HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA Transmission Line Assessment Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project 1986[ .. BRA
[ 113
0
0
Alaska Power Authority
LIBRARY COPY
DATE
l r
BRA
113
ISSUED TO
PRINTID IN U.S.A.
TRANSMISSION LINE ASSESSMENT
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
PROJECT NO. P-8221-000
Prepared By
STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
AUGUST 1986
. TABLE OF CONTENTS
TRANSMISSION LINE ASSESSMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Section Title
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3-0
3.1
3 .1.1
3.1.2
3 .1.3
3.1.4
3.2
3-3
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF MAPS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
FERC LICENSE COMPLIANCE
RESOURCE AGENCY CONSULTATION
TRANSMISSION LINE ALIGNMENT
FERC ROUTES
KACHEMAK BAY MUDFLAT ROUTE
SUBMARINE CABLE ROUTE
REFINED FERC ROUTE
TECHNICAL EVALUATION
ROUTE
Soils
Slope Erosion (Fox River Lowlands)
Liquifaction
Wind throw
TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE
CONSTRUCTION
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
4.1 ROUTE
4.1.1 Land Use/Ownership
4.1.2 Cultural Resources
4.1.3 Aerial Visual Resources
4.1.3.1 Air Traffic Routes and Volume
4.1.3.2 Aerial Visibility
4.1.4 Vegetation
4.1.5 Wildlife and Fish
4.2 TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE
5.0 ECONOMIC EVALUATION
6.0 MITIGATION
1.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
9.0 TABLES
i
3-028-mc
Page No.
iii
iv
v
vi
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-2
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-2
3-3
3-3
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-4
4-4
4-6
4-10
4-12
4-14
5-1
6-1
7-1
8-1
9-1
Section
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
3-028-mc
TRANSMISSION LINE ASSESSMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title
FIGURES
AGENCY CONSULTATION
APPENDIX A
MAPS
11
Page No.
10-1
11-1
12-1
13-1
..
) "'
..
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF MAPS
1
2
3-028-mc
LIST OF TABLES
Acreages of vegetation types ooourring
within the right-or-way of the refined
and FERC transmission line routes.
Summary of direot and indirect
displacement of key wildlife species
during construction of the FERC
transmission line route and influence
of mitigation during operation.
iii
Figure
2
3
4
5
~-028-mc
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
General Plan
Refined Transmission Line Route
Steel X-Tower Transmission Structure
Seward Sectional Aeronautical Chart
Refined Transmission Line Route Vegetation Map
iv
LIST OF MAPS (in Back Pocket)
Title Sheets/Plates
Land Ownership Information, Proposed 3 sheets
Transmission Line Route
Route Map 3 sheets
Exhibit G 3 plates
3-028-mc v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Transmission Line Assessment details the technical, environmental,
and economic merits of a refined transmission line route and tower
structure for the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project transmission
lines, and discusses the effects on land use/ownership, aerial visual
resources, and cultural resources. The refined route was aligned to:
( 1) take advantage of better drained, glacial till upland areas and
avoid wet bogs with deep peat layers; (2) avoid tower foundation
problems on Kachemak Bluffs and Kachemak Bay tidelands ; ( 3) avoid
potential windthrow of trees by placing towers on headlands projecting
in to Kachemak Bay tidelands; and ( 4) a void private property, and
locate the route near the outer boundaries of section line easements
to avoid conflict with future public use. An aerial and cultural
pedestrian survey within a 2.1 mile segment of the refined route
di.scovered no architectural, surface, or subsurface cultural
resources. The Hilmer Olsen Fox Farm property will be protected from
project disturbance by an "off limits" enforcement policy. Air
traffic routes and volume in the vicinity of the Bradley Lake
transmission line are discussed. Aerial visibility of the
transmission line was related to number and length of straight-line
segments, other nearby linear features, and interspersed vegetation
communities. The transmission lines will be used as a landmark by air
traffic and will not stand out as an unusual adverse visual anomaly on
the terrain below the aerial observer. The refined route crosses one
less vegetation type and has 77.3 more acres within the right-of-way
corridor than the FERC licensed route. Steel X-towers, which have
distinct technical and economic merits over the wood H-frame poles,
will be used. A cost savings of $500,000 to $600,000 be realized by
the refined route utilizing steel X-towers.
3-028-mc vi
, ....
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
The Transmission Line Assessment constitutes a request for design
change to the FERC Order Issuing License for the Bradley Lake
Hydroelectric Project, Project No. P-8221-000. It presents to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for concurrence and
approval the proposed revised alignment for the Bradley Lake
transmission lines. This assessment details the technical,
environmental, and economic merits of the revised alignment, and
discusses its effects on land use/ownership, aerial visual resources,
and cultural resources in the Project area. The record of resource
agency consultation and related correspondence is included in this
filing.
1.2 FERC LICENSE COMPLIANCE
The Transmission Line Assessment is designed to comply specifically
with requirements set forth in Articles 37 and 40 of the FERC License.
Article 37 states the "Licensee, after consultation with the Alaska
Department of Natural ResoL}rces (DNR), shall determine the need, if
any, to change the transmission line alignment to avoid conflicts with
existing or proposed land use. Within one year from the date of
issuance of this license, Licensee shall file with the Commission a
report on the consultations and shall file for Commission approval, an
application for amendment of the license that details any proposed
changes in the transmission line alignment. The comments of DNR on
the report shall be included in the filing."
Article 40 states the "Licensee shall determine the impacts of the
transmission line corridor on views from air traffic in the area,
including: (1) an analysis of the existing air traffic, including the
volume and the routes of air traffic in the vicinity of the project
facilities; (2) a discussion of pipelines, transmission lines, roads,
3-028-mc 1-1
and other linear corridors, which, together with the Bradley Lake
transmission line corridor, would affect visual resources when seen
from the air; and ( 3) the degree to which the transmission line
corridor should be mitigated. The results of the analysis shall
include any mitigative measures recommended by the Licensee, and the
comments and recommendations on the analysis by the Department of the
Interior and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, and shall be
coordinated with the analysis conducted under Article 37.
The Licensee, within 1 year from the date of issuance of this license
and before beginning any transmission line construction or maintenance
activities of a land-disturbing nature, shall file the results of the
analysis with the commission. Unless the Director, Office of
Hydropower Licensing, instructs otherwise, Licensee may commence
land-disturbing activities 90 days after the filing dat~ of the
report. 11
The Transmission Line Assessment also fulfills the requirements of
Article 38 of the FERC License by meeting State of Alaska requirements
for protection of historic cultural resources. Further, this assess-
ment elaborates on discussions of visual impacts and mitigation
measures for the transmission line presented in the Visual Resources
Mitigation Plan (Alaska Power Authority 1986) prepared to meet the
requirements of Article 39 of the FERC License.
1.3 RESOURCE AGENCY CONSULTATION
The Alaska Power Authority has developed the revised alignment of the
transmission lines in conjunction with resource agencies. Resource
agencies consulted were the Alaska Department of Natural Resources,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Forest Service, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation,
National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of the Army, and
Alaska Office of Management and Budget. Local experts in the fields
of windthrow, bark beetle infestation, and avian collision mortality
were also consulted.
