The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOld Harbor Hydroelectric FERC Application - Oct 2013 - REF Grant 7040014Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 13272-003 Application for an Original License License Application Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. October 2013 __________________________________________________________________________________________ 4831 EAGLE STREET * ANCHORAGE, ALASKA * PHONE (907) 561-1818 * FAX (907) 562-4086 October 31, 2013 Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 Subject: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. P- 13272-003) Application for Original License Dear Secretary Bose: , Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) herein files its License Application for licensing of the 525-kilowatt Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. P-13272-003). The project is located near Old Harbor, Alaska. AVEC is utilizing the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) for this licensing effort. This filing consists of the following: General Information Initial Statement Exhibit A Project Description and Proposed Operating Mode Exhibit E Environmental Report Appendix E.1 Project Figures Appendix E.2 Project Correspondence Appendix E.3 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Appendix E.4 Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Exhibit F Design Drawings Exhibit G Project Maps AVEC will publish public notice of the filing of the License Application in The Kodiak Daily Mirror twice within 14 days after the filing date. AVEC will provide the Commission with proof of publication of these notices AVEC will make information regarding its proposed project reasonably available to the public for inspection and reproduction from the date on which this application is filed until the licensing proceeding is completed. __________________________________________________________________________________________ 4831 EAGLE STREET * ANCHORAGE, ALASKA * PHONE (907) 561-1818 * FAX (907) 562-4086 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Distribution List P-13272-003 Agency/Entity Name Address Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation-Water William Ashton, Storm Water and Wetlands Manager Division of Water 555 Cordova Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Alaska Department of Fish and Game-Sport Fish Division Jason Mouw, Habitat Biologist III, Division of Sport Fish Research & Technical Services 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518- 1599 Alaska Department of Fish and Game-Sport Fish Division Monte Miller, Statewide Hydropower Coordinator 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518- 1599 Alaska Department of Fish and Game-Habitat Division William Frost, Habitat Biologist II 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518- 1599 Alaska Department of Natural Resources- Office of Project Management and Permitting Samantha Carroll, Large Project Coordinator 550 W 7th Avenue Ste 1430 Anchorage, AK 99501-3577 Alaska Department of Natural Resources-History and Archeology Judith Bittner, State Historic Preservation Officer 550 W 7th Avenue Ste 1310 Anchorage, AK 99501-3565 Alaska Department of Natural Resources-History and Archeology Shina Duvall, Archaeologist 550 W 7th Avenue Ste 1310 Anchorage, AK 99501-3565 Alaska Department of Natural Resources-Mining, Land, and Water-Water Resources Drew Harrington, Water Rights 3700 Airport Way Fairbanks, AK 99709-4699 Alaska Energy Authority Doug Ott, Hydroelectric Program Manager 813 W Northern Lights Blvd Anchorage, AK 99503- 6690 Alaska Energy Authority Audrey Alstrom, Assistant Project Manager 813 W Northern Lights Blvd Anchorage, AK 99503- 6690 City of Old Harbor Rick Berns, Mayor P.O. Box 109 Old Harbor, Alaska 99643 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Elise Hsieh, Executive Director 441 W 5th Ave., Suite 500 Anchorage, AK 99501 Kodiak Island Borough- Community Development Bud Cassidy, Director 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 Koniag Incorporated Tom Panamaroff, Interim President 4300 B Street, Ste. 407, Anchorage, AK 99503 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Kaja Brix, Executive Director PO Box 21668 F/AKR4 Juneau, AK 99802-1668 __________________________________________________________________________________________ 4831 EAGLE STREET * ANCHORAGE, ALASKA * PHONE (907) 561-1818 * FAX (907) 562-4086 Administration- Protected Species National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Habitat Conservation Susan Walker, Hydropower Coordinator PO Box 21668 F/AKR4 Juneau, AK 99802-1668 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Habitat Conservation Eric Rothwell, Hydrologist 222 W 7th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Old Harbor Native Corporation Carl Marrs, Chief Executive Officer P.O. Box 71 Old Harbor, AK 99643 Old Harbor Native Corporation Cynthia Burns, Community Affairs P.O. Box 71 Old Harbor, AK 99643 Native Village of Old Harbor Conrad Peterson, President P.O. Box 62 Old Harbor, AK 99643 The Conservation Fund Brad Meiklejohn, Alaska Representative 2727 Hiland Road Eagle River, AK 99577-9482 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Regulatory Branch Birdie Budnik, Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District P.O. Box 6898 Jber, Alaska 99506-0898 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Jennifer Curtis, NEPA Coordinator US EPA-Alaska Operations Office 222 West 7th Ave., #19 Anchorage, AK 99513 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service- Division of Conservation, Planning, and Policy Stephanie Brady 1011 East Tudor Road, MS 231, Anchorage, AK 99503 U.S. Department of Interior- Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance Regional Environmental Assistant Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 1689 C Street, Suite 119 Anchorage, AK 99501- 5126 U.S. Department of Interior- Office of the Solicitor, Alaska Region Kenneth Lord, Attorney - Advisor Office of the Solicitor, Alaska Region 4230 University Drive, Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99508 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Alaska Region Geoffrey L. Haskett, Regional Director 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Alaska Region Tom Melius Regional Director 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Anchorage Field Office Steve Klosiewski, Field Supervisor 604 W 4th Avenue, Rm. G61 Anchorage, AK 99501 __________________________________________________________________________________________ 4831 EAGLE STREET * ANCHORAGE, ALASKA * PHONE (907) 561-1818 * FAX (907) 562-4086 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Division of Realty and Natural Resources Douglas Campbell, Realty Operations Division Chief 1011 East Tudor Road, MS 211 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Division of Realty and Natural Resources Ivars Stolcers, Realty Specialist 1011 East Tudor Road, MS 211 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Endangered Species Branch Kimberly Klein, Endangered Species Biologist 605 West 4th Avenue, Rm G-61 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Bo Sloan, Refuge Manager 1390 Buskin River Road Kodiak, AK 99615 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Kent Sundseth, Deputy Refuge Manager 1390 Buskin River Road Kodiak, AK 99615 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Water Resources Branch John Trawicki, Branch Chief, Chief Hydrologist 1011 East Tudor Road, MS 231 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project P- 13272-003 Initial Statement BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Application for License for a Minor Water Project INITIAL STATEMENT Pursuant to 18 CFR §4.61 (b) 1. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) applies to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for an Original License for the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. P- 13272-003, as described hereinafter. 2. Project Location The location of the Project is: State or Territory: Alaska County: Kodiak Island Borough Township or Nearby Town: Old Harbor Stream or Other Body of Water: East Fork Mountain Creek, Lagoon Creek Tributary 3. Applicant and Authorized Agent The exact name and business address of applicant are: AVEC 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Telephone: 907-561-1818 4. The following person is authorized to act as agent for the applicant The exact name, address, and telephone number of each person authorized to act as agent for the applicant in the application, if applicable, are: Meera Kohler President and CEO AVEC 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Telephone: 907-561-1818 Robin Reich Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. 2607 Fairbanks Street, Suite B Anchorage, AK 99503 Telephone: 907-929-5960 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Application for Original License Initial Statement Page 2 5. The applicant is a private, member-owned, non-profit electric utility organized under the laws of the State of Alaska. The applicant is not claiming preference under Section 7(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §796. 6. Pertinent Alaska Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 6(ii) The statutory or regulatory requirements 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 summarized in Tables IS-1 and IS-2. In addition, the steps that the applicant has taken or plans to take to comply with each of the cited requirements are included in these tables. Table IS-1. State Regulatory Requirements Agency Statute or Regulation Permit/Approval Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Alaska State Statute 18:70. Certificate of Reasonable Assurance Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska State Statutes: 16.05.841-871 Alaska Fishway Act Fish Habitat (Title 16) Permit Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Mining, Land and Water Alaska State Statute: 46:15 Alaska Water Use Act Water Rights 6(ii) The steps which AVEC has taken, or plans to take, to comply with each of the laws cited above are: AVEC has involved and requested comments from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation throughout the process. A Certificate of Reasonable Assurance (Water Quality Certification) will be secured prior to construction of the project. AVEC has involved and requested comments from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game throughout the process. A Fish Habitat (Title 16) Permit will be secured prior to construction of the project. AVEC has involved and requested comments from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water throughout the process. Water rights will be secured prior to construction of the project. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Application for Original License Initial Statement Page 3 7. Brief Description of the Project AVEC is proposing to construct a basin diversion hydroelectric plant with a diversion structure, penstock, powerhouse, and electric power line. The project will have a capacity of 525 kW. The project will collect a maximum of 11.8 cfs of water year round from the east fork of Mountain Creek and transport it across a basin boundary to Lagoon Creek Tributary just west of the city of Old Harbor. The Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project begins at the intake with a diversion/cut off weir with a height of approximately 3-8 feet and a length of approximately 100 feet. A below grade transition with an above-ground air relief inlet pipe will convey water to a buried high-density polyethylene pipe and steel pipe penstock. The approximately 10,150 foot long penstock will convey water to the powerhouse. The pipe will be buried 1 to 5 feet underground and follow the natural terrain as much as possible. The penstock will be located such that bends will be gradual while minimizing the amount of excavation and fill needed. The powerhouse will consist of an approximately 30-foot by 35-foot by 16-foot high metal building or similar structure. The building will house two Pelton 262 kW turbines, a 480 volt, 3 phase synchronous generator, and switchgear for each turbine. A tailrace structure and culvert or constructed stream bed will convey the project flows from the powerhouse to the nearby pond, known in Old Harbor as Swimming Pond. The tailrace will continue on from Swimming Pond, conveying project flows for a total of approximately 2,300 feet. To access the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project an approximately 11,500 foot long by 10 foot wide intake access trail will be constructed between the intake and the powerhouse and an approximately 5,720 foot long by 24 foot wide access road will extend from powerhouse to the existing community drinking water tank access road. As requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to prevent traffic in the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, the intake access trail will be closed to non-project traffic. The powerhouse access road will be open to public vehicles. An approximately 6,550 foot long, 12.47kV three phase overhead power line will extend from the powerhouse to the existing power distribution system in Old Harbor. The power line will follow the access road and drinking water tank road alignment. The project will initially be constructed with one turbine at 50% installed capacity until demand warrants an additional turbine. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Application for Original License Initial Statement Page 4 8. Lands of the United States affected (shown on Exhibit G): (Name) (Acres) (i) National Forest (ii) Indian Reservation (iii) Public Lands under the Jurisdiction of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1.85 (iv) Other (v) Total U.S. Lands 1.85 (vi) Check appropriate box Surveyed Land Unsurveyed Land Unsurveyed land Approximately 1.85 acres of the Project will be located within the Kodiak Island National Wildlife Refuge. 9. Construction of the project is planned to start within 24 months, and is planned to be completed within 12 months, from the date of issuance of license. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project P- 13272-003 Exhibit A Project Description and Proposed Operating Mode BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATROY COMMISSION Application for License for a Minor Water Project Exhibit A - Project Description Pursuant to 18 CFR §4.61 (c) (c) Exhibit A is a description of the project and the proposed mode of operation. The Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project is a proposed, new, basin diversion small hydroelectric generation facility consisting of a diversion structure, pipeline, powerhouse, tailrace, access road, and transmission line. The project is located on Kodiak Island and is situated near the community of Old Harbor, AK. (1) The exhibit must include, in tabular form if possible, as appropriate: A table of the project details is included at the end of this Exhibit. Proposed Project Features: i. The number of generating units, including auxiliary units, the capacity of each unit, and provisions, if any, for future units; Generation configuration (total) 2, capacity 525 kilowatts (Only one unit will be initially installed.) ii. The type of hydraulic turbine(s); Pelton turbines iii. A description of how the plant is to be operated, manual or automatic, and whether the plant is to be used for peaking; Operation will be automatic, plant will not be used for peaking purposes. iv. The estimated average annual generation in kilowatt-hours or mechanical energy equivalent; Estimated average annual generation 3,520,000 kilowatt-hours (Initially, with the installation of 1 turbine, estimated average annual generation will be 2,300,000 kilowatt-hours.) v. Estimated average head of the plant; 774 feet Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit A Project Description Page 2 vi. The reservoir surface area in acres and, if known, the net and gross storage capacity; Reservoir surface area 0.2 acres Net and gross storage capacity 0 acre-feet vii. The estimated minimum and maximum hydraulic capacity of the plant (flow through the plant) in cubic feet per second and estimated average flow of the stream or water body at the plant or point of diversion; for projects with installed capacity of more than 1.5 megawatts, monthly flow duration curves and a description of the drainage area for the project site must be provided; Estimated minimum hydraulic capacity 1 cubic feet per second Estimated maximum hydraulic capacity 11.8 cubic feet per second (Initially, with the installation of 1 turbine, 6 cubic feet per second.) Estimated average stream flow at diversion 9.8 cfs viii. Sizes, capacities, and construction materials, as appropriate, of pipelines, ditches, flumes, canals, intake facilities, powerhouses, dams, transmission lines, and other appurtenances; Description by project feature: Diversion and intake structure Constructed from concrete Height of 4 to 6 feet measured from lowest stream bed elevation to top of diversion structure Length across stream 100 feet (approximate) Section width 100 feet (approximate) Hydraulic capacity 11.8 cfs Pipeline Constructed of HDPE and steel. Nominal diameters ranging from 16 to 20 inches. Length of HDPE 7,400 feet (approximate) Length of steel pipe 2,750 feet (approximate) Total length of pipeline 10,150 feet (approximate) Powerhouse Constructed of concrete and steel Building size 1,050 square feet Dimensions: 30 feet wide, 35 feet long, 16 feet high (approximate) Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit A Project Description Page 3 Tailrace Constructed with approximately 85 feet of steel, plastic, or concrete culvert and a man-made stream channel with a length of approximately 2,300 feet including approximately 500 feet routed through an existing pond. Design capacity for initiation of bed material transport in the tailrace channel is approximately 11.8 cfs project flow plus 25 year stream flow event. Transmission 12.47 kV three phase overhead power line Constructed of bare copper or aluminum wire; single pole and guyed structures Length 6,550 feet long Pole spacing 100 to 200 feet (approximate) Roads Constructed of gravel Road to powerhouse size 5,720 foot long by 24 foot wide Trail between powerhouse and intake size: 11,500 foot long by 10 foot wide ix. The estimated cost of the project. The estimated cost of the project is $8,155,000 million (updated from 2011 feasibility study). x. The estimated capital costs and estimated annual operation and maintenance expense of each proposed environmental measure. The proposed environmental measures and associated costs are listed below. Environmental Measure Capital Cost O&M Cost All Resources A qualified environmental compliance monitor (ECM) would be employed during project construction. $90,000 $0 Geological and Soil Resources The project would be sited and designed to minimize erosion and geologic hazards. $0 $0 To minimize erosion due to traffic, motor vehicle use of the intake access trail would be limited to authorized vehicles only. $0 $0 Overburden and soil from excavations would be piled neatly outside wetlands (where feasible) and in such a way as to prevent erosion. The excess soil piles would be revegetated with native seed mix recommended by the USFWS. $10,000 $10,000 Disturbed areas would be revegetated with a native seed mix recommended by the USFWS. $10,000 $0 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit A Project Description Page 4 Environmental Measure Capital Cost O&M Cost Aquatic Resources No dam would be constructed. $0 $0 Fish passage would be maintained in Lagoon Creek Tributary. $0 $0 Large woody debris would be maintained along Lagoon Creek Tributary wherever possible. $0 $0 After channel construction, the banks of Lagoon Creek Tributary would be revegetated with native plants and large and small woody debris from areas cleared during construction. $24,000 $0 Enhancement construction of the 1,100-foot-long ephemeral section of the Lagoon Creek Tributary channel from Swimming Pond would occur downstream coho salmon. $0 $0 Terrestrial Resources A SWPPP to minimize erosion from construction activities would be developed prior to commencement of any construction activities. The selected contractor would be required to implement the SWPPP. $11,400 $0 Best Management Practices would be implemented to decrease erosion and sedimentation during construction activities. $10,000 $0 The USFWS timing windows for avoiding disturbance during the bird nesting season would be applied wherever possible for ground clearing and vegetation removal in previously undisturbed areas. $0 $0 The on-site ECM would watch and report newly established bald eagle nests to the USFWS. If an active nest is found, blasting within 0.5 miles and all other work within 660 feet of the nest would be postponed until after coordination with USFWS. If blasting is required within 0.5 miles of an eagle nest, blasting would take place in winter (November-January), well before/after the breeding season according to the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. $0, included in ECM cost $0 Bird diverters would be installed on the power line and guy wires to prevent bird strikes. $10,000 $0 Power poles would be outfitted with perch posts designed to prevent bird electrocution. $5,000 $0 AVEC would work with Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and ADF&G to develop protocols to minimize bear encounters during construction and maintenance activities. $5,000 $0 To minimize disturbance, public motor vehicle access into the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge via the intake access trail would be blocked. $0 $0 An invasive species prevention plan would be developed prior to commencement of any construction activities. $5,000 $0 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit A Project Description Page 5 Environmental Measure Capital Cost O&M Cost Threatened and Endangered Species Bird diverters would be installed on the power line and guy wires to prevent strikes. Listed above $0 Recreation and Land Use Gates would be installed across the access road near the powerhouse and near where an existing trail connects to the new intake access trail to prevent unauthorized motorized access into the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and conservation lands. $14,000 $0 Signs would be placed at the powerhouse to inform the public about public access on Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and Old Harbor Native Corporation lands held in a conservation easement. $3,000 $0 Cultural Resources Project facilities would be placed to avoid disturbance to archeological sites. $0 $0 Socioeconomic Resources Local labor would be used for construction and maintenance activities. $0, included in project costs $0 (2) State the purposes of project (for example, use of power output). The purpose of the Project is to provide electrical power for the community of Old Harbor in order to displace existing diesel powered generation. (3) An estimate of the cost to develop the license application; and The estimated cost to develop the license application is $620,000. (4) The on-peak and off-peak values of project power, and the basis for estimating the values, for projects which are proposed to operate in a mode other than run-of-river. Proposed operational mode is basin diversion with the project diverting all the water available at the intake up to the hydraulic capacity of the installed turbines. Project flows will not require adjustment to meet instantaneous demand because a load governor sized for the full project output will be used to shunt excess power. (5) The estimated average annual increase or decrease in project generation, and the estimated average annual increase or decrease of the value of project power due to a change in project operations (i.e., minimum bypass flows, limiting reservoir fluctuations) for an application for a new license; Not applicable for this original license for an unconstructed project. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit A Project Description Page 6 (6) The remaining undepreciated net investment, or book value of the project; Not applicable for this original license for an unconstructed project. (7) The annual operation and maintenance expenses, including insurance, and administrative and general costs; Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $85,627. (8) A detailed single-line electrical diagram; Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit A Project Description Page 7 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit A Project Description Page 8 (9) A statement of measures taken or planned to ensure safe management, operation, and maintenance of the project. Measures that will are planned to ensure the safety and reliability of the project include the following. Remote, real time monitoring control system with alerting capability. Restrictors on needle valve operations. Electrical interconnection safety features. Operation and maintenance plan. A table of the project scheme details follows. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Draft Exhibit A Project Description Page 9 OLD HARBOR PROJECT SCHEME DETAILS PARAMETER UNIT VALUE POWER AND ENERGY Design Capacity kW 525 Design Average annual energy MW h 3,520 Design Annual capacity factor % 77% Installed Capacity (Nominal) kW 262 Installed Peak Output kW 290 Installed Average annual energy MW h 2,300 Installed Annual capacity factor % 91% PRINCIPAL LEVELS Dam crest ft 850 River bed ft 845 Spillway crest ft 848 Maximum flood level (MFL) at PMF ft TBD Floor Elevation ft 73 Turbine Centerline ft 77 Tailrace Invert ft 68.75 HEADS Maximum gross head ft 771 Maximum net head (1 unit) ft 742 Minimum net head (2 units) ft 659 Nominal design head ft TBD FLOWS Annual average stream flow ft3/s 9.8 Construction flood (1:5 years) ft3/s TBD 500 year recurrence flood ft3/s 1073 Probable max flood peak inflow ft3/s TBD RESERVOIR Surface area acre- ft 0.2 Maximum storage (at FSL) acre- ft NA UPSTREAM COFFERDAM Type Rockfill Maximum height ft 8 Volume ft3 500 OLD HARBOR PROJECT SCHEME DETAILS PARAMETER UNIT VALUE DAM Type Concrete Buttress Maximum height above river bed ft 3-8 Crest elevation ft 850 Crest length ft 109 Crest width ft 0.5 SPILLWAY Type, location Freefall weir Crest elevation ft 848 Crest length ft 30 POWER CONDUITS Number 1 Description Buried Pipeline Type HDPE and steel Nominal diameter in 16-20 Length of HDPE ft 7,400 Length of Steel ft 2,750 Total length ft 10,150 Maximum flow capacity ft3/s 11.8 POWERHOUSE Length ft 35 Width ft 30 Maximum height ft 16 TURBINES Type Pelton Number U 2 Number Installed Initial U 1 Nominal velocity rpm TBD Nominal discharge (per unit) ft3/s 5.9 Nominal capacity (per unit) kW 262 GENERATORS Number U 2 Number Installed U 1 Frequency initial Hz 60 Voltage V 480 TAILRACE Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Draft Exhibit A Project Description Page 10 OLD HARBOR PROJECT SCHEME DETAILS PARAMETER UNIT VALUE Type Culvert/Creek Length ft 2,315 Receiving Waters Lagoon Creek POWER TRANSMISSION Type Overhead Conductors Bare Aluminum Number U 3 Length ft 6,550 Voltage kV 12.47 POWERHOUSE ACCESS Type New Rural, Gravel Length ft 5,720 Width ft 24 INTAKE ACCESS Type New Trail, Gravel Length ft 11,500 Width ft 10 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 13272-003 Exhibit E Environmental Report Cover Sheet A. Title: Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 13272-003 B. Subject: Environmental Report C. Lead Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission D. Cooperating Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service E. Abstract: On June 29, 2012, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) accepted an application from the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc., (AVEC) for a preliminary permit to study a potential hydroelectric project near the community of Old Harbor on Kodiak Island in Alaska. The project includes two alternatives: a proposed action and a no-action alternative. The proposed action would construct and operate a 525-kilowatt, basin-diversion hydroelectric plant on the southeastern coast of Kodiak Island, near the City of Old Harbor, Alaska. (See Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix E.1.) The project would include a diversion intake structure, penstock, powerhouse, tailrace, electric power line, intake access trail, and powerhouse access road. The project intake would be located on the East Fork of Mountain Creek and would discharge into Swimming Pond. From Swimming Pond the existing Lagoon Creek Tributary channel would be enhanced to accommodate increased flow. The tributary flows to Lagoon Creek, which flows to a saltwater lagoon and into Sitkalidak Strait. The project would occupy approximately 1.85 acres of land within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), approximately 5.89 acres of Old Harbor Native Corporation land that is subject to a conservation easement administered by the USFWS, approximately 3.24 acres of Old Harbor Native Corporation land that is subject to a conservation easement administered by the USFWS and the State of Alaska, approximately 2.90 acres of Old Harbor Corporation land, and approximately 1.21 acres of land within the City of Old Harbor. and is submitting this environmental report as part of its License Application. F. Contact: FERC Staff Contact Mary Greene, Environmental Biologist Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 (202) 502-8865 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-001) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Cover Sheet Page 2 G. Transmittal: This environmental report to license the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project is being made available for public comment on or about October 31, 2013, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 19691 Environmental Policy Act (18 CFR, Part 380). 1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (Pub. L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321 4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258, §4(b), September 13, 1982). Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page i Contents E.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 E.1.1 Application ............................................................................................................ 1 E.1.2 Purpose of Action and Need for Power ................................................................ 1 E.1.2.1 Purpose of Action .................................................................................... 1 E.1.2.2 Need for Power............................................................................................ 2 E.1.3 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements .............................................................. 3 E.1.3.1 Federal Power Act ....................................................................................... 3 E.1.3.2 Title XI of the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act .................. 4 E.1.3.3 Clean Water Act ........................................................................................... 4 E.1.3.4 Endangered Species Act .............................................................................. 5 E.1.3.5 Coastal Zone Management Act ................................................................... 5 E.1.3.6 National Historic Preservation Act .............................................................. 5 E.1.3.7 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act .......................................................................... 6 E.1.3.8 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ............... 6 E.1.3.9 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ............................................................................ 6 E.1.3.10 Alaska Fishway Act .................................................................................... 6 E.1.3.11 Alaska Water Use Act ................................................................................ 6 E.1.4 Public Review and Comment ................................................................................ 8 E.1.4.1 Scoping ........................................................................................................ 8 E.1.4.2 Interventions ............................................................................................. 10 E.1.4.3 Comments on the License Application ...................................................... 10 E.2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives .......................................................................... 11 E.2.1 No-Action Alternative ......................................................................................... 11 E.2.2 Proposed Action .................................................................................................. 11 E.2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities ........................................................................ 11 E.2.2.2 Project Safety ............................................................................................. 18 E.2.2.3 Project Operation ...................................................................................... 19 E.2.2.4 Proposed Environmental Measures .......................................................... 21 E.2.2.5 -Mandatory Conditions ................. 24 E.2.3 Other Alternatives ............................................................................................... 24 E.2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis ......................... 24 E.2.4.1 1990s Hydropower Alternative ................................................................. 24 E.3.0 Environmental Analysis ........................................................................................... 27 E.3.1 General Setting.................................................................................................... 27 E.3.1.1 Mountain Creek ......................................................................................... 27 E.3.1.2 Lagoon Creek and Lagoon Creek Tributary ............................................... 28 E.3.1.3 Topography and Climate ........................................................................... 28 E.3.1.4 Major Land Uses ........................................................................................ 29 E.3.1.5 Economic Activities .................................................................................... 29 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page ii E.3.2 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis.................................................................. 29 E.3.3 Proposed Action .................................................................................................. 30 E.3.3.1 Geological and Soil Resources ............................................................... 30 E.3.3.2 Aquatic Resources ................................................................................. 35 E.3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources ................................................................................. 46 E.3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................................... 58 E.3.3.5 Recreation and Land Use ........................................................................... 60 E.3.3.6 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................... 62 E.3.3.7 Aesthetic Resources .............................................................................. 64 E.3.3.8 Socioeconomics ......................................................................................... 64 E.3.4 No-Action Alternative ......................................................................................... 67 E.4.0 Developmental Analysis .......................................................................................... 68 E.4.1 Power and Economic Benefits of the Project ..................................................... 68 E.4.2 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................ 68 E.4.3 Cost of Environmental Measures ........................................................................ 69 E.4.4 Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 72 E.5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................... 73 E.5.1 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................ 73 E.5.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................ 74 E.5.3 Summary of Section 10(j) Recommendations and 4(e) Conditions .................... 75 E.5.4 Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies ............................................... 75 E.5.4.1 Land Management .............................. 75 E.5.5 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans ............................................................. 77 E.6.0 Finding of No Significant Impact ............................................................................. 81 E.7.0 Literature Cited ....................................................................................................... 82 E.8.0 List of Preparers ...................................................................................................... 87 E.9.0 Consultation Documentation .................................................................................. 88 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page iii List of Figures (Included in Appendix E.1) Figure 1. Project Overview Figure 2. Project Detail Figure 3. Overview Wetlands Map Figure 4. Tailrace Detail List of Graphs Graph E.1. East Fork Mountain Creek In-Stream Flow and Diversion Potential ............. 21 Graph E.2. Temperature (o F) of Swimming Pond and Lagoon Creek Tributary ............. 38 List of Tables Table E.1. Current and Projected Old Harbor Energy Demand ......................................... 2 Table E.2. Major Statutory and Regulatory Requirements ................................................ 7 Table E.3. Project Summary ............................................................................................. 11 Table E.4. Monthly Average East Fork Mountain Creek In-Stream Flow and Diversion Potential ............................................................................................................................ 20 Table E.5. Old Harbor 1990s Hydropower Alternative Project Summary ....................... 25 Table E.6. Rare Plants Found Near Old Harbor in August 2010 Survey ........................... 48 Table E.7. Wetland Types and Functions ........................................................................ 50 Table E.8. Temporary and Permanent Wetland, Open Water, and Upland Impacts ...... 53 Table E.9. Contacts in Case of Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains .................. 64 Table E.10. Leading Employment Sectors in Old Harbor ................................................. 65 Table E.11. Old Harbor Demographics ............................................................................. 66 Table E.12. Old Harbor Income and Poverty Levels ......................................................... 67 Table E.13. Estimated Annual O&M Costs ...................................................................... 68 Table E.16. Cost of Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Measures ................. 69 Table E.17. Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations ................................................ 75 Table E.17. Agency, Tribal, and Public Consultation Contacts ......................................... 88 Appendices E.1 Project Figures E.2 Project Correspondence E.3 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment E.4 Old Harbor Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study (includes the Mountain Creek Hydrology Report) Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page iv Acronyms and Abbreviations ACS American Community Survey ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources AEIDC Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center ANILCA Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act APE Area of Potential Effect ATV All terrain vehicle AVEC Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. AWC State of Alaska Anadromous Waters Catalog CFS Cubic feet per second CWA Clean Water Act Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DCCED Alaska Department of Commerce and Community Economic Development DEC Department of Environmental Conservation DLA Draft License Application ECM Environmental Compliance Monitor EFH Essential Fish Habitat ESA Endangered Species Act EVOS Exxon Valdez Oil Spill FCI Functional Capacity Index FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FPA Federal Power Act ft feet ILP Integrated Licensing Process KIB Kodiak Island Borough kV kilovolt kW kilowatt kWh kilowatt hours MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act NEPA National Environmental Protection Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NLUR Northern Land Use Research, Inc. NOAA Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration- National Marine Fisheries Service NRCS National Resources Conservation Services OHNC Old Harbor Native Corporation PAD Preliminary Application Document PSP Proposed Study Plan PPM parts per million Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page v SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page vi Executive Summary Proposed Action The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) proposes to construct and operate a 525-kilowatt, basin-diversion hydroelectric plant on the southeastern coast of Kodiak Island, near the City of Old Harbor, Alaska. The project would include a diversion intake structure, penstock, powerhouse, tailrace, electric power line, intake access trail, and powerhouse access road. (See Appendix E.1, Figures 1 and 2.) The project would occupy approximately 1.85 acres of land within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), approximately 5.89 acres of Old Harbor Native Corporation land that is subject to a conservation easement administered by the USFWS, approximately 3.24 acres of Old Harbor Native Corporation land that is subject to a conservation easement administered by the USFWS and the State of Alaska, approximately 2.90 acres of Old Harbor Corporation land, and approximately 1.21 acres of land within the City of Old Harbor. Alternatives Considered A variety of entities have analyzed the potential of providing Old Harbor with hydroelectric energy since the 1970s. In 1999, AVEC submitted a license application for an Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the license was issued in 2000 (FERC No. P-11690-006). AVEC determined that the proposed project was not feasible to construct, however, due to a decrease in the price of diesel and the high cost of the mitigation measures required by the resource agencies. AVEC did not construct this project and the license was terminated in 2005. The alternative proposed under FERC No. P-11690-006 has been dismissed from further consideration because of project cost, feasibility, and environmental impacts. This environmental report considers the effects of issuing an original hydropower license for this project. AVEC considered the recommendations of resource agencies and others in the preparation of this document. AVEC analyzed two alternatives: (1) the proposed Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project, and (2) the no-action alternative, under which no hydroelectric project would be constructed. The proposed Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project would affect two basins whose dividing boundary is near the community of Old Harbor (see Figure 1, Appendix E.1). The project intake would be located on the East Fork of Mountain Creek, a headwaters tributary of the Barling Bay Creek Basin. This basin flows to saltwater at Barling Bay. The remainder of the project would be located in the Lagoon Creek Basin, and water flows from the powerhouse would discharge into Swimming Pond and flow to Lagoon Creek Tributary. Lagoon Creek Tributary flows to Lagoon Creek, which flows to a saltwater lagoon and into Sitkalidak Strait. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page vii Public Involvement and Areas of Concern Before filing its license application, AVEC conducted the pre-filing consultation under -filing practice is to initiate public involvement early in the project planning process and to encourage citizens, governmental entities, tribes, and other interested parties to identify and resolve issues prior to an application being formally filed with FERC. As part of the draft environmental report, under Preliminary Permit P-13272-001, FERC conducted scoping to determine what issues and alternatives should be addressed. Letters inviting the Village of Old Harbor and the Native Village of Akhiok to participate in the licensing process were sent in September 2009. Scoping Document 1 for the project was provided on September 21, 2009. A scoping meeting was held in Anchorage, Alaska, on October 22, 2009, to request comments on the project. Meeting Scoping Document 2 (revised to address comments) was submitted on January 4, 2010. A meeting regarding the proposed study plan with agency representatives was held on January 22, 2010, and a follow-up meeting was held in Anchorage on April 1, 2010, to discuss the revised study plan. A revised Proposed Study Plan addressing these comments was issued on May 5, 2010. Another scoping meeting was scheduled to take place in the community of Old Harbor on August 17, 2010; however, airplanes were unable to fly due to inclement weather. The meeting was held in Anchorage on August 18, 2010, and members of the Old Harbor community participated via teleconference. Also on August 18, 2010, an agency meeting was held to share the results of the field effort and gather information to use for the license application and the environmental document. Draft study reports were issued to agencies on November 29, 2010, and to FERC on July 1, 2011, and Project Study Meetings were held on July 15 and July 25, 2011 to discuss the field studies. Final study reports were issued in July 2011. On January 9, 2012, an agency meeting was held to receive comments on the draft License Application (DLA). On August 30, 2012, an agency meeting was held to discuss the findings of the geotechnical field study, its implications for the project design, and project schedule. On October 11, 2012, an agency meeting was held to discuss hydrology in the Mountain Creek and Lagoon Creek drainages. Written comments were received throughout the process. Areas of concern articulated during this public and agency process are discussed below. Project Effects Geologic and Soil Resources: Project construction activities would temporarily impact approximately 61.2 acres. Project components would permanently impact another 15.1 acres. Erosion could occur during construction activities; however, Best Management Practices would be employed to minimize construction impacts. The powerhouse access road and intake access trail would be designed and constructed based on U.S. Forest Service road construction guidance and would withstand natural erosion Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page viii pressure. All disturbed areas would be restored and revegetated, except for areas of exposed rock, gravel surfaces, and the tailrace channel bed. Native plants and/or native seed mix as recommended by the USFWS would be used exclusively for revegetation. Aquatic Resources: Water rights for the project would be obtained from the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). AVEC applied originally for water rights in the project area in May 1999. This original application date ensures that AVEC has priority to water rights if granted. Because the project has been altered since the original time of application, ADNR has requested that AVEC complete a new application and submit a new project description with design plans. Water quality could be impacted in Mountain Creek and Swimming Pond due to sedimentation during construction. Resident fish in Swimming Pond could be impacted by in-water construction work and by water temperature changes during operation. Water quantity could be impacted in the Mountain Creek drainage and the Lagoon Creek drainage, as water would be diverted from the East Fork of Mountain Creek to Swimming Pond in the Lagoon Creek drainage. From Swimming Pond the existing Lagoon Creek Tributary channel would be enhanced to convey higher flows. For a detailed description of channel construction see Section E.2.2.1, and Exhibit F. Potential project impacts to essential fish habitat (EFH) would be related to the introduction of additional water to Lagoon Creek Tributary, including changes to flow patterns and sedimentation, water temperature, floodplains, and available fish habitat. Conservation measures, including construction timing and Best Management Practices, would decrease impacts on EFH. Terrestrial Resources: Approximately 2.23 acres of wetlands would be permanently impacted by the project. Travel to the intake for construction and maintenance activities would increase noise and disturbance and potentially affect bears and other wildlife species. Bird diverters would be placed on the power line and guy wires to help birds avoid collisions. Power poles would be outfitted with perch posts designed to prevent bird electrocution. Threatened and Endangered Species: No listed species would be adversely affected by this project. Recreation and Land Use: Due to improved access, recreation activities would increase in the area along the access road to the powerhouse. Access to the intake access trail above the powerhouse would be limited to AVEC maintenance crews and public foot access. The project would occupy approximately 1.85 acres of land within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge managed by the USFWS, approximately 5.89 acres of Old Harbor Native Corporation land that is subject to a conservation easement administered by the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page ix USFWS, approximately 3.24 acres of Old Harbor Native Corporation land that is subject to a conservation easement administered by the USFWS and the State of Alaska, approximately 2.90 acres of Old Harbor Corporation land, and approximately 1.21 acres of land within the City of Old Harbor. AVEC would be required to submit a right-of-way application to USFWS under the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA) Title XI and obtain approval of an amendment to the conservation easement from the USFWS. AVEC would be required to request that the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council (EVOS) change the terms of the conservation easement. EVOS in 1994 and 1995 authorized expenditure of settlement funds for purchase of lands in fee simple and a conservation easement in the project area. Generally, terms of these agreements preclude development of these lands. However, as Resolution 11-08 stipulates (see Appendix E.2), EVOS supports an amendment to permit the construction, operation and maintenance of a hydroelectric project upon completion of certain conditions, such as FERC project approval and licensing, various state agency approval, and execution of appropriate documentation. Cultural Resources: No archeological or cultural resources would be affected by the project. Socioeconomics: In the short term, the project would provide construction-related jobs in the community. In the long term, power costs would be stabilized, allowing for improved operation of existing public services and the creation of new businesses and jobs. The Project will displace fuel consumed by power and heat generation in Old Harbor. At te for Social and Economic Research projected fuel costs, the project will save about $ 455,415 during its first year of operation (2017). Over the life of the project, 50 years, the projected savings has a present value of $14.2 million. Conclusion On the basis of this analysis, it is concluded that issuing an original license for the project, with the environmental measures that are recommended, would not be a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 1 E.1 Introduction E.1.1 Application Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is seeking a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license to operate a hydroelectric facility for the project under the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). The project is located in the Mountain Creek and Lagoon Creek watersheds on the southeastern coast of Kodiak Island, near Old Harbor, Alaska (Appendix E.1, Figure 1). The project would occupy approximately 1.85 acres of land within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), approximately 5.89 acres of Old Harbor Native Corporation land that is subject to a conservation easement administered by the USFWS, approximately 3.24 acres of Old Harbor Native Corporation land that is subject to a conservation easement administered by the USFWS and the State of Alaska, approximately 2.90 acres of Old Harbor Corporation land, and approximately 1.21 acres of land within the City of Old Harbor. The project would generate up to 525 kilowatts (kW) of electrical energy at full capacity. The project initially would be constructed with one turbine at 50% installed capacity until demand warrants an additional turbine. E.1.2 Purpose of Action and Need for Power E.1.2.1 Purpose of Action FERC must decide whether or not to issue a hydropower license to AVEC for the project and determine the conditions that should be placed on any license issued. Issuing a license would allow AVEC to construct and operate the project for a term of up to 50 years, making electric power available from a renewable resource. The USFWS must decide whether or not to issue a right-of-way permit for the project to occupy Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge lands and the conditions needed to ensure adequate protection and utilization of Refuge land and resources if FERC grants a new license. In deciding whether to issue any license, FERC must determine that the project would be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway. In addition to the power and development purposes for which licenses are issued, FERC must give equal consideration to the purposes of energy conservation, the protection of, mitigation of, damage to, and enhancement of, fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), the protection of recreational opportunities, and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality. This environmental report reflects the above considerations. The 525 kW project would be located on East Fork Mountain Creek and Lagoon Creek Tributary, near the town of Old Harbor on Kodiak Island, Alaska. Licensing the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project would allow AVEC to construct, operate, and maintain this project for the purpose of generating electricity for the term of the license. The project would be capable of generating an average of about 3,520,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of energy annually (77 percent capacity Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 2 factor) with two turbines. The project would initially be capable of generating an average of about 2,300, 000 kWh of energy annually with one turbine until demand warrants an additional turbine. This environmental report analyzes the effects associated with construction and operation of the project, presents alternatives to the proposed project, and makes recommendations to FERC on whether to issue a new license, and if so, recommends terms and conditions to become part of any license issued. The effects of a no-action alternative are also considered. The Federal Power Act (FPA) provides FERC with the exclusive authority to license non-federal water power projects on navigable waterways and federal land. E.1.2.2 Need for Power The purpose of this project is to construct a hydroelectric facility to provide power to the community of Old Harbor. Old Harbor, like most rural Alaskan communities, relies on a small set of diesel generators and diesel fuel delivered by ocean barge to supply its power needs. In 2010, the AVEC power plant consumed 58,000 gallons of diesel fuel to generate 807,000 kWh. Fuel for electric generation was brought into the community on three separate barges at an average cost of $3.19 per gallon. Table E.1 presents the value of the development resources based on market prices for the current and projected demand growth for Old Harbor. Table E.1. Current and Projected Old Harbor Energy Demand Current Annual Demand 898,952 kWh2 Annual Demand Displaced by Project 810,894 kWh3 Current Annual Market Value of Displaced Demand $377,2254 Current Demand Growth 5.9%5 Projected Demand Growth 2.5%6 costs, and fuel is one of the biggest expenditures. The cost of energy is expected to rise; l and Economic Research, the cost of fuel is expected to be $4.82 per gallon in the next 10 years and $5.56 by 2031. Currently, the 2 Generated energy, 07/01/11 to 06/30/12, AEA 2012 Power Cost Equalization Report, http://www.akenergyauthority.org/PDF%20files/pcereports/fy12statisticalrptcomt.pdf 3 Calculated using analysis with correct hydrology information (Table E.3, Draft Exhibit E, April 26, 2013). 4 2012 Alaska Energy Authority Power Cost Equalization reported fuel expenditure of $273,105 * 810,894 / 898,952 + nonfuel expenditure reduction of 6,888 diesel run hours avoided * $19 per hour production non fuel cost avoided. Diesel run hours avoided obtained from analysis. Nonfuel costs obtained from AVEC 2012 Power Cost Equalization Annual Report, Regulatory Commission of Alaska, http://rca.alaska.gov/RCAWeb/ViewFile.aspx?id=9BD1B3E1-F759-4DCD-A76A-512DA43F81F0. 5 Rate of growth for generated energy from 2008 through 2012 based on Alaska Energy Authority Power Cost Equalization reports. 6 Estimated future demand growth with the proposed development. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 3 cost of power is partially subsidized by the State of Alaska. The long term future of the subsidy program can be uncertain. Old Harbor would benefit greatly from this project as it would buffer the community from fuel price increases and stabilize the cost of energy and, in the long term, reduce the overall cost of power. A hydroelectric project would almost completely eliminate the use of diesel fuel for electrical generation. The Project will also displace fuel consumed by heat generation in the community. It is expected that about 60,000 gallons of fuel for electricity and 34,000 gallons of fuel for heat would be saved. At projected fuel costs, the project will save about $ 455,415 during its first year of operation (2017). Over the life of the project, 50 years, the projected savings has a present value of $14.2 million. AVEC estimates that the project will cost approximately $8,155,000 to construct. AVEC has estimated that 90% of the project construction cost will be funded by grants from the State of Alaska. The remaining funds would be financed at AVEC's bonding rate of 3% over a 50 year term. AVEC has determined that the Project will pay for itself in about 20 years. The project would provide other long-term socio-economic benefits to village households. Locally produced, affordable energy would empower community residents and could help avert from the environmental benefits resulting from a reduction of hydrocarbon use, including reduced potential for fuel spills or contamination during transport, storage, or use (thus protecting vital water and subsistence food sources); improved air quality; and decreased contribution to global climate change from fossil fuel use. The project would eliminate approximately 600 tons of carbon dioxide pollution each year. E.1.3 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements A license for the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project is subject to requirements under the FPA and other applicable statutes. The major regulatory and statutory requirements are described below and summarized in Table E.2, which concludes this section. E.1.3.1 Federal Power Act Section 4(e) Conditions Section 4(e) of the FPA provides that any license issued by FERC for a project within a federal reservation shall be subject to and contain such conditions as the Secretary of the responsible federal land management agency deems necessary for the adequate protection and use of the reservation. Conditions of the USFWS Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge would be included in this project. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 4 10(j) Recommendations Under Section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by FERC must include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, or enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. FERC is required to include these conditions unless it determines that they are inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of the FPA or other applicable law. Before rejecting or modifying an agency recommendation, FERC is required to attempt to resolve any such inconsistency with the agency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency. The USFWS recommended no public vehicular access on the intake access trail within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and assurances that no new all-terrain vehicle (ATV) trails are constructed or pioneered on conservation easement or refuge lands. The USFWS also requested that power poles be outfitted with perch posts designed to prevent bird electrocution and the installation and maintenance of bird diverter devices on the power line and guy wires associated with this project. A summary report should be submitted to USFWS providing information on performance of the selected bird collision diverters no more than 5 years from initial construction. Additional agency recommendations were received and are summarized in Sections E.2.2.4 and E.5.4 Fish and Wildlife Agencies. E.1.3.2 Title XI of the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act The Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1941 by Executive Order 8857 and expanded under Title III of ANILCA. Because portions of the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project are within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, and because the project is a utility system, AVEC must apply to the USFWS for right-of-way under ANILCA Title XI, Transportation and Utility Systems. Rights-of-way are issued according to both the ANILCA Title XI and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Before rights-of-way can be issued across Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, it must be determined that the project is compatible with the purposes of the refuge pursuant to Section 4(d)(2) of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. AVEC must obtain right-of-way on refuge land prior to construction of this project. E.1.3.3 Clean Water Act Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a license applicant must obtain a permit for the filling or dredging of wetlands or waters of the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). AVEC will submit a Section 404 (Wetlands) Permit application to the Corps for project components, including the intake, intake access trail, penstock, powerhouse, tailrace, and Lagoon Creek Tributary channel enhancement, which would be located within jurisdictional wetlands. