage basin and its various contributing sub-basins. Daily streamflow data was recorded at the outlet to Upper Mahoney Lake for water years 1978 to 1989 (USGS Gage #15067900). The gage is considered to be an accurate representation of flow available for diversion. Table B-6 presents average monthly flows at the gage for the years 1978 to 1989. Based on this 12-year period of record, the average annual outflow from Upper Mahoney Lake is about 43 cfs. An additional 23 years of streamflow records were developed to provide a long- term hydrologic data base. Based on the 35-year period of actual and synthesized data, the average annual outflow from Upper Mahoney Lake is estimated to be about 44 cfs, as shown on Table B-6. This compares to previous estimates of 46 cfs (Beck, 1977) and 48 cfs (COE, 1978). Synthesized flows were derived by standard correlation techniques. Daily flows at the outlet to Upper Mahoney Lake were synthesized by correlating the gage at Upper Mahoney Lake (#15067900) to gage #15068000, Mahoney Creek near Ketchikan, Alaska. The drainage area of gage #15068000 is 5.7 sq. mi. and includes the 2.1 sq. mi. contributing to gage #15067900. The period of record for gage #15068000 is 1920-1933, 1947-1958, and 1977-1981. The two gages have a four year overlapping period of record; water years 1978 to 1981. The gages were correlated on a yearly basis, resulting in a correlation coefficient of 0.70, which is considered acceptable. Basically, this is a correlation of annual flow volumes between the two gages. A search for a hydrologically similar gaged basin in the vicinity of the diversion site was performed in an attempt to achieve a better correlation. However, a search for a gage with an extended period of record which overlaps the Upper Mahoney Lake gage revealed no usable gages within a 100 mile radius of the project. Therefore, the gage at Mahoney Creek was used. The relationship between the two gages as established by the linear correlation is Y = 0.41K + 1.8, where X = flow on Lower Mahoney Creek and Y = flow at the diversion site. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 May 1996 B-16 Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization The above equation was applied to the gage at Lower Mahoney Creek for the years 1921-1925, 1927-1933, and 1948-1958. These are the years of complete records of daily flow at the Lower Mahoney Creek gage. As stated above, since the correlation between the two gages relates annual volume, monthly adjustment factors were applied to the synthesized daily flow at the upper gage, causing the monthly percentages of the annual average of the synthesized data to match the monthly percentages of the actual gaged data at the diversion site, while maintaining the correlated volume. These 23 years of synthesized daily flows, added to the 12 years of historical flows, provide 35 years of data at the diversion site. Figure B-2 shows a flow-duration curve at the outlet to Upper Mahoney Lake for the 35-year period. UPPER MAHONEY LAKE AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOW 4.2 for Period of The minimum and maximum recorded daily discharges from the Upper Mahoney Lake outlet for the 12 year period of record, October 1977 through September 1989, are 0.44 cfs on December 30, 1983, and 965 cfs on October 29, 1983. 4.3 Area and Capacity Curves The surface area of Upper Mahoney Lake as a function of elevation is shown on Figure B-3. The surface area is 74 acres at the normal maximum water surface elevation, El. 1959, and 45 acres at minimum operating pool El. 1890. A stage-storage curve for Upper Mahoney Lake is shown on Figure B-4. Gross storage within the natural lake is approximately 8,000 ac.-ft. There is 4,000 acre-feet of useable storage within the normal operating range of the project, El. 1959 to El. 1890. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 FERC No. 11393 B-17 Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization 4.4 Powerplant Hydraulic Capacity Based on the flow-duration curve shown on Figure B-2, a discharge of 78 cfs was selected for the turbine design hydraulic capacity. This corresponds to a 15% exceedence value. Anticipated combined efficiencies of the turbine and generator, and generator output, at various turbine discharges is shown below in Table B-7. <= coenananns a = = = TABLE B-7 TURBINE DISCHARGE VERSUS GENERATOR OUTPUT 4.5 Tailwater Rating Curve The tailwater rating curve for the project is shown on Figure B-5. The curve is based on a 5- foot-wide rectangular concrete tailrace channel. The normal maximum tailwater elevation will be El. 138.0 at the rated turbine discharge of 78 cfs. The tailrace channel invert at the powerhouse will be set at El. 136.0. Since the turbine selected for this project is an impulse unit, energy output will be unaffected by tailwater levels. 4.6 Powerplant Capability Versus Head The 9.6 MW Pelton turbine will have a design head of 1,730 feet, and operate within a net head range between 1,660 and 1,800 feet. Maximum net head will be experienced at minimum discharge, 8 cfs, and normal maximum pool El. 1959. Minimum net head on the unit will occur at maximum discharge, 78 cfs, and minimum pool El. 1890. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 May 1996 B-18 ELEVATION 2000 1950 1900 1850 1800 1750 1700 1650 FIGURE B-3 UPPER MAHONEY LAKE STAGE-AREA CURVE 40 50 60 SURFACE AREA, (ACRES) 70 —_ ee ee Max. Pool El. 1959 __| Oe A eae - Ss fT Min.Poolel.1890 fl | | |, r T FIG-B3.xIs ELEVATION 2000 1950 1900 1850 1800 1750 1700 1650 FIGURE B-4 UPPER MAHONEY LAKE STAGE-CAPACITY CURVE —_ . - | | Max. Poft £1.1959| ot - a. ae |___ _| Min. Pool E1890) A | ane Lanse fnnerencmnr nile nln scepter ote en eo oO 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 CAPACITY, (A-F) 7000 8000 9000 10000 FIG-B4.xls TAILWATER ELEVATION 140 139.5 139 138.5 138 137.5 137 136.5 136 135.5 135 FIGURE B-5 TAILWATER RATING CURVE Normal Maximum | TWEL| 138.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 PLANT DISCHARGE, CFS FIG-BS5.xls Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization 4.7 Effects of Project Operation 4.7.1 Upper Mahoney Lake The surface area of Upper Mahoney Lake is a function of elevation. As the lake level is drawn down, its surface area decreases. The surface area is 74 acres at the normal maximum water surface elevation, El. 1959, and 45 acres at minimum operating pool El. 1890. Gross storage within the natural lake is approximately 8,000 ac.-ft. There is approximately 4,000 ac.-ft. of useable storage within the normal operating range of the project, El. 1959 to El. 1890 (See Figure B-4). Projected lake levels at various times of the year, and under various operating scenarios, can be taken from Tables B-1 through B-4. 4.7.2 Upper Mahoney Creek, Upstream of Powerhouse (Bypass Reach) Pre-project flow conditions for average daily flows were determined in the feasibility study for the project as described above. The post-project average daily flows in the bypass reach were calculated by area correlation as being equal to inflow from the bypass reach drainage upstream of the powerhouse, plus any spillage that occurs out of the Upper lake. The bypass reach has a drainage area of 0.67 sq. mi. Figure B-6 shows the monthly average inflows to the bypass reach from the drainage basin. Bypass reach flows coming from drainage basin inflow vary between approximately 6 cfs to 27 cfs. In addition to inflow from the drainage basin, the bypass reach will carry any spill from Upper Mahoney Lake that occurs when insufficient storage is available to capture all the available run-off. From Tables B-2 through B-4, spill from the upper lake contributes additional flow to the bypass reach, as detailed on Table B-8. TABLE B-8 AVERAGE FLOW CONTRIBUTED TO BYPASS REACH FROM UPPER LAKE SPILL (cfs) ae] Rascemerree Tee porter le fe teeter elastase [py warver [oo lo |e le |e |e lo |e jo fo |e | Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 May 1996 30.0 25.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 + FIGURE B-6 BYPASS REACH AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS DUE TO DRAINAGE BASIN INFLOWS oO CT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Months figb67-8.xls Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization 4.7.3. Upper Mahoney Creek, Downstream of Powerhouse The post-project average daily flows in Upper Mahoney Creek downstream of the powerhouse will be the sum of inflow from the bypass reach drainage upstream of the powerhouse and the proposed turbine outlet flows for each month. It should be noted that the turbine flows used here are average expected flows in normal or average years, and represent average monthly operation. Actual operation could vary on a day-to-day basis based on loads and energy demands in the Ketchikan power delivery system. Figure B-7 is a plot of the long-term pre-project average flows and the expected post-project flows based on an average water year. Figure B-8 is plot of the flow duration curve for each condition. 