The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSalmon Creek Project - Ferc No. 2307 1981FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO LICENSE FOR MAJOR PROJECT --EXISTING DAM SALMON CREEK PROJeCT ~~ FERC NO. 2307 APPLICATION BY: PREPARED BY: ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO. JUNEAU, ALASKA MAY, 1982 TONER & NORDLING, REGISTERED ENGINEERS, INC. JUNEAU, ALASKA MAY, 1981 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO LICENSE FOR MAJOR PROJECT --EXISTING DAM SALMON CREEK PROJECT FERC NO. 2307 APPLICATION BY: PREPARED BY: ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO. JUNEAU, ALASKA MAY, 198 2 TONER & NORDLING, REGISTERED ENGINEERS, INC. JUNEAU, ALASKA MAY, 1981 At:'"":..:;'/ ED OCT 2 21982 ALASKA POWER AUTHO:J.!TY BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO LICENSE FOR MAJOR PROJECT --EXISTING DAM INITIAL STATEMENT 1. ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO. applies to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for amendment of the license for FERC Project No. 2307, as described in the attached exhibits. 2. The locati~n of the project is: State: Alaska City & Borough: Stream: Juneau Salmon Creek 3. The exact name and business address of the applicant are: Alaska Electric Light and Power Co. 134 Franklin Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 The exact name ..and business address of each person authorized to act as agent for the applicant in this application are: Toner & Nordling, Registered Engineers, Inc. Box 570 Juneau, Alaska 99802 IS -2 B. G. Hildyard, Consultant c/o James A. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2255 Avenida De La Playa La Jolla, California 92037 4. The applicant is a domestic corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and duly qualified to do business in the State of Alaska. 5. The following is a listing of state agencies which administer the various statutory or regulatory requirements of the State with respect to projects of this nature: A. Division of Policy & Planning, Office of the Governor. Under Alaska Statutes AS 46. 40.010-20 and the Alaska Administrative Code 6 AAC 80.010-85.900, the State must determine whether activities having a "direct and significant impact" on coastal waters are compatible with State plans for the coastal zone. B. Alaska Public Utilities Commission. AS 42.05.010-721 provides for comprehensive regulation of the services provided by electrical utilities and the rates charged for those services. C. Department of Environmental Conservation. Under 18 AAC 70.081, the department must certify that a project will comply with Alaska water quality standards. In addition, under AS 43.03.020, the department in conjunction with the Department off Fish and Game must ascertain any impact on runs of anadromous fish. D. Department of Fish and Game. IS - 3 Under AS 16.10.020, the Department's approval is required for any work· impacting on anadromous fish streams. E. Department of Natural Resources. Under 11 AAC 93.150-200, the Department has extensive regulations covering dam construction. Under AS 46.15.010-270, the Department regulates appropriation of state waters. Under AS 38.05.330 and regulations promulgated under 11 AAC 58.300-910, the Department grants leases and easements that may be needed to use or cross state lands. Also under AS 41.20.040, AS 41.35.020, AS 41.35.050, AS 41.35.080 and the regulations promulgated under 11 AAC 16.010-160, the Department administers and regulates the historic, prehistoric and archaeological resources of the State. Under the following headings we have indicated the manner in which we have complied with the various state laws and regulations administered by the various departments. A. Division of Policy & Planning, Office of the Governor. To comply with the laws and regulations administered by this agency, we submitted a brief memorandum outlining the proposed work to be performed under the amendment to the license. Public notice was posted for thirty days by the agency to receive comments on the report and the proposed work. As a result of this action, we have received a letter from the agency advising that we are in compliance with the State Coastal Zone Management . IS - 4 Plan. B. Alaska Public Utilities Commission. A copy of the same memorandum was filed with the Alaska Public Utilities Commission. Their letter in reply indicates the Commission does not require prior review and approval of proposed construction by Electric Utilities. They also express themselves as believing the project, as outlined, should be in the public interest. c. Department of Environmental Conservation. A copy of the same memorandum was filed with the Department of Environmental Conservation. Their letter in reply indicated that a Section 401 Water Quality Certification would not be required. This was based upon the fact that the Corps of Engineers was not exercising jurisdiction over the project and was not requiring the filing for a Corps of Engineers permit. They also noted that a Title 16 permit might be required by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. D. Department £! Fish ~ Game. The same memorandum was filed with the Alaska Department of fish and Game. Their letter in reply indicated that they had no objection to the project and that they did not foresee any major adverse environmental impacts occurring. They did express concern with the timing of construction of those portions of the project where work in the stream would be involved and, ~lso, with erosion IS - 5 problems that might result from disturbed areas. It is our intent to confine the instream work as they suggest and to p:rovide for hydro-seeding of the roadway slopes and disturbed a:reas under the Construction Contrac~ provisions. E. Department of Natural Resources. The same memorandum was filed with the Department of Natural Resources. Their letter in reply contained the request by the State Historic Preservation Officer that a pre-construction cultural resource survey be made. It also contained a :request, if feasible, that a safe, recreational trail to Salmon Creek Dam be reestablished. In response to their first request, we have undertaken a preconstruct ion cultural resource survey. It wi 11 be presented here as Exhibit E of this application. With respect to the reestablishment of a safe trail to the Dam, the roadway construction being proposed will provide an exc.ellent recreational trail to the Upper Powerhouse. From there to the dam, the existing trail has been brushed out and rehabilitation of certain sections is planned. 6. We have attached a copy of the memorandum circulated to all the Federal, State and Municipal Agencies involved. Copies of all letters received in reply to this memorandum are also included. This memorandum was circulated to the following agencies: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Alaska Department of Fish & Game IS - 6 As Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Chief of History and Archaeology Alaska Office of Policy Development and Planning, Coastal Zone Management Alaska Public Utilities Commission City and Borough of Juneau National Marine Fisheries Service U. s. Army Corps of Engineers u. S. Department of the Interior, H~ritage Conservation and Recreation Officer U. S. Department of the Interior, Regional Environmental Officer u. s. Fish and Wildlife Service evidenced by the replies, we received written communication from ten of the eleven agencies contacted. We have had a telephone conversation with personnel of the Department of the Interior,. Office of Heritage Conservation and Recreation. We have had no communication with the Regional Conservation Office of the Department of the Interior. IS -7 INITIAL STATEMENT APPENDIX A IS - 8 MEMORANDUM ON PROPOSED ROAD 7 PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION LOWER SALMON CREEK REHABILITATION AEL&P CO. JUNEAU, ALASKA IS - 9 September 8, 1981 MEMORANDUM TO: Interested Federal, State and Municipal Agencies FROM: Toner & Nordling, Registered Engineers, Inc. SUBJECT: Proposed Road and Pipeline Construction Lower Salmon Creek Powerhouse Rehabilitation 1. Purpose of the Memorandum. Under the regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Alaska Electric Light and Power Co. (AEL&P Co.), when seeking an operate the Salmon and Annex amendment to its license to Creek FERC Project No. 2307, must consult. with a number of Federal, State and Municipal agencies prior to submittal of the application for amendment to their license. This memorandum is intended to provide these various agencies with the necessary background of information on the nature and extent of the construction that is proposed so that the project can be reviewed by them to determine if it is in general conformity with the various Federal, State and Municipal laws and regulations that are applicable to projects of this nature. 2. Histor¥ of the Project. The Salmon Creek portion of the project, to which the proposed 1 i cense amendment applies, was constructed by the Alaska Gastineau Mining Co. during the period 1913 to 1915 IS -10 approxirna tely 2. 5 rni 1 es north of Juneau. The project was purchased from the Alaska Gastineau Mining Co. and, subsequently in 1973, by the AEL&P Co. The Salmon Creek portion of Project 2307 consists of a constant ang 1e concrete arch darn 167 feet high and having a crest length of 648 feet. The reservoir formed by the darn provides 18,000 acre feet of storage at elevation 1172. The reservoir is connected to Upper Salmon Creek Power House by 4,447 feet of riveted steel penstock which varies in diameter from 40 inches to 30 inches. Water from the tailrace of Upper Salmon Creek Power House can be discharged into a conduit leading to Lower Salmon Creek Power House or discharged into the stream bed of Salmon Creek. The conduit connecting the Uppwer Power House to the Lower Power House consists of a 4' x 5' timber flume 9,876 feet in length. The flume is laid on a 0.25% grade and terminates in a timber fo rebay. From the fo rebay the water is conveyed to the Lower Power House by two riveted steel penstocks, varying from 42 to 30 inches in diameter, 1,625 feet in length. The flume was reconstructed in 1935 and is supported by timber mud sills and timber bents, dependent upon the elevation of the ground surface. Its present condition is poor and it no longer can be used as an effective conduit to supply water to the Lower Power House. Also, the penstocks connecting the forebay to the Lower Power House require replacement. IS -11 To aid in construction of the original project, a tramway was constructed from the beach to a point in the basin below the dam site. Following completion of construction, this tramway was utili zed for access and deli very of supplies to the Upper Power House for many years. In 1966, the tramway was temporarily rehabilitated to deliver materials and provide access for the reconstruction of the support structures of the penstock connecting the reservoir to the Upper Power House. Subsequently, the tramway has deteriorated to a point where it is no longer usable. The general layout of these various structures is indicated on Sheet 1 (see p. IS -13). 3. Basis for Selection of Road and Pipeline Alternate. Once a decision was reached to replace the existing flume and dual penstock system with a new single conduit system to supply water to the Lower Power House, several alternate systems to achieve that iesult were considered. The alternates considered were: 1. Steel pipe flume and steel pipe penstock on existing flume alignment. 2. Fiberglass Reinforced Pipe (FRP) flume and steel pipe penstock along existing flume alignment. 3. Timber flume and steep pipe penstock along existing flume alignment. 4. Semi-circular steel flume and steel pipe penstock a- long existing flume alignment. 5. Steel pipe pressure penstock along tram alignment. 6. FRP pipe pressure penstock along tram alignment. Working in conjunction with Mr. Ben G. Hildyard, IS -12 t --·--- LEGEND • • • • .. ..... . .. Existing Flume Existing Penstock Proposed Road & Pipeline NOTE: MAP COPIED FROM U .S .G.S. SHEET JUNEAU B-2 ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO. PROPOSED ROAD & PIPELINE LOWER SALMON CREEK PROJECT JUNEAU , ALASKA SCALE: 1 "= 1 000 ' DATE : 9-15-81 1:63( TONER & NORDL I NG , REG I STERED ENGINEERS . INC. IS -13 SHE E T 1 0 F 2 ~ )> -~ ~ I ' ____ __._._...._ _____ _ ' Consultant, of James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., detailed cost estimates were prepared outlining the costs of each of the alternates. The summary results of these estimates are shown in Table 1 {see p. IS -15). The results of this cost analysis clearly indicate that the most economic alternate is No. 5, the steel pipe pressure penstock along the tram alignment. One other cost factor favoring alternate No. 5 --that does not appear in the cost analysis {Table 1) is the maintenance cost. The existing flume alignment traverses several slide areas that have caused substantial maintenance and repair work on buried steel pipe the existing flume over along the tram alignment exposed to these hazards. the years. will not A be 4. Description of Construction Under Road ~ Pipeline Project. Under the Road and Pipeline Project, it is proposed to construct approximately 10,800 feet of roadway from the beach to the headworks at the Upper Power House. Approximately the same length of 42" diameter steel pipe will be installed to connect the headworks with the Lower Power House. The headworks at the Upper Power House will be of concrete construction located in the same area as the existing timber headworks. The headworks wi 11 serve to either divert the tailrace waters of the Upper Power House into the steel penstock or divert it into Salmon Creek, as conditions may require. All drainage streams feeding into Salmon Creek along the IS -14 H CJ) ~ U'l I I I I I . ' ITEM - ' Remove Existing Flume Access Road Tailw9rks Headworks Penstock (Flume to PH No. 1) Construct Flume or Penstock Subtotal ~ Contingencies (20\ Penstock-15\ Flume) .. Total Construction Cost Engineering & Administration .. (15\) Total Project Cost .... (Mid 1981 Dollars) Escalation to Mid 1982 (15\) l_TOTAL PROJECT COST (Mid 1982 Dollars~ TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR REHABILITATION OF SALMON CREEK FLUME AND PENSTOCK (1\ll Cos t:J in Oollflrs) ALTERNATIVE Steel Pipe FRP Pipe Timber Flume Flume Flume Steel Flume 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 40,000 40,000 1301000 130 ,ooo 165,000 165,000 165,000 165,000 185,000 ~85,000 185,000 185,000 2,585,000 2,735,000 2,475,000 2,445,000 3,600,000 3,750,000 3,580.,000 3,550,000 540,000 560,000 535,000 530,000 4,140,000 41310 t 000 4 ,115, 000 4,080,000 I 620,000 645,000 615,000 610,000 4,760,000 4,955,000 . 417 30,000 4,690,000 715,000 745,000 710,000 705,000 5,4 751000 5,700,000 5,440,000 5,395,000 Steel Pipe FRP Pipe Penstock Penstock Not Applicable Not Applicable· 790,000 790,000 Not Applicable Not Applicable ' 165,000 165,000 Not Applicable Not Applicable 1,335,000 1,750,000 2,290,000 2 I 70 5, QOO 460,000 540,000 2,750,000 3,245,000 410,000 485,000 3,160,000 3,730,000 475,000 560,000 I I I 3,635,000 4,290,000 ' I roadway alignment wi 11 be cul verted. The· required crossings of Salmon Creek, anticipated to be two in number, will be bridged. The bridges will be two span sections utilizing a center pier to break the span. From Station 91+50 to Station 94+00 along the road alignment, the roadway section is in a sidehill cut with the south s ideslope running down to the edge of Salmon Creek. Through this section it. is proposed to place rock riprap along the stream edge to protect the sideslope from erosion during the periods of-high water flow in Salmon Creek. It is anticipated that this will require the placement of approximately 150 cubic yards of rock materials below the ordinary high water line of Salmon Creek. Typical construction details for the roadway construction are shown on Sheet 2 (seep. IS-17). 5. Schedule of Construction. It is assumed that the amended license application will be filed by October 1, 1981. In the light of the relatively minor amendment being requested, relocation of a water conduit within the project boundaries, the application should be processed in a nine-month period. With such a timetable, the road construction should be scheduled for construction in the latter half of 1982 and the pipeline construction during the first half of 1983. It is estimated that the road construction wi 11 take a three to four month period and the pipeline a two to three month period to construct. IS -16 l_ ,, __ 1J,Q' -FINISH GRADE I /, ~ -2.0'1!>~·-r----~ , 'f ~~-J!.o' 'ft/11'""'"' w ·+~ 42·" PIPE I ---RIP-RAP El.mANKMENT EXISTiNG GRADE SALMON CREEK _ry_e_t_c A !,.. _ __<:;JJ_T__§!~ C T LON WI_ F U_L Ly __ ~!:JR!!~ Q_£!P E NO SCALE COVER Fill -~~_; 1-Q'~ t ll O' -l C,:f' ____ \. I . --~·---Fn,;tsH GRADE '" ----(T}~-2,~-. ..... -.... 42" PIPE ':r' ..... \ CULVERT -2~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~-£1''~-;~-;j'~~Ti~.;-;·-;;~-;~tJ1J1r.~-;~-·~~~~~~;;~;~~~~}14~'~, ~-L~~:-s~:~.~ -' '·'\\\\,li~~~~!li{W, ~ ~ -:,N -ST~:~~:LACE ROCK EXISTING EXISTING GRADE~ BLANKET TO PREVENT EROSION T)'J~H~AL FILL Sf=CTION _ _yv I fjALFJ?U.R_!fD_cJ£~ NO SCALE --------------- \-BORROW EMBANKMENT ~ g~-C.M~. CULVERT -~~~~~w~~ GRADE __ "\. DETAIL A-A NO SCALE IS - TYPICAL DETAILS ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION LOWER SALMON CR. PROJECT SCALE: AS SHOWN DATE: 9/2/81 TONER & NORDLING . REGISTERED ENGINEERS INC. JUNEAU , ALASKA 2 6. Water Resource Utilization. The various power studies for the Salmon Creek Reservoir and Upper Power House generation indicate that the maximum release from the Upper Power House wi 11 be on the order of 6, 5 00 acre feet per month or 110 cubic feet per second. It was on this basis that the proposed penstock from the Upper Power House to the Lower Power House was sized. Under a proposed agreement with the City and Borough of Juneau, and an existing agreement with the Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association, the release from the Upper Power House will be utilized to serve three functions: 1) the development of hydropower at the Lower Power House; 2) the provision of a domestic water supply for public use by the City and Borough of Juneau; and 3) an emergency water supply for a fish hatcher operated by the Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association near the mouth of Salmon Creek in the Twin Lakes Area. Under these agreements, AEL&P Co. proposes to provide the City and Borough of Juneau with up to a maximum of 4.64 cubic feet per second of water per day for development of a domestic water supply to the area and, under certain emergency conditions (such as fire) the maximum the water supply system can handle. Further, it has agreed to supply the Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association up to 10 cubic feet per second of water during periods of low stream flow in Salmon Creek when their basic water supply system cannot provide an adequate water supply for the IS -18 hatchery. The diversion of the City and Borough supply will be from the penstock immediately ahead of the Lower Power House and the diversion of the Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association supply will be at the headworks at the Upper Power House. 7. Environmental Impact. The impact on the environment resulting from construction of the project will be minor in nature, temporary in character and almost wholly confined to the constructiori period. The only long term impact will be on the vegetation that has to be cleared from the roadway area. The total roadway area requiring clearing is 19.1 acres. Of this acreage, approximately 4.8 acres will require removal of brush only. The remaining · 14. 3 acres wi 11 require the removal of both brush and timber. The timber wi 11 be a mixture of virgin timber in areas where the road alignment varies from the original tram alignment and second growth timber in the areas along the original tram alignment. With respect to Air Quality and Noise levels, both wi 11 be impacted during the construction period. This will be caused by the operation of construction equipment as well as the drilling and blasting required for the roadway construction and pipelaying. Upon completion of construction, the project will have no further impact on Air Quality or Noise levels. The stream flow pat terns and the water quality of Salmon Creek also wi 11 be impacted dud ng the construction period. IS -19 This should be limited to the period of time the bridge construction is being accomplished; when the rock riprap for eros ion control is being placed along the creek edge; and, when the headworks for diverting the Upper Power House Tailrace discharge is being replaced. The impact will consist of increased turbidity in the stream for a short period and minor interference with stream flow. It is not anticipated that the project will cause an increase in erosion in the areai rather, ·by avoiding slide areas, it should reduce the erosion possibilities in the area. With respect to wildlife, the project will cause an interruption to their use of the habitat. Once construction has concluded; their use of the habitat should be as free and uninterrupted as it presently is. The impact on the fish and aquatic life in Salmon Creek should be similar in nature but shorter in time that the impact on the wildlife; period during which the again, because of the lesser time construction will affect their habitat. The upper reachs of Salmon Creek affected by the project are not a habitat for anadromous fish. There are no endangered species in the project area. Therefore, the project wi 11 have no effect on an endangered species or their critical habitat. Finally, it should be noted that the work proposed under the amended application wi 11 cause far less environmental impact that would the construction of any of the other IS -20 alternates which could be constructed along the existing flume alignment. This is due to the much longer construction period required for each of these alternates. 