3-028-mc 1-2
SECTION 2.Q;
TRANSMISSION LI.NE
ALIGNMENT
2.0 TRANSMISSION LINE ALIGNMENT
The Alaska Power Authority proposes to construct two parallel 115,000
volt (115 kV) transmission lines from the Bradley Lake powerhouse to
intersect the Fritz Creek-Soldotna 115 kV transmission line (Bradley
Junction), planned for construction by the Homer Electric Association,
Inc. (Figure 1). The Alaska Power Authority has considered several
route and structure alternatives, including the ( 1) FERC alignment,
(2} Kachemak Bay mud flat alignment, (3) submarine cable, and (4)
refined FERC alignment.
2.1 FERC ROUTES
The FERC alignment was licensed by the FERC on December 31, 1985, and
is shown on Figure 2.
2.2 KACHEMAK BAY MUD FLAT ROUTE
As an alternative to routing the FERC licensed transmission lines in
the rugged, tree covered terrain between the powerhouse and the Fox
River Lowlands crossing point, the Alaska Power Authority during 1985
considered locating the 115 kV lines on the Kachemak Bay mudflats.
Construction of overhead transmission lines on the mudflats would
infringe upon the Fox River Flats Critical Habitat Area. The
transmission lines would also be threatened by foundation failure
resulting from soil liquefaction due to earthquakes (see Section
3.1.3). Because of these problems, this route alternative was
eliminated from further consideration.
2.3 SUBMARINE CABLE ROUTE
The Alaska Power Authority also evaluated the use of submarine cables.
Each of the proposed 115 kV transmission lines would require a total
of four cables (three cable circuits plus one spare), totalling eight
cables. Installation of these cables within the mudflats would be
technically difficult and expensive. Unlike a typical submarine
3-028-mc 2-1
crossing, where most if not all of the cable is placed directly on the
floor of the waterbody, the Bradley Lake cables would be trenched and
buried for their entire length. Each cable would probably require its
own trench. Equipment movement and trenching would result in
substantial surface disturbance.
Data indicates that cohesionless, saturated soils would likely be
encountered along at least part of the trench routes. These granular
materials could make it difficult to hold trench walls in place and/or
cause water problems within the trenches. Additionally, heavy cable
reels (approximately 60 tons per phase per run) would have to be
removed fran a barge and transported over the mudflats for instal-
lation in the trenches. This movement of heavy materials and
equipment could create significant impacts on the Fox River Flats
Critical Habitat Area.
It is estimated the submarine cable option would cost approximately
4.5 times more than a comparable length of overhead line. Because of
this greater cost, in addition to the above-mentioned construction
difficulties, use of submarine cable was not considered practicable.
2.4 REFINED FERC ROUTE
Further evaluation and refinement of the FERC alignment, conducted as
a part of the Project Phase II of engineering and design, resulted in
a third possible alternative (Figure 2). Although both the FERC
licensed alignment and the refinement proposed in this report are
feasible, the refined alignment offers distinct advantages over the
FERC alignment. The following discussion evaluates the technical,
environmental, and economic merits of the refined FERC alignment.
3-028-mc 2-2
TECHNICAL EVALUATION
3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION
3.1 ROUTE
3. 1. 1 Soils
Soil boring information received after submittal of the FERC License
Application revealed the presence of deep layers of peat in the
low-lying wet bogs on the glacially fluted plains between Bradley
Junction and the bluffs on the west side of the Fox River lowlands.
To minimize potential foundation problems, the FERC route was adjusted
to take advantage of better drained, glacial till upland areas. This
alignment provides greater long-term line reliability. It also offers
less potential for adverse environmental impacts resulting from more
frequent maintenance and/or repair of structures when the ground is
thawed in the summer, which is the likely time when foundation
problems would occur. Where unavoidable, wet bogs are crossed at
narrow points utilizing the most direct route possible. Angle points
requiring heavy, guyed and anchored three-pole structures are not
sited in these areas.
River scour depth studies and loop meander investigations were also
conducted to assist in the selection of the most sui table foundation
design and site locations for tower structures.
3.1.2 Slope Erosion (Fox River lowlands)
The headwardly eroding Kachemak Bluffs along the west side of the Fox
River lowlands are characterized by active surface skin slides.
Utilizing results of a detailed field investigation and a
comprehensive geotechnical study of the rate of bluff erosion, the
route accomplishes the 500 feet transition from plateau to valley in
one span. By avoiding the use of intermediate transmission
structures, susceptibility of the line to slab failure is minimized.
An adjustment in the angle of approach also minimizes the crossing of
Remote Parcel Lease ADL 206393, as noted in Section 4.1.1.
3-028-mc 3-1
3.1.3 Liquefaction
The Kachemak Bay tidelands and Fox River lowlands are subject to
liquefaction caused by earth tremors. It is estimated that a 5.5 or
larger magnitude earthquake on the Richter scale will liquify the
saturated soils. Techniques to reduce this problem have not been
proven to be practicable. It was concluded that the best way to
minimize the potential risks of liquefaction on the proposed
transmission lines was to (1) modify the FERC alignment to cross the
Fox River lowlands with the fewest number of transmission structures
possible and minimize angles, and (2) avoid placement of the
transmission lines within the mudflats north of the powerhouse.
3.1.4 Windthrow
A potential for windthrow exists on the steep, Sitka spruce-covered
slopes northeast of the powerhouse. Large, interior trees have not
developed root systems capable of supporting the stems under full wind
stress. If a right-ot-way is cut through this vegetation, trees along
the right-ot-way edge may blow down due to heavy downslope and
southeasterly winds. The blowdown would be greatest on the leeward
side ot ridges and on upper slopes where wind turbulence is more
pronounced. Once down, the spruce trees provide a breeding ground
for spruce beetles (Dendroctonus rutipennis) and also increase the
potential for wildfires unless promptly removed. Limited access would
make removal of windthrown trees difficult. Overall, windthrow would
create an on-going right-ot-way maintenance problem and degrade the
aesthetic quality of the area. To minimize these potentially
disruptive effects, the refined route has been aligned along several
peninsula-like high points or headlands which extend into the
mudflats. Here, the clearing for the right-of-way is reduced, and the
threat ot windthrow limited to the leeward side of specific headlands
where timber is tall.
A U.S. Forest Service windthrow expert has been consulted to check the
refined FERC route to identify potential for wind throw. The U.S.
Forest Service expert determined that windthrow of trees is not a
potential problem for the majority of the transmission line corridor.
3-028-mc 3-2
Trees in the majority of the area are relatively short in stature and
sufficiently spaced to be windfirm. Trees on four specific headlands
were identified as having the potential for wind throw. Removal of
trees between the right-of-way boundary and the tidelands was
prescribed to prevent windthrow problems in these four areas.
3.2 TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE
In the FERC License Application, the Alaska Power Authoirty proposed
to use wood pole H-frame towers. Subsequent to issuance of the FERC
license, steel X-towers have been evaluated for use rather than wood
poles. Following consultation with resource agencies, the Alaska
Power authority adopted the steel X-tower for use on the Bradley Lake
115 kV transmission lines.
The X-tower is (1) simpler in design than the wood pole H-frame, (2)
stronger, (3) weighs approximately one-third less, (4) offers a longer
ruling span, (5) offers greater foundation stability with driven
H-piles (over direct embedment of the wood H-frame), and (6) is fire
resistant. In terms of constructability, the X-tower has fewer
structural parts and is easier to assemble. Driven steel H-pile
foundations will be used for the steel X-towers. Tower foundations in
the Fox River lowlands will have riprap armament to prevent flood
damage.