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 5 Under Section 401 of the CWA, a license applicant must obtain certification from the appropriate state pollution control agency verifying compliance with the CWA. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) issues a Certificate of Reasonable Assurance to meet this requirement. AVEC will submit a Section 404 (Wetlands) Permit application to the Corps, which in Alaska is also an application for a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate of Reasonable Assurance, prior to project construction. Construction would not begin until a Certificate of Reasonable Assurance is obtained. E.1.3.4 Endangered Species Act Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such species. The FERC designated AVEC as a non-federal representative for the purposes of conducting ESA consultation on August 16, 2011 (Appendix E.2). Consultation letters were sent to USFWS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) on September 14, 2011 (Appendix E.2). On January 20, 2011, the USFWS concurred with the finding of not likely to adversely affect ESA species and critical habitat. On February 27, 2013 NOAA Fisheries stated that with an action- effect concurrence is not required (Appendix E.2). An analysis of project impacts on threatened and endangered species is presented in Section E.3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species, and recommendations are found in Section E.5.0, Conclusions and Recommendations. E.1.3.5 Coastal Zone Management Act The Alaska Coastal Management Program ended on July 1, 2011, and the local coastal management plans are without statutory authority and are therefore unenforceable. Although the currently approved plans would be without statutory authority and would be unenforceable at the state and federal level, a municipal coastal district may choose to retain its plan and implement it solely at the local level. E.1.3.6 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that every federal agency take into account how each of its undertakings could affect historic properties. Historic properties are districts, sites, buildings, structures, traditional cultural properties, and objects significant in American history, architecture, engineering, and culture that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. FERC designated AVEC as a non-federal representative for the purposes of conducting Section 106 Consultation under the NHPA on September 7, 2011. Pursuant to Section 106, and as -federal representative, AVEC consulted with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and affected Indian tribes to locate historic properties, determine National Register eligibility, and assess potential adverse effects to historic properties associated with the project. On August 18 and 19, 2010, Northern Land Use Research, Inc. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 6 archeologists conducted a survey of the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project area. AVEC found that the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project would have no effect on cultural or historic resources and sent a findings letter to SHPO on September 14, 2011. The SHPO concurred with this As requested by the USFWS on December 21, 2011, the SHPO findings letter and the 2010 cultural resources survey were forwarded to the USFWS Regional Archeologist on December 28, 2011. E.1.3.7 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act There are no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers within the project area (National Wild and Scenic Rivers 2011), and therefore regulatory and statutory requirements from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act are not applicable. E.1.3.8 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on all actions that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). In the case of the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project, EFH consultation is required because Lagoon Creek Tributary has Pacific salmon. An EFH assessment for the project, reviewed by NOAA Fisheries is found in Appendix E.3. E.1.3.9 Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 prohibits the taking of birds, eggs, nests, and plumage without a permit. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, a strict liability act, no intent is needed and only direct take permits are allowed. There is no provision for incidental takes, and habitat mitigation is not supported. If fully enforced, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act can penalize people who do not abide by its rules. Potential impacts to migratory birds, detailed in Section E.3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources subsection Avian Resources, would be minimized. E.1.3.10 Alaska Fishway Act (Alaska State Statutes: 16.05.841-871) Any activity or project that is conducted below the ordinary high water mark of an anadromous stream requires a Fish Habitat (or Title 16) Permit. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has statutory responsibility for protecting freshwater anadromous fish habitat and providing free passage for anadromous and resident fish in fresh water bodies. AVEC would prepare, submit, and receive a Fish Habitat Permit prior to construction of the project. This permit would be for the term of construction and a separate Fish Habitat Permit may be required for project operations. E.1.3.11 Alaska Water Use Act (Alaska State Statute: 46:15) The Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project would be required to have water rights. A water right is a legal right to use surface or ground water under the Alaska Water Use Act (AS 46.15). A water right allows a specific amount of water from a specific water source to be diverted, impounded, Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 7 or withdrawn for a specific use. When a water right is granted, it becomes appurtenant to the land where the water is being used for as long as the water is used. To obtain water rights for the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project AVEC will submit an application for water rights to the ADNR prior to project construction. After the application is processed, a permit may be issued to divert the water. Once AVEC has established the full amount of water that they use and have complied with all of the permit conditions, a certificate of appropriation may be issued. This is the legal document that establishes water rights. E.1.3.12 Kodiak Island Borough Land Use Permit The project would be located within the Kodiak Island Borough (KIB) and as such is required to comply with land use regulations. AVEC will apply for and obtain a conditional use permit prior to construction of the project. Table E.2. Major Project Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Requirement Agency Status FPA Section 4(e) Conditions USFWS USFWS request that no public vehicular access be allowed on the intake access trail within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge has been incorporated into this project. Other recommendations may be added. FPA Section 10(j) Recommendations USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, ADF&G Recommendations will be incorporated into the license application. ANILCA Title XI USFWS Right-of-way application to be secured prior to construction. CWA Section 404 Corps Wetlands permit application to be secured prior to construction. CWA Section 401 Alaska DEC A Certificate of Reasonable Assurance will be secured prior to construction. Endangered Species Act (ESA) USFWS, NOAA Fisheries AVEC found that the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project is not likely to adversely affect ESA species and critical habitat under the jurisdiction of USFWS and would have no effect on ESA-listed species under the jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries. Findings letters were sent to USFWS and NOAA Fisheries on September Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 8 14, 2011. USFWS concurred with the finding that the project is not likely to adversely affect ESA species and critical habitat on January 20, 2012. On February 27, 2013, NOAA Fisheries stated that with , NOAA Fisheries concurrence is not required. NHPA Section 106 SHPO AVEC found that the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project would have no effect on cultural or historic resources and sent a findings letter to SHPO on September 14, 2011. SHPO concurred with this finding stating No Historic Properties Affected on September 21, 2011. MSFMCA NOAA Fisheries EFH assessment included in Appendix E.3. Migratory Bird Treaty Act USFWS Potential impacts to migratory birds will be mitigated. Alaska Fishway Act ADF&G A Fish Habitat (Title 16) Permit will be secured prior to construction of the project. Alaska Water Use Act ADNR Water rights would be secured prior to construction of the project. Kodiak Island Borough Land Use Permit Kenai Peninsula Borough Land use permit would be secured prior to construction of the project. E.1.4 Public Review and Comment E.1.4.1 Scoping Before filing its license application, AVEC conducted a pre-filing consultation process under the -filing process is to initiate public involvement early in the project planning process and to encourage citizens, governmental entities, tribes, and other interested parties to identify and resolve issues prior to an application being formally filed with FERC. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 9 Before preparing this document under Preliminary Permit P-13272-001, FERC conducted scoping to determine the issues and alternatives to address. Letters inviting the Village of Old Harbor and the Native Village of Akhiok to participate in the licensing process were sent in September 2009. Scoping Document 1 for the project was provided on September 21, 2009. A scoping meeting was held in Anchorage, Alaska, on October 22, 2009 to request oral comments project. A revised Scoping Document 2 was submitted on January 4, 2010. A Proposed Study Plan meeting with agency representatives was held on January 22, 2010, and a follow-up meeting was held in Anchorage on April 1, 2010, to discuss the Revised Study Plan. The final revised Study Plan addressing these comments was issued on May 5, 2010. Another scoping meeting was scheduled to take place in Old Harbor on August 17, 2010; however, planes were unable to fly to the community due to inclement weather. The meeting was held in Anchorage on August 18, 2010, and members of Old Harbor participated via teleconference. Also on August 18, 2010, an agency meeting was held to share the initial results of the field effort and gather information to use for the license application and the environmental document. Draft Study Reports were issued to agencies on November 29, 2010, and to FERC on July 1, 2011, and Project Study Meetings were held on July 15 and July 25, 2011 to discuss the field studies. Final Study Reports were issued in July 2011. On January 9, 2012, an agency meeting was held to receive comments on the DLA. On August 30, 2012 an agency meeting was held to discuss the findings of the geotechnical field study, its implications for the project design, and project schedule. On October 11, 2012 an agency meeting was held to discuss hydrology in the Mountain Creek and Lagoon Creek drainages. The following written comments were received regarding the project (Appendix E.2). Commenting Entities Date Filed ADF&G October 16, 2009, Preliminary Application Document (PAD) April 5, 2010, Initial Proposed Study Plan (PSP) April 23, 2012 (Revised PSP) April 27, 2010 (Revised PSP) May 4, 2010 (Revised PSP) May 20, 2010 (Revised PSP) January 24, 2011 (Study Report) USFWS October 28, 2009 (Notice to Intervene) November 20, 2009 (PAD, Scoping Document 1) April 5, 2010 (Initial PSP) August 29, 2011 (Study Report) Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge May 20, 2010 (Initial PSP) January 14, 2011 (Study Report) Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 10 NOAA Fisheries April 2, 2010 (Initial PSP) Corps October 6, 2009 (Scoping) November 3, 2011 (Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination-follow up) November 3, 2011 (Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination) E.1.4.2 Interventions The USFWS intervened on the FERC Preliminary Permit 13272-001 and 13242-003 for the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project on October 28, 2008 and April 13, 2012, respectively. The USFWS requested to be a cooperating agency for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, and this request is in process. E.1.4.3 Comments on the License Application A preliminary draft of this environmental report was provided to USFWS and ADF&G in December 2011, and they provided comments on the document in January 2012. An agency meeting was held on January 9, 2012, to discuss comments on the environmental report. The Draft License Application, including the environmental report, was filed on April 26, 2013, and agencies and the public had 90 days to file comments on the application. FERC, USFWS, and ADF&G provided comments which have been addressed. In addition, agency meetings were held on May 22, 2013 and June 26, 2013 to address comments on the application. Notes from the meetings and responses to the comments filed on the draft license application are found in Appendix E.2. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 11 E.2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives E.2.1 No-Action Alternative The no-action alternative is license denial. Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be constructed and environmental resources in the project area would not be affected. The existing power generation system in Old Harbor consists of two 235 kW generator sets and a 236 kW generator set, which run on diesel fuel. An existing power distribution system delivers power to the community. AVEC, as the existing utility provider in Old Harbor, would continue to provide power using diesel generators instead of providing power using hydroelectric generation. E.2.2 Proposed Action E.2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities AVEC is proposing to construct a basin diversion hydroelectric plant with a diversion intake structure, penstock, powerhouse, and electric power line. The project would have a dependable capacity of 140 kW and a peak capacity of 525 kW. The project initially would be constructed with one turbine at 50% installed capacity until demand warrants an additional turbine. The project would collect up to 11.8 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water year round from a tributary (East Fork Mountain Creek) of Barling Bay Creek and transport it across a basin boundary to Swimming Pond and into Lagoon Creek Tributary just west of the City of Old Harbor. The proposed project would reduce fuel use by at least 95 percent. The project would source of electrical generation. Table E.3 includes the general characteristics of the project. A detailed description of each project component follows. Design details are located in Exhibit F of the license application. Additional project details are found in the Old Harbor Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study in Appendix E.4. Table E.3. Project Summary General Data Initial Installed Capacity 262 kW (1 turbine) Project Peak Capacity 525 kW, utilizing 11.8 cfs (2 turbines; ) Estimated Dependable Capacity 140 kW Intake Diversion/Cut Off Weir/Wall 4-6 ft high, 100 ft wide Penstock 10,150 ft long, 16-20 in diameter Intake Access Trail 11,500 ft long, 10 ft nominal width Powerhouse 1,050 sq ft; 30 ft by 35 ft by 16 ft Number of Generating Units (initial installed) 1 Number of Generating Units (project peak) 2 Type of Turbine 262 kW Pelton/impulse Tailrace to Swimming Pond and Lagoon Creek Tributary 2,300 ft long, 3-5 ft deep, 8 ft wide Powerhouse Access Road 5,720 ft long, 24 ft wide Overhead Power Line 6,550 ft long Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 12 Intake The intake would be located at about 57°14.8'N and 153°20.7' W and 850 feet elevation, in the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (Appendix E.1, Figure 2). Fisheries studies have not found fish in the vicinity of the intake. See E.3.3.2, Aquatic Resources for detailed information. The intake would consist of a concrete, or other suitable material, diversion/cut off weir with integral spillway. The weir would range in height from about 4 feet at the spillway to 6 feet elsewhere and would span approximately 100 feet across the creek and floodplain. The creek bottom is close to bedrock, and the base of the diversion wall would be a shallow grouted or concrete footing dug into the stream bed. The weir would not create any significant impoundment of water and would only be high enough to have an intake that pulls water from the midpoint of the water column. This would allow floatable objects and bottom moving sediments to remain in the creek. A water filtering system consisting of a trash rack, diversion gates, and secondary screens would be incorporated into the weir structure as a separate desanding box that would be partially exposed above grade. There could be times when the intake would fill with sediment and there would be periodic flushing down the creek to remove sediment from the area. In order to prevent sand and gravel from damaging the turbine, a desander would be installed that would deposit all sand and gravel collected through the intake structure back into East Fork of Mountain Creek a short distance below the intake. Also, the diversion structure would impound sand and gravel behind it between flushing. A below grade transition with an above ground air relief inlet pipe would convey water to a buried high density polyethylene pipe and steel penstock. An approximately 8 foot by 8 foot equipment shed would be located adjacent to the intake. Once constructed, the intake would fill to the level of the spillway and flow over the spillway when the water is higher. The amount of water diverted from the East Fork of Mountain Creek would vary with the time of year. Table E.4 details the monthly average creek in-stream flow East Fork of Mountain Creek to the project. Additional hydrology information can be found in the Mountain Creek Hydrology Report, an appendix of the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study in Appendix E.4. Penstock A 10,150-foot-long (1.9 mile) penstock consisting of approximately 7,400 feet of 18 and 20-inch diameter high density polyethylene pipe and 2,750 feet of 16-inch diameter steel pipe would be installed. The penstock would be located in the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and on Old Harbor Native Corporation land that has a USFWS conservation easement (Appendix E.1, Figure 2). The entire pipe would be buried 1 to 5 feet underground, as seen in Exhibit F. Based on the preliminary geotechnical investigation completed in June 2012 (R&M Consultants 2012), the project area has about 2 feet of overburden over 2 to 3 feet of sandy silt and glacial till. The underlying strata consist of sedimentary bedrock. From the intake at 850 feet elevation, the penstock would travel through an area that is hilly and dominated by alder shrub and alpine meadow uplands. In this area, the penstock is at a Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 13 slope of about -0.8 percent. Along the penstock at an elevation of about 825 feet, the area becomes steeper, and the penstock slope is between approximately 25 and -25 percent. As the penstock moves downhill, the area becomes increasingly dominated by alder. Between elevations of 525 feet and 425 feet for about 2,400 feet, the penstock flat with some uphill portions. The penstock becomes steep again between 425 feet and 50 feet elevation, with the last 200 feet of penstock before the powerhouse at approximately -38 to -42 percent. The penstock area near the powerhouse is about 25 percent wetlands with mostly alders. The intake access trail (described below) would be located either on top of or adjacent to the penstock for most of the alignment. At about 700 feet from the powerhouse (250 feet elevation), the penstock and trail would be separated because of the steeper terrain. The penstock would run directly downhill, and the access trail would use switchbacks to reach the powerhouse. Intake Access Trail An approximately 11,500-foot long (2.2 mile) intake access trail would run between the intake and the powerhouse, mainly following the penstock route. The intake access trail would be located in the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and on Old Harbor Native Corporation land that has a USFWS conservation easement (Appendix E.1, Figure 2). The trail would be designed to accommodate construction equipment and ATVs with a nominal width of 10 feet, a maximum grade of 26 percent, a 50-foot turning radius, and up to an 8 percent cross slope/crown. The intake access trail would be constructed on top of the underground penstock as much as possible and would be constructed on a combination of fills and cuts depending on the area. Exhibit F shows the intake access trail profile and typical cross sections. The finished intake access trail would use ditches and culverts as necessary to accommodate runoff. To avoid potential problems with snow and debris avalanches full bench cut and haul design would be used in the steepest areas. See Exhibit F for more details. The intake access trail is designed to minimize the potential for erosion based on the US Forest Service Handbook 2509.22, Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, Chapter 10 Water Quality Management for National Forest System Lands in Alaska. The intake access trail avoids all of the high risk areas noted in Chapter 10 of the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook except for large V-notch ravines and slopes with a high V-notch frequency. The middle section of the intake access trail crosses several notable V-notch ravines and is an area with numerous ravines. These ravines presumably result from weak layers and fractures in the underlying rock surface that have preferentially eroded. The choice to route the access road in this area was made based on the small contributory drainage in this area and the moderate side slopes. The intake access trail would be used infrequently by authorized, project-related ATVs. At most, AVEC personnel anticipate travel to the intake on the access trail one time a month Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 14 (except when snow limits access). As requested by the USFWS, to prevent traffic in the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, the trail would be closed to public vehicles. Two gates would be placed on the intake access trail to block the public from accessing the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge on ATVs or other vehicles. One gate would be located near the powerhouse. Another gate would be placed near where an existing trail connects to the new intake access trail, about 7,000 feet northwest of the powerhouse. The upper gate makes use of topography and vegetation to ensure that drive around the gate. See Exhibit F for the locations of the gates. Signage would be placed at the powerhouse explaining public-use restrictions within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and the Old Harbor Native Corporation land held in a conservation easement. The intake access trail would be open to public foot access. Powerhouse The powerhouse would be located at about 57°14.0' N and 153°18.5' W at an elevation of about 85 feet on Old Harbor Native Corporation land that has a USFWS conservation easement (Appendix E.1, Figure 2). The powerhouse would consist of an approximately 30-foot by 35- foot by 16-foot high metal building or similar structure (1,050 square feet). The building would house the turbines and associated equipment, switchgear, controls, and tools. An area up to approximately 300 feet by 300 feet may be cleared for construction of the powerhouse and its pad and as a material source (Exhibit F). Power generation equipment would consist of two Pelton 262 kW units with a 480 volt, 3 phase synchronous generator and switchgear for each unit (1 turbine would be installed initially). Each unit would have a flow rate of 5.9 cfs for a total project peak flow rate of 11.8 cfs capable of producing 525 kW of power. For information about specific diversion potential on a monthly basis see Table E.4. Fish screens at the powerhouse would restrict fish from passing above the tailrace. Design details are shown in Exhibit F. A bypass flow system for maintaining environmental flows is not proposed. Only flow from the East Fork of Mountain Creek would be diverted. Flow from the West Fork of Mountain Creek and lower drainages would not be diverted and would continue to contribute the majority of flow to Mountain Creek. For more detailed information about Mountain Creek see Section E.3.3.2 Aquatic Resources. Tailrace to Swimming Pond and Lagoon Creek Tributary A culvert and channel would convey the project flows approximately 700 feet (0.1 mile) from the powerhouse to the nearby pond, known in Old Harbor as Swimming Pond. This culvert and channel would be on Old Harbor Native Corporation land that has a USFWS conservation easement. The tailrace water would then travel 500 feet within Swimming Pond. The tailrace would continue on from Swimming Pond approximately 1,100 feet (0.2 miles) within an enhanced channel of Lagoon Creek Tributary on Old Harbor Native Corporation land. (See Appendix E.1, Figure 2.) Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 15 The enhanced channel would be constructed in place of the existing ephemeral section of Lagoon Creek Tributary. This section is approximately 1,100 feet long and ends in a groundwater upwelling where Lagoon Creek Tributary becomes a distinct channel. The approximately 1,100-foot-long enhanced channel would be a meandering channel approximately 2-5 feet deep and 8 feet t wide with a 3-foot-wide gravel thalweg and occasional cobbles and logs to create small pools. The channel would be sloped at 0.4 percent and has been designed to handle a 1.5 year recurrence flow of 15cfs without bed movement. The enhanced channel would allow the movement of fish between Lagoon Creek Tributary and Swimming Pond. Powerhouse Access Road A new 5,720-foot long (1.3 mile) by 24-foot wide powerhouse access road would extend from the powerhouse to the existing community drinking water tank access road. The majority of the road alignment would be located on City of Old Harbor and Old Harbor Native Corporation lands. At the powerhouse the road would be located on Old Harbor Native Corporation lands that have a USFWS conservation easement (Figure 2). The powerhouse access road has been designed to match the existing grade and section of the existing water tank access road. The powerhouse access road would have a maximum grade of 16 percent. The road would be open to the public. Overhead Power Line A 6,550-foot long (1.5 mile), 12.47 kilovolt (kV) three-phase overhead power line would extend from the powerhouse to the existing power distribution system in Old Harbor. The power line would follow the powerhouse access road and drinking water tank road alignment. The majority of the power line alignment would be located on City of Old Harbor and Old Harbor Native Corporation lands. At the powerhouse the road would be located on Old Harbor Native Corporation lands that have a USFWS conservation easement (Figure 2). As requested by USFWS, bird diverters would be placed on the new power line and guy wires Construction As requested by USFWS, AVEC had construction contractors design in January and February of 2013. The conceptual design and construction details have been modified based on feedback from the review. Timeline Construction of the project is expected to begin in May 2017 and would take up to two construction seasons to complete; however, construction initiation is dependent on project funding. It is likely that construction would begin with mining at the existing community gravel quarry near the water tank on City of Old Harbor property. Material would be mined for the construction of the access road to the powerhouse. Then construction of the intake access trail would commence, along with installation of the penstock. Construction of the tailrace and Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 16 powerhouse may occur during or after construction of the intake access trail. The intake would be constructed once the intake access trail has been completed. Revegetation All disturbed areas outside the permanent project footprint would be restored and revegetated, except for areas of exposed rock, gravel surfaces, and the upper segment of the tailrace channel bed between the powerhouse and Swimming Pond. Native plants and/or native seed mix would be used for revegetation. Overburden Removal Except for areas of overlay, the overburden in the project area is not a suitable building material. Overburden and excess soils would be excavated and placed neatly along upland side slopes to prevent erosion. Once the project is constructed, the overburden and soil would be replaced, where possible, and revegetated. Excess overburden and soils that cannot be replaced would remain in mounds and be revegetated. Overburden excavated from wetlands would be hauled to upland fill sites where it would be revegetated. Where practicable, overlay construction techniques would be used in wetlands areas to minimize overburden removal. See Exhibit F for details. Fill Material Fill material would consist of broken and shot bedrock from the existing quarry site near the water tank, locally sourced glacial till and broken or shot bedrock extracted from the powerhouse access road and intake access trail corridors, or sand and gravel fill from the powerhouse area. Blasting Blasting may be required in some locations during construction of the intake access trail and penstock. Blasting could occur in areas of shallow bedrock, where deep cuts are needed, and in areas where material is being extracted. Potential blasting locations are identified in Exhibit F. Blasting would occur in accordance with all regulatory agency requirements. Blasting would not occur within 0.5 miles (2,640 feet) of an active eagle nest. If blasting is required within 0.5 miles of an eagle nest, blasting would take place in winter (November-January), well before/after the breeding season according to National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. Helicopter Use To increase construction efficiency and minimize degradation from construction equipment travelling along the intake access trail, helicopters may be used to transport materials and equipment from a staging area in the community to locations along the project alignment. For example, for placement of the penstock helicopters would likely be used for about 6 hours a day for 10 days as pipe is placed along the alignment. Weather, construction and labor schedules, trail hardiness, and contractor preference would generally dictate the amount of helicopter use. Helicopter use could be expected to occur occasionally throughout the duration of construction. Access to Kodiak Wildlife Refuge lands by helicopter requires a Special Use Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 17 Permit. The refuge manager at Kodiak would be contacted when a plan with specific helicopter use is developed. Intake Construction After a working pad, a lined coffer dam constructed from local rock, and a temporary bypass channel are constructed at the intake area, construction of the diversion and intake structure would commence. The creek bed would be excavated to bedrock and then structures including a diversion wall, trash rack, screen, desander box, and equipment shed would be placed, as shown in Exhibit F. Concrete for foundations and structures would be mixed either near the quarry site or mixed at the intake using premixed super sacks. Concrete, equipment, and other building materials would be hauled to the intake by helicopter, truck, or ATV. Excess concrete and wash down waste from cleaning of equipment would be poured over a portion of the working pad. Penstock Construction The penstock, associated materials (such as concrete thrust blocks, anchors, cathodic protection, drain pipe, valves, air reliefs, and bedding material), and equipment (such as a fusion machine, drills, excavators, and compactors) would be transported to placement locations as shown in Exhibit F. Most of the penstock would be buried within the intake access trail footprint. Construction of the underground penstock would require excavation of a trench, penstock and bedding placement, compaction, and final backfill. Rock blasting may be required. Potential blasting locations are shown in Exhibit F. Foundation pads and support structures would be constructed in the areas above the powerhouse where the penstock is above ground. See Exhibit F for more details. Intake Access Trail Construction The centerline of the trail would be staked, vegetation within the alignment would be cleared, and then a trail would be constructed starting at the powerhouse. The intake access trail would include two different design and construction methods: structural overlay and overburden removal. Where appropriate, a structural overlay, like geo-textile filter fabric, would be placed over the undisturbed vegetated mat and overburden. This overlay would be covered with broken or shot rock, sand and gravel fill, or glacial till. In other areas, overburden removal would be necessary. Here the overburden would be removed and the underlying glacial till would support construction equipment. Occasional construction turnout areas would be located along the trail as shown in Exhibit F. Each construction related turnout footprint is assumed to be 140 feet by 140 feet. Exhibit F shows a total of 11 turnouts located within the refuge. Source material for the turnouts is generally expected to come from nearest rock sources within the proposed project boundary Potential blasting locations are shown in Exhibit F. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 18 Powerhouse Construction The pad area would be cleared and the organics removed, exposing underlying sands and gravels. Removed material would be mounded and revegetated. The powerhouse pad would be constructed with gravel fill. Once the pad is complete, the foundation would be dug and poured and the building would be erected. Tailrace to Swimming Pond and Lagoon Creek Tributary Construction A temporary access trail with turnarounds would be constructed along the tailrace to provide access for tailrace construction. To enhance the ephemeral Lagoon Creek Tributary channel between Swimming Pond and its groundwater upwelling, the centerline of the channel would be staked, vegetation within the alignment would be cleared, and then the channel would be excavated and widened. The tailrace channel would be lined with well-graded and poorly graded gravel that is appropriately sized to facilitate salmon spawning. Efforts would be made to minimize the loss of vegetation along the widened channel and attempts would be made to salvage usable vegetation and woody debris, such as stumps and tree trunks with broken branches, for revegetation efforts. During construction, a cofferdam would be set on the bank of Swimming Pond to prevent leakage into the channel, assuring construction would be See Exhibit F for more details. After construction of the channel is complete, the cofferdam would be removed and the access trail would be restored and revegetated. Construction of the channel would take place during a fish timing window established by ADF&G to minimize impacts to anadromous fish. Powerhouse Access Road Construction The powerhouse access road would extend from the powerhouse to the existing access road to the community drinking water tank.. The centerline of the road would be staked, vegetation within the alignment would be cleared, and then the road would be constructed starting at the existing road. Occasional construction turnout areas would be located along the road as shown in Exhibit F. Overhead Power Line Construction Once the powerhouse access road is constructed, installation of the overhead power line would begin. The area would be cleared as needed, poles and guy wires would be set, and the line would be hung. E.2.2.2 Project Safety As part of the licensing process, FERC would review the adequacy of the proposed project facilities. Special articles would be included in any license issued, as appropriate. FERC staff would inspect the licensed project both during and after construction. Inspection during construction would concentrate on adherence to FERC-approved plans and specifications, special license articles relating to construction, and accepted engineering practices and Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 19 procedures. Operational inspections would focus on the continued safety of the structures, identification of unauthorized modifications, efficiency and safety of operations, compliance with the terms of the license, and proper maintenance. In addition, any license issued would require an inspection and evaluation every five years by an independent consultant and E.2.2.3 Project Operation The proposed project would be operated as a basin diversion facility, which follows natural hydrologic fluctuations, and would use up to 11.8 cfs (at maximum turbine capacity) of flows from the East Fork of Mountain Creek. The project would be constructed initially with one turbine until demand warrants an additional turbine. The project would have an estimated average head of 774 feet. The total energy demand in Old Harbor in 2010 was approximately 810,000 kWh with a peak demand of 160 kW.7 The Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project would meet this demand by producing an estimated average annual generation of 3,520,000 kWh (77 percent capacity factor). The project would be constructed initially with one turbine and produce 2,300,000 kWh until demand warrants an additional turbine. During periods of low flows, or excess demand, the project would be augmented by the existing diesel generating facility. AVEC would operate the project automatically, with operators present in the community for maintenance and to keep daily logs. Table E.4 and Graph E.1 show in-stream flow and predicted diversion flows resulting from project operation for the East Fork of Mountain Creek based on the Old Harbor electricity demand profile in 2010. The operation is based on a flat daily total output about 10 kW higher than peak daily demand with a load controller absorbing and releasing loads to handle daily fluctuations. Additional hydrology details obtained from flow gauging at the intake and a thorough analysis of other flow gauges on Kodiak Island can be found in the Mountain Creek Hydrology Report (Appendix E.4, appended to Old Harbor Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study). 7 The energy demand in Old Harbor is expected to increase with this project. Details on future demand are found in Section E.3.3.8 (Socioeconomics). Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 20 Table E.4. Monthly Average East Fork Mountain Creek In-Stream Flow and Diversion Potential (cfs)8 Month Average Existing Flow at Intake Average Maximum Potential Diverted by Project Average Diverted based on 2010 Demand January 3.1 3.1 2.6 February 2.6 2.6 2.2 March 2.0 2.0 2.0 April 3.5 3.5 2.4 May 13.7 10.6 2.5 June 37.0 11.8 2.5 July 19.7 11.6 2.5 August 8.1 7.6 2.6 September 10.2 8.9 2.7 October 9.0 8.5 2.5 November 5.4 5.4 2.6 December 3.8 3.8 2.5 Source: Hatch 8 Table E.4 provided by Hatch. East Fork Mountain Creek average monthly flows are the monthly average calculated using the median for each day of the month of all gauged data consisting of 1,715 daily average flow records obtained from gauging performed by the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources and Polarconsult Alaska on Mountain Creek. The resulting values were then scaled down as a conservative measure to align better with USGS gauged streams on Kodiak Island with longer periods of record. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 21 Graph E.1. East Fork Mountain Creek In-Stream Flow and Diversion Potential (cfs) Source: Hatch Maintenance activities required for this project would be minimal. Although the intake access trail would need to be passable, it would not have to be maintained to accommodate trucks or other vehicles, as ATVs would be used by authorized personnel. At most, AVEC personnel anticipates travel to the intake on the access trail one time a month, accept when snow limits access. The trail would not be plowed in the winter unless there is a major maintenance issue at the intake. In addition, although helicopter access is not a planned mode of transportation for this project, a helicopter could be used to move equipment and personnel to the intake area in the winter when the trail is not passable or when equipment is too large to transport on the trail. Access to Kodiak Wildlife Refuge lands by helicopter would require a Special Use Permit. The refuge manager at Kodiak would need to be contacted when a plan with specific helicopter use is developed. The road to the powerhouse would be maintained throughout the year, and work at the powerhouse could be common especially during the first year of operation. The intake and tailrace would need to be cleaned periodically for debris and checked. E.2.2.4 Proposed Environmental Measures The following environmental measures are proposed to protect, mitigate, or enhance the project environment: 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 1/1 2/20 4/10 5/30 7/19 9/7 10/27 12/16 Date Project Operational Flow Mountain Creek Existing Flow Diverted Flow for Energy, 2010 Demand Based Maximum Potential Flow Diversion Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 22 Overarching Measure A qualified environmental compliance monitor (ECM) would be employed during project construction. The ECM would have authority to ensure compliance with the provisions of the license; cease work and change orders in the field as deemed necessary; and make pertinent and necessary field notes on environmental compliance monitoring by the licensee. Description of the ECM position, including qualifications, duties, responsibilities, and authorities would be written jointly with the FERC and USFWS. Geological and Soil Resources The project would be sited and designed to minimize erosion and geologic hazards. To minimize erosion due to traffic, motor vehicle use of the intake access trail would be limited to authorized vehicles only. Overburden and soil from excavations would be piled neatly outside wetlands (where feasible) and in such a way as to prevent erosion. The excess soil piles would be revegetated with native seed mix recommended by the USFWS. Disturbed areas would be revegetated with a native seed mix recommended by the USFWS. Aquatic Resources No dam would be constructed. Fish passage would be maintained in Lagoon Creek Tributary. Large woody debris would be maintained along Lagoon Creek Tributary wherever possible. After channel construction, the banks of Lagoon Creek Tributary would be revegetated with native plants and large and small woody debris from areas cleared during construction. Construction of the 1,100-foot-long, enhanced channel in the existing ephemeral section of the Lagoon Creek Tributary (from Swimming Pond) would occur during a salmon. Terrestrial Resources A storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) to minimize erosion due to construction activities would be developed prior to commencement of any construction activities. The selected contractor would be required to implement the SWPPP. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 23 Best Management Practices would be implemented to decrease erosion and sedimentation during construction activities. The USFWS timing windows for avoiding disturbance during the bird nesting season would be applied wherever possible for ground clearing and vegetation removal in previously undisturbed areas. The use of these timing windows is to avoid removal or abandonment of nests and thereby avoid violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Preliminary work along the corridors could occur before the timing window has started to dissuade birds from nesting in these areas. Vegetative clearing would be avoided in forest or woodland habitat (i.e. trees present) from April 15-July 15 and in shrub or open habitat (i.e. shrub cover or marsh pond, tundra, gravel, or other treeless/shrubless ground habitat) from May 1-July 15. A bald eagle nest survey has been completed. No project components are planned s (2,640 feet) of an active nest. The on-site environmental compliance monitor would watch for newly established nests and nests that may not have been found during earlier surveys. If new nests are found, the location would be reported immediately to USFWS. If an active nest is found, blasting within 0.5 miles and all other work within 660 feet of the nest would be postponed until after coordination with USFWS. If blasting is required within 0.5 miles of an eagle nest, blasting would take place in winter (November- January), well before/after the breeding season according to the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. Bird diverters would be installed on the power line and guy wires to prevent bird strikes. Power poles would be outfitted with perch posts designed to prevent bird electrocution. AVEC would work with Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and ADF&G to develop protocols to minimize bear encounters during construction and maintenance activities. To minimize disturbance, public motor vehicle access into the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge via the intake access trail would be blocked. An invasive species prevention plan would be developed prior to commencement of any construction activities. Threatened and Endangered Species Bird diverters would be installed on the power line and guy wires to prevent strikes. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 24 Recreation and Land Use Gates would be installed across the access road near the powerhouse and near where an existing trail connects to the new intake access trail to prevent unauthorized motorized access into the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and conservation lands. Signage would be placed at the powerhouse to inform the public about public access on Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and Old Harbor Native Corporation lands held in a conservation easement. Cultural Resources Project facilities would be placed to avoid disturbance to archeological sites. (There are no known sites in the project area.) Socioeconomic Resources Local labor would be used for construction and maintenance activities. E.2.2.5 -Mandatory Conditions No mandatory conditions have been established at this time. E.2.3 Other Alternatives No other alternatives are being considered other than the proposed action and the no-action alternative. E.2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis E.2.4.1 1990s Hydropower Alternative Since the 1970s a variety of entities have analyzed the potential of providing Old Harbor with hydroelectric energy. In 1999, AVEC submitted a license application for an Old Harbor hydroelectric project to FERC, and the license was issued on December 12, 2000 (FERC No. P- 11690). During the previous licensing process, AVEC analyzed a 500 kW project with an intake located on the East Fork of Mountain Creek. The 1990s hydropower alternative would have diverted up to 13 cfs to Lagoon Creek. The project would have been capable of generating an average of about 3,520,000 kWh of energy annually. The project would have been constructed initially with one turbine to generate an average of 2,300,000 kWh until demand warranted an additional turbine. Table E.5 gives general data on the 1990s hydropower alternative. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 25 Table E.5. Old Harbor 1990s Hydropower Alternative Project Summary General Data Installed Capacity 500 kW Design Flow 11.2 cfs Estimated annual energy 3,520,000 kWh Estimated average head 774 ft Diversion/cut off weir/wall 7 ft high Penstock inside diameters 16 to 22 in Penstock length 9,800 ft Powerhouse dimensions 25 ft x 25 ft Type of Turbine 1 impulse Overhead Power Line 5,500 ft Access Road 5,500 ft Construction cost $2,444,700 (in 2000) Although this alternative was fully licensed, compliance with the FERC license conditions was prohibitively expensive and would have caused the price of power to increase in Old Harbor. The conditions required AVEC to capitalize a fund for fisheries research, fund thermal and hydrological studies for five years, and be prepared to build a warming pond for the tailrace water. These measures would have had annual costs of approximately $60,000 per year at the time. To minimize environmental impacts and the cost of environmental monitoring the currently proposed project has been moved. The currently proposed Project allows tailrace water to discharge to Swimming Pond instead of directly into Lagoon Creek, minimizing fisheries impacts compared to the 1990s alternative. E.2.4.2 Other Renewable Energy Alternatives A wind resource study was conducted during the winter of 2008-2009 at a site across Sitkalidak Strait from Old Harbor (V3 Energy 2009). The site selected because it had the best wind energy potential, because it was away from aircraft traffic patterns, and because it could be developed with minimal road access. Mean wind speeds measured at the site were low by usual standards of wind power development, even though the data months typically experienced fairly high wind speeds on Kodiak Island. In addition the winds were moderately turbulent. After seven months of data collection, the study was discontinued because the site had a lower wind resource than expected. Alternate sites that could have been considered would have complicated by the location of the airport. According to national laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency research, Alaska has one of the lowest solar resource potentials in the country. Due to its high latitude, solar energy is lowest during the winter when energy demands are at their highest. Kodiak Island is assessed as Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 26 having particularly low potential for solar-powered energy generation. The solar resource potential for Kodiak Island using a photovoltaic system is estimated to be < 3.0 kWh/m2/Day. This is the minimum limit of the scale which is used to map the entire country. In contrast, states in the Southwest that are estimated at the other end of the spectrum with a resource potential of > 6.5 kWh/m2/Day. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 27 E.3.0 Environmental Analysis This section includes (1) a general description of the project vicinity; (2) an explanation of the scope of the cumulative effects analysis; and (3) an analysis of the proposed action and other recommended environmental measures. Sections are organized by resource area (aquatic, recreation, etc.). Under each resource area, historic and current conditions are first described. The existing condition is the baseline against which the environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives are compared, including an assessment of the effects of proposed mitigation, protection, and enhancement measures, and any potential cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives. Conclusions and recommended measures are discussed in Section E.5.0, Conclusions and Recommendations E.3.1 General Setting E.3.1.1 Mountain Creek The project intake is located on the East Fork of Mountain Creek approximately 7 river miles from the mouth of Mountain Creek. Mountain Creek has a drainage area of approximately 8 square miles and runs approximately 12.35 miles from its headwaters at approximately 1,800 feet elevation to Barling Bay ( Figure 1 of Mountain Creek Hydrology Report included with Appendix E.4). The highest elevation in the Mountain Creek basin is 3,500 feet. Mountain Creek, like typical Kodiak Island streams, is short, steep, and exhibits a relatively rapid response to weather changes (ADNR 1996). Mountain Creek is divided into four sub-basins referred to as the West Fork drainage, the East Fork drainage, the Lower drainage, and the Mouth drainage. East Fork Mountain Creek is approximately 3.43 miles long with a drainage area of approximately 2.80 square miles. West Fork Mountain Creek is approximately 3.26 miles long with a drainage area of approximately 1.79 square miles. The main stem of Mountain Creek is approximately 2.75 miles long with a drainage area of approximately 2.70 square miles. The Mouth drainage is approximately 2.91 miles long with a drainage area of approximately 0.60 square miles. The East and West forks of Mountain Creek converge near the dividing boundary with the Lagoon Creek basin at an elevation of about 500 feet. After the confluence of the East and West forks, Mountain Creek drops about 450 feet in two miles through a very steep-walled and rugged canyon. From there, it flows another 1.5 miles over nearly flat gravel that is very permeable. During mid to late summer of most years, all of the water flowing out of the canyon goes subsurface in the 1/3 mile stretch below the canyon, and during mid to late summer and fall the lower 3- mile stretch of creek, from the canyon to the mouth, lacks surface flow (AVEC 2010; White 1996; White 1996a). Mountain Creek drains into Barling Bay Creek joining Barling Bay Creek near its confluence with the tide water. This is a high energy deposition area where the channels are unstable and migrate during major flood events. Depending on where the edge of the bay is measured to, Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 28 tide level, and the current course of Mountain Creek, the mouth empties anywhere from 0 to 300 feet upstream of the mouth of Barling Bay Creek. Barling Bay Creek is a river that has a drainage area of approximately 16 square miles. Unlike Mountain Creek, Barling Bay Creek has surface flow throughout the late summer and fall. It supports a large Pacific salmon population. See Table E.4 for average monthly flows on the East Fork of Mountain Creek. Additional hydrology details obtained from gauging and a thorough analysis of other flow gauges on Kodiak Island can be found in the Mountain Creek Hydrology Report (Appendix E.4). E.3.1.2 Lagoon Creek and Lagoon Creek Tributary Lagoon Creek ers are at an elevation of approximately 700 feet. The creek consists of an approximately 4.51 mile-long main stem that drains from the mountain behind the community of Old Harbor and an approximately 0.80 mile long tributary that drains from Swimming Pond. During fisheries surveys in 1996, a one mile long section of the creek was observed to have no surface flow (White 1996; White 1996a). Lagoon Creek Tributary, a spring- fed tributary that connects via an ephemeral channel to Swimming Pond, flows into Lagoon Creek below this section. Swimming Pond is an approximately 3.9 acre pond with an estimated maximum depth of 15 feet, estimated mean depth of 8 feet, and approximate shoreline length of 1,665 feet. Its presumed flushing rate is 32 hours. The level of Swimming Pond correlates with ground water in the area and fluctuates without any apparent inflow or outflow, except during high run off that was found during geotechnical investigation at the nearby powerhouse site test pit. The substrate is expected to be very permeable but may be covered with a layer of sediment that can impede flow slightly. Lagoon Creek empties into a large, tidally influenced lagoon called Salt Lagoon. Salt Lagoon is fed by Lagoon Creek and another small spring creek. Salt Lagoon occupies about 82 acres (0.13 square miles) and drains through a culvert under the road into the Sitkalidak Strait. The culvert is high enough that during low tides the water level is higher than the tide and the Lagoon drains fairly rapidly through the culvert. During high tides, the level of the lagoon matches the level in the strait and water flows into Salt Lagoon through the culvert. E.3.1.3 Topography and Climate Old Harbor is mountainous (Alaska Department of Commerce and Community Economic Development [DCCED] 2011). The climate of Kodiak Island is dominated by a strong marine influence with frequent cloud cover and fog. Weather is characterized by heavy precipitation, cool summers, and relatively warm winters (Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center [AEIDC] 1976). Severe storms are common from December through February. The mean annual air temperature at Kodiak is approximately 41°F, with an average annual air Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 29 temperature variation of about 11.2°F. Mean annual precipitation is approximately 79.4 inches (including equivalent snow water content), with about 79.6 inches of snow. The prevailing winds are from the northwest, and the average annual wind speed is about 10.4 knots (Western Regional Climate Center 2009). The design freezing index, or degree days below freezing, is about 1,800 degree days (Hartman and Johnson 1984). E.3.1.4 Major Land Uses The Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project would occupy land within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge managed by the USFWS, Old Harbor Native Corporation land that is subject to a conservation easement administered by the USFWS, Old Harbor Native Corporation land that is subject to a conservation easement administered by the USFWS and the State of Alaska, Old Harbor Corporation land, and City of Old Harbor land.. Land within and surrounding the project area is primarily undeveloped. Pioneered trails are used for recreation. According to locals, subsistence activities are not common in the project area (City of Old Harbor 2011a). E.3.1.5 Economic Activities The 2005-2009 American Community Survey estimated 76 residents as employed. The public sector employed 60.5 percent of all workers. Many Old Harbor residents are commercial fishermen or crew; in 2010, 25 residents held commercial fishing permits. The local unemployment rate was 31.5 percent in 2010 (DCCED 2011). Most Old Harbor residents practice a subsistence lifestyle and depend to some extent on subsistence food sources, such as salmon, halibut, crab, seal, deer, rabbit, and bear (City of Old Harbor 2011a; KIB 2007). E.3.2 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis NEPA (40 CFR, section 1508.7), cumulative effect is the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time, including hydropower and other land and water development activities. Based on agency and public comments, it has been found that EFH, primarily for anadromous fish, and water quality have the potential to be cumulatively affected by the project in combination with other past, present, and future activities. Recent small boat harbor improvements, community dock construction, and planned extension of the airport runway could have affected the available EFH near the community. These projects have increased the potential for accidental spills and increased the potential sedimentation from construction activities. The Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project could have indirect or secondary impacts on socioeconomics. The project could induce development of businesses, including a fish processing plant, and increase local employment and the amount of money in the community. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 30 These new businesses could have construction impacts, including temporary impacts to water quality and noise levels. Air quality could be indirectly impacted by new construction activities stimulated by lower energy costs; however, long term air quality benefits are likely due to the reduction of heating fuel use as people switch to less expensive electric heat. The project would eliminate approximately 600 tons of carbon dioxide pollution each year. The geographic scope of the analysis defines the physical limits or boundaries of the proposed effects on the resources. The geographic scope for impacts to EFH and fisheries includes the project area and the area within the City of Old Harbor boundaries. Outside this area are mainly Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge lands and conservation lands where no development is expected. The temporal scope of analysis includes a discussion of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and their effects on EFH and water resources. Based on the term of the proposed license, the effects on EFH and water quality from reasonably foreseeable future actions (a period of 30 to 50 years into the future) would be analyzed. The historical discussion is limited, by necessity, to the amount of available information. E.3.3 Proposed Action In this section, the effect of the proposed action on environmental resources is presented. For each resource, the affected environment, which is the existing condition and the baseline against which effects are measured, is described. The impacts to the resource and site specific environmental issues are discussed and analyzed. Only the resources that would be affected, or about which comments have been received, are addressed in detail in this Environmental Report. Based on this, it has been determined that geologic and soil resources, aquatic resources, recreation and land use, and socioeconomics may be affected by the proposed action. Although threatened and endangered species and cultural resources are not expected to be affected, these topics are detailed. No substantive issues related to aesthetic resources associated with the proposed action have been found, and therefore, this resource is not assessed in the Environmental Report. Recommendations are in Section E.5.0, Conclusions and Recommendations. E.3.3.1 Geological and Soil Resources Affected Environment Soil Types and Characteristics Based on the Kodiak Archipelago Soil Survey, the project area has eight soil types (National Resources Conservation Services [NRCS] 2011). The intake area is underlain mainly by Kodiak Gullies. The penstock and intake access trail area has Kodiak silt loam and Missak Complex. The area near the power house is mainly Spiridon silt loam. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 31 Site Characteristics Based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (R&M Consultants 2012), project engineer site visits, and the Kodiak Archipelago Soil Survey (NRCS 2011), and other geotechnical reports (Beikman 1975; USDA 1960) the geology in the vicinity of the project is typical of the mountainous regions of Kodiak Island. The soil profile is fairly consistent throughout the project area). Visual reconnaissance suggests near surface rock presence in the vicinity of the intake (Exhibit F). Between the intake and the powerhouse the soil profile consists of an approximately two foot deep vegetative mat overlying sandy silt, glacial till, weathered sedimentary bedrock, and finally sedimentary bedrock. However, along this corridor the glacial till is not always present. The Swimming Pond area has a washed sand and gravel layer with few fines below overburden. Throughout the project corridor there are small depressions and valleys that fill with water creating wetlands. The wetlands consist mainly of wetland vegetation, moss, and peat overlying soil, gravel, and rock. Potential Geological and Soil Hazards Landslides, avalanches, and erosion are a concern in mountainous areas of Kodiak Island, including Old Harbor. Although landslides and avalanches may occur on lesser slopes, they typically occur on slopes greater than 50 percent (27 degrees) (Wildfirenews.com 2005). Damage from these hazards occurs on the slopes as well as areas at the base of the slopes where the rubble and snow accumulate. Earthquakes have the potential to trigger large landslides (KIB 2007). Erosion may occur along stream banks and along steep slopes forming taluses. Existing Erosion Control Measures There is no infrastructure in place at this time; therefore, there are no existing erosion control measures. Seismology The communities of south-coastal Alaska, including Kodiak, occupy one of the most seismically active regions of the world, where the Pacific Plate is subducting under the North American Plate (AEIC 2006). The Kodiak Islands are part of an extensive archipelago along the North American-Pacific Plate boundary that forms the eastern Alaska-Aleutian subduction zone in the western Gulf of Alaska. The Alaska-Aleutian subduction zone represents the plate tectonic boundary where the Pacific plate converges toward and descends below the North American plate at a rate of 59 millimeters per year (DeMets et al., 1990). Environmental Effects Approximately 61.2 acres would be temporary disturbed by project construction and an additional 15.1 acres would be permanently impacted by project components (Figures 2 and 3). Construction of the existing Lagoon Creek Tributary channel, access trail, burial of the penstock, and the intake structures could cause erosion of the stream banks and other areas resulting in deposition of sediment into the creeks. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 32 Geotechnical investigation indicates that the vegetative mat/overburden would drain, suggesting lower erosion potential. This vegetative mat/overburden would be capable of supporting construction equipment unless disturbed. Once the vegetation is disturbed, the potential for erosion is higher because the underlying material is not stable, particularly when saturated. The underlying glacial till also contains a significant amount of erodible silt. Fill would be needed to keep the silt in the cleared area in place. Project construction would clear vegetation at the intake and powerhouse and along the intake access road, penstock, tailrace, power line, and powerhouse access road (Exhibit F). Vegetation grows rapidly in the project area, and disturbed soils would be revegetated with native plants and/or native seed mix. Exposed rock, gravel surfaces, and the tailrace channel bed would not be revegetated. USFWS and ADF&G have concerns regarding erosion of the intake access trail given the topography, soil conditions, and heavy rainfall in the project area. ADF&G has expressed specific concerns about erosion stating that Kodiak Island soils contain consolidated organic and volcanic deposits which may become unstable when exposed to the elements; rain events may be severe in nature and frequent in occurrence; stabilization of disturbed slopes may be difficult because alpine areas sluff easily and heal very slowly; erosion into the described V- Notch ravines may lead to impaired water bodies or wetlands outside of the project boundaries; the steep grade of the intake access trail may increase erosion potential on cross cut slopes; and the penstock buried under or adjacent to the trail may allow a mass wasting erosion event to severely damage the ecosystem and render the project useless. Since receiving these comments, further geological information has been collected and been The project design addresses these concerns. The intake access trail would be designed and constructed based on U.S. Forest Service road construction guidance to withstand natural erosion pressure. The final design would address runoff conveyance and trail stability in detail. (See Section E.2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities subsection Intake Access Trail, and Exhibit F for specific design details.) Erosion of silt is expected in the dense glacial till deposits that are exposed. The silt would tend to fill in runoff conveyances and may require removal, as part of project maintenance, during the first few years of project operation. At discharge points the silt would become trapped in the existing vegetation and ponds and is unlikely to impact water quality outside the project boundary. Stabilization would consist of immediate, but temporary, measures such as burlap over lays, silt fencing, and similar measures. Long term stabilization would be established through re- vegetation. Project maintenance would include monitoring of stabilization effectiveness. The intake access trail is generally similar to many of the unpaved trails and roads throughout the Old Harbor region which do not appear to have resulted in water quality problems. Some Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 33 silt is likely to flow into perennial streams but the quantities should be insignificant. Following construction, the intake access trail would be limited to use by authorized vehicles only. Although the road would need to be passable, it would not have to be maintained to accommodate trucks or other vehicles, as ATVs would be used by authorized personnel. Because the intake access trail would not be open to public vehicle use, it would experience little erosion due to traffic. At most, AVEC personnel would travel to the intake on the access road once a month, accept when snow limits access. Erosion of topsoil into waterbodies during construction would be minimized by erecting silt fences at intervals and at the bottom of slopes of exposed soil. Silt fences would also be erected as necessary on steep slopes to prevent soil erosion until restoration and revegetation of cut areas has been completed and become established. A SWPPP with other Best Management Practices would be developed prior to commencement of any construction activities. The selected contractor would be required to implement the SWPPP. Vegetation grows rapidly in the project area, and disturbed soils would be revegetated with native plants and/or native seed mix. The typical mass wasting erosion, a phenomenon that occurs in southeast Alaska regularly, appears to be commonly associated with very steep slopes and large amounts, or long periods, of rainfall leading to very saturated soils. While Kodiak has significant rainfall, none of the slopes in the project vicinity exhibit either slow moving or rapid landslide events. Also, the trail itself would tend to improve drainage thus potentially reducing the likelihood of mass landslides. A landslide precipitated by overloading would be avoided using the full bench cut concept design on the steep cross slopes with excess overburden disposed of elsewhere. Mass wasting due to erosion of material at the interface of the pipe bedding and pipeline is unlikely. The concept design requires a 95 percent compaction of dense material for pipe bedding. Unless a leak develops in the pipeline erosion of the bedding would be atypical. Unpaved trails and roads at a 26 percent grade are not unheard of and, if properly designed, would not exhibit undue erosion issues. On steep cross slopes the concept design calls for a full bench type of cut in bedrock or glacial till. Cross slope erosion is only likely to initiate at top of the cut where organics are potentially exposed. The project design uses a 2H:1V cut in the organics followed by stabilization or a vertical cut in the organics. The sloped cut should not erode if properly stabilized. A vertical cut should also not erode since runoff would fall to the underlying rock without impacting organics. Some erosion is expected to occur from drying of exposed organics and where subsurface flows at the base of the organic layer daylights at the cut. Typically the top layer of vegetation begins to overhang and drop down thus promoting future stabilization. Any significant erosion would be addressed as a maintenance issue. However, the concept design minimizes the potential for erosion by selecting an alignment that minimizes erosion potential and the use of subsequent full bench cross cuts. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 34 Sediment Accumulation and Transport Sediment accumulation in the intake could potentially occur without proper project components. Because and bedrock, gravel recruitment at the intake is not expected to be an issue. Bypass of sediment would occur as needed to prevent clogging of the intake works. Sediment and Hazardous Waste Removal and Disposal There is no known hazardous waste in the project area and this project would not result in sediment and hazardous waste removal and disposal. Effects of Project Operation on Soil Erosion There would be no storage associated with the project. Therefore, reservoir fluctuations and project releases are not applicable. There could be an increase in the potential for erosion along the Lagoon Creek Tributary and Lagoon Creek due to the additional water that would be diverted to this drainage from the East Fork Mountain Creek drainage. In general, a vegetative mat overlies 18 to 24 inches of sandy silt throughout the project area and there is little potential for catastrophic slides. However, silt could erode into waterbodies, which would impact water quality. Penstock Rupture This project s design flow is approximately 11.8 cfs, which is relatively low volume. If there were a rupture in the pipe, flows could increase to about 25 cfs before full vacuum conditions and column separation would occur restricting further increases. The project is located in an undeveloped area, and it is unlikely that there would be any damages or injuries associated with an unlikely penstock rupture. Description of Protection, Mitigation, or Enhancement Measures The following conservation measures would be implemented to protect, enhance, or mitigate impacts to geological and soil resources: The project would be sited and designed to minimize erosion and geologic hazards. To minimize erosion due to traffic, motor vehicle use of the intake access trail would be limited to authorized vehicles only. Excess overburden and soil from excavations would be piled neatly on uplands (where feasible) in such a way as to prevent erosion. The excess soil piles would be revegetated with native seed mix recommended by the USFWS. Disturbed areas would be revegetated with a native seed mix recommended by the USFWS. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 35 E.3.3.2 Aquatic Resources Affected Environment Water Resources This project would draw water from East Fork of Mountain Creek. The discharge from the tailrace would be to Swimming Pond and would flow from Swimming Pond to Lagoon Creek Tributary, which flows to Lagoon Creek. Water quantity and runoff patterns. The project intake is located on East Fork Mountain Creek. The maximum, mean, and minimum annual flows for the East Fork of Mountain Creek, based on the Mountain Creek Hydrology Report are approximately 100 cfs, 14.2 cfs, and 3 cfs, respectively (PolarConsult 2010). The East Fork of Mountain Creek has flow throughout the year, including the winter, with higher flows between May and August and in the month of October. The East Fork experiences regular short periods of increased flow due to storms. Flow data collected at the intake site correlated strongly with rainfall data for Kodiak. The discharge of the East Fork ranges from 40 to 50 percent of the discharge before the canyon where the East and West forks are combined (ADNR 1996). The lower 3 mile-long stretch of Mountain Creek, from the mouth up to the canyon, lacks surface flow during long periods in the mid-summer and fall. Stream gauging and numerous site visits have shown that even during periods of above average rainfall, the stream lacks surface flow below the canyon from mid-July through at least the end of October (AVEC 1998). Flow data has not been gauged over an extended period of time on Lagoon Creek Tributary (due to the nature of the channel, a suitable gauging site was not available); however, numerous field visits have confirmed that the creek is primarily spring fed with constant flow throughout the year. Lagoon Creek Tributary is thought to be primarily groundwater spring derived, but also includes sheet flow and precipitation inputs. The stream width at the groundwater upwelling area approximately 1,000 feet downstream from Swimming Pond on October 16, 2010 was 14.3 feet, and the average velocity was 0.06 feet/second. Discharge at this location was 0.3 CFS. Discharge was greater below the beaver dam, but before joining the main stem of Lagoon Creek. The stream width at this section was 8.8 feet, and the average velocity was 1.29 feet/second. The discharge below the beaver dam was 3.2 CFS. According to Old Harbor residents, the beaver dam is relatively new. The influence of the beaver dam and the storage capacity of the dam ponded area could not be determined. Discharge near the mouth of Lagoon Creek (main stem) at the lagoon is approximately double that of the mid-section reaches of the creek. The stream width at this section was 28.6 feet, and the average velocity was 0.17 feet/second on October 16, 2010. The discharge was 5.3 cfs. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 36 According to the Scenarios Network for Alaska Planning, Alaska has seen a statewide increase in temperatures of 2.690 F since 1971. Kodiak has showed the least change with an 0.87 0 F increase in temperature (SNAP 2008). Climate models for the community of Old Harbor show that both summer and winter precipitation and temperatures are expected to rise over the next 100 years (SNAP 2013). Specific projections for how Old Harbor would be impacted by warmer temperatures and increased precipitation have not been developed. However, researches have projected that higher temperatures in Alaska would lead to changes in the timing of run-off as snow packs move higher, and snowmelt occurs sooner in the spring. This scenario is likely in Old Harbor and could shift peak flows of Mountain Creek earlier in the spring. Increased precipitation may lead to higher stream flow throughout the year. Current flow regime and flow releases. Because this is an original project, there are no current flow regimes or flow releases. The project would not involve any flow releases for special purposes or at special times. Water rights. There are currently no water rights on Mountain Creek, which is the intake for the proposed hydroelectric project. This project would obtain water rights to use water from Mountain Creek for the hydroelectric project. This water would be diverted to the Lagoon Creek Tributary, and ultimately Lagoon Creek. Surface water from Lagoon Creek is drinking water source. AVEC originally applied for water rights on May 20, 1999. This original application date would be the priority date of any eventual water right if granted. However, since the project has been altered since the original time of application the Alaska DNR has requested that AVEC complete a new application and submit a new project description with design plans. Non-power water uses. There are no existing uses of water from Mountain Creek, on which the intake is located. The City of Old Harbor uses surface water from Lagoon Creek for its local water source. This project would add additional flow to Lagoon Creek. Water quality. Mountain Creek, Swimming Pond, Lagoon Creek Tributary, and Lagoon Creek are not listed as Section 303(d) impaired waterbodies by the State of Alaska (Alaska DEC 2010). State Water Quality Standards Classification. The Alaska Water Quality Standards (published in Title 18, Chapter 70, of the Alaska Administrative Code [AAC]), most recently revised in April 2012, designate fresh water and marine uses for which water quality must be protected. Overall, the standards specify the degree of degradation that may not be exceeded in a waterbody as a result of human actions. Baseline water quality measurements taken in the field near the intake location on Mountain Creek in August 1996 found that temperature was 43 degrees Fahrenheit (o F) and dissolved Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 37 (Polarconsult 1996; Alaska DEC 2012). Attempts to monitor temperature over time were unsuccessful. Grab samples were collected at the intake and shipped to a laboratory for analysis of metals, biochemical oxygen demand, nitrate, nitrite, and phosphorus levels. The laboratory results showed that all measured p water standards (Polarconsult 1996; Alaska DEC 2008).9 Baseline water quality measurements were taken in the field at Swimming Pond and Lagoon Creek Tributary in October 2010. At Swimming Pond, the temperature was 41oF and dissolved oxygen levels were between 12.18 and 11.52 ppm (Love 2011). At Lagoon Creek Tributary, temperatures were recorded between 40 oF and 42oF; dissolved oxygen levels were between 9.98 and 11.7 ppm; and pH measurement were between 6.12 and 6.15. These water quality DEC 2012). In addition, water temperature measurements were collected in Swimming Pond and Lagoon area of the creek. These measurements were collected over an approximate year-long period and are presented in Graph E.2). Between August 26, 2010, and August 16, 2011, the temperature gauge in Swimming Pond near the surface ranged from 17 o F to 73o F. The coldest temperature recordings occurred in December and the warmest in July. A gauge placed at the bottom of Swimming Pond showed temperatures ranging from 32 o F to 72o F. The coldest temperature recordings at the bottom occurred in January and the warmest in July. Measurements show that the water at the bottom of Swimming Pond is less likely to freeze than the surface of Swimming Pond, and that the surface is likely affected by changes in air temperature more quickly than its bottom. 9 State water quality standards for drinking water are as follows. Temperature: acceptable levels are below 59 oF; dissolved oxygen acceptable levels are above 4.0 ppm; pH acceptable levels are not less than 6.0 or greater than 8.5. Drinking water quality standards for nitrate, nitrite, and phosphorus can be found at http://dec.alaska.gov/water/wqsar/wqs/pdfs/Alaska%20Water%20Quality%20Criteria%20Manual%20for%20Toxic %20and%20Other%20Deleterious%20Organic%20and%20Inorganic%20Substances.pdf. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 38 Graph E.2 water quality for recreation or agriculture; however, during certain periods in late summer and fall 2010, the temperature exceeded the water quality standards for drinking, aquaculture, and for the growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life, and wildlife. The higher temperatures are caused naturally by higher air temperatures over a period of time and the lack of water flowing into Swimming Pond. Between October 15, 2010 and August 16, 2011, temperature levels in Lagoon Creek Tributary at the beaver pond ranged from 33 oF in February and 60 oF in July. The temperature of the Lagoon Creek Tributary at the beaver pond is likely moderated by groundwater since it hovered near freezing in winter months but never fell below 32o F. water quality standard for drinking water on one day in July 2010; however, the waterbody normally meets the water quality for all uses, including drinking water. Baseline water quality measurements were taken in the field on Lagoon Creek in August 1996. Temperatures were recorded 53oF and dissolved oxygen was 7.5 ppm (Polarconsult 1996). Grab samples analyzed in a laboratory showed that metals, biochemical oxygen demand, (Alaska DEC 2008). Source and type of any pollutants associated with the project. There are no pollutants associated with the project. Fishery Resources Species. Past reports and drawings have named what is currently referred to as Mountain Creek as either Barling Bay Creek Tributary, Hydropower Creek, or, erroneously, Barling Bay Creek. According to the ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog, Mountain Creek Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 39 (258-52-1004010) supports coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and pink (O. gorbuscha) and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) to a point approximately 3 miles upstream of the mouth (ADF&G 2013). Downstream, approximately 2 miles from the mouth, chum (O. keta) are also present. Salmon surveys conducted in August and September 1996 and August and October 1998 in Mountain Creek (White 1996; White 1996a; White 1998) did not observe any fish species at the intake. The surveys did not find fish (juveniles or adults) above about 3 miles upstream of the mouth because there was no surface flow during each visit. Stream gauges show that the erranean during much of the year (AVEC 1998). The anadromous fish habitat limit mapped by ADF&G is near where the flow runs subsurface for much of the year. According to the ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog, Lagoon Creek (258-52-10030 11) and Lagoon Creek Tributary (258-52-10030-2004) support spawning coho, chum, and pink salmon. The catalog also documents Dolly Varden presence in Lagoon Creek (ADF&G 2013). Fish trapping and visual spawning surveys occurring in August and October 2010 found Dolly Varden and stickleback in Swimming Pond; however, no coho, chum, or pink salmon were observed or trapped in the pond. These surveys found coho salmon and Dolly Varden in Lagoon Creek Tributary from the groundwater upwelling (approximately 1000 feet downstream of Swimming Pond) to the mouth of Lagoon Creek. There was no surface flow in the channel between Swimming Pond and the groundwater upwelling area during fish surveys. Aquatic habitats. Fish have not been found in the East Fork of Mountain Creek at the intake site. The first approximately 1,100 feet of Lagoon Creek Tributary below Swimming Pond is a distinct continuous channel that is narrow and shallow. Surface flow in this upper section is ephemeral. The perennial section of Lagoon Creek Tributary above the beaver dam is a relatively short (less than 0.5 miles), low-energy, low flow system categorized by low-energy pools. This area is a groundwater discharge zone (Love 2011). The tributary becomes ponded as it approaches a large beaver dam mid-section. Recent beaver activity mid-section on Lagoon Creek Tributary is affecting the stream hydraulics. The section of Lagoon Creek below the beaver dam is a relatively short (less than 0.5 miles), stable, low-energy, meandering stream, categorized by pools and riffles. The predominate riffle substrate is medium gravels and cobble. Pools typically have silt and sands. Fishery recreation or commercial value. No recreational or commercial fishing occurs in the East Fork of Mountain Creek, Swimming Pond, or Lagoon Creek Tributary. Commercial fishing 10 In July 2012 ADF&G renumbered Mountain Creek from stream 258-52-10020 to stream 258-52-10040 to accommodate additions of new water bodies in the area. 11 In July 2012 ADF&G renumbered Lagoon Creek from stream # 258-52-10015 to stream # 258-52-10030 and Lagoon Creek Tributary from stream #258-52-10015-2004 to stream # 258-52-10030-2004 to accommodate additions of new water bodies in the area. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 40 occurs in the ocean areas around Kodiak Island, and Lagoon Creek and Mountain Creek may support commercial fisheries in the region. Management objectives. The Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 2008) has the following goals, which apply to fisheries: Conserve the abundance of natural salmonid populations for continued human and wildlife use, and ensure the diversity of species as indicators of the health of the osystem (Goal 7). Improve baseline understanding of natural flowing waters on the refuge and maintain the water quality and quantity necessary to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity (Goal 9). In addition, the comprehensive conservation p 2008). The r gather baseline data (Objective 7.6). The ADF&G and its Commissioner is directed by Alaska State Statute Title 16 to manage, protect, maintain, improve, and extend the fish, game, and aquatic plant resources of the state in the interest of the economy and general well-being of the state. Alaska also has fish habitat protection statutes that were adopted shortly after statehood and remain unchanged to this day. This reflects the longstanding Alaskan ideal that fishery resources and habitats are assets that improve quality of life and merit protection from unnecessary human disturbance. Land and water use permits within the ADF&G are issued through the Division of Habitat and can be divided into two major categories: Fish Habitat Permits and Special Area Permits. Fish Habitat Permits. ADF&G has the statutory responsibility for protecting freshwater anadromous fish habitat and providing free passage for anadromous and resident fish in fresh waterbodies (AS 16.05.841-871). Any activity or project that is conducted below the ordinary high water mark of an anadromous stream requires a Fish Habitat Permit. A Fish Habitat Permit is required before any action is taken to construct a hydraulic project; use, divert, obstruct, pollute, or change the natural flow or bed of a specified river, lake, or stream; or use wheeled, tracked, or excavating equipment or log-dragging equipment in the bed of a specified river, lake, or stream. ing, biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 41 support a sustainable fisher and the man 50 CFS 600.10). The MSFCMA directs federal agencies to consult with the NMFS when any of their activities may have an adverse effect on EFH. According to Section 600.810 of Subpart J of the MSFCMA, adverse effects may include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption), -specific or habitat-wide As required by the MSFCMA (16 U.S.C. 1801), an EFH assessment is required for this project because there are salmon found in the project area (NOAA Fisheries 2011a). The EFH Assessment is included in Appendix E.3. Environmental Effects Water Resources This project would require the Alaska DEC to issue a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification prior to construction. Currently, no requirements for flow gauging or water quality monitoring have been established for the certification. Alaska DEC does not require flow gauging unless a waterbody is impaired. ADF&G and Alaska DNR would consider the establishment of a flow gage. Effects of project operations. The project would be operated as a basin diversion facility, which would follow natural hydrologic fluctuations on the East Fork of Mountain Creek. Mountain Creek would continue to receive the majority of its flow from its West Fork, lower drainages, and precipitation. The withdrawal of project flows from the East Fork of Mountain Creek is not expected to significantly affect flow in the anadromous reach, which ceases to flow at the surface in summer months, even in years of high precipitation. Sedimentation of Swimming Pond and Lagoon Creek Tributary would not be an issue during operations. Sand and gravel would be removed at the intake and deposited on the other side of the diversion structure. Also, the diversion structure would impound sand and gravel behind it until it is flushed. Bypass of sediment would occur as needed to prevent clogging of the intake works. The need for this would be very dependent on stream flows. Likely flushing would not be needed during winter low flows. During high-flow events flushes may occur several times a day. During extreme flooding the bypass may remain partially open. The bypass gate would be opened when a buildup of sediment is detected (evidenced by reduction of inflow into the intake box while still having high water levels behind the diversion or spill past the diversion). The flushing process would be very short (< 15 seconds) with a gate Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 42 opening, discharge of the water from inside the debris wall and the screening box, and then a closing of the gate. Flushing of the area outside the debris wall would be required only if needed for repairs (like replacing a flush gate). Cold water from the East Fork of Mountain Creek would outlet into Swimming Pond, which often has higher temperatures in the summer. Because water would travel down the tailrace to Swimming Pond before reaching Lagoon Creek Tributary, water quality and temperature impacts to Lagoon Creek Tributary would be moderated. Tailrace discharge would be higher in dissolved oxygen than the Swimming Pond, but water discharged from Swimming Pond would not likely change due to residence time in the pond. There are no data to support how dissolved oxygen would vary spatially or specifically. Effect of project construction. Approximately 0.05 acres of Mountain Creek, Swimming Pond, and Lagoon Creek Tributary would be impacted temporarily by construction of project components. It is likely that sediment levels within Mountain Creek at the intake, Swimming Pond, and Lagoon Creek Tributary would increase during construction. In-water work likely would involve excavation and the placement of materials within the East Fork of Mountain Creek. Work in Swimming Pond would involve excavation during tailrace construction including enhancement of Lagoon Creek Tributary channel. In-water work in Lagoon Creek Tributary would involve excavation and the placement of material in the creek. Once the coffer dam is removed and flows are released down the constructed channel, the tributary would experience a temporary increase in sediment. Best Management Practices would be implemented to decrease erosion and sedimentation during construction activities. Channel construction would be timed to protect salmon. Effects of recommended environmental measures. Because of the minimal impacts to water resources, no environmental measures have been proposed, required, or recommended. Mountain Creek flows subsurface during the summer below the canyon and would continue to receive the majority of its flow from its west fork, lower drainages, and precipitation; therefore, there are no requirements for minimum flow to protect water quality. Fishery Resources Fish habitat (including EFH). The Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project would impound water from the East Fork of Mountain Creek in a reach where fish have not been found. The impacts to fish habitat on Mountain Creek are expected to be negligible because the amount of water diverted is not expected to affect flow significantly in the lower anadromous reach. See Section E.3.3.2, Aquatic Resources,Affected Environment, Water Resources, Water Quantity and Runoff Patterns . Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 43 Water from the intake would be routed through a penstock and tailrace to Swimming Pond and Lagoon Creek Tributary. The tributary flows to Lagoon Creek, which flows to a saltwater lagoon and into Sitkalidak Strait. These waterbodies are all listed as anadromous waterbodies that support EFH. Water flowing to Swimming Pond would likely impact fish and EFH in Swimming Pond by increasing flow volume and oxygen saturation and by decreasing temperature. Winter temperatures in Swimming Pond are not expected to change significantly with the project. In addition, the water entering Swimming Pond would be oxygen saturated, but not supersaturated. Fish are expected to adapt to these changes. Flow through the project would not follow the electrical demand in Old Harbor, and the flows through the facility would not be adjusted. Potential project impacts to fish and fish habitat, including EFH, in the Lagoon Creek drainage would be related to the introduction of additional water to Lagoon Creek Tributary, including changes to (NOAA Fisheries 2011): Flow patterns and sedimentation Water temperature Floodplains Available fish habitat The volume of water within the Lagoon Creek drainage would increase with the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project. Up to 11.8 cfs would be added to Swimming Pond. Project flows would likely fill Swimming Pond to capacity most of the time, thus flows to Lagoon Creek Tributary would be approximately equal to project flows. The upper ephemeral reach of Lagoon Creek Tributary would likely become more perennial. Lagoon Creek Tributary would go through a period of adjustment as a result of increased would receive, the increases in seasonal water volume are expected to increase overall habitat area, especially for juvenile coho salmon. The input of colder water from the East Fork of Mountain Creek into Swimming Pond could reduce temperature on Lagoon Creek and could impact development of juvenile salmonids and food source development and cause a change in timing of outmigration. The constructed portion of the Lagoon Creek Tributary channel would not block salmon, Dolly Varden, and stickleback passage between Lagoon Creek Tributary and Swimming Pond. (See E.2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities Tailrace to Swimming Pond and Lagoon Creek Tributary and Exhibit F for details.) The project sponsor, AVEC, does not propose to create additional fish habitat within the channel and Swimming Pond. If fish become established in the channel, mortality would be likely if the channel is dewatered. The channel could be Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 44 dewatered when flow into Swimming Pond is diminished because of low flows from the intake or during facility maintenance activities. Dewatering events are not expected to be common. The required cost of temperature monitoring for the 1999 project was one reason that the project could not go forward. The proposed project relocation should reduce that concern because of the tempering in Swimming Pond. Intake, penstock, access trail, and access road construction activities, including blasting and equipment movement, are not expected to impact fish habitat. Equipment would access the project area via the new access roads, and no creeks would be crossed. Wetlands associated with fish habitat would not be impacted by the fill placed for the project components. Tailrace construction and in-water work in Swimming Pond could impact fish by increasing sedimentation and decreasing the quality of habitat within the pond. During in-water activities a silt curtain could be installed to decrease impacts to water quality within the pond. Other Best Management P during construction. Channel enhancement of the ephemeral section of Lagoon Creek Tributary (a 1,100-foot section below Swimming Pond) should not impact fish habitat. Specifications would place limits on excavation methods so that equipment operates mainly in the section of channel where surface water is ephemeral and not in Swimming Pond or in the perennial reach of Lagoon Creek Tributary. Once the enhanced channel is constructed it would be connected to the spring-fed section of Lagoon Creek Tributary first. Then it would be connected to Swimming Pond so that water flow is introduced gradually into the enhanced channel over a time sufficient to decrease impacts to fish in Swimming Pond and Lagoon Creek Tributary. Timing of channel enhancement work would occur during timing windows recommended by ADF&G to avoid impacts to fish as part of their Fish Habitat Permit. Because the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project is a basin diversion project with no dam, impacts identified by NOAA Fisheries related to dam construction and operations do not apply: The project would not fluctuate water levels, alter seasonal and daily flow, or reduce water velocity discharge volumes. In addition, the project would not impact juvenile salmonid migratory behavior or reduce the availability of shelter and foraging habitat. . Effects of Impoundment fluctuation. This would be a basin diversion hydroelectric project with no dam; therefore, there would be no impacts associated with impoundment fluctuations. Fish entrainment. Currently the channel out of Swimming Pond is ephemeral and surface flow does not occur year round. Fish are often trapped in Swimming Pond. Project flows and enhancement of the channel out of Swimming Pond would increase the amount and duration of surface flow in the upper reaches of Lagoon Creek Tributary. Project flows to Lagoon Creek Tributary likely would reduce the amount of time that fish are entrained in Swimming Pond. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 45 However, times of low flow during winter months could still result in low or no flow in the upper reach of Lagoon Creek Tributary at the outlet of Swimming Pond. Fish could be entrained in Swimming Pond during this time. This project would operate year-round. As feasible, maintenance and operation activities that require decreasing and halting the water flow into Lagoon Creek Tributary would be timed to required by ADF&G and NOAA Fisheries. In addition, a bypass would be constructed at the powerhouse that allows project flows to enter the tailrace when turbine maintenance occurs. The bypass would be operated to discharge the same amount of water to the tailrace that would be discharged if the turbine was not down for maintenance. With two turbines installed there is no need for the bypass. Effects on management goals and EFH. The Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project would minimally affect Goal 7 of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Plan (USFWS 2008) because the project would maintain the abundance of salmon habitat in Lagoon Creek Tributary. Dolly Varden and stickleback within Swimming Pond could be impacted during construction; however, ADF&G Title 16 Permit requirements and Best Management Practices would minimize these impacts. Best Management Practices and fish timing windows would help protect salmon and other fish in the area. This project has helped to improve the understanding of waters within the refuge (Goal 9); Planning for this project has involved considerable study and data collection. Hydrology and fisheries information has been provided to the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and helps to meet the study and monitoring goals of the comprehensive conservation plan. This project would minimally affect water quality (Goal 9), primarily during construction; however, Best Management Practices would be implemented to reduce water quality impacts from construction activities. The quantity of water would increase within the Lagoon Creek watershed, and it is expected that more fish habitat could be created in Lagoon Creek Tributary. Taking water from the East Fork of Mountain Creek would reduce flow in the Mountain Creek watershed; however, the creek would continue to receive the majority of its flow from the West Fork Mountain Creek, lower drainages, and precipitation. Because this project has minimal impacts to fish and since AVEC would obtain and comply with a Title 16 Fish Habitat Permit, it is expected that the project would have minor effects on the management goals of ADF&G. The construction of the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project likely would adversely affect EFH within Lagoon Creek Tributary; however, impacts to coho salmon and their habitat would not be significant. Increased flows could result in erosion and sedimentation and thermal changes in Lagoon Creek Tributary; however, Swimming Pond and the constructed channel would help to buffer flows and temperature changes before the water flows into EFH. Conservation Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 46 measures would help to reduce adverse effects. The Old Harbor Project would be a basin diversion project and no dam would be constructed and all the NOAA Fisheries EFH conservation measures listed in the hydroelectric project section of Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat from Non-Fishing Activities in Alaska would be implemented (NOAA Fisheries 2011). Additional EFH would be created in Lagoon Creek Tributary because of increased flow to the area. A detailed EFH Assessment is found in Appendix E.3. Effect of proposed and recommended environmental measures. Although no significant impacts to fish habitat, including EFH in Lagoon Creek Tributary and Swimming Pond, are expected from this project, the following conservation measures would be implemented to protect, enhance, or mitigate impacts to aquatic resources: Hydroelectric project conservation measures listed in Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat from Non-Fishing Activities in Alaska (NOAA Fisheries 2011) would be incorporated into this project: o No dam would be constructed. o Upstream and downstream adult and juvenile fish passage would be maintained in Lagoon Creek Tributary. o Large woody debris would be maintained along Lagoon Creek Tributary wherever possible. After channel construction, the banks of Lagoon Creek Tributary would be revegetated with native plants and large and small woody debris from areas cleared during construction. Channel enhancement of the ephemeral section of Lagoon Creek Tributary (the 1,100- foot-long section below Swimming Pond) would occur during a period established by In addition to the conservation measures listed above, more specific requirements may result from the permit process for the preferred alternative. By design, the permit stipulations would protect the known fish resources in the project area and would protect EFH areas. These measures would benefit aquatic resources. E.3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources Affected Environment Dominant Cover Types and Plant Species The northern aspect of the project area near the intake on the East Fork of Mountain Creek is dominated by alder shrub and alpine meadow uplands. This area has steep sloping hillsides. Well-drained upland habitats represent a majority of the project area in the upper half of the project. Swimming Pond and tailrace sections of the project area contain some depressional and lacustrine fringe wetlands. The lower sections of the project in the southeast section of the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 47 project are virtually devoid of wetland habitats. The habitat in the lower project area consists of cottonwoods and Kenai birch with an understory of willow and alder thickets and some open grass fields. Mapping calculations show that about 54 acres, or 72 percent of the project area, is mapped as upland habitat (Love 2011a). Wildlife Mammals and habitat. The majority of the project occurs within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. Only six species of land mammals occur naturally within Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. These include: Kodiak brown bear (Ursus arctus middendorffi), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), river otter (Lutra canadensis), ermine (Mustela erminea), tundra vole (Microtus oeconomus), and little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus). There has been much research on the biology and habitat requirements of Kodiak bears; however, the ecology of other native mammals is minimally documented. Between the 1920s and 1960s, several species of non-native mammals were introduced to increase subsistence and recreational opportunities in the archipelago. Eight of these species now commonly occur in the refuge. They are: Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis), mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus), Roosevelt elk (Cervus canadensis roosevelti), reindeer (Rangifer tarandus), beaver (Castor canadensis), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), and pine marten (Martes americana). Populations of deer, elk, mountain goat, and snowshoe hare are now highly valued by sport and subsistence hunters (USFWS 2008). Avian resources. Kodiak Island variety of upland and marine habitats and moderate temperatures result in the greatest diversity of wintering birds in Alaska. Kodiak hosts a variety of migratory nesting birds in the summer, although it is not a major migratory bird destination (USGS 2006). Over 160 species of birds have been recorded on the refuge, 100 of which may nest on the refuge (USFWS 2008). Thirty species of birds were observed in habitats adjacent to the project or nearby during site surveys conducted in August 1996 (MacIntosh 1996) and June 1998 (Eskelin 1998a). The most common birds observed were the fox sparrow, Wilson's sparrow, and savannah sparrow. Existence of Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species Surveys conducted by Alaska Natural Heritage Program near the community of Old Harbor have found infestations of non-native species including: Canada thistle, orange hawkweed, fall dandelion, oxeye daisy, and common tansy (ANHP 2011a). Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and partners are actively working to eliminate the spread of invasive plant species, especially orange hawkweed, within the refuge (USFWS 2008). Other introduced but non-threatening species in the area include mountain goat (introduced in 1952) and Sitka blacktail deer (introduced in 1924). Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 48 Recreational or Commercial Value of Terrestrial Resources Most of the residents of Old Harbor depend to some extent on subsistence activities for food sources, such as salmon, deer, seal, rabbit, and bear, which are found in the project area. Special Status Wildlife or Plants Rare plant species. An August 2010 onsite plant survey by Stacy Studebaker (2013), volunteer botanist for the USFWS, inventoried areas in and near the project area. The survey identified four species of rare plants near the project vicinity. These plants and the locality and habitat in which they were identified are listed in Table E.6 (AKNHP 2013). Table E.6. Rare Plants Found Near Old Harbor in August 2010 Survey Family Taxon Locality Habitat Asteraceae Arnica mollis Hooker Kodiak Island, SE region of island and vicinity of Old Harbor, lower Big Creek valley beaver ponds and stream channels in tall cottonwood-alder stand, growing in sand at margin of old channel Cyperaceae Eleocharis nitida Old Harbor, vic. of airstrip above 'new town', northeast end of strip small heath-Sphagnum bogs below strip, growing in shallow pond Isoetaceae Isoetes occidentalis L. F. Hend. SE region of island, lower Big Creek valley graminoid-forb wet meadow, muddy lakeshore, uncommon Boraginaceae Plagiobothrys orientalis (L.) I.M.Johnst. Kodiak. SE coast of island, vic. of Old Harbor village, area of 'old town' and abandoned airstrip disturbed open vegetation on old gravel airstrip, scattered Although no rare plants were identified in the project area, rare plants have the potential to occur in the project area (Studebaker 2013). Birds. The State Endangered Species List currently includes two birds (Short-tailed Albatross and Eskimo Curlew) and three marine mammals (blue whale, humpback whale, and right whale). None of these species would be expected in the project area. As of August 15, 2011, the ADF&G no longer maintains a Species of Special Concern list (ADF&G 2011). According to the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 2008), the following bird species of conservation concern are found in the refuge: bald eagles, -throated loons, gray-cheeked thrush, orange-crowned warblers, and yellow warblers. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 49 Bald eagles are protected by the Bald Eagle Protection Act. They are an abundant nesting species on the refuge (over 200 nesting pairs; FWS 1997), and nest in the large cottonwoods. The USFWS Alaska Bald Eagle Nest Atlas was reviewed (USFWS 2010). The atlas shows no recorded nests along the project alignment. Two nests were found approximately 4,300 feet and 1,900 feet away from the project area. The nests were active, and adult eagles were observed on each nest at the time of the survey (Solstice 2011). Federally listed wildlife species are detailed in Section 3.3.4 Endangered Species Special Habitats Wetlands. Based on a wetlands determination conducted in 2010 (Love 2011a), wetlands within the project area are typically 0.1-1.0 acre with the exception of a few that are slightly greater than 1.0 acre. It cannot be determined at this time if any of the wetlands are isolated. It is thought that due to the presence of small seeps, for most depressional wetlands there is a groundwater nexus between adjacent wetlands creating a mosaic wetland complex. For slope wetlands the nexus between surrounding wetlands is thought to be ground and surface water connections. Slope, depressional, and lacustrine fringe wetlands scored consistently high Functional Capacity Index (FCI) scores for modification of groundwater, modification of water quality, abundance and diversity of vegetation and abundance and diversity of fauna (Love 2011). The Wetland Delineation Report (Love 2011a) describes the wetlands in the project area. This information is summarized below. Intake The northern aspect of the project area near the intake at East Fork Mountain Creek is dominated by alder shrub and alpine meadow uplands. Abrupt steep sloping hillsides (less than or equal to 20 percent) are common in this area. Intake Access Trail and Penstock to Powerhouse The majority of the intake access trail and penstock alignment to the powerhouse consists of well-drained upland habitats with genetic A and B slopes greater than 20 inches and with slopes less than or equal to 20 percent. In most cases when a wetland was encountered in this area, the transition from the upland sloping hillside to wetland habitat was abrupt. Most wetlands were found in bench depressions along the hillsides. Although these wetlands were found in depressions, the hydrologic driver is thought to be discharge from the surrounding hillsides and they were classified as slope wetlands. Most wetlands were classified as PEM2 with the exception of two PSS2. The wetlands associated with this area had FCI scores in the moderate to high range with high being the most prevalent. A unique hydrologic variable associated with the sloping hillside in the project area was the occurrence of several small first order stream systems. In some cases deep ravines were encountered with running water but did not indicate wetland habitat. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 50 Tailrace and Swimming Pond The transition zone from upland hillside to the area around the Swimming Pond was abrupt but did not produce adequate hydrologic characteristics to support wetland classification. Wetlands that were found in this area were typically depressional and lacustrine fringe wetlands. The majority of the depressional wetlands were classified PSS1 and scored moderate to high FCI scores. Powerhouse Access Road and Power Line The powerhouse access road and power line sections of the project-delineated area were virtually devoid of wetland habitats. Wetlands that were identified were classified as PSS1 and PEM2 and scored moderate to high FCI scores. These wetlands were on the top of the ridgeline, small in overall size, and were typically depressional. Approximately 54.43 acres or 72 percent of the delineated area is classified and mapped as upland habitat; approximately 5.91 acres or 7.78 percent of the delineated area is classified as predominately uplands, but may contain as much as 10 percent wetlands; and approximately 0.89 acres or 1.17 percent of the delineated area is classified as predominately uplands, but may contain as much as 25 percent wetlands. Approximately 10.42 acres or 13.7 percent of the delineated area is wetlands, and approximately 4.27 acres or 5.62 percent of the delineated area is open water. Table E.7 lists the cowardin class and size of the wetlands and the total acres of wetlands found in the delineated area. Table E.7. Wetland Types and Functions in the Delineated Area Wetland Type HGM Function Area (acres) PSS1/PEM2 Depressional 5.14 PSS2/EM2 Slope 0.19 PSS1 Depressional 0.93 PSS1 Slope 0.68 PEM2 Slope 1.31 PEM2 Lacustrine 2.17 Wetland Total 10.42 *The area delineated for wetlands varies slightly from the project impact area. The wetland delineation was completed in 2010. After the geotechnical survey was completed in 2012, the design engineer determined that to make a more feasible project alignment, the alignment should be moved to some areas that were not surveyed for wetlands. The Corps provided a jurisdictional determination for the project area (Corps 2011). Approximately 5.91 acres and 0.89 acres were mapped as U-10 and U-25, respectively. These areas were delineated as including 10 percent wetlands (U-10) and 25 percent wetlands (U-25). Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 51 The Corps confirmed they would calculate project impacts in the U-10 and U-25 areas based on these percentages (Corps 2011a). After the geotechnical survey was completed in 2012, the design engineer determined that at some locations the project should be moved outside the wetland survey area. Another wetlands jurisdictional determination would be needed to determine impacts to wetlands in areas where the project falls outside the previously surveyed area. Wetlands delineation work in areas not previously mapped would occur prior to permitting the project. Management Goals The Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 2008) has the following goals which apply or relate to important wildlife species: Ensure that Kodiak brown bears continue to flourish throughout the refuge and congregate at traditional concentration areas (Goal 2). Manage nonnative species to minimize impacts on native resources, while continuing to provide opportunities for harvest (Goal 3). Continue to improve understanding and management of furbearing and nongame mammals that use Kodiak Refuge (Goal 4). Monitor populations of resident and migratory birds as indicators of ecosystem health (Goal 5). o Includes an objective to periodically monitor of trends in distribution, size, and reproductive success of the r ion of nesting bald eagles. (In addition, nationally, the USFWS Migratory Bird Management Program manages bald eagles with the goal of stable or increasing or breeding populations of U.S. bald eagles.) Maintain and restore native plant populations, communities, and habitats (Goal 6). Environmental Effects Effects on Habitat The project would permanently impact approximately 15.1 acres and temporarily impact 61.2 acres of native habitat that is used by the wildlife species on Kodiak Island. Due to the limited impacts associated with the project and the abundance of undisturbed similar habitat in the vicinity of the project, impacts to terrestrial mammal habitat are considered minimal. Fragmentation of Habitat This project would include an intake access trail, penstock, powerhouse, tailrace, constructed channel, powerhouse access road, and power line. Habitat fragmentation would not occur because animals would be able move through the area without blockage. The trail to the intake Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 52 would have very low traffic volumes because it would be closed to the public and only used for maintenance activities; therefore, it is not expected to impact wildlife habitat use or movements. Most of the penstock would be buried, and only short segments, that would not fragment habitat, would be elevated. The aboveground area of the penstock would not impede wildlife movement or fragment habitat. Effects of Special Habitats Most of the project components would be located within uplands to avoid wetlands. In areas where wetlands are unavoidable, project-component footprints have been minimized to reduce impacts. Wetlands impacts would be temporary and permanent. Temporary impacts would result from construction activities occurring in wetlands, including equipment operation and the temporary storage of stockpile material. Permanent impacts would be due to the filling or dredging of wetlands to place project components. Out of the approximately 12.5 acres of wetlands in the project area, approximately 10.3 acres would be temporary impacted and approximately 2.3 acres of the wetlands would be permanently filled. Impacts would occur in all types of wetlands mapped, with most of the permanent impacts occurring from the placement of the powerhouse and workpad (Appendix E.1, Figure 3 and Table E.8 ). Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 53 Table E.8. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Temporary and Permanent Wetland, Open Water, and Upland Impacts Open Water (acres) Wetland (acres) Uplands with 25% Wetland Inclusions (acres) Uplands with 10% Wetland Inclusions (acres) Project Component Outside Delineated Area (acres) Upland (acres) Total (acres) Total Wetland* (acres) Total Upland (acres) Temporary Impacts (construction) Intake Access Trail and Penstock 0.00 0.88 0.00 1.15 14.94 14.40 31.37 4.73 26.64 Intake and Workpad 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.09 1.40 0.34 1.87 0.40 1.47 Penstock 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.27 1.02 0.00 2.29 0.38 1.91 Power Line and Access Road 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 13.46 6.08 19.87 3.70 16.18 Powerhouse and Workpad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.28 0.58 1.26 0.11 1.15 Tailrace 0.00 0.04 0.59 0.00 0.03 1.13 1.79 0.20 1.60 Enhanced Channel 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.16 1.91 2.78 Temporary Impact Total 0.04 1.96 0.59 2.91 31.29 24.44 61.23 10.26 50.97 Permanent Impacts Intake Access Trail and Penstock 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.18 2.11 3.91 6.50 0.85 5.65 Intake and Workpad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.11 0.01 0.10 Penstock 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.26 0.00 0.41 0.08 0.33 Power Line and Access Road 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 3.96 2.68 6.71 1.06 5.65 Powerhouse and Workpad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.04 0.31 0.62 0.04 0.58 Tailrace 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.23 0.03 0.20 Enhanced Channel 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.33 0.51 Permanent Impact Total 0.00 0.54 0.13 0.63 6.39 7.40 15.09 2.23 12.86 Temporary and Permanent Impact Total 0.04 2.50 0.72 3.54 37.68 31.84 76.32 12.49 63.83 * Uplands with 25% Wetland Inclusions and Uplands with 10% Wetland Inclusions. These areas were delineated as including 25 percent wetlands (U-25) and 10 percent wetlands (U-10); therefore, impacts to wetlands are the total area decreased by 75 or 90 percent. Project Component Outside Delineated Area. Some project components are sited outside the wetland delineated areas. It is assumed that 25 percent of these areas are wetlands. Therefore, impacts to wetlands are the total area decreased by 75 percent. Total wetlands are calculated using the sum of 100 percent of open water acreage, 100 percent of wetlands acreage, 25 percent of U-25 acreage, 10 percent of U-10 acreage, and 25 percent of outside delineated area acreage. This calculation assumes that 25 percent of the area that has not been delineated is wetlands. Total uplands are calculated using the sum of 100 percent of upland acreage and 75 percent of outside delineated area acreage. As previously mentioned, in some areas project components were sited outside the wetland delineation survey area based the geotechnical analysis. The move was needed to provide a more feasible project. Project components outside the wetlands delineation area include about 31.3 acres of temporary impacts and 6.4 acres of permanent impact. It is expected that about 25 percent of the area that has not been delineated is wetland; therefore, about 7.8 additional Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 54 acres of temporary impacts and 1.6 acres of permanent impacts could be within wetlands. Another wetlands jurisdictional determination would be completed prior to submitting the wetland permit for the project to more specifically determine impacts to wetlands in areas where the project falls outside the previously delineated area. The previous Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-11690-006; AVEC 1998a) was issued approval to fill in wetlands by the Corps under Nationwide permits numbers 18 (for the intake), 12 (for the penstock and power line), 14 (for the access trail), and 7 (for the tailrace). AVEC would work with the Corps to determine the best permitting mechanism to permit this project. It is likely that during the Corps permitting process for this project, fee-in-lieu compensatory mitigation would be negotiated, and that AVEC would be required to provide a fee to The Conservation Fund or to another in-lieu-fee service sponsor for unavoidable impacts to wetlands. Effects on Special Status Species The project could impact rare plant species. Disturbance associated with the project could permanently destroy rare plants; although because the density of these species has not been determined, exact numbers of species impacted is unknown. The rare plants that likely occur in the project area also most likely occur outside the project area. Botanist Stacy Studebaker, who performed onsite plant survey in the project area, is not concerned about the impact this hydroelectric project may have on rare plants because there are large tracts of similar habitat outside the project footprint where the same rare plants likely occur (Studebaker 2013). The proposed project would not have significant effects on rare plants. According to the USFWS National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, activities should be kept as far away from nest trees as possible; loud and disruptive activities should be conducted when eagles are not nesting; and activities between the nest and the nearest foraging area should be minimized (USFWS 2007). These guidelines recommend a separation of 660 feet between the construction of roads, power lines, and linear utilities and an active nest. The project impacts to bald eagles in the project area would be minimal. Both nests observed during 2010 surveys are well beyond the recommended separation distance between construction activities and nests. The closest nest was 1,900 feet away from the project area. The on-site environmental compliance officer would watch for newly established nests and nests that were not found during earlier survey. If new nests were found, the location would be reported immediately to USFWS. If an active nest is found, blasting within 0.5 mile and all other work within 660 feet of the nest should be postponed until after coordination with USFWS. Impacts to ESA species are described in Section E.3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species. Effects on Wildlife Feeding, Reproduction, and Migration Because of the small area that would be impacted, the vehicular access limitations on the intake access trail within the refuge, and the ample undeveloped habitat available outside the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 55 project area, this project would result in minimal impacts to wildlife feeding, reproduction, and migration requirements. Effects of Project Operation on Reservoir and Downstream Habitats and Populations A reservoir is not associated with this project or located in the project area. This project could result in an increase in salmon use of Lagoon Creek Tributary, which would provide additional food sources for important wildlife such as bears. Effects of Maintenance Activities Maintenance activities would have minimal impacts to terrestrial wildlife and their habitat. Noise from ATVs and helicopters could impact some species and may cause wildlife to move away from the project area. Because the project area does not include special or limited habitat, wildlife movement is a minor issue. Maintenance work could increase the opportunities for human-bear encounters and bears could be harmed if humans are forced to kill the animals to protect themselves. AVEC would work with Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and ADF&D to develop protocols to minimize bear encounters. Power line Collisions and Canal Entrapment The approximately 6,550 feet of aboveground power line between the powerhouse and the community has the potential to be a risk to birds, including bald eagles and other migratory birds. AVEC would install bird diverter devises as recommended by USFWS to deter bird collisions with the power line. This project would not create a canal; therefore, canal entrapment is not an issue. Potential for Wildlife Disturbance from Construction and Recreational Activities Disturbances to terrestrial wildlife would likely result from noise associated with project construction such as the use of helicopters to transfer supplies, the use of heavy machinery during construction, and the increased use of the powerhouse access road after construction. It is likely that short-term construction noise and associated human activities would displace species that are sensitive to such disturbances, such as brown bear and deer. Disturbances associated with construction would last one construction season. Given the abundance of similar habitat in the vicinity of the project, the disturbances associated with this project are minimal. It is likely that recreational activity, mainly ATV use, could increase along the powerhouse access road and at the area near Swimming Pond. Natural areas could be harmed if there is off road travel; however, it is expected that ATVs would stay on the road because of the ease of travel. It is likely that pioneered trails used currently for access to Swimming Lake would not be used and that upland and wetland areas harmed by ATV travel would recover. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 56 ATV noise could increase as more residents travel the powerhouse access road and could cause wildlife to move away from the powerhouse and powerhouse road area. More use of Swimming Pond could cause bank erosion and could degrade wildlife habitat; although Swimming Pond area is not currently a pristine environment. Because public access would be limited on the intake access trail, recreational impacts to terrestrial resources would be minimal within the refuge. Spread of Invasive Species and Need for Control Measures Project construction would result in impacts to approximately 15.1 acres of upland and wetland vegetation. Bare ground has the potential to be established by nonnative plants. To decrease this potential, all disturbed areas would be re-seeded with a native seed mix recommended by the USFWS. Effects on Agency Management Goals and Guidelines The proposed project would not have significant effects on wildlife or fishery resources on the refuge. The project would not impact Kodiak brown bears to the extent that species would not flourish or congregate at traditional concentration areas (Goal 2). Bears could be impacted by noise from construction activities and ATV (or minimal helicopter) use associated with maintenance activities, but it is unlikely that these activities would decrease population numbers or cause the species to move away permanently. Nonnative plant species could be brought into the project area and refuge (Goal 3) via construction equipment and ATV use; however, bare ground along project components would be revegetated as quickly as possible with a native seed mix to prevent invasive species from establishing. The project would not impact the understanding and management of furbearing and nongame mammals that use the refuge (Goal 4); however, the intake access trail could be used by refuge scientist to get farther into the refuge to study these species. Although the project would not assist in monitoring resident or migratory birds (Goal 5), the studies conducted for the project have provided information on birds (Solstice 2010; Eskelin 1998a). The project would be located at least . The project would clear and fill native plant populations, communities, and habitats (Goal 6); however, disturbed areas would be revegetated with native plant species common to the area. Description of Protection, Mitigation, or Enhancement Measures The following measures would be implemented to protect, enhance, or mitigate impacts to terrestrial resources: Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 57 A SWPPP that would minimize erosion due to construction activities would be developed prior to commencement of any construction activities. The selected contractor would be required to implement the SWPPP. Best Management Practices would be implemented to decrease erosion and sedimentation during construction activities. The USFWS timing windows for avoiding disturbance during the bird nesting season would be applied wherever possible for ground clearing and vegetation removal in previously undisturbed areas. This timing window is to avoid removal or abandonment of nests and thereby avoid violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Preliminary work along the corridors can be done before the timing window has started to dissuade birds from nesting in these areas. Vegetative clearing would be avoided in forest or woodland habitat (i.e. trees present) from April 15-July 15 and in shrub or open habitat (i.e. shrub cover or marsh pond, tundra, gravel, or other treeless/shrubless ground habitat) from May 1-July 15. A bald eagle nest survey has been completed. No project components are planned s (2,640 feet) of an active nest. The on-site environmental compliance monitor would watch for newly established nests and nests that may not have been found during earlier survey. If new nests are found, the location would immediately be reported to USFWS. If an active nest is found, blasting within 0.5 miles and all other work within 660 feet of the nest would be postponed until after coordination with USFWS. If blasting is required within 0.5 miles of an eagle nest, blasting would take place in winter (November- January), well before/after the breeding season according to the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. Bird diverters would be installed on the power line and guy wires to prevent bird strikes. Power poles would be outfitted with perch posts designed to prevent bird electrocution. AVEC would work with Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and ADF&G to develop protocols to minimize bear encounters during construction and maintenance activities. To minimize disturbance, public motor-vehicle access into the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge via the intake access trail would be blocked. An invasive species prevention plan would be developed prior to commencement of any construction activities. These measures would benefit terrestrial resources. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 58 E.3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species Effected Environment USFWS-Managed Species According to an April 5, 2010, email from USFWS, two ESA-listed species are known to occur in the (Polysticta stelleri), listed as threatened under the ESA, (Brachyramphus brevirostris), listed as a candidate species under the ESA (USFWS 2010b). In addition, USFWS lists the marine water area around Kodiak Island as having the southwest distinct population of the Northern sea otter (Enhyra lutris kenyoni), which is listed as endangered under the ESA (USFWS 2010c). eider winter in the shallow marine waters around Kodiak Island between about November and April; however, critical habitat for the species is not mapped near Kodiak Island. The birds nest shallow eelgrass habitats along the eastern side of Kodiak Island has decreased from an average of about 4,000 birds in 2001 to about 2,700 in 2010 (Corcoran, et. al. 2010). : the world population was recently estimated to be less than 20,000 birds and its surveyed population in Alaska has declined substantially over the last 20 years. This trend has prompted the USFWS to designate nesting on scree and talus slopes at about 2,950 feet elevation within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS 2011). Since then many active nests have been studied within the refuge. Northern sea otters are found around the coastline of Kodiak Island. The predominately soft sediment habitats of the area support populations of clams which are the primary (35 to 100 percent) prey of sea otters. Between 1994 and 2001 the population of sea otters around Kodiak Island declined by 40 percent; however, between 2001 and 2004, the population grew from approximately 5,800 to 11,000. It remains unclear why the population has not expanded more around Kodiak (USFWS 2010c). NOAA Fisheries-Managed Species A review of the current list of endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species in Alaska illustrates that the ocean area around Old Harbor provides habitat for the fin whale, humpback whale, sperm whale, blue whale, North Pacific right whale, and the sei whale, which are listed as endangered; the Steller sea lion, which is listed as threatened; and the ringed seal (Arctic subspecies) and the bearded seal (Beringia Distinct Population Segment), which are proposed for listing (USFWS 2010a). Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 59 Environmental Effects No winter bird surveys were conducted for this project; however, eiders would be impacted by the project. All project components would be located at least 0.25 miles from the Old Harbor saltwater lagoon and at least 0.75 miles from the ocean where er. In June 1998, a bird survey was conducted focusing on determining the presence of marbled 1998 and 1998a). he vicinity of the current project and used the same intake site. Figure 2 (Appendix E.1) shows the location of the previous alignment . The study found no evidence of murrelets using the project area and stated that the project did not reach an elevation or habitat type that is on the previous can be used for this project. The current Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project would not be located The USFWS indicates that elevated power lines may be a concern for collision or electrocution ets, as well as for eagles and other migratory birds (USFWS 2008). As requested by USFWS, AVEC would mark the project power line and guy wires with bird diverter devices. The Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project would not impact northern sea otters. All project components would be located at least 0.75 miles from the ocean. Further, the water that would be discharged from the tailrace would flow into Lagoon Creek Tributary, Lagoon Creek, and a salt lagoon rather than directly into the ocean. According to local residents, sea otters are not seen around Old Harbor. Community members typically travel approximately 60 miles south to find sea otters for subsistence harvest (City of Old Harbor 2011). Based on the information above, the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project would not likely affect or northern sea otters. On September 14, 2011, AVEC sent murrelets and northern sea otters (Appendix E.2). On January 20, 2012, USFWS concurred with the finding that the project is not likely to adversely affect ESA species and critical habitat. This project would not likely affect any ESA listed species managed by NOAA Fisheries. None of the project components would be constructed in or near marine habitat. Further, the water that would be discharged from the tailrace would flow into Lagoon Creek, which flows to the salt lagoon rather than directly to the ocean. On September 14, 2011, AVEC sent a letter to jurisdiction (Appendix E.2). On February 27, 2013, NOAA Fisheries stated that with an action ,ncurrence is not required. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 60 Description of Protection, Mitigation, or Enhancement Measures The following conservation measures would be implemented to protect, enhance, or mitigate impacts to threatened and endangered species: Bird diverters would be installed on the power line and guy wires to prevent strikes. E.3.3.5 Recreation and Land Use Affected Environment The project area is approximately 3.5 miles long and crosses through approximately 1.85 acres of land within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), approximately 5.89 acres of Old Harbor Native Corporation land that is subject to a conservation easement administered by the USFWS, approximately 3.24 acres of Old Harbor Native Corporation land that is subject to a conservation easement administered by the USFWS and the State of Alaska, approximately 2.90 acres of Old Harbor Corporation land, and approximately 1.21 acres of land within the City of Old Harbor. AVEC would be required to submit a right-of-way application to USFWS under the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA) Title XI and obtain approval of an amendment to the conservation easement from the USFWS. AVEC would be required to request that the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council (EVOS) change the terms of the Kodiak National Wildlife funds for purchase of lands in fee simple and a conservation easement in the project area. Generally, terms of these agreements preclude development of these lands. However, as Resolution 11-08 stipulates (see Appendix E.2), EVOS supports an amendment to permit the construction, operation and maintenance of a hydroelectric project upon completion of certain conditions, such as FERC project approval and licensing, various state agency approval, and execution of appropriate documentation. All of the submerged lands beneath non-navigable waterbodies in the project area are owned by their adjacent upland owner; therefore, Mountain Creek is owned by the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and Swimming Pond and Lagoon Creek Tributary are owned by the Old Harbor Native Corporation. Land ownership is shown on Figure 2 (Appendix E.1) and in Exhibit G of this license application. Most of the project area is undeveloped and used mainly by local residents for hiking, ATV excursions, and other forms of recreation. Land in the project area is used occasionally for subsistence harvest of berries, fish, deer, goat, and bear. Visitors occasionally use the project area for hunting, sport fishing, sightseeing, and camping. City-owned land is open to the public. Access to Old Harbor Native Corporation land is restricted by the corporation. Visitors wishing to hunt, sport fish, sightsee, or camp on Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 61 corporation land must first apply, meet the terms of the application, and pay a fee to the corporation. Old Harbor Native Corporation Land held in conservation easement is administered by the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. Accessing Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge land from Old Harbor requires crossing Old Harbor Native Corporation lands. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge lands, including those with the conservation easement, are open to the public. The refuge encourages activities that include, but are not limited to, traditional activities such as subsistence; hunting, fishing, and trapping; camping, hiking, picnicking; sightseeing, nature observations and photography, and other related activities on refuge lands. Hydropower development is not an approved use of the refuge conservation easement. A compatibility determination would be required for a hydroelectric project. The refuge may permit hydropower development provided it does not significantly interfere with, or detract from, the purposes for which the refuge was established. The lower portion of the project, located on city-owned land, has existing access into the valley via the existing road that leads to the c project area is currently informal through trails established by Old Harbor residents. The mid reaches of the project, located on Old Harbor Native Corporation Land and easement land, are accessible via a braided ATV trail that leads up to Swimming Pond. This trail narrows as it steep terrain northeast of the intake. An old and lightly used footpath/ATV trail branches off this trail and heads onto Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge land travelling toward Barling Bay. There is no established access in the upper reaches of the project area within Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge near the intake. The project area is used for recreation. According to locals, subsistence activities are not common in the project area (City of Old Harbor 2011a). Environmental Effects A real property interest (right of way) must be acquired for the entire project area that includes city, corporation, conservation easement, and refuge lands. The city and corporation have been partners in this project and have stated that they will approve project rights of way on their lands. Because hydropower development is not an approved use of the conservation easement, AVEC would work with the USFWS to establish a project right of way. AVEC would comply with ANILCA Title XI to obtain project right of way across Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge lands. AVEC would also be required to request that the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council . The project would improve access between the existing water tower and Swimming Pond by providing a public road to the powerhouse. Access to the intake access trail above the powerhouse would be limited to AVEC maintenance crews and public foot access. Signage would be placed at the powerhouse explaining ATV use restrictions within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and the Old Harbor Native Corporation land held in a conservation easement. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 62 It is expected that construction of the project would cause an increase in ATV traffic to Swimming Pond. Recreational activities and land use for subsistence activities would likely increase in the lower project area with the improved access. The project would improve habitat along the existing ATV trail to Swimming Pond as traffic would flow to the new powerhouse access road. The new road would be in better condition, and easier to use, than the existing trail. The good condition of the powerhouse access road would encourage users to stay on the road. The existing ATV trail in the project corridor is heavily rutted, braids across wet terrain, and has two in-stream crossings of Lagoon Creek. Allowing ATV traffic to utilize the new access road to the powerhouse would eliminate these in- stream crossings and prevent further braiding of the trail, which is damaging to wetland complexes associate with the Lagoon Creek drainage. Above the powerhouse, gates would prevent ATV access to the project area. Areas along the new powerhouse access road may experience more disturbances from ATV use. Increased use of the new road would likely increase disturbance to native vegetation, wetlands, and animals in the vicinity of the new road. Description of Protection, Mitigation, or Enhancement Measures The following conservation measures would be implemented to protect, enhance, or mitigate impacts to recreation and land use: Gates would be installed across the access road near the powerhouse and near where an existing trail connects to the new intake access trail to prevent unauthorized motorized access into the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and conservation lands. The upper gate makes use of topography and vegetation to ensure that ATVs cannot drive around the gate. USFWS would be consulted on the final design and placement of the gates to ensure that the gates keep ATV and other vehicle traffic out of the conservation land and the refuge. Signs would be placed at the powerhouse to inform the public about public access on Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and Old Harbor Native Corporation lands held in a conservation easement. E.3.3.6 Cultural Resources Affected Environment Research shows that 7,500 years ago maritime-oriented hunter/gatherers lived along the Kodiak Archipelago. Over the last 65 years archaeologists have been locating, mapping, and excavating both historic and prehistoric sites around the archipelago. The region's cultural resources sites are characterized by remarkable preservation, a reflection of the region's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 63 persistently cool, wet climate. Goal 13 of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan articulates the need to conserve cultural and archaeological resources of the refuge (USFWS 2008). The p area of potential effect (APE) includes all project components and a 100-foot buffer around them. Project components include the intake footprint, intake access trail, penstock, powerhouse footprint, power line, tailrace, and clearing limits. There are no properties located within the APE that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Previous cultural resource studies performed near the project area have not revealed any cultural resources within study boundaries. Previous studies have identified four known cultural resources near the project vicinity. The closest site is approximately 0.3 miles from the project. In 1997, the Alutiiq Museum and Archaeological Repository preformed a reconnaissance level investigation did not uncover any sites within the previous project boundaries. In 2009, Northern Land Use Research, Inc. (NLUR) conducted a cultural resource survey of proposed area was located 140 feet from the proposed project APE. The investigation did not uncover any sites within the previous project boundaries. Between August 18 and August 20, 2010, archaeologists with NLUR conducted a pedestrian survey of the project APE. No cultural resources were noted or discovered within the project APE. NLUR states that it is unlikely that the project would impact cultural resources or historic properties. The project area generally represents a low probability for the discovery of archaeological sites. NLUR concludes that there is no reason to believe that the proposed development within the p 2010). Environmental Effects AVEC found that the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project would have no effect on cultural or historic resources and sent a findings letter to SHPO on September 14, 2011. SHPO concurred with this finding stating o historic properties affected on September 21, 2011. Should indications of potentially significant cultural resources be encountered during project activities, all work in that area would cease until the discovery is fully evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and the Alaska SHPO regional archeologist are notified. In the event that human remains or other indications of burials are found on federal or tribal lands during ground-disturbing activities, the protocol established under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act would be followed. Immediate steps would be taken to secure and protect the human remains and cultural items, including stabilization or covering, as appropriate. The project manager would immediately notify the SHPO, Village of Old Harbor, Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 64 USFWS regional archeologist, and the Division of Alaska State Troopers. Contact information for these entities is listed in Table E.9. Table E.9. Contacts in Case of Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains SHPO Native American Contact USFWS Regional Archeologist Division of Alaska State Troopers Judith Bittner State Historic Preservation Officer Alaska Department of Natural Resources Office of History and Archaeology 550 West 7th Ave., Suite 1310 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Phone: (907) 269-8721 Village of Old Harbor P.O. Box 62 Old Harbor, Alaska 99643 Phone: (907) 286-2215 Fax: (907) 286-2277 Email: ohtribal@hotmail.com Debbie Corbett Regional Archaeologist U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road MS-235 Anchorage, AK, 99503 Phone: (907)786-3399 Fax: (907)786-3976 email: debbie_corbett@fws.gov Human Remains Related Contact: Phone: (907)269-5643 Fax: (907)338-7243 Description of Protection, Mitigation, or Enhancement Measures The following conservation measures would be implemented to protect, enhance, or mitigate impacts to cultural resources: Project facilities would be placed to avoid disturbance to archeological sites. (There are no known sites in the project area.) E.3.3.7 Aesthetic Resources Aesthetic resources are not an issue for the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project. E.3.3.8 Socioeconomics Affected Environment The primary socioeconomic impact area of the project is Old Harbor. Old Harbor is an isolated village, accessible only by boat and plane. The village has an Alutiiq heritage and subsistence lifestyle combined with Russian and modern American influences. Residents rely on the land and sea for food; residents harvest and share salmon, halibut, crab, deer, seal, rabbit, and bear. Population The population of Old Harbor has decreased over the past twenty years12. In 1990, the population was 284, in 2000 it was 237 and, according to the 2010 U.S. Census, the population is 218. About 87.6 percent of the current population is American Indian and Alaska Native (191 residents), 11.0 percent is white (24 residents), and 1.4 percent is two or more races (3 residents). About 56 percent of the population is male (123 residents) and 43.6 percent is female (95 residents). Approximately 75 percent of the population is age 16 and over (163 residents). 12 Residents point to the high cost of power as a major reason people leave the community. This project could help stabilize the population. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 65 Economy The economy of Old Harbor is based primarily on government jobs, commercial fishing, and hunting and fishing guiding. The U.S. Ce -2009 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates that 77 percent of the residents over age 16 are in the workforce (111 residents). The leading sectors of employment in Old Harbor are found in Table.E.10. Table E.10. Leading Employment Sectors in Old Harbor Sector Number Employed Percent of Workforce Employed Government Workers City, Borough, State, Federal 46 60.5% Private Wage & Salary Workers 17 22.4% Self-Employed Workers (in own not incorporated business) 4 5.3% Unpaid Family Workers 4 5.3% Between 2005 and 2009 the ACS survey estimated the local unemployment rate at 31.5 percent (35 residents), the average median household income at $22,813, and the per capita income at $10,910. In that time period, about 39.9 percent of all residents had incomes below the poverty level (87 residents) (DCCED 2011). Public Services All residences in Old Harbor are connected to a public water and sewer system and have complete plumbing. The village has an unpermitted landfill, a public school with a library and gym, a community health clinic, a village public safety officer, and a senior center. Power costs in Old Harbor are very high and limit the hours of operation of public facilities like the senior center. Environmental Effects The Old Harbor Hydroelectric project would provide multiple benefits to the socio-economic environment of Old Harbor by employing local residents and providing affordable power to local consumers and industrial users. In the short term, the project would have a positive economic impact due to the availability of jobs during the construction of the project, including construction and bear guard positions. There may be additional economic opportunities such as ATV and lodging rentals and the purchase of local goods by construction workers. In the long term the project would improve socioeconomic opportunities by providing power that is stably priced. Stabilized power costs would allow for improved operation of existing public services. For example, existing facilities could be open for longer and facilities that do not currently have power, like the boat harbor and the airport, could be connected to the grid. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 66 New business could be established. For example, the Old Harbor Native Corporation would like to build and operate a fish processing plant. Operation of this project would create the power necessary to operate the plant. Being able to process fish locally would provide jobs and increase the amount of fishing revenue that stays in Old Harbor. Project Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures As no adverse project effects on socio-economic resources have been identified, AVEC is proposing no new environmental measures relative to socio-economic resources. In its continued efforts to provide reliable electric supply to its customers, AVEC proposes to continue the cost-effective operations that have historically benefited rate payers, and would continue to do so during the proposed license period. Local hire would be used as much as possible during the construction of the project. Environmental Justice Approximately 88 percent of the Old Harbor population is minority, most of them Alaska Natives -minorities is higher than the rest of the Kodiak Island Borough and the State of Alaska. Table E.11 shows the population demographics of the State of Alaska, the Kodiak Island Borough, and Old Harbor. Table E.11. Old Harbor Demographics Percent of Total Population Total Pop White Alaska Native or American Indian Black or African American Asian Pacific Islander Other Two or More Races Minority Alaska 710,231 66.7 14.8 3.3 5.4 1 - 7.3 33.3 Kodiak Island Borough 13,592 55.3 13.2 .7 19.6 .6 2.9 7.6 44.7 Old Harbor 218 11.0 87.6 0 0 0 0 1.4 89 Source: U.S. Census Bureau's 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. The median household income in Old Harbor is $22,813. About 40 percent of residents live below the poverty level. The median household income is lower than the rest of the Kodiak Island Borough and the State of Alaska, and the percentage of residents living below the poverty level is higher than the rest of the Kodiak Island Borough and the State of Alaska. Table E.12 shows the median household income and the percentage of people living below poverty in the State of Alaska, the Kodiak Island Borough, and Old Harbor. Table E.12. Old Harbor Income and Poverty Levels Location Median Household Percent Living Below the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 67 Income Poverty Level Alaska $66,712 9.1% Kodiak Island Borough $59,655 10.6 Old Harbor $22,813 39.9 Source: U.S. Census Bureau's 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Although there are minority and low-income populations in Old Harbor, there are no adverse human health or environmental effects associated with the project. The project would benefit the community by stabilizing the cost of power for residents. Description of Protection, Mitigation, or Enhancement Measures The following conservation measure would be implemented to protect, enhance, or mitigate impacts to socioeconomic resources: Local labor would be used for construction and maintenance activities. E.3.4 No-Action Alternative Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be constructed and power would continue to be produced solely by diesel generators. There would be no changes to the physical, biological, or cultural resources of the area and electrical generation from the project would not occur. The power that would have been developed from a renewable resource would have to be replaced from nonrenewable fuels. The noise and air quality impacts associated with the existing diesel generator system would continue and could increase as electrical demand increases. The benefits in terms of stabilized cost of power to the residents of Old Harbor would not be realized. The cost of electricity would continue to be tied to the cost of oil, and it is likely that the price of diesel would rise dramatically in the future. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 68 E.4.0 Developmental Analysis E.4.1 Power and Economic Benefits of the Project The total energy demand in Old Harbor in 2012 was approximately 899,000 kWh with a peak demand of 147 kW. The Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project would meet this demand by producing an estimated average annual generation of 3,520,000 kWh (77 percent capacity). (The project would be constructed initially with one turbine and generate an average of 2,300,000 kWh until demand warrants an additional turbine.) During periods of low flows, or excess demand, the project would be augmented by the existing diesel generating facility. The estimated capital costs associated with developing the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project at 50 percent capacity is approximately $8,155,000. This cost includes labor, equipment, and shipping of all components of the project, contingencies, engineering, inspections, and financing. Approximately 90% of the project construction cost would be funded by grants and the remaining funds could be financed at AVEC's bonding rate of 3% over a 50 year term. Annual operation and maintenance cost for the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project, including the diesel related costs, would be approximately $267,000. The hydro-production related costs will be $95,703. Labor associated with operating the hydroelectric facility is accounted for in the existing diesel non-fuel category by partial reduction of daily checks and other maintenance. Project operation and maintenance costs are detailed in Table E.14. Operation and maintenance costs will be funded through power sales to the community. Table E.13. Estimated Annual O&M Costs Estimated Costs Fixed O&M ($0.151/kWh estimated) $135,583 Diesel production related O&M $35,688 Hydro production related O&M $95,703 Combined Hydro and Diesel Annual Operational Cost $266,974 Based on Institute for Social and Economic Research projected fuel costs and modeling, the project will save about $455,415 during its first year of operation (2017). These savings will come from displacing about 60,000 gallons of fuel for electricity and 34,000 gallons of fuel for heat. Over the life of the project, 50 years, the projected savings has a present value of $14.2 million. The Project would pay for itself in about 20 years. E.4.2 Comparison of Alternatives Under the No-action Alternative, no hydroelectric project would be constructed. Currently, the diesel power plant in Old Harbor produces an approximately 835,000kWh of electricity annually. Based on the Alaska Energy Authority Power Cost Equalization Report, the average annual cost of producing this power is $216,444 ($0.26kWH sold) labor and non-labor. The proposed alternative (Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project) would be capable of producing 3,520,000 kWh Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 69 (full capacity). The average annual cost of producing this power would be $ approximately $267,000, including diesel costs. E.4.3 Cost of Environmental Measures Table E.16 gives the cost of the environmental mitigation and enhancement measures for the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Table E.14. Cost of Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Measures Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity Cost All Resources A qualified environmental compliance monitor (ECM) would be employed during project construction. USFWS and ADF&G $90,000 Geological and Soil Resources The project would be sited and designed to minimize erosion and geologic hazards. AVEC- recommended $0 To minimize erosion due to traffic, motor vehicle use of the intake access trail would be limited to authorized vehicles only. USFWS $0 Overburden and soil from excavations would be piled neatly outside wetlands (where feasible) and in such a way as to prevent erosion. The excess soil piles would be revegetated with native seed mix recommended by the USFWS. AVEC- recommended $10,000 Disturbed areas would be revegetated with a native seed mix recommended by the USFWS. AVEC- recommended $10,000 Aquatic Resources No dam would be constructed. AVEC- recommended $0 Fish passage would be maintained in Lagoon Creek Tributary. AVEC- recommended $0 Large woody debris would be maintained along Lagoon Creek Tributary wherever possible. AVEC- recommended $0 After channel construction, the banks of Lagoon Creek Tributary would be revegetated with native AVEC- recommended $24,000 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 70 plants and large and small woody debris from areas cleared during construction. Enhancement construction of the 1,100-foot-long ephemeral section of the Lagoon Creek Tributary channel from Swimming Pond would occur during w AVEC- recommended $0 Terrestrial Resources A SWPPP to minimize erosion from construction activities would be developed prior to commencement of any construction activities. The selected contractor would be required to implement the SWPPP. USFWS $11,400 Best Management Practices would be implemented to decrease erosion and sedimentation during construction activities. USFWS $10,000 The USFWS timing windows for avoiding disturbance during the bird nesting season would be applied wherever possible for ground clearing and vegetation removal in previously undisturbed areas. USFWS $0 The on-site ECM would watch and report newly established bald eagle nests to the USFWS. If an active nest is found, blasting within 0.5 miles and all other work within 660 feet of the nest would be postponed until after coordination with USFWS. If blasting is required within 0.5 miles of an eagle nest, blasting would take place in winter (November-January), well before/after the breeding season according to the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. USFWS $0, included in ECM cost Bird diverters would be installed on the power line and guy wires to prevent bird strikes. USFWS $10,000 Power poles would be outfitted with perch posts designed to prevent bird electrocution. USFWS $5,000 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 71 AVEC would work with Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and ADF&G to develop protocols to minimize bear encounters during construction and maintenance activities. AVEC- recommended $5,000 To minimize disturbance, public motor vehicle access into the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge via the intake access trail would be blocked. USFWS $0 An invasive species prevention plan would be developed prior to commencement of any construction activities. USFWS $5,000 Threatened and Endangered Species Bird diverters would be installed on the power line and guy wires to prevent strikes. USFWS Listed above Recreation and Land Use Gates would be installed across the access road near the powerhouse and near where an existing trail connects to the new intake access trail to prevent unauthorized motorized access into the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and conservation lands. USFWS $14,000 Signs would be placed at the powerhouse to inform the public about public access on Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and Old Harbor Native Corporation lands held in a conservation easement. USFWS $3,000 Cultural Resources Project facilities would be placed to avoid disturbance to archeological sites. AVEC- recommended $0 Socioeconomic Resources Local labor would be used for construction and maintenance activities. AVEC- recommended $0, included in project costs Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 72 E.4.4 Air Quality The project area meets all state and national ambient air quality standards and is not designated under a state or national area designation. Because this project would not involve construction of a dam or reservoir, project impacts to air quality would be minimal. Air quality was not brought up as an issue during scoping for this project. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 73 E.5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations E.5.1 Comparison of Alternatives Two alternatives are considered for this project: the proposed action and the no-action alternative. The annual generation would be 3,520,000 kWh for the proposed action (constructed initially with one turbine to generate an average of 2,300,000 kWh until demand warrants an additional turbine) and 810,000 kWh of electricity annually for the no-action alternative. The environmental effects of the different alternatives follow. Geologic and Soil Resources Approximately 61.2 acres would be temporarily disturbed and an additional 15.1 acres would be permanently disturbed by the project. Erosion could occur during construction activities; however, Best Management Practices would be employed to minimize these impacts. The roads would be designed and constructed to minimize erosion and mass wasting potential. Disturbed areas would be restored and revegetated with native plants. Under the no-action alternative, no geologic or soil resources would be affected. Aquatic Resources Water rights for the project would be obtained from the State of Alaska. Water quality could be impacted in Mountain Creek, Swimming Pond, and Lagoon Creek Tributary due to sedimentation during construction and temperature and flow changes during operation. Resident fish in Swimming Pond could be impacted by in-water construction work and by water temperature changes during operation. Salmon and EFH in Lagoon Creek Tributary could be impacted by enhancement of the existing Lagoon Creek Tributary channel from Swimming Pond and by increase flow. Conservation measures would decrease effects on EFH. Under the no-action alternative, aquatic resources would not be affected. Terrestrial Resources Approximately 1.3 acres of wetlands would permanently impacted by the project. Travel to the intake for construction and maintenance activities would increase noise and disturbance of bears and other wildlife species. Bird diverters would be placed on the power line and its guy wires to help birds avoid collisions. Under the no-action alternative, terrestrial resources would not be affected. Threatened and Endangered Species No listed species would be affected by this project. Under the no-action alternative, no threatened or endangered species would be affected. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 74 Recreation and Land Use The project would occupy approximately 1.85 acres of land within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), approximately 5.89 acres of Old Harbor Native Corporation land that is subject to a conservation easement administered by the USFWS, approximately 3.24 acres of Old Harbor Native Corporation land that is subject to a conservation easement administered by the USFWS and the State of Alaska, approximately 2.90 acres of Old Harbor Corporation land, and approximately 1.21 acres of land within the City of Old Harbor. AVEC would be required to submit a right-of-way application to USFWS under ANILCA Title XI. AVEC would be required to request that the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council change the (See Resolution 11-08; Appendix E.2). AVEC would need a right-of-way easement from Old Harbor Native Corporation and the City of Old Harbor. Recreation activities would increase in the area along the access road to the powerhouse. Access on the intake access trail would be limited to AVEC maintenance activities and public foot access. Under the no-action alternative, recreation and land use would not change. Trails on the conservation lands and into the refuge would continue to be used. Trails that cross anadromous streams and wetlands near Lagoon Creek and Swimming Pond would continue to be impacted. Cultural Resources No archeological or cultural resource would be affected by the project. Under the no-action alternative, no archeological or cultural resources would be affected. Socioeconomics In the short term, the project would provide construction-related jobs in the community. In the long term, power costs would be stabilized allowing for improved operation of existing public services and the creation of new businesses and jobs. Under the no-action alternative, the cost of power in Old Harbor would continue to rise. Economic opportunities, including new businesses, would remain undeveloped because of the high cost of power. The high cost of powering existing public facilities would continue to be a burden on the community. E.5.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Sediment could enter Mountain Creek, Swimming Pond, and Lagoon Creek Tributary as a result of construction of the project, even with implementation of erosion control measures, resulting in short-term impacts to resident fish in Swimming Pond and resident fish and salmon in Lagoon Creek Tributary. Temperatures may decrease in Swimming Pond primarily in summer months. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 75 About 15.1 acres of natural areas could be permanently lost, including 2.2 acres of wetlands. The project could also result in minor increases in heavy equipment traffic and noise during construction. ATV use along the access road to the powerhouse could increase after the project is constructed. E.5.3 Summary of Section 10(j) Recommendations and 4(e) Conditions As of March 2013, no 4(e) conditions have been provided. Recommendations of fish and wildlife agencies are included in Section E.5.4, Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. E.5.4 Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies USFWS, has made project recommendations. These recommendations are detailed in Section E.5.4.1, Conditions. In addition, ADF&G recommended during an agency meeting that a qualified environmental compliance monitor be employed during project construction. AVEC has agreed to this recommendation. E.5.4.1 During project meetings, USFWS suggested that gates be installed across the access road to keep ATVs and other public vehicles out of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. USFWS also requested installation of signs at the powerhouse explaining public use restrictions within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and the Old Harbor Native Corporation land held in a conservation easement. The USFWS requested that bird diverters be installed on power lines and guy wires to help avoid bird collisions and that power poles be outfitted with perch posts designed to prevent electrocution. Table E.17 presents recommendations for the project. AVEC has agreed to these recommendations. Table E.15. Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations Recommendation Agency Within the scope of section 10(j) Annualized cost Adopted? A qualified ECM would be employed during project construction. USFWS (and ADF&G) Yes $90,000 Adopted To minimize erosion due to traffic, motor vehicle use of the intake access trail would be limited to authorized vehicles only. A SWPPP to minimize erosion from construction activities would be developed prior to USFWS Yes $11,400 Adopted Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 76 commencement of any construction activities. The selected contractor would be required to implement the SWPPP. Best Management Practices would be implemented to decrease erosion and sedimentation during construction activities. USFWS Yes $10,000 Adopted The USFWS timing windows for avoiding disturbance during the bird nesting season would be applied wherever possible for ground clearing and vegetation removal in previously undisturbed areas. USFWS Yes $0 Adopted The on-site ECM would watch and report newly established bald eagle nests to the USFWS. If an active nest is found, blasting within 0.5 miles and all other work within 660 feet of the nest would be postponed until after coordination with USFWS. If blasting is required within 0.5 miles of an eagle nest, blasting would take place in winter (November-January), well before/after the breeding season according to the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. USFWS Yes $0, included in ECM cost Adopted Bird diverters would be installed on the power line and guy wires to prevent bird strikes. USFWS Yes $10,000 Adopted Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 77 Power poles would be outfitted with perch posts designed to prevent bird electrocution. USFWS Yes $5,000 Adopted Install gates to limit motorized public access on conservation or refuge lands. Install signs at the powerhouse explaining public use restrictions within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and the Old Harbor Native Corporation land held in a conservation easement. USFWS Yes $17,000, one time construction cost. Adopted Develop Invasive Species Prevention Plan USFWS $5,000 Adopted. E.5.5 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans The Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project is consistent with all community comprehensive plans. The Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Plan Update (Kodiak Island Borough 2008) lists the need for hydroelectric power as one of four priority issues facing Old Harbor. Developing a hydroelectric facility is one of the policies under Old Harb Safety goal. The City of Old Harbor Community Plan (City of Old Harbor, 2006) also lists the hydroelectric power as a community priority. This project would stabilize energy cost and allow the City of Old Harbor, the Native Village of Old Harbor, and the Old Harbor Village Corporation to afford important community infrastructure projects listed in the plans, including a new ferry dock and a new community multipurpose building. The Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project is not consistent with the current management direction in the Kodiak Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The USFWS would need to amend the plan to change the management category in the project area from minimal to moderate management. Goal 1. Increase our (USFWS) knowledge of fish and wildlife populations, their habitats, and their interrelationships. Does not apply to this project. Goal 2. Ensure that Kodiak brown bears continue to flourish throughout the refuge and congregate at traditional concentration areas. The project would not impact Kodiak brown bears to the extent that species would not flourish or congregate at traditional concentration areas. Bears could be impacted by Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 78 noise from construction activities and ATV use associated with maintenance activities, but it is unlikely that these activities would decrease population numbers or cause the species to move away permanently. Goal 3. Manage nonnative species to minimize impacts on native resources, while continuing to provide opportunities for harvest. Nonnative plant species could be brought into the project area and refuge via construction equipment and ATV use; however, bare ground along project components would be revegetated as quickly as possible with a native seed mix. Goal 4. Continue to improve understanding and management of furbearing and nongame mammals that use Kodiak Refuge. The project would not impact the understanding and management of furbearing and nongame mammals that use the refuge; however, the access trail could be used by refuge scientist to get farther into the refuge to study these species. Goal 5. Monitor populations of resident and migratory birds as indicators of ecosystem health. (Includes an objective to periodically monitor of trends in distribution, size, and reproductive success of the r Although the project would not assist in monitoring resident or migratory birds, the studies conducted for the project have provided information on birds (Eskelin 1998a), including a bald eagle nest survey (Solstice 2010);. The project would be located at least survey conducted before construction would provide information to meet this goal to the USFWS. Goal 6. Maintain and restore native plant populations, communities, and habitats. The project would clear and fill native plant populations, communities, and habitats; however, disturbed areas would be revegetated with native plant species common to the area. Goal 7. Conserve the abundance of natural salmonid populations for continued human and wildlife use, and ensure the diversity of species as indicators of the health of the r ecosystem. Also, Objective 7.6 states that the refuge assess and monitor Dolly Varden, Arctic char, and rainbow trout populations to gather baseline data. The Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project would minimally affect the Goal 7 because the project would maintain and enhance the abundance of salmon habitat in Lagoon Creek Tributary. Coho salmon, Dolly Varden and stickleback within Swimming Pond could be Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 79 impacted during construction; however, Best Management Practices and project timing would minimize these impacts. Goal 8. Provide the opportunity for local residents to continue their subsistence uses on the refuge, consistent with the subsistence priority and with other refuge purposes. This project would not change the use of refuge lands in the Old Harbor area. A road would be established to the powerhouse providing easier access to the refuge; however, the trail to the intake would be closed to public ATV traffic. Goal 9. Improve baseline understanding of natural flowing waters on the refuge and maintain the water quality and quantity necessary to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity. This project has helped to improve the understanding of waters within the refuge; Planning for this project has involved considerable study and data collection. Hydrology and fisheries information has been provided to the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and helps to meet the study and monitoring goals of the comprehensive conservation plan. Project construction would minimally affect water quality; however, Best Management Practices would be implemented to reduce water quality impacts. The quantity of water would increase within the Lagoon Creek watershed and it is expected that more fish habitat could be created in the upper reaches of Lagoon Creek Tributary. Taking water from the east fork of Mountain Creek would not significantly impact the Mountain Creek watershed because the creek would continue to receive the majority of its flow from the West Fork of Mountain Creek, lower drainages, and precipitation. Goal 10. Provide opportunities for quality public use and enjoyment of refuge resources through compatible fish- and wildlife dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing wildlife observation, and photography. pportunities on refuge land. However, it would provide easier access to the refuge via a new road to the powerhouse. Public ATV access would not be permitted on the intake access trail. Goal 11. Improve management of commercial use opportunities that are compatible with refuge purposes, provide quality public use opportunities, enhance visitor experiences, and ensure compliance with provisions of ANILCA. This project is not applicable to this goal. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 80 Goal 12. Provide outreach, environmental education, and interpretive programs that increase a sense of stewardship for wildlife, cultural resources, and the environment and that enhance visitor experiences on the Refuge. This goal is not applicable to this project. Goal 13. Conserve cultural and archaeological resources of the refuge. This project avoids cultural and archaeological resources. Goal 14. Conserve special and unique features of the Kodiak Archipelago ecosystem within the Refuge. This project avoids special and unique features of the Kodiak Archipelago ecosystem. Goal 15. Promote close working relationships through effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with other federal agencies, state agencies, local communities, tribes, organizations, industries, the general public, and landowners within and adjacent to the refuge whose programs affect or are affected by Refuge management activities. This goal is not applicable to this project. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 81 E.6.0 Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of our independent analysis, we find that the issuance of a license for the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project, with recommended environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 82 E.7.0 Literature Cited Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (Alaska DEC). 2012. Alaska State Water Quality Standards. 18 AAC 70. Revised April 8, 2012. Alaska -2010. September 2010. Viewed on September 23, 2011 at: http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wqsar/Docs/2010impairedwaters.pdf Alaska DEC. 2008. Alaska Water Quality Criteria Manual for Toxic and Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances. As amended through December 12, 2008. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2013. Anadromous Waters Catalog. Viewed on March 15, 2013 at: http://gis.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FlexMaps/fishresourcemonitor.html?mode=awc and on October 28, 2013 at http://extra.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FishResourceMonitor/?mode=awc ADF&G. 2011. Special Status Species website. Viewed on December 9, 2011 at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=specialstatus.main Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 1996. Old Harbor Stream Gaging Report. By Stan Carrick and Roy Ireland, Alaska Hydrologic Survey. Prepared for State of Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Energy and Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC). 2006. Tsunami Inundation Mapping for Alaska Communities. As viewed on October 27, 2011 at: http://www.aeic.alaska.edu/tsunami/intro.html Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP). 2013. Rare Plants Species Lists. Data provided by Nancy Norvell, Data Manager Alaska Natural Heritage Program on July 15, 2013. Data also available at http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/rare-plants-species-lists/rare-vascular- hulten/#content. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC). 1998. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Revised Study Plan. Prepared by Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. and Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. AVEC. 1998a. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project License Application for a Minor Water Power Project. Prepared by Polarconsult on December 15, 1998. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC), 1976, Alaska regional profiles- Southcentral Region, Vol. I, University of Alaska. Beikman, H.M., 1975, Preliminary geologic map of the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands: U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-674, scale 1:1000000. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 83 City of Old Harbor. 2011. Email correspondence with Cynthia Berns, City of Old Harbor, regarding the presence or absence of sea otters in the vicinity of Old Harbor on August 19, 2011. City of Old Harbor. 2011a. Telephone Conversation between Cynthia Berns, City of Old Harbor, and Robin Reich, Solstice Alaska Consulting, regarding subsistence activities in Old Harbor. December 27, 2011. City of Old Harbor. 2006. The City of Old Harbor Community Plan. Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED). 2011. Community Database Online-Old Harbor. Viewed on September 1, 2011 at: http://www.dced.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_BLOCK.htm. the Kodiak Archipelago, Alaska February, 2010. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and Waterfowl Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. DeMets, C., Gordon, R.G., Argus, D.F., and Stein, S. 1990, Current Plate Motions: Geophysics Journal International, v. 101, p. 425-478. Eskelin, T.D. 1998. Proposed Bird Census Methods for a Hydroelectric Development Project Near Old Harbor, Kodiak, Alaska 1998. Posted to the FERC e-library on October 30, 2013. Eskelin, T.D. 1998a. A Census of Birds Breeding in the Area of a Proposed Hydroelectric Project Near Old Harbor, Kodiak, Alaska 15-16 June, 1998. Posted to the FERC e-library on October 30, 2013. Hartman, C.W. and Johnson, P.R. 1984. Environmental Atlas of Alaska, University of Alaska. Hatch. 2011. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report. Prepared for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative. July 2011. Love, Christopher L., PWS. 2011. Fish Habitat and Spawning Survey Report, Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project. Finalized June 2011. Love, Christopher L., PWS. 2011a. Wetland Delineation Report Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project. Finalized June 2011. Kodiak Island Borough (KIB). 2008. Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Plan Update. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 84 KIB. 2007. Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Plan Final Plan Amendment. Prepared by Glenn Gray and Associates. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). 2011. Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat from Non-Fishing Activities in Alaska. Prepared November 2011. NOAA Fisheries. 2011a. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. As viewed on September 23, 2011 at: http://sharpfin.nmfs.noaa.gov/website/EFH_Mapper/map.aspx National Wild and Scenic Rivers. 2011. As viewed on September 13, 2011 at: http://www.rivers.gov/wildriverslist.html. Northern Land Use Research, Inc. (NLUR). 2010. Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project on Kodiak Island, Alaska. November 2010. MacIntosh, Richard A. 1996. Bird Observations on a 9 August, 1996 Visit to the Proposed Site of a Small Hydroelectric Development Near Old Harbor, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Posted to the FERC e-library on October 30, 2013. Polarconsult. 2010. Mountain Creek Hydrology Report, Old Harbor, Alaska. Prepared for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative. May 2010. Polarconsult. 1996. Water Quality Field Trip Report with CT&E Environmental Services Inc. Water Quality Laboratory Analysis Report. August 23, 1996. R&M Consultants. 2012. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project. Posted to the FERC e-library on October 30, 2013. Scenarios Network for Alaska Planning (SNAP), University of Alaska. 2008. Preliminary report to -06, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. SNAP, University of Alaska. 2013. Community Charts: Old Harbor, Alaska. Retrieved 10/29/13 from http://www.snap.uaf.edu/charts.php#community=301&dataset=1&scenario=b1&units= standard&variability=0 Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. (Solstice). 2011. Bald Eagle Nest Survey Report Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13272. June 2011. Studebaker, Stacy. 2013. Telephone conversation between Stacy Studebaker (volunteer Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 85 botanist for USFWS and Alaska plant expert) and Kate Arduser (Solstice). July 17, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1960. Soil Survey and Vegetation Northeastern Kodiak Island Area, Alaska. Prepared by the Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2011. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Jurisdictional Determination. Letter from Heather Boyer, Corps Project Manager, on November 8, 2011. Corps. 2011a. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Jurisdictional Determination Details. Email from Heather Boyer, Corps Project Manager, on November 8, 2011. USFW USFWS. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. May 2007. Viewed on September 6, 2011 at: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/eagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf USFWS 2008. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Prepared by USFWS Region 7 in August 2008. USFWS. 2010. Alaska Bald Eagle Nest Atlas. Viewed on September 6, 2011 at: http://164.159.151.40/private/alaskabaldeagles/viewer.htm USFWS. 2010a. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, Candidate, and Delisted Species in Alaska (Updated January 6, 2010) Species Managed by the USFWS. As viewed on September 20, 2010 at http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/consultation_guide.htm USFWS. 2010b. Email from Kimberly Klein, Endangered Species Biologist, to AVEC and consultants. Received April 5, 2010. USFWS. 2010c. Southwest Alaska Distinct Population Segment of the Northern Sea Otter (Enhyra lutris kenyoni)-Draft Recovery Plan. USFWS, Region 7, Alaska. USFWS. 2008. Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. Prepared by the USFWS Region 7. December 1, 2011 at: http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Kodiak/what_we_do/science/avian_research/kimu.html U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2006. Bird Checklists of the United States: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and Kodiak Island Archipelago. August 3, 2006. As viewed on October 19, 2011 at: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/chekbird/r7/kodiak.htm. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 86 V3 Energy. 2009. Old Harbor, Alaska Wind Resource Update Report. Prepared for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. on May 27, 2009. White, Lorne. 1996. Memorandum: Old Harbor Fisheries Work August 9, 1996. Prepared August 13, 1996. White, Lorne. 1996a. Memorandum: Old Harbor Fisheries Work September 3, 1996 and September 23, 1996, Brief Report. Prepared October 8, 1996. White, Lorne. 1998. Memorandum: Old Harbor Fisheries Work. Prepared October 1998. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2009. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/index.html. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 87 E.8.0 List of Preparers Robin Reich: Environmental Report Coordinator, Statutory and Regulatory Requirements, Geologic and Soil Resources, Terrestrial Resources, Threatened and Endangered Species (Senior Environmental Planner; B.S. Biology) Kate Arduser: Recreation and Land Use, Socioeconomics (Environmental Planner, B.A., Geography) Colleen Miller: Public Review and Comment, No Action Alternative, (Environmental Planner; Masters of Business Administration) Carla SlatonBarker: Technical Editing (Technical Editor; Masters of Arts, English) Chris Love: Aquatic Resources (Professional Wetland Scientist; B.S., Biology) Justin M. Hays: Cultural Resources (Archeologist; B.A., Archeology, R.P.A.) Dan Hertrich, P.E: Proposed Action, Purpose and Need for Power, Hydrology, Power and Economic Benefits of the Project (Senior Civil/Hydro Engineer; B.S. Engineering) Joseph Earsley, P.E.: Proposed Action (Senior Manager, Alaska Region, B.S. Mechanical Engineering) Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 88 E.9.0 Consultation Documentation Table E.18 includes a list containing the name and address of every federal, state, and Indian tribe, or member of the public with whom AVEC consulted in preparation of the environmental document. Table E.18. Agency, Tribal, and Public Consultation and Contact Agency/Entity Name Address Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation-Water William Ashton, Storm Water and Wetlands Manager Division of Water 555 Cordova Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Alaska Department of Fish and Game-Sport Fish Division Jason Mouw, Habitat Biologist III, Division of Sport Fish Research & Technical Services 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518-1599 Alaska Department of Fish and Game-Sport Fish Division Monte Miller, Statewide Hydropower Coordinator 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518-1599 Alaska Department of Fish and Game-Habitat Division William Frost, Habitat Biologist II 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518-1599 Alaska Department of Natural Resources- Office of Project Management and Permitting Samantha Carroll, Large Project Coordinator 550 W 7th Avenue Ste 1430 Anchorage, AK 99501-3577 Alaska Department of Natural Resources-History and Archeology Judith Bittner, State Historic Preservation Officer 550 W 7th Avenue Ste 1310 Anchorage, AK 99501-3565 Alaska Department of Natural Resources-History and Archeology Shina Duvall, Archaeologist 550 W 7th Avenue Ste 1310 Anchorage, AK 99501-3565 Alaska Department of Natural Resources-Mining, Land, and Water-Water Resources Krissy Plett, Water Rights 550 W 7th Avenue Ste 1020 Anchorage, AK 99501-3579 Alaska Department of Natural Resources-Mining, Land, and Water-Water Resources Drew Harrington, Water Rights 550 W 7th Avenue Ste 1020 Anchorage, AK 99501-3579 Alaska Energy Authority Doug Ott, Hydroelectric Program Manager 813 W Northern Lights Blvd Anchorage, AK 99503-6690 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 89 Alaska Energy Authority Audrey Alstrom, Assistant Project Manager 813 W Northern Lights Blvd Anchorage, AK 99503-6690 City of Old Harbor Rick Berns, Mayor P.O. Box 109 Old Harbor, Alaska 99643 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Elise Hsieh, Executive Director 441 W 5th Ave., Suite 500 Anchorage, AK 99501 Kodiak Island Borough- Community Development Bud Cassidy, Director 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 Koniag Incorporated Will Anderson, President and CEO 4300 B Street, Ste. 407, Anchorage, AK 99503 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration- Protected Species Kaja Brix, Executive Director PO Box 21668 F/AKR4 Juneau, AK 99802-1668 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Habitat Conservation Susan Walker, Hydropower Coordinator PO Box 21668 F/AKR4 Juneau, AK 99802-1668 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Habitat Conservation Eric Rothwell, Hydrologist 222 W 7th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Old Harbor Native Corporation Carl Marrs, Chief Executive Officer P.O. Box 71 Old Harbor, AK 99643 Old Harbor Native Corporation Cynthia Burns, Community Affairs P.O. Box 71 Old Harbor, AK 99643 Native Village of Old Harbor Conrad Peterson, President P.O. Box 62 Old Harbor, AK 99643 The Conservation Fund Brad Meiklejohn, Alaska Representative 2727 Hiland Road Eagle River, AK 99577-9482 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Regulatory Branch Birdie Budnik, Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District P.O. Box 6898 JBER, Alaska 99506-0898 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Jennifer Curtis, NEPA Coordinator US EPA-Alaska Operations Office 222 West 7th Ave., #19 Anchorage, AK 99513 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service- Division of Conservation, Planning, and Policy Cyndie Wolfe, Wildlife Biologist 1011 East Tudor Road, MS 231, Anchorage, AK 99503 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) Exhibit E - Environmental Report Page 90 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service- Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance Regional Environmental Assistant Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 1689 C Street, Suite 119 Anchorage, AK 99501-5126 U.S. Department of Interior- Office of the Solicitor, Alaska Region Kenneth Lord, Attorney / Advisor Office of the Solicitor, Alaska Region 4230 University Drive, Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99508 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Alaska Region Geoffrey L. Haskett, Regional Director 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Alaska Region Tom Melius Regional Director 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Anchorage Field Office Steve Klosiewski, Acting Field Supervisor 604 W 4th Avenue, Rm. G61 Anchorage, AK 99501 US Fish & Wildlife Service- Anchorage Field Office Frances E. Mann, Field Supervisor 604 W. 4th Avenue, Rm. G61 Anchorage, AK 99501 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Division of Realty and Natural Resources Douglas Campbell, Realty Operations Division Chief 1011 East Tudor Road, MS 211 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Division of Realty and Natural Resources Ivars Stolcers, Realty Specialist 1011 East Tudor Road, MS 211 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Endangered Species Branch Kimberly Klein, Endangered Species Biologist 605 West 4th Avenue, Rm G-61 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Gary Wheeler, Refuge Manager 1390 Buskin River Road Kodiak, AK 99615 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Kent Sundseth, Deputy Refuge Manager 1390 Buskin River Road Kodiak, AK 99615 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Water Resources Branch Cathy Flanagan, Water Rights Coordinator, Hydrologist 1011 East Tudor Road, MS 231 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Water Resources Branch John Trawicki, Branch Chief, Chief Hydrologist 1011 East Tudor Road, MS 231 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project P- 13272-003 Appendix E.1 Project Figures Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Project Overview Figure 1 0 0.5 1 1.5 Miles Alaska State Plane Zone 5 (units feet) 1983 North American Datem Bristol Bay Canada Russia Bering Sea Gulf of Alaska Project Area Legend Study Area Proposed Project Boundary Streams (USGS) 1:55,000Scale Document Name: RDI_2013_Project_Overview_Fig1_8x11P_v02, RDI - LS, 9/18/2013 ! KNWR OHNC with USFWS Conservation Easement OHNC with USFWS Conservation Easement OHNC 57°14'30"N57°14'0"N57°13'30"N57°13'0"N !57°14'30"N57°14'0"N57°13'30"N57°13'0"N !!!!!! OHNC OHNC with USFWS Conservation Easement 57°14'15"N57°14'0"N57°13'45"N Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project P-13272-003 Appendix E.2 Correspondence Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Department of Natural Resources Alaska Department of Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Officer National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Meeting Notes Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Correspondence Memo of Telephone Call To:Public Files From:Carolyn Templeton Date:9/7/2011 Docket:P-13272-001 Project:Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Subject:TelephoneconversationbetweenMs.RobinReichofSolsticeAlaskaConsulting,Inc. (consultanttoAlaskaVillageElectricCooperative)andMs.CarolynTempletonof the Commission’sstaff On August 16, 2011, Ms. Robin Reich of Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. (consultant to Alaska Village Electric Cooperative - applicant for the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project No. 13272-001) called Ms. Carolyn Templeton of the Commission’s staff and requested that Alaska Village Electric Cooperative be designated as the Commission’s non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. With this memo, we are granting Alaska Village Electric Cooperative’s request. 20110818-5091 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 8/18/2011 3:08:35 PM Document Content(s) AVEC Teleconference Memo 08162011.DOC.................................1-1 20110818-5091 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 8/18/2011 3:08:35 PM Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Alaska Department of Fish and Game Correspondence DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME DIVISION OF SPORT FISH SEAN PARNELL, GOVERNOR Research & Technical Services 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1565 Phone: (907) 267-2312 Fax: (907) 267-2422 October 15, 2009 Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426 Re: Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-13272 Pre-Application Document Dear Ms. Bose: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Pre-application document (PAD) for the proposed Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project. The Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G, or the Department) would like to provide the following preliminary comments. Overall, the draft provides a broad survey of the existing conditions, studies, proposed work, and potential impacts in the project area. Below are specific comments, listed by section, page and paragraph, provided by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Divisions of Sport Fish and Habitat. Section 4.2.2, page 15, paragraph 1. The Department recommends that an updated assessment be completed for fish abundance and other aquatic resources potentially affected by the proposed water diversion from Mountain Creek to Big Creek, and that periodic monitoring of these resources occur following project start-up. This assessment should also include surveys for spawning fish and subsequent mapping of habit to enable an evaluation of potential adverse impacts resulting from an annual water diversion during spawning periods. Spawning in the lower reaches of Mountain Creek occurs in late summer and early autumn, and flows sufficient to allow fish passage, successful egg incubation, and rearing habitat are essential. The lower reaches of Mountain Creek may contribute and support populations of fish despite the fact that the surface water flow in the lower reaches is intermittent in the summer. The diversion of water from East Fork Mountain Creek may lengthen the period of time that the lower reach is dewatered preventing fish passage at a critical time during spawning. Section 5.1, page 21, list of issues. A fish and aquatic resource study should be conducted in the side channels and wetlands of Big Creek that will be affected by the tailrace streamflow. This study should be conducted before the applicant submits their draft FERC license application. Old Harbor Project Page 2 of 2 October 15, 2009 FERC No. P-13272 Additionally, a fish and aquatic resource study should be conducted after project start-up to assess the potential impact to Mountain Creek from the diversion. Pursuant to AS 16.05, the Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has direct authority over resource development projects in fish bearing waters and waters specified as being important for the spawning, rearing or migration of anadromous fishes. Pursuant to AS 16.05.841 (Fishway Act) and AS 16.05.871 (Anadromous Fish Act), ADF&G requires permits for any work that may affect fish passage and for instream work in catalogued anadromous fish streams. Big Creek and the lower reach of Mountain Creek have been specified as being important for the spawning, rearing or migration of anadromous fishes as Anadromous Waters Catalog numbers 258-52- 10010 and 258-52-10020-2002. These streams are known to support Dolly Varden and coho, chum, and pink salmon. ADF&G will also provide recommended terms and conditions under the provisions of §10(j) of the Federal Power Act. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Scott Maclean Statewide Hydropower Coordinator cc: C. Swanton, ADF&G/SF HQ-Juneau * M. Miller, ADF&G/SF-Anchorage * B. Clark, ADF&G/SF/RTS-Anchorage * J. Klein, ADF&G/SF/RTS-Anchorage * D. Tracy, ADF&G/SF-Kodiak * M. Daigneault, ADF&G/Habitat-Anchorage * W. Frost, ADF&G/Habitat-Anchorage * L. VanDaele, ADF&G/WC-Kodiak * S. Honnald, ADF&G/CF-Kodiak * S. Schrof, ADF&G/SF-Kodiak * C. Ballard, ADNR/DCOM-Anchorage * G. Prokosch, ADNR/MLW-Anchorage * K. Westphal, ADNR/MLW-Anchorage * G. Wheeler, USFWS-Kodiak * S. Walker, NMFS-Juneau * D. Hertrich, Polarconsult * B. Petrie, AVEC* * by email 1 Robin From:Mouw, Jason E B (DFG) [jason.mouw@alaska.gov] Sent:Friday, April 23, 2010 11:11 AM To:Robin Reich Subject:RE: old harbor Robin: I am juggling a few projects today, but I should be around by 2:30. I could try to spell out my thoughts here, and then we could follow that up with a phone call this afternoon, if that will work for you. I’m taking off a bit early this afternoon. For spawning surveys, it sounds like with the help of local knowledge, it could be pretty straightforward assessing the distributions of spawning adults in what I referred to as stream 2004 (the last four numbers of the anadromous stream number). If at all possible, it would also be good to enumerate adults by species. Sometimes getting up and down streams to do this can be challenging, but it sounds like there is some access in this case. Our letter mentioned rearing surveys but didn’t provide a recommended approach. Most likely, this would only include Coho and dolly varden, since pink and chum typically don’t reside in freshwater for very long after emerging from the gravels. To assess the distribution of rearing Coho and DV in stream 2004, minnow traps could be used. Lastly, when it comes to surveys, timing can be everything. I’ll check with our area biologists on that, since I’m not familiar with fish periodicity on Kodiak island. For the time being, I think the general recommendation in our letter should suffice. Depending on how many surveysyou plan to make (I think we recommended 2-3), we should work with the area biologists to maximize benefit from field efforts. Jason E.B. Mouw Division of Sport Fish - Research & Technical Services Alaska Department of Fish & Game 333 Raspberry Rd. Anchorage, AK 99518 phone: (907) 267-2179 fax: (907) 267-2422 From:Robin Reich [mailto:robin@solsticeak.com] Sent:Friday, April 23, 2010 10:17 AM To:Mouw, Jason E B (DFG) Subject:old harbor I’m going through your letter and the notes from our meeting and working on putting together fish study methods for old harbor hydro. Would it be possible for us to meet this afternoon (after 2:30) to discuss what we might be able to do? Sorry for the late notice, but I’m free today and out of town for 3 days next week… Robin Reich Solstice Alaska Consulting Inc. 11760 Woodbourne Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99516 phone: 907.929.5960 cell: 907.903.0597 www.solsticeak.com 1 Robin From:Mouw, Jason E B (DFG) [jason.mouw@alaska.gov] Sent:Tuesday, May 04, 2010 8:48 AM To:Robin Reich Subject:RE: Spawning periodicity for Old Harbor area From what the Kodiak office has told me, that should be perfect timing. Jason E.B. Mouw Division of Sport Fish - Research & Technical Services Alaska Department of Fish & Game 333 Raspberry Rd. Anchorage, AK 99518 phone: (907) 267-2179 fax: (907) 267-2422 -----Original Message----- From: Robin Reich [mailto:robin@solsticeak.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 3:46 PM To: Mouw, Jason E B (DFG) Subject: RE: Spawning periodicity for Old Harbor area Would the week of August 23 be too late? -----Original Message----- From: Mouw, Jason E B (DFG)[mailto:jason.mouw@alaska.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 10:10 AM To: Robin Reich Subject: FW: Spawning periodicity for Old Harbor area Robin: I looks like a survey in mid-late August may be best to encounter the bulk of the pink and chum runs. Coho are a about a month later. I suggest targeting the pink and chum runs and, as we discussed, assessing the feasibility of adult foot surveys at that time. Jason E.B. Mouw Division of Sport Fish - Research & Technical Services Alaska Department of Fish & Game 333 Raspberry Rd. Anchorage, AK 99518 phone: (907) 267-2179 fax: (907) 267-2422 -----Original Message----- From: Wadle, Jeff A (DFG) Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 3:04 PM To: Mouw, Jason E B (DFG) Cc: Honnold, Steven G (DFG); Jackson, James V (DFG); Schrof, Stephen T (DFG) Subject: RE: Spawning periodicity for Old Harbor area Jason, James can correct me but typically the peak surveys for pinks and chum around Old Harbor occur in mid August to early September. Both species begin to show in late July and early August. Jeff Wadle Regional Management Finfish Supervisor Alaska Department of Fish and Game 211 Mission Rd Kodiak, AK 99615 (907) 486-1813 2 -----Original Message----- From: Tracy, Donn A (DFG) Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 1:15 PM To: Mouw, Jason E B (DFG); Jackson, James V (DFG) Cc: Klein, Joseph P (DFG) Subject: RE: Spawning periodicity for Old Harbor area Hi Jason, I'll defer to James on timing of pink and chum spawning, but for observing any coho present the surveys should ideally be conducted between the 2nd and 3rd week of October, at which time the entire return should be inriver but not yet dispersed for spawning. Fall flooding can obviously be a big factor impeding mid-October surveys, so alternatively I would suggest a target date of no earlier than September 30, which should capture +75% of the inriver return. dt -----Original Message----- From: Mouw, Jason E B (DFG) Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 12:09 PM To: Tracy, Donn A (DFG); Jackson, James V (DFG) Cc: Klein, Joseph P (DFG) Subject: Spawning periodicity for Old Harbor area Donn and James: I've consulted with you previously on the Old Harbor hydro project and now have a more specific question about run timing/spawning periodicity in this region of Kodiak. In order to most effectively schedule spawning surveys for the proposed Old Harbor hydro project, I would like to recommend that the project applicant time their surveys during peak spawning. The project stream (258-52-10015-2004), a tributary of Lagoon Creek, supports chum, pink and coho salmon. Local observations do not indicate there to be a significant coho population in this stream and primarily focus on chum. Can you recommend when, and if, there is a time when you would expect peak chum and pink salmon spawning in this stream, or region. I would also like to know how much later you'd expect coho to appear. If you could get back with me early this week, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Jason E.B. Mouw Division of Sport Fish - Research & Technical Services Alaska Department of Fish & Game 1 Robin From:Mouw, Jason E B (DFG) [jason.mouw@alaska.gov] Sent:Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:26 AM To:bpetrie@avec.org Cc:Klein, Joseph P (DFG); Frost, William D (DFG); Honnold, Steven G (DFG); Wadle, Jeff A (DFG); Schrof, Stephen T (DFG); Jackson, James V (DFG); Tracy, Donn A (DFG); john.mudre@ferc.gov; Robin Reich; colleen@solsticeak.com; Daniel Hertrich; Susan Walker; Eric Rothwell; Gary_wheeler@fws.gov; Prokosch, Gary J (DNR); Curtis.Jennifer@epa.gov; Ott, Douglas C (AIDEA) Subject:Old Harbor Revised Proposed Study Plan Dear Mr. Petrie We have reviewed Alaska Village Electric Cooperative’s (AVEC) Revised Proposed Study Plan for the Old Harbor Hydroelectric project (FERC No. 13272) dated May 5, 2010. For the most part, we feel it includes studies needed to adequately assess aquatic and terrestrial resources associated with the proposed project. We have identified two areas of concern and make the following recommendations. We are concerned about the selection of only one survey to assess pink, chum and coho salmon spawning in Lagoon Creek Tributary (stream 2004). Although the field survey proposed in late August is good timing to observe peak pink and chum salmon spawning, coho spawn about a month later and would not be adequately surveyed. We recommend an additional spawning survey be conducted within the 1 st two weeks in October to adequately document coho spawning. These surveys would allow for the distributions of spawning to be assessed and can be used as a basis to assess whether or not changes in the temperature and flow regime of stream 2004 will affect these distributions. Another concern we have is in regard to juvenile salmon surveys in stream 2004. In our letter dated April 4, 2010, we recommended that juvenile salmon surveys be conducted to assess utilization of stream 2004 for juvenile rearing. Although pink and chum salmon do not rear for significant periods in streams, it will be important to know if coho are rearing in stream 2004. This will be important information used to assess whether or not any changes in water temperature, resulting from the Mountain Creek diversion, will have biological relevance. Temperature can limit the distributions of fish, especially juveniles. We recommend the use of baited minnow traps for this study which can be deployed concurrently with the spawning surveys. Any fish within these traps should be identified to species and counted. This information should be used to assess the pre-project distribution of juvenile rearing as well as provide information on the relative importance of stream 2004 for juvenile rearing. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the timing of surveys and/or methods used in juvenile salmon surveys and I will refer you to the appropriate department contact. Thank you, Jason E.B. Mouw Division of Sport Fish - Research & Technical Services Alaska Department of Fish & Game 333 Raspberry Rd. Anchorage, AK 99518 phone: (907) 267-2179 fax: (907) 267-2422 1 Robin From:Mouw, Jason E B (DFG) [jason.mouw@alaska.gov] Sent:Monday, January 24, 2011 1:17 PM To:robin@solsticeak.com Cc:Mouw, Jason E B (DFG); Miller, Monte D (DFG); Klein, Joseph P (DFG); Tracy, Donn A (DFG); Wadle, Jeff A (DFG); Schrof, Stephen T (DFG); Brent Petrie; colleen@solsticeak.com; Ashton, William S (DEC); kellie.westphal@alaska.gov; Prokosch, Gary J (DNR); Plett, Kristina A (DNR); Bittner, Judith E (DNR); Ballard, Christine A (DNR); Gary_wheeler@fws.gov; Ivars_Stolcers@fws.gov; John_Trawicki@fws.gov; Mikel_haase@fws.gov; Kimberly_Klein@fws.gov; douglas_mutter@ios.doi.gov; ken.lord@solidoi.gov; tom_melius@fws.gov; frances_mann@fws.gov; Chelan.schreifels@us.army.mil; Kaja.Brix@noaa.gov; Susan.walker@noaa.gov; Eric.Rothwell@noaa.gov; Curtis.Jennifer@epa.gov; mlydick@kib.co.kodiak.ak.us; Bud Cassidy; cberns@oldharbor.org; Hsieh, Elise M (EVOSTC); wanderson@koniag.com; ohtribal@hotmail.com; BradMeiklejohn@aol.com; Crimp, Peter M (AIDEA); Ott, Douglas C (AIDEA); Alstrom, Audrey D (AIDEA); John.mudre@ferc.gov; Eric.Rothwell@noaa.gov Subject:Old Harbor 2010 Study Plans Robin: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 2010 field studies characterizing fisheries and habitats influenced by operation of the proposed Old Harbor hydroelectric project. We focused our review on the Fish Habitat and Spawning Survey Report, prepared by PWS. The objectives, as we understand them, were to characterize aquatic habitats and assess the spatial and temporal distributions of juvenile and spawning salmon. It would be helpful, if a separate section in the report were isolated to specifically state the objectives of the study. We offer the following questions, comments and recommendations on studies addressing what we inferred the objectives to be, which were to identify the distribution of anadromous species and describe baseline habitat and water quality data. 1.What was the distribution of minnow-trapping sites within the full distribution of fish data points? We’ll need to once again defer to our local area biologists, but the timing of fish surveys appears to be well-timed. However, in order to perform a full review of the adequacy of these surveys, we would like to know more about where and within which habitat types, other than pools, baited minnow traps were placed. Please also provide a little better description of the off-shore water bodies referenced in the fisheries report. 2.We are also concerned about the fact that only six baited minnow trap locations were used. Information on the representativeness of these locations to the project-affected aquatic habitats will be needed to assess the number and placement of traps. Also, were these trapping sites the same among seasons, how long were the traps left to soak, and what was the mesh size of the traps? 3.A separate map, or maps would be helpful, and may be needed to illustrate the location of discharge measurements, the location of the beaver dam and the distributions of fish by species. The distributions of fish (e.g. coho and dolly varden) appear to be discontinuous, or clumped. General habitat associations with these aggregations would help assess habitat use under the current hydrologic regime. 4.Would it be possible to perform hydrographic/differential surveys to assess how increases in flow to the “swimming pond” might influence the ephemeral nature of surface-water connectivity with the inception of the Lagoon Creek tributary? The stated hydraulic capacity of the turbine is 7 cfs, which 2 would increase the discharge of the project stream by ~26 times, as measured at the point of inception and by ~1.3 times at the mouth of Lagoon Creek, if the project were to operate at full capacity. Though operation at full capacity may be unlikely, there is potential for a major hydrologic regime shift to occur. This needs to be a future point of discussion through the remainder of the FERC process in order to give full consideration to the effects to existing aquatic and wetland habitats from proposed project operation. This should include consideration of the observed substrate particle size distribution, how this distribution was assessed and whether or not predictions can be made about changes in substrate as a result of increased discharge. 5.We would like to caution that only two field surveys were completed, and that the full distribution of both spawning and rearing fish is still quite uncertain. The presence of coho juveniles, for example, indicates that spawning is occurring, yet spawning was not observed. The aggregation of what appeared to be chum carcasses just below the confluence of Lagoon Creek and the project tributary also indicates that perhaps this tributary is important to spawning populations. Also, the lack of fish observations in the swimming pool is an observation that should not be used to support a final conclusion of anadromy within this pool. During high runoff years, a hydrologic connection may provide access to spawning adults and rearing juveniles. 6.Finally, a YSI meter was used in the field for “spot” measurements of water quality. Can you speak to the calibration of these instruments? Also, it is our understanding that continuous temperature loggers were placed within various reaches of the project water body to assess seasonal thermal regimes. Are these data reported, or have these loggers not yet been retrieved? We look forward to discussing these items with your team after you get a chance to review them. Thank You, Jason Mouw Biologist ADF&G SF/RTS 907-677-7668 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG -www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3400 - Release Date: 01/24/11 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Alaska Department of Natural Resources Correspondence 1 Colleen Miller Bolling From:Boyer, Heather L POA <Heather.L.Boyer@usace.army.mil> Sent:Wednesday, November 16, 2011 12:15 PM To:Colleen Miller Bolling Subject:FW: POA-2000-139, Lagoon Creek_JD Positive_area for a hydroelectric project_near Old Harbor, Alaska (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Hi Colleen, Would you mind passing along this email to the project proponent? They may want to contact the state about their requirements for the project if they haven't already. This is not within Corps jurisdiction, obviously, but just wanted to pass along the information. Thanks! Heather *************************************** Heather Boyer Project Manager/Biologist USACE- Regulatory Division P.O. Box 6898 JBER, Alaska 99506-0898 (907) 753-2877 (800) 478-2712 toll-free within Alaska ><((((º>`*.¸¸.*´¯`*.¸.*´¯`*..¸><((((º> *´¯`*.¸¸¸.*´¯`*.. ><((((º>`*.¸¸.*´¯`*.¸.*´¯`*...¸><((((º> -----Original Message----- From: Jensen, Travis W (DNR)[mailto:travis.jensen@alaska.gov] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 11:35 AM To: Boyer, Heather L POA Subject: RE: POA-2000-139, Lagoon Creek_JD Positive_area for a hydroelectric project_near Old Harbor, Alaska Ms. Boyer, Please remind your client that any incursions into the waterways of the State of Alaska must be permitted/leased through the Department of Natural Resources. This includes anything below the mean ordinary high water or extending into the water way. If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know. 2 Travis W. Jensen Natural Resource Specialist Leasing Division of Mining, Land & Water Department of Natural Resources, State of Alaska 550 W. 7th Ave. Suite 900 Anchorage, AK 99501 907-269-8555 907-269-8913 (fax) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project State Historic Preservation Officer Correspondence Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Correspondence Kate Arduser From:Jon Kurland - NOAA Federal [jon.kurland@noaa.gov] Sent:Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:36 PM To:Kate Arduser Cc:Robin Reich; Susan Walker Subject:Re: 9.14.11 Consultation Letter from AVEC re: Old Habor Hydroelectric Project Attachments:AuthorityDeligation08162013.pdf; 2011.09.14_NOAA NMFS Protected Species ConsultationLetter.pdf Kate, we don't generally concur with "no effect" determinations.If the responsible federal action agency (or designee in this case) determines there's no effect to ESA listed species, there's no need to confirm that with NMFS -- it's the action agency's call. If an action may adversely affect listed species, then NMFS concurrence would be required under section 7 of the ESA. On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Kate Arduser <kate@solsticeak.com> wrote: Hi Jon, I called you earlier today inquiring about whether your office has a response on file to the consultation/finding letter that Alaska Village Electric Cooperative sent on September 14, 2011 for the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (attached). FERC designated AVEC as their non-Federal representative to conduct this consultation on August 16, 2011. (See attached authority delegation memo.) My company, Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. (Solstice), is under contract to AVEC to provide National Environmental Policy Act documentation and related regulatory agency consultations associated with this project. Please let me know if you’re able to find a response to this consultation letter. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Kate __ Kate Arduser, Environmental Planner Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. office:907.424.5195 cell:907.306.7719 Email:kate@solsticeak.com Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Correspondence 1 Colleen Miller Bolling From:Colleen Miller Bolling <colleen@solsticeak.com> Sent:Thursday, November 03, 2011 2:02 PM To:'Boyer, Heather L POA' Subject:RE: Old Harbor Hydro wetlands (UNCLASSIFIED) Thanks, Heather! Colleen Miller Bolling, Environmental Planner Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. Phone: 907.929.5960 -----Original Message----- From: Boyer, Heather L POA [mailto:Heather.L.Boyer@usace.army.mil] Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 1:54 PM To: Colleen Miller Bolling Subject: RE: Old Harbor Hydro wetlands (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE That's correct. Sorry for the confusion; it's nothing to do with your report, but just how hour program works. You should receive the letter in the next few days. If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks! *************************************** Heather Boyer Project Manager/Biologist USACE- Regulatory Division P.O. Box 6898 JBER, Alaska 99506-0898 (907) 753-2877 (800) 478-2712 toll-free within Alaska ><((((º>`*.¸¸.*´¯`*.¸.*´¯`*..¸><((((º> *´¯`*.¸¸¸.*´¯`*.. ><((((º>`*.¸¸.*´¯`*.¸.*´¯`*...¸><((((º> -----Original Message----- From: Colleen Miller Bolling [mailto:colleen@solsticeak.com] Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 1:37 PM To: Boyer, Heather L POA Subject: Old Harbor Hydro wetlands Hi Heather, 2 I just talked to Chris Love about the Old Harbor wetlands report and jurisdictional determination, and I wanted to confirm that I understand where we are at and what the next steps are: · A Final Jurisdictional Determination will be issued for mapped wetlands in the project area. · A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination will be issued for the U_10 and U_25 polygons in the project area. · When we are ready to obtain a permit for this project, the Corps would calculate 10% of the U_10 polygons and 25% of the U_25 polygons, and this acreage would be considered wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Corps and would be included in the mitigation requirements. No additional data would need to be provided to the Corps. Please let me know if this is accurate, and feel free to make additions or revisions as you see fit. Thanks, Colleen Miller Bolling, Environmental Planner Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. 2607 Fairbanks Street, Unit B Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone: 907.929.5960 Email:colleen@solsticeak.com <mailto:colleen@solsticeak.com> www.solsticeak.com Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Correspondence Pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.214 et seq., and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (Commission) memorandum entitled , dated September 10, 2008, the United States Department of the Interior (Department), in the exercise of its statutory responsibility on behalf of the people of the United States, hereby provides notice that it is intervening in the above-captioned proceeding for the purpose of becoming a party. The Department requests the following names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the representatives of the U.S. Department of the Interior be added to the Service List for these proceedings, to receive all notices in this matter: Tom Melius Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Telephone: 907-786-3542 Frances E. Mann US Fish & Wildlife Service 604 W. 4th Ave, Rm. G61 Anchorage, AK 99501 907-271-3053 2 Doug Mutter Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 1689 C Street, Room 119 Anchorage, AK 99501-5126 Telephone: 907-271-5011 Fax: 907-271-4102 Kenneth Lord Attorney-Advisor Office of the Solicitor, Alaska Region 4230 University Drive, Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Telephone: 907-271-4131 Fax: 907-271-4143 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 28 th day of October, 2008. Kenneth M. Lord Attorney Office of the Solicitor, Alaska Region 4230 University Drive, Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99508 (907) 271-4131 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 1390 Buskin River Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 (907) 487-2600 November 20, 2009 Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E., Room 1 A Washington, D.C. 20426 FERC Project P-13272-001 - Alaska Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project In response to your notice of September 21, 2009, we have reviewed the Preliminary Application Document and Scoping Document for the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project on Kodiak Island, Alaska. We offer the following comments. There are several significant issues that need to be addressed before a license could be issued for construction and operation of the proposed facility. The lands covered by the license application include certain lands acquired by the United States from Old Harbor Native Corporation as part of the comprehensive federal and State of Alaska program for restoration of the natural resources injured by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The purchase agreement covering those lands was executed by the parties in May 1995, resulting in the United States and the State of Alaska acquiring these lands in October 1995. These lands, which the transmission line would cross, are subject to certain restrictive covenants. Under these covenants, construction of buildings, changes in the topography of the land, removal or destruction of plants, and manipulation or alteration of natural water courses are prohibited. Use of these lands in a manner that is inconsistent with the maintenance of a national wildlife refuge may result in the invocation of additional reversionary provisions in the deed, as required by the seller. The acquisition of these lands by the United States was also subject to a conservation easement granted to the State of Alaska by Old Harbor Native Corporation, which authorizes the State to independently enforce these restrictive covenants. Also, section 12 of T34S, R26W is within an area the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has formally proposed for wilderness designation, under the process outlined in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. That proposal is currently under review in the Department of the Interior. Hydroelectric projects are not allowed on refuge lands designated as wilderness. Proposed wilderness areas are assigned a minimal management category in the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. The minimal management category does not allow for hydroelectric projects. In order for the project to go forward, it would be necessary for the applicant to pursue with FWS a land management category boundary change and revision of the Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 2 A long term project involving installed equipment and a transmission line on refuge property will require a right-of-way permit from the FWS Realty Division in Anchorage. Danielle Jerry, Chief of Realty and Natural Resources, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503-3635, (907) 786-3335 is the appropriate contact. Comments on the Preliminary Application Document: 1. Introduction: It is stated that the original project (P-11690, December 12, 2000) was delayed partly due to the high cost of monitoring requirements. The project environmental document should discuss the monitoring requirements identified in the original license, whether any of the monitoring was accomplished, and, if so, where the results are available. If the monitoring requirements have not been accomplished the document should discuss whether the requirements still relevant. 2. Processing and Schedule: The site visit and scoping meeting of Oct. 21, 2009 were both canceled due to weather and should be rescheduled. However this will likely not take place until spring/summer of 2010 (discussed at scoping meeting). This delay in holding the scoping meeting until this time may delay the timeline of the project. If additional information is identified during the rescheduled scoping meeting the applicant may not have sufficient time to initiate, collect, analyze, and distribute information for review in a timeframe that allows the project to be on schedule. 3. Section 3.3.1.3 Penstock Until surveys are complete the route is undetermined. The consultants should carefully select the route to avoid potential erosion or sensitive habitats. The document should address how access to the 100-foot bridge will be limited. 4. 3.3.1.3 Power House Discharge location from the power house has not been determined. Items to consider once the discharge location is determined are alterations to the quality, quantity and timing of the receiving waters. Consider baseline water quality/chemistry information from both discharge and receiving water to determine potential changes to temperature and water chemistry in the receiving water due to the differences of the discharge water. 3 The original project was based on 13 cfs; the current project is based on 7 cfs. Please explain why the difference. Is 7 cfs sufficient to meet the current and future energy needs of Old Harbor? Is this project expandable (penstock, powerhouse, turbine)? If so what would be the source water? 5. 3.3.1.4 Power and Access Please discuss access to the intake or penstock. Will a permanent road or trail be needed? Since access to these two components are on Refuge lands, and the terrain is extremely steep, additional details are required to evaluate what is appropriate and the measures that may be needed to prevent erosion. 6. 3.3.1.5 Project Capacity We request clarification on terms: hydraulic capacity (7 cfs), dependable capacity (130 kW), and peak capacity (300 kW). What cfs is necessary to maintain dependable and peak capacity? The previous application identified 13 cfs for this project. 7. 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 Geology Impacts and Mitigation Erosion from tailrace to discharge waters is identified as a potential adverse impact, but there is no proposed mitigation for this impact. Potential mitigation measures to prevent erosion should be described. 8. 4.2.1 Existing Environment Data The weather and climate data is extremely limited and outdated (1968-1971). The same is true for hydrologic information. The ADNR gage on the East Fork of Mountain Creek was only operated for 7 months. The location of the Polarconsult gage is unclear. Assuming the Polarconsult gage was on the East Fork of Mountain Creek the stream gaging record is less than 3 years in length. The PAD mentions that an “updated feasibility study is underway that will review the available data for consistency and make recommendations regarding additional investigations.” The report does not identify any new data since the previous project was evaluated. It is not clear what “evaluating for consistency” means. An economic feasibility study needs to be completed prior to this project moving to the next step. A component of the feasibility needs to address water demand (timing and quantity) necessary for a viable project and compare with water availability (quantity and timing). 4 The data presented in Table 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6 are based on very limited data sets and need to be evaluated with extreme caution. A few items that stand out from Table 4 and Figures 5 and 6 include: This is a run of river project with essentially no storage, therefore flows above 7 cfs do not add to the value of the project There are only 2 months in which stream discharge does not drop below 7 cfs There are 5 months (Dec-Apr) that the daily discharge is less than 5 cfs for more than half the month Approximately 40% of the time 7 cfs is not available- assumes 100% of water is captured Approximately 30% of the time 5 cfs is not available- assumes 100% of water is captured Please explain what will occur if stream discharge is less than 7 cfs or not adequate to operate the project. We highly recommend additional discharge records to evaluate the feasibility of this project. The weather and climate data should be updated or re-evaluated. There should be a discussion of anticipated changes to the hydrology and feasibility and operation of this project with respect to changing climatic conditions. Water quality concerns discussed relate primarily to water temperature and these concerns should continue to be discussed and evaluated in light of a potential new receiving water body. The environmental document should also address any concerns with other water quality parameters. The receiving waters are still undetermined; therefore information requests cannot be finalized at this point. We recommend consulting with your fisheries biologist on impacts resulting from discharge waters to the life history of invertebrates, native fish, and anadromous fish within the receiving waters. 9. 4.2.2 Potential Adverse Impacts The project does not consider native non-anadromous fish within the system. Winter flows may be low and approach zero, but based on water temperature and discharge information provided 5 the presumption that the creek substrate is frozen is questionable in the lower reaches or pools of the East Fork of Mountain Creek. Creation of 1 mile of new channel for water conveyance from power house to Big Creek may or may not provide any additional habitat. The assumption is a continuous discharge of 7 cfs from the project. Based on hydrology presented this is not the case and with the potential of 0 discharge during some portions of the year. 10. 4.3 Fish and Aquatic Resources An updated assessment of fisheries resources should be conducted in those waters affected by the project (Mountain Creek, Big Creek, etc.). Note that no studies were conducted on Big Creek, timing of methods employed and timing of studies should be evaluated against periodicity or life cycles of resident and anadromous fish within the system. 11. 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 Potential Adverse Impact and Proposed Mitigation Construction of a tailrace may result in an additional foot print and potential road or access route. 12. 4.10.2 and 4.10.3 Socioeconomic: Potential Adverse Impacts and Mitigation of adverse impacts include the hydroelectric facility and stream flow alteration within a National Wildlife Refuge. National Wildlife Refuges are public lands designated first and foremost for the conservation of fish and wildlife. Specific purposes of Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge which may conflict with the proposed project include the following: “ (i) To conserve fish and wildlife populations (and) habitats in their natural diversity, including, but not limited to, Kodiak brown bears, salmonids, sea otters, sea lions and other marine mammals, and migratory birds;” and “(iv) To ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the purposes set forth in paragraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge.” 13. 5.4 Resource Management Plans 6 Kodiak NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Fisheries Management Plan need to be included and evaluated within the scope of the project. The Kodiak NWR CCP has been revised since the previous project was licensed. Comments on Scoping Document 1, Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project, Alaska, Project No.13272-001, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Sept. 2009. 1. 2.1 Purposes of Scoping: Alternative such as wind, solar, tidal, and hydrokinetics should be evaluated for practicability before moving further with this project. 2. 4.2.1 Resource Issues- Geologic and Soils Resources Effects of long-term access roads and trails to and along intake, penstock, powerhouse and tailrace should be evaluated. 3. 4.2.2 Water Resources We believe that currently there is insufficient hydrologic information to determine hydrologic viability and therefore economic feasibility of this project as proposed. 4. 4.2.3 Fish and Aquatic Resources Address resident fish in East Fork Mountain Creek. Are they present and what is their likely survival if the project is built? 5. 4.2.4 Terrestrial Resources The environmental document should address invasive plant introduction through use of plant material for erosion control and discuss measures to avoid introduction of invasives and elimination of any unintended introductions. 6. 4.2.5 Land Use and Aesthetic Resources This section should include a discussion of the impacts of long term access roads and trails to and along the intake, penstock, powerhouse, and tailrace. Off road vehicles are prohibited on the vast majority of lands on National Wildlife Refuges except on designated roads and trails. 7 Measures should be proposed for restricting unauthorized access of off road vehicles to the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. 7. Request for Information and Studies Weather and Climate Data should be updated. Additional hydrologic discharge records should be provided. A bald eagle survey should be performed early in the planning process so that facilities are not planned to be sited near an active or potentially active nest. Fish and aquatic resource studies should be conducted on Mountain Creek, Big Creek, and on the side channels and wetlands of Big Creek that will be affected by tailrace discharge. Monitoring studies should be conducted of these waters after construction as well. Also, please ensure that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge at the address listed on the letterhead is included on your Service List. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project. Sincerely, - signed- Gary P. Wheeler Wildlife Refuge Manager 1 Robin From:Gary_Wheeler@fws.gov Sent:Thursday, May 20, 2010 3:27 PM To:bpetrie@avec.org Cc:Klein, Joseph P (DFG); Frost, William D (DFG); Honnold, Steven G (DFG); Wadle, Jeff A (DFG); Schrof, Stephen T (DFG); Jackson, James V (DFG); Tracy, Donn A (DFG); john.mudre@ferc.gov; Robin Reich; colleen@solsticeak.com; Daniel Hertrich; Susan Walker; Eric Rothwell; Gary_wheeler@fws.gov; Prokosch, Gary J (DNR); Curtis.Jennifer@epa.gov; donn.tracy@alaska.gov Subject:Revised Proposed Study Plan - Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project - P-13272 The Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge staff has reviewed your revised proposed study plan dated May 5, 2010, and provide the following comments. We agree with and support the comments provided by Jason Mouw of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. A spawning survey in late August of stream 2004 may be adequate to detect spawning pink and chum salmon, but it will be too early for spawning coho salmon. A second spawning survey should be conducted in early October to count spawning coho salmon. We also support the idea of a survey to determine distribution and abundance of juvenile rearing coho salmon and resident species in stream 2004 using baited minnow traps. Information gained from this study will provide a baseline of information for assessing impacts of the project. The bald eagle nest survey should be expanded. The proposed study area is described as the 1,000-foot buffer around all Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project components. We believe that this area should be expanded to suitable nesting habitat within at least 0.5 mile around project components. Activities involved with construction that are particularly noisy or obtrusive may require buffers larger than 1,000 feet to avoid disturbance to nesting bald eagles. Consequently, the nest survey should cover suitable nesting habitat greater than 1,000 feet from project features. This requested expansion should extend the planned eagle survey by only a minor amount of time. In addition, the bald eagle nest survey should be conducted prior to leaf out. Local conditions should be monitored to determine the phenology of leaf out to ensure that the survey is not compromised by a lack of visibility caused by leaves obstructing nests. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Gary Wheeler Gary P. Wheeler Refuge Manager Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 1390 Buskin River Road Kodiak, AK 99615 (907) 487-0226 phone (907) 487-2144 fax No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG -www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1498/3510 - Release Date: 03/16/11 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1390 Buskin River Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 (907) 487-2600 (907) 487-2144 FAX IN REPLY REFER TO: January 14, 2011 Ms. Robin Reich Solstice Alaska Consulting Inc. 11760 Woodbourne Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99516 Dear Ms. Reich: The Alaskan staff of the Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the four study reports written by consultants during the summer and fall of 2010. In general, the studies were professionally conducted and the reports well written. However, we have the impression that the fisheries crew felt like we were only interested in anadromous fish. To the contrary, we are interested in conserving all native fish and wildlife. Consequently, the report should have concluded what fish species were found in the Swimming Pond, and not simply that the Swimming Pond does not support anadromous species. Secondly, if stickleback is the only species found in the Swimming Pond, then the consultants did not come fully equipped to sample all species. When Deputy Refuge Manager Kent Sundseth and I were at the project site on June 4, 2010, a large fish, probably a Dolly Varden, surfaced in the Swimming Pond. We trust that this species will be mentioned in the National Environmental Policy Act document. Sincerely, - signed - Wildlife Refuge Manager United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Anchorage Fish & Wildlife Field Office 605 West 4 th Avenue, Room G-61 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2249 In reply refer to:AFWFO January 20, 2012 Brent Petrie Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Re: Old Harbor Hydroelectric () Dear Mr. Petrie, Thank you for your letter of September 14, 2011, requesting concurrence with the determination that the proposed Old Harbor Hydroelectric project will have no effect on species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., as amended, ESA). The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is seeking a license to operate a hydroelectric facility from the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC); FERC has designated AVEC as the non- federal representative for the purposes of consultation under section 7 of the ESA. As per verbal communication with Robin Reich (Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc.; Solstice), your determination was amended on December 21, 2011, to “not likely to adversely affect” in acknowledgement of the potential for impacts to listed species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is providing this letter in accordance with section 7 of the ESA. Project Description AVEC proposes to construct and operate a hydroelectric project near the city of Old Harbor. The project will have a dependable capacity of 140 kW and a peak capacity of 525 kW. The project will collect up to 11.8 cubic feet per second of water year round from a tributary (Mountain Creek) of Barling Bay Creek and transport it across a watershed boundary to Lagoon Creek tributary just west of the city of Old Harbor. The project would be located on lands owned or administered by the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR), the Old Harbor Native Corporation, and the City of Old Harbor. AVEC will be seeking a right-of-way permit from KNWR to cross their land. Project activities include installation of a water intake, penstock pipeline, access road, powerhouse, overhead electric line, tailrace, and a channel for discharge of water into the Lagoon Creek Tributary. A diversion wall would route water into a 2-mile penstock pipeline to the powerhouse, a tailrace would extend from the powerhouse to a nearby pond, and an open channel would be constructed from the pond to a tributary of Lagoon Creek. Lagoon Creek and its tributaries flow through a brackish Lagoon before being released into Sitkalidak Strait. A 1.5- mile long three-phase overhead power line would extend from the powerhouse to the community. A new 4-mile access road would extend from the intake to the existing road system. Brent Petrie 2 ESA-Listed Species The following species listed under the ESA may be found in the project area: North American breeding Steller’s eider (, listed as threatened in 1997), southwest distinct population segment of northern sea otter (listed as threatened in 2005), Kittlitz’s murrelet (listed as a candidate species in 2004), and yellow-billed loon (, listed as a candidate species in 2009). Steller’s eiders are known to occur in nearshore waters of Kodiak Island between late September and April, but are not regularly seen near Old Harbor (Gary Wheeler, KNWR, pers. comm.). Sea otters can be found year-round near Kodiak Island’s rocky shoreline and points of land, or in large bays where kelp beds occur. They are also found in areas with soft sand and mud substrates where they forage for clams. Sea otters are most common around the northern shores and southernmost points of Kodiak Island. The nearshore waters around Old Harbor are designated as critical habitat for the sea otter. Critical habitat was designated in 2009 and includes those areas that provide the physical and biological features—the primary constituent elements (PCEs)—essential to the conservation of this species. The primary constituent elements of sea otter critical habitat are: 1) shallow, rocky areas less than 2 m (6.6 ft) in depth where marine predators are less likely to forage, or 2) nearshore waters within 100 m (328.1 ft) from the mean high tide line that may provide protection or escape from marine predators; and 3) kelp forests, which occur in waters less than 20 m (65.6 ft) in depth, that provide protection from marine predators, or 4) prey resources within the areas identified by PCEs 1, 2, and 3 that are present in sufficient quantity and quality to support the energetic requirements of the species. The Kittlitz's murrelet and yellow-billed loon are listed as candidate species and may be found near the action area. Kittlitz’s murrelets nest in high-elevation scree slopes on Kodiak Island and are thought to overwinter in pelagic waters offshore of the breeding areas. Low-densities of yellow-billed loons winter in protected near-shore marine waters or less frequently, large inland lakes in southwest and southcentral Alaska, including those within the KNWR. Candidate species receive no formal protection under the ESA. However, incorporating their needs into project plans will simplify the reinitiation process should they be listed in the future. Potential Impacts on ESA-Listed Species This project may result in impacts to ESA-listed and candidate species through direct mortality from collision with new power lines, or indirectly through degradation of water quality. Steller’s eiders, Kittlitz’s murrelets, and yellow-billed loons could collide with the proposed overhead power lines. The risk of collision is greatest for Kittlitz’s murrelets due to the potential nesting habitat in the vicinity of the action area. Murrelets travel, multiple times per day, between their nests on the high elevation rocky hill-slopes and their foraging grounds in nearshore marine areas. Areas upslope of the proposed project have been identified as potentially suitable nesting habitat for Kittlitz’s murrelets. No nests have been found closer than approximately 15 miles from the action area (M. James Lawonn, pers. comm.), but no nest surveys have been conducted in this area. Steller’s eiders and yellow-billed loons do not nest on Kodiak, but they may occasionally travel over land to access wintering areas. Clean water is the cornerstone of habitat quality for marine wildlife, and may be adversely affected by this proposed action. Excavation, transportation of materials, roadwork, ground clearing, construction, and placement of fill could generate loose soil. Additionally, heavy equipment used during construction could spill fuel and other hydrocarbon contaminants. During Brent Petrie 3 and after construction, contaminants and loose soil may be released into storm water during rain or snowmelt events. Runoff may be washed downstream into the marine environment where sediments and pollutants could impair water quality, and degrade the habitat used by otters, eiders, murrelets and loons. Impact Avoidance and Minimization The following measures have been incorporated into the project to minimize the potential for effects to ESA-listed or candidate species or their habitat: Bird diverters would be placed on the power line to help birds avoid collisions. Discharge of sediments and other contaminants will be minimized through development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan with Best Management Practices for erosion control, including the use of silt fences and rolled mats. Natural vegetation will be retained wherever possible. Disturbed areas would be reseeded with native plants if necessary to stabilize the soil. The access road and would be designed and constructed to reduce ongoing erosion after construction is complete. Likelihood of release of petroleum products or other contaminants will be reduced by developing and carrying out a Hazardous Materials Control Plan. Conclusion The Service concurs with AVEC’s determination that the Old Harbor Hydroelectric project is not likely to affect ESA-listed species and critical habitat for the following reasons: 1) The potential for impacts to water quality in the marine environment are low due to the minimization measures described above 2) Bird diverters will help to reduce the probability of bird collisions. Requirements of section 7 of the ESA have been satisfied. However, obligations under section 7 of the ESA must be reconsidered if new information reveals project impacts that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, if this action is subsequently modified in a manner which was not considered in this assessment, or if a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the proposed action. This concurrence relates only to federally listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat under jurisdiction of the Service. It does not address species under the jurisdiction of National Marine Fisheries Service, nor fulfill requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Clean Water Act, or the National Environmental Policy Act. Additional Recommendations The Service also has administrative responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The following recommendations are voluntary measures that if adopted, will further reduce the possibility that migratory birds would be affected: Reduce possible impacts to nesting birds by conducting ground-clearing activities prior to or after the Services’ recommended timing window (see enclosure). Design transmission lines to reduce possibility of eagle electrocution. See http://www.aplic.org/Electrocutions.php for more information. Brent Petrie 4 Thank you for your cooperation in meeting our joint responsibilities under the ESA. If you have any questions, please contact me at (907) 271-1467 or Endangered Species Biologist Kimberly Klein at (907) 271-2660 and refer to consultation number 2009-0199. Sincerely, Ellen W. Lance Endangered Species Branch Chief cc: Carolyn Templeton, FERC Colleen Bolling, Solstice Robin Reich, Solstice T:\s7\2009 sec 7\NLAA\20090199_Old Harbor_Hydro_NLAA BEFORE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project ) Alaska Village Electric Cooperative ) Kodiak Island Borough Application for Preliminary Permit ) ) Project No. 13272-003 ) NOTICE OF INTERVENTION BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.214 et seq., and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (Commission) memorandum entitled , dated February 14, 2012, the United States Department of the Interior (Department), in the exercise of its statutory responsibility on behalf of the people of the United States, hereby provides notice that it is intervening in the above-captioned proceeding for the purpose of becoming a party. The Department requests the following names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the representatives of the U.S. Department of the Interior be added to the Service List for these proceedings, to receive all notices in this matter: Geoff Haskett Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Telephone: 907-786-3542 Frances E. Mann US Fish & Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Telephone: 907-786-3668 2 Doug Mutter Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 1689 C Street, Room 119 Anchorage, AK 99501-5126 Telephone: 907-271-5011 Fax: 907-271-4102 Kenneth Lord Attorney-Advisor Office of the Solicitor, Alaska Region 4230 University Drive, Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Telephone: 907-271-4131 Fax: 907-271-4143 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13th Day of April, 2012. Kenneth M. Lord Attorney Office of the Solicitor, Alaska Region 4230 University Drive, Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99508 (907) 271-4131 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Meeting Notes [Type text]Meeting Notes Date: January 9, 2012 Time: 10:30am Location: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) Meeting Subject: Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project, Draft License Application Agency Comments Meeting Attendees:Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G): Jason Mouw, Monte Miller;U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): Doug Campbell, Cyndie Wolfe, Cathy Flanagan; Old Harbor Native Corporation (OHNC):Cynthia Lopez;Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC): Brent Petrie, Anna Sattler;Hatch: Dan Hertrich, Joe Earsley;Solstice: Robin Reich, Colleen Bolling Teleconference:USFWS Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge: Gary Wheeler, Kent Sundseth; Solstice: Kate Arduser Notes: Robin (Solstice):Introductions. We’re here to discuss the agency’s comments on the Draft License Application (DLA). We are discussing the most significant comments received from ADF&G and USFWS. The minor comments are not on the agenda. Robin:USFWS asked for more design detail in the comments on the DLA. Exhibit F should have been included in our DLA submittal, but it was not ready. We have also beefed up the written project description (Exhibit E) based on comments. Dan (Hatch):Handed out Exhibit F, which are the design drawings for the project. Explained that the design is based on the July 2011 Feasibility Study, and the imagery is based on 2009 aerial photography and LIDAR. The wetland boundaries are included on the drawings, but the project mostly occurs in uplands. Dan: The cut/fill lines are shown on the figures; however, there is potential for a reduction in cut/fill impacts along the penstock and access trail. Robin: The ideal situation is to bury the penstock and put the trail on top of the penstock along the same alignment with two feet of vertical separation. Dan: The gate location is not shown, but it would be on sheet F-5 near station 48+00. The gate would block access at the extent of the existing trail, and it would not allow access to the new trail that would be constructed for the project. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Agency Comments on the Draft License Application January 9, 2012 Page 2 Sheet F-6 shows where the trail and the pipe have to separate due to very steep terrain, which is too steep for the road alignment. The dotted line on the figure shows the drainage boundary, and you can see it is a very small area. The alignment is on the ridge for most of the way, and there is a small potential for erosion. The project will be designed for large storm events, and culverts and ditches will be included for drainage. Cathy (USFWS):What level of flood event will you design for? Dan:It is likely that we would design for a 10 year flood event, but we haven’t gotten into the hydrology yet. We would appreciate information about flood levels that you have available. Cynthia (OHNC):There had been discussion about moving the powerhouse to Old Harbor Native Corp. land-is this still being discussed? Doug (USFWS):The location of the powerhouse does not matter so much to USFWS since there are other permanent structures, like the penstock and intake, on USFWS land. It is best to site it where is operates the best. Dan:The current powerhouse location is best for operation of the project. Near station 14+00 and 15+00 there is more cut and fill because it is steeper. This area causes some concern for drainage, but there is a limited drainage area contributing to this section. The access road alignment between stations 15+00 and 28+00 was modified a bit, and it now heads up the valley in a more straightforward route because of the limited drainage area feeding into this location. This minimizes the length of the road. Sheet F-10 shows where the road ties in at the existing water tank. Robin:Regarding the swimming pond to the Lagoon Creek Tributary, we had proposed blocking fish passage to the swimming pond in the DLA, but based on agency comments on the DLA, fish passage will not be blocked. Dan:We show the design of a pad at the intake for staging materials and equipment and a helicopter pad. The diversion and intake design are preliminary. Design will be finalized after more geotechnical data is collected this spring. The drawings that are available right now meet FERC’s needs and requirements. FERC will only give construction approval after final design is approved. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Agency Comments on the Draft License Application January 9, 2012 Page 3 Monte (ADF&G):Looks like sheet pile construction is being considered at the diversion. Is the geology conducive to sheet piles? Dan:From what we know about the soils at this point, they should be good for sheet piles. Monte:You don’t have any geotechnical information? Dan:Geotechnical work is scheduled for this spring. Robin:There were no requests for geotechnical studies when we were preparing the Preliminary Study Plans. Cathy:Have you considered potential icing issues? Dan:We have a trash rack built into the design, and we would always maintain water at the spillway height. We want ice and snow to build up because they provide good insulation in the winter. Cathy:Have you considered ice buildup in the pipe if there is a catastrophic failure? We saw complete icing in streams on Kodiak a few years ago. Dan:We still need to determine how to drain the pipe during an outage. There is still a lot of design work that needs to happen. Cathy:Terror Lake definitely has icing at the intake. Monte:Any place where metal is exposed to the air would super-cool and ice would form. We see that at hatcheries. Dan:Icing is a big concern because we want to keep the project operational through the winter. Robin:There were lots of questions regarding the geotechnical conditions of the project area. Dan:We are assuming bedrock is 2 feet below the surface. This is based on work done in the 1990s where we documented the point of refusal when driving rods into the ground along the alignment. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Agency Comments on the Draft License Application January 9, 2012 Page 4 Robin:The wetland scientist dug holes to 18 inches deep and he did not encounter bedrock. It is likely that the rods were driven to refusal at more frequent intervals than the intervals at which the holes were dug for wetland purposes. Dan:We have not determined what to do with overburden if there is more than we expect. For the trail, we will use a material to provide strength, but will also allow water through. Monte:I was wondering if you are putting the road right on top of the vegetation. Could water penetrate and cause the material to sluff out from under the road? Doug:You will have to haul the overburden material because you should get down to the non- organics before constructing the road. You will have to call the “trail” a road and construct a “road.” You will need to construct as Monte suggests. We have seen examples in the Southeast where the organics underneath a road blow out, and this results in a big mess. I don’t see any ditches on the uphill side of the road. Robin:There are trails around Old Harbor and the project area that are not built up to specifications and are in good shape considering the amount of traffic they receive. Doug:We need to minimize the opportunity for a blow-out of a road on USFWS’ land. Cathy:I realize the run-off area is small, but you can get flashy floods in Kodiak. Dan:It is a high priority to improve the design and accommodate the existing soils because we can’t afford to have high road maintenance costs. Cathy:The Forest Service and the State have design specifications for logging roads that may work for this. Dan:This is a very preliminary design right now. Robin:Remember that the USFWS bar is higher than FERC’s bar for design at this point in time. We plan to finalize the design in the next phase of the project. Doug:For the right-of-way (ROW) permit, the stipulations will need to be outlined in the environmental assessment (EA). You need to evaluate the effects of the project in the EA, and Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Agency Comments on the Draft License Application January 9, 2012 Page 5 design has to be far enough along that you can evaluate the effects in order for USFWS to grant ROW. Dan:Geotechnical surveys will occur this spring, and design can move further at that point. Robin:Has USFWS finalized an agreement with FERC to become a cooperating agency? Cyndie (USFWS):We drafted an agreement and sent it to FERC for comments, but we have not received a response. Doug:I would be satisfied if an experienced engineer went on-site and walked the road alignment and gave recommendations for culverts, benching, etc. If you can get an experienced engineer who is familiar with the location on-site to walk the alignment and prescribe design details, that would be good. Robin:We are trying to get the EA done, and we can write stipulations into the EA, but we want to submit the EA before the geotechnical work is done. We can include stipulations saying engineering drawings must be approved by USFWS before construction. We want the location pinned down, but we may not have the details all figured out. Monte:There will always be something that needs to change during construction and after the license is issued, the in-field changes are allowed and are to be expected. Doug:There are very steep grades on sections of the road, like 22%. I’m not sure how this will be possible. Monte:Driving equipment on such steep roads may tear up the roads. Doug:I think you need to address these issues at this stage in design. Cathy:I think 15% or 16% is the maximum grade for logging roads. Dan:We made the call that the steepness is okay because tracked vehicles would be used to access the project, and ATVs would be used for access after construction. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Agency Comments on the Draft License Application January 9, 2012 Page 6 Robin:We are calling the access a “trail” because we don’t expect trucks to drive on it. ATVs will be used if workers need to access the pipeline or the intake, but it will not be used like a road. Dan:There is no reason to go to the intake except for maintenance issues. Robin:Big issues at the intake or along the penstock could be addressed with helicopter support. Monte:It would be hard to get over-burden out on a trail. Doug:You are asking for trouble if you use overburden as fill. Dan:The existing ATV trail does not have issues. Monte:The higher elevations will have different effects such as freeze-thaw. Doug:I am not familiar with the existing ATV trail. I am not opposed to the project. It is a good project. Dan:The existing trail has very steep grades, and erosion isn’t very evident. Doug:Amount of traffic is not necessarily an issue. The road can slip out even if there is not traffic on it. We don’t want that to happen on Refuge land. What happens if you need major reconstruction at the intake? Cathy:You could write in the EA that access to the intake will be via helicopter. Jason (ADF&G):There is a difference between the literature and collective experience. We are not dealing with a landscape dominated by conifers. I’m not sure what that means, but it may demonstrate some stability that is not present in the Southeast Alaska. Dan:This is a helpful discussion to see how you want the road to be designed. Doug:The road wasn’t this steep when we discussed it previously. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Agency Comments on the Draft License Application January 9, 2012 Page 7 Monte:There are risks of side hill and downhill slides. If this is anything like non-treed areas on the Alaska Peninsula, they couldn’t even get gabions to stay in place. There are places that were cleared during World War II, and they still haven’t revegetated. Brent (AVEC):We drove rods to refusal all along the alignment. Doug:Can you rip the rock to bury the pipeline? Cynthia:Based on the airport construction, I think you can rip the rock. Doug:You could puncture the geo-textile fabric while you’re ripping the rock for the pipeline. Robin:We could build the road and install the pipe at the same time. It will be up to the contractor. Monte:Are you using thrust blocks with the HDPE pipe? Dan:Yes, anchors and thrust blocks. We want the HDPE to be anchored to the bedrock. Cynthia:There is not as much ash from Katmai on the south side of the island, it is mostly on the north side. Robin:Moving in the hydrology discussion. We had discussed the Mountain Creek hydrology during the PSP development. Jason:The issues were based on the amount of water that was being diverted. Mountain Creek is anadromous, and the water take increases are substantial. This changes the issue. All of the issues relate to the amount of water to be diverted. Dan:Our diversion amount is still in the same ballpark as has been presented from the beginning of this project. There was no flow at the mouth of Mountain Creek for half of the summer in 1998. This was the wettest year on record for Kodiak, but there was no water at the mouth. Even the spring and summer months had above average for rainfall. We did find pools with stranded juveniles closer to the canyon. We can only divert up to 25% of flow. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Agency Comments on the Draft License Application January 9, 2012 Page 8 Robin:The hydrology of Mountain Creek and diversion of water from the creek was an issue initially during the previous license application process, but the project team and agencies talked though the issue, and it became a non-issue after analyzing available information. Cathy:A lot of the gauges on Kodiak are lake-driven, so are not that similar to Mountain Creek. Dan:We have not found a gauge that works as a direct comparison to Mountain Creek, but we did do some comparisons. We would not pull out 13 cfs all winter when flows are lower. The size of the project came up in comments, and we looked at this extensively in the feasibility study. We opted for the flexibility of having two turbines to be able to take advantage of opportunity to use the power. Robin:There is the opportunity for fuel switching in the community, and the community has lots of big plans if the price of electricity is stabilized. Monte:FERC won’t grant an open-ended license. Cynthia:We have been working with a cannery operator, and getting a fish processor in the community is a high priority. Monte:The water request is four to five times the amount of current use. Robin:The last license was for a 500-kW project. We have a call into FERC to discuss the size of the project and the best way to license it. Dan:The plan is to put in one turbine, but build the project for two turbines. There is hydraulic capacity for 500 kW, and it is up to FERC to make the call. Brent:The way we have it planned, the civil work would allow for the doubling of capacity. Monte:I think you would have to amend the license down the road. I’m suggesting you research this with FERC so you’re not spinning your wheels. Brent:In the lower 48, FERC has shown that they want to license the largest possible project to avoid re-visiting the process. Our experience is that they’ve licensed the largest possible project before. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Agency Comments on the Draft License Application January 9, 2012 Page 9 Monte:I’m trying to avoid delays down the road. I wish DNR was here to discuss water rights. Dan:They’ve been involved in the meetings so far. The initial capacity would be half of the total possible capacity. Brent:There are other dynamics at work such as the cost of fuel and heating costs. We should consider the rates for heating and refrigeration. Dan:There is the potential to displace some heating fuel use. Robin:Moving into a discussion of water temperatures. The temperature gauge at the intake had some issues. But there had been a temperature gauge in place between November and July 2000. There is some difference in temperature between Mountain Creek and Lagoon Creek Tributary. The swimming pond is warm, and cold water would flow into it from the project. There could be mixing in the pond, so the water may not be as cold when it enters Lagoon Creek. This could provide some moderation of the temperature difference impacts. Monte:So a new change is that the project would allow fish into the swimming pond? Robin:Part of maintenance will be dealing with the beaver pond issue. Monte:Cynthia pointed out that the water supply tasted and smelled fishy. Coho will enter the drinking water supply. I recommend moving the drinking water intake to avoid the fishy taste and smell. Cynthia:We looked into moving the intake, but the funding would be a big challenge. Dan:The new water treatment plant probably has an upgraded filtration system since it is a new system. Monte:More fish habitat is a good thing. Jason:We will need to continue talking to our fish biologist about fish habitat issues. He will prefer an open channel. The stream is designated anadromous all the way to the swimming pond. Will Frost is the fish biologist, and he did not see big issues with the project. The State permitting process parallels the FERC process. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Agency Comments on the Draft License Application January 9, 2012 Page 10 Robin:The project would make it so the fish can make it all the way to the swimming pond. What is the process to revise the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Plan? Cyndie:As long as everything is addressed in the EA, it is not a big process. We explain that the plan is being revised through a NEPA documents, and we get it signed off. Robin:You have the ROW process in addition to the plan revision process? Cyndie:We have a question as to whether FERC can issue a license if the project owner does not have rights to the land. We have an informational pamphlet that says FERC can’t issue license until ROW is issued. Robin:We want this document to meet all of FERC and USFWS’s NEPA needs. USFWS would be a cooperating agency with FERC on the EA. Cyndie:Because the project is on Refuge land, there is a higher bar for design standards. Doug:We need to have a discussion with FERC about how all of the processes fit together. Cynthia:We talked to the Department of the Interior about assigning Alaska projects to the west coast, or opening an office in Alaska. Monte:I hope you took our comments as a way to move the project forward. We recognize the need for the project, but we also have mandates. One more comment-if there is spawning in the channel from the swimming pond to the Lagoon Creek Tributary, you should use materials better suited for fish spawning. [Type text] Meeting Notes Project: Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Date: August 30, 2012 10:00 am Location: AVEC Conference Room Meeting Subject: Agency Update Meeting Notes Geotechnical Investigation and Design Updates Meeting Attendees: Gary Wheeler, USFWS-Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Manager (via teleconference); Cyndie Wolfe, USFWS-Division of Conservation, Planning, and Policy; Doug Campbell, USFWS-Division of Realty and Natural Resources; Ivars Stolcers, USFWS-Division of Realty and Natural Resources; Monte Miller, ADF&G- Division of Sport Fish Hydropower Coordinator; Jason Mouw, ADF&G-Division of Sport Fish Research & Technical Services; Krissy Plett, DNR-Water Resources Division; Cynthia Berns-Lopez, Old Harbor Native Corporation; Audrey Alstrom, Alaska Energy Authority; Anna Sattler, AVEC; Meera Kohler, AVEC; Robert M. Pintner, R&M Consultants; Daniel Hertrich, Hatch; Robin Reich, Solstice; Kate Arduser, Solstice. Notes: Robin Reich (Solstice) opened the meeting. Meera Kohler (AVEC) thanked everyone for attending. Meera stated that AVEC is excited about this project and at this point it is feasible collaboration will make it possible. Cynthia Berns-Lopez (City of Old Harbor/Old Harbor Native Corporation) spoke on behalf of the community of Old Harbor saying that the community supports this project and looks forward to working together to make it a reality. Robin reviewed the project history timeline. (See PowerPoint presentation.) Robin explained that the hydraulic capacity, power output, and road length have changed from what was stated in the pre application document (PAD). PAD Current Project Hydraulic Capacity 8.0 cfs 11.8 cfs Power Output 400 kW 525 kW Road Length 7,700 feet 6,200 feet Gary Wheeler (USFWS) asked if FERC was okay with this change. Robin Reich said that FERC was aware of the changes and had no issues as long as agencies were aware and did not have issues with the changes. Monte Miller (ADF&G) asked about the project hydrology and flows in the east fork of Mountain Creek. Robin said that we addressed many of Monte s comments in the Draft Environmental Report and would like to have a meeting specifically about project hydrology in a few weeks. Later in the meeting it was decided to have a meeting focused on hydrology in approximately six weeks to give DNR time to review existing reports. Robin said that based on comments received on the Draft Environmental Report it became clear that we needed more geotechnical information to move forward. (Originally geotechnical investigation had been planned for later in the project.) Dan Hertrich (Hatch) presented findings of the June 2012 geotechnical investigation. He said the investigation helped to understand the needs for road construction and the need to address erosion control during construction. In this meeting, he hoped to gain guidance on access road construction and material quarry and disposal options. Dan said that the geotechnical investigation revealed that the soil profile is fairly consistent throughout the project area, except near the Swimming Pond. It consists of an approximately two foot deep vegetative mat overlying sandy silt, glacial till, weathered sedimentary bedrock, and finally sedimentary bedrock. The glacial till is not always present. The Swimming Pond area has a washed sand and gravel layer below the overburden and a low amount of fines, causing the area to drain well. Dan said that the geotechnical investigation showed that the vegetative mat/overburden is capable of supporting construction equipment unless disturbed. He said that it appears to drain well, suggesting lower erosion potential. Once the overburden is removed, the potential for erosion is higher because underlying material is not stable. Fill would be needed to keep the cleared area in place. Dan said that based on the geotechnical investigation there are two basic alternatives for access to the intake: The overburden could be removed and fill material could be brought in to cover the underlying glacial till, since it not capable of supporting equipment. Fill material could be a locally sourced glacial till, broken or shot bedrock, or clean sand and gravel fill from the powerhouse area. A structural overlay could be placed over the undisturbed vegetated mat and overburden. The overlay would be covered with free draining shot rock or fill from the powerhouse area. Monte asked if a combination of overburden removal and overlay could be used. Dan said that would be his recommendation to combine the techniques using the most suitable method for the various conditions along the trail. He said that the methods would be very site specific depending on cross-slope, grade, and other site characteristics. Dan then summarized the design and construction goals for the project. He explained that in order for the project to be feasible, a low impact design, about 8 feet wide, that uses efficient construction methods to control project capital cost is necessary. This design would minimize the footprint of the intake access trail to reduce material handling and maintain flexibility in the design concept to allow for value added engineering during the design phase. Dan said the intake design and functionality must be robust to avoid the need for frequent access. Dan said that helicopters could be used to access the intake once it is constructed, if necessary, and the group agreed that would be an option. Dan then outlined general design criteria from the U.S Forest Service Handbook for Alaska. He highlighted the importance of alignment location in the reduction of runoff and erosion problems and the use of structural overlays. Dan presented design recommendations for the powerhouse access road and intake access trail. He recommended the road be designed for heavy equipment traffic and frequent public use with wheeled trucks. He said the road should be up to 24 feet wide with a maximum grade of 15% (matches existing road), 60 degree turning radius, and 2% cross slope/crown. Overburden would be side during the initial clearing or hauled short distances to depression areas for disposal. Shot rock would be hauled in from the quarry site near the water tank for the road base and crushed rock would be hauled in from the existing quarry site for the road surface course. Monte asked about the width of the existing water tower access road, and Dan said the powerhouse access road will be designed with the same width (up to 24 foot wide) as that existing segment of road. Monte asked whether HDPE would be used of the pipeline he said if HDPE is used it should be buried to avoid problems with bears ruining the pipe. Dan confirmed that the pipeline would be a combination of HDPE and steel, and where HDPE is used, it will be buried. Dan said that the intake access trail would be designed for infrequent, non-public use, by lightweight off-road utility vehicles. It would be 8 feet wide (not including occasional passing and turnout), with a maximum grade of 25%, 50 degree turning radius, and 10% cross slope/crown. Structural base material for the road would utilize existing glacial till or haul in shot rock. A surface course would not be required. Dan said that he recommends a design and construction concept that: Starts with post construction (operation based) design criteria to establish the minimum level of construction. Includes both the overlay and overburden removal trail designs. Brings potential construction contractors into the design and permitting phase to define construction based design criteria. Works with potential contractors and project stakeholders to define quarry and disposal locations including identifying where overburden can be side cast and other disposal options. The group agreed that this would be a suitable plan. Robin asked what level of construction/access would need to be evaluated in the environmental document. Doug Campbell (USFWS) commented that it sounds like bringing in a lot of material to build a road would be cost prohibitive and would kill the project. He said if a design is too expensive to construct and you would never do it in reality, then it should not be analyzed in the environmental document. Monte asked about the anticipated trail grade. Dan explained that for the intake access trail he is looking at higher grades with minimum width and maximum 25% grade. He said that erosion control will be priority, and we can address erosion at these higher grades. He said that the design will be very site specific and we have the data necessary to design in that specific fashion. The combination of geotechnical information, site surveys, and high quality and accurate lidar is high quality and accurate. Doug asked for confirmation that from an operational standpoint this recommended design would satisfy the post construction use of road. Dan said the design is adequate for project operation. The project should have insignificant maintenance and a helicopter would be used to access the intake in extreme cases. The group then discussed terms and conditions for the project that should be included in the environmental report. Doug said that an Environmental Construction Monitor would be required for the project, and they would have the authority to approve minor changes as needed. For major construction changes a higher chain of command would need to be informed. Monte said he would send Solstice examples for the ECM. The project must have an erosion control plan and a storm water pollution prevention plan. The group said to check with contractors that have experience working in Kodiak. Robin asked about a date for the next meeting. Krissy Plett (ADNR Water) asked that existing hydrology reports be sent to ADNR and that the meeting be scheduled about six weeks out to give them time to review the project. USFWS thanked the project sponsor and consultants for taking a closer look at the geotechnical conditions and re-working the project design. The group expressed support for the project and agreed to meet again in about six weeks. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Hydrology Agency Meeting October 11th, 2012 Meeting Notes Attendees: Gary Wheeler, USFWS-Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Manager (via teleconference); Cyndie Wolfe, USFWS-Division of Conservation, Planning, and Policy; Ivars Stolcers, USFWS-Division of Realty and Natural Resources; Monte Miller, ADF&G- Division of Sport Fish Hydropower Coordinator; Jason Mouw, ADF&G-Division of Sport Fish Research & Technical Services; Melissa Hill, DNR-Water Resources Division; Cynthia Berns-Lopez, Old Harbor Native Corporation; Audrey Alstrom, Alaska Energy Authority; Anna Sattler, AVEC; Brent Petrie, AVEC; Joni Sweetman, AVEC; Daniel Hertrich, Hatch; Robin Reich, Solstice; Kate Arduser, Solstice (via teleconference). Notes: Attendeesintroduced themselves. Robin Reich (Solstice) opened the meetingwith an introduction and brief project summary. She explained that in the 1990’s AVEC acquired a FERC license for this project with the same intake location but with the discharge into the main stem of Lagoon Creek. The project was not constructed because with a combination of high mitigation expenses and a drop in fuel prices, the project was no longer feasible. Robin explained that since 2009 AVEC has been working on the project. AVEC has: completed scoping, drafted study plans, completed studies and a preliminary design, and is about done with a draft environmental document as part of a new Draft License Application to FERC. The project entailstaking water from the east fork of Mountain Creek, carrying it through a penstock to a powerhouse at Swimming Pond, and discharging the tailrace at Swimming Pond, and constructing a channel to the upwelling area (headwaters) of Lagoon Creek Tributary. The project will have a road and overhead power line to the powerhouse and an ATV trail to the intake. Brent Petrie (AVEC) added that the 1990’s alternative had very high mitigation costs due to the powerhouse location on Lagoon Creek. He said they looked into other alternatives that would be less costly. Robin explained that the purpose of today’s meeting is to look at hydrology of the Mountain Creek and Lagoon Creek systems. She said comments on the environmental document made us want to discuss this before we move forward. Robin summarized the hydrology related studies that have investigated the Mountain Creek Drainage: 1993-1996 ADNR measuresflowjust below confluence of east and west forks of mountain creek. 1995-1996 ADNR adds a gauge to measure flow of just the east fork ADNR concludes that the west fork contributes about 10% more flow than the east fork, which is similar to drainage basin size. 1996-1998 White Fisheries visits the project area five different times in the months of August, September, and October to survey fish and assess fish habitat. He never finds adult salmon in Mountain Creek (although he does find juveniles). White observes that at various times different sections of the creek lack surface flow. White categorizes the stream as marginal tributary for salmon spawning due to low flow conditions at certain times of year. 2010 Polarconsult releases their Mountain Creek Hydrology Report. Dan Hertrich (Hatch) then discussed the 2010 Mountain CreekHydrology Report in more detail. Dan explained that in the 2010 report they added a basin map that helps show the east fork of Mountain Creek’s contribution to the system. He said that they added data from stream gauging at the mouth, canyon, and intake, and that they analyzed that data. He said that they found that the canyon has the highest flow level, the intake the next highest, and the mouth hasthe lowest flow. Dan said the reason for this is that often flows are subterranean at the mouth, which make sense—the mouth is a broad alluvial outwash plain with a gravel bed. Dan explained that they also compared the data they collected in 1998 to rainfall data for Kodiak. 1998 was the wettest year on record for Kodiak Island. Jason Mouw (ADF&G) explained that the reason more hydrology studies were not requested during study plan development was because the amount of flow captured was around 10% of Mountain Creek’s total flow. He explained that 10% is right around what ADF&G considers the margin of error, and ADF&G wasn’t concerned about the impacts of that amount. As this project has developed the level of flow captured has increase from (the group discussed the exact amounts and decided on) 7.8 (it is actually 8.0) to 11.8 cfs. With that increase, came the need for more consideration. Dan Hertrich (Hatch) interjected that the previous project was licensed for 13 cfs. Cyndie Wolfe (USFWS) explained that their hydrologist was unable to attend but expressed concern that there is not enough data from the east fork to know what the flow is in typical year, and he wanted to make sure that AVEC was confident that there is enough flow to make the project feasible. Dan explained that he agrees that there is not a lot of data from the east fork to give an accurate picture of daily flows. He said because of that he used hydrology data from all over the state and reduced the flow values he recorded to base the feasibility study on a conservative estimate of flow. Dan explain, and Cynthia Berns-Lopez (Old Harbor Native Corporation) reiterated, that the project area is on the side of Kodiak Island that is the rainiest area of Kodiak Island, so extrapolation data from around Kodiak, if anything, should minimize that actual flows on the east fork. Cyndie said that the hydrologist may have been under the impression that Old Harbor is less rainy that other parts of Kodiak and that this might be a helpful clarification. Dan said that he would send the rainfall information to the USFWS hydrologist. Robin asked if there was any more discussion related to Mountain Creek. With no further comments she shifted the meeting focus to the tailrace and Lagoon Creek drainage. Monte Miller (ADF&G) asked about the expected water temperature changes in Lagoon Creek Tributary. Robin said that temperature was recorded at the bottom and surface of Swimming Pond and Lagoon Creek Tributary near the Beaver Pond. Data indicate that Swimming Pond froze at the surface and was about 32 oF at the bottom in the winter and temperatures in were warm (up around 70 oF) in the summer. Lagoon Creek temperatures were moderated by groundwater with temperatures around 32.3 oF in the winter and 70 oF in the summer. Robin said that AVEC tried to collect temperature data at the intake but were not successful. Robin said that we can make some assumptions about the water at the intake and what it will do when released into the Swimming Pond: the water at the intake is likely cold year round and will likely make the Swimming Pond and Lagoon Creek tributary colder. Monte said that he would like to know the ratio of discharged water to existing flow on Lagoon Creek tributary and how water temperature may change with the project. He said that he would like to see the temperature changes at different levels of operations (with different flows). Dan interjected that the discharge will typically be higher than existing flow. Monte explained that in the type of environment described there are often not a lot of fines which means the soil is not cohesive and can easily be eroded. He said that often constructed channels are not effective and the flows make their own channel. Monte also asked to see a ratio between the discharge and existing flow in the scenario where one turbine operates and the scenario where both turbines operate. Jason Mouw (ADF&G) said that the channel appeares to have a verylow gradient and velocity flow. Monte explained that colder water will likely enhance salmon habitat in Swimming Pond and the Lagoon Creek system and may make for more optimal conditions. He said that in hatchery experiments they have found that 50 oF water is optimal for growth. He said the decrease in water temperature could improve spawning temperatures, and coho rearing habitat, as well as may affect spawing timing. Monte then asked about the timing for the project. Robin explained that we would like to have the License Application to FERC by the end of the year. She said that unless there is a need for it, this will likely be the last meeting before the application is submitted. Monte asked if that would be draft or final, and Robin said it hadn’t been decided yet. He also asked about construction timing and timing of application for funding. Brent Petrie (AVEC) said that we’re still waiting to make sure project details and mitigation are defined before construction monies would be applied for. Cyntha Berns-Lopez (Old Harbor Native Corporation) reiterated that this is an important project for the community but construction is still awhile off. Cyndie Wolfe (USFWS) said that USFWS is working with FERC to put in a place a process for these kinds of projects—it will take awhile—but they are working together. There was general discussion of the high cost of diesel. Melissa Hill (ADNR) asked whether there were discharge measurement taken during the winter. Dan said no. She said that to get a better understanding of low flows, the rating curve should be reconsidered. She didn’t see any major changed to the project, but said a new analysis could help better understand feasibility especially in the winter months. Brent Petrie (AVEC) thanked the agencies for their continued interest in and support for this project, reiterating that it will be a very important project for the community. [Type text]Meeting Notes Date: May 22, 2013 Time: 1:30pm Location: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) Meeting Subject: Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project, Draft License Application Agency Meeting Meeting Attendees:U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): Cyndie Wolfe, Kimberly Klein, Ivars Stolcers, John Trawicki; Old Harbor Native Corporation (OHNC):Cynthia Berns; Alaska Energy Authority (AEA): Audrey Alstrom; Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC): Steve Gilbert, Meegan Welch; Solstice: Robin Reich, Barb Davis Teleconference: USFWS Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (Kodiak NWR): Bo Sloan, Kent Sundseth; Alaska Department of Natural Resources-Water: Drew Harrington; Alaska Energy Authority (AEA): Doug Ott; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): Stephanie Brady; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service: Eric Rothwell Notes: Steve Gilbert (AVEC):After introductions, Steve gave a brief introduction to AVEC and the people they serve. There is a directive from the AVEC Board of Directors to seek out energy production from non- fuel resources to decrease fuel use by 25%. AVEC has the largest wind fleet in the state with 34 turbines. They are small turbines, but are part of the attempt to reduce fuel consumption. The Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project fits into this scheme of decreasing consumption. This meeting is part of the FERC requirements and is designed to elicit input from the involved agencies. History and Overview Robin Reich (Solstice):Robin explained that in the 1990s AVEC acquired a FERC license for the project with the same intake location and a tailrace on the main stem of Lagoon Creek. The project was not constructed because of mitigation costs and decreases in fuel prices. Robin explained that project work began again and AVEC applied for another preliminary permit in 2009. Over the next few years, project scoping, drafts of study plans, studies, and a field study reports were completed. The FERC Preliminary Permit expired in December of 2011 and a new one was issued in June of 2012. The Draft License Application (DLA) was filed with FERC on April 26, 2013. (See PowerPoint slides.) Project Features Robin (Solstice): Robin summarized the project features. She explained that the final project capacity is larger than what would be initially installed. Initially, one turbine would be working; however, the power house would be constructed to house two turbines and the second would come on-line when needed. The City of Old Harbor has indicated the full energy capacity will be needed in the near future. Robin summarized Figure E.1 which shows taking water from the east fork of Mountain Creek, directing it through a penstock to the powerhouse. The project will have a tailrace into Swimming Pond and a manmade channel out of Swimming Pond to Lagoon Creek Tributary. The penstock will be placed primarily below the trail to the intake. Access on the trail will be blocked from ATVs but accessible to Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Draft License Application Agency Meeting May 22, 2013 Page 2 AVEC employees. A road, open to the public, and powerline would be constructed from the powerhouse into the community. (See PowerPoint slides.) Draft License Application Robin (Solstice): Robin gave a brief description of the components of the DLA.(See PowerPoint slides.) Questions/Comments: Q: Cyndie Wolfe (USFWS):I think there might be a small error in Section 17 and 18 of Exhibit G with labeling of the Refuge and Conservation Easement. It should be reviewed. A: Robin (Solstice):Yes, we had discussed this at one point, and for those who don’t know, Cyndie is talking about the section which deals with who owns the land (Refuge, Old Harbor Native Corporation), where conservation easements are located, and what entity manages the conservation easements on which land. There might be some mislabeling in the mapping. Q: Cyndie Wolfe (USFWS):Would there be any further work to add the second turbine? A: Steve (AVEC):Everything would be built to facilitate the second turbine so only minor changes within the powerhouse would be required. There would be no changes to the penstock or external components. Q: Cyndie Wolfe (USFWS):If some concerns that were not thought of arise after installing the second turbine, can an agency come up with further questions or comments? A: Steve (AVEC): AVEC is always open to consultations with any agency. Robin (Solstice):There will not be a FERC-mandated review for adding the second turbine as it would be written into the license but just not initially installed. There would be a relicensing requirements in about 30 years. Q: Cynthia Berns (OHNC):Would there be a bigger water requirement for two turbines? A: Steve (AVEC):Yes – two turbines require more water; however, the license would be issued for using water. Q: John Trawicki (USFWS):Did the project change in 2011 as far as having or not having two turbines? A: Robin (Solstice):AVEC and the City of Old Harbor have always intended to ask for two turbines. Cynthia Berns (OHNC):Old Harbor is looking at adding a fish plant and additional homes in the future so would need the second turbine. Robin (Solstice): There is also the opportunity for heating with electricity. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Draft License Application Agency Meeting May 22, 2013 Page 3 Q: Stephanie Brady (USFWS):Was modeling done for two turbines or one? A: Robin (Solstice):Project analyses were been done for the full project and can be found in the Reconnaissance and Feasibility Report in the DLA. Q: Bo Sloan (Kodiak NWR):This project has been entertained since the 90s, I am wondering about the water diversion. Do we have recent studies that have been done since then that would show how that would affect animals and habitat? A: Robin (Solstice):Fisheries studies were conducted in the 90s. During the study plan development phase, agencies were given the opportunity to comment on needed studies for the project. Based on this effort, AVEC conducted wetlands, bald eagle nest, cultural resources, and some fisheries work at Swimming Pond. Kent Sundseth and Gary Wheeler from Kodiak were on the ground for some of those studies. Q: Bo Sloan (Kodiak NWR):Did anything glaring come up? A: John Trawicki (USFWS):This project has been floated for a long time, and I have not seen anything glaring. Steve (AVEC): We strive to be as low impact as possible. Kent Sundseth (Kodiak NWR):We did not have any major concerns then and so this project honestly fell off the radar. Q: Cyndie Wolfe (USFWS):The agencies had an opportunity to propose those studies a few years ago, is there something that will allow us to request future studies? Do you plan on having another version of the DLA before finalizing? A: Robin (Solstice):The next step is the final License Application, not another draft license application and we are hoping to get that in by September, but any concerns should be discussed as soon as possible. Q: Bo Sloan (Kodiak NWR):What about underground powerlines versus above? A: Steve (AVEC):Underground lines are much more expensive and have more maintenance issues than aboveground lines. Repairing underground lines is difficult, and the community could be without service for a longer period of time if problems arise. Robin (Solstice): Also, AVEC may not have employees available in the community that could take care of a problem if underground work was needed. Workers would have to be flown in and could cause longer outages. Q: Kimberly Klein (USFWS):Have there been design changes since 2010? A: Robin (Solstice):Yes, some geotechnical work was done and there have been some places where road was rerouted and where penstock location was changed. These were all due to geotechnical findings. Also, the trail has been narrowed since large trucks will not be using the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Draft License Application Agency Meeting May 22, 2013 Page 4 road. In addition, some wider spots have been added to the trail to be used as material storage and allow for vehicle turnaround sites. These can be seen in Exhibit F. Next Steps Robin (Solstice): AVEC would like to hold another meeting in mid-June to get some recommendations and to address comments and would like to schedule another meeting before the July comment deadline. The process requires AVEC to wait five months to send in the Final License Application, therefore, AVEC would like to submit the application by September 30, 2013. AVEC plans to seek funding through the Renewable Energy Fund (grant) Program this fall. Meeting closed [Type text]Meeting Notes Date: June 26, 2013 Time: 9:30pm Location: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) Meeting Subject: Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project, Draft License Application Agency Meeting Meeting Attendees:U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): Ivars Stolcers, John Trawicki; Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G):Monte Miller, Jason Moux; Alaska Energy Authority (AEA): Audrey Alstrom, Doug Ott;Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC): Steve Gilbert, Meegan Welch; Solstice: Robin Reich Teleconference: USFWS Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (Kodiak NWR): Bo Sloan, Kent Sundseth; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): Stephanie Brady;Alaska Department of Natural Resources-Water: Drew Harrington;Corps of Engineers:Birdie Budnick; FERC:Mary Greene; Old Harbor Native Corporation (OHNC) and City of Old Harbor:Cynthia Berns;Native Village of Old Harbor:Melissa Berns Notes: Steve Gilbert (AVEC):After introductions, Steve gave a brief introduction to AVEC and the people they serve. Robin Reich (Solstice): Said that the meeting did not have a formal presentation. AVEC was interested in hearing comments on the project; therefore the meeting would be an open discussion. She said that they would start with USFWS comments that were emailed to AVEC the previous afternoon (attached to these notes). Stephanie Brady (USFWS):Confirmed that this was a compilation of comments from the team at USFWS, including the Refuge. Comment:Include other renewable alternatives investigated in the Environmental Report (USFWS written comment.) Discussion:Robin said that AVEC did do a wind study, which found that it was not a reasonable alternative for the community. The wind assessment will be described in the License Application’s Environmental Report. Some discussion about the limited solar resource on Kodiak Island will be added to the Environmental Report. Comment: The project needs to determine whether rare plants could be an issued for the project. (USFWS written comment.) Discussion:Robin said that they will look into rare plants, including scurvy grass, in the project area. The Natural Heritage Program will be consulted. Also, as recommended by Cynthia Berns (City and OHNC), Stacy Studebaker will be consulted. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Draft License Application Agency Meeting June 26, 2013 Page 2 Comment: Project should follow USFWS and APLIC’s guidance documents regarding avoidance of bird collisions with overhead power lines. Bird diverters on overhead lines should be monitored for effectiveness and should be maintained annually. (USFWS written comment.) Discussion: Monte Miller (ADF&G) said that ADF&G would have a similar comment. Robin asked whether the USFWS was asking AVEC to conduct bird collision monitoring. Stephanie said that AVEC should be looking for signs of bird collisions when they are doing work on the line. Stephanie also said that USFWS is interested in information on the performance of bird collision diverters including how well they lasted and whether there were any maintenance issues. Stephanie said that the measure was not meant to be burdensome. Comment: Avoid placing poles in high bird-use areas. (USFWS written comment.) Discussion: Robin asked whether USFWS could help the project determine the location. Stephanie said that she would discuss the comment with Kim Klein who made the comment. Bo Sloan (KNWR) said that the Refuge could help with it too. Comment: Was an eagle nest survey needed since one was previously completed (USFWS written comment) Discussion: Robin said that a nest survey was completed. Someone said that the environmental construction compliance monitor would be able to check for nests immediately prior and during construction. Comment: Page 39 of the Environmental Report mentions dewatering of constructed channel between Swimming Pond and Lagoon Creek Tributary. The impacts of dewatering to fish and water quantity need to be stated. (USFWS written comment.) Discussion: Robin said that the natural channel is currently ephemeral. The project would put in a constructed channel to accommodate increases of flow between the tailrace and Lagoon Creek Tributary. Dan Hertrich (Hatch) stated that is was unlikely that the channel would be dewatered since there would be constant flow from the intake. Dan said that during maintenance, the water would be diverted via a bypass. Agencies asked for more details regarding the constructed channel. Robin said that they would add more details to this section. Comment: Someone asked whether there would be any flow controls at the intake structure. Discussion: Dan said that there would not be any controls at the upper end of the project. Comment: Monte said that there were some questions regarding whether there was adequate stream flow studies to determine impacts to the Mountain Creek watershed. He said that we know that the flow within Mountain Creek goes subterranean during certain times of the year but it may be high enough in the watershed to not have a fisheries impact. Monte questioned whether there would be enough flow to meet the present electricity demand. He said that he wasn’t sure whether designing for 13 cfs was viable. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project P- 13272-003 Appendix E.3 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Introduction The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) defines EFH maturity. fish habitat, waters include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate; substrate includes sediment, hard bottom, structures, underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; necessary means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity 50 CFS 600.10). The MSFCMA directs federal agencies to consult with the NMFS when any of their activities may have an adverse effect on EFH. According to section 600.810 of Subpart J of the MSFCMA, section also -specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of action. As required by the MSFCMA (16 U.S.C. 1801), an EFH assessment is required for this project because there are salmon found in the project area (NOAA Fisheries 2011). Description of Essential Fish Habitat in Project Area This project would draw water from East Fork of Mountain Creek. The discharge from the tailrace would be to Swimming Pond and would flow from Swimming Pond to Lagoon Creek Tributary, which flows to Lagoon Creek. Mountain Creek The project intake is located on the East Fork of Mountain Creek approximately 7 river miles from the mouth of Mountain Creek. Mountain Creek has a drainage area of approximately 8 square miles and runs approximately 12.35 miles from its headwaters at approximately 1,800 feet elevation to Barling Bay (Appendix E.4, Figure 1 of Hydrology Report). The highest elevation in the Mountain Creek basin is 3,500 feet. Mountain Creek, like typical Kodiak Island streams, is short, steep, and exhibits a relatively rapid response to weather changes (ADNR 1996). Mountain Creek is divided into four sub-basins referred to as the West Fork drainage, the East Fork drainage, the Lower drainage, and the Mouth drainage. East Fork Mountain Creek is approximately 3.43 miles long with a drainage area of approximately 2.80 square miles. West Fork Mountain Creek is approximately 3.26 miles long with a drainage area of approximately 1.79 square miles. The main stem of Mountain Creek is approximately 2.75 miles long with a Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) EFH Assessment Page 2 drainage area of approximately 2.70 square miles. The Mouth drainage is approximately 2.91 miles long with a drainage area of approximately 0.60 square miles. The East and West forks of Mountain Creek converge near the dividing boundary with the Lagoon Creek basin at an elevation of about 500 feet. After the confluence of the East and West forks, Mountain Creek drops about 450 feet in two miles through a very steep-walled and rugged canyon. From there, it flows another 1.5 miles over nearly flat gravel that is very permeable. During mid to late summer of most years, all of the water flowing out of the canyon goes subsurface in the 1/3 mile stretch below the canyon, and during mid to late summer and fall the lower three mile stretch of creek, from the canyon to the mouth, lacks surface flow (Polarconsult 2010; White 1996; White 1996a). Mountain Creek drains into Barling Bay Creek joining Barling Bay Creek near its confluence with the tide water. This is a high energy deposition area where the channels are unstable and migrate during major flood events. Depending on where the edge of the bay is measured to, tide level, and the current course of Mountain Creek, the mouth empties anywhere from 0 to 300 feet upstream of the mouth of Barling Bay Creek. Barling Bay Creek is a river that has a drainage area of approximately 16 square miles. Unlike Mountain Creek, Barling Bay Creek has surface flow throughout the late summer and fall. It supports a large Pacific salmon population. Mountain Creek Fish Species. Past reports and drawings have named what is currently referred to as Mountain Creek as either Barling Bay Creek Tributary, Hydropower Creek, or, erroneously, Barling Bay Creek. According to the ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog, Mountain Creek (258-52-100401) supports coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and pink (O. gorbuscha) and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) to a point approximately 3 miles upstream of the mouth (ADF&G 2013). Downstream, approximately 2 miles from the mouth, chum (O. keta) are also present. Salmon surveys conducted in August and September 1996 and August and October 1998 in Mountain Creek (White 1996; White 1996a; White 1998) did not observe any species at the proposed hydroelectric project intake. The surveys did not find fish (juveniles or adults) above about 3 miles upstream of the mouth because there was no surface flow during each visit. during much of the year (AVEC 1998). The anadromous fish habitat limit mapped by ADF&G is near where the flow runs subsurface for much of the year. 1 In July 2012 ADF&G renumbered Mountain Creek from stream 258-52-10020 to stream 258-52-10040 to accommodate additions of new water bodies in the area. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) EFH Assessment Page 3 Lagoon Creek and Lagoon Creek Tributary Lagoon Creek headwaters are at an elevation of approximately 700 feet. The creek consists of an approximately 4.51 mile-long main stem that drains from the mountain behind the community of Old Harbor and the approximately 0.80 mile long Lagoon Creek Tributary that drains from Swimming Pond. During fisheries surveys in 1996, a one mile long section of Lagoon Creek was observed to have no surface flow (White 1996; White 1996a). Swimming Pond is an approximately 3.9 acre pond with an estimated maximum depth of 15 feet, estimated mean depth of 8 feet, and approximate shoreline length of 1,665 feet. Its presumed flushing rate is 32 hours. The level of Swimming Pond correlates with ground water in the area and fluctuates without any apparent inflow or outflow, except during high run off shed sand and gravel mix that was found during geotechnical investigation at the nearby powerhouse site test pit. The substrate is expected to be very permeable but may be covered with a layer of sediment that can impede flow slightly. Lagoon Creek Tributary is narrow and shallow with ephemeral surface flow for its first 1,000 feet from Swimming Pond.The perennial section of Lagoon Creek Tributary above the beaver dam is a relatively short (less than 0.5 miles), low energy low flow system categorized by low energy pools. This area is a groundwater discharge zone (Love 2011). The tributary becomes ponded as it approaches a large beaver dam mid-section. Recent beaver activity mid-section on Lagoon Creek Tributary is affecting the stream hydraulics. The section of Lagoon Creek below the beaver dam is a relatively short (less than 0.5 miles), stable, low energy, meandering stream, categorized by pools and riffles. The predominate riffle substrate is medium gravels and cobble. Pools typically have silt and sands. Lagoon Creek empties into a large, tidally influenced lagoon called Salt Lagoon. Salt Lagoon is fed by Lagoon Creek and another small spring creek. Salt Lagoon occupies about 82 acres (0.13 square miles) and drains through a culvert under the road into the Sitkalidak Strait. The culvert is high enough that during low tides the water level is higher than the tide and the Lagoon drains fairly rapidly through the culvert. During high tides, the level of the lagoon matches the level in the strait and water flows into Salt Lagoon through the culvert. Lagoon Creek Fish Species. According to the ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog, Lagoon Creek (258-52-100302) and Lagoon Creek Tributary (258-52-10030-2004) support spawning coho, chum, and pink salmon. The catalog also documents Dolly Varden presence in Lagoon Creek(ADF&G 2013). 