8. Recreational Impact. The Salmon Creek Basin provides recreational facilities to the Juneau Area mainly in hiking, fishing and berrypicking opportunities. On a very minor scale, there may be some hunting in the basin at certain periods of the year. In recent years, access to the upper reaches of the basin has been along the existing flume structure. The proposed construction would very materially improve the pedestrian access to the basin from the beach to the Upper Power House. While the completed roadway would permit vehicular traffic access for four-wheel drive vehicles and cycles, it would not be the policy of the company to permi~ any vehicle other than company equipment to utilize the road after completion. To insure this condition, an effective barrier to vehicular traffic would be installed at the lower end of the road. 9. Historical ~ Cultural Impact. There are no known historic structures or sites in or adjacent to the project site. To the best of local k~owledge, there are no known artifacts or cultural sites attributable to the Tlingit-Haida culture in or adjacent to the project site. 10. Status ~ Project Lands. All of the lands in the proposed project site are in the Juneau Townsite Elimination from the Tongass National Forest IS -21 administered by the U. s. Bureau of Land Management. The use of these lands have been granted to AEL&P Co. under the existing license for the operation of FERC Project No. 2307. IS -22 INITIAL STA'I'EMEt-.'T APPENDIX B IS -23 DEPARTMENT OF FISH & t.iAME October 1 , 1981 Mr. Felix J. Toner Toner & Nordling, Registered Engineers, Box 570 Juneau, Alaska 9$9802 Dear Mr. Toner, Inc. Re: Lower Salmon Creek Rehabilitation Project JAYS. HAMMOND, Conrnor 230 S. Franklin Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 PHONE: 465-4290 As per your request, the Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the proposed rehabilitation of the lower salmon Creek Hydroelectric project which consists of replacement of the existing wooden flume with a pipe- line and access road. In general, we have no objections to the project, nor do we foresee any major adverse environmental impacts. There are however, some environmental considerations which must be addressed during construction of the road and line. As stated in your report, there is a block to anadromous fish below the project area on Salmon Creek. However, below the block there is available spawning area and the Salmon Creek Hatchery operated by the Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association does obtain its water supply from Salmon Creek just upstream of the block. Adult salmon can be expected to start spawning in lower Salmon Creek from July 15 on into the fall months. Eggs or fry from the wild stocks can then be expected in the gravel until around the first of May. In order to prevent adverse impacts upon the wild stocks, or hatchery operations, there should be no significant introduction of sedimentation into lower Salmon Creek during the period July 15 to April 30. To avoid possible sedimentation intro- duction, we recommend that if at all possible no instream or inwater work be conducted during the period July 15 to April 30. In addition, due to the past history of sedimentation problems in the Salmon Creek watershed, we recommend that any area disturbed by the project be seeded as soon as practical to prevent erosion. We hope these comments prove useful and we look forward to working with you on the project as it develops. Sincerely, -~~?~ Richard Reed Regional Supervisor Habitat Division cc: 11•K8l.H Salmon Creek Hatchery NMFS USFWS Planning Dept. C/B Juneau IS -24 October 2, 1981 Toner & Nordling P.O. Box 570 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Dear Mr. Toner: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Nationat MaPine FishePies SePViae P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, Ataska 99802 The National Marine Fisheries Service has reviewed the document Lower Salmon Creek Rehabilitation Project and offer the following comments for your consideration: Overall we can identify few impacts that the project may have on the natural resources which come under our purview. Our main concerns relate to in-stream construction and road building adjacent to Salmon Creek. The introduction of soil materials to the stream during road construction could have a short- lived yet significant impact on fishery resources. Improper road construction may cause surface erosion, mass soil movement, and stream channel erosion. One-half to two-thirds of erosion related water pollution occurs during the first year after road construction. We believe it is possible for the anadromous fishes present in the lower reaches of Salmon Creek to be affected by construction activities upstream within the project area. Surface runoff could transport sediment from the disturbed uplands to the stream channel. Once in the stream, sediment could be transported to spawning and rearing areas located downstream. Proper engineering design, construction techniques, and road maintenance can minimize the potential for adverse fishery resource impacts. We recommend the following measures be considered during project design and construction: 1. In-stream construction include a minimum number of entries and the briefest time per entry possible. 2. All in-stream construction be restricted, if possible, to the time period of May 1-July 15. 3. Culverts and related drainage features be installed as filling for the roadbed progresses. 4. All disturbed areas adjacent to Salmon Creek be revegetated as soon as possible to prevent erosion. 5. If possible, buffer strips of vegetation between the road and stream be maintained. These buffer strips will act as sediment traps and reduce the potential silt discharge to the stream. IS -25 2 6. Sidecasting of excess material should not be allowed. This material should be properly placed and compacted in inland disposal areas. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments at this time. Sincerely, Robe t W. McVey Direc or, Alaska I J IS -26 DEPARTMEl'WT OF N&nJRAL RESOIJRCES October 7, 1981 File Re: 1130-13 (FERC/REA) Mr. Felix J. Toner Toner & Nordling P.O. Box 570 Juneau, AK 99802 DIVISION OF PAiti<S Subject: Proposed Lower Salmon Creek Rehabilitation Work. Dear Mr. Toner: JAYS. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR 619 WAREHOUSE DR., SUITE 210 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 PHONE: 274-4676 We have reviewed the subject proposal and would like to offer the following comments: STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER Our review indicates that significant historic remains may be adversly impacted. Specifically, the area in question is the locale of three Alaska Heritage Resource Survey sites (j's JUN-176, JUN-207, and JUN- 2111, all of which are associated with early historic mining efforts in Juneau. The proposed flume/dual penstock replacement may cause the removal of significant historical features associated with one or more of these sites. Moreover, the proposed road construction, as well as other proposed work in the area, may also adversly impact significant cultural resources. Therefore, per EO 11593 a 36 CF 8 a pr~ construction cultural resource survey is re t er~r ny questions, please contact Ty L. Dilliplan e (2 -6). State Historic Preservation Officer STATE PARK PLANNING If feasible this project should provide for the reestablishment of a safe recreational trail to Salmon Creek reservoir. Description of trail attached. LAND & WATER CONSERVATION FUND GRANT PROGRAM No comment. Sincerely, ~ ~ip Dennerlein · DJ.rector CD/blh 1o-JnLH AttC\chment IS -27 United States Department of the Interior IN REPLY REFER TO: Mr. Felix J. Toner Toner & Nordling Box 570 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Dear Mr. Toner: FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE P. 0. Box 1287 Juneau, Alaska 99802 October 7, 1981 Re: Lower Salmon Creek Rehabilitation Project This responds to your letter of September 21, 1981, which requested our review of your Lower Salmon Creek Rehabilitation Project. The project would replace a flume that is in poor condition. The proposed work would involve construction of about 10,800 feet of roadway and a similar length of pipeline. Tributary streams would be culverted and crossings of Salmon Creek would be bridged. A portion of the roadway would cut into a side slope adjacent to Salmon Creek which would be stabilized by riprap. We consider the project to be environmentally acceptable provided that in-stream work is restricted during periods of salmon migration as recommended by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in their letter to you, dated October 1, 1981. We also recommend that erosion control measures be implemented to minimize discharge of sediments into Salmon Creek. Thank you for the opportunity for early review and comment on the project. cc: ADF&G, NMFS, ADEC, USFS, DPDP, Jnu NPS, EPA, BLM, Anc SEES, ROES IS -28 Sincerely yours, ~~c.~ Field Supervisor DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ALASKA DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 7002 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF, NPACO-RF-P Toner & Nordling Registered Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 570 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Dear Mr. Toner: ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99510 OCT 08 1981 Reference: Lower Salmon Creek Rehabilitation Project A review of your proposed project was made recently by myself and I have determined that a Department of the Army permit would not be required for the proposed activity. Thank you for your interest in our regulatory program. Sincerely, we~· RICHARD C. BORSETTI Permit Processor Regulatory Functions Branch IS -29 · lLH JAY S. HAMMOND, Governor ALASKA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 1100 MacKay Building 338 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Phone (907) 276-6222 Felix J. Toner, P.E. Toner & Nordling Registered Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 570 Juneau, Alaska 99802 October 16, 1981 RE: Lower Salmon Creek Rehabilitation Project Dear Mr. Toner: Currently the Alaska Public Utilities Commission (Commission) does not require electric utilities under its jurisdiction to ob- tain prior review and approval of proposed construction. However, the Commission is as always concerned that utilities endeavor to provide service to the public in a cost effective manner and where possible at the lowest possible cost. Because the content of your September 21, 1981 communication has not been the subject of investigation or analysis by the Com- mission, it is not appropriate for it to endorse the proposed project. However, it appears to the Commission•s staff that in this instance the proposed construction is compatible with the aforementioned goal; and accordingly, the amendment of Alaska Electric Light & Power Co.'s license to operate the Salmon Creek Hydroelectric Project should be in the public interest. Very truly yours, ALASKA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ohnB.(?~~ RB:kjs IS -30 Mr. Felix Toner -2-December 14, 1981 If you have any questions regarding this letter or the attached stipulations p 1 ease contact: David W. Haas State-Federal Assistance Coordinator Division of Policy Development and Planning Pouch AW Juneau, Alaska 99811 Phone: ( 907} 465-3562 Enclosure cc: Wendy Wolf, OCM Commissioner McAnerney, C&RA William Lindsay, FERC Sincerely, g~ James M. Sou~ Director Carlton Laird, City and Borough of Juneau Waine E. Oien, USF&WS Bruce Hoffman, DEC Bruce Bachen, S.E. Regional Aquaculture Association, Inc. IS -31 ORM NO. CBJ 7 Felix Toner Toner and Nordling P.O. Box 570 Juneau, Alaska 99801 THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU CAPITAl OF ALASKA 155 SOUTH SEWARD ST. JUNEAU, ALASKA 99801 October 22, 1981 Subject: Lower Salmon Creek Rehabilitation Project Dear Mr. Toner: Your report on the above project was submitted to our Parks and Recreation Department and the Planning Department for review. The recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Department are as follows: 1. That access be continued for recreation purposes along the proposed road and within the basin. 2. That a sign be placed at the trailhead depicting the historical significance of the flume, aerial tram and dam. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal as well and has made the following comments: 1. Public access -The Commission requests that the power company guarantee pedestrian access along the proposed road for recreational purposes and that access be limited to service vehicles and pedestrians. 2. Noise impact on the hospital during construction of roads and pipeline -It is suggested that noise intensive activi- ties be scheduled during mid-day. 3. Water quality impacts during the construction period -Road construction should be scheduled during non-migratory/spawn- ing stages of the salmon in the lower Salmon Creek. 4. Stream flow -Adequate stream flow should be provided for fish in the lower Salmon Creek hatchery presently under construction. IS -32 Felix Toner October 22, 1981 Page Two We are glad to be able to be of assistance on this project. If there is further information needed, we will try to supply it. Manager cc: Steve Gilbertson IS -33 ~ ~ Department Of Energy Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Mr. William Corbus, Manager Alaska Electric Light & Power Company 134 Franklin Street Juneau, AK 99801· Dear Mr. Corbus: October 30, 1980 This affirms our earlier conversation on your plans to rehabilitate the lower Salmon Creek Powerplant. The Alaska Power Administration supports your efforts in this regard. Our recent studies, as reported in the Juneau Area Power Market Analysis, September 1980, indicate requirements exceeding critical year firm energy capability of the present hydras in the Juneau area system as early as 1983. This is about three years before we expect Crater Lake power to be available. Thus, the Salmon Creek rehabilitation will improve the capability to meet winter loads over the next few years. The added hydro capacity on your system would also help to minimize use of oil in the event of outages on the Snettisham transmission line. The Salmon Creek rehabilitation will result in some loss of revenues from the Snettisham Project through the 1980's, and this will result in a slight long-term increase in Snettisham power costs. The reason is that the system will have surplus hydro energy capability for the next several years, except for the occasional occurrence of low or critical water supply conditions in unusually cold winters. We think the benefits to area power consumers through the Salmon Creek rehabilitation would be substantially larger than any added costs. As above, our office concurs in your plans for the Salmon Creek rehabili- tation. Sincerely, /y(~ Robert J. Cross Administrator IS -34 .. ,. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE November 27, 1981 Toner & Nordling Registered Engineers, Inc. 114 South Franklin Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 ATTN: Felix Toner Dear Mr. Toner: JAYS. HAMM0/10, GOVER/lOR ~BOX 2420 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99803 0 BOX 540, SITKA, ALASKA 99835 0 ROOM203 415 MAIN STREET KETCHIKAN, A LASKA 99901 The Department of Environmental Conservation has reviewed the proposed road and pipeline construction plans for AEL&P's lower Salmon Creek rehabilitation project. No permit will be required from our Department to do the proposed work. If an Army Corps of Engineers permit is required, a 401 Water Quality Certification would be issued. Since the Corps of Engineers has stated they are not exercising jurisdiction, a 401 Certification will not be required. To my knowledge, the only authorization required from the plans you submitted is a Title 16 permit issued by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. If I may be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me at 789-3151. Sincerely, ~dr./J'-rYJ~ . Bruce H. H~f;;T/', ~ /ryt Ecologist IS -35 OWI(;B OF TBB GOVERNOR DIVISION OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PlANNING GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION UNfT Mr. Felix Toner Toner & Nordling P.O. Box 570 Juneau, AK 99802 December 14, 1981 JAY S. HAMMOND, Governor POUCH AW (MS • 0165) JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811 PHONE: (907) 465-3562 REGISTERED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Subject: AEL&P SALMON CREEK RENEWABLE ENERGY REHABILITATION -FERC LICENSE State I.D. No. AK81100506FP Dear Mr. Toner: The Division of Policy Development and Planning (DPOP) in accordance with Public Laws 92-583 and 94-370 and Alaska Statute 46.40.010, has completed review of the consistency of the subject proposal with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). As currently planned, we have found the proposal to be consistent with the ACMP provided that the proposal is modified according to the attached stipulation(s). The purpose of the ACMP consistency review is to balance the potentially conflicting uses of the coastal zone through the application of ACMP guidelines and standards to a project's design, construction, and impact on the coastal zone. If the attached stipulations are not acceptable, they can in some instances be changed or modified to meet the needs of the applicant while still ensuring consistency with ACMP. Therefore, we encourage you to contact us if you desire to enter into mediation over them. Failure to do so within 30 days of receipt of this letter will be interpreted as your acceptance of the stipulations. By copy of this letter, we are advising the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that your project, as stipulated, is consistent with the ACMP. IS -36 STATE OF ALASKA DIVISION OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION WITH THE ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM A determination of consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program, as required by 6 AAC 80, has been requested by Alaska Electric Light and Power Co., 134 Franklin Street, Juneau, Alaska 99801 for construction of 10,800 feet of culverted roadway which will include two bridges and a 42" diameter steel pipe buried under the roadway. The proposed activity is located in Salmon Creek Valley approximately 2.5 miles north of Juneau, Alaska. This proposed activity, identified as AEL&P Salmon Creek Renewable Energy Rehabilitation-FERC (State I.D. No. 81100506), requires an authorization from Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission and is therefore subject to review for consistency with t~e Alaska Coastal Management Program, in accordance with Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. Having reviewed the application, the Division of Policy Development and Planning determines that the proposed activity is consistent with the Guidelines and Standards of the Alaska Coastal Management Program, 6 AAC 80, provided that the applicant complies with the following stipulation(s): 1. There shall be no instream or inwater construction during the period of July 15 to April 30. (This stipulation is intended to prevent adverse impacts on spawning salmon habitat caused by the introduction of sedimentation into lower Salmon Creek.) 6 AAC 80.130. HABITATS. Adherence to the above stipulation(s) will ensure that this project will be consistent with the ACMP standard(s) 6 AAC 80.130. HABITATS as follows: 6 AAC 80.130. HABITATS. (a) Habitats in the coastal area which are subject to the Alaska coastal management program include (7) rivers, streams, and lakes; and (b) The habitats contained in (a) of this section must be managed so as to maintain or enhance the biological, physical, and chemical characteristics of the habitat which contribute to its capacity to support living resources. (c) In addition to the standard contained in (b) of this section, the following standards apply to the management of the following habitats: IS -37 (7) rivers, streams, and lakes must be managed to protect natural vegetation, water quality, important fish or wildlife habitat and natural water flow. (d) Uses and activities in the coastal area which will not conform to the standards contained in (b) and (c) of this section may be allowed by the district or appropriate state agency if the following are established: (1) there is a significant public need for the proposed use or activity; (2) there is no'feasible prudent alternative to meet the public need for the proposed use or activity which would conform to the standards contained in (b) and (c) of this section; and (3) all feasible and prudent steps to maximize conformance with the standards contained in (b) and (c) of this section will be taken. (e) In applying this section, districts and state agencies may use appropriate expertise, including regional programs referred to in sec. 30(b) of this chapter. Authority: IS -38 AS 44.19.893 AS 46.40.040 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF LICENSE FERC LICENSE NO. 2307 ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING PROJECT Project Description. The project consists hydroelectric developments as described below. Project Works. of three Salmon Creek No. 2 Development: A concrete arch dam 170 feet high with a 648-foot crest (including spillway) on Salmon Creek, creating a reservoir with a storage capacity of 19,000 acre-feet, and steel pipe conduit 4,477 feet long varying in diameter from 40 to 30 inches extending to Powerhouse No. 2, containing two 1,400 KW generators; Salmon Creek No. 1 Development: A 4-foot by 5-foot wood flume 9,8 76 feet long extending from the tail race of Powerhouse No. 2 to a forebay and two steel penstocks 1,625 feet long varying in diameter from 42 to 30 inches extending from the forebay to Powerhouse No. 1, containing two 1,400 KW generators; Annex Creek Development: A wood-frame buttress A - 2 dam 25 feet high and 115 feet long on Upper Annex Creek creating a reservoir with a storage capacity of 23,400 acre-feet; an 8 by 8 foot tunnel 1,418 feet long, the last 250 feet of which iss lined with a 78 inch diameter steel liner; and 6,409 feet of 42 inch and 703 feet of 36 inch steel pipe extending to a powerhouse containing two 1,750 KW generators; and Interconnected transmission lines consisting of the 1.89 mile line between Powerhouse No. 2 and Powerhouse No. 1; the 4.17 mile line between Powerhouse No. 1 and "A" millsite and old steam plant regulating station, and the 16 mile line from the Annex Creek powerhouse to millsite "A" via Thane, and other necessary appurtenances. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CHANGES proposed for construction under the The amendment project to the license consists of the construction of approximately 10,800 feet of roadway and the installation of 10,800 lineal feet of 42" diameter steel pipe. These items will replace the wood flume, wood forebay and steel penstocks that were uti 1 i zed to deliver the discharge from the Upper Salmon Creek Power House and other sources to the Lower Salmon Creek Power House. Replacement of the original conduits was required because of the extensive physical deterioration of those conduits. In the economic analysis made when the replacement problem was considered, the roadway A - 3 and pipeline alternate developed as the most economic alternate of the six alternates considered. The various alternates and their estimated costs are indicated in Table 1, which follows. All of the drainage streams feeding into Salmon Creek along the roadway alignment will be culverted. The required crossings of Salmon Creek, anticipated to be two in number, will be bridged. The bridges wi 11 be two span sections utilizing a center pier to break the span. From Station 91 + 50 to Station 94 + 00 along the roadway alignment, the roadway section is in sidehill cut with the south s ideslope running down to the edge of Salmon Creek. Through this section it is proposed to place rock riprap along the stream edge to protect the sideslope from erosion during the periods of high water flow in Salmon Creek. It is anticipated that this will require the placement of appproximately 150 cubic yards of rock materials below the ordinary high water line of Salmon Creek. The general plan layout and typical sections of the proposed road and pipeline construction are part of Exhibits F & G of this application. Also, as part of Exhibit G, the detailed 1 ega 1 description of the R. o. W. across Federal lands is shown. permanent R. o. less. The total acreage of the land within the W. boundary will be 24.76 acres, more or A -4 EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT B APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF LICENSE FERC LICENSE NO. 2307 ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO. PROJECT OPERATION AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION This Exhibit B contains a statement of project operation and resources utilization for the project amendment of replacing the wooden flume and steel penstock that supplied water from Powerhouse No. 2 (Upper Powerhouse) to Powerhouse No. 1 {Lower Powerhouse) with a pressure penstock· extending from Powerhouse No. 2 to Powerhouse No. 1. Under the amended project, the overall operation of the system wi 11 remain virtually the same. Water wi 11 continue to be stored behind Salmon Creek Dam and conducted to Powerhouse No. 2 for power generation through the existing riveted steel penstock. Powerhouse no. 1 will continue to generate power from the releases through Powerhouses no. 2. The releases will be transported through a pressure penstock extending from Powerhouse No. 2. There will be no changes or revisions in Salmon Creek Dam nor any changes in the operation of either powerhouse. B - 2 Also, under a proposed agreement with the City and Borough of Juneau, AEL&P Co. will provide 4.64 cfs of water per day for a domestic water supply for the Lemon Creek and Mendenhall Valley areas. Under such emergency conditions as fire, the maximum the water supply can accommodate would be provided. AEL&·P Co. also has an existing agreement with NSRAA to provide 10 cfs for hatchery operations during periods of low flow in Salmon Creek, when the NSRAA water supply system does not provide adequate flows. The lower powerhouse is not presently operating because of structural deterioration of the existing flume and penstock making its capability of carrying water in its present condition questionable. Once the new pressure penstock is completed, Powerhouse No. 1 will continue to be operated as in the past before deterioration of the flume and penstock. The amount of energy produced will be essentially the same as in the past. In order to determine the most feasible and economical replacement for the wooden flume and penstock, feasibility studies to determine the cost of replacement and amount of energy generated were made. Six alternative projects were studied, they were: Steel pipe flume and steel pipe penstock on existing 8 - 3 alignment. FRP pipe flume and steel pipe penstock on existing alignment. Timber flume and steel pipe penstock on existing alignment. Semi-circular steel flume and steel pipe penstock on existing alignment. Steel pipe pressure penstock on tram alignment. FRP pipe pressure penstock on tram alignment. All alternatives were sized to deliver 110 cubic feet per second from Powerhouse No. 2 to Powerhouse No. 1. This quantity of water represents the maximum average discharge from Powerhouse No. 2 determined from reservoir operation and power generation studies for various methods of operation of Salmon Creek Reservoir and Powerhouse No. 2. The two pipe flume alternatives were designed to flow full when laid to the grade of the existing flume. The timber and semi-circu- lar steel flume alternatives were designed to pass the design flow with approximately one foot freeboard. The two pressure penstock alternatives were sized so that the power generation at Powerhouse No. 1 was approximately the same as that under the four flume alternatives and to limit the velocity to less than 15 feet per second. Estimated costs of the four flume alternatives are very close to being equal with escalated project costs varying only approximately 6 percent from the least costly to the B -4 most costly. Estimated costs of the two types of pressure penstocks are both appreciably less than any. of the flume alignments with the steel pipe penstock being the least costly, being appro xi rna tely 65 percent of the cost of the flume projects with a savings of· over 1.5 million dollars. The following table gives the results of the studies. Costs are escalated to mid-1982 and include contingencies and engineering and administration. Project Steel Pipe Penstock FRP Pipe Penstock Steel Flume Timber Flume Steel Pipe Flume FRP Pipe Flume B -5 Estimated Cost $ 3,635,000 4,290,000 5,395,000 5,440,000 5,475,000 5,700,000 EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF LICENSE FERC LICENSE NO. 2307 ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE The project is scheduled to begin and be completed in 1983. It is estimated that the roadway construction will cover a three to four month period and the pipeline installation a two to three month period. With roadway construction begining in the spring of 1983, the project can be completed prior to November 15th, 1983, the time at which work of this character is closed down in the Salmon Creek basin due to weather. The basis for delaying the work to 1983 is threefold: 1. Action is being deferred until the results of the Part 12 examination can be reviewed. 2. Financing and management resources should be devoted almost wholly to the Transmission and Distribution system during 1982. 3. The Capital Move election is scheduled for November, 1982. The results ·of this election could have a c -2 severe impact on the Company's future. c -3 EXHIBIT D During EXHIBIT D APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF LICENSE FERC LICENSE NO. 2307 ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO. STATEMENT OF COSTS AND FINANCING the studies undertaken to determine the feasibility of the Lower Salmon Creek Rehabilitation Project, two methods were considered for operation of the Salmon Creek Reservoir. The first method was based on having the maximum water in storage during the latter part of the year to insure the reservoir would be full on January 1 of each year. This was based on the need to have a large amount of water in storage to be used for power generation in case of an interruption of power from the Snettisham Project during the critical winter months. Under this first method, the average annual power to be generated at the Lower Salmon Creek Powerhouse is 9,730,000 KWH. The second method is based upon reservoir operation to provide as much power during the winter months, December through April. Under this second method of reservoir operation, the average annual power to be generated at Lower Salmon Creek Powerhouse is 10,080,000 KWH. D - 2 The company is proposing to operate the reservoir under the first method outlined above and the power production developed under this method is used in calculating the average annual cost per KWH that will be experienced as a result of constructing this project. The total production also is corrected to a value of 9,319,570 KWH to allow for the 410,430 KWH that will be lost as a result of the water allotment to the City and Borough of Juneau. In determining the KWH lost as a result of the use of 4.64 cfs by the City and Borough of Juneau, a direct ratio of water allotted (4.64 cfs) to water available (110 cfs) was used. Estimated Project Cost 1. Land rights --Annual Payment ($100/yr. for 20 years) 2. Road Construction --2.03 miles ($ 390,000/mi.) 3. Headworks 4. Pipeline Installation Contingency --20% Total Construction Cost Administration, Legal, Engineering --15 % Inflation --15% Interest during Construction Total Project Cost --1983 D - 3 $ 2,000 791,700 165,000 1,335,000 458,740 2,752,440 412,866 474,796 258,000 $ 3,898,102 Estimated Average Annual Cost 1. Capital Costs* --semiannual payments (8.6% for. 20 years) 2. Local Taxes 15 mill rate (1,200,000 value) 3. Depreciation --30 yr. period 4. Operation & Maintenance, Administrative and General Expenses *sased on Total Project Cost reduced by $ 900,000 Grant from City and Borough of Juneau $ 166,700 18,000 129,937 60,000 $ 374,637 Average Annual Cost/KWH based on producing 9,319,570 KW 374,637 = $ 0.040/KWH 9,319,570 The rna in source of energy and capacity for the Juneau area is the Snettisharn Hydroelectric Project which is operated by the Alaska Power Administration, an agency of the U. s. Government. The area is served by two electric utilities, the Alaska Electric Light and Power Company (AEL&P Co.) and the Glacier Highway Electric Association (GHEA), a rural electric cooperative and a preference customer. The energy requi rernent for 1980 for the two utilities was 159,000,000 KWH. The annual requirements of both utili ties is expected to grow signi fcantly over the next few years because of the advent of electricity's being competitive with fuel oil as a source of heat. The firm annual capacity of Snettisharn is 168,000,000. In addition, AEL&P Co.'s own hydroelectric facilities (Annex Creek and Upper Salmon) produced firm annual energy of 37,000,000 K\vH. On September 12, 1980, the Alaska Power Administration D - 4 completed a report entitled Juneau Area Power Market Analysis which was prepared· to support a Congressional requests for funds to expand the capabi 1 i ty of Snett i sham. Enclosed is Table 17 from the Analysis which shows that by 1983 the Juneau area will be partially dependent on diesel generation. The energy that wi 11 be displaced by the rehabilitation of Lower Salmon will be diesel. AEL&P Co. would probably add a combination diesel and oi 1-f ired gas turbine capacity at an ave rage cost of $ 50 0 per KW. The fixed charge rate on capital investment would be as follows: Capital 8.6% Property Taxes l. 5% Depreciation 3.3% Total 13.4% Assuming a 60% plant factor 1 the average cost per KWH would be Capacity Charge $ 500 X 0.134 o:6o-i 3.65 x 24 Cents/KWH 1.3 Operation and maintenance expense estimates 1.0 Fuel costs are based upon past experience of 11 KWH/gallon and a current cost per gallon of $ 1.101 10.0 Total 12.3 Based upon an annual generation of 9 1 319 1 5 70 KWH from the Lower Salmon Hydroelectric plant 1 the estimated average annual cost of obtaining the equivalent amount of power (capacity and energy) would be D - 5 9,319,570 KWH X $ 0.123/KWH = $ 1,146,307 The estimated average cost of equivalent power could be higher depending on escalation of the cost of fuel oil. AEL&P Co. has a financing commitment by statute from the State of Alaska for a $ 3,500,000 loan for the rehabilitation of Lower Salmon. In addition, the City and Borough of Juneau has agreed to contribute $ 900,000 for the rehabilitation in return for utilization of some of the water for municipal water utility. The remaining monies required to complete the project will come from internally-generated funds. AEL&P Co. has annual Operating Revenues of at least $ 5,900,420 to meet the construction costs and the annual operating costs of this project. D - 6 EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT E APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF LICENSE FERC LICENSE NO. 2307 ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO. ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT HISTORIC AND CULTURAL SURVEY E -2 · AUTHORSHIP AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Dan Bishop served as Project Manager of the Salmon Creek investigation and conducted the assessment of water quality and streamflow impacts. Dan has extensive experience with the biology and hydrology of coastal Alaskan streams gained during eleven years with the u.s. Forest Service and eight years of land-water resource consultant work in Southeast Alaska. quality He has participated in projects addressing water control, land planning, salmon habitat and hatchery siteing, and has managed environmental investigations for proposed hydroelectric sites near Skagway and on Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska. Janice Mills served as Coordinator of the investigation and participated in water quality, streamflow, wildlife and fisheries assessments. Ms. Mills is a biology graduate from the University of California at Berkeley, with two years of resource development consulting work in Alaska. This experience includes studies of drilling effluent disposal in the Beaufort Sea for Sohio Alaska Petroleum Company and biological effects associated with submarine electrical transmission for the Alaska Power Administration. Steve Jacoby, who provided vegetative mapping for the Salmon Creek drainage, is a forester, graduated from Auburn University, with five years of forestry experience in E -3 Southeast Alaska. His experience includes growth and yield assessment for the U.S. Forest Service, forest inventories for Sealaska Timber Corporation, and forest-habitat investigations for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. He has provided vegetation inventories for other hydroelectric project sites in Southeast Alaska. Tim Moore surveyed the proposed development area for items of cultural and historical value. He is an archaeology graduate of California State University, with experience in archaeologic digs in California and environmentally-related archaeologic investigations in Southeast Alaska and elsewhere. Information and agencies and investigation: consultation was provided by the following organizations during the Salmon Creek Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Alaska Department of Natural Resources Alaska Electric and Light and Power Company Alaska State Historical Library City and Borough of Juneau Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Geological Survey E - 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION • ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING. Climate • Topography. Surficial Geology and Geophysical Conditions. Soils. Geophysical Hazards. Land Use and Demography • Land Development • Population • Floodplains and Flood Events. Wetlands. BOTANICAL RESOURCES. WILDLIFE SPECIES • FISHERIES. Natural Fishery • NSRAA Hatchery. WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS. Salmon Creek Reservoir. Salmon Creek. WATER QUANTITY AND APPROPRIATIONS. Salmon Creek Streamflow • Water Appropriations. CULTURAL RESOURCES • Historical Setting. Description of Tramway Route. Survey of Cultural Resources • Field survey • Tramway. Lower Powerhouse • Hoist House Area • Upper Powerhouse • Flume. ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION. Vegetation. Wildlife Resources. Water Quality and Fisheries • During Construction. After Construction • Salmon Creek Streamflow and Related Fisheries • E - 5 Page 12 13 13 15 19 20 24 25 25 26 26 29 29 32 34 34 37 38 38 • 42 45 45 50 54 54 63 63 64 65 80 82 84 86 88 88 89 89 90 92 93 Cultural Resources. REFERENCES E 6 94 96 APPENDICES A. Persons Contacted During Environmental Investigation B. Note to Files --Salmon Creek Road-Pipeline c. Alaska Gastineau Mining Company Streamflow and Stream Height Records D. Alaska Historical Library Photographs E. Informant Data --Cultural Resources Survey E - 7 Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure l2A. Figure 128. Figure 13. Figure 14. LIST OF FIGURES Mean monthly precipitation measured in downtown Juneau for the period of record 1898-1964 •• Comparison of annual precipitation in Upper Salmon Creek drainage and downtown Juneau for the years 1912-1915 ••••••••• Topography of the proposed road- pipeline alignment ••••••••• Salmon Creek drainage area Surficial geology of Salmon Creek. Zoning map • Salmon Creek floodplain. . . . Vegetation map for Salmon Creek drainage between the Upper and Lower Powerhouses. • • • • • • • • • • • USGS water quality sampling sites in Salmon Creek reservoir and inflowing streams ••••••••• . . . Mean water temperature near the mouth of Salmon Creek for November, 1980 through October, 1981, compared with a conjectural temperature curve •••••• Monthly average streamflow measured at the Salmon Creek Dam site for water years ending September 30, 1911-1914 Monthly average streamflow diverted through the flume for water years ending September 30, 1914-1917 ••• Monthly average stream height measured in Salmon Creek near the roundhouse, representing undiverted flows ••• Tramway right-of-way, redrawn from 1914 Tramway map. • ••••••• Tramway construction, Alaska Historical Library, Emile Gastonguay Collection •• E -8 16 16 17 18 21 27 27 30 39 44 48 48 48 56 59 Figure 15. Map of Powerhouses, redrawn from 1914 flume and pipeline map . . . . . . . • . 60 Figure 16. Horse Tramway, Alaska Historical Library, Emile Gastonguay Collection 59 Figure 17. Small locomotive, Alaska Historical Library, Emile Gastonguay Collection 62 Figure 18. Lower Powerhouse and wharf, Alaska Historical Library, Emile Gastonguay Collection . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Figure 19. Lower section of the incline tramway looking down (west). . . . • . . . 71 Figure 20. Incline tramway looking up (east). 71 Figure 21. Incline tramway looking up (east). . . . 71 Figure 22. Top of incline tramway . . . . . . . 71 Figure 23. Tramway map showing trestle numbers. 73 Figure 24. Moss-covered trestle with debris below, T-32. . . . . . . . . 75 Figure 25. Debris below trestle, T-37 . • 75 Figure 26. Log trestle, T-6 . . . . . • . 75 Figure 27. Small log trestle, T-24. 75 Figure 28. High trestle bracing for T-7 . . . . • . 77 Figure 29. Bracing for T-26 . . . . 77 Figure 30. Bracing for T-14 . . . 77 Figure 31. Trestle-down T-18. . . . . . . . . 78 Figure 32. Trestle-down T-22. . . . . . 78 Figure 33. Trestle-down T-258 . . . 78 Figure 34. Cross-section of a rail. . 79 Figure 35. Slat rail clamp T-7. . . . . . . 81 Figure 36. Round rail clamp . . . . . . . . . 81 Figure 37. Example of guard rail. • . 81 E - 9 Figure 38. Figure 39. Figure 40. Figure 41. Figure 42. Figure 4 3. Figure 44. Figure 45. Figure 46. Figure 47. Figure 48. Example of tie spacing on typical track. 81 Hoist house •• Hoist drum and cable • Part of the hoist motor control (in hoist house) • • • • • • Upper Powerhouse looking west, down stream • • • • • Upper Powerhouse headworks, tramway spur on left, looking east from bridge 81 83 83 85 in Figure 42 • • • • • • • • • 85 Cribbing along creek, protects flume area • • . . . . . . . . . Looking west from flume, tramway enters Upper Powerhouse clearing in the center of the photograph. Break in flume looking west. Close-up of flume ••• Overflow flume discharge near the hoist area • • • • • • • • • • • • E -10 85 85 87 87 87 Table l. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. Table 11 Table 12. Table 13. LIST OF TABLES Average monthly mean, minimum and maximum temperatures in the Juneau vicinity, based on the years 1941-70 Average monthly minimum and maximum temperatures recorded at the Salmon Creek Dam and Upper Powerhouse from July, 1911 to December, 1915 •• Characteristics of the surficial geology of Salmon Creek ••••• Wildlife species associated with the coastal spruce-hemlock vegetation type Salmon escapement counts in Salmon Creek for 1940-80 •••••••••••• Water quality of Salmon Creek reservoir and inflowing streams ••••• Water quality of Salmon Creek. Trace elements in water samples from Salmon Creek • • • • • • • • • . . Miscellaneous stream flow measurements on Salmon Creek ••••••••••• Instantaneous discharge measurements and stream heights recorded near the mouth of Salmon Creek, 1980-1981 •• Appropriation of Salmon Creek water. Salmon Creek tramway trestles. Length of Salmon Creek tramway • • E -11 14 14 22 33 35 39 41 42 50 51 52 66 69 INTRODUCTION Assessment of environmental, archaeological and cultural resources in the Salmon Creek drainage system was conducted to identify potential impacts associ a ted with the proposed Salmon Creek road-pipeline construction and to recommend mitigation. included: Specific objectives of the investigation (1) Description of the environmental setting ·of the Salmon Creek valley and road-pipeline.alignment. (2) Description and mapping of botanical resources and relevant terrain features which define wild- life habitat and will be influenced during clear- ing of the right-of-way. (3) Establish potentials of wildlife uses in the Sal- mon Creek watershed, and consider potential im- pacts of the proposed development. (4) Identify present conditions of water quality and fishery resources in Salmon Creek and identify potential impacts on these resources incurred during and after construction. (5) Evaluate available streamflow data for Salmon Creek and address potential impacts on water quality and use patterns. (6) Identify, describe, photograph, and map sites of cultural and historical significance along the road-pipeline alignment through literature re- E -12 search, field reconnaissance and informant data; and evaluate potential for archaeological re- sources in the project area. (7) Recommend appropriate mitigation measures for consideration during project design, evaluation, and construction. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Climate Juneau lies within the area of maritime climatic influence which prevails ever Sou the as t Alaska. Low pressure systems from the Gulf of Alaska typically produce overcast conditions, abundant precipitation and moderate temperatures in the vicinity. However, generate clear skies and several days at a time. high pressures from Interior may more extreme temperatures for Rugged terrain, which creates differential insulation and drainage patterns, exerts a considerable influence over both temperature and precipation. Local terrain features can cause distinct microclimates in close proximity to one another. Temperatures in the Juneau area are climatic influences which limit moderated daily and by marine seasonal temperature ranges. In Juneau, the average diurnal temperature range is 6.3°C (43°F) in January and 8.9°C (48°F) in July. On a seasonal basis, temperatures vary from a monthly mean of -4.7°C (24°F) in January to 13.2°C (56°F) in E -13 July. Temperature records for Juneau, collected by the u.s. Department of Commerce (1979) from 1941 to 1970, are summarized in Table 1. Limited temperature data collected by the Alaska Gastineau Mining Company in the upper Salmon Creek drainage indicate that, with the exception of the summer months, mean daily minima are generally warmer and maxima cooler than in the City of Juneau. (Table 2). TABLE 1. Average Monthly Mean, Minimum and Maximum Temperatures in the Juneau Vicinity, Based on the Years 1941-1970 (USDC, 1979) Mean j.£.£2. Average Average Month Minimum j£f]_ Maximum j.£.