3.3 CONSTRUCTION
Technical considerations to be addressed in constructing the refined
FERC alignment are similar to the FERC route. Scheduling, mode of
clearing, and disposal of slash are essentially identical for both
routes. Transmission line clearing will be accomplished as outlined
in the Mitigation Plan (Alaska Power Authority 1985a) and Vegetation
Clearing Plan (Alaska Power Authority 1986a). Felling of trees within
the right-of-way can feasibly occur at any time of year. Tree and
3-028-mc 3-3
slash removal in or across sensitive areas (e.g., wet bogs, steep
hillsides, or critical habitat areas) will be conducted in a manner
that minimizes environmental impacts.
Rubber-tired, low-ground bearing pressure vehicles will be used
wherever practicable to transport transmission towers and related
construction equipment across sensitive areas. Helicopters may be
used in areas with difficult access. Ground activity will be confined
primarily to the right-of-way, and to selected access locations.
Construction may be conducted during winter in oertain areas where
frozen soils will facilitate movement of equipment and minimize
environmental damage. Soil stabilization techniques as described in
the Alaska Power Authority Best Management Practices (BMP) Manual
"Erosion and Sedimentation Control" will be implemented to minimize
local erosion.
3-028-mc 3-4
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
4.1 ROUTE
4.1.1 Land Use/Ownership
In an April 12, 1985 letter to the FERC regarding the FERC Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, the Alaska Office of
Management and Budget, Division of Governmental Coordination (on
behalf of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources) requested the
final transmission line right-of-way be located near the outer
boundaries of section line easements to avoid conflict with future
public use. In response to this request, the first 4.5 miles of the
FERC route alignment extending east from Bradley Junction have been
shifted off the section line (Land Ownership Information, Sheet 1 of
3). The shift in route alignment from the south side of the section
line to the north side in this area was made to assure sufficient
distance between the 115 kV transmission lines and State Subdivision
ASLS 80-155 (Land Ownership Information, Sheet 1 of 3) and to minimize
the crossing of poorly drained peat-filled bogs. The refined route
provides a shorter, more direct crossing of relatively similar terrain
between Sections 26 and 27 and between Sections 34 and 35 of T. 3S,
R.10W, Seward Meridian, and limits the crossing of property included
in a land exchange application by the Seldovia Native Association (ADL
221933) to the extreme southwest corner of the parcel (Land Ownership
Information, Sheet 2 of 3). The transmission line was also shortened
when Homer Electric Association moved the Fritz Creek -Soldotna 115
kV transmission line and the Bradley Lake transmission line
intersection at Bradley Junction 1 mile east (Figure 2).
The FERC route crossed Remote Parcel Lease ADL 206393 in Section 35,
T.3S, R.9W, Seward Meridian (Land Ownership Information Sheet 2 of
3). Efforts to minimize impact on this parcel have resulted in an
alignment that now traverses only the extreme southern corner of the
property, yet still facilitates an acceptable routing through the
3-028-mc 4-1
complex terrain bordering the Fox River lowlands (Route Map, Sheet 2
of 3). Surveying of the remote land areas along the refined route is
currently in progress.
With the exception of the privately owned Hilmer Olsen Fox Farm
(U.S.S. 2937), the refined route alignment maintains sufficient
distance from all other known private property to minimize possible
land use conflicts.
To avoid placement of the 115 kV transmission lines within the steep,
tree-covered terrain northeast of the powerhouse, the refined route
alignment is now centered on several headlands that extend into the
Kachemak Bay mudflats. As a consequence, the alignment now crosses
over the Fox Farm property (Land Ownership Information, Sheet 3 of 3).
No towers are located on the property. The alignment over the Fox
Farm is a necessary trade-off to limiting the sidehill scar and
minimizing windthrow problems associated with the clearing of a
right-of-way on the steep slopes immediately east of the property.
Further discussion on the subject of windthrow is included in Section
3.1.4 of this assessment.
4.1.2 Cultural Resources
An intensive cultural resource pedestrian survey has been conducted on
the entire FERC route alignment (Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1984). No
previously unidentified cultural resources were located during that
survey.
A 2.1 mile segment of the refined FERC transmission line corridor
south of Caribou Lake was identified by the Alaska Department of
Natural Resources (ADNR) State Historic Preservation Office for survey
of cultural resources. An aerial and pedestrian cultural resources
survey of this segment was conducted in June 1986 (Appendix A). No
architectural features, surface features, or subsurface cultural
resources were discovered within the surveyed segment of the refined
FERC corridor (Alaska Heritage Research Group 1986).
3-028-mc 4-2
Although not crossed by the FERC licensed route, the Hilmer Olsen Fox
Farm has also been field surveyed (Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1984).
Evaluation of the Fox Farm resulted in the determination that the site
was eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places. The State Historic Preservation Officer concluded that no
direct impact to the Fox Farm from overpassing transmission lines was
expected (Cutler 1986). However, indirect impact resulting from
increased human activity in the area was possible. Concurrence of the
State Historic Preservation Officer with the refined FERC alignment
was contingent upon the following protective measures:
1) The historic site will be posted as "off limits" to all
personnel associated with the construction and operation of
the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. As part of the
environmental briefing for each employee, there will be an
educational segment to sensitize the employee to the
cultural resources within the Project area and to the
potential for encountering other such resources in the
Project area.
2) There will be monitoring of this "off-limits" site.conducted
by the Alaska Power Authority Environmental Field Officer
(EFO).
3) Should cultural resources be located during construction,
all work which would disturb such resources will be stopped
and the appropriate authorities contacted for consultation.
The Alaska Power Authority, State Historic Preservation
Office, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and FERC
may participate in determining the eligibility for inclusion
of the discovered resource in the National Register as well
as development of mitigation measures, as appropriate.
3-028-mc 4-3
Routing the transmission lines along the headlands immediately
adjacent to the mudflats will not have a direct impact on any of the
structures located on the Hilmer Olsen Fox Farm site. It could,
however, have an unavoidable indirect influence on the visual
integrity of the site. The potential for vandalism could also
increase as construction activities would occur closer to the
immediate Fox Farm area. Adverse effects will, however, be minimized
by strict enforcement of the above-mentioned measures.
4.1.3 Aerial Visual Resources
The proposed 115 kV transmission lines will alter the visual quality
of the area, and be in contrast with the existing natural character of
the region, particularly when viewed from the air. There are no
appreciable differences in visual impact between the two alternative
.routes with the exception of the area between the powerhouse and the
Fox River crossing point. Here, the FERC alignment was located higher
on the mountainside, thus requiring an uninterrupted clear-cut through
dense, closed coniferous forest. Windthrown trees "unraveling" along
the exposed right-of-way edge, as described in Section 3.1.4 of this
assessment, would further increase the visual impact from both aerial
and ground perspectives. By moving the transmission lines off the
mountainside and onto the headlands extending into the Kachemak Bay
mudflats, visual impacts are reduced. Aerial views of a cleared,
straightline corridor area are also broken by both forested and
non-forested areas between the high points. Although the refined
route places the transmission lines in closer, more open view from the
immediate Kachemak Bay area, overall visual consequences are reduced
by the backdrop of tree-covered mountains to the immediate east of the
route. The weathering steel X-tower transmission structure blends
effectively into this type of landscape backdrop.