4.7.4 Lower Mahoney Lake and Lower Mahoney Creek The drainage area at the outlet of Lower Mahoney Lake is 5.7 sq. mi. This includes 2.1 sq. mi. of drainage at the outlet of Upper Mahoney Lake. The upper lake, therefore, represents only 37% of the total drainage area at the lower lake. Flow at the lower lake outlet after project construction will consist of turbine discharges plus the contribution from 3.6 sq. mi. of additional drainage basin (0.67 sq mi. in bypass reach and 2.93 sq. mi. elsewhere). Average daily flows for existing conditions are available from USGS gage data as described earlier. Average daily flows for post-project conditions were calculated by subtracting existing flows at the Upper Mahoney Lake outlet from the Lower Mahoney Creek USGS gage in order to obtain an estimate of the existing flows in the lower creek excluding the flows contributed by the upper lake. These flows were then added to the proposed turbine discharge flows, resulting in estimated post- project flows for Lower Mahoney Creek. Figure B-9 shows the estimated average monthly flows for existing and post-project conditions. Figure B-10 is a plot of the flow duration curve for both conditions. By comparing Figures B-7 and B-8 with Figures B-9 and B-10, it becomes apparent that the impact of the proposed hydroelectric project on the lower lake is much less than the impact on the short stream section downstream of the powerhouse, but upstream of Lower Mahoney Lake. This is primarily due to the fact that Upper Mahoney Creek accounts for only 37% of the drainage basin feeding into the lower lake. Since post-project flow conditions closely mirror pre-project conditions, no significant impact on the Lower Mahoney Creek flow regime is expected, in particular during the period of August through September when sockeye salmon are potentially moving up the lower creek. Existing barriers to upstream migration at low flows will be left in place undisturbed. Increases in flow and higher flow events that historically begin to occur in September with the onset of fall rains will continue to occur under post-project conditions. Sharp peaks in the outflow hydrograph on Lower Mahoney Lake will continue to occur during rainfall events under post-project conditions because only 37% of lake inflow is effected by the hydroelectric project. It is these higher flows that provide passage for the sockeye past the natural stream barriers. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 May 1996 B-24 FIGURE B-7 UPPER MAHONEY CREEK AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS 120.0 DOWNSTREAM OF POWERHOUSE 100.0 80.0 + 60.0 + Flow (cfs) 40.0 + 20.0 0.0 + FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP NS Pre-project Flow @ Post -project Flow Existing flow based on 12 years recorded data and 23 years simulated data. Post project flows based on proposed monthly turbine flows. figb67-8.xls FIGURE B-8 UPPER MAHONEY LAKE FLOW DURATION CURVE DOWNSTREAM OF POWERHOUSE 180 t 160 . 4 x 140 ¥ 1 120 Flow (cfs) 30 40 50 60 Exceedance (%) “ “ Pre-project Flow ““""Post-project Flow Existing flow based on 12 years recorded data and 23 years simulated data. Post project flow based on proposed monthly turbine flows. 70 80 90 100 figb67-8.xls Flow (cfs) 180 160 140 120 + FIGURE B-9 LOWER MAHONEY CREEK PRE- and POST-PROJECT AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS ocT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE §Pre-project Flow Post-project Flow JULY AUG SEPT FIGB9+10.xis Flow (cfs) 600 500 400 + 200 100 FIGURE B-10 LOWER MAHONEY CREEK PRE- and POST-PROJECT FLOW DURATION CURVES ™ i Me nene 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Exceedance (%) = = ™ Existing Flow Post Project Flow FIGB9+10.xls Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization 4.7.5 Operation During Non-Typical Conditions The above analysis is based upon average monthly streamflows that are derived from daily flow data. These monthly average flows illustrate the expected pre-project and post-project flow regimes. As described above, however, situations may arise when the plant may be shutdown for maintenance or repair, or other instances when the plant may be operated at full load to respond to a emergency in the KPU power supply system. Under these circumstances, flow regimes will vary from the monthly average regimes described above. Tables B-9 and B-10 show the expected changes that will occur in the flow regimes at various locations at four different times of the year in the system due to either plant shutdowns or plant full load operation. It should be noted here that hydroelectric power plants historically have been one of the most reliable forms of energy production. Single machine hydroelectric plants like Mahoney Lake typically have availability rates in excess of 96%, with 98% to 100% availability over a year being fairly common throughout the industry. A 1% loss in availability equates to 87 hours of plant downtime over a one-year period. It is expected that the Mahoney Lake Project will experience similar plant availability, and that shutdowns for maintenance repair should be limited to less than 3% of the time, or about 260 hours per year. These plant shutdowns will be planned to the extent possible to have minimum impact to the environment and to the KPU power system. Similarly, emergency periods requiring the hydroelectric plant to be operated at full load are quite infrequent in Ketchikan due to the number and distribution of power resources. Generally, it is expected that this type of operation would occur in response to a KPU outage or other emergency less than 2% of the time, in an average year. Another feature of the two-jet pelton turbine proposed for the Mahoney Lake Project is a device called a "deflector" that is mounted on each jet. When the turbine is in operation, the deflectors are pulled back out of the water stream, and water sprays out of each of the two jets, which are similar in function to a nozzle on the end of a water hose. The water hits the turbine runner and makes it spin. When the unit must be shutdown either as an emergency due to mechanical or electrical failure, or just a normal unit shutdown, the deflectors are swung into place in front of the jets, diverting the water away from the runner. The runner then can coast to a stop. Water will continue to discharge through the tailrace. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 FERC No. 11393 B-29 Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization B-9 EFFECTS OF PLANT SHUTDOWN ON AVERAGE STREAM FLOW REGIMES (WITH NO FLOW CONTINUATION) EEE In Upper Mahoney Creek Above Powerhouse (Bypass Reach): Pre-Project Average Flow: Post-Project Average Flow: Post-Project Flow During Plant Shutdown: In Upper Mahoney Creek Below Powerhouse: Pre-Project Average Flow: Post-Project Average Flow: Post-Project Flow During Plant Shutdown: In Lower Mahoney Creek: Pre-Project Average Flow: 55 133 107 127 Post-Project Average Flow: 68 114 91 128 Post-Project Flow During 39 91 77 97 Plant Shutdown: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 May 1996 B-30 Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization TABLE B-10 EFFECTS OF PLANT SHORT-TERM FULL LOAD OPERATION ON AVERAGE STREAM FLOW REGIMES In Upper Mahoney Creek Above Powerhouse (bypass reach): Pre-Project Average Flow: 32 Post-Project Average Flow: 8 20 Post-Project Flow During Plant Full Load Operation: 8 20 In Upper Mahoney Creek Below Powerhouse: Pre-Project Average Flow: 32 81 Post-Project Average Flow: 45 62 Post-Project Flow During 86 98 Plant Full Load Operation: In Lower Mahoney Creek: Pre-Project Average Flow: 55 Post-Project Average Flow: 68 Post-Project Flow During 109 Plant Full Load Operation: 59 59 42 60 92 92 Flow through the jets can be continued as long as desired. In this way, flow continuation downstream of the powerhouse can be maintained. A typical mode of operation for use of deflectors is to set up the turbine so that if the electrical generation shuts down for any reason, the deflectors are swung into position, and flow is maintained through the turbine until such time as a plant operator can assess the reason for the plant shutdown. Flows through the turbine would be reduced to a minimum level when the deflectors are in place. If, as is often the case, the unit can be Testarted within a short amount of time, the deflectors are left in place until the unit is restarted. If, however, it is clear that the turbine will have to be shutdown for an extended period, the flow through the jets is slowly shut-off. This is because at the very high pressures coming out of the jets May 1996 B-31 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization (over 700 psi), deflector wear can be severe if they are left in the "deployed" position for very long periods. It is proposed that the turbine for this project be operated in this way in order to maintain flow downstream of the powerhouse even during most unplanned shutdowns. A 12-inch diameter bypass pipeline is also being proposed by the Applicant to be installed from the Upper Mahoney Lake valvehouse to Upper Mahoney Creek. This 12-inch line will be capable of providing up to 10 cfs of additional flow into Upper Mahoney Creek, where it can pass over Upper Mahoney Falls, past the powerhouse, and into Lower Mahoney Lake. This bypass pipeline could be opened to provide supplemental stream flows downstream of the powerhouse if they are necessary to insure continuation of flow in the creek during any unscheduled plant shutdowns that might occur during winter when sockeye eggs are incubating in the Upper Mahoney Creek delta. If natural inflow was insufficient to provide flow continuation, this bypass pipe could be operated to provide additional "upwelling" water at the delta. 