£2. January -4.7 -7.9 -1.6 February -2.2 -5.5 1.1 March -0.1 -3.6 3.4 April 3.8 -0.4 8.1 May 8.2 3.4 13.0 June 11.8 6.9 16.7 July 13.2 8.7 17.6 August 12.4 7.9 16.8 September 9.6 5.7 13.4 October 5.4 2.4 8.4 November 0.3 -2.4 2.9 December -2.6 -5.3 0.0 Yearly Average 4.6 0.8 8.3 TABLE 2. Average Monthly Minimum and Maximum Temperatures Recorded at the Salmon Creek Dam and Upper Powerhouse from July, 1911, to December, 1915 (Alaska Gastineau Mining Company Records, 1911-1915) Month January February Average Minimum J0 £2. -7.4 -3.5 E -14 Average Maximum J 0 £2.. -3.8 0.1 March -3.1 2.6 April 0.3 6.5 May 3.8 13.6 June 6.5 16.7 July 7.9 18.9 August 7.1 15.6 September 5.4 11.5 October 2.9 5.8 November -2.8 1.1 December -4.0 -0.6 Yearly Average 1.1 7.3 Precipitation in the City of Juneau is lightest from February to June, with an average monthly rainfall of 80 mm (3 in.) during these months, and increases to a maximum of 325 mm (13 in.) in October (Figure 1}. Mean annual precipitation in downtown Juneau is 2.31 mm (91 in.), (USGS, 1974). Alaska Gastineau Mining Company's records of precipitation at the Salmon Creek Dam and Upper Powerhouse indicate total yearly precipitation in the upper Salmon Creek drainage is 15 to 35 percent greater than in downtown Juneau (Figure 2). Based on this relation and a comparison to data from nearby Gold and Sheep Creeks, annual rainfall in Salmon Creek is estimated at 2,540-3,810 mm (100-150 in.), (USGS, 1974). Topography Salmon Creek originates about 5. 6 km ( 3. 5 mi.) northeast of Juneau and flows \vestwa rd for 8 km ( 5 mi.) before emptying into the Gastineau Channel. The Salmon Creek drainage basin ranges in elevation from sea level to 1,504 m (4,935 ft.) at Observation Peak. Slopes within the basin range from 0 to E -15 [I) ()) ..c: \,) 0 1-1 FIGURE 1. 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 50 J F M A M J J A S 0 N D Mean Monthly Precipitation Measured in Downtown Juneau for the Period of Record 1898-1964 (USDC, 1979) 150 125 I ------i Salmon Creek I I .._ ____ t I , ____ -- I 3000 I I 100 I I (jJ (jJ ()) 75 ..c: \,) 0 ~ -----r I I 1----I Downtown Juneau T ~ ()) 2000 +-l ()) e: ·r-1 r-i r-i 50 ·r-1 ::8 1000 25 65% 63% 79% 87% 85% 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 FIGURE 2. Comparison of Annual Precipitation in Upper Salmon Creek Drainage and Downtown Juneau for the Years 1912-1915 (Alaska Gastineau ~1ining Company Records, 1911-1915) E -16 F LOWER POWERHQUSE Elev. 30ft. J FIGURE 3. Topography of the proposed road-pipeline alignment. \ -CONTOUR INTERVAL 40ft. - SCALE r · = soo ft. Compiled and Enlarged from U. S.G.S . 1: 24,000 Quadrangle E -17 I ) Total drainage are = 24.51 km 2 (9.46 mi 2 ) Subdrainages: 2 mi 2 ) ' t l . 11. 19 ( 4. 32 · Upper km2 .2) South Fork 3.68 km 2 ( 1. 42 ml.2 Lower 9.63 km ( 3. 72 mi ) FIGURE 4. Salmon Creek Drainage Area; Base USGS Juneau (B-2), Alaska, 1:63 360 (1967). E -18 over 39° (0 to over 80%) (Figure 3). The Salmon Creek drainage basin was measured at 24.5 km2 (9.46 mi.2 ) from the USGS topographic map Juneau (8-2), Alaska. For the purposes of this investigation, the basin is subdivided into the upper drainage feeding Salmon Creek Reservoir (4.3 mi. 2 ), the South Fork drainage (1.4 mi. 2 ) and the lower drainage (3. 7 mi. 2 ) (Figure 4). Larger size estimates for the drainage areas have been reported in previous publications and have included a more extensive area near the mouth of Salmon Creek. Earliest estimates (Wilcox, 1917) may have been in error due to inaccurate base maps. Salmon Creek Dam retains 21.7 hm 3 (17,585 acre-feet) water at a spillway elevation of 357 m (1,171 ft.) (USGS, 19774), although the water is seldom held at this high level. From the spillway elevation, Salmon Creek falls 221 m (725 ft.) in a distance of 1,364 m (4,477 ft.) (Thomson, 1919). The stream course then becomes quite flat for a distance of nearly 3.2 km (2 mi.) (Wollenberg, 1911). Upstream from the remains of the Wagner diversion dam (0.7 mi. above the mouth) is an alluvial flat caused by infilling. In the 1.1 km (0.7 mi.) below the Wagner dam, the stream falls about 70 m (230 ft.) to tidewater in a steep (5.7%), fast, turbulent flow (Environaid, 1979). The stream flattens to form a 15 m-wide (SO ft.) alluvial channel for a short distance before entering the Gastineau Channel. Surficial Geology and Geophysical Conditions E -19 Soils The surficial geology of Salmon Creek drainage was characterized and mapped by Miller (1972) and ten major soil associations were distinguished in the region (Figure 5, Table 3). Exposed geologic units in the basin include unconsolidated sediments and metamorphic rock. Unconsolidated sediments glacial, deltaic and consist of mass-wasting, alluvial, marine deposits (Miller, 1972). Metamorphic rocks include primarily quartzite, schist, slate, migmatic, phyllite and marble (Ford and Brew, 1973). In the lower drainage, old deltaic deposits appear as loose, sandy gravels interbedded with compact layers of marine diamicton, in which fossilized shells are evident. Upvalley from the deltaic deposits, late glacial-outwash deposits of variable composition (primarily silty-sand to cobble-sized soils of local bedrock material) wind around bedrock outcrops. Soils are intergraded with colluvial material, marine til and weathered greenschist, greenstone and granitic bedrock. Rubble deposits and debris flows (along the drainage slopes) generally originate in upslope colluvium and bedrock zones and represent potentially unstable chutes. An extensive rock slide-avalanche deposit is notable on the north side of Salmon Creek near the present stream crossing. Blocks of bedrock 1.5 m to 1.8 m (5-6 ft.) across cover the surface for a distance of 610 m (2,000 ft.) at the slide terminus. The deposit (now covered by the mature trees) evidently came from a scarred area on the lower slopes of E -20 bedrock modern alluvium rubble deposit colluvium SOIL TYPES older delta deposits debris flow late glacial outwash rockslide-avalanche undifferentiated landslide talus FIGURE 5. Surficial Geology of Salmon Creek (from Miller, 1972), E -21 TABLE 3. Li:thology Topographic Form Thickness Characteristics of the Surficial Geology of Salmon Creek (from Miller, 1972) Modern Rubble Bedrock Alluvium Deposits Colluvium Older Delta Layered greenstone, graywacke, slate, greenschist Steep slopes Holocene Vll.rTable;sand---x---~iigular -DroCKs--or---Variable -;--derl ved Deltaic fossfli- pebble to gravel; locally derived from underlying and ferous silty & slate, greenstone, slate, greenstone & nearby upslope clayey sandy gravel; flow breccia & metavolcanics & deposits with compacted granite granite boulders marine tills Broad plliTiis ~----Along stream ---------r;ower slopes of most -To 500-ftelev:-on point bars among channels hills evenly sloped larger streams surfaces Vll.riable; from a Tew Generally-less--tl.i9.I!-·variable to more than Variable to more inches to several ft 20 ft 15 ft than 30 ft Drainage Infiltration slow; Infiltration rapid; Excellent lnfiltra-Infiltration rapid; Infiltration rapid. Erodabi 11 ty surface runoff rapid runoff fair to poor tion & drainage runoff variable; in sand & gravel, seeps common slow in till; springs common ResiStant-; b1.1t"ls Easily eroded by Eroded only by Easily eroded by subject to weathering lateral scour from torrential runoff flowing water where streams vegetation removed Easily eroO:ed by sheet wash & streams Slope Goi:)(f-to excel1ent-;-Generally poor; Poor, especially in Poor to marginal; Nil Stability except on steepest slumps likely in slopes of excava-slumping common Physical Properties slopes cuts tions Fractures parll.lle_l___ Generally loose and Rock fragments in· Loose; lies near to & joint sets saturated point-to-point angle of repose on perpendicular to contact; voids filled steeper slopes; low strike of bedding partly by smaller density; generally rocks weathered Loose sandy-gravel gravelly sand with boulders, dense marine till inter- bedded N N til t<:l N w TABLE 3. Map Symbol Age Lithology Topographic Form Thickness Drainage Erodability Slope Stability Physical Properties (Continued) Debris Flow fl Clayey silty sand or sand & sandy gravel tatetliiiCial Outwash P-leistocene Holocene Rockslide ra Holocene Silty-sand to pebble Rubbly debris. & cobble; of green-including large II schist, greenstone & blocks of local rock granitic rock types tlndffferent:Iated Landslide Qsl Holocene Varfiiblelllix of rock, soil and surficial materials Band of rubble, -To--6()(f ff elevation Along north slope . Along -north slope bulbous to fan-shaped above Salmon Creek above Salmon Creek Gimerally5t01(fft, Variable from 10 to -Less than20f_t ____ F_r_om a.~-tew ft to locally !5 ft 100 ft mor~ t_h!IJ!_:lQ___ft_ Fdr to good; rntn=-1ntTrtrat1onraiJia;-· --uenerany~good-Infiltration good tration generally runoff slow slower than in parent soil Easily eroded by flowing water Gen-erally iiil.st:able Generally dense & firm deposits with clayey silty sand matrix Easily -eroded by streams NoCeiislly eroded Highly variable FII.Trto gooaTil ___ ----poor;exciiva t1orimay-Gerierally poor slopes less than 350 change equilibrium of deposit Loose, vadabTe Large, unbr-oken-~ Loose arid porous texture dense fragments Talus ta Late Holocene Variable; micaceous greenschist, green- stone & metavolcanics Steep slopes; J()0-350 common Variable; from a few ft to more than 10 ft Excellent in coarse talus, poor in fines Little~erosiori in coarse talus, moderate in fines Very unstable Loose angular Blackerby Ridge. Geophysical Hazards Geophysical hazards within the urban Juneau area have been identified for the City and Borough for comprehensive planning and zoning purposes (DMJM, 1972). Five major earthquake faults were identified within 160 km (100 mi.) of Juneau, four of which are historically inactive. The Fairweather-Queen Charlotte fault (100 mi. west of Juneau in the Gulf of Alaska) has been the site of numerous quakes in recent times. It is reasonable to assume that if Juneau experienced an earthquake during seismic activity at this site, the combination of steep slopes and loosely structured soils in Salmon Creek would facilitate soil creep, slumping, rock avalanches and landslides. The response of the Salmon Creek Dam to a seismic occurrence has also been investigated by the Corps of Engineers (USEPA, 1976}. Faulting in the Salmon Creek drainage basin is limited to two inferred strike faults with two major oblique faults south of the basin (Sainsbury, 1953). Net displacement and relative movement of the faults are unknown, but are expected to be small. A more pertinent geological hazard in the Salmon Creek drainage is the potential for mass-wasting occurrences. Evidence of active land movement is apparent in Salmon Creek in the form of previous rockslides, debris and rubble slides, and soil creep. Hazard classification systems applied in the Juneau area have been based on (1) history of mass-wasting E -24 occurrences, ( 2) presence of V-notched channels or gullies, {l) slope gradient, and {4) area of extent affected by landslide. Although maps of hazardous zones in Salmon Creek have been developed (Miller, 1972; DMJM, 1972), they are not available at a scale which is useful for evaluating the specific project area. Land Use And Demography Land Development All of the lands in the proposed project corridor are within the Juneau Townsite El imi nation from the Tong ass National Forest, administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The City and Borough of Juneau zoning for· the lower portions of Salmon Creek Valley is shown on Figure 6. The area is zoned for residential, commercial, industrial and public facilities development. In actuality, the zoning areas are "open-ended" and extend up the drainage to the townsite boundary; however, de facto application of zoning is generally limited to the developable portions of the lower drainage. The road-pipeline development proposed by AEL&P Co. is consistent with the City and Borough's intent to zone for industrial activity within the Salmon Creek area. Existing land use along the road-pipeline alignment is all related to AEL&P Co.'s hydroelectric generation activities. Structures at the upper terminus include the Upper Powerhouse, caretaker's residence, tailrace, inoperable flume E -25 and headworks, and several utility buildings. At the lower terminus, structures include the Lower Powerhouse, warehouse -. and three four-room cottages which are used as AEL&P Co. employee housing. Along the route, land development is restricted to the historic development of the tramway, flume, associated structures (all are inoperable), and a transmission line which delivers power from the Upper Salmon Creek Powerhouse to the AEL&P Co. transmission system. Population Juneau has experienced a dramatic population surge since Statehood due to the great increase in government in the State Capital. The 1960 census showed a population of 9,745 for the combined City and Borough, and the value ncreased to 13,556 at the 1970 count (City and Borough of Juneau, 1977). Current population recorded during the 1980 census is 19,528 (USDC, 1981), up 44 percent since the previous decennial census and double the 1960 count. A 1975 population estimate for the Norway Point to Vanderbilt Hill subregion, which includes the proposed development site at Salmon Creek, was given as 393. Assuming a continually increasing population in the Juneau area, a projected population of 848 was estimated in the year 1995 for this subregion (Homan Associates, 1974). Floodplains and Flood Events The u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, defined floodplain and flood event estimates for the Salmon Creek fan E -26 J., LAKE .:-------:..-:.. ·:::.-=:. ==----=--.::.,. GASTINEAU CHANNEL Legend RML Multi-Family Residential District (Low Density) R7 Residential District CWR Residential-Waterfront Commercial District C Commercial I Industrial FIGURE 6. Zoning Map (City and Borough of Juneau, Planning Department) FIGURE 7. ·Salmon Creek Floodplain (from City and Borough of Juneau, Planning Department) E -27 between the beach and 430 m (1,400 ft.) upstream (Figure 7). The Corps of Engineers estimates an Intermediate Regional Flood (IRF) would discharge 3,200 cfs, with the water level reaching an elevation of 7 m (23 ft.) above the Glacier Highway Bridge, and 7.8 m (25.5 ft.) at a apoint 180M (600 ft.) upstream from the bridge. An IRF is a flood which, based on statistical analysis of past hydrologic records, is expected to occur once every 100 years, or which has the probability of occurrence of 1 percent each year. Within the defined floodplain, a 15 m (50 ft.) wide buffer on each side of the stream is recommended for adequate flood protrection (U.S. corps of Engineers, 1969). The proposed road-pipeline alignment does not transect the defined Salmon Creek floodplain, but does parallel the stream for approximately 2.4 km (1.5 mi.) further upstream and crosses Salmon Creek at two locations. There are no estimates for h igh-wa te r levels or streamflows which would occur at these upstream locations during an IRF. The relatively steep slopes of the drainage walls should effectively contain swelling waters. Although the failure of the Salmon Creek Dam presents only a remote possibility, such an occurrence (i.e., resulting from seismic activity) would pose severe flooding danger for the entire Salmon Creek Valley. The Corps of Engineers estimates that if the dam failed, a 3.7 m (12 ft.) wall of water would flow over the Glacier Highway for three minutes (U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1969). No statistical probability of such an E -28 event occurring has been estimated. Wetlands The proposed construction of a road and pipeline in the Salmon Creek drainage does not involved any alteration of or fill in the wetlands bordering Gastineau Channel. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District, which is responsible for permitting activities which affect Alaskan wetlands, determined a permit was not required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the proposed project. BOTANICAL RESOURCES A survey of the vegetation along the proposed Salmon Creek road-pipeline alignment ws conducted November 9-14, 1981, by Steve Jacoby, a party to this investigation. Black.and white aerial photography (scale 1 in. = 400 ft.) was acquired and used for interpretation of vegetation types along the existing tram route. Field time was spent verifying photo interpretive work, inspecting forest condition, identifying understory vegetation and field mapping topographic detail. A road survey map prepared by Toner & Nordling, Registered Engineers, Inc., was applied as the base map for the vegetation mapping displayed in this text (Figure 8). Coastal western hemlock-Sitka spruce (Tsuga heterophyll-Picea sitchensis) forest makes up the overall vegetative cover of the area within the approximate two-mile proposed road corridor, and is found throughout the entire Salmon Creek E -29 ) "~~ ( " . ' ...:;;: _, i i "' Q) "' E 0 Q) V\. ....:• c Q) "' E 0 E ..... Cl) ..... 2 -:;; c t )(A 2 0' :::> -~ 0 .'!! ..... .. -o w 0 0 Q) Q) ..... "'' "' -o Q) Q) !: "' Q) 0 ~ a. ..... 0 0 "' ..... -o ~ Q) c Q) Ol ..2 -" :::> 0 ..... ..... ...0 0 ..... E .Q.. 0 0 ..... E w _J <{ u (/) I I : ,... ..... 0 0 ("'') I ILl drainage system. The existing tram route alignment is completely forested by a mixed age forest of old growth and even-aged second growth. A even-aged second growth forest (approximately 65 years old) of western hemlock-Sitka spruce exists along the tram route between the Lower and Upper Powerhouse~. This second growth condition is particularly evident on the south side of the· tram and is influenced by early logging in conjunction with construction activities in the upper Salmon Creek area and with initial clearing for both the tram and flume. Old growth residuals occur within the second growth forest and influence forest canopy, age structure and understory vegetation characteristics. Where clearing disturbances were minimal, as on the north side of the tram, the second growth forest is less .evident and old growth dominates. Throughout the tram route, common understory plants of the hemlock-spruce forest include devil's club (Oplopanax horridus), salmonberry (Rubus (Ribes bracteosum), blueberry cranberry (Viburnum ebule). spectabilis), (Vaccinium .§.EE_.) stink currant and high-bush Several small landslide sites along the tram route have caused continual disturbances, promoting the establishment of red alder (Alnus rubra) and native grasses. Red alde.r is also found in rna ture form, commonly mixed with hemlock and spruce, along the first quarter mile of the tram route. The vegetation immediately around the Upper Powerhouse site is influenced by clearing at the time of initial construction E -31 of power facilities. There remains today approximately two acres of clearing in the vicinity of the powerhouse turbine facility, tailraces, flume intake, caretaker's residence and several utility buildings. Ground vegetation is primarily grasses, salmonberry and high-bush cranberry, along with young growth western hemlock and Sitka spruce. WILDLIFE SPECIES The Salmon Creek drainage provides habitat for wildlife species which commonly occur in a spruce-hemlock vegetation type. A list of species associated with this habitat type is provided in Table 4, although no formal wildlife surveys have been conducted in the area. Primary species which are likely to occur in the Salmon Creek drainage include black bear (Ursus americanus), porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), and other small mammals, blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus), ptarmigan (Lagopus spp.) and migratory waterfowl (personal communication, Dave Zimmerman, Alaska Department of Fish and Game). Moutain goats (Oreamnos amedcanus) move into the drainage from the surrounding ridges during winter, and Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis) and wolverine (Gulo luscus) probably occur occasionally. Lazzette Ohman (Salmon Creek area resident, 1923-1937) recalls seeing very few deer in the vicinity. With the exception of bald eagles, there are no reported rare or endangered animal species or critical habitat types within E -32 TABLE 4·. Wildlife Species Associated with the Coastal Spruce- Hemlock Vegetation Type (from City and Borough of Juneau, 197lf') MAMMALS(l) Masked shrew Dusky shrew Keen myotis bat Silver-haired bat Little brown bat Red squirrel Northern flying squirrel Deer mouse Northern bog lemming Red-backed vole Meadow vole Long-tailed vole Mountain goat .!ll.!Y2.§. ( 2 ) Great blue heron Goshawk Sharp-shinned hawk Red-tailed hawk Rough-legged hawk Golden eagle Bald eagle Peregrine falcon Merlin American kestrel Blue grouse Willow ptarmigan Rock ptarmigan Solitary sandpiper Band-tailed pigeon Mourning dove Screech owl Great horned owl Hawk owl Great gray owl Pygmy owl Boreal owl Saw-whet owl Common flicker Yellow-bellied sapsucker Black swift Vau.x's swift Hairy woodpecker Downy woodpecker Hammond's flycatcher Northern three-toed woodpecker Alder flycatcher Western flycatcher Western wood pewee Olive-sided flycatcher all Swallow species Gray jay Steller's jay Black-billed magpie Common raven Northwestern crow Bushy-tailed wood rat Porcupine Coyote Gray wolf Black bear Brown bear Marten Short-tailed weasel Least weasel Wolverine Lynx Sitka bl.ack-tailed deer Black-capped chickadee Chestnut-backed chickadee Red-breasted nuthatch Brown creeper Winter wren American robin Varied thrush Hermit thrush Swainson's thrush Gray-checked thrush Golden-crowned kinglet Ruby-crowned kinglet Bohemian waxwing Northern shrike Starling Warbling vireo Orange-crowned warbler Yellow warbler Yellow-rumped warbler Townsend's warbler Northern water thrush MacGillvray's warbler Wilson's warbler American redstart Rusty blackbird Pine grosbeak Gray-crowned rosy finch Hoary redpoll Common redpoll Pine siskin Red crossbill White-winged crossbill Dark-eyed junco Tree sparrow Chipping sparrow Harris' sparrow White-crowned sparrow Golden-crowned sparrow Fox sparrow Lincoln's sparrow Song sparrow {1) Edited by S. Forrest Blau, Habitat Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, September, 1978. {2) U.S. Forest Service and Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1973. Birds of Southeast Alaska -A Checklist. E -33 the project area (USEPA, 1976). There are no identified eagle nesting sites in the vicinity (personal communication, Phil Schempf, u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service); however, bald eagles feed on pink and chum salmon at the mouth of Salmon Creek during the late-summer runs. FISHERIES Natural Fishery Salmon Creek supports anad romous chum (Onco rphynchus keta) , pink (.Q_. gorbuscha), and coho salmon (.Q_. kisutch) and Dolly Varden (Sal vel i nus malma) in the short sect ion below the 6 m ( 20 Ft.) falls near the mouth; and Dolly Varden and brook trout (~. fontinalis) in the reservoir. Resident fish are reported in Salmon Creek between the falls and reserve i r. Below the falls, a 15 m (50 ft.) wide spawning reach contains good bank cover and a sand and gravel streambed sui table for spawning. Escapement counts of pink and chum salmon are available for the years 1940-1980 (Table 5). Prior to 1960, chum escapement typically exceeded 1,000 to 1,500 fish and the chum run was the dominant salmon run in Salmon Creek. Since 1960, chum escapement counts have declined and the pink run has become dominant. Based on stream observations in 1980 and a weir count for part of the 1981 season, NSRAA personnel estimate the natural chum run (beginning July 15) numbered approximately 150 in 1980 and 375 in 1981. run (beginning August 1) numbered approximately E -34 The pink 3,000 to TABLE 5. Escapement Counts in Salmon Creek for 1940-1980 (Reed and Armstrong, 1972; ADF7G, Comm~ Fish, 1981). "P" indicates species present, * indicates inter- tidal count included. Fish Observed Length o! ~ .....