2 In July 2012 ADF&G renumbered Lagoon Creek from stream # 258-52-10015 to stream # 258-52-10030 and Lagoon Creek Tributary from stream #258-52-10015-2004 to stream # 258-52-10030-2004 to accommodate additions of new water bodies in the area. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) EFH Assessment Page 4 Fish trapping and visual spawning surveys occurring in August and October 2010 found Dolly Varden and stickleback in Swimming Pond, however no coho, chum, or pink salmon were observed or trapped in the Pond. These surveys found coho salmon and Dolly Varden in Lagoon Creek Tributary from the groundwater upwelling to the mouth. There was no surface flow in the channel between Swimming Pond and the groundwater upwelling area during fish surveys. Impacts to EFH The Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project would impound water from the East Fork of Mountain Creek in a reach where fish have not been found. The impacts to fish habitat on Mountain Creek are expected to be negligible because the amount of water diverted is not expected to significantly affect flow in the lower anadromous reach. See Section E.3.3.2 Aquatic Resources, Affected Environment, Water Resources, Water quantity and Runoff Patterns. Water from the intake would be routed through a penstock and tailrace to Swimming Pond and Lagoon Creek Tributary. The tributary flows to Lagoon Creek which flows to a saltwater lagoon and into Sitkalidak Strait. These waterbodies are all listed as anadromous waterbodies that support EFH. Water flowing to Swimming Pond would likely impact fish and EFH in Swimming Pond by increasing flow volume and oxygen saturation and by decreasing temperature. Winter temperatures in Swimming Pond are not expected to change significantly with the project. In addition, the water entering Swimming Pond would be oxygen saturated, but not supersaturated. Fish are expected to adapt to these.. Flow through the project would not follow the electrical demand in Old Harbor, and the flows through the facility would not be adjusted. Potential project impacts to fish and fish habitat, including EFH, in the Lagoon Creek drainage and would be related to the introduction of additional water to Lagoon Creek Tributary, including changes to (NOAA Fisheries 2011a): Flow patterns and sedimentation Water temperature Floodplains Available fish habitat The volume of water within the Lagoon Creek drainage would increase with the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project. Up to 11.8 cfs would be added to Swimming Pond. Project flows would likely fill Swimming Pond to capacity most of the time, thus flows to Lagoon Creek Tributary would be approximately equal to project flows. The upper ephemeral reach of Lagoon Creek Tributary would likely become more perennial. Lagoon Creek Tributary would go through a period of adjustment as a result of increased Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) EFH Assessment Page 5 would receive, the increases in seasonal water volume are expected to increase overall habitat area, especially for juvenile coho salmon. The input of colder water from the East Fork of Mountain Creek into Swimming Pond could reduce temperature on Lagoon Creek and could impact development of juvenile salmonids and food source development and cause a change in timing of outmigration. The constructed portion of the Lagoon Creek Tributary channel would not block salmon, Dolly Varden, and stickleback passage between Lagoon Creek Tributary and Swimming Pond. The project sponsor, AVEC, does not propose to create additional fish habitat within the channel and Swimming Pond. If fish become established in the channel, mortality would be likely if the channel is dewatered. The channel could be dewatered when flow into Swimming Pond is diminished because of low flows from the intake or during facility maintenance activities. Dewatering events are not expected to be common. Intake, penstock, access trail, and access road construction activities, including blasting and equipment movement, are not expected to impact fish habitat. Equipment would access the project area via the new access roads, and no creeks will be crossed. Wetlands associated with fish habitat would not be impacted by the fill placed for the project components. Tailrace construction and in-water work in Swimming Pond could impact fish by increasing sedimentation and decreasing the quality of habitat within the pond. During in-water activities a silt curtain could be installed to decrease impacts to water quality within the pond. Other during construction. Enhancement of the 1,100 feet ephemeral Lagoon Creek Tributary channel from Swimming Pond should not impact fish habitat. Specifications will place limits on excavation methods so that equipment operates mainly in the section of channel where surface water is ephemeral and not in Swimming Pond or in the perennial reach of Lagoon Creek Tributary. Once the enhanced channel is constructed it will be connected to the spring fed section of Lagoon Creek Tributary first. Then it will be gradually connected to Swimming Pond, so that water flow will gradually be introduced into the enhanced channel over a time sufficient to decrease impacts to fish in Swimming Pond and Lagoon Creek Tributary. Timing of channel enhancement work would occur during timing windows recommended by ADF&G to avoid impacts to fish as part of their fish habitat permit. Because the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project is a basin diversion project with no dam, impacts identified by NOAA Fisheries related to dam construction and operations do not apply. Water- level fluctuations, altered seasonal and daily flow regimes, and reduced water velocities discharge volumes would not occur. In addition, no impacts to juvenile salmonids migratory behavior or a reduction in the availability of shelter and foraging habitat would occur. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) EFH Assessment Page 6 Proposed Conservation Measures Although no significant impacts to EFH are expected from this project, the following hydroelectric project conservation measures developed by FERC would be incorporated to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to EFH and Pacific salmon (NOAA Fisheries 2011a). No dam would be constructed. Upstream and downstream adult and juvenile fish passage would be maintained in Lagoon Creek Tributary. Large woody debris would be maintained along Lagoon Creek Tributary wherever possible. In addition the following conservation measures have been incorporated into the project. After channel construction, the banks of Lagoon Creek Tributary would be revegetated with native plants and large and small woody debris from areas cleared during construction. Enhancement construction of the 1,100 foot long ephemeral section of the Lagoon Creek Tributary channel from Swimming Pond would occur during a period established In addition to the conservation measures listed above, more specific requirements may result from the permit process for the preferred alternative. By design, the permit stipulations will protect the known fish resources in the project area and will protect EFH areas. EFH Assessment Conclusions The construction of the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project will likely adversely affect EFH within Lagoon Creek Tributary; however, impacts to coho salmon and their habitat would be not be significant. Increased flows could result in erosion and sedimentation and thermal changes in Lagoon Creek Tributary; however, Swimming Pond and the constructed channel would help to buffer flows and temperature changes before the water flows into EFH. Conservation measures will help to reduce adverse effects. The Old Harbor Project will be a basin diversion project and no dam would be constructed and all the NOAA Fisheries EFH conservation measures listed in the hydroelectric project section of Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat from Non-Fishing Activities in Alaska would be implemented (NOAA 2011a). Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272-003) EFH Assessment Page 7 Literature Cited Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2013. Fish Resource Monitor. Viewed on October 28, 2013 at: http://extra.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FishResourceMonitor/?mode=awc Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 1996. Old Harbor Stream Gaging Report. By Stan Carrick and Roy Ireland, Alaska Hydrologic Survey. Prepared for State of Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Energy and Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Love, Christopher L., PWS. 2011. Fish Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project. Finalized June 2011. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). 2011. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. As viewed on September 23, 2011 at: http://sharpfin.nmfs.noaa.gov/website/EFH_Mapper/map.aspx National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). 2011a. Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat from Non-Fishing Activities in Alaska. Prepared November 2011. Polarconsult. 2010. Mountain Creek Hydrology Report, Old Harbor, Alaska. Prepared for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative. May 2010. White, Lorne. 1996. Memorandum: Old Harbor Fisheries Work August 9, 1996. Prepared August 13, 1996. White, Lorne. 1996a. Memorandum: Old Harbor Fisheries Work September 3, 1996 and September 23, 1996, Brief Report. Prepared October 8, 1996. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project P- 13272-003 Appendix E.4 Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study ISO 9001 Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report FERC Project Number P-13272 Alaska Energy Authority REF Grant 2195431 Project Permitee: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE Anchorage, Alaska July, 2011 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page ii © Hatch 2011/07 Table of Contents Terms, Acronyms, and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... iv 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 2. Feasibility Issues ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Project Size .................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Turbine Configuration .................................................................................................................... 3 3. Cost Information ..................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Schedule ........................................................................................................................................ 5 3.3 Equipment and shipping................................................................................................................. 5 3.4 Powerhouse ................................................................................................................................... 6 3.5 Turbine Cost .................................................................................................................................. 6 3.6 Intake ............................................................................................................................................. 6 3.7 Pipeline ......................................................................................................................................... 7 3.8 Transmission and Roads ................................................................................................................. 7 3.9 Indirect Costs ................................................................................................................................. 8 4. Power Study ............................................................................................................................................ 9 4.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 9 4.2 Old Harbor Demand ...................................................................................................................... 9 4.3 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................... 11 4.4 Power Production ........................................................................................................................ 13 4.5 Project Selection .......................................................................................................................... 14 5. Results ................................................................................................................................................... 16 5.1 Cost Comparison .......................................................................................................................... 16 5.2 Cost Detail ................................................................................................................................... 16 5.3 Project Benefits ............................................................................................................................ 17 6. Economic Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 19 6.1 Diesel Integration ......................................................................................................................... 19 6.2 Economic inputs .......................................................................................................................... 19 6.3 Economic Results ......................................................................................................................... 20 6.4 Sensitivity Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 21 7. Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 22 7.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 22 7.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 22 8. References ............................................................................................................................................. 23 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page iii © Hatch 2011/07 Appendix A Opinion of Probable Cost 525 kW Project with 50% Installed Capacity .......................... A-1 Appendix B Construction Schedules ........................................................................................................ B-1 Appendix C Project Drawings .................................................................................................................. C-1 Appendix D Project Description ............................................................................................................. D-1 Appendix E Mountain Creek Hydrology Report, Old Harbor, Alaska ...................................................... E-1 Table 1 – Turbine and Generator Price Schedule ............................................................................................ 6 Table 2 – Indirect Costs .................................................................................................................................. 8 Table 3 – Old Harbor Demand Summary ..................................................................................................... 10 Table 4 – Adjustment Factors for Measured Stream Flows at Intake .............................................................. 12 Table 5 – Pipe Selection Along Project Alignment ........................................................................................ 13 Table 6 – Pipe Diameters, Flows, Losses, and Power Output ........................................................................ 14 Table 7 – Project Alternatives Comparison ................................................................................................... 16 Table 8 – Opinion of Probable Cost Summary – 525 kW Project with 50% Installed Capacity ..................... 16 Table 9 – Annual Fuel Savings with Hydro Project ....................................................................................... 17 Table 10 – Economic Parameters .................................................................................................................. 20 Table 11 – Economic Summary .................................................................................................................... 21 Table 12 – Benefit to Cost Ratio Sensitivity Analysis ..................................................................................... 21 Table 13 - Monthly Average Mountain Creek In-stream Flow and Diversion Potential (cfs) ......................... D-2 Figure 1 – Project Capacity and Installed Capacity ......................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 – Photo of Water Tank Access Road and Quarry at Beginning of Project (Old Harbor Native Corp) .. 8 Figure 3 – Old Harbor Average Daily Demand Fluctuations ......................................................................... 10 Figure 4 – Old Harbor Project Hydrograph and Approximate Power Potential ............................................. 12 Figure 5 – Flow Duration Curve for the East Fork of Mountain Creek ........................................................... 12 Figure 6 – Old Harbor Hydro Annual Energy Potential ................................................................................. 14 Figure 7 – Project Optimization Chart .......................................................................................................... 15 Figure 8 – Hydro Output (Adjusted Hydrology Data) and Diesel Generation Requirements ......................... 18 Figure 9 – Hydro Output (Unadjusted Hydrology Data) and Diesel Generation Requirements ..................... 18 Figure 10 – Chart of Mountain Creek In-stream Flow and Diversion Potential (cfs) ..................................... D-3 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page iv © Hatch 2011/07 Terms, Acronyms, and Abbreviations TERM MEANING AEA Alaska Energy Authority AVEC Alaska Village Electric Cooperative BTU British Thermal Unit cfs Cubic feet per second cyd Cubic yards ea Each FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission gal Gallon HDPE High density polyethylene ID Inside diameter kVA Kilo Volt-Amps kW Kilo Watt (1000 Watts) kWh Kilo Watt-hours lb Pound mi Mile mmBTU 1 million BTU's mo Month O&M Operation and Maintenance OD Outside Diameter OPC Opinion of Probable Cost SDR Sidewall Diameter Ratio sq ft Square feet sq mi Square mile sq yd Square yard . Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 1 © Hatch 2011/07 1. Introduction This feasibility study and cost estimate has been prepared for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) to facilitate project financing, permitting, and final design. The scope of this report is primarily limited to a technical analysis of costs, selection of project size, and estimate of displaced diesel generated electrical energy. More general information on the Old Harbor project can be found in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) e-library under the current license number P-13272. The study is based on preliminary concept drawings and assumed construction methods. The study describes various project alternatives, analyzes the amount of power produced by each alternative, estimates the cost of each alternative, and provides a recommended project configuration. The report is organized with an overview of the primary issues related to feasibility, discussion of cost estimating and pricing details for major components followed by the power study methodology and the analysis of demand, hydrology, hydroelectric power modeling, and a rationale for selection of a project size. Finally, a comparison of the alternatives is provided with a discussion of the results of the study and details of the project benefits and results of the economic analysis. 2. Feasibility Issues Of the many issues that determine the feasibility and selection of project size to construct, this report focuses on the cost, energy, and economic issues. The broader range of issues relating to the development are briefly addressed below. Geotechnical: Soils in Old Harbor consist of a uniform layer of organics and peat approximately 2 feet deep overlying rock formations. Environmental: The Old Harbor project diverts water from the East Fork of Mountain Creek to the Lagoon Creek basin for power production. Extensive environmental investigations were performed as part of the previous FERC licensing effort, P-11690. A final environmental assessment was issued as part of the FERC issued original license for a 500 kW project utilizing 13.2 cfs. A summary of this work is included in the Preliminary Application Document and the results of additional investigations will be submitted under the current licensing effort. Documentation sources are found in the reference section. Site Control: Acquisition of property rights will be required from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of Alaska, Old Harbor Native Corporation, and the City of Old Harbor. Acquisition is dependent on AVEC receiving a license to construct from FERC, a Right of Way permit from the USFWS, and a conservation easement waiver from the Exxon Valdez Trustee Council. The previously licensed project received, or was close to receiving, these and other property permissions therefore it is expected that the same will come about through the licensing process for this project. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 2 © Hatch 2011/07 Permitting: Permitting follows the FERC licensing effort as well. The final environmental assessment will form the basis for the FERC license, USFWS Right of Way permit, USACE permits, and permits from the State of Alaska and Kodiak Island Borough. Cultural: Cultural resources investigations have been performed as part of the FERC licensing process and reports of investigations and recommendations can be obtained through the FERC elibrary system. Operation and Maintenance: AVEC will be responsible for operation and maintenance of the project. Details on O&M will materialize at the end of the FERC licensing process and design effort where any required monitoring and mitigation will be determined. An analysis of O&M related to the existing diesel plant and the proposed hydro is included in this report. The long term operation and maintenance of the hydroelectric project will be less than that of diesel operation. Financing and Economics: A brief analysis of the economics is included in this report but final financing terms and economic evaluation will be a work in progress that will also depend on the outcome of the licensing and efforts. Conceptual Design: Conceptual plan maps are included in Appendix C along with conceptual drawings for the intake and the access trail. While the conceptual design drawings are preliminary, this report is based on a detailed analysis of pipeline and turbine performance. The high level of detail in the analysis is expected to approximate actual project operation closely. 2.1 Project Size The initial analysis found that even the smallest project configuration considered would displace about 90% of Old Harbor's current diesel generation. After the cost estimate was completed, it was also apparent that construction involved a large amount of fixed costs that were independent of project size. Consequently, increasing the capacity of the project well above current demand requirements could be done with only small incremental increases in total cost. Due to the high overall cost of the project and the relatively small demand requirements, configuring the project to be as economical as possible is also a critical factor. Determining the size of project to construct became a central issue of the analysis. Future demand growth is a key factor in determining overall economics and project size. The estimation of demand growth is quite difficult because it is highly dependent on future funding scenarios, population, industrial and commercial development, and the cost of fuel over a very long time period. In lieu of considering potential demand growth, this report focuses on selecting a project size determined by maximizing energy output with the least capacity and cost. Implicit with this assumption is that future load growth, although undefined at this point, will occur if this project is constructed. This approach results in a project size that is generally consistent with past project development efforts1. 1 Locher Interests / Harza Northwest / ISER report of 1998 recommended a 500 kW project using an average pipe ID of 16". Voxland (Locher Interests report) recommended a 600 kW project. A 330 kW project using a 16" OD pipeline was recommended by Polarconsult (1995 Feasibility Study). Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 3 © Hatch 2011/07 The purpose of analyzing various project sizes, all of which meet current demand requirements, is to determine an optimal project size that would accommodate future load increases without constructing too much stranded capacity. This approach is adopted based on the assumption that the pipeline is not expandable. Due to the very long length of the pipeline, the remote location, and the complex topography it would be cost prohibitive to either replace the pipeline with a larger size or add a second pipeline alongside the original at some point in the future for marginal gains in capacity. 2.2 Turbine Configuration Initial analysis focused on whether installation of the full project capacity in a single or dual turbine configuration was preferable. Subsequent findings indicated that the cost of the project was quite high and that all reasonable efforts should be made to remain economical. Given that the present day peak demand in Old Harbor is substantially less than the proposed project capacity, the analysis includes construction of partial capacity by planning for two turbines but installing only one of the units. Selection of the generation capacity was chosen on the basis of meeting current peak demand (160 kW) plus 25% while maintaining identical generation units in any multiple turbine configuration. While the peak capacity of the pipeline is fixed, an additional turbine and generator can be added easily if planned for. This approach allows for lower initial construction costs without sacrificing future capacity potential. Future costs and revenue associated with supplying the additional turbine to meet future load growth is not included in the economic analysis. Although only one turbine is included in the cost estimate, tables and charts depicting the amount of energy produced are based on the full project capacity with both turbines installed. This approach, explained in the previous section, is based on comparing project potential as opposed to project utilization. Estimated project utilization, based on current demand, is the same regardless of project size. Tables and charts showing the cost of the project are based on one of two turbines installed when dual turbines are recommended. The project capacity and generation capacity used in this report are depicted graphically in the following chart. Details regarding the turbine configurations are included in the Cost Information section. Multiple Turbine Configurations A dual turbine installation allows for continuous operation while performing inspection or maintenance on the other unit. Typical downtime for inspection is about one day a year and expected failures may result in a week offline A dual turbine configuration as a base load project needs to synchronize 2 units. If a diesel is added to supplement the turbines then there are 3 generators to control and synchronize adding to the complexity of the system. A single 680 kW turbine could operate with reasonable efficiency down to the minimum flows. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 4 © Hatch 2011/07 Figure 1 Project Capacity and Installed Capacity 3. Cost Information 3.1 Overview The physical layout of the project is based on the March 2010 project drawings found in the FERC e- library for the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (P-13272). Copies of the drawings are included in Appendix C. The overall approach taken in the development of this estimate is from a contractors construction perspective where quantities and pricing have been examined in detail. Also, the estimate has been prepared to reflect a traditional construction project and there is no attempt to reduce the total cost through value engineering methods or possible lower cost alternatives. This results in an estimate that should equate to the average to high range of responsive construction bids. Overall logistics for the construction involve shipping all materials from Seattle directly to Kodiak. From there, materials would be unloaded from containers and shipped by landing craft barge to Old Harbor. Equipment will be shipped to and from Kodiak and remain on site for a 6 month period. As discussed above, no attempt has been made to reduce costs by optimizing equipment utilization and shipping schedules. The opinion of probable cost (OPC) is based on the single season construction schedule in Appendix B. A number of different project sizes were evaluated as part of this cost estimate to facilitate the selection of pipeline size and turbine capacity for inclusion in the FERC License application. The comparison includes determination of potential annual energy generation, displaced diesel generation, and construction costs associated with each project size. The cost estimate accounts for changes in the project size by adjusting the following variables: Pipeline material cost by weight. Pipeline shipping cost to Kodiak by number of containers. Pipeline staging cost along the alignment by helicopter placement. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 5 © Hatch 2011/07 Turbine and generator cost. Variables not subject to change in the OPC include pipeline installation and assembly cost. The reason being that trenching would probably be done in a single pass using a bucket sized for the pipeline resulting in negligible changes in excavation time. Also, fusing times for the HDPE are primarily based on setup times and thicknesses which do not vary much for the small sizes being considered. The steel pipe is assumed to be assembled by mechanical couplings that will require very nearly the same time to assemble for all the pipe sizes considered. Differences in the intake size, valves, powerhouse, transmission, and tailrace sizes are all considered too minor to evaluate for the low flow rates and power differences being considered and as a percentage of total project costs. 3.2 Schedule A schedule for the construction was developed to assist with the cost estimating. The construction window for work in the upper reaches of the project extends from about June through October. Equipment and labor were adjusted to ensure that production rates met this limitation. The intake and pipeline construction and the required intake access trail are the primary drivers for the schedule. The actual start of the project is set for the beginning of May. The date for material mobilization is based on a 4 month procurement window after license issuance for pipe and other materials (including the powerhouse) from Seattle. The schedule is included in Appendix B. Although not used in the OPC, a two season construction schedule is also included in Appendix B. 3.3 Equipment and shipping Mobilization is based on shipping all materials from Seattle to Kodiak. Samson quoted $5000/container although $6000 is used in the estimate. Equipment is expected to originate in Kodiak. Subsequent shipping of materials and equipment to Old Harbor is accomplished by landing craft. The landing craft is capable of handling loads of up to 80k pounds or up to an equivalent of 4 containers when stacked (containers must be unloaded). This estimate assumes that, on average, 2 containers can be shipped at once for material and that 5 trips each at the beginning and end of the project are required to haul equipment. Each trip with the landing craft to Old Harbor is $6000 (M/V Lazy Bay) although the cost estimate uses $7500 to account for additional costs associated with unloading and dock fees. A helicopter quote was obtained from Maritime helicopters in Homer. Haul time is based on 40' pipe sections and load carrying capacity. In lieu of using a helicopter, track haulers (Marookas) could be used to haul pipe resulting in some potential savings. The adequacy of the access trail will dictate whether this is a viable option. The helicopter option has the potential to reduce the amount of shot rock used on the construction trail although this potential savings is not included in the estimate. Equipment rental rates listed in the estimate are based on published rental rates from Craig Taylor equipment and a quote from Brechan for the Marookas. Housing costs are estimated based on the rental of 4 houses for 6 months. Contractor air travel is based on 2 charters per month from Kodiak. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 6 © Hatch 2011/07 3.4 Powerhouse Concrete material costs of $200/cyd are based on pricing of similar projects. The Old Harbor cost estimate includes 6 weeks of labor to construct the powerhouse. The building cost of $130/sq ft is based on past experience with building construction. This is likely higher than most industrial metal buildings but the building is also relatively small. A price quote for the crane was not obtained. The tailrace construction is based on creating a stream channel from the powerhouse to the pond and from the pond to the existing upper limit of the Lagoon Creek Tributary. Material costs are estimated based on a preliminary design ($21/ft). A culvert is included at the powerhouse to allow for vehicle travel over the tailrace. An earthen dike is also included to confine tailrace flows to the Lagoon Creek Tributary. In lieu of a constructed stream channel a 30" culvert ($30/ft) could be used to discharge tailrace waters into Lagoon Creek. 3.5 Turbine Cost Turbine and generator costs are based on a budgetary quote from Canyon Industries for a 500 kW unit with controls for standalone operation. Other size turbines are based on separate price quotes and interpolation. Where dual turbines are considered, the cost includes only one of the turbines but adds an estimated bifurcation and equipment cost. The following table shows the price of the turbine and generator used in the cost estimate for various size projects. An additional $150k is included elsewhere for additional controls and integration with the existing diesel power plant. Switchgear price, not included in the turbine pricing, is fixed (independent of project output) and is estimated at $50k. Table 1 Turbine and Generator Price Schedule Pipe Size Project Capacity Turbine Arrangement Installed Capacity Turbine Package Piping/Acc Total Turbine Package Cost 12 172 Single 172 $350,000 $0 $350,000 14 266 Single 266 $460,000 $0 $460,000 16 381 Single 381 $570,000 $0 $570,000 18 525 Dual 262 $450,000 $40,000 $490,000 20 669 Dual 335 $530,000 $60,000 $590,000 22 821 Dual 410 $590,000 $83,000 $673,000 24 994 Dual 497 $670,000 $113,000 $783,000 3.6 Intake The cost of the intake works is based on hauling premixed bags of aggregate and cement in using Marooka's and mixing on site using water from the creek and a 1/3 yard mobile mixer for construction of the concrete diversion structure. Additional work includes construction of a screening/desander box with a trachrack, screens, and gates for filtering of the water. Concrete material pricing at the intake is doubled to account for the remote location. Other prices on the intake works are estimated based on past experience. A preliminary intake concept design with quantity estimates in included in Appendix C. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 7 © Hatch 2011/07 Communication to the intake is required to transmit head level information to the turbine controller. Additional data channels, including IP data connectivity, are desirable for monitoring purposes. The cost estimate includes pricing of a direct bury 4 pair communications cable. The estimate also includes price information based on budgetary quote for a direct bury aluminum conductor and two 15 kVA single phase transformers to provide power to the intake. 3.7 Pipeline Pipeline material costs were quoted on a budgetary per pound basis. This facilitated cost estimation of different project sizes. HDPE cost was quoted $1.00/pound by ISCO pipe with a projected increase in the near future of about 10%. The cost estimate uses $1.20/pound. The estimated rental rate of the fusion machine in the OPC is very close to the quoted purchase cost of a new 20" tracstar machine. The option of supplying HDPE in Seattle with flanged ends and ductile iron backing rings fused onto the pipe by the factory was considered. An analysis of the labor and equipment savings associated with elimination of the fusion machine indicates a small potential savings for the smallest pipe sizes (12 and 14) only. Steel pipe was quoted by Northwest at $1.25/pound coated. The estimate uses $1.50/pound based on expected near term price increases. Steel pipe coupling prices are based on using Victaulic painted style 77 couplers. The coupler prices for each pipe size adjust accordingly. Although not suitable for all of the joints in the steel pipe, the cost per coupling should approximate welded alternatives. Other pipeline material costs are estimated including thrust and restraint anchors. The cost estimate assumes installing rock anchors at each bend. A total of 50 anchors, 3 minor thrust blocks, and a major thrust block near the powerhouse are estimated. Labor cost for the construction of the pipeline, after completion of the trail, is based on a production rate of 20' per hour. 3.8 Transmission and Roads The access trail to the intake represents a significant portion of the construction cost for the project. The quality of the trail affects the productivity of hauling materials and laborers to the work site and impacts pipeline installation. Without a stabilized trail, erosion becomes a problem during construction and future maintenance is negatively impacted. Construction methods can be employed that can reduce the effort put into the trail. With placement of materials by helicopter and mechanical pipe joints the level of effort put into the trail may be lessened. Such decisions are more appropriately addressed during the design and construction phase and, to remain somewhat conservative, the construction of a fully stabilized trail is incorporated into the cost estimate. A preliminary concept drawing for the trail is included in Appendix C. Costs for the pipeline access trail include a quoted, all inclusive cost for shot rock from Brechan Enterprises in Kodiak, developed and staged at the pit near the water tank (beginning of project) of $15 per cubic yard (Brechan developed the pit and constructed the water tank access road in 2010). Volume of shot rock is based on a 12' wide trail with 2' of fill. Other estimated costs for the access trail include geo-textile filter fabric and soil stabilization over the entire length, culverts, and an access gate. Labor is based on a production rate for three Marooka track haulers capable of hauling a 5 yard load at a speed of 2.5 mph up and 5 mph down. Rock excavation in the upper portions of the access trail, particularly in the section near the intake, represents a potential material savings that is Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 8 © Hatch 2011/07 not included in the estimate. An additional 2 weeks is budgeted for culvert installation and erosion control. Figure 2 Photo of Water Tank Access Road and Quarry at Beginning of Project (Old Harbor Native Corp) As with the pipeline trail, the powerhouse access road is based on a fill over fabric on existing grade. Width is 24' and depth of 1.5' of shot rock and 6" of crushed rock. The cost estimate uses the Brechan quote of $25 per cubic yard for using a crusher brought to the site. Labor production rate for the road is estimated at about 40' per hour. Overhead transmission line costs are estimated and equate to about $140,000 per mile. 3.9 Indirect Costs Overhead costs include a mix of percentages applied to the direct construction costs and flat fees. It is assumed that the owner will procure the turbine, generator, and controls work directly. Indirect construction costs include the following: Table 2 Indirect Costs Indirect construction costs Rate Note Weather delay 5% Applied to Labor and Equipment Cost contingency 15% High level of detail in estimate warrants a lower contingency contractor profit 15% Standard profit margin for construction contract bonding 2% Performance bond and other Insurance Indirect project costs Rate Note construction interest 2.25% Finance half the cost of construction at a 9% rate for 6 months engineering Flat fee Fees for design and procurement documents inspection and testing Flat fee Fees for asbuilts, O&M manuals, and startup costs owner admin Flat fee Owner supervision, inspection, and training Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 9 © Hatch 2011/07 4. Power Study 4.1 Methodology The model created to evaluate the costs and selection of the hydroelectric project requires an evaluation of the hydrology and calculating performance for each configuration of the hydroelectric project. Modeling is based on daily values although daily fluctuations in demand are included as well in the benefit analysis. The following sections describe the details of the model development and results. 4.2 Old Harbor Demand Demand growth is expected to remain flat (based on historical trends). AVEC provided 2010 load information consisting of monthly summaries and 15 minute average kW readings. The monthly summary data shows that total energy production with diesel in 2010 was approximately 810,000 kWh with a peak load of 160 kW. The primary generator in Old Harbor is a 1,200 rpm electronic fuel injected Detroit diesel. Installed in 2005, this unit is designed to operate efficiently over a wide range and at low load. Older mechanically injected Caterpillar units provide backup. AVEC also provided 15 minute average data for 12/26/2009 through 12/29/2010. Data was missing from 3/6/2010-3/27/2010 and 12/1/2010-12/8/2010. The missing data was filled in by copying data from other dates with similar loads. With a complete data set a daily average load profile was calculated to determine the magnitude and duration of peak demand in comparison to average daily demand. Differences in the monthly summaries and 15 minute data were minor except monthly peak loads in the 15 minute data set are about 93% of those reported in the monthly summary. This is likely due to instantaneous peaks occurring within the 15 minute intervals. Modeling of displaced diesel to determine the potential benefit gained from the hydro project involved determining how much diesel usage would occur during hydro operation. The model assumes a diesel must come online before the demand actually meets the hydro output and the diesel will run at a specified minimum load for a minimum amount of time. Using the 15 minute data set, if the daily peak demand exceeded 90% of the hydro output then the model assumes that a diesel generator will be started and run at no less than 10% load for at least the number of peak hours in the day, which is about 16 based on the daily load fluctuation. AVEC reports that the diesel generators installed in Old Harbor are 235 kW. The following table compares the monthly and 15 minute demand data provided by AVEC while the following figure shows the daily load profile in Old Harbor using the 15 minute demand data. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 10 © Hatch 2011/07 Table 3 Old Harbor Demand Summary Old Harbor Monthly Demand Summary (kW, kWh, gal) 15 Minute Demand Data Month Generation Peak Average Fuel Peak Average Jan-10 72,592 146 98 5,238 140 96 Feb-10 63,784 142 95 4,573 138 95 Mar-10 70,261 145 94 4,995 132 92 Apr-10 65,624 140 91 4,754 131 91 May-10 66,398 135 89 4,623 127 89 Jun-10 61,534 133 85 4,476 124 85 Jul-10 64,689 145 87 4,627 127 87 Aug-10 70,255 147 94 4,990 137 94 Sep-10 70,768 160 98 5,026 147 98 Oct-10 64,466 140 87 4,715 127 87 Nov-10 66,371 149 92 4,766 138 92 Dec-10 70,474 147 95 5,072 133 94 Total 807,216 160 92 57,855 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hour of Day weekday weekend peak Figure 3 Old Harbor Average Daily Demand Fluctuations Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 11 © Hatch 2011/07 4.3 Hydrology The hydrology data used for the analysis is the median of the daily flow values for the East Fork of Mountain Creek published in the Mountain Creek Hydrology Report (Polarconsult, May 4, 2010). The report analyzes about 5 years of stream flow data measured from 7/14/1993 through 5/6/1996 (Alaska Department of Natural Resources) and from 6/15/1998 through 8/16/2000 (Polarconsult). The report compares the data with Kodiak rainfall and other USGS gauged streams. After comparison with USGS data, the report recommended adjustment factors be applied to the measured hydrology data based on a comparative analysis to the other gauge sites on Kodiak Island. The report also found flow measurements on Mountain Creek occurred during wetter (by about 20%) than normal rainfall years in Kodiak, AK. Based on those findings, this analysis uses the recommended adjustment factors with at least a 20% reduction in the summer and fall to account for the higher than normal precipitation. As stated in the May 2010 report, the conservative adjustments applied to the measured data can be adopted in lieu of performing additional flow measurements to confirm winter and spring low flows. The resulting adjusted hydrology data set is on par with a predicted hydrograph for Old Harbor in the absence of flow measurement data. However, it should be noted that real differences may exist between the Mountain Creek basin and the comparison basins as well as in the precipitation for Old Harbor compared with Kodiak. Such differences may prove that the 5 years of measured data on Mountain Creek is more representative of the long term average. For comparison purposes, this report presents an alternative analysis that does not use the adjustment factors. It is noted that the amount of useable energy from the hydroelectric development varies very little with either data set. The rationale for presenting an analysis using the measured data (unadjusted) as well as the adjusted data is in the event that excess energy utilization is considered. Given that the selection of project size is based on the presumption of additional energy utilization at some point, the unadjusted hydrology may assist in evaluating how much excess capacity would be available and the timing of such capacity. The accompanying charts show the hydrograph and flow duration curve for each hydrology scenario. The power potential axis on the hydrograph does not include the effects of changes in the dynamic head and efficiency of the turbine. The power production model discussed in the next section does include those dynamic variables as well as specific pipeline parameters for each alternative project configuration. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 12 © Hatch 2011/07 Table 4 Adjustment Factors for Measured Stream Flows at Intake Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Adjustment 57% 56% 61% 74% 80% 80% 80% 68% 50% 55% 69% 53% Figure 4 Old Harbor Project Hydrograph and Approximate Power Potential Figure 5 Flow Duration Curve for the East Fork of Mountain Creek Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 13 © Hatch 2011/07 4.4 Power Production Power production is based on using both sets of daily hydrology data, above, and the various pipeline sizes and corresponding flow rates under consideration. Hydropower is then calculated daily taking into consideration friction, minor losses, and turbine efficiency at the given flow rate. Pipe diameter and thickness selection is based on the static pressure of the project with peak flow rates determined by constraining velocity in the pipeline to about 8.5 feet per second and limiting head loss to 15%. A nominal pipeline size of 18" results in the following selected pipe diameters and thicknesses along the project alignment. The increased pipe size in the first section of the project is required to prevent vacuum conditions during operation. Alternative size scenarios follow a similar pattern in pipe selection. Table 5 Pipe Selection Along Project Alignment Start Station End Station End Elevation Static Pressure Pipe OD Type Min SDR Selected SDR Thickness Pipe ID 0 1100 845 2 20 PE3608 32.5 26 0.769 18.46 1100 2200 835 6 20 PE3608 32.5 26 0.769 18.46 2200 3000 805 19 18 PE3608 32.5 26 0.692 16.62 3000 3500 730 52 18 PE3608 26.0 26 0.692 16.62 3500 4100 630 95 18 PE4710 21.0 21 0.857 16.29 4100 4500 585 115 18 PE4710 17.0 17 1.059 15.88 4500 5000 540 134 18 PE4710 15.5 15.5 1.161 15.68 5000 5500 520 143 18 PE4710 13.5 13.5 1.333 15.33 5500 6100 480 160 18 PE4710 13.5 13.5 1.333 15.33 6100 6500 495 154 18 PE4710 13.5 13.5 1.333 15.33 6500 7000 525 141 18 PE4710 13.5 13.5 1.333 15.33 7000 7500 505 149 18 PE4710 13.5 13.5 1.333 15.33 7500 7700 475 162 18 PE4710 11.0 11 1.636 14.73 7700 9500 275 249 16 steel 134.2 128 0.125 15.75 9500 10350 85 331 16 steel 100.8 64 0.250 15.50 Minor losses due to screens, valves, and bends are calculated in addition to the pipeline friction losses. The total minor loss factor, K, is 6.55. Other inefficiencies in the production of power include transformer and line losses of 2%, generator efficiency of 95%, and turbine peak efficiency of 89%. All of the scenarios ignore the potential gain in efficiency using dual turbines and are based on a single turbine operating at all times. Varying of efficiency versus flow rate is included in the analysis using the efficiency factors shown in the table. Shut off load for a single turbine is assumed to be 10% of rated capacity. The minimum flow at the intake is 2 cfs so multiple turbine configurations are not required to maintain year round operation for the project sizes analyzed. The following table shows the details of each project size evaluated. Turbine nameplate capacity will be slightly higher than the values in the table. % Power Turbine Efficiency 10% 63% 20% 78% 30% 85% 40% 87% 50% 89% 90% 89% 100% 87% Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 14 © Hatch 2011/07 Table 6 Pipe Diameters, Flows, Losses, and Power Output Base Pipe Diameter (in) Flow Rate (cfs) Headloss (ft) Peak Output (kW) 12 3.9 115 172 14 6.0 115 266 16 8.5 115 381 18 11.8 115 525 20 14.8 105 669 22 17.8 92 821 24 21.3 84 994 Conversion to potential energy includes evaluation of the dynamic head at each flow rate and the interpolation of turbine efficiency. Using the daily median flow values for the East Fork of Mountain Creek the following chart shows the annual potential energy output for various project sizes. Figure 6 Old Harbor Hydro Annual Energy Potential 4.5 Project Selection The 2010 annual energy demand in Old Harbor was approximately 810 MWh with a peak demand of 160 kW. All of the project sizes under consideration are able to offset about the same amount of Plant Capacity Plant Factor, Adjusted Plant Factor, Unadjusted 172 91% 99% 266 81% 92% 381 70% 84% 525 60% 76% 669 53% 68% 821 46% 62% 990 41% 55% Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 15 © Hatch 2011/07 diesel generation and provide about the same net benefit. Except for the smallest project considered, the alternatives include a significant amount of stranded plant. In lieu of determining how much of the surplus energy may be utilized, a simple unconstrained approach to selecting a project size is adopted that maximizes annual energy production with the least amount of initial cost and capacity. For the purpose of selecting a project, all the energy produced by the various configurations is assumed to have the same value. From this assumption, a relationship chosen to optimize the resource is to maximize the ratio of total energy produced per unit capacity to the cost per unit energy. This relationship is represented as kWh^2 / (capacity * cost). When this is done, as seen in the following chart, the adjusted hydrology data produces a flat area representing a range of projects that provide the best economic return with the 16" pipeline (381 kW) project being optimal. The optimal project for the unadjusted hydrology data utilizes an 18" pipeline (525 kW). The OPC provided with this report is for the 525 kW project which utilizes an 18" pipeline and approximately 11.8 cfs of flow. Figure 7 Project Optimization Chart Constructability aspects such as fusion machine capabilities (20" being a breakpoint) and the numerous bends favor the smaller range of pipe diameters whereas, operationally, the larger pipe diameters are preferable to reduce the dynamic pressure range at the turbine. Overall, the optimum project of 525 kW is reasonable from both an operational and constructability viewpoint. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 16 © Hatch 2011/07 5. Results 5.1 Cost Comparison Total cost of construction, including indirect costs, for all the project configurations are presented below. Table 7 Project Alternatives Comparison Pipe Size Installed Capacity, kW Potential Capacity, kW Installed Cost Potential Energy, kWh % Increase in Potential Energy % Increase in Installed Cost 12 172 172 $7,270,000 1,500,000 0% 0% 14 266 266 $7,510,000 2,150,000 43% 3% 16 381 381 $7,860,000 2,800,000 87% 8% 18 262 525 $7,970,000 3,470,000 131% 10% 20 335 669 $8,430,000 4,000,000 167% 16% 22 410 821 $8,780,000 4,430,000 195% 21% 24 497 994 $9,140,000 4,800,000 220% 26% It is evident from the table above that there is a large amount of fixed costs that are independent of project size. A relatively small incremental cost increase of 10% is associated with a more than doubling (131% increase) of the potential annual energy output. The cost of meeting Old Harbor base load requirements (160 kW) with the hydro project are relatively high, but the cost of obtaining surplus energy is very low. 5.2 Cost Detail The table below summarizes the OPC for the Hydroelectric Project. A more detailed estimate is included in Appendix A. Table 8 Opinion of Probable Cost Summary 525 kW Project with 50% Installed Capacity Item Labor Hours Labor Cost Equip Cost Materials Cost Ship Cost Total Cost PRECONSTRUCTION AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT $ 444,450 MOBILIZATION $ 423,000 POWERHOUSE $ 349,041 INTAKE $ 433,007 PIPELINE $ 981,278 ACCESS TRAIL $ 465,039 TURBINE AND GENERATOR INSTALLATION $ 166,300 ROADS, TAILRACE $ 425,889 TRANSMISSION $ 208,675 EQUIPMENT $ 614,900 SUBTOTAL, Contractor Direct Costs 18,218 $ 1,495,017 $ 644,900 $ 1,814,562 $ 557,100 $ 4,511,579 Weather delay (% of Labor and Equip) 5% $ 106,996 contingency 15% $ 676,737 contractor profit 15% $ 676,737 bonding 2% $ 90,232 SUBTOTAL, Construction Contract $ 6,062,280 SUBTOTAL, Owner Procurement, Turbine and Generator $ 640,000 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 17 © Hatch 2011/07 Item Labor Hours Labor Cost Equip Cost Materials Cost Ship Cost Total Cost SUBTOTAL, Construction $ 6,702,280 construction finance interest $ 150,801 engineering 10% $ 649,400 inspection and testing 3% $ 217,200 owner admin 4% $ 250,000 TOTAL PROJECT $ 7,969,681 5.3 Project Benefits Calculation of the potential benefit gained from the hydro project involved determining how much diesel usage would occur during hydro operation. The unadjusted hydrology data set results in no diesel makeup energy required (the hydro would meet 100% of the existing demand requirement). The table below shows summarizes the project benefits. Table 9 Annual Fuel Savings with Hydro Project Existing Annual Generation 807,216 kWh Existing Annual Fuel Use 57,855 gal Fuel Price 4.08 $/gal Existing Annual Expenditures $235,911 Adjusted Hydrology Unadjusted Hydrology Annual Diesel Generation with Hydro 34,852 0 kWh Fuel Used 3,168 0 gal Cost $12,919 $0 Annual Fuel Savings with Hydro Project $222,992 $235,911 Displaced Diesel Fueled Generation 95% 100% Old Harbor's fuel consumption for diesel electric generation in 2010 was 57,855 gallons. The hydroelectric project would reduce fuel use by at least 95%. All of the project configurations analyzed result in the same benefit with regard to offsetting existing diesel generation. The high availability of the hydro project results in a significant amount of stranded plant. Evaluating possible uses and economic values of the surplus energy from the hydro will add to the overall economic benefit. The following charts, one for each hydrology scenario, show the expected daily potential hydro output and the expected amount of diesel generation with the hydro to meet current demand using the 525 kW hydro project. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 18 © Hatch 2011/07 Figure 8 Hydro Output (Adjusted Hydrology Data) and Diesel Generation Requirements Figure 9 Hydro Output (Unadjusted Hydrology Data) and Diesel Generation Requirements Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 19 © Hatch 2011/07 6. Economic Analysis 6.1 Diesel Integration As shown in Table 8, the expected annual fuel savings from the hydro project ranges from $222,992 to $235,911 depending on the actual hydrology. If the past hydrology measurements prove to be correct then the hydro project will displace about 100% of the current diesel generation. If the past hydrology measurements over represented actual runoff, then the amount of diesel generation displaced is expected to drop to about 95%. Because the hydro project and diesel plant may operate simultaneously at times, the amount of displaced diesel generation also depends on the configuration of the existing system. The smallest generator in the Old Harbor power plant is 235 kW. Using the adjusted hydrology set, the typical minimum output of the hydro project in the winter is about 90 kW. This is enough power to meet Old Harbor's average load but not the peak loads. Therefore a diesel generator must come online during the peak loading times to supply, on average, about an extra 22 kW. Under this scenario, the 235 kW diesel generator is operating at the desired minimum load rating of 10%. Efficiency at this low load is estimated to be 11 kWh/gal. 6.2 Economic inputs Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs can become a large part of the project economics over the long term. Several factors to consider include diesel engine repair and replacement, oil changes, hydro intake cleaning, repair, maintenance, and complying with the additional permitting requirements of the hydro project. Data for non fuel expenses related to diesel generation was obtained from AVEC PCE Annual Reports for the years 2008 through 2010 filed with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. The reports include non fuel expenses for the entire AVEC system and therefore should be representative of annualized costs. Over the course of 2008-2010 the non fuel costs ranged from 0.096 $/kWh to 0.117 $/kWh with an average of 0.107 $/kWh. The cost are divided among 26 different accounts and a reduction factor was applied to each account to calculate reduced diesel non fuel expenses. Reduction factors ranged from 0% to 90% with the weighted average equal to 52%. The resulting non fuel cost for diesel with the hydro in operation is 0.056 $/kWh. O&M costs for the hydro project are estimated based on annualized costs and include 1.5% of the turbine cost for parts, $15,000 for FERC compliance and reporting, and $5,400 in miscellaneous engineering and permitting support. Labor associated with operating the hydro plant is accounted for in the existing diesel non fuel category by partial reduction of daily checks and other maintenance. A study by the University of Alaska Anchorage ISER in 2011 projects real fuel prices for 2011-2030 in individual communities in Alaska. The projected prices are in 2010 dollars and range from $4.08/gal in 2014 to $5.32/gal in 2030. For this analysis, the fuel price projection is extended to $5.52/gal in 2040 and flat from there on. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 20 © Hatch 2011/07 Like other major infrastructure projects, the hydro project has a very long project life. The project's economic life is assumed to be 50 years and all values are discounted to present day dollars using a 3% rate. The following tables summarize the economic inputs and first year results. Table 10 Economic Parameters Diesel Costs Fuel Price in 2014, First Year of Hydro ($/gal) 4.08 kWh Energy Generated, 2010 807,216 Fuel Used (gal) 57,855 Efficiency (kWh/gal) 13.95 Annual Fuel Cost $235,911 O&M rate ($/kWh) 0.10659 Current Annual O&M Costs $86,041 Total Diesel Annual Operational Cost, 2014 $321,952 Hydro Costs Initial Construction Cost $7,970,000 FERC Compliance and Reporting $15,000 Hydro O&M Cost Annual Parts (1.5% of turbine cost) $7,350 Labor (already inlcuded in Diesel non fuel) $0 Engineering (1 weeks/yr @ $135/hr) $5,400 Diesel O&M rate with Hydro ($/kWh) 0.05575 Diesel O&M Costs with Hydro $45,002 Total Annual O&M Costs with Hydro $72,752 Annual Diesel Usage with Hydro (gal) 3,168 Annual Fuel Cost with Hydro $12,919 Annual Displaced Diesel Fuel 54,687 Annual Fuel Savings $222,992 Combined Hydro and Diesel Annual Operational Cost $85,672 Annual Savings with Hydro $236,281 6.3 Economic Results Using the simplest economic analysis, the cost of the project divided by the annual savings provides a simple payback period. Using the total project cost, the annual savings results in a simple payback period of about 35 years. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 21 © Hatch 2011/07 Using a more detailed analysis, where costs are calculated annually and then discounted, results in a benefit to cost ratio ranging from 0.94 to 1.00. The results of the detailed economic analysis are summarized below. Table 11 Economic Summary Net Present Value (NPV) of Electrical Generation Costs Using Existing Diesel (Base) Using Hydro with Exist Diesel Adjusted Hydrology Unadjusted Hydrology Fuel $7,596,754 $416,023 $0 O&M $2,213,819 $1,871,899 $1,871,899 Total $9,810,573 $2,287,922 $1,871,899 Benefit $0 $7,522,651 $7,938,673 Capital Cost $0 $7,970,000 $7,970,000 Ratio 0.94 1.00 6.4 Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis of changes to the benefit to cost ratio due to varying demand and construction cost has been performed using the projected fuel prices, discount rate, and term above. The table below shows the Benefit to Cost Ratio (NPV Savings / Initial Cost) for various percent changes in the demand (applied to both the average and peak) and the construction cost. The sensitivity analysis is based on using the hydro with a new diesel and the adjusted hydrology. Table 12 Benefit to Cost Ratio Sensitivity Analysis % change in demand 0.93 -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% % change in cost -10% 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 -5% 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 0% 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 5% 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 10% 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 15% 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 20% 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 25% 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 30% 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 22 © Hatch 2011/07 7. Conclusions and Recommendations 7.1 Conclusions The Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project has been investigated numerous times over the last two decades and has been actively pursued to the point of having a FERC license issued. A recurring result of the past work has been the high cost of the project as compared with the alternative of diesel generation. This investigation demonstrates that the project is still on the margin of being economical. However, the recognition of the secondary benefits and added security of locally generated energy weigh favorably for the hydro project and, while difficult to put into economic terms, are considered worthy of some additional cost. It is concluded that the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project will prove to be a positive asset for the community and meet nearly all of the communities energy needs at a fixed cost. Once constructed, the benefits of the project will accrue for the indefinite future, and with the capacity to support additional growth, the project will result in a significant reduction in the cost of electrical energy generation in Old Harbor. 