5.0 SYSTEM POWER NEEDS The project has the potential to produce about 46 million kilowatt-hours of energy annually based on an average water year. The project is located in the service area of KPU, the utility division of the City of Ketchikan. KPU provides electrical service to all of Revillagigedo Island, including the City of Saxman, and is an isolated electrical network with no interconnection at this time to any other utility or transmission system. The Applicant proposes to sell the entire output of the Mahoney Lake Project to KPU. To consider the need for power, the Applicant reviewed KPU's current resources and the projected regional need for power. The project will be interconnected with KPU's transmission grid, and all power generated from the project will be sold to KPU either through a negotiated power sales agreement or under the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA). The following describes the KPU system and the need for the project. 5.1 KPU Generation Resources KPU's generating resources include three hydroelectric plants and two diesel plants. In addition to its own generation plants, KPU purchases power under a long-term power sales agreement from the Swan Lake Project (FERC No. 2911) owned by the Alaska Energy Authority. The rated capacities and average annual generation capability of these resources are shown in Table B-11 as follows: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 May 1996 B-32 “ - —' Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization TABLE B-11 RATED CAPACITY AND ENERGY GENERATION CAPABILITY OF KPU'S GENERATING RESOURCES KPU-Owned Hydroelectric: Silvis Lake Beaver Falls Ketchikan Lakes KPU-Hydroelectric Subtotal AEA Swan Lake HYDROELECTRIC TOTAL KPU-Owned Diesel: Bailey Totem Bight DIESEL TOTAL TOTAL The estimate of 65,650,000 kWh for KPU-owned hydroelectric resources is an accurate figure based on historical records. For the period 1984 through 1992, KPU-owned hydroelectric resources generated an average of 65,300,000 kWh annually. The annual energy capability of the Swan Lake Project (FERC No. 2911) is an estimated long-term average, since historical records are not representative of full capability. Diesel generation capability is based on an assumed 70% annual plant factor. 5.2 KPU Historical Loads KPU system loads increased at an average annual rate of 3.5% between 1984 and 1995. Total energy requirements, including station service use and system losses, increased from 110,952 MWh in 1984 to 162,000 MWh in 1995. During the same period historical capacity requirements increased from 21,500 MW in 1984 to 28,700 MW in 1995, a 2.7% average annual increase. A tabulation of KPU annual energy requirements and annual maximum demands is shown in Table B-12. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 FERC No. 11393 B-33 Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization TABLE B-12 KPU'S ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND 110,952,000 115,932,700 109,120,200 114,296,700 137,878,500 131,906,900 140,310,500 145,686,200 153,062,000 146,333,000 158,396,000 | 1995 | (projected by KPU) 5.3 Projected En i Several independent forecasts of future energy requirements for the KPU system are available. The assumptions and base data used for each projection varies, but the end results are relatively consistent; a reasonably strong rate of growth is forecast through year 2000. A summary of each forecast is presented below. These forecast values are shown graphically on Figure B-11. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 May 1996 B -34 FIGURE B-11 PREVIOUS PROJECTIONS OF KPU-SYSTEM LOAD GROWTH = ISER (High) >= Ef > “ISER (Low) + = © - -CH2M (Base) = %— APA (High) —*— APA (Low) —#i— ISER (Base) —®— CH2M (High) —*é— KPU ——%— APA (Base) —®— Actual Load Year 2010 fig-b11.xIs Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization 5.3.1 Alaska Power Administration (APA) Forecast This forecast was made in December 1982, and projected low-, medium-, and high-case load growth scenarios. Forecast values for total energy requirements were as follows: ——— TABLE B-13 APA FORECAST z quan 5.3.2 CH2M Hill Forecast This forecast was made in May 1986, and projected a baseload and high-growth scenario. Forecast values were as follows: TABLE B-14 CH2M HILL FORECAST se ie see si e st i | sg | tats KPU prepared their own internal forecast in 1992 for the short-term period 1992 through 1996. Forecast values are as follows: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 May 1996 B - 36 Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization 5.3.4 Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER), University of Alaska, Forecast This forecast was made in June 1990, and presented a 20-year forecast of electricity requirements for KPU. The firm energy forecast values are as follows: TABLE B-16 ISER FORECAST (1990-2010) ae is zi cs nA a ee The low growth case assumes the Ketchikan Pulp Corporation (KPC) mill closes in 2005, but the sawmill at Ward Cove remains open. Logging declines 25% from the base case, several fish processors stay off the grid, and employment declines at a 0.3% rate per year. The base case assumes the KPC mill runs at capacity through the study period. Logging, fishing and fish processing employment remains flat, tourism expands, and employment grows 0.6% annually. The high growth case assumes logging expands 10% over the base case, the Quartz Hill mine comes on-line in 1995, fish processing expands, and employment grows 2.6% annually. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 FERC No. 11393 B-37 Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization 5.3.5 Selected Load Growth Projection Based on review of the above four studies, the ISER base forecast was selected for analysis of the need for project output from the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. It covers a long period into the future and represents a mid-level estimate that agrees well with current growth rates. This forecast is plotted, together with historical system requirements, on Figure B-12. The graph shows that current annual loads slightly exceed the average annual generation capability from KPU-owned hydroelectric resources and the Swan Lake Project (FERC No. 2911). As load growth continues, KPU will need to rely more heavily on its diesel units to supply the deficit or require additional generating sources such as Mahoney Lake to meet energy demand. In summary, KPU historical loads have grown from 110,952,000 kWh per year in 1984 to 162,000,000 kWh per year in 1995, an average growth of 3.5% based on actual generation data from KPU. The system load in 2000, the first year of Mahoney Lake operation, is projected to be approximately 174,000,000 kWh. Based on the rapid growth in the tourism industry in the area, as well as the ongoing strength of existing industries such as fishing and forest products, these estimates appear to be reasonable. Since all energy in excess of 141,000,000 kWh per year must currently be generated using expensive fossil fuel-fired diesel generators, a clear need for the project power output to offset this fossil-fueled generation will exist by the time the project can be constructed. Furthermore, KPU agrees that there is a strong need for additional low cost and/or renewable resources in their system and is actively investigating a variety of potential new resources. 5.4 Project Economics and Resource Utilization The proposed project was evaluated to determine if it would be economic. For the proposed project to be economically beneficial, the projected levelized cost of the project would have to be less than the long term, levelized cost of alternative energy from any other sources available to KPU that can supply the regional energy needs. In analyzing the economic benefits of the project, the Applicant's estimates of net investment as shown in Exhibit D for the project were used, along with the estimated cost of production. KPU's estimated costs for diesel generation are approximately $0.08 per kWh (Beaver Falls Relicense Application, FERC No. 1922). The levelized cost of continued diesel generation is approximately $0.117 per kWh in 2000 dollars. The levelized cost of production of energy from the proposed project is approximately $0.055 per kWh. Therefore, there is a clear economic benefit to the construction of the project. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 May 1996 B - 38 Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization The amount of diesel fuel necessary, if diesel generation were to be used to generate the 46 million kWh that could be produced by the proposed project, is approximately 3.2 million gallons per year. 5.5 Conservation Program Impacts KPU provides consumer information to its customers regarding conservation measures each can implement to reduce electricity consumption. An assessment of potential Demand Side Management programs was prepared by Beck (_) in 1992. The assessment concluded that implementing the recommended conservation program would result in a maximum annual energy savings of 9,210 MWh and annual demand savings of 2,567 kW by year 1999. If these savings are realized, the projected system load in the first year of project operation will still exceed the average hydroelectric capability of the KPU system by 24,000,000 kWh. 6.0 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PLANS The Applicant has no current plans to further develop the proposed project once it is constructed, or to develop any other water power project in the Mahoney Lake drainage basin. To the Applicant's knowledge, there are no other water power projects planned in this drainage basin. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 FERC No. 11393 B-39 KPU Total Energy Requirements (GWh) 240 200 160 120 80 40 1980 1985 FIGURE B-12 KPU FORECAST LOADS AND RESOURCES \ Actual Load 1990 ISER Base Case Projection Swan Lake Hydro Capability (82,000 MWh) KPU-owned Hydro Capabilities (65,650 MWh) 1995 2000 Mahoney Hydro Capability (46,000 MWh) 2005 2010 FIG-B12.xls EXHIBIT C PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Exhibit C - Proposed Construction Schedule EXHIBIT C PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ...............ccccccecececeseececeeseeeeeees C-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page C-1 Proposed Construction Schedule......... 0.0... cece ce cecececenceceecececeaeeeneeeesececeeees C-2 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 Ci FERC No. 11393 Exhibit C - Construction Schedule EXHIBIT C PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 1.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE The proposed construction schedule is presented on Figure C-1. The schedule is based on FERC issuing the license by June 1997. Issuance after this date could significantly impact the schedule because it is anticipated that two full construction seasons would be required to construct the project. Final design would begin upon issuance of the license. The turbine and generator supply contract would be awarded about 6 months after receipt of the license. Preliminary estimates by turbine vendors indicate that delivery may take at least 12 months, and as much as 20 months, from contract award. Although considered conservative, 18 months is assumed for turbine and generator manufacturing and delivery. Approximately one month after the issuance of the license, early design efforts would be concentrated on the access road. A separate contract may be awarded for this work prior to the award of the general construction contract. Excavation of the lower tunnel portal and construction of the transmission line could begin in April 1998. The transmission line construction is scheduled for a winter shutdown in December 1998 if it is not completed when winter conditions begin to make field construction difficult. Work would be resumed the following April. Completion of the transmission line is scheduled for mid-summer 1999. It has been assumed that construction of the lower tunnel and shaft would continue throughout the winter season, thereby saving time the following spring to concentrate on upper tunnel construction. The lower tunnel excavation would be completed and, if needed, the tunnel would be lined during the 1998 construction season. For better access, installation of the pipeline in the lower tunnel could be delayed until after the upper tunnel and valve house are completed. The shaft would be completed by the spring of 1999. Beginning the 1999 construction season, laborers would begin excavating the upper tunnel by accessing it from the lower tunnel and unlined shaft. The Alimak elevator system used to construct the shaft would remain in place for transporting laborers, material and equipment to the Upper Mahoney Lake area. Construction of the upper tunnel as well as the powerhouse would begin in the Spring of 1999 together with completion of the transmission line and switchyard. Final blasting for the lake tap would take place after the upper tunnel and valve house have been completed. A temporary bulkhead upstream of the valves would contain water pressure in the upstream portion of the upper tunnel, and the valves in the valve house would be closed to provide additional safeguards during final lake tap blasting. The temporary bulkhead would be blasted or otherwise removed to water up the rest of the tunnels just prior to the start of turbine operational tests. Commencement of commercial operation is presently planned to occur by December 1999. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 C-1 FERC No. 11393 FIGURE C-1 MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 1997 | 1998 | 1999 M JT A[sS[OIN]D]J FIMJA[M]J[J Als|o NJD JIF[MJA[M] [J [Als[o[N|D ID__|Task Name | Start Finish J 4 | Submit FERC License Application 5/31/96 5/31/96 |i } [ae ie) | Receive FERC License (est) 6/2/97 6/2/97 Final Design Engineering 6/3/97 6/2/98 Final Survey and Geotech Work 6/3/97 10/3/97 : Bid & Award Turbine/Gen Contract 12/4/97 2/10/98 Turbine/Generator Manufacture 2/11/98 8/18/99 8 Turbine/Generator Delivery 8/19/99 10/6/99 9 | Access Road Construction 7/197 | 930/97 10 | Upper Lake Winter Shutdown 12/1/98 3/31/99 12 | T-Line Construction 4/1/98 7199 4§ | Lower Tunnel Construction 4/1/98 11/30/98 t 16 | Shaft Construction 12/1/98 3/31/99 47 | Upper Tunnel and Lake Tap 4/1/99 11/15/99 Powerhouse Construction 4/1/99 8/18/99 Turbine/Generator Installation 8/18/99 11/1/99 Start-Up and Testing 11/1/99 12/1/99 12/1/99 — Begin Commercial Operation Exhibit D - Costs and Financing EXHIBIT D COSTS AND FINANCING TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED COSTS .........:22:cccscseccessonescncacseocecossaessess D-1 Tat) | Direct Construction Coste te cates leet eet see! ee tees nell notes eee D-1 1:2) |Indirect:Construction: Costs x02 ssc 12cst tise) occur sss cnseet SeceewssscTsecsaneewews save D-1 1.3. Engineering, Construction Management, Permitting Costs....................4 D-1 1:4) | Comtingemcies : oc. s ccc. <t0ecaeteoacsvzsaneasasccescosascessesscecsssovson ses sconces sacs D-1 1.5 Interest During Construction .................cceeceecececeeeeceececceceeeeeecescenes D-2 1.6) Total Investment Cost tos ii ccc tcccewsctvewesevseeesscersot vossursosesssessarnaweses oor D-2 1,7) Total Capital Requirements 1)... te netecesssocssosertscevesor toss sscusseresnass D-2 2.0 PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES.................scccessceseceeseeeeeeeees D-6 D0 POY BRR VALUE ss ccccecc cere cee cscs veastons sets ten. sees teee ease ess cee dsacce score D-6 4.0 AVERAGE ANNUAL PROJECT COSTS...............:.ccecescesccscceeccesceeeecceseees D-6 4:1| | Coston Capitan are ee acne coc tec eras ce revel yaw tweets ced lensewsel bieuet occ! D-6 AD Anal Coste et. siscass aveessna reese anvedsatevens saasenusrmsesscgseusperes ce uaesasesey D-6 Ai3] | COSEOL BMerey UA su ecaehccctmenenecutassensseel esse scnsseccvescacenet ces verssr east D-6 5.0 ANNUAL VALUE OF PROJECT POWER ...............csccsceeccecceeccesceececeeeees D-6 6.0 OTHER ENERGY ALTERNATIVEG..............:.cceccssceccecceccecceescssceeceeeees D-10 7.0 CONSEQUENCES OF APPLICATION DENIAL...............::scceseeeeeseceeeeeeee D-11 8.0 | SOURCES OF FINANCING |. 0.02.0: .0.s000+ssessevcrcscccseserdsnsceesecsvervessnesssyes D-11 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 D-i FERC No. 11393 Exhibit B - Project Operation/Resource Utilization Exhibit D - Costs and Financing Table D-2 D-3 D-5 D-6 LIST OF TABLES Page Construction Cost Estimate................cccssccecscsecececcecceecececnseceeeeeecececeseeeees D-3 Estimated Project Costs, 8% 30-Year Bond Financing..................ssceeeeesseeeeeees D-7 30-Year Cost of Energy AnalySis.................s.csccececeeececeecececesecseeeeeeeceeeees D-8 Cost of Project Enexgy Versus Diesel ........c00s0ccccsscecscssaccssecscscscesccereesscesess D-9 Current Cost Analysis (30 Years) - Cost of Energy ...........:sscsecsececsecerseceeeees D-13 Current Cost Analysis - Project Energy Versus Diesel.................sccsecesseseeeeee D-14 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project March 1996 Draft D-ii FERC No. 11393 EXHIBIT D COSTS AND FINANCING Exhibit D - Costs and Financing EXHIBIT D COSTS AND FINANCING 1.0 STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED COSTS 1.1 Direct Construction Cost The estimated total direct construction cost of the project is $15,849,000, based on a 1993 bid price level. A detailed breakdown of project construction costs is presented in Table D-1. The direct construction cost is the cost a reasonable contractor would be expected to bid for the work given normal economic conditions and fair bidding. The cost estimate is based on experience data and contractor quotes for the turbine/generator equipment, steel pipe, and tunnel and shaft excavations. Confirmation quotes from contractors were obtained in July 1995 that supported unit prices and escalation assumptions made in the cost estimates. The estimate reflects local conditions, the relative difficulty of access to the upper portion of the project, and Alaska wage rates. 1.2 Indirect Construction Costs Indirect construction costs are not itemized separately, but are included in the unit price and lump sum estimates presented in Table D-1. It is not expected that camp and commissary facilities will be provided due to relatively good road access and commute time from Ketchikan. 1.3. Engineering, Construction Management, Permitting Costs Costs for engineering, geotechnical investigations, construction management, licensing and permitting are estimated to total $2,710,000. Itemized estimates are presented in Table D-1. Estimates for design and construction management are based on a percentage of the estimated total direct construction cost, and are subject to change as more site information is developed during the final design phase. 