~?.!.!!!_ Chum ~ Surve;)::(mi) 1940 9-21 p p 1951 7-20 150 0.2 8-08 400 0.2 8-18 1470 500 0.2 1952 8-02 p 0.2 1953 8-01 p 0 ·0.2 8-24 p 0 0.2 8-28 p 0 0.2 1954 7-20 150 8-17 1000 1955 8-19 2500 2.0 1957 7-20 1500 0.5 9-10 2500 1958 8-22 1000 225 1959 8-05 1500 0.2 1960 8-12 1175 30 0.6 9-01 320 600 Length 1961 7-25 500 Length 1962 8-17 269 99 Length 1963 8-08 325 Length 1964 9-04 32 365 Length 1965 8-18 200 Length 1967 8-11 150 20 Length 8-30 300 0.2 1968 8-12 80 730* Length 8-14 2400* Length 1969 8-12 70 280 Length 8-28 8 347 Length 1971 8-27 70 108 Length 1972 8-01 170 Length 8-11 50 Length 9-08 211 Length 1973 8-08 172 437 Length 1974 8-14 20 150 Tidal 1975 8-08 60 115 Length 8-21 105 285 Length 1976 7-29 85 0.3 8-03 168 50 0.2 8-17 44 0.2 10-27 (25 coho) 0.3 1977 7-22 38 Length 8-03 475 630 1.0 8-04 40* 825* 0.7 8-10 130 2300 Length 1978 7-27 73* 0.2 8-03 74 0.1 8-17 22 472* 0.3 1979 7-23 61 19* 1.0 8-07 3589* 0.2 8-21 3760* 0.5 1980 7-25 36 ( 1 coho) 0.7 8-20 300* 0.1 8-21 l4 496* 0.5 E -35 4,000 in 1980 and 6,000 in 1981. Coho salmon are occasionally· observed during escapement counts in Salmon Creek but there is not a significant spawning run in the stream. Dolly Varden spawning in lower Salmon Creek is presumed to be limited (personal communication, Dick Marriott, ADF&G). Dollys which spawn in nearby systems typically "nose into" Salmon Creek\for several weeks at a time while ranging widely in local saltwaters each summer. Dollys cou1d be expected to occur in Salmon Creek from July into early September. Reed and Armstrong (1972) evaluated the overall rearing potential of lower Salmon Creek as poor. Limited rearing areas include two large pools just below the falls, a smaller pool behind a log jam further downstream, and some undercut banks areas. A survey of potential rearing areas in 1970 revealed an anadromous Dolly Varden population (lengths 103-145 mm, age 2 years). The Salmon Creek Reservoir supports a small natural population of Dolly Varden and a successfully planted stock of brook trout. The trout population originated from a plant of 13,150 fish in 1927 (Wadman, 1962) and has maintained a healthy population of a few thousand fish (personal communication, Dick Marriott, ADF&G). Alaska Department of Fish and Game monitors the trout population periodically, but is not involved in stock enhancement. However, an examination of fish by ADF&G several years ago indicated that the condition class was good and growth rates normal E -36 (Envi ronaid, 1979). fishery for anglers. NSRAA Hatchery The reservoir provides a good local Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association has operated a private-nonprofit hatchery for churn, pink and coho salmon near the mouth of Salmon Creek since 1980. A coho rearing facility will begin oepration at Twin Lakes, just north of the mouth of Salmon Creek, in late 1981. Operations water for both facilities is withdrawn from Salmon Creek. The following information was provided by Greg Young, NSRAA Salmon Creek Hatchery. Salmon Creek Hatchery incubated and released 1.3 million churn and 100,000 pink salmon in 1980. Stocks increased. to 3.5 million churn and 2.25 million pinks in 1981, and NSRAA plans to maintain this level for three more seasons. The hatchery is currently permitted to incubate a combined churn and pink stock of 6 million eggs. Application has been made to increase incubation to 40 million pink and churn eggs, with 20-40 million fish reared for short periods of time. The coho salmon program began in 1981 with 150-200,000 eggs. NSRAA plans to increase coho incubation to 150-300,000 eggs within 3 years. The permitted levels of 800,000 coho eggs and 500,000 srnolt should be achieved with 6 to 9 years. Coho will be reared in vertical raceways at the Twin Lakes facility for about a year before their release. At the levels proposed for incubation and rearing, the Salmon E -37 Creek hatchery and Twin Lakes rearing facility would produce annual runs of 400,000 returning chum and pinks, and 50,000 coho. WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS Salmon Creek f1 ow is classified by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conversation (DEC) as suitable for all potential freshwater uses, including (1) water supply for drinking and food processing, agriculture, industrial uses, (2) water recreation, and aquaculture ( 3) growth and and propagation of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life and wildlife including waterfowl and fur-bearers (ADEC, 1979). Salmon Creek Reservoir Water quality sampling sites established in the reservoir and at two inflowing streams by USGS (Figure 9) were monitored for seasonal changes in water quality (USGS, 1974). Temperature profiles were obtained at each site in the reservoir and chemical, bacteriological and dissolved oxygen analyses conducted (Table 6). Temperature profiles for the reservoir in late-summer and late-winter indicate surface temperatures are higher than near-bottom temperatures in summer and are lower in winter. A distinct summer thermocline was not detected, perhaps due to the continual mixing resulting from surface wind action. The water in Salmon Creek reservoir and inflowing streams is E -38 TABLE 6. Water Quality of Salmon Creek Reservoir and Inflowing Streams (from USGS, 1974). Concentrations in mgjl. Ia"""'-s-.1• i!IT:~!!92 loti-Coadlaeil•:l.tr _!!!!,_ !!!!!! !! !!! £! !I ~ ! !!2!!:1 £!13 !i!4 £! n ft'ltnt• !!!! !!! Total £!!:!! iu.Da•! 2!! Color --12 I 10.5 1.3 0 5.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 17 0 4.1 0.2 O.l. .02 10.5 22 18 2 40 7.2 0 II t.O 1.4 0 8.2 .8 .. .I 15 0 4.5 .2 .1 .OS 10.1 21 18 I 31 7.1 0 18 1.0 1.5 .010 5.4 ·.8 .• 1.0 14 0 ••• .2 .1 .OS u.o 21 18 5 38 1.1 0 110 1.0 1.1 0 8.2 .I • 4 .. 18 0 5.4 .2 0 .09 11.5 24 11 5 40 7.2 0 11-7-12 0 -1.1 .OliO 0 8.2 .. .II .. 22 0 I. 1 .4 0 .01 21 11 0 .. 1.0 3-20-73 1 o.o 2.1 .009 0 1.0 .. .8 .. 11 0 8.2 .• 0 .17 13 21 20 5 •• 7.1 0 10 0.0 2.0 .020 0 7.2 .. .8 .9 21 0 8.8 .1 0 .11 14 30 21 4 51 7.8 ' 24.5 .5 2.2 .009 0 T.t ,1 .8 1.0 25 0 1.1 •• 0 .15 1 34 23 2 58 1.0 0 8 3-20-73 1 o.o 2.0 • 009 0 ••• .I .I .. 1t 0 a.T .• 0 .II 13 27 11 4 41 1. 3 0 :10 .5 1.1 .020 0 1.0 .7 .5 .I 21 0 1.0 .3 0 .13 12 21 20 3 •• 7.5 0 53.5 1.0 l. 7 .001 0 1.8 .7 .s .. 20 0 e.o .3 0 .13 11 21 Ul 3 47 7.5 5 111 0.0 1.1 .020 0 7.1 ·' .4 .. 28 0 1.2 .a o .13 13 31 11 0 so ,,, 0 e --Tll 1110 s.o 2.1 0 1.0 .1 .a .. 18 0 5.4 .1 0 • 14 10.1 24 II 5 .. 7.1 5 c 5-20-13 1 o.o 2.0 .040 0 7.1 .. •• 1.0 21 0 1.2 .1 0 .14 u :Ill 21 4 50 7.1 10 •• 1.1 .001 0 7.4 .1 .a .. I! 0 1.3 .a o .14 13 ,. 11 4 51 7.2 ••• 1.0 1.8 .040 0 1.8 .1 .a .. 21 0 1.1 .1 0 .11 12 21 10 3 41 7.2 D -.n I 10.0 1.8 • ou 8.1 .8 .5 .. 10 0 4.8 .2 .1 .02 10.3 211 II I tt 7.3 11 7.0 1.3 .010 4.8 .. .4 .. 14 0 4.3 .I .1 .Oil 10.1 20 14 3 31 7.1 1211 a.o 1.7 .020 1.0 .1 .a t.o 11 0 8.1 .1 0 .14 11 14 11 s 43 1.0 D 11-7-11 0 -1.7 .040 0 1.2 .. .1 .I If 0 a.e ·• ·o .1111 28 11 2 .. T.t ., 5-22-12 10 -2.1 .040.8.1 •• 1.0 .. 10 0 1.5 .4 0 .UI 21 n 51 ••• 0 48 .010 1.7 • 1 .I .. 21 20 50 1.7 0, 5-22-11 10 .040 e.e .I 1.2 .I 20 0 n l 53 e.t 21 .020 e.l .1 1.2 .I , 0 ..:. Jl. 3 51 8.1 1-4-12 -1.1 8.o .1 •• 1.0 18 0 4.1 .2 .1 24 18 42 7.1 0 11·1·11 -2.5 .070 0 7.3 .. •• 1.0 21 0 8.5 •• 0 .01 31 D .. 1.0 0 11-7-12 -••• .oio 0 l.ll .. .1 .. 11 0 ••• • 7 0 .n .. IS 0 31 1.2 600 1200 FEET I 00 2 00 300 METRES FIGURE 9. USGS (1974) Water Quality Sampling Sites in Salmon Creek Reservoir and Inflowing Streams E 39 basically a calc i urn bicarbonate type of excellent quality (USGS, 197 4) and meets the requirements for freshwater uses (including domestic) recommended by the State of Alaska (ADEC, 1979; USEPA, 1976). Reservoir water supports a viable stock of brook trout and Dolly Varden within the impoundment, and provides for successful growth and propagation of wild and hatchery fish stocks downstream. The City and Borough of Juneau plans to implement a water quality sampling program in the reservoir in 1982 to supplement available water quality data (personal communication, George Porter, Department of Engineering, City and Borough of Juneau. Bacteriological samples collected from the reservoir by the USGS (1974) showed 0.0 bacterial count for 88 percent of the samples and 2.2 .organisms per 100 ml in the remaining 12 percent. The presence of more than one coliform bacteria per 100 ml in several samples would require further check sampling if the reservoir is to supply drinking water (ADECm 1978). Dissolved oxygen levels in Salmon Creek reservoir ranged from 7 to 14 mg/1 during USGS (1974) sampling indicating that a condition exists which contributes to the elimination of organic impurities in impoundment waters. Although the reservoir site was not cleared prior to filling in 1915, annual fluctuations of reservoir storage has helped to eliminate accumulation of impurities from organic decomposition. E -40 TABLE 7. Water Quality of Salmon Creek (from USGS, 1969; 1974) Concentrations (mg/1) Sample Temp ~ Date (°C) Si02 ~ Mo Ca MK Na ! HC0 3 ~ so4. Cl ! 3 2-22-73 2.0 2.5 0.02 0 8.8 0.9 0.6 0.8 30 0 5.9 1.5 0 4 8-29-50 2.0 0.20 -9.0 1.5 21 -12.0 0.1 4 11-22-66 1.1 2.0 0.04 -7.2 1.2 20 6.7 1.4 4 3-15-68 1.5 2.9 9.2· 0.9 0.6 0.7 28 0 5.0 0.7 0.1 4 6-26-68 6.0 2.2 6.6 0.7 0.5 0.6 24 0 4.6 0.2 0 4 2-22-73 2.0 2.9 0.04 0 9.0 0.7 0.8 0.7 32 0 4.8 1.8 0 Hardness Sample Non-Conductivity Site ~ Nitrate DO OS~ Carb (umhos2 E.!! Color 3 2-22-73 0.22 14 37 26 1 60 7.0 1 4 8-29-50 -44 29 12 68 7.3 4 11-22-66 0.10 -30 23 7 48 7.4 4 3-15-68 -35 27 4 60 7.1 5 4 6-26-68 -28 20 50 6.8 5 4 2-22-73 0.14 13 37 25 0 61 6.8 2 E -41 Salmon Creek The quality of water collected by USGS (1969: 1974} near the Upper Powerhouse (sample site 3} and at the mouth of Salmon Creek (sample site 4} is similar to reservoir water quality and is within standards established by DEC for all freshwater uses. Water chemistry data for Salmon Creek is presented in Table 7. Trace element levels detected in Salmon Creek water are presented in Table 8. Silver, antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead and molybdenum levels are low and are within standards set for aquatic life criteria and domestic use by DEC (1979} and USEPA (1976, l980a-d}. When compared to general freshwater aquatic life criteria established by the USEPA (1976; 1980e), levels of copper (.002-.005 mg/1} and zinc (,018, .050 mg/1} border on the edge of concern for physiological effects. However, the healthy condition of propagating wild and hatchery stocks of pink and chum salmon indicate naturally occurring copper and zinc levels are probably not detrimental to aquatic organisms in Salmon Creek. TABLE 8. Trace Elements in Water Samples from Salmon Creek (USGS, 1974; Environaid, 1979) Sample Metal Concentrations (mg/ 1) Site Date ~ An As Cd Cn Mo Pb Zn 3 2-22-73 0 .005 .002 4 2-22-73 .003 .004 0 4 3-22-73 .006 .002 .003 4 6--79 <.002 0.12 <.005 <. 002 .004 .05 <.010 .018 4 11--79 .050 E -42 A continuous record of water temperature for Salmon Creek exists only for the year November, 1980, through October, 1981 (NSRAA, Stream Data Log, 1980-81). Mean monthly temperatures for this period (Figure lOA) range from 1. 43°C (34.6°F) in December, 1980, to 9.77°C (49.6°F) in August, 1981. However, mild winter temperatures experienced in the Juneau vicinity in 1980-81 likely caused water temperatures to be uncharacteristically high between November and April. A conjectural annual water temperature curve developed for Salmon Creek by Environaid (1979), is shown in Figure lOB. The curve is based on records for Cabin Creek (1952-53), Deer Mountain Hatchery (1975-76) and Beaver Falls Hatchery (1975-76) and indicates a probable seasonal range of 0°C (32°F) in winter to 10°C (50°F) in summer. Needle ice may occur from chilling of turbulent waters during the winter. A bacteriological sample collected from near the mouth of Salmon Creek in October, 1979, and analyzed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Fish Pathology Laboratory showed a total coliform count of 50 colonies/lOOrnl and a fecal coliform count of 0 colonies/100 ml (Environaid, 1979) .This result concurs with the USGS (1974) observation that Salmon Creek water showed higher coliform counts than reservoir water. Salmon Creek water is within the maximum requirement of 20 FC/100 ml set for most freshwater uses (ADEC, 1979), but would regui re further checking before use as a drinking water source (ADEC, 1978). E -43 10 9 -I C,) 8 I 0 '-' I 7 I Q) I ~ I ;:I 6 I +-I CIS ' A I ~ I Q) 5 ' I 0. \ I s \ I Q) 4 ' ... E-< \ .... .... .... ~ 3 \ / Q) ' / ........ ;/ +-I ... ,.., CIS 2 ' ill: 1 N D J F M A M J J A s 0 FIGURE 10. Mean Water Temperature Near the Mouth of Salmon Creek for November, 1980, through 1981 (A) Compared with a Conjectural Temperature Curve (B) E -44 Salmon Creek carries a significant natural suspended sediment load composed of silt to sand-sized fractions derived from the streambed and from sediments introduced from eroding streambanks and landslides. Suspended sediment concentrations are particularly elevated rainstorms and resulting high velocity flows. (3.25 in.) rainfall on October 8-10, 1979, was during fall An 8. 25 em observed to produce eleva ted turbidity and sediment loads in the stream (Envi ronaid, 1979). Although the sediment load has not been quantified nor size-classes determined, NSRAA personnel attest to the significant load of silt and sand-sized particles which are suspended in the water withdrawn from Salmon Creek for hatchery operations WATER QUANTITY AND APPROPRIATIONS Salmon Creek Streamflow No continuous historical record of streamflow exists for the Salmon Creek drainage; data which are recorded under varying conditions waters. The available have of impoundment Alaska Department been and of diversion of drainage Natural Resources (DNR) has asked the Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) to collect current stream guage data beginning in spring of 1982. For the purposes of this investigation, available records of streamflow have been compiled and summarized. Because runoff data for Salmon Creek has not been E -45 consistently collected, the USGS ( 19 7 4) estimated flow from the upper drainage by analogy to Gold and Sheep Creeks, which share the same hydrologic setting as Salmon Creek. By applying this method to records from 1950-1970, the estimated annual flow generated in the upper subdrainage of Salmon Creek was calculated as 33,800 acre-feet, or 46.8 cfs averaged annual flow. This daily flow estimate compares well with limited historical records of streamflow measurements taken at the Salmon Creek dam site in 1911-1914, prior to dam completion (Figure 11). Averaged annual flows of 56.7 cfs and 62.3 cfs are given for 1912 and 1913, respectively. On a seasonal basis from 1911 to 1914, flow from the upper subdrainage varied from an average of 14.0 cfs for the winter months (December-March) to 108.1 cfs during summer (June-September). In the early years of operation, Alaska Gastineau Mining Company recorded flow values of water shunted through the flume and penstock to the Lower Powerhouse facility. Figure 12A illustrates flow measurements taken "in the flume near the penstock" just below the headworks at the Upper Powerhouse in the years 1914-1917 (Wilcox, 1917). The flow included combined runoff from the upper drainage and 80 percent of the South Fork drainage. Since measurements were taken in the flume, they represented all the water diverted from Salmon Creek for power generation at the Lower Powerhouse. Average annual flows of 100.0 cfs, 80.4 cfs and 81.5 cfs were diverted during the years 1914-1916, E -46 respectively. Flows diverted through the flume (Figure 12A) averaged 150 cfs in summer and 23 cfs in winter, compared with the 110 cfs summer flow and 40-50 cfs winter flow, anticipated to be carried in the proposed pipeline. Several low flow values measured in winter in the flume are much smaller than flows used by the Lower Powerhouse turbine (ie. March, 1916; January, March, 1917). Examination of climatic records for 1916 and 1917 gave no explanation for these low values. Concurrent with the above records, Company measured stream height in Alaska Gastineau Mining "Salmon Creek near the Roundhouse", below the point of flume diversion. Records for 1914-1916 represent water which was not diverted into the flume, but continued down the natural Salmon Creek drainage to the mouth (Figure 12B). This documentation was necessary in those years to demonstrate that sufficient water remained in the stream for use by the Wagner mining operation, 1.1 km (0. 7 mi.) upstream from the mouth of Salmon Creek (personal communication, David Stone, AEL&P.). Undiverted water included the entire North Fork flow and 20 percent of South Fork water. Unfortunately, streamflow ratings are not available for the stream height values recorded at this location in Salmon Creek. Nevertheless, it is apparent that water in the upper Salmon Creek channel was routinely drawn down to less than 2.5 em (1 in.) depth during the winter months under diverson practices illustrated in Figure 12A. Between 1963 and 1973, USGS (1974) collected miscellaneous E -47 20.0 17.5 150 .-. Ul .... <:) 125 ~ ..... .... e ell Ql "' 75 ... a2 50 25 M J J J l9ll 1-9!2 1fl13 191'4 FIGURE 11. Monthly Average Streamflow (cfs) Measured at the Salmon Creek Dam Site for Water Years Ending September 30, 1911-1914 (Wilcox, 1917) 2l!O 50 50 I I I I I I I I I I I ! • r I I -' ' t-_,_r ' ~.., I I : f"\--, I I I I t : L! ; ,__.._~ 0 N P J F Y A Y J J A S 0 N 0 J F Y A'M J J A S 0 N D J F Y A H J J A S 0 N D J F I 1914 1915 1911! 11917 40 ... 30 f. 10 .... .. .. FIGURE 12 A. Monthly Average Streamflow (cfs) Diverted Through the Flume for Water Years Ending September 30, 1914- 1917 (Wilcox, 1917) B. Monthly Average Streamheight (in) Measured in "Salmon Creek Near Roundhouse," Representing Undiverted Flows (Gastineau Mining Company Records, 1914-1916) -------- E -48 discharge measurements on Salmon Creek which gave an indication of undiverted runoff at certain times of year (Table 9). Nearly all measurements were taken near the mouth of the stream and may or may not include spillage from the reservoir or from the deteriorating flume. On February 28, 197 3, two measurements were made on Salmon Creek when flume ·leakage was considered neg 1 ig i ble due to icing and there was no spillage from the reservoir. Near the Upper Powerhouse undiverted streamflow was 6.9 cfs; near the mouth a discharge of 24.1 cfs was measured, indicating a gain of 17 cfs from tri bu tad es entering Salmon Creek in the lower subd ra i nage. This value is the single recorded datum which assesses the separate contribution of the lower subdrainage tributaries to the total runoff of Salmon Creek. Lower subdrainage runoff will be the primary component of flows available to water users at the lower reaches of Salmon Creek during total, or near total, divers ion of upper subdra in age and South Fork water. The lower Salmon Creek subdrainage, excluding both the Salmon Creek reservoir and South Fork drainage areas, totals about 2 . 2) 9.6 km (3.7 m1. • During periods of winter drought (January-March) this subdrainage will approach low flows of 0 to 2.0 cfs, based on analogy to flows measured in nearby Gold and Fish Creeks. The lowest flow measured in lower Salmon Creek (at 5,500 ft. above mouth, on January 13, 1969) was 1.4 cfs. On the same date, Gold Creek's mean daily flow ws 3.5 cfs and Fish Creek's (on Douglas Island) was 4. 7 cfs. Low E -49 flows of record for Gold Creek and Fish Creek are 0 cfs and 1.0 cfs, respectively. TABLE 9. Miscellaneous Streamflow Measurements on Salmon Creek (USGS , 1 9 7 4) Streamflow Date Location (cfs) 9-4-63 50 ft. upstream from mouth 27.7 9-10-63 50 ft. upstream from mouth 77.9 9-12-63 200 ft. upstream from mouth 197.0 9-13-:-63 200 ft. upstream from mouth 139.0 3-15-63 200 ft. upstream from mouth 22.1 6-26-68 200 ft. upstream from mouth 120.0 8-22-68 150 ft. upstream from mouth 14.8 1-13-69 5,500 ft. upstream from mouth 1.4 2-2 3-7 3 500 ft. upstream from mouth 24.1 2-23-73 25 ft. below bridge at Upper Powerhouse 6.9 A log of instantaneous discharge measurements for Salmon Creek, measured weekly, has been kept at the NSRAA hatchery for the years 1980 and 1981 (Table 10). Flow measurements represent total Salmon Creek runoff without diversion of water from the channel. The lowest recorded winter value was 36.6 cfs on December 26, 1980. It is presumed that the majority, if not all, of this flow represents water released through single-turbine operation from the tailrace of the Upper Powerhouse; this also indicates that flows contributed to Salmon Creek from the lower subdrainage during cold winter droughts may be very low. With respect to the resident trout fishing in Salmon Creek below the Upper Power House, the pro- posed project will alter the winter streamflow characteris- tics of the Lower Salmon Creek Basin compared to those which have been in existence since 1972. With the installation of the pipeline from the Upper Salmon Creek Power House to the E --50 TABLE 10. Instantaneous Discharge Measurements and Stream Heights Recorded Near the Uouth of Salmon Creek (NSRAA Stream Data Log, 1980-81) Discharge Stream Date (cfs) Height (ft) 10-26-80 101.0 2.32 11-1-80 86.8 2.26 11-21-80 95.7 2.28 11-28-80 125.7 2.44 12-2-80 54.9 2.00 12-12-80 42.0 l. 89 12-26-80 36.6 l. 85 1-10-81 73.3 2.22 l-19-81 130.0 2.46 1-26-81 98.9 2.32 2-2-81 88.2 2.26 2-9-81 49.8 2.20 2-16-81 84.2 2.24 2-23-81 51.1 2.08 3-2-81 85.9 2.24 3-9-81 94.0 2.26 3-16-81 102.5 2.32 3-23-81 94.0 2.28 3-30-81 90.0 2.28 4-6-81 84.8 2.26 4-13-81 84.3 2.22 4-20-81 91.6 2.26 4-27-81 83.8 2.20 5-4-81 78.1 2.18 5-11-81 90.1 2.26 5-18-81 71.2 2.16 5-26-81 130.4 2.48 6-1-81: 130.5 2.54 6-8-81 48.5 2.05 6-15-81 38.5 1. 