7.2 Recommendations The following recommendations are made: 1. Proceed with a project size using an 18" pipeline and a dual turbine configuration with only one 262 kW unit installed (50% of projects 525 kW capacity). An updated project description and analysis of environmental flows is included in Appendix D. 2. The near term demand growth can have a significant impact on the economics. It can also be an important consideration in selection of project size. Investigate the possible uses of surplus energy taking into consideration the timing of use. Revise project size recommendation as appropriate. 3. Continue with project development with a focus on obtaining financing, completing FERC licensing and permitting with the goal of minimizing post construction annual expenses, and proceeding with final design work for timely construction readiness. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page 23 © Hatch 2011/07 8. References Alaska Energy Authority, Alaska Energy Pathway 2010. ftp://ftp.aidea.org/2010AlaskaEnergyPlan/2010AlaskaEnergyReport.html Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, PCE Annual Reports for 2008, 2009, and 2010. Regulatory Commission of Alaska. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Final Environmental Assessment, Old Harbor Project P- 11690, June 26 2000. http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.asp?document_id=3105779 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Order issuing original license re Alaska Village Electric Cooperative's Old Harbor Hydroelectric P-11690, December 12 2000. http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.asp?document_id=2109984 Locher Interests LTD (with Harza Northwest and UAA ISER), Rural Hydroelectric Assessment and Development Study: Phase II Report, March 27, 1998, ADCRA Division of Energy. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc., Mountain Creek Hydrology Report, prepared for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Inc., May 4, 2010. http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=12339741 Polarconsult Alaska, Inc., Project Maps, Prepared for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, March 2 2010. http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.asp?document_id=13800685 Polarconsult Alaska, Inc., Notice of Intent and Preliminary Application Document under P-13272, August 21 2009. http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.asp?document_id=13748178 Solstice Alaska Consulting Inc., Proposed Study Plan, Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project P-13272, prepared for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, January 4, 2010. http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=12339737 State of Alaska, Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs, Community Information Summaries, 2011. http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_CIS.htm University of Alaska Anchorage, Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER), Alaska Fuel Price Projections 2011-2030, January 25, 2011. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, Fuel Oil, US City Average, Series ID CUSR0000SEHE01. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page A-1 © Hatch 2011/07 Appendix A Opinion of Probable Cost 525 kW Project with 50% Installed Capacity Old Harbor Hydroelectric ProjectReconnaissance and Feasibility StudyFinal ReportOld Harbor Hydroelectric ProjectEstimated Construction CostBase Labor Rate / hour 75 (includes directs, indirects, allowance for overtime & per diem)Super and specialist 95Work week 60 hoursNo. Labor HoursLaborRateLabor Cost Unit Cost Equip Cost Unit Unit Cost Materials Cost Unit Cost Ship CostPRECONSTRUCTION AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT$444,450Procurement, Submittals 2 3 wks 360 $95 $34,200 $34,200SWPP 1 2 wks 120 $95 $11,400 $11,400Survey 2 4 wks 480 $95 $45,600 $45,600Planning 1 2 wks 120 $95 $11,400 $11,400Construction Support 1 18 wks 1080 $95 $102,600 $102,600Asbuilt 1 1 wks 60 $95 $5,700 $5,700Mechanic 0.5 6 mos 810 $95 $76,950 $76,950Housing, Travellabor housing 720 Days $150 $108,000 $108,000contractor travel 54 trips $900 $48,600 $48,600MOBILIZATION$423,000Equipment transportlanding barge to Old Harbor 5 ea $7,500 $37,500 $37,500Operator 2 75 $75 $5,625 $5,625Laborer 2 75 $75 $5,625 $5,625Materials ShippingPipe 19 cont $6,000 $114,000 $114,000Jet Fuel 1 cont $6,000 $6,000 $6,000Building 4 cont $6,000 $24,000 $24,000Concrete 1 cont $6,000 $6,000 $6,000Diversion 3 cont $6,000 $18,000 $18,000Power Poles 2 cont $6,000 $12,000 $12,000Wire and Electrical 1 cont $6,000 $6,000 $6,000Turbine and Generator 1 cont $6,000 $6,000 $6,000Transformer, Switchgear 1 cont $6,000 $6,000 $6,000landing barge to Old Harbor 17 cont $7,500 $127,500 $127,500Demob Equipmentlanding barge to Old Harbor 5 ea $7,500 $37,500 $37,500Operator 2 75 $75 $5,625 $5,625Laborer 2 75 $75 $5,625 $5,625331POWERHOUSE$349,041sitework 400 cydconcrete and forms, building 104 cyd $200 $20,741 $20,741metal building shell 1200 sq ft $60 $72,000 $72,000architectural 1200 sq ft $20 $24,000 $24,000electrical, mechanical 1200 sq ft $20 $24,000 $24,000water, waste 1200 sq ft $20 $24,000 $24,000doors 1200 sq ft $10 $12,000 $12,000crane 1 ea $40,000 $40,000 $40,000Super 0.5 6 wks 180 $95 $17,100 $17,100Labor 3 6 wks 1080 $75 $81,000 $81,000Specialty 1 6 wks 360 $95 $34,200 $34,200Item CostDurationItemLabor Equipment MaterialShipping Total7/22/2011 Page A2 Old Harbor Hydroelectric ProjectReconnaissance and Feasibility StudyFinal ReportNo. Labor HoursLaborRateLabor Cost Unit Cost Equip Cost Unit Unit Cost Materials Cost Unit Cost Ship CostItem CostDurationItemLabor Equipment MaterialShipping Total332INTAKE$433,007coffer dam/construction diversion 1 ea $5,000 $5,000 $5,000impoundment structuresheet pile 420 sq ft $12 $5,040 $5,040concrete footing 11.1 cyd $400 $4,444 $4,444impoundment wall/spillway 50 ft $50 $2,500 $2,500flush gate 1 ea $5,000 $5,000 $5,000anchors 10 ea $1,000 $10,000 $10,000sealing 1 ea $2,000 $2,000 $2,000intake/desanderbase slab 4.7 cyd $400 $1,896 $1,896box structure 342 sq ft $50 $17,100 $17,100trashrack 1 ea $1,500 $1,500 $1,500screens 1 ea $2,000 $2,000 $2,000flush gate 1 ea $2,500 $2,500 $2,500insulation 342 sq ft $5 $1,710 $1,710access hatch/grating 1 ea $2,000 $2,000 $2,000air relief 1 ea $1,000 $1,000 $1,000transition to pipeline 1 ea $3,000 $3,000 $3,000concrete 7 cyd $400 $2,667 $2,667shut off gate 1 ea $2,500 $2,500 $2,500controls 1 ea $20,000 $20,000 $20,000equipment/storage shed 1 ea $5,000 $5,000 $5,000power line, communications 10350 ft $5.00 $51,750 $51,750Super 0.5 12 wks 360 $95 $34,200 $34,200Labor 4 12 wks 2880 $75 $216,000 $216,000Specialty 0.5 12 wks 360 $95 $34,200 $34,200332PIPELINE10350 ft $981,278HDPE 7700 ftSteel 2650 fthelicopter (includes fuel) 1 1 ea $180,000 $180,000 $180,000Labor 2 1.2 wks 145 $75 $10,850 $10,850hdpe 175,241 lb $1.20 $210,289 $210,289flange kits 4 ea $1,200 $4,800 $4,800drains/air reliefs 12 ea $500 $6,000 $6,000anchors 40 ea $1,200 $48,000 $48,000coated steel pipe 73,892 lb $1.50 $110,838 $110,838thrust block at powerhouse 1 ea $10,000 $10,000 $10,000intermediate thrust blocks 3 ea $3,000 $9,000 $9,000anchors 10 ea $2,000 $20,000 $20,000victaulic standard couplings 67 ea $1,300 $87,100 $87,100Super 0.5 12 wks 360 $95 $34,200 $34,200Labor 4 12 wks 2880 $75 $216,000 $216,000Specialty 0.5 12 wks 360 $95 $34,200 $34,2007/22/2011 Page A3 Old Harbor Hydroelectric ProjectReconnaissance and Feasibility StudyFinal ReportNo. Labor HoursLaborRateLabor Cost Unit Cost Equip Cost Unit Unit Cost Materials Cost Unit Cost Ship CostItem CostDurationItemLabor Equipment MaterialShipping Total332ACCESS TRAIL12000 ft $465,039Hydro ax operator 1 2.2 wks 133 $95 $12,667 $12,667geofabric 20000 sq yd $1.50 $30,000 $30,000culverts 10 ea $400 $4,000 $4,000shot rock 9000 cyd $15 $135,000 $135,000soil stabilization 20000 sq yd $0.50 $10,000 $10,000reseeding 20000 sq yd $0.50 $10,000 $10,000large culvert at gully 60 ft $100 $6,000 $6,000gate 1 ea $7,000 $7,000 $7,000rock blasting 1481 cyd $15.00 $22,222 $22,222Super 0.5 9 wks 270 $95 $25,650 $25,650Labor 5 9 wks 2700 $75 $202,500 $202,500333TURBINE AND GENERATOR INSTALLATION$166,300switchgear 1 ea $50,000 $50,000 $50,000transformer 1 ea $50,000 $50,000 $50,000main valve 1 ea $15,000 $15,000 $15,000Super 1 3 wks 180 $95 $17,100 $17,100specialty 2 3 wks 360 $95 $34,200 $34,200336ROADS, TAILRACE$425,889tailrace constructionstream channel construction 3000 ft $13.00 $39,000 $39,000bank stabilization 3000 ft $8.00 $24,000 $24,000embankment dike, south side pond 1000 ft $5.00 $5,000 $5,000fish access control or ph bypass option 1 ea $5,000 $5,000 $5,000culvert or concrete box from ph 30 ft $100 $3,000 $3,000Super 1 2 wks 120 $95 $11,400 $11,400Labor 3 2 wks 360 $75 $27,000 $27,000access road6200 ftclearing 5.7 acregeofabric 16533 sq yd $1.50 $24,800 $24,800shot rock 8267 cyd $15 $124,000 $124,000crushed or screened gravel 2756 cyd $25 $68,889 $68,889communications line 6200 ft $1.00 $6,200 $6,200signage 2 ea $1,500 $3,000 $3,000Super 1 3 wks 180 $95 $17,100 $17,100Labor 5 3 wks 900 $75 $67,500 $67,5007/22/2011 Page A4 Old Harbor Hydroelectric ProjectReconnaissance and Feasibility StudyFinal ReportNo. Labor HoursLaborRateLabor Cost Unit Cost Equip Cost Unit Unit Cost Materials Cost Unit Cost Ship CostItem CostDurationItemLabor Equipment MaterialShipping Total356TRANSMISSION$208,675overhead transmission line 1.46 mipoles, foundations, and hardware 52 ea $2,000 $104,000 $104,000wire 23100 ft $1.25 $28,875 $28,875guys/anchors 26 ea $700 $18,200 $18,200Super 1 3 wks 180 $95 $17,100 $17,100Labor 3 3 wks 540 $75 $40,500 $40,500EQUIPMENT$614,900fusion machine 1 5 mo $15,000 $75,000 $75,0004 wheelers 4 1 ea $9,000 $36,000 $36,0001/3 yard mixer 1 6 mo $1,000 $6,000 $6,000mix truck 1 6 mo $5,500 $33,000 $33,000small generator 2 1 ea $2,000 $4,000 $4,000large generator 2 6 mo $2,000 $24,000 $24,000loader 1 8 mo $7,000 $56,000 $56,000excavator 2 5 mo $6,000 $60,000 $60,000end dump 1 6 mo $4,500 $27,000 $27,000rock hammer 1 6 mo $1,000 $6,000 $6,000flatbed truck 2 6 mo $800 $9,600 $9,600trackhauler (marooka) 3 5 mo $3,500 $52,500 $52,500dozer 1 6 mo $4,000 $24,000 $24,000hydro ax 1 2 mo $5,000 $10,000 $10,000fuel 30000 gal $5.00 $150,000 $150,000air compressor 1 6 mo $800 $4,800 $4,800air track drill 1 6 mo $2,000 $12,000 $12,000miscellaneous tools 1 1 ea $25,000 $25,000 $25,000SUBTOTAL, Contractor Direct Costs 18,218 $1,495,017 $644,900 $1,814,562 $557,100 $4,511,579Weather delay (% of Labor and Equip) 5% $106,996contingency 15% $676,737contractor profit 15% $676,737bonding 2.0% $90,232SUBTOTAL, Construction Contract $6,062,280333OWNER PROCURED TURBINE AND GENERATORturbine and generator 1 ea $490,000 $490,000 $490,000controls 1 ea $150,000 $150,000 $150,000SUBTOTAL, Owner Procurement, Turbine and Generator $640,000SUBTOTAL, Construction $6,702,280construction finance interest 2.25% $150,801engineering 9.7% $649,400inspection and testing 3.2% $217,200owner admin 3.7% $250,000TOTAL PROJECT$7,969,6817/22/2011 Page A5 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page B-1 © Hatch 2011/07 Appendix B Construction Schedules Task NameStartFinishFERC License Application Submitted1/23/121/23/12FERC License Issued1/17/131/17/13Grant/Funding Available7/2/127/2/12Plans/Procurement Documents10/19/1210/19/12Construction Contract Awarded1/17/131/17/13Procurement - Turbine (Owner)1/17/131/17/13Procurement - Pipe, Bldg, Materials2/16/132/16/13Equipment Mobilization5/6/135/11/13Quarry Development5/11/135/25/13Material Mobilization5/17/136/7/13Access Road Grading/Clearing5/11/135/18/13Access Road Construction5/25/136/8/13Pipeline Trail Clearing5/18/135/25/13Pipeline Trail Construction5/25/137/27/13Pipeline Construction7/27/1310/19/13Intake7/27/1310/19/13Powerhouse6/8/137/20/13Tailrace7/13/137/27/13Powerline6/8/136/29/13Turbine Installation11/13/1311/20/13Startup/Testing11/20/1312/4/13Demob Equipment10/19/1310/26/131/17/20131/17/20131/17/20132/16/2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecQtr 1, 2013Qtr 2, 2013Qtr 3, 2013Qtr 4, 2013TaskSplitProgressMilestoneSummaryProject SummaryExternal TasksExternal MilestoneDeadlineSingle Season Construction Schedule Old Harbor Hydroelectric ProjectReconnaissance and Feasibility StudyFinal Report7/20/11 Page B-2Project: Project1Date: 7/20/11 Task NameStartFinishFERC License Application Submitted6/29/126/29/12FERC License Issued6/24/136/24/13Grant/Funding Available7/2/127/2/12Plans/Procurement Documents3/26/133/26/13Construction Contract Awarded6/24/136/24/13Procurement - Turbine (Owner)6/24/136/24/13Procurement - Pipe, Bldg, Materials7/24/137/24/13Equipment Mobilization8/8/138/13/13Quarry Development8/13/138/27/13Material Mobilization5/18/146/8/14Access Road Grading/Clearing8/13/138/20/13Access Road Construction8/27/139/10/13Pipeline Trail Clearing8/20/138/27/13Pipeline Trail Construction8/27/135/27/14Pipeline Construction6/8/148/31/14Intake5/27/148/17/14Powerhouse6/8/147/20/14Tailrace7/13/147/27/14Powerline6/8/146/29/14Turbine Installation8/31/149/7/14Startup/Testing9/7/149/21/14Demob Equipment8/31/149/7/146/24/20136/24/20136/24/20137/24/2013JunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctQtr 3, 2013Qtr 4, 2013Qtr 1, 2014Qtr 2, 2014Qtr 3, 2014Qtr 4, TaskSplitProgressMilestoneSummaryProject SummaryExternal TasksExternal MilestoneDeadlineTwo Season Construction Schedule Old Harbor Hydroelectric ProjectReconnaissance and Feasibility StudyFinal Report7/20/11 Page B-3Project: Project1Date: 7/20/11 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page C-1 © Hatch 2011/07 Appendix C Project Drawings Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page D-1 © Hatch 2011/07 Appendix D Project Description Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), the electric utility provider in Old Harbor, Alaska is seeking to develop a hydroelectric resource near the community of Old Harbor on Kodiak Island. Old Harbor is accessible by small airplanes and boats. Old Harbor is located about 50 miles southwest of Kodiak, AK. The intake is located at about 57°14.7' N and 153°20.7' W at an elevation of about 850'. The powerhouse is located at about 57°14.0' N and 153°18.4' W at an elevation of about 85'. The project diversion and intake works will consist of a concrete, or other suitable material, for a diversion/cut off weir with integral spillway. The height of the weir will be approximately 4-6 feet with a length across the creek and floodplain valley of about 100'. A water filtering system consisting of a trash rack and/or coanda screens, diversion gates, and secondary screens will be incorporated into the weir structure as a separate desanding box that will be partially exposed above grade. A below grade transition with an above ground air relief inlet pipe will convey water to a buried High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE) pipeline. The pipeline consists of buried HDPE pipe with diameters of 18" to 20" and buried steel pipe with a diameter of 16". A total of 7,700' of HDPE and 2,650' of steel pipe will be installed along a constructed access trail. The access trail will consist of a 12' wide rock fill about 1' to 2' deep placed over a geo-textile filter fabric. Rock cuts and fill will be required in areas of significant terrain and cross slopes. The trail also includes culverts and an access gate. The powerhouse is expected to be a 25' by 35' metal building or similar structure to house the two turbines and associated equipment, switchgear, controls, and tools. The building height is expected to be about 12'. A new 24' wide access road constructed of 2' of rock over a geo-textile will extend from the existing water tank access road to the powerhouse. The 7.2 kV 3 phase overhead transmission line will follow the access road alignment. The power generation equipment will consist of two 262 kW units with a 480 V generator and switchgear for each unit. Only one unit will initially be installed. Each unit will have a hydraulic capacity of 5.9 cfs for a total project peak flow rate of 11.8 cfs capable of producing 525 kW of power. A bypass flow system for maintaining environmental flows, if any are required, is not proposed at this time. A tailrace structure and culvert or constructed stream bed will convey the project flows to the nearby unnamed lake (swimming pond). A constructed tailrace stream or culvert will convey project flows from the unnamed lake to the headwaters of the Lagoon Creek Tributary. The project is a run-of-river hydro that will be operated automatically and primarily in standalone mode as the communities primary source of electrical generation. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page D-2 © Hatch 2011/07 The following is a summary description of the project components. Estimated dependable capacity of 130 kilowatts (kW). Project peak capacity of 525 kW utilizing 11.8 cfs of water with a static head of 765'. Initial installed capacity of 262 kW utilizing up to 5.9 cfs of water. A 6' high by 100' long cut off (diversion) wall that will not create any significant impoundment of water. A 10,350' long pipeline consisting of 7,700' of 18" and 20" HDPE pipe and 2,650' of 16" steel pipe. A 12' wide, 11,700' long (approximate) intake access trail. A single 262 kW Pelton turbine with a hydraulic capacity of 5.9 cubic feet per second (cfs) coupled directly to a 480 volt, 3 phase generator with a provision for a second 262 kW turbine. A 25'x35' (approximately 900 square-foot) powerhouse. A culvert or constructed stream tailrace into a lake and subsequent lowlands with final discharge to the Lagoon Creek Tributary. A 7,700' long (1.5 mile), 7.2 kV three phase overhead power line. A 24' wide, 6,200' long access road. Project Flow Diversion Based on the demand profile in 2010, the following chart and table provide predicted diversion flows resulting from project operation. The operation is based on a flat daily total output about 10 kW higher than peak daily demand with a load controller absorbing and releasing loads to handle daily fluctuations. Table 13 - Monthly Average Mountain Creek In-stream Flow and Diversion Potential (cfs) Monthly Average Mountain Creek In-stream Flow and Diversion Potential (cfs) Month Avg Existing Flow at Intake Avg Maximum Potential Diverted by Project Avg Diverted based on 2010 Demand 1 3.0 3.0 2.6 2 2.2 2.2 2.2 3 2.5 2.5 2.1 4 3.1 3.1 2.4 5 11.1 9.3 2.5 6 40.6 11.8 2.5 7 19.2 11.5 2.5 8 8.9 7.8 2.6 9 10.9 8.7 2.7 10 8.7 8.4 2.5 11 9.8 8.1 2.6 12 3.9 3.9 2.6 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page D-3 © Hatch 2011/07 Figure 10 Chart of Mountain Creek In-stream Flow and Diversion Potential (cfs) Project Operational Flow 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 1/1 2/20 4/10 5/30 7/19 9/7 10/27 12/16 Date Mountain Creek Existing Flow Diverted Flow for Energy, 2010 Demand Based Maximum Potential Flow Diversion Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Final Report ISO 9001 Page E-1 © Hatch 2011/07 Appendix E Mountain Creek Hydrology Report, Old Harbor, Alaska POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. MOUNTAIN CREEK HYDROLOGY REPORT OLD HARBOR, AK MAY 4,2010 PAGE 1 M OUNTAIN C REEK H YDROLOGY R EPORT O LD H ARBOR , A LASKA May 4, 2010 polarconsult alaska, inc. 1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Phone: (907) 258-2420 ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. MOUNTAIN CREEK HYDROLOGY REPORT OLD HARBOR, AK MAY 4, 2010 PAGE I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1 2. PURPOSE...................................................................................................................................... 1 3. METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................ 1 4. EXISTING DATA.......................................................................................................................... 3 4.1. EAST FORK OF MOUNTAIN CREEK ............................................................................................ 3 4.2. USGS DATA FOR KODIAK ISLAND ............................................................................................ 3 5. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS........................................................................................................ 6 5.1. CORRELATION WITH KODIAK RAINFALL DATA ........................................................................... 6 5.2. CORRELATION WITH USGS DATA SETS ..................................................................................... 7 6. ADJUSTMENTS AND FINAL HYDROGRAPH.......................................................................... 9 POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. MOUNTAIN CREEK HYDROLOGY REPORT OLD HARBOR, AK MAY 4, 2010 PAGE 1 1. Introduction As part of updated feasibility study and conceptual design for the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project, Polarconsult undertook a review of the hydrology data to identify whether the data was sufficient to quantify the economic benefits of the hydroelectric project. Additionally, there have been recent study requests by resource agencies in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing process for additional information on the hydrology. The resource agencies seek to quantify the amount of water for the purpose of both economic and fishery resource evaluation. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed hydroelectric project and the Mountain Creek drainage. 2. Purpose This report provides a summary and analysis of the hydrology data collected on the East Fork of Mountain Creek. The purpose of this analysis is to: 1. Determine the water quantity from the East Fork of Mountain Creek for hydroelectric production, and 2. Whether additional data collection efforts should be performed for the purpose of quantifying water supply for hydroelectric production. The analysis associated with the first goal is a review and, if necessary, adjustment of the existing data to provide a reasonably confident estimate of water quantity at the intake site on the East Fork of Mountain Creek. This is done using a comparative analysis of the East Fork of Mountain Creek with other know stream flow data sets on Kodiak Island. The work associated with the second goal is to perform a risk assessment on the estimated water quantity for providing hydroelectric power for the community of Old Harbor and a recommendation on whether additional hydrology data should be collected. This is done by looking at the impacts to the benefits of the hydro project with the uncertainties in the hydrograph for Mountain Creek. 3. Methodology The steps to arrive at the recommended hydrograph for Old Harbor are summarized below: 1. AKDNR data was scaled by the relative basin area of the East Fork of Mountain Creek. 2. The Polarconsult data was aggregated with the AKDNR data and a daily median per basin square mile was calculated. 3. All USGS data sets were collected for Kodiak Island. Data from Terror Lake and River and sites with less than 500 records were excluded. 4. A daily median per basin square mile was calculated for each data set. 5. A daily mean and median was calculated from the aggregate of all USGS medians per basin square mile. 6. The aggregated Mountain Creek data was scaled to more closely fit USGS data. POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. MOUNTAIN CREEK HYDROLOGY REPORT OLD HARBOR, AK MAY 4, 2010 PAGE 2 POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. MOUNTAIN CREEK HYDROLOGY REPORT OLD HARBOR, AK MAY 4, 2010 PAGE 3 4. Existing Data 4.1. East Fork of Mountain Creek The data for stream flow on the East Fork of Mountain Creek is collected from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining and Water Management, Alaska Hydrologic Survey, October 1996 Final Report, "Old Harbor Stream Gaging Project". The AKDNR gaged Mountain Creek just below the East and West fork confluence. The elevation at this location is approximately 490' and the drainage area is about 4.6 square miles. The data set begins on 7/14/1993 and extends through 5/6/1996 giving a total of 921 records. This data has been scaled by the East Fork sub basin percentage to arrive at a presumed data set for the East Fork. While not exactly data from the East Fork, the AKDNR installed a gage on the East Fork concurrently with this gage from 10/17/1995 through 5/6/1996. The correlation in stage and flow measurements from the two locations indicated that scaling the lower gage site data to the East Fork is reasonable. The stream flow data set that was actually collected at the intake comes from the licensing effort performed by Polarconsult. This data set begins on 6/15/1998 and extends through 8/16/2000 consisting of 794 daily records in total. Five stage discharge points were used to develop the stage discharge relationship. The data collected is presented in the Appendix. When combined with the existing AKDNR data, there are a total of 1715 daily records that have been aggregated to daily median values to compare with the USGS data sets. 4.2. USGS Data for Kodiak Island Table 1 lists all of the available data sets from the USGS for Kodiak Island. Only data sets with at least 500 records are used in the comparative analysis. The location of the gage sites is shown USGS Gage Location Map in the Appendix. Each USGS data set was sorted by day and then analyzed to provide the median flow value for each day. This was then divided by the drainage area to arrive a median flow per square mile. The median method of aggregating the data for each day is chosen because the distribution of the data is not normal. It is more typical of a lognormal or gamma distribution. This method of comparison excludes large runoff events from storms skewing the average. Figure 1 shows the resulting median daily flows per square mile for each of the USGS sites. A large amount of variability exists even though the gaged basins are relatively close together. This is due to a noticeable trend towards decreasing precipitation on Kodiak Island when going from the southeast coast to the northwest coast. However, the USGS data exhibits much less variability during the winter and spring low flows which are, at present, the most critical flows when analyzing the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project economics because those are the lowest flows that occur during the year. POLARCONSULTALASKA, INC. MOUNTAINCREEKHYDROLOGYREPORTOLDHARBOR, AKMAY4, 2010 PAGE4Table 1 - USGS Stream Gage Sites on Kodiak IslandUSGS Site Number Site NameDecimalLatitudeDecimalLongitudeGaugeAltitudeDrainageAreaBeginningof RecordEnd of RecordNumber of Records15295500L KITOI C NR AFOGNAK AK58.1951-152.3670152.610/1/19609/30/196136515295600TERROR R NR KODIAK AK57.6506-153.0320123015.06/20/19629/30/1986530915295700TERROR R AT MOUTH NR KODIAK AK57.6940-153.16403030.71/8/196410/9/20071119315296000 UGANIK R NR KODIAK AK 57.6843 -153.4220 20 123.0 4/11/1951 9/30/1978 999415296300 SPIRIDON LK OUTLET NR LARSEN BAY AK 57.6771 -153.6520 440 23.3 5/23/1962 7/15/1965 115015296480 LARSEN BAY C NR LARSEN BAY AK 57.5151 -153.9880 800 3.9 8/22/1980 9/30/1984 150115296500FALLS C NR LARSEN BAY AK57.2742-153.98603805.77/25/19749/30/197543315296520 CANYON C NR LARSEN BAY AK 57.2826 -153.9830 450 8.8 7/25/1974 9/30/1976 79915296550 UPPER THUMB R NR LARSEN BAY AK 57.3501 -153.9700 380 18.8 7/27/1974 9/30/1982 298815296600 KARLUK R AT OUTLET NR LARSEN BAY AK 57.4429 -154.1140 360 100.0 8/21/1975 9/30/1982 186815296950AKALURA C AT OLGA BAY AK57.1659-154.22902018.48/22/19759/30/197640615297000DOG SALMON C NR AYAKULIK AK57.2076-154.073035072.912/10/19599/30/196148915297100 HIDDEN BASIN C NR PORT LIONS AK 57.5942 -153.0150 1500 3.0 8/1/1982 1/31/1984 54915297110HIDDEN BASIN C NR MOUTH NR KODIAK AK57.5626-152.961020011.93/1/19831/31/198433715297200 MYRTLE C NR KODIAK AK 57.6026 -152.4060 20 4.7 5/22/1963 9/30/1986 853315297450 MF PILLAR C NR KODIAK AK 57.7987 -152.4520 175 2.0 10/1/1968 5/31/1970 60815297470 MONASHKA C NR KODIAK AK 57.8420 -152.4480 20 5.5 6/25/1972 9/30/1976 155915297482FALLS C NR PORT LIONS AK57.6681 -152.9360 1500 4.3 10/1/1980 9/30/1983 109515297485 KIZHUYAK R NR PORT LIONS AK 57.7098 -152.8710 15 47.5 4/1/1980 9/30/1994 5296E FORK MOUNTAIN C (COMBINED) 57.2450 -153.3442 840 1.8 7/14/1993 8/16/00 1715Notes:Strikeout gage stations excluded in analysis because of small number of records. POLARCONSULTALASKA, INC. MOUNTAINCREEKHYDROLOGYREPORTOLDHARBOR, AKMAY4, 2010 PAGE5Figure 10.010.020.030.040.050.060.01/1 1/31 3/2 4/1 5/2 6/1 7/2 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1Day of YearUnit Flow (cfs/ sq mi)UGANIK R NRSPIRIDON LKLARSEN BAY CANYON C NRUPPER THUMBKARLUK R ATHIDDEN BASIMYRTLE C NRMF PILLAR CMONASHKA C FALLS C NR KIZHUYAK R East Fork Mountain POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. MOUNTAIN CREEK HYDROLOGY REPORT OLD HARBOR, AK MAY 4, 2010 PAGE 6 5. Comparative Analysis 5.1. Correlation with Kodiak Rainfall Data Rainfall in Kodiak showed a strong correlation with the runoff data collected in Old Harbor during the summer of 1998. This correlation is shown in the following chart. The entire Kodiak rainfall record is shown in the chart below. The wettest year of record occurred in 1998. Thus the limited hydrology data collected on Mountain Creek is probably slightly skewed to indicate more runoff than average. In fact, the average total rainfall for the years 1993 through 1996 and 1998 through 2000 is 80" versus the average for the period of record which is 65". Thus, the observed runoff may actually need to be adjusted down by about 20%. Summer 1998 Old Harbor Project Stream Flows 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 6/17 6/24 7/1 7/8 7/15 7/22 7/29 8/5 8/12 8/19 8/26 9/2 9/9 9/16 9/23 9/30 10/7 DateFlow (cfs)0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Rainfall (in)Mountain Creek, Canyon Intake Mountain Creek, Mouth Kodiak Rainfall (in) Kodiak Rainfall Data 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 YearRainfall (in)0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Number of Observationsrainfall (in) daily count POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. MOUNTAIN CREEK HYDROLOGY REPORT OLD HARBOR, AK MAY 4, 2010 PAGE 7 5.2. Correlation with USGS Data Sets The comparison of the East Fork Mountain Creek data with the combined USGS data sets shows that the Mountain Creek data set has higher than average flows year round but is still within the range of the observed USGS gage site data. The most significant deviation appears to be summer flows that are quite higher than average for all of the USGS basins as shown in Figure 1. Table 2 gives an indication as to a likely reason this. The Mountain Creek intake is located at a fairly high elevation. Three other USGS gage sites are at similar elevations - Larsen Bay Creek, Hidden Basin Creek, and Falls Creek. Larsen Bay Creek is noticeably drier mainly due to its location on the middle northwest coast, which puts it in the lee of the predominant flow pattern across the island. The other two locations exhibit significantly higher than average summer flows. Therefore, it is not unexpected that Mountain Creek has higher than average summer flows as well. Fall flows at Mountain Creek represent the second highest when included in the USGS data set. The location of Mountain Creek, near the highest peaks on the southeast coast is certainly a reasonable explanation for the high rates of runoff during fall because of the predominant flow pattern coming in from the Pacific Ocean and the high altitude of the basin. The most concerning aspect of the Mountain Creek data set is the higher than average winter flows. Mountain Creek ranks 3rd out of the 12 USGS sites and is 33% higher than the average. The disparity is especially apparent when it is observed that the highest winter producing gage sites are very near sea level. Given that both the AKDNR and Polarconsult rating curves lacked low flow resolution it seems that the most likely reason for the unusually high winter flows is a deficient rating curve in the low flow readings. In other words, the Mountain Creek data set should have winter time flows that are closer to the average of the USGS sites. POLARCONSULTALASKA, INC. MOUNTAINCREEKHYDROLOGYREPORTOLDHARBOR, AKMAY4, 2010 PAGE8Table 2 - Seasonal Average Unit FlowsUSGS Site Number Site NameGaugeAltitudeDrainageArea Jun-Aug Sep-Nov Dec-Mar Apr-MayAnnualAverage15296000 UGANIK R NR KODIAK AK 20 123.0 10.1 3.7 1.1 4.1 4.515296300 SPIRIDON LK OUTLET NR LARSEN BAY AK 440 23.3 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.7 2.115296480 LARSEN BAY C NR LARSEN BAY AK 800 3.9 2.1 2.2 1.5 3.5 2.215296520 CANYON C NR LARSEN BAY AK 450 8.8 7.7 5.7 1.3 4.6 4.615296550 UPPER THUMB R NR LARSEN BAY AK 380 18.8 6.5 4.2 1.7 4.8 4.115296600 KARLUK R AT OUTLET NR LARSEN BAY AK 360 100.0 4.3 3.8 1.9 3.2 3.215297100 HIDDEN BASIN C NR PORT LIONS AK 1500 3.0 31.4 7.8 1.5 7.8 11.615297200 MYRTLE C NR KODIAK AK 20 4.7 6.3 6.3 3.4 9.2 5.815297450 MF PILLAR C NR KODIAK AK 175 2.0 6.4 9.0 4.1 10.1 6.915297470 MONASHKA C NR KODIAK AK 20 5.5 8.4 5.6 2.1 10.7 6.015297482 FALLS C NR PORT LIONS AK 1500 4.3 23.9 6.5 1.9 6.5 9.315297485 KIZHUYAK R NR PORT LIONS AK 15 47.5 8.4 3.6 2.7 4.1 4.6E FORK MOUNTAIN C 840 1.8 15.6 8.3 2.8 6.2 7.9Average 9.8 5.0 2.1 5.9 5.4 POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. MOUNTAIN CREEK HYDROLOGY REPORT OLD HARBOR, AK MAY 4, 2010 PAGE 9 6. Adjustments and Final Hydrograph Based on the comparison above and the known lack of stage discharge measurements below 6cfs for the AKDNR data (40% of 15cfs) and 10cfs for the Polarconsult data it is recommended that the existing Mountain Creek data should be adjusted to match the USGS for during winter months. Although only the winter data appears to require an adjustment, we recommend that all of the data be adjusted down to a varying degree to account for the lack of a longer term and more focused effort to obtain stream flow data on Mountain Creek. The adjustments made bring the data set more in line with the average of the USGS data sets. While this is a conservative approach, it is reasonable to opt for this reduced data set in lieu of performing additional streamflow measurements. The following table shows the adjustments applied to the monthly averages of the Mountain Creek data. Table 3 - Mountain Creek Adjustments to Mean Monthly Unit Flows Month USGS Mean USGS Median Mountain Creek Mean Adjustment Factor Adjusted Mean 1 2.0 1.7 3.0 57% 1.70 2 1.8 1.5 2.7 56% 1.50 3 1.8 1.5 1.8 61% 1.10 4 2.9 2.2 2.7 74% 2.00 5 9.0 6.7 9.6 93% 9.00 6 14.6 11.4 25.9 85% 22.00 7 10.5 6.2 14.1 85% 12.00 8 4.4 2.9 6.7 68% 4.50 9 5.8 4.4 11.0 50% 5.50 10 5.2 4.3 9.1 55% 5.00 11 4.0 3.1 4.6 69% 3.20 12 2.8 2.2 3.8 53% 2.03 Figure 2 shows the final recommended unit hydrograph with the median and average of the USGS data sets included and Figure 3 shows the final recommended hydrograph at the intake site of Mountain Creek. POLARCONSULTALASKA, INC. MOUNTAINCREEKHYDROLOGYREPORTOLDHARBOR, AKMAY4, 2010 PAGE10 Figure 2 - Mountain Creek Adjusted Unit Flows Compared with USGS Mean and Median0.010.020.030.040.050.060.01/1 1/31 3/2 4/1 5/2 6/1 7/2 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1Day of YearUnit Flow (cfs/sq mi)USGS MeanUSGS MedianAdjusted Unit Flow POLARCONSULTALASKA, INC. MOUNTAINCREEKHYDROLOGYREPORTOLDHARBOR, AKMAY4, 2010 PAGE11Figure 3 - Final Hydrograph and Power Output for Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project0.05.010.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.050.01/1 1/31 3/2 4/1 5/2 6/1 7/2 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1Day of YearMedian Stream Flow (cfs)050100150200250300350Power Output (kW)Final Recommended FlowPower Output POLARCONSULTALASKA, INC. MOUNTAINCREEKHYDROLOGYREPORTOLDHARBOR, AKMAY4, 2010 PAGE12If constructed and operated at full potential year round, the project would have the following impact on median flows at the canyon of Mountain Creek.0.05.010.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.050.01/1 1/31 3/2 4/1 5/2 6/1 7/2 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1Day of YearMedian Stream Flow (cfs)0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%% Reduction in Moutain Creek Flows at CanyonWater Use for HydroCanyon Mountain Creek Median Flows% Reduction in Canyon Mountain Creek Flows POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. MOUNTAIN CREEK HYDROLOGY REPORT OLD HARBOR, AK MAY 4, 2010 PAGE 13 APPENDIX Polarconsult Mountain Creek Stream Gage Data 7 Pages USGS Gage Location Map 1 Page POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. MOUNTAIN CREEK HYDROLOGY REPORT OLD HARBOR, AK MAY 4, 2010 PAGE 14 STAGE DISCHARGE DATA Location Date Recorder Depth Flow intake 8/16/2000 0.78 10.6 intake 6/3/1999 1.18 24.8 intake 10/7/1998 0.82 11.7 intake 8/14/1998 0.8 9.5 intake 6/15/1998 1.42 45.3 y = 1.6207e2.335x R2 = 0.9897 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Depth (ft)Discharge (cfs) POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. MOUNTAIN CREEK HYDROLOGY REPORT OLD HARBOR, AK MAY 4, 2010 PAGE 15 POLARCONSULT EAST FORK MOUNTAIN CREEK FLOW DATA Date Flow 6/15/1998 43.31 6/16/1998 46.78 6/17/1998 53.26 6/18/1998 51.06 6/19/1998 50.63 6/20/1998 53.83 6/21/1998 53.16 6/22/1998 47.69 6/23/1998 42.47 6/24/1998 38.76 6/25/1998 40.52 6/26/1998 44.03 6/27/1998 50.02 6/28/1998 56.96 6/29/1998 68.08 6/30/1998 67.84 7/1/1998 57.28 7/2/1998 49.65 7/3/1998 63.23 7/4/1998 54.00 7/5/1998 42.50 7/6/1998 36.30 7/7/1998 31.58 7/8/1998 27.54 7/9/1998 25.35 7/10/1998 24.57 7/11/1998 23.52 7/12/1998 24.05 7/13/1998 27.34 7/14/1998 29.93 7/15/1998 32.49 7/16/1998 30.66 7/17/1998 27.45 7/18/1998 24.00 7/19/1998 21.30 7/20/1998 24.54 7/21/1998 71.42 7/22/1998 59.30 7/23/1998 44.24 7/24/1998 35.39 7/25/1998 32.05 7/26/1998 31.37 7/27/1998 28.96 7/28/1998 25.90 Date Flow 7/29/1998 22.71 7/30/1998 21.29 7/31/1998 21.20 8/1/1998 20.66 8/2/1998 19.67 8/3/1998 18.78 8/4/1998 17.57 8/5/1998 16.18 8/6/1998 14.73 8/7/1998 14.49 8/8/1998 14.58 8/9/1998 14.03 8/10/1998 13.11 8/11/1998 12.24 8/12/1998 11.43 8/13/1998 10.74 8/14/1998 10.35 8/15/1998 9.90 8/16/1998 9.66 8/17/1998 9.29 8/18/1998 9.27 8/19/1998 9.08 8/20/1998 9.17 8/21/1998 8.89 8/22/1998 8.54 8/23/1998 8.29 8/24/1998 8.15 8/25/1998 7.95 8/26/1998 7.64 8/27/1998 7.48 8/28/1998 7.36 8/29/1998 7.32 8/30/1998 7.66 8/31/1998 9.58 9/1/1998 10.40 9/2/1998 14.07 9/3/1998 19.36 9/4/1998 19.32 9/5/1998 18.39 9/6/1998 16.62 9/7/1998 14.67 9/8/1998 13.06 9/9/1998 12.14 9/10/1998 14.63 Date Flow 9/11/1998 14.98 9/12/1998 18.08 9/13/1998 17.90 9/14/1998 15.54 9/15/1998 13.49 9/16/1998 12.05 9/17/1998 11.29 9/18/1998 11.85 9/19/1998 25.09 9/20/1998 58.77 9/21/1998 44.18 9/22/1998 30.31 9/23/1998 23.10 9/24/1998 19.28 9/25/1998 17.16 9/26/1998 15.61 9/27/1998 14.56 9/28/1998 13.48 9/29/1998 12.77 9/30/1998 11.92 10/1/1998 11.05 10/2/1998 10.33 10/3/1998 9.80 10/4/1998 10.26 10/5/1998 10.27 10/6/1998 10.26 10/7/1998 10.90 10/8/1998 11.44 10/9/1998 11.00 10/10/1998 10.51 10/11/1998 9.78 10/12/1998 10.00 10/13/1998 9.56 10/14/1998 9.25 10/15/1998 9.63 10/16/1998 10.33 10/17/1998 10.82 10/18/1998 11.54 10/19/1998 13.35 10/20/1998 15.49 10/21/1998 16.76 10/22/1998 17.67 10/23/1998 16.20 10/24/1998 15.12 POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. MOUNTAIN CREEK HYDROLOGY REPORT OLD HARBOR, AK MAY 4, 2010 PAGE 16 Date Flow 10/25/1998 14.15 10/26/1998 14.50 10/27/1998 14.84 10/28/1998 14.17 10/29/1998 13.33 10/30/1998 12.51 10/31/1998 12.08 11/1/1998 13.23 11/2/1998 16.88 11/3/1998 70.96 11/4/1998 81.24 11/5/1998 43.95 11/6/1998 30.76 11/7/1998 23.63 11/8/1998 20.82 11/9/1998 38.55 11/10/1998 56.56 11/11/1998 41.83 11/12/1998 30.45 11/13/1998 23.44 11/14/1998 19.23 11/15/1998 16.43 11/16/1998 14.42 11/17/1998 14.21 11/18/1998 14.51 11/19/1998 15.76 11/20/1998 16.69 11/21/1998 15.75 11/22/1998 14.11 11/23/1998 12.54 11/24/1998 11.15 11/25/1998 10.26 11/26/1998 9.40 11/27/1998 9.16 11/28/1998 8.83 11/29/1998 8.38 11/30/1998 7.95 12/1/1998 7.74 12/2/1998 7.46 12/3/1998 7.24 12/4/1998 7.28 12/5/1998 6.95 12/6/1998 6.88 12/7/1998 6.69 12/8/1998 6.50 12/9/1998 6.39 Date Flow 12/10/1998 6.19 12/11/1998 6.07 12/12/1998 5.91 12/13/1998 5.80 12/14/1998 5.73 12/15/1998 5.60 12/16/1998 5.52 12/17/1998 5.44 12/18/1998 5.38 12/19/1998 5.98 12/20/1998 6.17 12/21/1998 6.38 12/22/1998 6.53 12/23/1998 6.62 12/24/1998 6.68 12/25/1998 6.69 12/26/1998 6.58 12/27/1998 6.49 12/28/1998 6.34 12/29/1998 6.16 12/30/1998 5.91 12/31/1998 5.74 1/1/1999 5.61 1/2/1999 5.45 1/3/1999 5.33 1/4/1999 5.22 1/5/1999 5.38 1/6/1999 5.45 1/7/1999 5.44 1/8/1999 5.64 1/9/1999 6.02 1/10/1999 6.15 1/11/1999 6.20 1/12/1999 5.99 1/13/1999 5.83 1/14/1999 5.63 1/15/1999 5.50 1/16/1999 5.34 1/17/1999 5.23 1/18/1999 5.09 1/19/1999 4.98 1/20/1999 4.85 1/21/1999 4.76 1/22/1999 4.83 1/23/1999 5.49 1/24/1999 5.04 Date Flow 1/25/1999 4.97 1/26/1999 4.84 1/27/1999 4.71 1/28/1999 4.57 1/29/1999 5.33 1/30/1999 10.32 1/31/1999 4.31 2/1/1999 4.22 2/2/1999 4.14 2/3/1999 4.06 2/4/1999 4.03 2/5/1999 3.96 2/6/1999 3.92 2/7/1999 3.87 2/8/1999 3.84 2/9/1999 3.77 2/10/1999 3.75 2/11/1999 3.71 2/12/1999 3.68 2/13/1999 3.67 2/14/1999 3.68 2/15/1999 3.67 2/16/1999 3.67 2/17/1999 3.64 2/18/1999 3.59 2/19/1999 3.59 2/20/1999 3.60 2/21/1999 3.69 2/22/1999 3.50 2/23/1999 3.50 2/24/1999 3.50 2/25/1999 3.48 2/26/1999 3.46 2/27/1999 3.43 2/28/1999 3.42 3/1/1999 3.42 3/2/1999 3.41 3/3/1999 3.37 3/4/1999 3.34 3/5/1999 3.31 3/6/1999 3.29 3/7/1999 3.27 3/8/1999 3.27 3/9/1999 3.26 3/10/1999 3.27 3/11/1999 3.26 POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. MOUNTAIN CREEK HYDROLOGY REPORT OLD HARBOR, AK MAY 4, 2010 PAGE 17 Date Flow 3/12/1999 3.22 3/13/1999 3.19 3/14/1999 7.58 3/15/1999 3.57 3/16/1999 4.47 3/17/1999 3.12 3/18/1999 3.15 3/19/1999 3.19 3/20/1999 3.17 3/21/1999 3.12 3/22/1999 3.12 3/23/1999 3.05 3/24/1999 3.12 3/25/1999 3.07 3/26/1999 3.03 3/27/1999 3.00 3/28/1999 2.99 3/29/1999 2.98 3/30/1999 2.97 3/31/1999 2.97 4/1/1999 2.99 4/2/1999 4.53 4/3/1999 2.93 4/4/1999 2.91 4/5/1999 2.94 4/6/1999 3.00 4/7/1999 21.25 4/8/1999 3.35 4/9/1999 2.91 4/10/1999 2.93 4/11/1999 2.93 4/12/1999 2.91 4/13/1999 2.91 4/14/1999 2.91 4/15/1999 2.86 4/16/1999 2.84 4/17/1999 2.92 4/18/1999 3.92 4/19/1999 5.21 4/20/1999 5.25 4/21/1999 4.84 4/22/1999 4.60 4/23/1999 4.13 4/24/1999 4.06 4/25/1999 4.12 4/26/1999 4.17 Date Flow 4/27/1999 4.25 4/28/1999 4.16 4/29/1999 4.13 4/30/1999 4.21 5/1/1999 4.27 5/2/1999 4.21 5/3/1999 4.12 5/4/1999 4.03 5/5/1999 3.94 5/6/1999 3.90 5/7/1999 3.96 5/8/1999 4.07 5/9/1999 4.34 5/10/1999 5.80 5/11/1999 5.97 5/12/1999 6.44 5/13/1999 6.93 5/14/1999 7.75 5/15/1999 9.32 5/16/1999 11.48 5/17/1999 13.61 5/18/1999 15.43 5/19/1999 20.44 5/20/1999 26.10 5/21/1999 30.65 5/22/1999 26.28 5/23/1999 23.57 5/24/1999 21.38 5/25/1999 19.95 5/26/1999 20.57 5/27/1999 20.70 5/28/1999 20.93 5/29/1999 20.70 5/30/1999 25.92 5/31/1999 26.80 6/1/1999 25.71 6/2/1999 24.39 6/3/1999 25.13 6/4/1999 24.65 6/5/1999 26.91 6/6/1999 29.11 6/7/1999 28.24 6/8/1999 31.38 6/9/1999 38.50 6/10/1999 63.65 6/11/1999 85.37 Date Flow 6/12/1999 98.45 6/13/1999 157.22 6/14/1999 169.45 6/15/1999 154.77 6/16/1999 91.31 6/17/1999 53.30 6/18/1999 41.83 6/19/1999 38.27 6/20/1999 39.34 6/21/1999 38.56 6/22/1999 41.07 6/23/1999 40.48 6/24/1999 34.74 6/25/1999 29.65 6/26/1999 25.86 6/27/1999 22.11 6/28/1999 20.49 6/29/1999 20.69 6/30/1999 22.19 7/1/1999 21.89 7/2/1999 21.64 7/3/1999 23.97 7/4/1999 30.89 7/5/1999 32.57 7/6/1999 28.04 7/7/1999 23.54 7/8/1999 20.20 7/9/1999 17.86 7/10/1999 16.81 7/11/1999 16.92 7/12/1999 19.11 7/13/1999 18.75 7/14/1999 16.94 7/15/1999 15.54 7/16/1999 15.12 7/17/1999 14.96 7/18/1999 14.61 7/19/1999 13.91 7/20/1999 13.43 7/21/1999 12.93 7/22/1999 12.71 7/23/1999 12.76 7/24/1999 12.37 7/25/1999 11.66 7/26/1999 11.07 7/27/1999 10.73 POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. MOUNTAIN CREEK HYDROLOGY REPORT OLD HARBOR, AK MAY 4, 2010 PAGE 18 Date Flow 7/28/1999 10.28 7/29/1999 9.92 7/30/1999 9.49 7/31/1999 9.19 8/1/1999 8.85 8/2/1999 8.66 8/3/1999 8.73 8/4/1999 80.81 8/5/1999 139.21 8/6/1999 49.29 8/7/1999 31.31 8/8/1999 23.06 8/9/1999 18.70 8/10/1999 15.77 8/11/1999 13.73 8/12/1999 12.60 8/13/1999 11.64 8/14/1999 10.60 8/15/1999 10.12 8/16/1999 9.62 8/17/1999 9.22 8/18/1999 8.80 8/19/1999 8.42 8/20/1999 8.42 8/21/1999 8.92 8/22/1999 9.70 8/23/1999 9.91 8/24/1999 10.36 8/25/1999 11.40 8/26/1999 11.47 8/27/1999 10.78 8/28/1999 10.12 8/29/1999 9.38 8/30/1999 9.04 8/31/1999 8.64 9/1/1999 8.34 9/2/1999 8.15 9/3/1999 7.93 9/4/1999 7.80 9/5/1999 7.63 9/6/1999 7.50 9/7/1999 7.39 9/8/1999 7.28 9/9/1999 7.12 9/10/1999 12.41 9/11/1999 26.55 Date Flow 9/12/1999 35.41 9/13/1999 24.91 9/14/1999 19.73 9/15/1999 16.31 9/16/1999 14.69 9/17/1999 28.96 9/18/1999 77.37 9/19/1999 59.25 9/20/1999 45.18 9/21/1999 43.01 9/22/1999 51.55 9/23/1999 43.54 9/24/1999 32.65 9/25/1999 24.35 9/26/1999 19.17 9/27/1999 16.04 9/28/1999 14.10 9/29/1999 12.74 9/30/1999 12.14 10/1/1999 13.77 10/2/1999 19.32 10/3/1999 26.75 10/4/1999 43.60 10/5/1999 59.58 10/6/1999 41.60 10/7/1999 34.06 10/8/1999 26.26 10/9/1999 20.30 10/10/1999 16.99 10/11/1999 15.41 10/12/1999 14.85 10/13/1999 14.00 10/14/1999 13.36 10/15/1999 12.97 10/16/1999 12.80 10/17/1999 13.79 10/18/1999 18.96 10/19/1999 20.93 10/20/1999 23.27 10/21/1999 20.11 10/22/1999 16.88 10/23/1999 14.52 10/24/1999 12.61 10/25/1999 11.33 10/26/1999 10.25 10/27/1999 9.56 Date Flow 10/28/1999 9.01 10/29/1999 8.58 10/30/1999 8.18 10/31/1999 7.86 11/1/1999 7.67 11/2/1999 7.35 11/3/1999 7.09 11/4/1999 7.10 11/5/1999 6.76 11/6/1999 6.64 11/7/1999 6.46 11/8/1999 6.32 11/9/1999 6.14 11/10/1999 5.88 11/11/1999 5.78 11/12/1999 6.30 11/13/1999 7.47 11/14/1999 7.85 11/15/1999 7.63 11/16/1999 7.07 11/17/1999 6.77 11/18/1999 6.74 11/19/1999 6.66 11/20/1999 6.44 11/21/1999 6.17 11/22/1999 5.93 11/23/1999 5.69 11/24/1999 5.53 11/25/1999 5.46 11/26/1999 5.43 11/27/1999 5.24 11/28/1999 5.02 11/29/1999 4.94 11/30/1999 4.81 12/1/1999 4.74 12/2/1999 4.62 12/3/1999 4.59 12/4/1999 4.52 12/5/1999 4.42 12/6/1999 4.36 12/7/1999 4.53 12/8/1999 4.53 12/9/1999 4.53 12/10/1999 4.53 12/11/1999 4.50 12/12/1999 5.45 POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. MOUNTAIN CREEK HYDROLOGY REPORT OLD HARBOR, AK MAY 4, 2010 PAGE 19 Date Flow 12/13/1999 4.42 12/14/1999 4.45 12/15/1999 4.52 12/16/1999 5.73 12/17/1999 4.53 12/18/1999 4.60 12/19/1999 4.54 12/20/1999 4.49 12/21/1999 8.46 12/22/1999 19.41 12/23/1999 13.10 12/24/1999 12.91 12/25/1999 13.93 12/26/1999 14.64 12/27/1999 18.77 12/28/1999 13.79 12/29/1999 12.28 12/30/1999 11.31 12/31/1999 10.01 1/1/2000 8.85 1/2/2000 8.16 1/3/2000 7.58 1/4/2000 7.05 1/5/2000 6.69 1/6/2000 6.36 1/7/2000 6.08 1/8/2000 5.79 1/9/2000 5.61 1/10/2000 5.42 1/11/2000 5.26 1/12/2000 5.06 1/13/2000 4.95 1/14/2000 4.82 1/15/2000 4.72 1/16/2000 4.58 1/17/2000 4.53 1/18/2000 4.52 1/19/2000 4.43 1/20/2000 4.33 1/21/2000 4.25 1/22/2000 4.19 1/23/2000 4.13 1/24/2000 4.06 1/25/2000 4.03 1/26/2000 4.34 1/27/2000 4.18 Date Flow 1/28/2000 3.86 1/29/2000 3.83 1/30/2000 4.19 1/31/2000 4.99 2/1/2000 3.78 2/2/2000 3.98 2/3/2000 3.82 2/4/2000 3.76 2/5/2000 3.75 2/6/2000 3.68 2/7/2000 4.08 2/8/2000 4.51 2/9/2000 4.35 2/10/2000 4.39 2/11/2000 4.39 2/12/2000 4.68 2/13/2000 4.57 2/14/2000 4.54 2/15/2000 4.52 2/16/2000 4.45 2/17/2000 4.32 2/18/2000 4.27 2/19/2000 4.20 2/20/2000 4.09 2/21/2000 4.03 2/22/2000 3.94 2/23/2000 3.85 2/24/2000 3.83 2/25/2000 3.75 2/26/2000 3.67 2/27/2000 3.68 2/28/2000 3.67 2/29/2000 3.60 3/1/2000 3.57 3/2/2000 3.61 3/3/2000 3.57 3/4/2000 3.50 3/5/2000 3.55 3/6/2000 3.64 3/7/2000 3.51 3/8/2000 3.48 3/9/2000 3.43 3/10/2000 3.43 3/11/2000 3.87 3/12/2000 3.46 3/13/2000 3.41 Date Flow 3/14/2000 3.40 3/15/2000 25.63 3/16/2000 9.36 3/17/2000 3.36 3/18/2000 3.30 3/19/2000 6.67 3/20/2000 3.28 3/21/2000 3.26 3/22/2000 3.20 3/23/2000 3.19 3/24/2000 3.17 3/25/2000 3.12 3/26/2000 3.82 3/27/2000 7.63 3/28/2000 3.05 3/29/2000 3.05 3/30/2000 3.04 3/31/2000 3.04 4/1/2000 2.97 4/2/2000 5.09 4/3/2000 3.08 4/4/2000 2.98 4/5/2000 2.97 4/6/2000 2.93 4/7/2000 2.92 4/8/2000 2.92 4/9/2000 2.91 4/10/2000 3.04 4/11/2000 3.22 4/12/2000 3.32 4/13/2000 4.24 4/14/2000 4.73 4/15/2000 5.12 4/16/2000 5.19 4/17/2000 4.90 4/18/2000 4.60 4/19/2000 4.54 4/20/2000 4.62 4/21/2000 4.95 4/22/2000 4.97 4/23/2000 4.97 4/24/2000 4.95 4/25/2000 4.97 4/26/2000 5.03 4/27/2000 5.25 4/28/2000 5.41 POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. MOUNTAIN CREEK HYDROLOGY REPORT OLD HARBOR, AK MAY 4, 2010 PAGE 20 Date Flow 4/29/2000 5.69 4/30/2000 6.05 5/1/2000 6.66 5/2/2000 7.70 5/3/2000 8.32 5/4/2000 9.20 5/5/2000 9.95 5/6/2000 10.39 5/7/2000 12.14 5/8/2000 13.63 5/9/2000 13.13 5/10/2000 13.19 5/11/2000 13.23 5/12/2000 13.30 5/13/2000 14.45 5/14/2000 14.72 5/15/2000 15.49 5/16/2000 16.51 5/17/2000 16.51 5/18/2000 17.22 5/19/2000 17.02 5/20/2000 15.69 5/21/2000 14.81 5/22/2000 14.33 5/23/2000 13.75 5/24/2000 13.17 5/25/2000 13.08 5/26/2000 13.50 5/27/2000 14.50 5/28/2000 16.95 5/29/2000 20.11 5/30/2000 23.66 5/31/2000 23.76 6/1/2000 22.58 6/2/2000 20.61 6/3/2000 19.96 6/4/2000 20.54 6/5/2000 21.67 6/6/2000 23.39 6/7/2000 37.69 6/8/2000 67.61 6/9/2000 53.78 6/10/2000 42.51 6/11/2000 44.58 6/12/2000 135.24 6/13/2000 109.42 Date Flow 6/14/2000 86.20 6/15/2000 64.74 6/16/2000 51.62 6/17/2000 43.12 6/18/2000 36.81 6/19/2000 46.96 6/20/2000 69.32 6/21/2000 47.65 6/22/2000 37.08 6/23/2000 34.71 6/24/2000 123.50 6/25/2000 98.56 6/26/2000 61.96 6/27/2000 64.83 6/28/2000 49.90 6/29/2000 58.18 6/30/2000 68.50 7/1/2000 50.32 7/2/2000 42.81 7/3/2000 41.28 7/4/2000 37.83 7/5/2000 34.80 7/6/2000 35.89 7/7/2000 37.49 7/8/2000 35.83 7/9/2000 32.90 7/10/2000 28.58 7/11/2000 28.31 7/12/2000 35.18 7/13/2000 40.20 7/14/2000 37.48 7/15/2000 30.71 7/16/2000 26.57 7/17/2000 24.03 7/18/2000 22.15 7/19/2000 19.84 7/20/2000 17.89 7/21/2000 16.39 7/22/2000 15.61 7/23/2000 15.02 7/24/2000 15.12 7/25/2000 15.33 7/26/2000 14.92 7/27/2000 14.35 7/28/2000 14.14 7/29/2000 14.21 Date Flow 7/30/2000 13.93 7/31/2000 13.52 8/1/2000 12.87 8/2/2000 48.64 8/3/2000 65.59 8/4/2000 38.49 8/5/2000 28.33 8/6/2000 22.22 8/7/2000 18.55 8/8/2000 16.26 8/9/2000 14.54 8/10/2000 13.52 8/11/2000 12.93 8/12/2000 12.25 8/13/2000 11.62 8/14/2000 11.00 8/15/2000 10.51 8/16/2000 10.06 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Draft License Application Agency Meeting June 26, 2013 Page 3 Discussion: Dan said that there was a gage placed in Mountain Creek and work was done to determine downstream effects and energy production. The Reconnaissance and Feasibility Report has detailed information. Comment: Drew Herrington (DNR Water) stated that AVEC could apply for the full amount of water rights; however, if all the water was not used, the permit would be modified to a lesser amount. Comment: Birdie Budnick (USACE) said that Nationwide Permit 17 for Hydroelectric Projects licensed through FERC would not apply to the project. The permit is for existing reservoirs. She said that it would likely need an individual permit. Discussion: Robin said that the environmental document for the project is being written for both FERC and USFWS; therefore, she hoped it would work for the Corps. Comment:Drew Herrington said that there was a Water Rights application on file for the Old Harbor Project. It would need to be revisited. Comment:Monte asked whether there had been thoughts to moving the drinking water intake to the hydro project intake. Discussion: Cynthia said that they have a new water tank and water treatment facility. She said that the fish taste has not been a concern for some time now. Next Steps Comments on DLA due to FERC by July 27. AVEC will try to respond to questions and comments by mid August. AVEC would like to meet in mid-September to discuss comments. (Agencies would like at least 4 weeks to review AVEC’s responses.) A Doodle Poll will be sent out. AVEC would like to submit the License Application to FERC by September 30, 2013. Meeting closed Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project P- 13272-003 Exhibit F Design Drawings EXHIBIT F-39TAILRACEDETAILSF.E.R.C. PROJECT NO. 13272OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTDRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBIT F CONCEPTUAL PLANSALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVEOLD HARBOR, ALASKAAPRIL 22, 2013 Alaska Village Electric Cooperative:Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Preliminary Supporting Design Report, Exhibit F April 22, 2013 H339414 exhibit f preliminary design report Rev. 2 Page 1 © Hatch 2013 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Exhibit F - Preliminary Design Drawings and Preliminary Supporting Design Report. This Exhibit contains information defined as Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII), and is therefore filed under separate cover as required by the Commission’s regulation at 18 CFR 4.32(k) and 18 CFR 388.112 and 388.113. Requests for access to information defined as CEII should be made to the Commission’s CEII Coordinator. Exhibit F is presented herein and addresses the FERC regulation 18 CFR 4.41 (g). (g) Exhibit F consists of general design drawings of the principal project works described under paragraph (b) of this section (Exhibit A) and supporting information used as the basis of design. If the Exhibit F submitted with the application is preliminary in nature, applicant must so state in the application. The drawings must conform to the specifications of §4.39. 4.41(g)(1) The drawings must show all major project structures in sufficient detail to provide a full understanding of the project, including: (i) Plans (overhead view); (ii) Elevations (front view); (iii) Profiles (side view); and (iv) Sections. 1. Preliminary General Design Drawings Preliminary general design drawings of the principal project works are attached hereto as follows: Exhibit Number Title F-1 PROJECT VICINITY MAP F-2 PROJECT COMMUNITY MAP F-3 PIPELINE TRAIL - PLAN AND PROFILE STA 115+00 to 112+50 F-4 PIPELINE TRAIL - PLAN AND PROFILE STA 112+50 to 100+00 F-5 PIPELINE TRAIL - PLAN AND PROFILE STA 100+00 to 87+50 F-6 PIPELINE TRAIL - PLAN AND PROFILE STA 87+50 to 75+00 F-7 PIPELINE TRAIL - PLAN AND PROFILE STA 75+00 to 62+50 F-8 PIPELINE TRAIL - PLAN AND PROFILE STA 62+50 to 50+00 F-9 PIPELINE TRAIL - PLAN AND PROFILE STA 50+00 to 37+50 F-10 PIPELINE TRAIL - PLAN AND PROFILE STA 37+50 to 25+00 F-11 PIPELINE TRAIL - PLAN AND PROFILE STA 25+00 to 12+50 F-12 PIPELINE TRAIL - PLAN AND PROFILE STA 12+50 to 0+00 F-13 PIPELINE - PLAN AND PROFILE STA 12+50 to 0+00 F-14 TAILRACE - PLAN AND PROFILE STA 0+00 to 12+50 F-15 TAILRACE - PLAN AND PROFILE STA 12+50 to 23+97 F-16 POWERHOUSE ACCESS ROAD - PLAN AND PROFILE STA 57+19 to 49+50 F-17 POWERHOUSE ACCESS ROAD - PLAN AND PROFILE STA 49+50 to 37+00 F-18 POWERHOUSE ACCESS ROAD - PLAN AND PROFILE STA 37+00 to 24+50 Alaska Village Electric Cooperative:Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Preliminary Supporting Design Report, Exhibit F April 22, 2013 H339414 exhibit f preliminary design report Rev. 2 Page 2 © Hatch 2013 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. F-19 POWERHOUSE ACCESS ROAD - PLAN AND PROFILE STA 24+50 to 12+00 F-20 POWERHOUSE ACCESS ROAD - PLAN AND PROFILE STA 12+00 to -0+50 F-21 POWERHOUSE ACCESS ROAD - PLAN AND PROFILE STA -0+50 to -12+97 F-22 INTAKE SITE PLAN F-23 DIVERSION WALL AND INTAKE - PLAN AND PROFILE F-24 INTAKE - SECTIONS AND DETAILS F-25 INTAKE ACCESS TRAIL AND PIPELINE - TYPICAL SECTIONS F-26 INTAKE ACCESS TRAIL AND PIPELINE - TYPICAL SECTIONS F-27 INTAKE ACCESS TRAIL AND PIPELINE - TYPICAL SECTIONS F-28 INTAKE ACCESS TRAIL AND PIPELINE - CROSS SECTIONS STA 115+00 to 103+00 F-29 INTAKE ACCESS TRAIL AND PIPELINE - CROSS SECTIONS STA 102+50 to 90+50 F-30 INTAKE ACCESS TRAIL AND PIPELINE - CROSS SECTIONS STA 90+00 to 78+00 F-31 INTAKE ACCESS TRAIL AND PIPELINE - CROSS SECTIONS STA 77+50 to 65+50 F-32 INTAKE ACCESS TRAIL AND PIPELINE - CROSS SECTIONS STA 65+00 to 53+00 F-33 INTAKE ACCESS TRAIL AND PIPELINE - CROSS SECTIONS STA 52+50 to 40+50 F-34 INTAKE ACCESS TRAIL AND PIPELINE - CROSS SECTIONS STA 40+00 to 28+00 F-35 INTAKE ACCESS TRAIL AND PIPELINE - CROSS SECTIONS STA 27+50 to 15+50 F-36 INTAKE ACCESS TRAIL AND PIPELINE - CROSS SECTIONS STA 15+00 to 3+00 F-37 POWERHOUSE - SITE PLAN F-38 POWERHOUSE - SECTION F-39 TAILRACE - DETAILS F-40 POWERHOUSE - ACCESS ROAD AND ELECTRICAL 4.41(g)(2) The applicant may submit preliminary design drawings with the application. The final Exhibit F may be submitted during or after the licensing process and must show the precise plans and specifications for proposed structures. If the project is licensed on the basis of preliminary designs, the applicant must submit a final Exhibit F for Commission approval prior to commencement of any construction of the project. The above listed Exhibit F drawings are preliminary design drawings. AVEC will submit final Exhibit F drawings for Commission approval upon completion of the final design for the project and prior to commencement of any construction of the project. 2. PRELIMINARY SUPPORTING DESIGN REPORT 4.41(g)(3) Supporting design report. The applicant must furnish, at a minimum, the following supporting information to demonstrate that existing and proposed structures are safe and adequate to fulfill their stated functions and must submit such information in a separate report at the time the application is filed. The report must include: (i) An assessment of the suitability of the site and the reservoir rim stability based on geological and subsurface investigations, including investigations of soils and rock borings and tests for the evaluation of all foundations and construction materials sufficient to determine the location and type of dam structure suitable for the site; Alaska Village Electric Cooperative:Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Preliminary Supporting Design Report, Exhibit F April 22, 2013 H339414 exhibit f preliminary design report Rev. 2 Page 3 © Hatch 2013 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. The maximum height of the diversion structure is approximately 6'. The geotechnical investigation indicated that the existing soil consists of an overburden layer that is consistently about 2' thick. The underlying material consists of glacial till and sedimentary bedrock. The investigation indicates that the location and preliminary design for the dam structure is suitable for the given site. (ii) Copies of boring logs, geology reports and laboratory test report; A copy of the geotechnical investigation report is included with this Application. (iii) An identification of all borrow areas and quarry sites and an estimate of required quantities of suitable construction material; The project design requires excavation and fill for the access road and trail. The geotechnical investigation report indicates that suitable borrow and quarry sites are likely to be found in the project vicinity. Borrow sites will occur at suitable sites within the project boundary. Sites will be determined during the final design. Estimated borrow quantity is 10,200 cyd for the intake trail and 16,500 cyd for the powerhouse access road. (iv) Stability and stress analyses for all major structures and critical abutment slopes under all probable loading conditions, including seismic and hydrostatic forces induced by water loads up to the Probable Maximum Flood as appropriate; and No major structures requiring extensive stability and stress analyses are proposed for the project as described in Exhibit A. Details for the proposed diversion structure, penstock and powerhouse have been taken from standard designs for similar structures. Their stability and stress will be confirmed during the final design phase and the results will be included in the in the final Supporting Design Report for the project. The final design is expected to be in considerable alignment with the preliminary design presented in Exhibit F (v) The basis for determination of seismic loading and the Spillway Design Flood in sufficient detail to permit independent staff evaluation. Seismic Loading The project is situated in a region of very active seismicity. The recommended Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters using the procedures in ASCE 7-10 are SDS = 1.453 g and SD1 = 0.735 g1. The final design will further evaluate the seismic loading with the appropriate parameters used in the design calculations for project structures. Spillway Design Flood The preliminary design for the run-of-river diversion structure reaches a maximum height of 7 feet above the stream bed that will back up a pool with a surface area of 0.3 acres containing approximately 1 acre- feet of water. A breach is not going to result in any downstream loss of life or property. The estimated height of water is based on the USGS 500 year recurrence peak flood estimation of approximately 1100 cfs using the procedure described in USGS WR 03-4188. The appropriate design flood and calculations for the diversion structure will be included in the final Supporting Design Report for the project. 1 http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=57.22&longitude=- 153.29&siteclass=1&riskcategory=-1&edition=asce- 2010&variant=null&resultid=single.5057ba71b7db58.73113485 Alaska Village Electric Cooperative:Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Preliminary Supporting Design Report, Exhibit F April 22, 2013 H339414 exhibit f preliminary design report Rev. 2 Page 4 © Hatch 2013 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 4.41(g)(4) The applicant must submit two copies of the supporting design report described in paragraph (g)(3) of this section at the time preliminary and final design drawings are submitted to the Commission for review. If the report contains preliminary drawings, it must be designated a “Preliminary Supporting Design Report.” The current submittal contains preliminary drawings and is, therefore, designated as a Preliminary Supporting Design Report. Alaska Village Electric Cooperatuve will submit a final Supporting Design Report for Commission approval upon completion of the final design for the project and prior to commencement of any construction of the project. 3. References United States Geological Survey, Geologic Hazards Science Center, U.S. Seismic Design Maps Web Application, 2012, http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php Curran, Janet H., U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4188, "Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of Peak Streamflows for Ungaged Sites on Streams in Alaska and Conterminous Basins in Canada", Anchorage, AK, 2003. R&M Consultants, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project. December 19, 2012. Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc. Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project P- 13272-003 Exhibit G Project Maps