4.1.3.1 Air Traffic Routes and Volume
Two charted Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airways provide
approaches to and from Homer on the north. Victor 435 airway passes
approximately 6 miles to the east of Bradley Junction on radial 344°
for air traffic between Kenai and Homer (Figure 4). Victor 438 airway
3-028-mc 4-4
passes approximately 1.5 miles to the east of Bradley Junction on
radial 003° for air traffic between Anchorage and Homer (Figure 4).
Aircraft flying by instrument flight rules (IFR) follow charted
airways north of Homer at elevations above 5,000 feet mean sea level
(MSL). IFR aircraft flying at these higher elevations would usually
be above cloud ceilings, thereby obscuring aerial views of the
transmission line corridor. Air traffic following Victor 438 would
come in closest proximity to the transmission line corridor, affording
higher probabilities of greater observation frequencies than from air
traffic on Victor 435.
Aircraft flying by visual flight rules (VFR) approaching or departing
Homer on the north can fly any route and altitude that does not
violate VFR minimums. Aircraft travelling to/from Anchorage or
vicinity commonly follow the Fox River drainage at the head of
Kachemak Bay, which is a natural lowland route into the Homer area.
Both private and commercial aircraft flying VFR can take the route
along Kachemak Bay and the Fox River drainage. A portion of the
transmission line corridor would be visible to any aircraft travelling
generally north and south between approximately Victor 438 and the Fox
River lowlands.
Scheduled commuter air service presently is provided to Homer by two
air taxi operators based in Anchorage. These operators use aircraft
with maximum capacity of 10 to 19 passengers. Between 14 and 16 total
daily arrivals and departures at the Homer airport are currently
scheduled by these two air taxi operators, depending on the day of the
week and time of year. Thus, up to 30 flights of scheduled air taxis
could potentially fly in the near vicinity of the transmission line
corridor each day during the summer months. Both scheduled commercial
and general aviation traffic decreases during the weekdays and · the
winter months.
The Homer airport runway is oriented on a southwest-to-northeast
longitudinal axis. Aircraft position their approach well in advance
of the point of touch-down. Aircraft landing from or taking off to
3-028-mc 4-5
the northeast may swing over the west end of the transmission line
near Bradley Junction when making their approach or departure,
respectively.
Though flight schedules and frequency are constantly changing, the FAA
Homer Flight Service Station (FSS) records contact with approximately
20 to 30 arriving and departing air taxi VFR and IFR aircraft each day
during the summer months. Some unknown proportion of these air taxi
contacts are with operators based in Anchorage to the north.
Depending on the flight rules under use and the specific terminology
used, some air taxi traffic may be classified as general aviation
traffic by the FSS and thus are not included in the above estimate.
Homer FSS is open on a part-time basis from 6 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.
daily. During 1985, Homer· FSS reported 6, 264 IFR aircraft radio
contacts and 46,819 VFR aircraft contacts, totalling 53,083 aircraft
contacts. A contact includes landing, departing, and overflying
aircraft. There are no records kept by FAA which would indicate the
proportion of these contacts using the flight corridor between
approximately Victor 438 and the Fox River lowlands.
4.1.3.2 Aerial Visibility
Straight-line segments of the transmission line corridor will be most
visible from the air when the view angle is parallel to and
intersecting the axis of the segment, and by aircraft flying at higher
elevations (e.g. above 2,500 feet MSL). As currently designed, the 19
mile transmission line corridor is composed or 15 individual
straight-line segments. Segments range fran approximately 0.1 to 3
miles in length.
The transmission line corridor can be divided into three sections for
assessment of aerial visual resources: ( 1) the uplands plateau from
Bradley Junction to top of the Kachemak Bluffs; (2) Kachemak Bluffs to
the east side of the Fox River lowlands; and (3) Fox River lowlands to
3-028-mc 4-6
the powerhouse. For assessment of aerial visibility, aircraft are
considered to be over flying the transmission line corridor at 2,500
feet MSL.
Seven straight-line segments occur in approximately 10 miles of
transmission line corridor on the uplands plateau. These segments
will have the highest viewer frequency from air traffic flying on or
near Victor 438 and across the uplands plateau. The seven segments on
the uplands plateau range from 0.8 to 3 miles in length. The 3 mile
segment is located furthest fran the Victor 438 airway. Two of the
seven segments are parallel and in close enough proximity to be
visible simultaneously from Victor 438. These two segments total
approximately 1.2 miles in length.
Two straight-line segments occur in the approximately 4 mile Kachemak
Bluffs to the east side of the Fox River lowlands section of the
transmission line corridor. This section will be most visible to air
traffic flying the Fox River drainage. The two segments are 1 • 5 and
2.6 miles in length. The two straight-line segments in this section
of transmission line corridor are not oriented parallel, and will
probably not be viewed simultaneously along the entire length of their
longitudinal axis by aircraft flying at moderate altitudes through the
Fox River drainage. Aircraft flying the Fox River drainage would
generally fly at lower elevations (e.g., 1,500 -2,000 feet MSL) than
those flying over the adjacent upland plateaus (e.g., 2,500 feet MSL).
Six straight-line segments occur in the 5 mile Fox River lowlands to
powerhouse section of the transmission line corridor. This section
would also be most visible to air traffic flying the Fox River
drainage. Segments range from 0.1 to 2.1 miles in length. Several of
these segments are located nearly parallel, though unless the aircraft
was flying parallel to and over the corridor at high altitude (e.g.,
2, 000 feet above ground level) most of the segments would not be
3-028-mc 4-7
visible simultaneously. The tall spruce trees bordering the corridor
in this section will obscure a portion of the right-of-way when viewed
from a lateral aerial view (e.g., from aircraft flying parallel to the
Fox River drainage).
Throughout the entire length of the transmission
forested vegetation is interspersed with and
lower-growing shrub and herbaceous vegetation types.
line corridor,
dissected by
Trees will be
cleared fr001 the corridor to minimize potential for grounding of the
conductors and to maximize the time interval between required
clearings. Tree stumps will not be grubbed. On the uplands plateau,
approximately 6.8 miles of spruce forest is interspersed with wet
graminoid bogs and low shrublands along the 10 mile section. Approxi-
mately 5 of 9 miles ot transmission line corridor between the Kachemak
Bluffs and the powerhouse are forested by spruce and 0. 75 miles by
mixed spruce/balsam poplar. The remaining 3.25 miles are shrublands
and herbaceous sedge-grass tidal flats interspersed through the
forest. The discontinuous pattern of forested vegetation and
low-growing shrubs and herbaceous vegetation will tend to break the
linear pattern of trees cleared from the transmission line corridor.
This discontinuous vegetation pattern, coupled with relatively short
straight-line segments, will minimize the aerial visual impact of the
· corridor.
On the east side of the Fox River lowlands, the transmission line
corridor will be widened to include. spruce trees between the
right-of-way boundary and the tideline on selected projecting
headlands. This additional 9. 3 acres of tree clearing to prevent
windthrow will visually emphasize the transmission line corridor from
the air to a minor degree. However, the discontinuous vegetation
pattern between cleared headlands and herbaceous sedge-grass tidal
flats will present a mosaic of vegetation textures and colors to the
aerial observer which will further detract from the linear feature of
the corridor. In addition, regrowth of spruce trees within the
3-028-mc 4-8
corridor will tend to blend colors of the corridor into the
surrounding forest, particularly on the uplands plateau where mature
spruce forests are composed of relatively short {e.g., 15 to 20 feet)
trees.