1.4 Contingencies Contingencies were added to direct construction costs in varying percentages to account for a degree of uncertainty in the final cost of each major component of the project. Based on the level of study conducted for this report, a contingency of 10% was added to the turbine and generator equipment, 25% added to the tunneling work, and 15% added to all other project features. This results in a weighted average contingency of about 19%. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 D-1 FERC No. 11393 Exhibit D - Costs and Financing 1.5 Interest During Construction Interest during construction is estimated to be $1,853,000 based on a two-year construction period. Construction financing was assumed to occur through short-term financing at an 8% interest rate. Construction costs were assumed to accrue on a straight line basis over the construction period. It was assumed that the bond sale would occur just prior to the start of operation. The bond sale would consolidate all of the accrued construction and engineering debt. 1.6 Total Investment Cost The total investment cost for the project is estimated to be $23,442,000, which includes design engineering, licensing and permitting, construction management, contingencies and interest during construction. Based on escalation rates published by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the cost of new hydroelectric facilities are escalating at approximately 4% annually. Using a 4% annual escalation rate, the total investment cost of the project, in 1998 dollars, is estimated to be $28,521,000. 1.7 Total Capital Requirements Total capital requirements is the estimated bond issue amount. Total capital requirements for the project, including reserve funds and financing and legal costs, are estimated to be $31,975,000 in 1998 dollars. This amount assumes all project costs are fully funded through the sale of bonds, and does not take into account the possibility of receiving State or Federal grant money to offset a portion of the project costs. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 D-2 May 1996 TABLE D-1 MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LAKE TAP ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE — IDC @ 8% 07/31/95 p:\hyd\mahoney\tab—d1.wk3 Acc No Description Quantity | Unit Price (3) 330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS | Land Rights — Generation Plant 1| LS $20,000 $20,000 2 USFS Special Use Permit 1} LS $20,000 $20,000 3 Surveying 1; LS $100,000 $100,000 Total — Acc No. 330 — Land and Land Rights $140,000 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS a POWERHOUSE al Excavation 2,450| CY $50 $122,500 2 Concrete (including reinforcing) 450| CY | $600 $270,000 3 Rock Bolts 300} LF $20 $6,000 4 Shotcrete 150} CY $350 $52,500 5 Miscellaneous Metals 50,000} LB $3 $150,000 6 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical 1} LS $50,000 $50,000 7 Grounding Grid 1} LS $10,000 $10,000 8 Fire Protection 1|-Ls $15,000 $15,000 ) Tailrace Excavation 500} CY $15 $7,500 -10 Tailrace Backfill 180| CY $20 $3,600 -11 Tailrace Concrete 85| CY $400 $34,000 2 SITE WORK -l Drainage/Erosion Control (spoils pile) 1| LS $200,000 $200,000 2 Access Road 1} MI $100,000 $100,000 3 Access road bridge 1} LS $60,000 $60,000 Subtotal $1,081,100 Mobilization (3%) $32,400 Total — Acc No. 331 — Stuctures and Improvements $1,113,500 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS a MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION 1| LS $250,000 $250,000 2 PLANT SETUP AND TEARDOWN 1| LS $250,000 $250,000 3 UPPER TUNNEL AND LAKE TAP ok Excavation 3500| CY $240 $840,000 2 Lake Tap 1} Ls $300,000 $300,000 3 Rock Bolts 2800| LF $20 $56,000 4 Concrete Lining 1700| CY $1,000 $1,700,000 5 Concrete Plugs 92) CY $1,000 $92,000 6 48" Butterfly Valves 2| EA $30,000 $60,000 at Vents 1] LS $25,000 $25,000 8 Steel Pipe, 48" x 0.25 85| LF $83 $7,055 9 Trashrack 1} LS $50,000 $50,000 -10 Pipe Installation 85| LF $80 $6,800 4 SHAFT ell Excavation (Alimak) 1360| LF $590 $802,400 2 Alimak Setup 1) LS $42,000 $42,000 3 Alimak Teardown 1; LS $32,000 $32,000 4 Rock Bolts 5400| LF $20 $108,000 s Pipe, 48" x 0.75 680| LF $225 $153,000 6 Concrete Lining (half of shaft length) 900} CY $1,000 $900,000 7 Pipe Installation 680} LF $300 $204,000 TABLE D-1 MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LAKE TAP ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE — IDC @ 8% 07/31/95 p:\nyd\mahoney\tab—d1.wk3 Amount Acc No Description Quantity | Unit Price (S) 5 LOWER TUNNEL =k Rockslide Deflector 1} Ls $150,000 $150,000 2 Tunnel Excavation (8 X 8 horseshoe) 3380| LF $507 $1,713,660 3 Portal 1| Ls $50,000 $50,000 4 Rock Bolts 6300| LF $20 $126,000 5 Steel Sets 100} EA $1,000 $100,000 6 Shotcrete 100} CY $350 $35,000 7 Concrete Plug 200} CY $1,000 $200,000 8 Roof and Floor Drains 2800| LF $20 $56,000 9 Pipe, 36" x 0.625 plus reducer 100| LF $160 $16,000 -10 Pipe, 32"x 0.625 3280| LF $119 $388,680 11 Concrete Pipe Supports 330| EA $200 $66,000 -12 Pipe Installation 3380| LF $120 $405,600 Total — Acc No. 332 — Reservoir, Dams, & Waterways $9,185,195 333 TURBINES AND GENERATORS (incl. governor & excitef) -l Supply & Install 1} Ls $2,150,000 $2,150,000 Total — Acc No. 333 — Turbines and Generators $2,150,000 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT mE Switchgear 1| LS $300,000 $300,000 2, Station Service 1| LS $150,000 $150,000 a Control Panel 1; LS $300,000 $300,000 4 Conduit/Wire/Cables 1; LS $300,000 $300,000 5 Lighting 1} LS $75,000 $75,000 Total — Acc No. 334 — Acc. Electrical Equipment $1,125,000 335 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT al Cooling Water System & Misc Equip. 1} LS $100,000 $100,000 2 Monorail Hoist 1] LS $50,000 $50,000 Total — Acc No. 335 — Misc. Mechanical Equipment $150,000 352 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) ak Substation Foundations 1} LS $20,000 $20,000 2 Oil Spill Containment 1; LS $15,000 $15,000 3 Grounding Grid 1/ LS $20,000 $20,000 A Grading, surfacing, fencing 1; LS $20,000 $20,000 5 Lighting 1| Ls $10,000 $10,000 Total — Acc No. 352 — Structures & Improvements $85,000 TABLE D-1 MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LAKE TAP ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE — IDC @ 8% 07/31/95 p:\hyd\mahoney\tab—d1.wk3 Amount Acc No Description Quantity | Unit Price ($) 353 SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES iE Main Transformer 13 kV to 115kV 1} LS $300,000 $300,000 2 Accessory Switchgear Equipment 1) LS $245,000 $245,000 Total — Acc No. 353 — Substation Equipment & Structures $545,000 356 FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES el Underground Line, 13 kV 0.8 | MILE $250,000 $200,000 2 Overhead Line, 115kV 4.7| MILE $150,000 $705,000 2 Substation At Intertie 1| Ls. $450,000 $450,000 $1,355. SUMMARY 330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS $140,000 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 1,113,500 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS 9,185,195 333 TURBINES AND GENERATORS (incl. governor & exciter) 2,150,000 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 1,125,000 335 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 150,000 352 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 85,000 353 SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES 545,000 356 FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES 1,355,000 Total Direct Construction Costs (rounded) $15,849,000 Design Engineering @ 7% 1,109,430 Geotechnical, Borings & Seismic Surveys 300,000 FERC Licensing and Other Permits 350,000 Construction Mgmt. @ 6% 950,940 Subtotal (rounded) $18,559,000 Contingency (10% on equipment, Accts 333,334,335 ,353,356) 532,500 Contingency (25% on tunnelling, Acct 332) 2,296,299 Contingency (15% on remainder, Accts. 330,331,352) 200,775 Subtotal (rounded) $21,589,000 Interest During Const. (2 yrs @ 8%) 1,853,000 Total Investment Cost (1993) $23,442,000 Total Investment Cost (1998, @4% per Year) $28,521,000 Exhibit D - Costs and Financing 2.0 PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES There are no previously constructed structures or facilities located at the project site. 3.0 TAKEOVER VALUE This application is not for a new license and the applicant is a municipality. 4.0 AVERAGE ANNUAL PROJECT COSTS An estimate of the average annual costs of the project is presented in Table D-2. Annual costs have been apportioned into capital costs representing the assumed debt service and annual costs representing expenses likely to be incurred while operating and maintaining the Project. 4.1 Cost of Capital As described in Section 8.0 below, financing of the Project is expected to be on the basis of 100% borrowed funds most likely coming from the issuance of bonds. The fixed cost of capital includes amortization of the total capital requirements less earnings on reserve and working capital funds. Assuming issuance of 7%/30 yr. bonds, the total annual capital costs are estimated to be $2,391,000. 4.2 Annual Costs Variable annual costs include operation and maintenance, administrative expenses, insurance and interim replacement costs. Variable costs in the first year of operation are estimated to be $464,000, and are assumed to escalate at 4% annually thereafter. 