92 6--81 116.6 2.44 7-13-81 103.2 2.38 7-27-81 150.8 2.50 8-3-81 218.1 2.60 9-1-81 22.8 l. 72 E -51 to such conditions will not affect it materially. Water Appropriations Salmon Creek waters are currently serving four major purposes: (1) development of hydroelectric power at AEL&P Co. facilities, (2) provision of limited public water supply for the City and Borough of Juneau, ( 3) provision of an operations water supply for the NSRAA hatchery facilities near the mouth of Salmon Creek and in the Twin Lakes area, and ( 4) rna i ntenance of natural anadromous fishery habitat in the lower reaches of Salmon Creek. In accordance with the Alaska Water Use Act of 1966 (Alaska Statutes 46.15.101-270}, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR} is responsible for appropriating and adjudicating rights to the use of Salmon Creek's water. Total consumptive ground and surface water appropriations on Salmon Creek presently total 189.4 cfs (Table 11}. TABLE 11. Appropriation of Salmon Creek water, indicating user, certification or permit number and quantity of allocation. User Alaska Electric Light & Power Co. Alaska Electric Light & Power Co. City & Borough of Juneau City & Borough of Juneau Joseph Henri Joseph Henri Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association Total Certification of Permit ADL 1 45780-C 51675-C 62230-P 62326-P 100508-C 100920-P 101041-P Quantity (cfs) 70 105 9 0.1* <O.l* 0.2* 5 189.4 *Three groundwater withdrawals are included as well depths are shallow and would be influenced by surface flow. AEL&P Co. has a water appropriation of 175 cfs dating back to E -52 water rights secured by the Alaska Gastineau Mining Company. ·For the purposes of road and pipeline design, an anticipated maximum flow of 110 cfs was used. Typically, flows carried in the pipeline wi 11 reach 110 cfs during summer months (two ·turbine operation) and will be reduced to 40 to 50 cfs in winter (single turbine operation) (personal communication, Corry Hildenbrand, AEL&P Co.). Water piped from the Upper Powerhouse will be primarily used to generate hydroelectrici- ty at the Lower Powerhouse. However, under a proposed agreement with the City and Borough of Juneau, AEL&P Co. will provide 4.64 cfs of water per day for a domestic water supply for the Lemon Creek and Mendenhall Valley areas. Under such emergency conditions as fire, the maximum the water supply system can accommodate would be provided. AEL&P Co. also has an existing agreement with NSRAA to provide 10 cfs for hatchery operations during periods of low flow in Salmon Creek, when the NSRAA water supply system does not provide adequate flows. With regard to other Salmon Creek users, the City and Borough of Juneau has leased its surface water rights (9cfs) to NSRAA for fish hatchery and other public water supply purposes. The use of 3 cfs can be reclaimed by the City and Borough with 2 years prior notice to the Association. NSRAA has an outstanding application (ADL# 102820) with DNR for an allocation of 15 cfs to supplement their present appropriation (5 cfs). A decision on this application may be delayed until additional streamflow data is obtained for E -53 Salmon Creek. CULTURAL RESOURCES Historical Setting The discovery of gold in the Juneau area in 1880 began over 60 years of large scale mining ventures in the area. Once the placer ground (freegold, no milling required} and high grade ores played out, attention turned to the extensive deposits of low grade gold ore in the Juneau area. The major mining companies operating in the area were the Treadwell Complex (Douglas Island}, Alaska Gastineau Mining Company (Perseverance Mines, Silver Bow Basin, east of Juneau) and the Alaska-Juneau Gold Mining Company (Silver Bow Basin). Many innovative processes were perfected to allow the miners and mills to mine and extract ore from large tonnages of rock, a necessity to make a profit on low grade ore. The availability of low cost power became critical as the size of the operation grew. The rugged mountains and high rainfall made hydroelectric power generation a logical choice and feasibility investigations were conducted for most of the creeks in the area. Salmon Creek, 5.6 km (3.5 mi.) north of Juneau, was investigated as a power source by several of the major mining companies. In 1907, a large scale map of Salmon Creek was prepared by C. E. Davidson, probably an employee of Alaska Treadwell Gold Mining Company and a complete report on E -54 feasibility and costs of hydroelectric power from Salmon Harry Wollenberg in 1909-10. Creek was produced by Wollenberg later became the Chief Engineer for Construction of the Salmon Creek Power Project, working for Mr. Bartlett Thane, General Manager of the Alaska Gastineau Mining Company (Stone, 1980}. The Alaska Gastineau Mining Company eventually secured control of the Salmon Creek property and water rights in 1911 and, by 1912, made preparations to construct the area's first year-round hydroelectric power plant at the Salmon Creek site (Stone, 1980}. The generated power would supply the new Alaska Gastineau Mill at Thane. The Salmon Creek project called for the construction of a concrete dam, an upper and lower powerhouse, a wooden flume and a steel penstock for routing water from the dam to the powerhouses. To pro vi de for access and transportation of supplies into Salmon Creek valley during construction of these hydroelectric facilities, Wollenberg (1909) suggested a narrow planked tramway to be built using lumber cut by a mill located in the Salmon Creek drainage (Figure 13). Preliminary work on the tramway started in early 1912, and dates on photographs obtained from the Alaska State Historical Library indicate that construction of the tramway and flume was well underway by early summer, 1912 (Figure 14, Appendix D). The tramway was odgi nally designed to use horses for power and stables were constructed in the vicinity of the powerhouses {Figure 15). The Horse Tramway was E -55 I I ~ Jl II Jl J E -56 tO - E 0 I'( 00 Q) 'II d :..__ tJ (./) 0 E -57 lO <r ---+ 0 E -58 FIGURE 14. Tramway Construction, Alaska Historical Library, Emile Gastonguay Collection FIGURE 16. Horse Tramway, Alaska Historical Library, Emile Gastonguay Collection E -59 FIGUR£ 15. Redrct.wn From Nt4 Flume. a.nd Pipeline Map Sca.le: I"= 305 trt (Joofl:) 0 4 Rt><>,., G.tf~e. 0 4 Roo, C:.lla.!Je PoWGR JIOVSE N~ I CAMP POWE/t J.IOUSE N!! Z CAMP E -60 probably designed for relatively light duty, but was ample to supply early stages of construction (Figure 16). The originial cost estimate for the horse tram was $ 10,000.00, but expense records (dated.December 31, 1914, Section C.6.2.) indicate costs eventually rose to $ 16,539.27 for material and labor. Prior to the Salmon Creek tram. The start of concrete Dam, the tramway was lumber, structural construction work at the upgraded to a locomotive members and rails were upgraded, as the system had to be capable of carrying numberous heavy loads of cement. The small gas engine shown in Figure 17 was transported from Seward City (later known as Comet, located just north of Berners Bay) to Salmon Creek, and was later used on the Annex Creek Power Project (Stone, 1980). While the little engine probably saw its fair share of runs on the tramway, a larger locomotive was used to move heavy loads of cement bags. The first concrete was poured at the dam site on July 25, 1913 and the dam was finished within a year (Stone , 1 9 8 0) • With the dam completed, the heavy-duty rolling stock was put to work elsewhere. Eventually, a Model A Ford fitted with rail wheels was used to transport work crews and supplies along the tramway. The Gastineau holdings (including the Salmon Creek facilities) were purchased by the Alaska Juneau (A-J) Gold Mining Company in 1935. In 1936, the A-J rebuilt the Lower Powerhouse, which had burned in 1922, and the flume between E -61 FIGURE 17 .. Small Locomotive, Alaska Historical Library, Emile Gastonguay Collection f FIGURE 18. Lower Powerhouse and Wharf, Alaska Historical Library, Emile Gastonguay Collection E -62 the Upper and Lower Powerhouses (Stone, 1980). AEL&P Co. purchased the A-J holdings in 1973 and continues to maintain and use the Upper Powerhouse for power generation. In 1974, the operation of the Lower Powerhouse stopped. Helicopters are used to transport personnel and supplies to the Upper Powerhouse site and the tramway is now obsolete. The tramway continues to be a popular recreational access route into Salmon Creek Bas in. However, although the route pro vi de easy access to the bas in, the deteri orating wooden structures present an increasingly hazardous access. Description of Tramway Route and Associated Structures The cultural documentation Survey of Cultural Resources resources survey was approached of historical structures and other as a cultural resources within the proposed project area. There was no evidence which suggested the existence of archaeological features along the route and within the confines of the proposed road-pipeline project, and no such features were observed during the cultural resources survey effort. A review of historical registers indicates ·that although no .cultural features in the Salmon Creek drainage ar-e included in the National Register of Historic Places (Alaska Division of Parks, 1976), three sites associated with historic mining efforts in Juneau have been identified by the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey (sites JUN 176, JUN 207 and JUN 211). Site E -63 descriptions provided by Mr. Greg Dixon (Alaska Department of Natural Resources) are as follows: { l) Salmon Creek Powerhouse Site I 1, including the Lower Powerhouse, two mile wooden flume, two Pel ton wheels and three wooden homes; ( 2) Salmon Creek Powerhouse Site I 2, including the Upper Powerhouse, one mile steel penstock, two Pelton wheels, two wooden houses and one bunkhouse; and ( 3) Salmon Creek damsite, including the concrete arch dam and associated tramway and timberframe hoist house. In accordance with requests made by the Alaska State Historic Preservation officer, the following cultural resources survey "' .. was implemented to assess impacts on these and other historical structures resulting from road-pipeline construction. Field Survey The cultural resources survey was completed between November ll and 25, 1981, by Tim Moore, party to this investigation. Survey efforts focused primarily on descriptive and photographic documentation of historic structures which would be removed or significantly altered during proposed road construction {specifically, the tramway and hoist house sites). Consideration was also given to other structures identified to be of historical significance, including the Lower Powerhouse site, the Upper Powerhouse site and the flume. The historic concrete arch dam at the head of Salmon Creek was considered to be outside of the area of proposed E -64 construction impqct. Historic structures were described, measured and, when marginal winter light exposures permitted, photographed. Photographs were taken with TRI-X black and white film and a 35 mm SLR camera, using both 58 mm and 35 mm lenses. Trestles were assigned a numerical designation (indicated as T-jf) to aid in field recording (Table 12). The center point of each trestle was tied into a recent survey and field map provided by Toner & Nordling, Registered Engineers, Inc. This recent survey seems to correspond to the original 1914 right-of-way survey for distances and alignment (Figure 13). Trestle construction, condition, height and length were recorded. Characteristics of the track which were noted included condition, width, length and description of the switch areas. Tramway The tramway originally began at the edge of Gastineau Channel and travelled eastward up the Salmon Creek drainage to the Salmon Creek Dam. The entire route contains two major inclines and a spur to the Upper Powerhouse (Table 13). Also, originally, there was a 152m (500 ft.) wharf out into the Channel, with a 61 m (120 ft.) length of track (Figures 15 and 18). An incline tramway with steel wire assist (to a hoist facility) brought materials up the first incline to the start of the locomotive tramway. The locomotive tramway was constructed on a slight grade. Near the Upper Powerhouse the E -65 main line continues to the Dam and a spur goes to the powerhouse. Between the Lower and Upper Powerhouses the tramway contains 38 trestles, ranging from 3m (10 ft.) to 63 m (210 ft.) in length (Table 12). TABLE 12. Trestle ! T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 au on log T-5 T-6 T-7 T-8 T-9 T-10 T-11 Salmon Creek Tramway Trestles Length Midpoint 14.6 m (48 ft.) 23 + 50 13.4 m (44 ft.) 25 + 00 6.1 m ( 20 ft.) 26 + 33 38.1 m (125 ft.) 29 + 00 sills, 4.6 m ( 15 ft.) 15.2 m (50 ft.) 30 + 60 53.3 m (175ft.) 31 + 45 24.1 m (79ft.) 34 + 00 4.6 m (15 ft.) 35 + 50 4.6 m (15ft.) 36 + 10 15.5 m (51 ft.) 37 + 44 E -66 Remarks Down; estimated 1.5 m high when upright. East end falling down; 1 m high. Same age deck as T- 3; 1 m high. Three timbers under deck; 12 supports, 5 m high. Small, 1 m high. Two logs, diameter 75 to 100 em; no decking or rails (Figure 26). Long trestle: north end 32 + 32, 39 m. Two sections: 39 m, 13.5 m newer; Deck- ing 6.5 x 29.5 em and 6.5 x 14.5 em {newer), 12m high (Figures 28 & 35). Seven supports, log sills, 4 m high. Height 1 m. Delapidated, cut timber sill; 1 m high. Log and cut timber T-12 T-13 T-14 T-15 T-16 T-17 double track T-18 T-19 T-20 T-21 4 2. 7 m ( 14 0 ft. ) 38 + 6 0 64.0 m (210 ft.) 40 + 40 32.9 m (108ft.) 42 +52 4.6 m (15 ft.) 45 + 00 3.0 m (10ft.) 45 + 80 24.7 m (81 ft.) 46 + 90 47 + 52 22.9 m (75 ft.) 48 + 60 33.5 m (110 ft. 50 + 00 25.6 m (84ft.) 51 +50 22.3 m (73ft.) 52+ 65 E -67 sill; noted rebuild- ing; poor shape in general. Along cliff; old trestle & rail be- low; Decking 6.5 x 29.5 em; 2 timbers, 13 supports; 12 m high; fair shape. West section down, length 40.5 m; Center section up, 1 ength 6 m; East section down, length 16.5 m; All cut tim- ber; center-section rests on a small rock ridge. Moss-covered tres- tle; 9 supports; 4 m high; slide area, trestle has been wiped out in past (Figure 30). Height 1 m. Hillside slumping; trestle in mud; may have always been low. Down; slide area; 7 m high. Known as guard rail. Down; hanging track (Figure 31). Down; log sill under. east end rails. Deck i n g 6 • 5 em x 29.5 em; 6 supports, 3.5 m high. Down; track on big 1 og sills ; t r. e e across trestle des- troyed it. T-22 T-23 T-24 T-25a T-25b T-26 T-27 T-28 T-30 T-31 T-32 T-33 T-34 T-35 59.1 m {194ft.) 56+ 10 6.4 m (21 ft.) 61 + 70 10.0 m (33ft.) 63 + 10 27. 4 m { 9 0 ft.) 65 + 36 40.2 m (132ft.) 50.6 m (166ft.) 70 + 85 36.3 m (119 ft.) 73 + 60 19.5 m (64ft.) 84 + 50 33.5 m (110ft.) 27.7 m (91 ft.} 86 + 35 33.5 m (110ft.} 88 + 40 24.4 m {80ft.) 90 + 40 24.4 m (80ft.) 92 + 90 33.5 m (110ft.) 94 + 10 16.8 m (55 ft.) 95 + 00 E -68 Down section, length 51.3 m; east end up 7.8 m; old construc- tion material below (Figure 32). Wide plank top; in mud over swamp area. Old, rough-looking; 1 m high (Figure 2 7). Up; 3 m high. Down; old building material, log sill for supports & logs unaer rails (Figure 3 3). Seventeen supports; 6 m high (Figure 2 9) • Old, going down in spots ; 1 m h i g h • Down. Salmon Creek cros- sing; small track. Down; larger track. Tree; down due to break center; 1 m high. Mossy; old trestle was set on logs (Figure 24). Height 1 m. West section, up (16.5 m); East sec- tion down (16.5 m). Two logs; modern cable handrail; small track starts on east end; 3 m T-36 T-37 T-38 NOTES: 18.9 m (62ft.) 96 + 00 33.5 m (110 ft.) 97 + 20 4.6 m (15 ft.) 101 + 00 high. Low trestle; 1 m. Good shape; old ma- terial below; 2 m high (Figure 25). Small; 1 m. A small trestle or bridge crosses the overflow flume at 22 + 75, before T-1. Several small, wooden, track supports were noted but were not counted as trestles. TABLE 13. Length of Salmon Creek Tramway Section Tramway on Wharf Lower incline Locomotive Tramway 1) Lower incline (top) to upper incline bottom 2) Lower incline to Upper Powerhouse 3) Spur to Upper Powerhouse Upper Incline (at Dam) Width of Right-of-Way The above information was taken from: Length 61.0 m (200 ft.) 590.0 m (1936 ft.) 4. 0 km ( 2. 57 mi • ) 2. 81 km ( l. 7 8 mi • ) 450.0 m (1475 ft.) 301.0 m (989ft.) 30.5 m (100 ft.) Application for Right-of-Way Salmon Creek Tramway Alaska Gastineau Mining Company Juneau, Alaska December 1, 1914 E -69 The initial section of the tramway, east of the Lower Powerhouse, involved a steel wire assist up a 581 m (1936 ft.) incline to a hoist facility. Approximately the lower third of the tramway on the incline has been pushed aside by a tractor to form a primitive road (Figure 19) • At the top of the newly-formed road, the proposed road wi 11 follow the hillside to the west of the incline to reduce the amount of grade, and will rejoin the tramway near the hoist house. Evidence of an old primitive road exists along the proposed road route, probably part of the pre-tramway construction access. Most of the tram on this incline has deteriorated and fallen down. The foot trail travels on the tramway through a middle section which is still somewhat supported (Figure 20). However, the trai 1 above and below this section travels to the south of the old tram route on a newly-brushed path. The final grade of the incline has fallen down completely (Figure 21). At several locations along the incline, one or two steel rollers are placed in the center of the rails to keep the cable from cutting the ties and supports. Each roller contained four channels for the cable and the center grooves show cable scoring. The incline tramway terminates at the top of the ridge near the hoist house (Figure 22) (see Section entitled Hoist House Area). From this point, the locomotive tramway continues at a slight grade eastward to the Salmon Creek Dam, with a spur to the Upper Powerhouse. E -70 FIGURE 19. Lower section of the Incline Tramway looking down (west) FIGURE 21. Incline Tramway looking up (east) E -71 FIGURE 20. Incline Tramway looking up (east) FIGURE 22. Ton of Incline Tramway Th~ section of the locomotive tram which will be affected by the proposed project is the section between the hoist house and the Upper Powerhouse (Figure 13). This section is 4 km (2,57 mi.) in length and contains 38 trestles (10 are down, Tables 12 and 13, Figure 23). The proposed roadway will follow the tramway for the most part, but may deviate in areas with long trestles where the r-oad wi 11 mor-e closely follow the topogr-aphy. Cultural and histor-ical materials obser-ved within the tramway cor-ridor included the overflow flume crossing, trestles, remains of earlier construction discards and stumps with spring board notches. Spring boards provided a platform for tree fallers sawing with cross-cut saws. During the constr-uction of the tr-amway, small r-oads, construction camps, a stable and sawmill were located along the r.oute. No evidence of these featur-es were noted in the cour-se of the sur-vey. The amount of disturbance they caused has pr.obably been obscur-ed or-destr-oyed by natural pr-ocesses. Accor-ding to Mr-. William Byington, a for-mer. A-J mining engineer, the sawmill which pr-oduced cut lumber for-the project was pr-obably located just west of the point where the tr.amway crosses Salmon Cr-eek (Figur-e 23, T-29). Dudng his wor-k with the A-J, Byington observed piles of slash and sawdust hear this area. Photographs of the sawmill operation ar-e located in the Alaska State Historical library photograph collection, PCA-119 (Appendix D). The 1914 Right-of-Way map shows a stable located 140 m (470 E -72 ~ ~ SALMON CREEK I \ I I ) fs I I \ ., i f/2. -~ -!. I i i . r . I Tl8 \ .I \ ' LOWER ?OW£RHOU5E ~ ~ T~l 0 +- ~ N ·, '\ UPPER fi&URE Z3. ------ ...,.-. -· -·-- 0 T f'U.M Route. "Br.tdse or Tres1\e. (Existing) StreaMS lnterM\treNt Streo..MS 1'5l 4?7m i '' == \52 m (500ft.) E -73 ft.) south of the Upper Powerhouse, but no evidence of the structure was noted in the area. The most striking features along the tramway route are the trestles. Of the 28 standing trestles, many are in very poor shape and some are beginning to fall down. Many of the more decayed trestles have lumber, plywood or broken planks on the decking under the rails. The decking on some of the trestles appears to be unsafe for foot travel. Nearly every trestle 'has evidence of a predecessor below it. Rotting timbers, logs, plants, ties and rail were observed beneath most trestles (Figures 24 and 25). Mr. Byington was of the opinion that none of the original trestles were still in place. Based on his experience in maintaining wood structures in the a rea, he felt that the combination of wet weather and untreated wood resulted in fairly rapid deterioration. Also, as a result of damp weather and forest cover, moss growth on the trestles is quite common and probably helps promote decay. The use of spruce logs in trestle construction and as sills for support foundations appears to have been common in the earlier trestles. The logs used for sills were often large and were completely buried to deter the decay process. Many of the supports appear to go directly into the soil and it is not possible to determine the type of foundation. It is possible the log sill is more common than it appears. In several of the down trestles it was noted that a log or cut timber was placed under the track for bedding. Again, it was E -74 tiJ --..! lJ1 FIGURE 24. Moss covered trestle with debris below T-32 ~ ' • .g)-~ .... ·:-~ ·.:-.,..~~.~~ ... ::'--,...~-::-··-·.;,......,.....--.,.. .~'1-·' f.~ttl",#{,_, ··~ .... :...'f'-=:. .. •;f=·~~~:_"";t~~jjiill'jt.~"" ..... ~ .. T ' "t ~, ~.·J~ ,, ..:;.~ ... ~~·\-· ·;·,.1·.,.~~~--,·,::-;t·"'··~~. '--·J!i.~;·; .. >'.. . ' ' --~ ~--F.~r>-:-;: .. \~.. .. ~.· 1; ~ L . ~J' •• ~:o:l;::.-· .·=r •... ~. • . ~~· ~--; ~-; .... ~... '!t , ... ~-..... ., .. ;-,' -~..-· .... .:-· _· .. ;;:·. ~~~~~-="' , . . . ..,, .. •, : . ..-... 1.._ -;--(,;'/nl_~¥~•, ~~I• • ~ .... 0'~ \.•~ .._ ~ .... ·,..~~~ ,._::-':~' ',..,o: I_ ~,H•.£~~ ...... t~ FIGURE 26. Log Trestle T-6 . I FIGURE 25. Debris below a trestle T-37 FIGURE 27. Small Log Trestle T-24 • 11 often impossible to determine if a bedding log or timber was placed under the rail. An example of discarded cut lumber and logs is seen in Figure 24 and 25. Examples of using logs in the construction of trestles is seen in T-6 and T-22 (Figure 26 and 27), although these were not the only trestles which incorporated logs as supports. Saw cut lumber was more commonly used in later trestle construction. Larger timbers were used for the vert i ca 1 supports, cross-caps, and beams under the decking and rails. Planks were used for cross bracing trestle, bracing between the supports and decking. The higher the the heavier and more complex the amount of cross (Figures 28, 29 and 30). The dimensions of most lumber were quite uniform, but in several cases deck planks were of a different size and appeared to be a different age (judged by degree of decay and moss cover). Examples of some of the trestles that have fallen down can be seen in Figures 31, 32 and 33. The large log under the rail can be seen in Figure 33 (T-25b). Most of the rails on the locomotive section of the tramway are intact, with the exception of areas where slides have washed out or buried the line. There were different size of rails used on the .tramway. at least two The two sizes which were noted are shown in Figure 34. The larger rail was noted only on the tramway section from T-30 to just east of T-35. Rails were spaced at approximately 99.5 em (40 in.) with some variation attributed to loose spikes or shifting ties. In many places the correct spacing was maintained by E -76 t'l FIGURE 28. High Trestle Bracing T-7 FIGURE 29. Bracing T-26 -...I -...I FIGURE 30. Bracing T-14 FIGURE 31. Trestle-down T-18 FIGURE 32. Trestle-down T-22 FIGURE 33. Trestle-down T-25B E -78 !4---4. 