The uplands plateau is heavily disected by randomly spaced and
oriented cleared seismic survey lines (Route Map, Sheet 1 of 3).
These linear features are very common throughout the western Kenai
Peninsula. Though narrow (e.g., 10 to 15 feet wide) in relation to
the transmission line corridor, their very presence trains the aerial
observer's eye to the commonality of linear features throughout this
area. The transmission line corridor will not stand out as an unusual
adverse visual anomaly on the terrain below the aerial observer.
The Fritz Creek-Soldotna 115 kV transmission line under construction
by Homer Electric Association, Inc. will intersect the Bradley Lake
transmission line at Bradley Junction (Figure 4). Oriented almost due
north and south and perpendicular to the Bradley Lake transmission
line, the Fritz Creek-Soldotna transmission line will probably become
a commonly flown VFR air traffic route and landmark between
Kenai/Soldotna and Homer. VFR pilots are well known to follow linear
corridors such as roads and transmission lines, particularly in
inclement weather. Because the Fritz Creek-Soldotna transmission line
is almost a direct route between Kenai/Soldotna and Homer, it is
likely to be heavily used by VFR traffic. The FAA Air Traffic Manager -at the Homer FSS suggested that the Bradley Lake transmission line
would become a landmark for air traffic into and out of Homer to the
north. Construction of the Bradley Lake transmission line corridor,
in combination with the Fritz Creek-Soldotna transmission line and
random seismic lines, will not detract from the aerial view of the
surrounding landscape. There are no other linear features such as
transmission lines or roads in the general area of the Bradley Lake
transmission lines.
3-028-mc 4-9
FAA requires that marker balls be strategically placed to promote
saf'ety of low-flying aircraft. Marker balls will be placed where
transmission lines cross Sheep Creek and Fox River waterways between
PI9 and PI10 (Exhibit G, Plate 3). Marker balls will also be used to
minimize collision mortality of low-flying waterfowl with transmission
lines crossing the Bradley River between PI12 amd PI13 (Exhibit G,
Plate 3) • When used, marker balls will also make the transmission
lines more visible to the aerial observer. However, high visibility
of transmission lines at specific points will also increase safety
margins for low-flying aircraft. The advantages of increased safety
for aircraft and waterfowl outweigh the disadvantage of increased
aerial visibility.
4.1.4 Vegetation
The refined transmission line route was overlaid on the vegetation map
of the Project area (Figure 5). The study area boundary was enlarged
where necessary to include the refined route. The included area was
vegetation mapped from 1 : 1 ,000 scale black and white aerial
photography. Angle points for each of the straight-line segments were
located using a digitized map product scaled to 2 inches to 1 mile.
The vegetation map is not rectified, so some horizontal distortion is
·present. However, segment length tl,tween angle points were similar
for distances calculated from Alaska State Plane Coordinates, Zone 4,
and those measured from the . vegetation map. Differences between
calculated and measured distances averaged 71 feet (standard deviation
.±. 57.5 feet), ranging from 9 to 217 feet, for 14 straight-line
segments. Most east-west horizontal distortion was purposefully
concentrated in the segment between PIS and PI9 which bridges the
Kachemak Bluffs (Exhibit G, Plate 3 of 3). This segment was chosen to
be shortened by 416 feet because ( 1) diversity of vegetation types
was low (only 5 types), (2) the segment was relatively short (1.5
miles) and oriented generally east-west, and (3) unavoidable
horizontal distortion was present on aerial photography over the 750
feet elevation difference between PIB and PI9.
3-028-mc 4-10
Though limited distortion in segment lengths was present, total length
of the transmission lines differed by only 0. 03 miles between the
vegetation map (18.97 miles) and distances calculated from State Plane
Coordinates (18.94 miles). The error in segment lengths was
considered acceptable given the level of mapping detail in the
vegetation maps. Areas affected by the transmission line corridor
were calculated by (1) accumulating linear distances measured by the
bisection of the corridor centerline with individual vegetation
polygons, (2) converting the linear map distances (mm) to distances on
the ground (feet), (3) multiplying the ground distance by the corridor
width to obtain square feet, and (4) converting square feet to acres.
Corridor clearing width is 350 feet between Bradley Junction (PI1) and
the east side of the Fox River lowlands (PI10), and 400 feet between
PI10 and the powerhouse (PI16). Corridor width is wider than the 225
feet naainal clearing width and 50 feet selective clearing width
presented in the Vegetation Clearing Plan to accaamodate increased
line swing and tower heights associated with longer ruling spans to be
used with the steel 1-towers.
Acreages of vegetation types crossed by the refined route are similar
to the FERC route (Table 1 ) • The refined route crosses more
coniferous forest, shrub types,· sedge-grass types, and unvegetated
areas than the FERC route. The refined route crosses less deciduous
forest, mixed forest, and tall grass types than the FERC route. The
refined route is shorter (by approxi.Etely 1 mile) than the FERC
route, but the right-of-way corridor is wider. Total acreage within
the right-of-way corridor of the refined route is 839.7 acres, which
is an increase of 77.3 acres over the 762.4 acres within the FERC
route corridor. '!be refined route crosses 21 different vegetation
types, while the FERC route crossed 22 vegetation types.
Only forested vegetation and shrubs with the potential to become a
hazard to the transmission lines within the right-of-way corridor will
be cleared. Within the refined route right-of-way, 38.6 more acres of
coniferous forest, 14.6 less acres of deciduous forest, and 22.9 less
acres of mixed forest will be potentially be cleared than within the
3-028-mc 4-11
FERC route right-of-way. An additional 9.3 acres of closed coniferous
forest will be cleared from headlands between the right-of-way
boundary and the tideline along Kachemak Bay to minimize windthrow.
The longer ruling span of the steel X-towers allow many towers to be
strategically placed on ridges or headlands. When spanning from ridge
top to ridge top, a portion of the right-of-way in deep valleys may
not be cleared if maximum line sag clears tree tops by a safe margin.
The safety margin is influenced by many factors including ruling span,
tower height, prevailing wind direction, depth of the valley slope,
and tree height. Clearing widths in forested vegetation types at
tower location may also be narrower than the right-of-way width. A
minimum clearing width sufficient to safely pass construction and
maintenance equipment may be required in types where growth of
vegetation restricts travel.
Areas within the right-of-way will be cleared of forested vegetation
and maintained in an early seral stage. Vegetation regrowth will be
controlled at intervals designed to minimize hazards of contact with
overhead lines.
The refined route crosses little sensitive habitat on the Fox River
lowlands. Only 12.8 acres of tall alder/fresh water · herbaceous
sedge-grass vegetation type occurs within the right-of-way corridor
between PI9 and PI 10 east of Sheep Creek. This area is part of the
Sheep Creek-Fox River outwash floodplan and does not represent
sensitive or unique wildlife habitat. North of the powerhouse,
transmission lines skirt over edges of the mudflats as they pass
between headlands. Though construction access to headlands may be
gained across mudflats, transmission lines or towers will not directly
disturb the herbaceous sedge-grass vegetation types between headlands.
4.1.5 Wildlife and Fish
North of the powerhouse, the refined route borders the eastern
boundary of the Fox River Flats Critical Habitat Area (Route Map,
Sheet 3 of 3). Approximately 6.1 acres of the right-of-way corridor
3-028-mc 4-12
between PI12 and PI13 extends within the boundaries of the Critical
Habitat Area. However, the entire acreage of transmission line
right-of-way within the Critical Habitat Area is confined to the
Bradley River channel which occurs below mean high tide.
will be placed within the Critical Habitat Area.