4.3 Cost of Energy A 30-year present value analysis of Project costs is shown in Table D-3. The analysis shows that based on the assumptions used, the cost of generating energy from the Project, on a present value basis, diminishes from 10.7 cents per kWh in the first year to 1.2 cents per kWh in year 2029. The levelized cost of energy over 30 years is 5.5 cents per kWh in year 2000 dollars. The first year energy costs are based on the assumption that only 58% of the Project’s potential energy could be utilized. If all of the project’s potential could be utilized, the first year energy cost of the Project would be 6.2 cents per kWh. 5.0 ANNUAL VALUE OF PROJECT POWER The value of project power was analyzed for a 30-year period based on developing an equivalent amount of diesel generation. As shown in Table D-4, the 30-year present value Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 D-6 May 1996 TABLE D-2 MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS LAKE TAP ALTERNATIVE - 7% BONDS CAPITAL COSTS Total Investment Cost Bond Reserve Financing Expenses Working Capital Reserve TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS ANNUAL COSTS Fixed Costs Debt Service Less Earnings on Reserves Total Fixed Costs Variable Costs Operation and Maintenance Administrative Expenses Insurance Interim Replacements Total Variable Costs TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS (First Year) ASSUMPTIONS Annual Interest Rate 7 Bond Term, years 30 Reinvestment Rate 7 Bond Reserve Financing Expenses Working Capital Reserve 1 year debt service 2.5% of Total Capital Requirements 3 months of O&M Administrative Expenses 25% of O&M 0.2% of Total Investment Cost Insurance Interim Replacements 000 28,521 2,577 807 70 $31,975 2,577 185 $2,391 280 70 57 57 $2,856 0.2% of Total Investment Cost TABLE D-3 MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 30-YEAR COST OF ENERGY ANALYSIS LAKE TAP ALTERNATIVE A=B+C+DtE B c D EF G H | J=V/D MAHONEY RESOURCES 2000 2000 PV TOTAL ANNUAL DEBT PRESENT COST OF GENERATION KPU HYDRO SWAN LAKE MAHONEY DIESEL SERVICE O&M TOTAL VALUE ENERGY YEAR _|REQUIRED (MWh) (MWH) _(MWH) (MWh) (MWH) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($/kWh)| 2000 174,383 65,650 82,000 26,733 0 2391 464 2856 2856 0.107 2001 176,238 65,650 82,000 28,588 0 2391 483 2874 2686 0.094 2002 177,602 65,650 82,000 29,952 0 2391 502 2893 2527 0.084 2003 178,879 65,650 82,000 31,229 0 2391 522 2913 2378 0.076 2004 180,520 65,650 82,000 32,870 0 2391 543 2934 2239 0.068 2005 182,730 65,650 82,000 35,080 0 2391 565 2956 2108 0.060 2006 185,335 65,650 82,000 36,689 996 2391 587 2979 1985 0.054 2007 188,264 65,650 82,000 38,330 2,284 2391 611 3002 1870 0.049 2008 191,466 65,650 82,000 40,046 3,770 2391 635 3027 1762 0.044 2009 194,663 65,650 82,000 41,547 5,466 2391 661 3052 1660 0.040 2010 197,669 65,650 82,000 42,960 7,059 2391 687 3078 1565 0.036 2011 200,239 65,650 82,000 44,175 8,414 2391 714 3106 1476 0.033 2012 202,842 65,650 82,000 45,000 10,192 2391 743 3134 1392 0.031 2013 205,479 65,650 82,000 45,246 12,583 2391 773 3164 1313 0.029 2014 208,150 65,650 82,000 45,576 14,924 2391 804 3195 1239 0.027 2015 210,856 65,650 82,000 45,832 17,374 2391 836 3227 1170 0.026 2016 213,597 65,650 82,000 46,021 19,926 2391 869 3261 1105 0.024 2017 216,374 65,650 82,000 46,066 22,658 2391 904 3295 1043 0.023 2018 219,187 65,650 82,000 46,066 25,471 2391 940 3332 986 0.021 2019 222,036 65,650 82,000 46,066 28,320 2391 978 3369 932 0.020 2020 224,923 65,650 82,000 46,066 31,207 2391 1017 3408 881 0.019 2021 227,847 65,650 82,000 46,066 34,131 2391 1058 3449 833 0.018 2022 230,809 65,650 82,000 46,066 37,093 2391 1100 3491 788 0.017 2023 233,809 65,650 82,000 46,066 40,093 2391 1144 3535 746 0.016 2024 236,849 65,650 82,000 46,066 43,133 2391 1190 3581 706 0.015 2025 239,928 65,650 82,000 46,066 46,212 2391 1237 3629 669 0.015 2026 243,047 65,650 82,000 46,066 49,331 2391 1287 3678 633 0.014 2027 246,206 65,650 82,000 46,066 52,490 2391 1338 3730 600 0.013 2028 249,407 65,650 82,000 46,066 55,691 2391 1392 3783 569 0.012 2029 252,649 65,650 82,000 46,066 58,933 2391 1447 3839 540 0.012 ASSUMPTIONS Levelized cost in 2000 dollars 0.055 1. Generation forecast through 2010 per ISER Firm Energy Forecast (Base Case) 2. Generation forecast extrapolated beyond year 2010 at 1.3% 3. Escalation of costs at 4% 4. Discount of costs at 7 % 5. Debt service includes credit for interest on reserves = ob —_ TABLE D-4 MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT COST OF PROJECT ENERGY VERSUS DIESEL - LAKE TAP ALTERNATIVE MAHONEY DIESEL GENERATION 2000 PV ACCUM PV} GENERATION GALLONS FUEL COST O&M TOTAL PRESENT ACCUM PV YEAR (MWh) ___ COST ($000) ($000) (MWh) (000) __ $/GALLON 000) VALUE: 000) 2000 26,733 2856 2,856 26,733 2034 1.33 2705 363 3069 3069 3,069 2001 28,588 2686 5,542 28,588 2175 1.38 3009 397 3406 3183 6,252 2002 29,952 2527 8,069 29,952 2279 1.44 3278 428 3706 3237 9,489 2003 31,229 2378 10,447 31,229 2376 1.50 3555 459 4014 3277 12,765 2004 32,870 2239 12,686 32,870 2501 1.56 3891 497 4388 3348 16,113 2005 35,080 2108 14,793 35,080 2669 1.62 4319 544 4863 3467 19,580 2006 36,689 1985 16,778 36,689 2792 1.68 4698 586 5284 3521 23,101 2007 38,330 1870 18,648 38,330 2916 1.75 5104 631 5735 3571 26,672 2008 40,046 1762 20,409 40,046 3047 1.82 5546 679 6226 3623 30,296 2009 41,547 1660 22,069 41,547 3161 1.89 5984 728 6712 3651 33,947 2010 42,960 1565 23,634 42,960 3269 1.97 6435 778 7213 3667 37,613 2011 44,175 1476 25,110 44,175 3361 2.05 6882 828 7710 3663 41,276 2012 45,000 1392 26,502 45,000 3424 2.13 7291 874 8165 3625 44,901 2013 45,246 1313 27,815 45,246 3443 2.21 7624 913 8537 3543, 48,444 2014 45,576 1239 29,054 45,576 3468 2.30 7987 955 8942 3468 51,912 2015 45,832 1170 30,223 45,832 3487 2.40 8353 998 9351 3389 55,301 2016 46,021 1105 31,328 46,021 3502 2.49 8723 1042 9764 3308 58,609 2017 46,066 1043 32,371 46,066 3505 2.59 9080 1084 10165 3218 61,827 2018 46,066 986 33,357 46,066 3505 2.69 9444 1128 10571 3128 64,954 2019 46,066 932 34,289 46,066 3505 2.80 9821 1173 10994 3040 67,994 2020 46,066 881 35,169 46,066 3505 2.91 10214 1220 11434 2955 70,949 2021 46,066 833 36,002 46,066 3505 3.03 10623 1268 11891 2872 73,821 2022 46,066 788 36,790 46,066 3505 3.15 11048 1319 12367 2791 76,613 2023 46,066 746 37,536 46,066 3505 3.28 11490 1372 12862 2713 79,326 2024 46,066 706 38,242 46,066 3505 3.41 11949 1427 13376 2637 81,963 2025 46,066 669 38,911 46,066 3505 3.55 12427 1484 13911 2563 84,526 2026 46,066 633 39,544 46,066 3505 3.69 12924 1543 14468 2491 87,017 2027 46,066 600 40,144 46,066 3505 3.83 13441 1605 15046 2421 89,439 2028 46,066 569 40,713 46,066 3505 3.99 13979 1669 15648 2354 91,792 2029 46,066 540 41,253 46,066 3505 415 14538 1736 16274 2288 94,080 ASSUMPTIONS BENEFIT/COST= 2.28 1. Heat Rate 10,500 BTU/KWh 2. Heat Content 138,000 BTU/GALLON Levelized Cost in 2000 dollars 0.117 $/kWh 3. Escalation Rate 4% 4. Discount Rate 7% 5. Diesel fuel cost forecast per Alaska Energy Authority 6. Diesel O&M 10 $/KW Fixed 0.01 $/kWh Variable Exhibit D - Costs and Financing benefit-cost ratio is 2.28 compared to diesel generation. The 30-year levelized cost of offset diesel generation is 11.7 cents per kWh in year 2000 dollars. For this analysis, inflation was assumed to remain constant at 4% over the life of the project and future dollars are discounted back to year 2000 dollars using a nominal discount rate of 7%. The corresponding real discount rate for the analysis is 2.9%. A sensitivity analysis was performed to compare project economics at other bond rates. Assumed inflation and discount rates remained the same. Assuming a 10% bond rate, the benefit-cost ratio decreases to 1.81 which indicates that the project is financially viable even with adverse financing options. Project economics were also reviewed under a “current cost” basis of analysis espoused by FERC. This method of analysis assumes that costs traditionally assumed to escalate with the rate of inflation (diesel fuel, O&M, etc.) remain fixed at their first year values for the life of the project. Future benefits of the project are discounted at the assumed nominal discount tate of 7%. As shown in Table D-5 and Table D-6, the 30-year levelized cost of energy from the Mahoney Lake Project using a current cost approach is 5.1 cents per kWh (2000 dollars). The 30-year levelized cost of offset diesel generation using this approach is 7.6 cents per kWh in year 2000 dollars. The corresponding benefit/cost ratio is 1.53. This method of analysis presents the lower bound of the value of project power. Any increase in diesel fuel costs over the life of the project cause the benefit/cost ratio to increase. 6.0 OTHER ENERGY ALTERNATIVES Alternative energy sources to hydroelectric generation in the Ketchikan area: Coal-fired steam electric Oil, natural gas, and/or synthetic fuel-fired thermal generation Nuclear power Biomass fuel-fired thermal generation Wind Geothermal Solar Pumped storage and large-scale hydroelectric Conservation Intertie electrically to other regional power sources Conservation, or the more efficient use of electricity, can result in the reduction of consumption. The cost of conservation implementation can be less than construction of new power plants, and there are no transmission or distribution losses. Conservation is generally considered environmentally benign. However, there may be some exceptions such as health problems due to deteriorated indoor air quality in many energy efficient buildings. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 D-10 May 1996 Exhibit D - Costs and Financing Coal, oil, natural gas, and synthetic fuels are non-renewable resources. Their use should follow conservation and renewable resources. Nuclear power presently meets a portion of the nation's power needs. However, the use of nuclear power should also follow conservation and renewables. Alternative renewable resources include geothermal, wind, solar, large-scale hydroelectric and biomass fuels. Geothermal energy production is a cost effective and reliable technology. However, viable sites have not been identified in this region of Alaska. Energy production from the wind is becoming a more attractive option. Greater reliability, efficiency, and cost- effectiveness have been achieved in recent years. However, wind power lacks base load carrying and load shaping capability. Solar energy production is not a viable option in Alaska. Solar power is latitude dependent. Also, the climate in southeast Alaska makes reliability of solar power uncertain. The potential for additional firm energy from large-scale hydroelectric and pumped storage projects is limited. Energy production from biomass is dependent on a firm, long-term source of fuel. Additionally, there can also be the negative air quality impacts associated with the combustion process. An intertie transmission line from Ketchikan to the Lake Tyee Hydroelectric Project (HERC No. 3015), located near Petersburg and Wrangell, Alaska, about 60 miles north of Ketchikan, is being considered by the Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU). As presented in the Draft EIS prepared for the intertie project, the cost of energy from this alternative can vary widely based on the economic conditions assumed. No decisions have been made by KPU to date regarding feasibility or viability of the intertie. 7.0 CONSEQUENCES OF APPLICATION DENIAL The consequence of license denial would be the loss of valuable electrical energy production. Hydropower is a proven technology for reliable, renewable, and economical energy production. If the application is denied, then other, more expensive, energy generating alternatives will have to be developed to meet the projected load growth in the KPU service area. Presently, this would take the form of additional diesel engine driven generation. If the project is not constructed, the Applicant envisions no other future uses for the project site. 8.0 SOURCES OF FINANCING The Applicant (City of Saxman) is a municipality organized under the laws of the State of Alaska, and, therefore, is authorized to fund the cost of developing the proposed Project through the sale of revenue bonds. The City of Saxman is also a “Native Village” as defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Cape Fox Corporation (Cape Fox) was established by the ANCSA to administer the holdings granted under this Act. Cape Fox is the City’s development agent for this Project. The City of Saxman also has the option of applying for grant monies that the U.S. Department of Interior administers Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project May 1996 D-11 FERC No. 11393 Exhibit D - Costs and Financing through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Other options available to the City of Saxman include grants from other federal or state agencies, and applying for an FHA loan or loans from other lending institutions. The manner of financing will be determined jointly by the City of Saxman and the Cape Fox Corporation. At this time, it is assumed that the Project will be financed by through the sale of revenue bonds. Debt service on funding and operating costs will be paid for by revenue resulting from the sale of energy from the Project. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 D-12 May 1996 TABLE D-5 MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT CURRENT COST ANALYSIS (30-YEARS) - COST OF ENERGY LAKE TAP ALTERNATIVE A=B+C+DtE B Cc D F G H 1 J=V/D | MAHONEY RESOURCES 2000 2000 PV TOTAL ANNUAL DEBT PRESENT COST OF GENERATION KPUHYDRO ==SWANLAKE MAHONEY SERVICE O&M TOTAL VALUE ENERGY YEAR _|REQUIRED (MWh (MWH) (MWH) _ (MWh) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) (S/kWh)| 2000 174,383 65,650 82,000 26,733 2391 464 2856 2856 0.107 2001 176,238 65,650 82,000 28,588 2391 464 2856 2669 0.093 2002 177,602 65,650 82,000 29,952 2391 464 2856 2494 0.083 2003 178,879 65,650 82,000 31,229 2391 464 2856 2331 0.075 2004 180,520 65,650 82,000 32,870 2391 464 2856 2178 0.066 2005 182,730 65,650 82,000 35,080 2391 464 2856 2036 0.058 2006 185,335 65,650 82,000 36,689 2391 464 2856 1903 0,052 2007 188,264 65,650 82,000 38,330 2391 464 2856 1778 0.046 2008 191,466 65,650 82,000 40,046 2391 464 2856 1662 0.042 2009 194,663 65,650 82,000 41,547 2391 464 2856 1553 0.037 2010 197,669 65,650 82,000 42,960 2391 464 2856 1452 0.034 2011 200,239 65,650 82,000 44,175 2391 464 2856 1357 0.031 2012 202,842 65,650 82,000 45,000 2391 464 2856 1268 0.028 2013 205,479 65,650 82,000 45,246 2391 464 2856 1185 0.026 2014 208,150 65,650 82,000 45,576 2391 464 2856 1107 0.024 2015 210,856 65,650 82,000 45,832 2391 464 2856 1035 0.023 2016 213,597 65,650 82,000 46,021 2391 464 2856 967 0.021 2017 216,374 65,650 82,000 46,066 2391 464 2856 904 0.020 2018 219,187 65,650 82,000 46,066 2391 464 2856 845 0.018 2019 222,036 65,650 82,000 46,066 2391 464 2856 790 0.017 2020 224,923 65,650 82,000 46,066 2391 464 2856 738 0.016 2021 227,847 65,650 82,000 46,066 2391 464 2856 690 0.015 2022 230,809 65,650 82,000 46,066 2391 464 2856 645 0.014 2023 233,809 65,650 82,000 46,066 2391 464 2856 602 0.013 2024 236,849 65,650 82,000 46,066 2391 464 2856 563 0.012 2025 239,928 65,650 82,000 46,066 2391 464 2856 526 0.011 2026 243,047 65,650 82,000 46,066 2391 464 2856 492 0.011 2027 246,206 65,650 82,000 46,066 2391 464 2856 460 0.010 2028 249,407 65,650 82,000 46,066 2391 464 2856 429 0.009 2029 252,649 65,650 82,000 46,066 2391 464 2856 401 0.009 ASSUMPTIONS Levelized cost in 2000 dollars 0.051 . Generation forecast through 2010 per ISER Firm Energy Forecast (Base Case) 1 2. Generation forecast extrapolated beyond year 2010 at 1.3% 3. Escalation of costs at 0% 4 5, . Discount of costs at 7% . Debt service includes credit for interest on reserves TABLE D6 MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT CURRENT COST ANALYSIS - PROJECT ENERGY VERSUS DIESEL COST OF PROJECT ENERGY VERSUS DIESEL - LAKE TAP ALTERNATIVE DIESEL GENERATION 2000 PV ACCUMPV| GENERATION GALLONS FUEL COST O&M (MWh) __ COST ($000) (MWh) (000) __ $/GALLON ($000) ($000) 26,733 2856 26,733 2034 1.33 2705 363 28,588 2669 28,588 2175 1.33 2893 382 : 29,952 2494 8,018 29,952 2279 1.33 3031 396 3427 2993 9,122 31,229 2331 10,349 31,229 2376 1.33 3160 408 3569 2913 12,035 32,870 2178 12,528 32,870 2501 1.33 3326 425 3751 2862 14,897 35,080 2036 36,689 1903 16,467 38,330 1778 18,245 40,046 1662 19,907 41,547 42,960 44,175 1357 24,268 45,000 1268 25,536 45,246 1185 26,721 45,576 1107 45,832 46,021 967 29,831 46,066 904 30,735 46,066 845 31,580 46,066 ASSUMPTIONS 1. Heat Rate 10,500 BTU/KWh 2. Heat Content 138,000 BTU/GALLON 3. Escalation Rate 0% 4. Discount Rate 7% 5. Diesel fuel cost forecast per Alaska Energy Authority 6, Diesel O&M 10 $/KW Fixed 35,080 36,689 38,330 40,046 41,547 42,960 44,175 45,000 45,246 45,576 45,832 46,021 46,066 46,066 46,066 2669 2792 2916 3047 3161 3269 3361 3424 3443 3468 3487 3502 3505 3505 3505 3505 3505 3505 3505 3505 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1,33 1.33 1,33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1,33 3550 3713 3879 4052 4204 4347 4470 4554 4579 4612 4638 4657 4662 4662 4662 4662 4662 4662 4662 4662 BENEFIT/COST= Levelized Cost in 2000 dollars 0.01 $/kWh Variable 447 463 479 496 511 557 557 557 557 557 4176 2782 20,529 4358 2714 23,243 4549 2648 25,890 4716 2565 28,455 5008 2379 33,312 5100 2264 35,576 5127 2128 37,704 5164 2003 39,706 5213 1766 43,354 5218 1652 45,006 5218 1544 46,550 5218 1443 47,993 5218 1349 49,342 5218 1260 50,602 5218 1178 51,780 5218 1101 52,881 5218 899 55,769 1.53 0.076 $/kWh EXHIBIT F GENERAL DESIGN DRAWINGS F-0 F-1 F-3 F-4 F-6 F-7 F-9 May 1996 Exhibit F - General Design Drawings EXHIBIT F GENERAL DESIGN DRAWINGS TABLE OF CONTENTS Title PROJECT LOCATION MAPS AND DRAWING INDEX PROJECT SITE, PLAN AND PROFILE UPPER TUNNEL AND LAKE TAP PLAN UPPER TUNNEL AND SECTIONS SHAFT AND LOWER TUNNEL SECTIONS POWERHOUSE, SITE PLAN POWERHOUSE, PLAN AND SECTIONS ACCESS ROAD TRANSMISSION LINE AND SWITCHYARD ELECTRICAL ONE-LINE DIAGRAM Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 XREF/S: ML-TB SCALE: 1 = 1 DATE PLOTTED: FILENAME: M: \MAHONE Y\FO0659H.0WG GRAVINA ISLAND REVILLAGIGEDO REVILLAGIGEDO ISLAND BEAVER FALLS POWERHOUSE LOWER SILVS RD UPPER SILMS LAKE EXISTING -REVILLAGIGEDO CHANNEL FIGURE NO. F-0 F-1 F-2 F-3 F-4 F-5 F-6 F-7 F-8 F-9 ARCTIC OCEAN PACIFIC OCEAN LOCATION MAP TITLE PROJECT LOCATION MAPS AND DRAWING INDEX PROJECT SITE, PLAN AND PROFILE UPPER TUNNEL AND LAKE TAP PLAN UPPER TUNNEL AND SECTIONS SHAFT AND LOWER TUNNEL SECTIONS POWERHOUSE, SITE PLAN POWERHOUSE, PLAN AND SECTIONS ACCESS ROAD TRANSMISSION LINE AND SWITCHYARD ELECTRICAL ONE-LINE DIAGRAM CITY OF SAXMAN, ALASKA APPLICATION FOR LICENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11393 PROJECT LOCATION MAPS AND DRAWING INDEX EXHIBIT F—O HDR Engineering, Inc. FOO6S9H.DWG XREF /S: ML- TB /ML-PROF /MLSITE TP DATE PLOTTED: FILENAME: M: \MAHONEY\F01659H.OWG UPPER MAHONEY LAKE _ __W.S.EL. 1959+ LAKE TAP~ anne NN PLAN 2000 UPPER, MAHONEY LAKE NORMAL W.S.EL. 1959+ SCALE: 1 = 200 2000 = TOP OF SHAFT EL.|:1880.0 EL. 1850.0 1800 1800 1600 1600 1400: 1400 .-1200 EXISTING. GROUND 1200 uJ | : ir} we | we - 1 - 3.1000 1000 Z e e <= < > > 4 | a 73.800_ 800 4 600 | ] 600 8' HORSESHOE TUNNEL. WITH 400 | 32”0 STEEL PIPELINE 400 POWERHOUSE 200 | € RUNNER 200 | (EL. 150.0. 