8 em (6.oc.rn)~ f 1.5c.m (2.0 em) i 8.5cm (B.8cm) ~ ... ~---8.8c.TY) ( 9.8 ern) F i~ u re. 3 4. Cross section of ra. i Is. Actuo...l sice -numbers rn pa.rentheses are d i men 5 ion 5 of 1 a. rj e r- ra.i Js. E -79 metal clamps. There were two types of clamp n6ted, a painted flat clamp (Figure 3 5) and an older looking "turn-buckle" type (Figure 36). The clamp or spacer shown in Figure 35 is located on the eastern turn of T-7. Most clamps seemed to be placed on turnss or in wet areas. Mr. Byington indicated the turns were the most likely spot for cars to derail. In problem areas, a guard rail was installed outside of the main rail to prevent derailing (Figure 37). The tie spacing seemed to be highly variable and no "average" distance was determined (Figure 38). Maximum spacing was approximately 1m ( 37 in.). The random spacing may indicate that ties have been replaced, added or rotted out. However, many are buried and are preserved much like a mud sill would be. There are several places where the tramway track is no longer in place. The most common breaks are due to the failure of a trestle, but mud and debris slides and wash-outs have also removed sections. Lower Powerhouse The Lower Powerhouse facilities have undergone considerable change and disturbance since they were constructed. Several of the buildings, the wharf and tramway spurs are no longer present. It appears that structures west of the Lower Powerhouse and all the track are gone. Since 1914, the shoreline has changed due to filling and construction of a four-1 ane expressway which now transects the area. A large, surfaced parking lot, containing a shed, portable office and E -80 t%J 00 ...... FIGURE 35. Flat Rail Clamp T-7 FIGURE 37. Example of Guard Rail FIGURE 36. Round Rail Clamp FIGURE 38. Example of Tie Spacing and Typical Track " transmission line equipment,· now stands at the location of the old office and warehouse (Figure 15). The Lower Powerhouse burned in 1922, was rebuilt in 1936 by the A-J, and continued to produce power until 1974. Water entered the powerhouse vi a two 7 5-100 em ( 30-40 in.) riveted steel penstocks coming down some 488 m (1625 ft.) from the forebay at the end of the flume. Both penstocks appear to be rusty and pitted, making them unserviceable. Hoist House Area The hoist house is located at the upper end of the incline tramway. At the upper terminus of the incline there is a short section of platform which leads into the locomotive t r a mw a y sect i on ( F i g u r e 2 2) • In the a rea t h ere i s a shed housing the hoist and controls, a second storage shed, and two sections of track that forms a switch yard. The hoist house is a 4.4 m x 6.2 m (14.5 ft. x 20ft.) structure constructed of wood and corrugated roofing material (Figure 39). Three electrical wires run from the main transmission line to the front of the building. These powered three large transformers which, in turn, powered the electric motor on the hoists. The large drum of steel cable (Figure 40) and drive gears were moved by a large 75 hp electric motor. The hoist was made by "Washington Iron Works, Seattle, U.S.A. (No. 293) ". The motor, rheostatic controller and resistor bank (Figure 41) are all made by "Westinghouse, Pittsbtggh, PA". It is assumed that all of this equipment has been in place since construction. E -82 ['] 00 w FIGURE 39. Hoist House . r· l.i.:·,~" FIGURE 40. Hoist Drum and Cable , I FIGURE 41. Part of Hoist Motor Control (in Hoist House) ,, A second ·3m x 4.2 m (10 ft. x 14 ft.) frame building completely covered with corrugated roofing is located 6 m (20 ft.) southwest of the hoist building. Two wires supplied electricity to this shed. The shed appears to have been used for storage as its one window is covered and there is no chimney hole. Two short spurs and three switches are located to the south of the tramway in the vicinity of the hoist house and shed. The two curved spurs form one line near its terminus (Figure 23). This switch area and a similar one located near the Upper Powerhouse were used to turn the locomotive around for return trips. There is some debris scattered around the hoist house area. Material from the tramway's operation period include cut lumber, corrugated metal, rails, 5 gallon oil cans, 55 gallon drums, and two wooden cars with rai 1 road wheels. Ins ide the hoist house there is a scattering of old machine parts and miscellaneous debris. More recent material sea tt ered about the area included a car seat, .22 shells, as well as food and beverage containers. Upper Powerhouse Just below the Upper Powerhouse is a "turn-around" track, which is similar to the one at the hoist area. spur This spur was longer and apparently went across the creek to the "Roundhouse" (Figure 15). The Roundhouse may be the large building pictured in Figure 42. After the two spurs of the turn-around join, the single track goes through a small, E -84 t>J co l11 'I Ll ..... ~" :.._- -~ FIGURE 42. Upper Powerhouse Camp Looking West--Down Stream FIGURE 44. Cribbing Along Creek Protects Flume Area FIGURE 43. Upper Powerhouse Headwork Tramway Open on Left--Looking East From Bridge in Figure 42. FIGURE 45. Looking West From Flume Tramway Enters the Upper Powerhouse Clearing in the Center o f t he Photograph ' I corrugated metal-covered frame shed 5m x 3. 5 m (16 ft. x 11 ft.) and ends at the edge of the creek. Figures 43, 44 and 45 show the area near the Upper Powerhouse where the pipeline will be placed. The proposed project will require a change in the headworks just below the Upper Powerhouse area include a large building constructed over the creek (possibly the Roundhouse in Figure 15) , two sma 11 houses on the south side of the creek, and a large residence (not shown on Figure 15), Powerhouse facility and maintenance shop on the north side of the creek. Flume The flume was not the focus of this surv~y; however, a brief survey was conducted along the flume route. The original flume was 1. 2 m x 1. 8 m ( 4 ft. x 6 ft.) and was completely r e bu i 1 t as a 1 • 2 m x 1 • 8 m ( 4 f t • x 5 f t • ) structure in 1 9 3 6 • The flume continued to receive maintenance and carry water diverted from Salmon Creek until the early 1970's. There is one section of flume that is completely caused the deteriorated. At this location, flume leakage bedrock to be washed clean and a large mass of soil and trees to slide to the level of the tramway. Some of the construction techniques used to support the flume can be seen in Figure 47, which was photographed at the section of flume which is down. There are several sagging or moving, support failure. places where the flume appears to be and these are probably early signs of The flume decking contains numerous holes E -86 t:tJ I . 00 -...J FIGURE 46. Break in Flume Looking West FIGURE 47. Close-Up of Flume FIGURE 48. Over.flow Flume Discharge Near the Hoist Area I where planks have rotted. The overflow flume that drained excess water from the fore bay is in poor shape. Figure 48 shows the end of the overflow just below the tramway. ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Vegetation A total of 19.1 acres will require clearing during road and pipeline construction. Of this acreage, approximately 4.8 acres will require removal of brush only. The remainin9 14.3 acreas will require remova 1 of both brush and timber. Such an impact may be considered short-term since removal of vegetation adjacent to the road bed will be followed by regrowth of residual plant species and invasion by species adapted to partially open conditions. Pioneer species will include both herbaceous plants and young growth hemlock and spruce. Both second growth and old growth timber will be removed during road construction. Care should be taken in the remova 1 of this standing timber so as to minimize damage to remaining trees and to avoid felling trees into the stream channel. Revegetation of cleared areas with native plant species or compatible, introduced species would be an effective m~tigation practice in areas where soil destabilization may occur due to slow natural revegetation. E -88 Wildlife Resources Increased noise and activity in the Salmon Creek drainage during road-pipeline construction will be the primary impact on wildlife species. Habitat use patterns will undoubtedly be altered during construction in response to these disturbances. Following proj~ct completion, limited vehicle use and probable increases in pedestrian traffic may raise noise and activity levels in Salmon Creek over present conditions. Nevertheless, wildlife will have unrestricted access within the drainage and impact~ of the road on habitat use should be minimal. Improved pedestrian access to the Salmon Creek drainage may result in increased hunting pressure, especially of mountain goats which occasionally enter the area. The Alaska Department of Fish & Game monitors goat populations in the vicinity and increased hunting pressure would be addressed by ADF&G regulatory policies. The gravel roadbed may be used as a gravel source by gizzard birds. An attraction of blue grouse to gravel logging raods has been documented elsewhere in Southeast Alaska (personal communication, Dave Zimmerman, ADF&G). Water Quality ~ Fisheries Potential water quality impacts are limited to additional sediment loading of the occasionally turbid stream during and after road construction. Water quality standards outlined by the State of Alaska (ADEC, 1979) indicate that outs ide of a E -89 variance provided during construction, (1) no measurable sediments over natural conditions is in suspended for a domestic water increase allowed loads should not interfere source, (2) imposed sediment with established water supply treatment, and (3) fine sediments in spawning increase ever natural condi t i ens by more than weight. beds may not 5 percent by Although anadromous fish do not occur in Salmon Creek near sites of in-stream and stream-side construction, adverse effects on water quality from upstream construction may affect downstream habitats. Natural spawning, incubation and rearing areas and the NSRAA hatchery may be affected by water quality changes elsewhere in the drainage. During Construction In-stream construction in Salmon Creek's channel will include (1) a single-pier, supported bridge at location 85+00, (2) rock riprap along the northern streambank between 91+50 and 94+00, and (3) a bridge-headworks installation at the Upper Powerhouse. An examination of the streambed at these sites indicated water quality impacts during construction may be limited, due to the conditions outlined below. At the proposed 85+00 bridge site, the stream runs largely on bedrock overlain by coarse alluvial material. Bedrock outcrops are exposed in several locations and sediment disturbance during pier placement should be minimal. Rapid resettlement of the coarser, heavier streambed materials should help to reduce the area of impact, although some E -90 increase in concentrations of suspended fines will occur downstream. Coarse-sized streambed materials present at the headworks and riprap locations will also help to minimize sediments effects. The placement of rock riprap is intended to protect a long, stream-side cut and fill section from erosion during high water flow in Salmon Creek. Impact considerations could be addressed by minimizing in-stream construction activities during spawning and incubation of wild and hatchery stocks. If this mitigation measure is adopted, construction with in the stream channel should be scheduled between May 1 and July 15. Construction on slopes adjacent to Salmon Creek and in tributary drainage paths has the potential for introduction of sediment to the stream and degradation of water quality. The following pr inc i pl es and practices may be employed to mitigate water quality impacts associ a ted with stream-s ide construction: (1) Schedule road building operations on stream-side slopes and in drainage paths during drier weather to avoid erosion of disturbed, unstabilized soil by natural torrential runoff. (2) Minimize equipment operation in tributary drainage paths. ( 3) Install culverts and bridges concurrent with estab- lishment of road subgrades. (4) Apply road surfacing during drier weather to avoid E -91 runoff of fine sediments from newly-laid surface material. After Construction Naturally-occurring landslips and unstable drainage paths present along sections of the proposed road-pipeline route indicate a potential for slope stability problems after project completion. a balanced cut-fill jeopardized by the In several locations the risk of losing roadbed is high and water quality is possibility of excessive erosion and slumping into or adjacent to Salmon Creek. During an initial slope stability assessment (Appendix B) and further field consultation with an engineering and soils specialist, the road section between locations 38+00 and 52+00 was identified as a particularly critical area. Primary soil material within this section is derived from weathered greenschist, with colluvial soil and glacial marine till also present. Steep slope gradients and active drainage paths combine with the loosely structured soils to decrease slope stability within this section. The nature of unstable soil conditions in Salmon Creek is not such that road development is not feasible. However, the following upgraded construction and design techniques may be appropriate in select areas to provide for roadbed integrity and protection of water quality: (1) Use of maximum bedrock support through cut rather than fill techniques. (2) Exposure of minimal surface overburden above E -92 cut slopes. (3) Removal of unstable overburden beneath the roadbed and fill materials. (4) Establishment of well-drained conditions in fill and roadbed material. (5) Disposal of excavated soil and rock at loca- tions which are not subject to slumping or erosion into Salmon Creek. (6) Rapid stabilization of disturbed surface areas by seeding or revegetation. Salmon Creek Streamflow and Related Fisheries Return to a flow pattern where discharges from the Upper Powerhouse and possibly the South Fork are once again conducted directly to the Lower Powerhouse will reduce flows in Salmon Creek. During most conditions, the 3. 7 square miles of drainage below the dam will be sufficient to maintain the few trout residing between the Upper Powerhouse and the lower falls. Periods of winter drought will reduce flow below the dam to low volumes and emergency releases of water from the Upper Powerhouse for hatchery operations downstream will also help to maintain resident fish in the stream. Hatchery water is removed from Salmon Creek above the lower falls. Part of this flow is returned to the creek adjacent to the hatchery, and the remainder of withdrawn water is E -93 piped into rearing facilities at Twin Lakes. In times of low flows, about one hundred fifty yards of Salmon Creek between the falls and the hatchery will be partially or largely dewatered, but this section of streambed is upstream of almost all gravel spawning habitat~ Minimum return of hatchery water back to the stream during winter periods when drought conditions are most likely, is presently about 2 c.f.s. and will in future years, with large fish production, probably equal or exceed the minimum instream flow of 3 c.f.s. recommended by ADF&G. One or more of the following measures may be necessary during certain winter low flow periods to provide adequate hatchery water and to protect fishery values: (l) Emergency release of water from the tailrace below the Upper Powerhouse. The present agree- ment provides for up to 10 cfs emergency release. (2) Installations which provide for obtaining un- chlorinated water from the tailrace could in- terconnect with the hatchery water system near the rearing facility at Twin Lakes. {3) Recirculation of waters within the NSRAA hatchery. Cultural Resources The Salmon Creek Tramway, both the incline and locomotive sections, are no longer serviceable and would require complete rebuilding to make them usable. The deterioration of the wooden structures of the tramway has reached the point E -94 where structural failures will increase. Many of the trestles are no longer safe for foot traffic because of rotten decking and/or failing supports. Using both field observation and informant data, it was determined that mos.t, if not all, of the trestles have been replaced or rebuilt at least once since their original construction. It is also probable that some replacement, repair, and upgrading has occurred on the track·and roadbed. The information used to evaluate the cultural significance of the tramway included the 1912-13 construction data, present condition of the trestles and tramway, and evidence of rebuilding over the years. Evaluation of these features indicated that the significant cultural While the tramway remains of the tramway are not a resource that should be preserved. did play an important role in the development of the Salmon Creek hydroelectric facilities, the main structures (Salmon Creek Dam and the powerhouses) remain, while the non-maintained, wooden, historical structures are rapidly deteriorating. E -95 REFERENCES Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 19 78. Title 18. Environmental Conservation,, Chapter 80, Dr inking Water. A;taska Department of Environmental Conservation, 1979. Water Quality Standards, Alaska Water Pollution Conrol Program, 34 p. Alaska Electric Light and Power Company files: Application for Right-of-Way Salmon Creek Flume and Pipeline. Alaska Gastineau Mining Company, Juneau, Alaska, October 12, 1914 (MAP). Application for Right-of-Way Salmon Creek TRamway, Alaska Gastineau Mining Company, Juneau, Alaska, December l, 1914 (MAP). Expense Records Salmon Cereek General Transsportation Department, December 31, 1914. Power Division Thane, Alaska, City and Borough of Juneau, Planning Department, 19 77. Juneau Coastal Management Program: Phase I. Interim Report, 84 p. City and Borough of Juneau, Planning Department, 19 79. Juneau Coastal Management Program, Final Report - Hearing Draft, p. 13-18, 9. Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall, 1972. Geophysical hazards investigation for the City and Borough of Juneau, Summary Report, 92 p. Environaid, 1979. Salmon Creek-Potential as a water source for an NSRAA hatchery. Prepared for NSRAA, 5 p. (Unpublished). Ford, A. B. and D. A. Brew, 1973. Preliminary geologic and metamorphic isograd map of the Juneau B-2 quadrangle, Alaska: USGS MF, Map 527. Homan Associates, 1974. Capital City Economic Base Study. Miller, R.D., 1972. Surficial geology of the Juneau urban area and vicinity, Alaska, with emphasis on earthquakes and other geologic hazards, USGS open-file report # 517, 108 p. E -96 Reed, R. D. and R. H. Armstrong, sport fishery -Juneau area, Fish and Game, Federal Aid Project, Project F-9-3, 105 p. 1972. Dolly Varden Alaska Department of in Fish Restoration Sainsbury, C. L., 1953. Geology of the Mount Olds - Clark Peak area, Juneau vicinity, Alaska. Colorado University, unpublished thesis, 48 p. Stone, D. and B. Stone, 1980. Hard Rock Gold, Juneau, Alaska. Thomson, R. H., 1919. Upon certain water power in Southeastern Alaska, report to Messrs. E. B. Cadwel·l and Company of New York City, New York. AEL&P Co., file copy (Unpublished). u. s. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, 1969. u. Special flood hazard information report, Salmon Creek, Juneau, Alaska. s. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the 1981. 1980 Census of Population and Advanced Reports, Alaska, PHC 80-V-3. Census, Housing, U. s. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1979. Local climatological data: Annual summary with comparative data, Juneau, Alaska. u. u. u. u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Creek Interceptor, City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska. Final Environmental Statement, EPA-910/9-76-018, 151 p. s. Environmental water quality 440/5-80-020. s. Environmental Protect ion Agency , 19 8 0 a • criteria for antimony. Protection Agency, 1980b. Salmon Juneau, Impact Ambient EPA Ambient water quality criteria for arsenic, EPA 440/4-80-221. s. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980c. Ambient water quality criteria for cadmium, EPA 440/5-80-025. u. s. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980d. Ambient water quality criteria for silver, EPA 440/5-80- 071. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980e. Ambient water quality criteria for zinc, EPA 440/5-80-079. E -97 U. S. Geological Survey, 1969. Hydrological data of the Juneau Borough, Alaska, 77 p. U. s. Geological Survey, 1974. Hydrologic investiga- tions of Salmon Creek Reservoir and drainage Basin near Juneau, Alaska, 22 p. Wadman, R. D., 1962. Inventory and cataloguing of the sport fish and sport fish waters in upper Southeast Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration, Annual Report of Progress, 1961-62, Project F-5-R-3, 3:21-29. Wilcox, J. A., 1917. Salmon Creek power project, power output, plant efficiencies and hydrographic data. Letter to Mr. B. L. Thane, Manager, Alaska Gastineau Mining Company, Juneau, Alaska, 29 p., AEL&P Co. file copy (Unpublished). Wollenberg, H. L., 1911. Report on Salmon Creek Power Project. September 23, 1909, Supplement March 5, 1910. AEL&P Co. files (Unpublished). E -98 APPENDIX A: Persons Contacted During the Environmental Investigation G. o. Balding --u. s. Geological Survey Ron Bolton --Planning Department, City & Borough of Juneau Corry Hildenbrand --Alaska Electric Light & Power Company Ken Imamura --Commercial Fisheries Division, Alaska Department of Fish & Game Tim Maguire --Planning Department, C&BJ Dick Marriott Sport Fish Division, ADF&G George Porter Public Works Department, C&BJ Rich Reed --Habitat Section, ADF&G Phil Schempf --u. s. Fish & Wildlife Service David Stone --AEL&P Co. Doug Swanston Sara Thompson u. s. Forest Service Alaska Department of Natural Resources Alex Viteri --Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Greg Young Salmon Creek Hatchery, Northern Southeast Aquaculture Association Dave Zimmerman --Game Division, ADF&G E -99 APPENDIX 8: November 11, 1981 NOTE TO FILES: Salmon Creek Road-Pipeline FROM: Daniel M. Bishop Environaid Today Janice Mills and I walked up Salmon Creek to examine unstable slopes and drainage paths along the route of the old tram. We did this to evaluate the possible effects of the proposed road-pipeline construction and installation upon the water quality of Salmon Creek. We systematically identified locations of respective slides-unstable slopes along the tramway route, using the topographic survey information provided by Toner & Nordling. Slopes were measured at slide paths and soil-rock types were noted. This procedure was continued until we reached the washed-out tram section at about Station 45 (on north side of Creek, about 1/4 mile upstream from bridge crossing).. .This was the last area examined. A tabular summary of this examination is given below: Location 38+00 to 39+00 39+00 to 40+00 40+00 to 42+00 Location, base of slope to streambed feet 50 -100 ca. 100 Slide path sloEe % 60-80 50 Soil Rock 1Y.E!:. rotten schist schist, so i 1 rna t • 1 weathered schist schist E -100 Remarks, Evaluation of Water Quality Hazard Old trestle intact but little water flow; If roadbed is cut into rock with minimal side casting, water quality hazard may be minimized. Trestle broken by old slide. Water in. chute. Risk to water quality, pipe (if filled without special measures). Avoid problems by benching on rock?? 42+00 at stream 50-60 colluvial Risk to water qual- to soil over ity, pipe (if 43+00 schist and filled without spe- glacial till . , c1a..1. measures). (rna rine) 46+00 200 55 colluvial Evidence of soil to soil over creep along much of 47+00 probable tram route in this till area. Sliding ap- pears (from recent alder growth) to have occurred in last decade. High risk to water qual- i ty. 48+00 200 65 schist, Soil slumping evi- soil is dent in area. Risk weathered to water quality. schist 50+80-99 100 70 rotten schist Trestle intact. to Slide path con tin- 52+00 ues to level of streambed. High risk to ·water quality. 