No towers
Overhead
transmission lines extending over this short section of the Bradley
River (approximately 0.3 miles) will be maintained above a 50 feet
minim\111 sag height, except under severe winter icing conditions.
Transmission lines are not expected to adversely affect waterfowl and
shorebirds that may use this portion of the Critical Habitat Area.
The probability or waterfowl being in the area during the winter when
the extreme design case of a 30 feet minimum sag height will occur is
low.
Colored markers (e.g., orange globes) will be used to make the
transmission line collductors more visible to low-flying waterfowl~
Markers for waterfowl will be strategically placed where transmission
lines cross over the Bradley R1 ver between PI12 and PI13 (Exhibit G,
Plate 3). Collision with transmission lines is not expected to be a
significant cause of mortality in terms or the total number of
waterfowl found at the head of Kachemak Bay (Yanagawa 1986).
The relatively minor changes in vegetation type acreages between the
refined route and FERC route do not significantly affect the
assessment of habitat alteration or loss for key wildlife species
previously addressed in the License Application, Mitigation Plan, and
Terrestrial Impact Assessment Report (Alaska Power Authority 1985)
(Table 2). Slightly more forest will potentially be cleared by the
refined route (33. 3 acres), but the additional clearing will not
result in additional adverse effects. Moose will be benefitted by
forest clearing in areas which will naturally revegetate to browse
species (e.g., primarily willows and balsam poplar). Black bear are a
mature forest species, and will benefit from any forested areas not
cleared within the right-of-way corridor. Overhead transmission lines
in non-forested areas will not adversely influence habitat value for
wildlife or fishery resources.
3-028-mc 4-13
4.2 TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE
The weathering steel X-tower transmission structure is compatible with
the environmental setting of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project
area. Aesthetically, the structure will blend well into the
surrounding landscape. The steel x-tower is comparable in size, and
utilizes similar construction and maintenance procedures as the wood
H-frame. The steel X-tower structure meets or exceeds recanmendations
for raptor protection contained in Olendorff et al. ( 1981). Because
of the low potential for lightning, an overhead ground wire will not
be used, thereby avoiding a high ground plane in close proximity to
energized cooouctors. The horizontal cooouctor configuration also
reduces the probability of bird collisions. The steel X-tower
provides for long span lengths, thus reducing the total number of
structures required on the landscape and increasing the opportunity to
reduce overall environmental impact. Greater foundation stability
provided by the driven H-piles of the X-tower will require less
frequent maintenance, which offers less potential for environmental
impact.
3-028-mc 4-14
5.0 ECONOMIC EVALUATION
The refined transmission line route effectively reduces the length of
the FERC licensed route by about 1 mile. Total length of the refined
route is 19 miles, while the FERC route was about 20 miles long.
Based on use of the steel X-tower and two parallel transmission lines,
8 to 10 towers and the associated costs of construction including
foundations, conductor line, insulators, and installation were
eliminated by the shorter refined FERC route. The cost savings of
constructing the shorter refined FERC route over the FERC route is
about $500,000 to $600,00 for the double circuit line.
The estimated cost per mile for steel X-towers versus wood H-frame
poles is comparable (e.g. within $4,000 per mile of double circuit
line). In areas where helicopters may be necessary to transport and
erect towers, the lighter steel X-tower can be handled by $2,500 per
hour helicopters whereas the heavier wood pole H-frame structures will
require much larger $6,000 per hour helicopters. These, and the
previously discussed distinct advantages of the steel X-tower, led to
the decision favoring their use for the Bradley Lake transmission
line.
Forested acreages from Table. 1 were oompared to determine comparative
clearing costs.
Coniferous Forest Deciduous Forest Total
Refined alignment 581.3 acres 4.1 acres 585.4 acres
FERC alignment 533.4 acres 18.7 acres 552. 1 acres
Difference 47.9 acres 14.6 acres 33.3 acres
The total forested acreage is largely unchanged (33. 3 acres) . The
cost of clearing corridors for the two routes is essentially the same,
particularly if some areas with low growing trees that will not
contact conductors are not cleared within the refined route. Wider
right-of-way widths along the Fox River lowlands will add higher
3-028-mc 5-1
proportions of larger Sitka spruce trees, from which a portion of the
clearing costs may potentially be recovered through their harvest and
sale. Based on cost comparisons for transmission line clearing, no
definitive cost differences exist between the two routes.
3-028-mc 5-2
SECTION 6.0
MITIGATION
6.0 MITIGATION
The refined transmission line corridor has been sited near the outer
boundaries of section line easements to avoid conflict with future
public land use. The refined FERC route also avoids private land
holdings wherever practicable.
The minimum clearing width of the transmission line right-of-way
corridor necessary to ensure safe Project operation and infrequent
re-olearing will be conducted. Large, accessible Sitka spruce timber
will be removed for sale where practicable. Small or inaccessible
spruce timber and spruce slash larger than 2 inches in diameter will
be out into 2 to 4 feet lengths and scattered through the cleared area
to minimize or prevent infestation by spruce beetles. Hardwood trees
will be felle.d in place. Felled trees will be removed from streams
and rivers. Salvage of otherwise inaccessible felled trees for
firewood by local residents will be encouraged if removal is conducted
in a manner that minimizes environmental damage.
Tower structures will be constructed of weathering steel which will
blend into the natural brownish-green colors of the vegetation.
Non-specular (non-reflective) conductor wires and sky gray insulators
will blend into the landscape. The I-tower structure casts less
shadow than almost any other comparable structure. Natural
revegetation of spruce trees will eventually blend the right-of-way
corridor into the surrounding terrain from an aerial view, though
substantial surface disturbance or burning may be necessary to promote
revegetation of spruce trees. The minimum tower heights necessary to
complete the spans will be used. Marker balls will be strategically
placed on conductor lines where required to promote aircraft safety
and minimize waterfowl collisions. The transmission line will serve
as a landmrk for air traffic. No other mitigation measures are
proposed for the Bradley Lake transmission line.
3-028-mo 6-1
SECTION 7.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The Alaska Power Authority concludes the transmission requirements of
the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project can best be met by constructing
two parallel weathering steel X-tower type 115 kV transmission lines
with steel H-pile tower foundations along the refined transmission
line route.
3-028-mc 7-1
SECTION 8.0
BIBLIOGRAPHY
8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alaska Heritage Research Group, Inc. 1986. An Archeological Survey
Near Caribou Lake, Southcentral Alaska. Prepared for the Alaska
Power Authority. June. 12 pp.
Alaska Power Authority. 1985a. Mitigation Plan. Prepared by Stone &
Webster Engineering Corporation for the Alaska Power Authority,
Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. November.
Alaska Power Authority. 1985b. Terrestrial Impact Assessment Report.
Prepared by ENTRIX, Inc. and Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation for the Alaska Power Authority, Bradley Lake
Hydroelectric Project. November.
Alaska Power Authority. 1986a. · Vegetation Clearing Plan. Prepared by
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation for the Alaska Power
Authority, Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. March.
Alaska Power Authority. 1986b. Visual Resources Mitigation Plan.
Prepared by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation for the
Alaska Power Authority, Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project.