0° | oO 0+'00 "44400 18400 22400 26400 as ROFIL gree 38t00 42100 46400 50+00 54400 SCALE: 1 = 200° HOR Engineering, SCALE IN FEET MAHONEY LAKE W.S.EL. 88.04 ESR g ~~ SSN tel ACCESS ROAD AND BURIE TRANSMISSION LINE CITY OF SAXMAN, ALASKA APPLICATION FOR LICENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11393 PROJECT SITE PLAN AND PROFILE EXHIBIT F—-1 Inc. XREF /S: ML-TB SCALE: 1 = 1 OATE PLOTTED: FILENAME: M: \MAHONEY\F02659H.OWG i at ’ a 7 ic eer eee ala ae ite 9 uF oo rs 7S if . 7 ~ i ‘ Dea x u eee as NM XN ee NORMAL _MAX WATER He He SURFACE EL. 1959% : “ ; ' CONSTRUCTION Laat . NORMAL MIN. WATER LAYBOWNS "4 { SURFACE EL. 1890+ AREA & i ; HELIPAD APPROXIMATE f LAKE TAP LOCATION 7 “ y \ _— Aa / x Teeth wP - ae — APPROXIMATE ES a _ ee ~ . eat UNDERWATER ; NS us CONTOUR ~~ 4 ed Gao Cf © VOWER TUNNEL ON Zz Mf i oe * TUNNEL SPOILS SS \ DISPOSAL-AREA U2 iN i ie ———. * i 5 vw ea. PLAN SCALE: 1" = 100’-0” SCALE IN FEET CITY OF SAXMAN, ALASKA APPLICATION FOR LICENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11393 UPPER TUNNEL AND LAKE TAP PLAN FIGURE F—2 Engineering, Inc. XREF /S; ML~ 1B OATE PLOTTEO: FILENAME: M: \MAHONEY\F03659H.OWG EXISTING GROUND VACUUM RELEASE VALVE WITH SHUTOFF NORMAL MAXIMUM W.S.EL. 1959+ 7 EL 1864.0 i EL 1862.0 + 48” PIPES UPPER MAHONEY LAKE y SECTION /B\ woe 48” VALVES EL_ 1850.0 TO STREAM fi a 12” BYPASS PIPE TO 12” MOTOR OPERATED SECTION A MAHONEY CREEK VALVE wel-o C= DETAIL Wr=T—0" NORMAL MINIMUM W.S.EL. 1890+ Zz 48” EMERGENCY VALVE 7 FINAL PLUG 7 SECTION TO LA NH 48” INTAKE VALVE BE BLASTED ho VACUUM RELEASE VALVE . AIR RELEASE VALVE CONCRETE PLUG 48" GUARD VALVE i AIR. RELEASE _VA UPPER SHAFT ACCESS PRIMARY ROCK SECONDARY 8 u LVE {TRAP ROCK TRAP cL. 1664.0 EL. 1860.0 ~ e : $=0.0028 Soe > - EL. 1862. eC) uaa meio EXISTING == : GROUND =]APPROX. 48” FLANGES. “\ | [EL 1850.0 |) EL._1850.0\ 30" i : : 1440" “1 EES SHAFT PLUG 12” INSTREAM FLOW RELEASE PIPE fi EL. 1835.0 (ROUTE TO STREAM) SEE DETAIL 1 4 (BY 5’ x 7° PARTIALLY LINED SHAFT CITY OF SAXMAN, ALASKA APPLICATION FOR LICENSE UPPER TUNNEL SECTION MAHONEY LAKE. HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT NTS FERC PROJECT NO. 11393 UPPER TUNNEL AND SECTIONS EXHIBIT F-3 HDR Engineering, Inc. XREF /S: ML- TB SCALE:1 = 1 DATE PLOTTED: FILENAME: M: \MAHONEY\F04659H.0WG 8’ H.S. TUNNEL CONCRETE : PIPE SADDLE CONCRETE PLUG = @ 40° CENTERS é 48” BLIND FLANGE ROCK TRAP ACCESS PORT SHAFT/LOWER TUNNEL SECTION SCALE: %" = 1-0" ROCK BOLTS AS REQUIRED TYPICAL UNLINED SHAFT SECTION SCALE: %” = 1'-0" 32” 1D WELDED ‘ 32” ID WELDED S STEEL PIPE STEEL PIPE ROCK ANCHORS _ = CITY OF SAXMAN, ALASKA APPLICATION FOR LICENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11393 SHAFT AND LOWER TUNNEL SECTIONS EXHIBIT F—4 HOR Engineering, Inc. TYPICAL LINED SHAFT SECTION (AS REQUIRED) typicAL SUPPORTED TUNNEL SECTION TYPICAL UNSUPPORTED TUNNEL SECTION SCALE: #2” 1'-0" SCALE: %” = 1°-0" XREF /S: ML- TB SCALE: 1 = 1 DATE PLOTTED: FILENAME: M: \MAHONEY\FO5659H.OWG =40'x40" SEMI-ONDERGR | ~-ROWERHOUSE OUND * CONCRETE ye \ BURIED CONCRETE TAILRACE CONDUIT PORTAL / \ \ N wp GRID_NORTH TAILRACE “CHANNEL STAGING AREA PERIMETER = ie ae s/ Pe = oa Va a a PLAN 1" = 20°-0" SCALE: Poe ws ee al | - UL , i Le CITY OF SAXMAN, ALASKA APPLICATION FOR LICENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11393 POWERHOUSE SITE PLAN EXHIBIT F-5 q._inc. XREF /S: ML-TB DATE PLOTTED: 11/03/93 SCALE: 1 = 1 FILENAME: M: \MAHONEY\FO6659H.OWG ORIGINAL GROUND SHOTCRETE ROCK OVERHANG AND WALLS OFFICE 10x12’ PERSONNEL DOOR 5-TON HOIST TUNNEL BURIED 5° WIDE TAILRACE 9.6 MW CHANNEL (ROUTE TO GENERATOR STREAM) = i SHOTCRETE W/ = _ WIRE MESH ——— 47 TURBINE ! a 12,900 HP ! @ | l TURBINE 8’ HORSESHOE TUNNEL ACCESS TUNNEL € RUNNER EL. 150.0ll ROLL-UP DOOR DN se x 15'H | SCALE: Y%4" = 36'-0" SECTION %" = 1'-0" EQUIPMENT LEGEND (1) SURGE EQUIPMENT, CABLE TO SWITCHYARD @er's (14) RELAY AND BREAKER PANEL 14°W x 15'H () VOLTAGE REGULATOR/EXCITER (15) CONTROL PANEL /_ROLL-UP DOOR () NEUTRAL GRD. TRANSFORMER — (16) ELECTRIC UNIT HEATER (©) STATION SERVICE PANEL (7) SuMP_ PUMPS (6) AC PANEL VENTILATION LOUVER APPLICATION FOR LICENSE (7) OC PANEL OIL/WATER SEPARATOR MAHONETERC PROUECT NO. T1583 CONCRETE PORTAL (8) ORY TYPE TRANSFORMER POWERHOUSE @) BATTERIES PLAN AND SECTION (0) BATTERY CHARGER EXHIBIT F—6 HOR Engineering, inc. (41) MOTOR STARTER CABINET (MCC) (12) HYDRAULIC PRESSURE UNIT ((3) ACCUMULATOR TANK PERSONNEL DOOR ° J N N EXCAVATION LINE 42’-0" ELEVATION SCALE: Ye" = 1'-0" ROM THIS EXISTING Yo 4000 FE O& TIE—IN CRUSHED ROCK / SURFACING ty S = x S 9” TYPICAL ROAD SECTION Va" =1 GEORGE INLET WERHOUSE 11393 ACCESS ROAD ALASKA CITY OF SAXMAN, APPLICATION FOR LICENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. -7 EXHIBIT F H'‘\MAHDNE Y\F'076S9H.DWG 100° RIGHT OF WAY 20° i MAHONEY LAKE WS. EL. 1959 50° TYPICAL 1 | TYPICAL OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINE H—-FRAME STRUCTURE Yyr=1'-0" € ACCESS ROAD 3 CONCENTRIC ALUM NEUTRAL CABLE- IN—CONDUIT POWER CABLES ARRANGED IN TRIPLEX CONFIGURATION ae Porno WW | MAHONEY LAKE WS. EL. 88 CABLE TRENCH TYPICAL UNDERGROUND a. LINE SECTION ("= 1"-O” LEGEND = = = = ACCESS ROAD TRANSMISSION LINE GEORGE INLET al | CITY OF SAXMAN, ALASKA APPLICATION FOR LICENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11393 TRANSMISSION LINE AND SWITCHYARD EXHIBIT F-8 XREF/S: DATE PLOTTED: SCALE: FILENAME: FO9659H.DWG 34.5KV_ TRANSMISSION LINE 3.6 MILES ft I DISCONNECT ‘SWITCH 3SKV EMERGENCY REGULATOR/ EXCITER DIESEL GENERATOR STATION SERVICE 13.2KV-277/480V TE-IN POINT TO 34.SKV BEAVER FALLS ‘SUBSTATION (3) 3@, 100KVA —————_ COMMUNICATION CABLE LINK Tt Heo; | VW Sot GROUNDING TRANSFORMER 13.2KV=120/240V POWER TRANSFORMER POTENTIAL TRANSFORMER CURRENT TRANSFORMER GENERATOR FIELD WINDING DELTA WE OPEN WYE WYE POINT UGHTNING ARRESTOR FUSE RESISTOR INDICATING LIGHT (W = WHITE) OVERSPEED SWITCH UNDERSPEED SWITCH SYNCHRONISM CHECK DEVICE AUTOMATIC SYNCHRONIZER UNDERVOLTAGE RELAY DIRECTIONAL POWER RELAY MASTER SEQUENCE DEVICE BEARING TEMPERATURE RELAY VIBRATION MONITORING DEVICE FIELD RELAY FIELD CIRCUIT BREAKER MANUAL TRANSFER OR SELECTOR DEVICE REVERSE-PHASE OR PHASE-BALANCE CURRENT RELAY TEMPERATURE RELAY (G = GENERATOR, T = TRANSFORMER) AC TIME OVERCURRENT RELAY (TN = TRANSFORMER NEUTRAL) AC TIME OVERCURRENT RELAY (V = VOLTAGE RESTRAINT) AC CIRCUIT BREAKER OVERVOLTAGE RELAY 100% STATOR GROUND RELAY VOLTAGE BALANCE PRESSURE SWITCH FIELD GROUND PROTECTIVE RELAY OWL LEVEL SWITCH LOW FREQUENCY RELAY (0/U = OVER/UNDER) LOCKING-OUT RELAY (E = EMERGENCY, N = NORMAL) DIFFERENTIAL PROTECTIVE RELAY (G = GENERATOR, T = TRANSFORMER) DIODE CONTACT, NORMALLY CLOSED CAPACITOR ‘SPLUCE ‘SWITCH FUSED SWITCH SWITCH (V = VOLTMETER) INDICATING METER GENERATOR POWER CIRCUIT BREAKER LOW VOLTAGE MEDIUM & HIGH VOLTAGE INTERLOCK ENCLOSURE AMMETER: AMMETER SWITCH AMP TRANSDUCER FREQUENCY METER POWER FACTOR METER SYNCHRONISM CHECK SYNCH SCOPE OR SELECTOR SWITCH VOLTMETER VOLT AMPERES REACTIVE METER VAR TRANSDUCER VOLTMETER SWITCH VOLT TRANSDUCER WATT METER WATTHOUR METER WATT TRANSDUCER CITY OF SAXMAN, ALASKA APPLICATION FOR LICENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11393 ELECTRICAL ONE LINE DIAGRAM EXHIBIT F-9 EXHIBIT G PROJECT BOUNDARY MAPS EXHIBIT G PROJECT BOUNDARY MAPS TABLE OF CONTENTS Title PROJECT BOUNDARY, SHEET 1 OF 2 PROJECT BOUNDARY, SHEET 2 OF 2 Exhibit G - Project Boundary May 1996 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 \A3NDHYW\'H “ou 1-9 LISIHX3 AYVGNNOS LOsrOdd 6Elt ON L9FONd DYId LOO DALIFTZONGAH 3AV1 AZNOHVN VLLI+87 WIS BV 2 INI0d AX SE OL AX TEL GYVAHOLIMS. GNV X LNIOd IVT AINOHVYN LES ie aero sage ——— ey 31107d 3ivd DAT'HES9VIOD 'SHYNI TIS weawos DAC'dL3LIS WW ‘DAG'2E1-W'S/438x XREF/S'ML-TB2.DWG, MLSITETP.DWG DATE PLOTTED: SCALE: tt FILENAME:GO2A6S9H.DWG ia <5o ype agg 2 Sag? cade te ge sercernseesdie FROM POINT X SO" LEFT AND RIGHT OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: S.1319'07" Ww. 505.38" PROJECT BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION 300.00" 490.00" 130.00" 270.00" 240.00" 230.00" 190.00" 130.00" 220.00" . 540.00" N.611615"W. 740.00" N.7210°32"W. 250.00" N.45°10°59"W. 240.00" $.80°38"41"W. 250.00" TO POINT D. FROM POINT D, AN AREA BOUNDED BY THE FOLLOWING BEARINGS AND DISTANCES: S.16°S4'23°E. N.7305'37°E. S.1654'23°E. N.18°36'46"E. S.71°2314"E. 120.00" 387.20° 305.00" 598.12" 189° MORE OR LESS TO EL. 1970, ON THE WEST BANK OF UPPER MAHONEY CREEK, APPROXIMATELY 160 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF THE OUTLET TO UPPER MAHONEY LAKE THEN FOLLOWING CONTOUR EL 1970 AROUND UPPER MAHONEY LAKE TO A POINT AT AN UNNAMED DRAINAGE APPROXIMATELY 535° S.£. OF THE OUTLET TO UPPER MAHONEY LAKE, THEN: N.08°07°07°E. N.18°36'46"E. N.73°05'37°E. N.16°54'23°W. N.73°05'37°E. S.33°51°45"E. S.8706'10"E. $.25711°30"W. TO POINT D. 568.72" 665.91" 36265, 165.00" | 469.75" 60.70" AND FOR THE NEW ACCESS ROAD, STARTING AT POINT X, SO’ TO THE LEFT AND RIGHT OF N.1319'07" E. N.4111'42" E. TO POINT C, THEN N.43°23'48"E. N.5°42°42°E. N.231331°E. N.21°43°17°W. N.48°22'17"W. $.820'14"W. N.6417'38"W. N.4°23'58"E. N.50°20'59"E. N.60718'52°E. N.7°S6°49°E. N3415'13"W. N.152'53°W. N.37°3'S9"W. 274.62" 390.00" 374.75" 209.89" 1026.47 497.11" 205.86" 417.81" 204.93" 178.30" 1095.62" 272.75" 944.59" 415.01" 931.64" 434.05" END OF THE EXISTING TIMBER TO THE ACCESS ROAD, POINT Z. TOTAL ACRES = 165.70 TOTAL ACRES ON USFS LAND = 113.97 FILE: GO2A6SSH_DWG PLOT SCALE: 1=1 PROJECT BOUNDARY EXHIBIT G-2 DATE: 05/29/96 TIME: 11:17om PATH: H: \MAHONEY\,