77+00 at stream 45-50 colluvial Originates below soil over flume, where bed- marine till rock shows. Drai- nage and construe- tion measures can minimize risk. 82+00 at stream 50 Recent local slid- ing with concentra- ted stormflow. Can be handled to min- mize further risk. 95+00 at stream Near At toe of Good roadbed mater- verti-old (500 ial likely unless cal yrs.+) till hidden under- to slide of neath. Do not stream large rocks, foresee continued boulders risk to water qual- ity. Summary: The road-pipeline route between about 38+00 and 52+00 involves numerous sect i osn of unstable slopes. In several locations, the risk is high of losing the road-pipeline using balanced cut-fill construction. Accordingly, risk of degrading E -101 water quality would be high. My guess is that the schist bedrock encountered along the route will be fast-weathering if used as rock fill. If this is true, such material might later prove unstable if used on slopes. It should also be noted that Salmon Creek's bed and streambanks show ample evidence of natural sediment load. E -102 APPENDIX C: Alaska Gastineau Mining Company Streamflow and Stream Height Records for: C-1) Salmon Creek Dam Site, 1911-1914. C-2) "In flume near penstock," 1914-1917. C-3) "In Salmon Cr~ek near roundhouse," 1914-1917. E -103 APPENDIX D: Alaska Historical Library Photographs All are Winter and Pond photographs from the Emile Gastonguay collection. Figure 18: Figure 17: Figure 14: Figure 16: PCA-119-14. Powerhouse No. 1, looking east. PCA-119-40. Small gas engine on Salmon Creek tramway. PCA-119-70. Trestle building and construction camp. PCA-119-88. Horse Car on the tramway. Many pictures on the PCA-119 series microfiche show both tramway and flume construction, from digging the bed to the final wood work. Dates on most of the prints help provide a time-frame of work. However, with vegetation changes, it is difficult to identify the exact location of the photographs. The library also holds some of the Alaska Electric Light and Power Company collection of historical photographs. E -104 APPENDIX E: Informant Data -Cultural Resources Survey Throughout the course of the cultural resources survey valuable information and help was given to the author. The assistance was an important part of the project's success. The following informants deserve due credit and a warm thank you. Byington, William -586-3557 -Thane Ret ired A-J tramway and Byington is cheerfully Mining Engineer. Worked on Salmon CReek flume after the purchase by the A-J. Mr. a valuable source of information and he provides good, accurate answers. The following is a summary of information collected during conversations with Mr. Byington. Mr. Byington doubted any trestles were original due to the use of untreated lumber. Trams were thought to be original, he did not know of upgrading. The Model A Ford reportedly went to the bottom of the hill each night, which presented a vandalism problem. He could not remember the exact name of track clamps used to stop track spreading on corners; some were bought, some were made. Double tracks were used as guard rails, primarily on sharp turns. Double track cars gave best flexibility. No recall of the tin building located at upper switch yard. Mr. Byington remembers the stable E -105 across the creek; they stored lumber for the flume repairs there during his years with the A-J. He also remembered seeing piles of slash and sawdust on the north side of Salmon Creek near the tram crossing at T-29. Mr. Byington thought the flume was rebuilt a different size when the A-J replaced it in 1936, although it carried about the same amount of water. In the last years, the flume was kept half-full to relieve the pressure and water was kept in the f1 ume to reduce leakage. Sawdust was thrown into the flume to help plug leaks and a power increase was noted. Ice buildups during winter broke bracing and toppled a section of the flume. The Model A was used to haul men up the drainage but not down, as a company rule. Mr. Byington once had the cable break and rode the Model A to the bottom --a very fast ride! Ohman, Gunnar and Lazzette -586-9403 -Juneau Laz ze t te 1i ved in the Salmon Creek area in the 1920's and 30's. She provided information about horses in the area, the powerhouse, the road alignment and Warner's Mining operations. She also talked of the Natives coming out from town to catch and process salmon. She recalled the location of local fishing on the point near the present KJNO communication complex. It was also learned that the lower incline tramway corridor provided excellent blueberry picking. E -106 Gunnar recalled the condition of the tramway from hiking over it to go fishing at the reservoir. He remembers good fishing and good hiking. Stone, David-AEL&P Co., Author of Hard Rock~· Mr. Stone and his employers, Alaska Electric Light and Power Company, provided much help and information to the author. Mr. Stone is currently curator of a vast, historical collection of reports, maps, ledgers, letters, books, photographs, and other memorabilia of the Gastineau and A-J mining operations. The entire collection is being preserved and stored in the original vaults which are now owned by AEL&P Co. On my several visits to his office, Mr. Stone was always willing to stop working to locate research material or to share his research material and insights on the operation of the Salmon Creek power projects. E -107 APPENDIX F MEMORANDUM ON RECREATIONAL USES OF SALMON CREEK BASIN AND PROJECT IMPACT ON THOSE USES Historically, the Salmon Creek basin provides recreational facilities to the Juneau Community in the area of hiking, fishing and berry picking opportunities. On a very minor scale there are hunting opportunities in the basin at certain periods of the year. Access to the Lower Basin in the past has been mainly along the tram and flume structures that are schedule~ for replacement under this project. Access to the Upper Basin has been by trail and along the pipeline from the Upper Salmon Creek Powerhouse to the Salmon Creek Reservoir. -This latter area will not be impacted by the project construction. During the period of the project construction there will be a definite impact on the recreational pedestrian access to both the Lower and Upper Basins. This will be due to the efforts of the construction contractor to keep the project area clear of the general public in the interest of safety. The period of time during which this condition will be experienced will be but a few months and, given the topography of the basin, there is no alternate access that can be provided that will mitigate this temporary condition. Upon completion of the project, access to and through the Lower Basin will be improved very materially and should lead to an increase in use by pedestrian-oriented members of the public. This could also lead to an increase in the amount of vandalism that may occur in the Salmon Creek Basin. Because of this possibility as well as to insure the comfort and safety of pedestrian traffic using the roadway, it is proposed that vehicular traffic,· other . than liscensee service equipment and emergency vehicles, be barred from using the roadway. This latter condition was also requested by the City and Borough of Juneau under their comments on the project. That our description of both the present and future E -109 recreational uses of the area is reasonable is borne out by a recently completed recreational study of the City and Borough of Juneau and the recommendations contained therein. The study was titled "JUNEAU AREA RECREATION PLAN" and was conducted as a cooperative effort by the following agencies: Juneau Parks and Recreation Department U. s. Forest Service Alaska Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Division of Parks, Department of Natural Resources The study proposes no changes be made in the facilities presently available to the public in the Salmon Creek Basin. In a phone conversation with Bob Bosworth of the Alaska Division of Parks, we were told thay had considered placement of camping units or cabins at the reservoir site but had discarded the idea because of the remoteness of the site as well as the past history of vandalism. E -110 EXHIBIT F EXHIBIT F APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF LICENSE FERC LICENSE NO. 2307 ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO. GENERAL DESIGN DRAWINGS The drawings required for submittal under Exhibit F have been developed on one standard sheet. On it are set forth the general layout of the project and a series of typical sections indicating the construction methods and practices that will be utilized in constructing the roadway and installing the pipeline. The drawing is labelled "Exhibit F" and is attached hereto. F -2 '> w " < 0 ' ' ' I I I > I I ' ' I I I I I I \ I I I ' ' -I I I I I ' ' ' ' ' \ I ), ' I r -----~ I ~~~~ I I I I I I I I I I I __ , _ ... --I MS 955 ' ---' ' I I \ / \ I I \ I r I I I , \ > ' ' I ' \ I ' I M~ 968 ' I o o ' ' ' \ ' I ' I ' ' ' I \ -........ ......__ \ \ "--\ MS 968 \ __ ----- LOWER POWERHOUSE I -uss 38 2 4 \ 17 9 8 I I I I I \ ' ' I I ' ______ _. 500 St:: 1/4 0 NE 1/4 MAG , DEC . N 29°00' 1 9 8 1 ...................... ~_ ----- I I E 0 'i' 0 " -1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I <1, 3 9 1 -~ 0 ~, 0 0 • "' ~ 0 0 ' 0 "' CON C.t-10N . f.H------1 ~ 6 0+0 0 NW 1/4 S .33 55'26" E-314.35' -~ (RECORD: S 33°55' E -314 .82' ) M S 96 8 I .,. COR . NO . 7 uss 3824 ALL IN T41S, R67E CRM ( PROTRACTED SECTION_$ l 5 0' 0 0 + "' "' I I SCALE DETAIL OF SURVEY TIE 500 1000 FEET NO SCALE • -------------- -----t----t _, ' o ... oo 1 • ' .I I > w --' > w --' j I I ' I t I I I I I I I I I I NE 1/4 0 0 + 0 "' • UPPER -~~ SE 1/4 ' ----- -~ < 1- 0 z "' "' + ~ 0 - ' ~-. ........ ........___,__ ~' 1. RO .W. TO BE 50 ' IN WIOTH ON EACH S lO E OF AOADWA Y CENTERLINE . > w --' 2. CENTERLIN E DESCRIPTION OF ROADWAY IS A T TACHED TO A PPLICATION AS • ATTACHMENT NO . 1 • 3 . ALL LANDS TRAVERSED BY THE PROPOSED ROAD AND PIPELINE ARE FEDERAL LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU OF LANO MANAGMENT. MS 955 AND MS 968 ARE MINING CLAIMS HELD BY LOCATION. • <D <D ,_ > w --' PLATE 1. PLAN -PROFILE KEUFFEL a. ESSER CO. ' ---------------BORROW EMBANKM E NT ~ C .M.P . CULV E RT -\ ''O"'J~.%:~~;zt.4 EXISTIN G '::: AAOE -~ .. DETAIL A-A NO SCALE (! 2 "X6" 4"X4" 0' 1 .0' ---FINISH GRAD E EXISTING GRADE , TYPICAL CUT SECTION WI FULLY BURIED PIPE NO SCALE 1 1 .o ' 1 , .0' COVER FILL . -FINISH GRADE R l r-RAP EMBA N KMENT SA LM O N C R EEK 1 .0 'I. ROW EMBANKMENT .7 ............---C .M .P . C UL VERT ' ' -. EXISTING GRADE ON STEEP SLOPES PLACE ROCK BLANKET TO PREVENT EROSION TYPICAL FILL SECTION W/ HALF BURIED PIPE NO SCALE +-~= I I 111111 : I I I I )r I 'I ' ~ 50 ' ----1 \.. POSTS @ 6 ' S PACING ' ' ' \'t _] \~ SMALL S T REAM .. BRIDGE DETAILS SCALE: 1 "=10 ' DECK 3" X 12" S1S1E TREATED TIMBER CAP 12" X 14" TREATED TIMBER iTRINGERS 12" W.F . ® 27# I· 20 · I ~LASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO . 2 "X4'" JUNEAU, ALASKA ' EXHIBIT ' LOWER SALMON CREEK REHABILITATION PROJECT GENERAL PLAN & CONSTRUCTION DETAILS F TONER & NORDLING, REGISTERED ENGINEERS, INC. JUNEAU, ALASKA 3" X 12" ( ' 1--. =::::,J ~-,=;-._ 3"X8 " BOLT TO 12' W.F. 1-------------,r-----------T-------------t 3"X 10" BOLT TO 12" W .F. DETAIL B-B NO SCALE DATE : 6-4-82 SCALE: I" = 500' DR . NO . SC-8 181 EXHIBIT G EXHIBIT G APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF LICENSE FERC LICENSE NO. 2307 ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO. The standard sheet attached as Exhibit G indicates the layout of the project with respect to the Federal Lands involved. The R. 0. W. required for construction of the project has been applied for from the Bureau of Land Management. In the case of the Salmon Creek area the Federal lands in that area are all within the limits of the Juneau Townsite Elimination and are administered by the Bureau of Land Management. In our conversations with the Bureau of Land Management personnel while preparing the application for a Right of Way, we were advised that the actual granting of the Right of Way would be keyed to the granting of an amendment to the license by FERC. They indicated that this was a policy normally followed by the Bureau of Land Management in such matters. The legal description of the Right of Way applied for is as follows: CENTERLINE DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ROAD RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED LOWER SALMON CREEK POWER PROJECT Beginning at Sta. 0+00, from whence Cor. No. 7 of USS 2133 bears N 6° 19' 57" E, 457.22 ft. distant; thence N 21° 56' E, 1,038.36 ft. to PC10+38.36; thence a+ong a 30° curve to the G - 2 left with a central angle of 28° 24', an arc length of 94.67 ft. to PT11+33.03; thence N 6° 28' W, 304.91 ft. to PC 14+3 7. 94; thence along as 30° curve to the left with a central angle of 16° 46' , an arc length of 55.8 9 ft. to PT14+93.83; thence N 23° 14' w, 106.02 ft. to PC15+99.85; thence alon~ a 91.6758° curve to the right with a central angle of 93 11', an arc length of 101.64 ft. to PT17+0l.49; thence N 69° 57' E, 284.12 ft. to PC19+85.61; thence along a 30° curve to the· right with a central angle of 36° 12', an arc length of 120.61 ft. to PT21+06.22; thence S 73° 52' E, 43.78 ft. to POT21+50 (POT19+81.53 stationing ahead); thence S 73° 52' E, 430.20 ft. to PC24+1l. 74; thence along a 12° curve to the left with a central angle of 47° 55', an arc length of 399.31 ft. to PT28+11.05; thence N 58° 13' E, 132.96 ft. to PC29+44.01; thence along a 9.1628° curve to the right with a central angle of 9° 49', an arc length of 107.14 ft. to PT30+51.15; thence along a 92.4333° curve to the left with a central angle of 104° 28', an arc length of 113.02 ft. to PT31+64.17; thence N 36° 26' W, 35.91 ft. to PC32+00.08; thence along a 40° curve to the right with a central angle of 42° 06', an arc length of 105.25 ft. to PT33+05.33; thence N 5° 40' E, 179.38 ft. to PC34+84.71 (PC34+71.08 stationing ahead); thence along a 20° curve to the right with a central angle of 31° 33', an arc length of 157.75 ft. to PT36+28.83; thence N 37° 13' E, 22.66 ft. to PC36+51.49; thence along a 91.6667° curve to the right with a central angle of 91° 09', an arc length of 99.44 ft to PT37+50.93; thence along an 88.5333° curve to the left with a central angle of 67° 37', an arc length of 76.37 ft. to PT38+27.30; thence along a 47° curve to the right with a central angle of 24° 14', an arc length of 51.56 ft. to PT38+78.86; thence N 83° 59' E, 10.89 ft. to PC38+8 9. 7 5; thence along a 10° curve to the left with a central angle of 11° 40', an arc length of 116.67 ft. to PT40+06.42; thence N 72° 19' E, 6.26 ft. to PC40+12.68; thence along a 40° curve to the right with a central angle of 40° 02', an arc length of 100.08 ft. to PT41+12. 76; thence S 67° 39' E, 72.31 ft. to PC41+85.07 (PC41+68.35 stationing ahead); thence along a 20° curve to the left with a central angle of 23° 53', an arc length of 119.42 ft. to PT42+87.77; thence N 88° 28' E, 88.45 ft. to PC43+76.22; thence along a 30° curve to the left with a central angle of 61° 42', an arc length of 205.67 ft. to PT45+81.89; thence N 26° 46' E, 2.69 ft. to PC45+84.58; thence along a 22.5333° curve to the right with a central angle of 17° 57', an arc length of 79.66 ft. to PT46+64.24; thence N 44° 43' E, 512.79 ft. to PC51+77.03; thence along a 30° curve to the·right with a central angle of 41° OS', an arc length of 136.94 ft. to PT53+13.97; thence N 85° 48 1 E, 19.41 ft. to PC53+33.38; thence along a 120 curve to the right with a central angle of 15° 37', an arc length of 130.14 ft. to PT54+63.52; thence S 78° 35' E, 122.41 ft. to PC55+85.93; thence along a 20° curve to the right with a central angle of 30° 55', an arc length of 154.58 ft. to PT57+40.51; thence S 47° 40' E, 95.32 ft. to PC58+35.83; thence along a 40° curve to the right with a central angle of G - 3 30° 08', an arc length of 75.33 ft. to PT59+ll.l6; thence S 170 32' E, 146.16 ft. to PC60+57.32; thence along a 4QO curve ·to the left with a central angle of 71° 15', an arc length of 178.13 ft. to PT62+35.45; thence S 88° 47' E, 98.97 ft. to PC63+34.42; thence along a 15° curve to the left with a central angle of 23° 40', an arc length of 157.78 ft. to PT64+92.20; thence N 67° 33' E, 104.91 ft. to PC65+97.ll; thence along a 15° curve to the left with a central angle of 26° 36', an arc length of 177.33 ft. to PT67+74.44; thence N 40° 57' E, 198.43 ft. to PC69+72.87; thence along a 30° curve to the left with a central angle of 37° 29', an arc length of 124.94 ft. to PT70+97.81; thence N 3° 28' E, 24.07 ft. to PC71+21.88; thence along al5° curve to the right with a central angle of 15° 19', an arc length of 102.11 ft. to PT72+23.99; thence N 18° 47' E, 10.26 ft. to PC72+34.25; thence along a 25° curve to the right with a central angle of 31° 10'. an arc length of 124.67 ft. to PT73+58.92; thence N 49° 57' E, 88.62 ft. to PC74+47.54; thence along a 46.8167° curve to the left with a central angle of 28° 50', an arc length of 61.59 ft. to PT75+09.13; thence along a 34° curve to the right with a central angle of 52° 24', an arc length of 154.12 ft. to PT76+63.25; thence N 73° 31' E, 23.91 ft. to PC7 6+87 .16; thence along a 14° curve to the left with a central angle of 11° 31', an arc length of 82.26 ft. to PT77+69.42; thence N 62° E, 9.01 ft. to PC77+78.43; thence along a 36° curve to the right with a central angle of 50° 43', an arc length of 140.88 ft. to PT79+19.31; thence S 67° 17' E, 52.38 ft. to PC79+71. 69; thence along a 30° curve to the left with a central angle of 43° 16', an arc length of 144.22 ft. to PT81+15.91; thence N 69° 27' E, 69.76 ft. to PC81+85.67 (PC81+77.07 stationing ahead); thence along a 20° curve to the left with a central angle of 14° 31', an arc length of 72.58 ft. to PT82+49.65; thence N 54° 56' E, 39.41 ft. to PC82+89.06; thence along a 70.1833° curve to the left with a central angle of 52°. 51', an arc length of 74.24 ft. to PC83+63. 30; thence N 2° 05' E, 89.21 ft. to PC84+52. 51 (PC84+43. 77 stationing ahead); thence along a 15° curve to the right with a central angle of 20° 46', an arc length of 138.44 ft. to PT85+82.21; thence N 22° 51' E, 67.67 ft. to PC86+49. 88; thence along a 25° curve to the right with a central angle of 29° 16', an arc length of 117.07 ft. to PT87+66.95; thence N 52° 07' E, 32.23 ft. to PC87+99.18; thence along a 30° curve to the right with a central angle of 22° 14', an arc length of 74.11 ft. to PT88+73.29; thence N 74° 21' E, 47.23 ft. to PC89+20.53; thence along a 10° curve to the left with a central angle of 12° 13', an arc length of 122.17 ft. to PT90+42.69; thence N 62° 08' E, 115.39 ft. to PC91+58. 08; thence along an 18° curve to the right with a central angle of 34° 35', an arc length of 192.13 ft. to PT93+50.21; thence S 83° 17' E, 31.78 ft. to PC 93+81.99; thence along a 10° curve to the left with a central angle of 23° 03', an arc distance of 230.50 ft. to PT96+12.49; thence N 73° 40' E, 247.84 ft. to PC98+60.33; thence along a 15° curve to the right with a central angle of 31° 40', an arc G -4 length of 211.11 ft. to PT100+71.44; thence S 740 40' E, 357.23 ft. to PC104+28.67; thence along a 100 curve to the left with a central angle of 170 54', an arc length of 179.00 ft. to PT106+07.67; thence N 87° 26' E, 178.03 ft. to POT107+85.70; and containing in all 24.76 Acres, more or less. G - 5 ' ' I I ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I I .• I " " < 0 > • 9 " ~ ' u -z 0 0 < w " "0 0 u w z w ~ ' 0 w c u z ~ w 0 "' ,_ :0. ....... _ .. u > 5 ~ ~ ~ . . ~ s: ..: \!) ID ...., ... "' ... 0 -0 .... "' 0 w >--1:11:: 0 0 a. z z ' ' I ' ,r I ' I I I ' I ' -I ~~ I ~' I I I ~ '~~--~-~- I I I ~ ... ~~ MAG . DEC . N 29 "00' E 1 9 8 1 ~- ~ ........__ -..: -........ ........_........__ I I I 4 13 8 ·,o-~~- ~ ALL IN T41S, R67E CAM ( PROTRACTED SECTIONS.) -........_........__ ~~ -~~ ' ' '( __ ., J ~ I CR ~ . ~ > ~ EEK -~~ ""~""-s ~·~ 1 ~---.....~........_ I • ---, NE MS 955 1 ------I I ~-I ~~ I ~ ~~~~-. . . . - I I I I ' I ' I ' I ' ' I I I I I 1-:. ~ / I \ I I \ oo I I I I I ' ' ' ( 00 I ,., I ' ' f I ' ' M~ 968 ' ' I ' I ' ' ' -......... ........_-....._ ' ' I 0 0 I ......._--............_ 1 " I -....__ \ $' \ ') MS 968 \ --------- LOWER POt"VERHOUSE I uss 3824 \ I I I I ' I ' ' ' I ' --------------' uss 3880 sr: 1/4 0 0 .;- "' ~~ 0 0 t 0 .. I i I S .33 55'26" E CRECORD: S 33•55' E - ~ I 0 0 • "' ¢ 314.35'-j 314.82' ) 1 \ I I uss 2133 / I ~I COR. NO. I _,. /;~ %1\..' o" 'o 0 o" 0 ' .: 0 "' " 60+00 NW 1/4 CONC. MON. MS 968 BLM MON . 1~ uss 3824 50' 0 0 + "' <0 ~~~ ;; DETAIL OF SURVEY TIE SCALE 500 0 500 1000 FEET NO SCALE ------------- - 0+00 ,.., ' ~~ I I~ I I~ I I~ I I~ I I~ I I; I I~ I I -' I / r-......_-............._......_ I~ ~~~~~~~~~ I I I I ~~---- ' I I I I I -~ ·"' I I -............................. I~ I \1 ' I I I ~~------ I ~ I I I 0 0~$9 I I I I I I I • 0 0 t 0 "' UPPER ~ SE 1/4 0 "' ' "' "' _L50 ' -~~ -~- 0 0 0 0 ~ .......................... =- ... 0 c .,f c ~ -~~ -' "' ... 0 z ~~ -uc ~ ~- ~ .- , ! ~~ 0 I I ' NE 1/4. -~- I> . w ' -' I N.B.: I 1. R .O.W. TO BE 50' IN WIDTH ON EACH SIDE OF ROADWAY CENTERLINE. - 2 . CENTERLINE DESCRIPTION OF ROADWAY IS ATTACHED TO APPLICATION AS • ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ' 3. ALL LANDS TRAVERSED BY THE PROPOSED ROAD AND PIPELINE ARE FEOJERAL LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGMENT. MS 955 AND MS 968 ARE MINING CLAIMS HELD BY LOCATION. "' N "' I~ I ~~~~ 1~ I l~ I 01~ --t- ~¢~ PLATE 1, PLAN-PROFILE 1(1'11FFI'1 .t I'COCOI'O rn _,. ---------------\ BORROW EMBANKMENT ~ ~ C.M.P. CULVERT ~-~'%hit'Q~WkW EXISTING ( AAOE DETAIL A-A NO SV#\Ll:: ...... ,~' 0' -2-0% 2.o • )#?"' ·~ 42" PIPE_)-J 11.0' ~-~-FINISH GRADE 2.0%-..... I EXISTING GRADE __; ~ RIP -RAP EMBANK*'eNT SALMON CREEK fli'W'i) TYPICAL CUT SECTION W/ FULLY BURIED PIPE j 3.o•, NO SCALE 11.0' 1 , .0' COVER FILL 1.0 ' -:f2 I \1-FINISH GR ADE .. , ~~ ~: .. :1-P~~_---2.0%~ ~BO~ROW EMBANKMENT ( Q \\ \\ I I; I; c ~~ .7 '· ., ,\\ J? EXISTING GRADE '/ "' ,------C.M.P. CULVERT \ ~SMALL STREAM \ -'S- .. ON STEEP SLOPES PLACE ROCK BLANKET TO PREVENT EROSION ~~~~ -- TYPICAL FILL SECTION W/ HALF BURIED PIPE NO SCALE t -til I I II I I: ' I I ~ B 50' iJ ll _j , \ ~ BRIDGE DETAILS SCALE: 1''=10' DECK 3" X 12" S1S1E TREATED TIMBER CAP 12" X 14" TREATED TIMBER tTRINGERS 12" W.F. e 27 .. 20· 1 (i---_ --,::-_:-::--_-_ -==-=----,--.---~~-I' M·~< 41 II II 1t jf 41 ~ 16 j~ I 42" PIPE> a·· -\ 2 "X6"~ I 4"X4 " 2"X4" 3" X 12" CLASS (A) PRESSURE TREATED CREOSOTE PILIIIG· AL ASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO. .JUNEAU, ALASKA • LOWER SALMON CREEK REHABILITATION PROJECT GENERAL PROJECT MAP ,7~;-;-,~' EXHIBIT G TONER & NORDLING, REGISTERED ENGINEERS, INC . .JUNEAU , ALASKA 3"X8" BOLT TO 1 2• W.F. 1--------------r-------------.... --------------f 3"X10" BOLT TO 12" W.F. DETAIL B-B NO SCALE DATE: 6-4-82 SCALE : I" = 500' OR. NO . SC-8182