March.
Cutler, R. B. 1986. April 18, 1986 letter from State of Alaska,
Department of Natural Resources, to Tom Armin ski, Alaska Power
Authority.
Olendorff, R. R., A. D. Miller, and R. N. Lehman. 1981. Suggested
Practices for Raptor Protection on Powerlines -The State of the
Art in 1981. Raptor Research Report No. 4. Raptor Research
Foundation, Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota. 111 pp.
3-028-mc 8-1
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1984. Historical and Cultural Pedestrian
Survey. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, Bradley Lake
Hydroelectric Project. December. 22 pp. plus appendices.
Yanagawa, C. M. 1986. April 24, 1986 letter from Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, Division of Habitat, to Tom Arminski, Alaska
Power Authority.
3-028-mc 8-2
Code
10
20
22
23
26
27
28
51
62
71
84
TABLE 1
Acreages of vegetation types oacuring within the
right-ot-way of the refined and FERC transmission line routes. 1/
Vegetation Type Refined FERC
Route Route
CONIFEROUS FOREST 572.0 533.4
Closed coniferous forest 384.5 352.4
Open coniferous forest 187.5 181.0
open coniferous forest 60.7 57.6
open coniferous forest/tall alder 10.0 0.3
open coniferous forest/tall alder/
low willow/mesic herbaceous
sedge-grass 8.6 4.6
open coniferous forest/bog 31.2 13.7
open coniferous forest/low willow 42.2 63.0
open coniferous forest/low shrub/
low willow 34.8 41.8
DECIDUOUS FOREST 4.1 ·18.7
Open deciduous forest 4 .• 1 0
open balsam poplar forest 4.1 0
Open paper birch forest 0 18.7
open birch forest/tall alder 0 18.7
MIXED FOREST 3.1 26.0
mixed spruce-balsam poplar forest,
closed and open 3.1 26.0
TALL GRASS TYPES 7.1 21.2
tall grass on flats 7. 1 21.2
3-028-JW
Table 1 (continued)
SHRUB TYPES 180.2 128.7
Tall alder 65.6 39.0
101 tall alder 52.8 32.0
103 tall alder/freshwater herbaceous
sedge-grass 12.8 7.0
105 Tall willow 2.8 1.8
Low shrub 111.8 87.9
112 low willow 0 9.0
113 low shrub bog 111.8 78.9
SEDGE-GRASS TYPES 41.6 27.1
121 mesic herbaceous sedge-grass 14.7 15.5
125 freshwater herbaceous sedge-grass 2.7 9.2
126 saltwater herbaceous sedge-grass 24.2 2.4
UNVEGETATED AREAS 31.6 7.3
131 pond 1.1
141 tidal river or stream 7.4
142 low gradient perennial stream or river 13.4
152 low gradient perennial river or stream/
floodplain _iJ
TOTAL ACREAGE 839.7 762.4
11 Corridor right-of-way 350 feet wide between PI1 and PI10 and 400
feet wide between PI10 and PI16.
3-028-JW
SECTION 1'0,0
FIGURES
BRADI£Y JUNCTION
r-HOMER ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION
FRITZ CREEK-SOLDOTNA 118 KV I TRANSMISSION LINE
I
I REFINED TRANSMISSION
LINE ROUTE
.·
\ .....
..
REVISED 4/8/88
u 5
···~· .. -.~~ ..
\ .... -· .. -~ ~
... ·'--<
II W m r-u
3
I
-· .. · ... :: .•·
·'· ..
/
/
' /
\
\
\
z
0
i= 0< -> lw X._~
1-w
ct:Jw
a: w
3:
0
1-
I
X
-1 w w
1-
f/)
w
::i < a: u.
:!:
~
0
Cl..
0
0
0
3:
0 cr.;
UJ (") ~ w
0: ::::> en (!)
i -u.
z < a:
1-
a:
UJ :=
0
1-
I
X
..J
UJ
UJ
1-en
0
0
0
0
0
~
0
0
0
0
[
D
0
0
0
0
D
• O'b!"-
• g•r "
-......:
<
.........
\
....
SEWARD SECTIONAL
AERONAUTICAL CHART
~~fffil:2i££!i.J~~~Ii! FIGURE 4
---------------------------· ---.
OVERSIZED MAP
NOT MICROFILMED
MAP LOCATED IN
ORIGINAL REPORT
------------------------------~ BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
-REFINED TRANSMISSION LI.NE ROUTE
VEGETATION MAP
----------.------y-------1'
--~ STONE & WEBSTER E IBIT
I ~ ENGINEERING CORPORATION XH FIGURE 5 )
~---------L..------....L--------f'
-
"'
/ '
SECTION 11.0 ~'
AGENCY CONSULTATION
...
11.0 AGENCY CONSULTATION
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF CORRESPONDENCE
Date
November 6, 1985
February 5, 1986
February 26, 1986
March 21, 1986
March 24, 1986
April 10, 1986
April 11, 1986
April 15, 1986
April 17, 1986
April 18, 1986
April 18, 1986
April 23, 1986
April 24, 1986
April 25, 1986
April 25, 1986
April 30, 1986
3-028-mc
Source of Correspondence
Notes of Telephone Conversation, Stone & Webster
Engineering Corporation
Agency Review Meeting Notes of Conference, Stone &
Webster Engineering Corporation
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Habitat
Kerr and Associates
Alaska Power Authority
Notes of Telephone Conversation, Stone & Webster
Engineering Corporation
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Land and Water Management
Agency Review Meeting Notes of Conference, Stone &
Webster Engineering Corporation
U.s. Department of the Interior, Western Alaska
Ecological Services
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Land and Water Management
Trip Report,
Corporation
Stone & Webster Engineering
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Land and Water Management
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Habitat
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Land Field Services, Inc.
11-1
April 30, 1986
April 30, 1986
May 2, 1986
May 2, 1986
May 5, 1986
May 5, 1986
May 7 t 1986
May 23, 1986
June 4, 1986
June 5, 1986
June 19, 1986
July 3, 1986
July 7 f 1986
July 9, 1986
July 11, 1986
3-028-mc
Source of Correspondence
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Land and Water Management
John M. Bridges, Wildlife Biologist
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Land and Water Management
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Land and Water Management
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Land and Water Management
Alaska Power Authority
u.s. Department of Canmerce, National Marine
Fisheries Service
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Land and Water Management
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Land and Water Management
Agency Review Meeting Notes of Conference, Stone &
Webster Engineering Corporation
Alaska Power Authority
Notes of Conference, Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation
Notes of Telephone Conversation, Stone & Webster
Engineering Corporation
Notes of Telephone Conversation, Stone & Webster
Engineering Corporation
Notes of Conference, Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation
11-2
/
\
J.O. No. iSSOO -i oi' _L_
Al~sk3 Power AuthoritY r:;t ~ wf'q-g JJ-1 a'-
fiT/.4,3 File No. 15500. ( J"Z... )
INSTRUCTIONS: Summarize your phone
discussion, noting participants,
date & time of call. Indicate
desired distribution at right. Call
reporter must insert File Number(;)
and Subject(s) in file box above.
Clerk takes care of Chrono file copy
and distribution.
I
DISTRIBUTION:
JJMPlantefDLMatchett DOC GF )(
JJGarrity/Chron Files ;>(
T Critikos/Bee JM:: -::X,..A..--
DPRyan )c:
JMMissel :X
NABishop/ANCJBk TK~ WP~ ~
LCDuncan
CLClark
TTReilly
GEEng
M L Rp,St»\'N.>'Ns::.t=> :><
Call Date II r s, ~~S' Time ~·. \~ P!") Incoming----Outgoing X
Between NoR-m \S\S'W<:>P SWEC & ____________ ___;;APA
D'"E ~c.ru..\'N~9.M SWEC & B,oe C\l:n-S,.
& ~\'<..£ <0St~~i~
Originated by: _...~N~·t...~.:::!..l\uSaJ:'MS:RIIE:Iill~:..-------
DISCUSSION: \:J\ScS>SS\4bN WS\& 4S.\Q 2-~WitAQ\~fa £\S>~ ~ 2\ 1:sN ~
F' uE: 9> 'it.l bUS -$)<C:'-\Na9ct \) !!!Sttb.....,. M~\.\ym\'t=~ . &a. C&s«:r\~ "'l..aN~
'SO-L\~"§_b-W u..)c.y,.:>QE.'S) \).\ ~ £$QC. \.\C~~ 5;§9'!\..\CJ¥\S>N. \~S>L\.~~~
N,.,..,. Sii:n--' ~§">.\QE!Ij) 9::3\)L,c trns.w ot:\wc...'fS. 1"Wf. 5&\b"«'t-(\,. -w~,
\S S'"\~t!r\..\'j.5l> f<..\:)~ \Jb)t:>S$j'SM>'S>' SibNS> C&~(S)g$ 'N'3'W hl~ ~
~yv..osc\1 '"S'S;!. ""S'5c.s mtrt"ss.cs rHEee; t 2 t-Jo c.os:r tog_
J"B\<; li?lb\41-DF-WAlf.
BL-D-99:md
NOTES OF CONFERENCE
ADF&G STIPULATIONS
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Held in the SWEC Conference Room
Anchorage, Alaska
February 5, 1986
Present for:
J.O. No. 15800.12
WP 98D-6
Alaska Power Authority (APA)
T. Arminski
D. Trudgen
Agencies:
Don McKay
ADF&G/Habitat
Phil Brna
ADF&G/Habitat
Hank Hosking
USF&WS
Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation (SWEC)
N. Bishop
M. Fisk
E. Puch
The Attendence Sheet is Attachment 1. Attendees agreed to go through
the Coastal Consistency Letter under ADF&G Title 16 Permits -Eleven
permits Items A-K to develop appropriate stipulations listed below:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
L
2-283-JJ
Activity
Bradley River Dam
Airstrip
Powerhouse & Switchyard
Barge Dock & Staging Area
Lower Camp (including
effluent discharge)
Martin River Material Site
Transmission Line
Spoil Disposal/Waterfowl
Nesting Area
Martin River Material
Site Access Road
Bradley River
Fox River Flats
Critical Habitat Area
Kachemak Bay CHA
Kachemak Bay CHA
Kachemak Bay CHA
Martin River
Bradley River
Fox Creek
Fox River
Sheep Creek
Fox River Flats CHA
Kachemak Bay CHA
Battle Creek
Kachemak Bay
(
(..
Stipulation for Barge Dock and Staging Area
"No sheet pile shall be driven during the period of May 1 through 15".
CONSTRUCTION CAMP
The Construction Camp requires no special stipulations.
MARTIN RIVER BORROW SITE
The Martin River Borrow Site requires no special stipulations.
TRANSMISSION LINE
The transmission line will require stream crossing permits once the
ADNR Right-of-Way permit is submitted. The stipulations were deferred
until the transmission right-of-way is finalized.
WATERFOWL NESTING AREA
The Dredge Spoil Disposal Area/Waterfowl Nesting Area needs no
stipulation.
MARTIN RIVER ACCESS ROAD
The Martin River Material Site Access Road requires stream crossing
permits until the bridges are in place. The bridge abutments need to
be kept out of the active slough and river channels.
Stipulation for the Martin River Material Site Access Road
"Until such time as the bridges are completed construction equipment
will be allowed to cross the tidal slough and Battle Creek during the
period May 15 and July 15 only. The stream bottom at the stream·
crossing sites must be graded and smoothed at the end of this period.
Bridge abutments will not be allowed in the active channel of the tidal
slough. To protect the Battle Creek stream channel and bridge abutment
rip-rap may extend into the stream channel but cannot restrict flow."
ACCESS ROADS
The roads require no addi tiona! stipulations as all construction is
restricted to within the work or clearing limits.
MFisk:JJ
2-283-JJ 5
l , •. ~
hirua7 6; /7'86
4~
7B;77 sf~4~H?s
~~
,~ ·.-• I • •• -:: ... . , . . .· . . .· -' .. , ... ·. '~ . " : . . ·_.. '·" • '.~ l .... · -~~ _'7~ :·_ /j_ ~Q.:JNV CG;-13v
R E ~: f I V ED P 2/l'f~ \k\ ~ ( t; I ti
MEMORANDUM ~,-.0 •. 1986 State of Alaska
ro Patty Bielawski, Project Coor~O~~E ..,q~re:
Office of Management and Budget · · · L~-·.•::0 .. ::._._
Division of Governmental Coordination FILENO:
February 26. 1986
Anchorage
FROM Dennis Kelso, Deputy Co~m~issioner
Department of Fish and Game
SU~EC~ ID#851213-14A
071-0YD-2-850502
Alaska Power Authority
Bradley Lake 1
~()'V\.<-~ 0 ' \{\<-¥.,"'\
BY: --nonald 0. McKay \
Revised Consistency
Finding
Habitat Biologist
Habitat Division
Anchorage
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has reviewed additional
technical specifications for design and construction of the Bradley Lake
Hydroelectric Project since our consistency reconmendation of 13 January
. 1986. In addition, we met with representatives of the Alaska Power
Authority (APA) on 5 February 1986 to discuss stipulations to be included in
AOF&G Title 16 permits. Based on these events, we have developed additional
(. stipulations to be included in the revised consistency finding.
'
The department finds that Title 16 pennits will be required for the
following activities:
Activity Area Authoritl
a) Bradley River Bradley River AS 16.05.870
Dam
b) Airstrip Fox River Flats AS 16.20.260
Critical Habitat Area
c) Powerhouse and Kachemak Bay AS 16.20.260
Swi tchyard Critical Habitat Area
d) Barge Dock and Kachemak Bay AS 16.20.260
Staging Area Critical Habitat Area
e) Lower Camp Battle Creek AS 16.05.870
(including effluent discharge)
f) Martin River Martin River AS 16.05.870
Mate ri a 1 S i te
g) Transmission Line Bradley River AS 16.05.870
Fox Creek AS 16.05.870
Fox River AS 16.05.870
Sheep Creek AS 16.05.870
02.001A(Rev. 1()179)
.........
(
. '' I'" • ,-•: ' ' • : ~. o, • .; ·• I
Ms. Patty Bielawski -2-
Fox River Flats
Critical Habitat Area
h) Spoil Disposal/ Kachemak Bay
Waterfowl Nesting Critical Habitat Area
Area
• • -~ ... t· .•
February 26, 1986
AS 16.20.260
AS 16.20.260
i) Martin River Battle Creek AS 16.05.780
AS 16.20.260 Site Access Road Kachemak Bay
Critical Habitat Area
j) Airstrip to Fox River Flats
Powerhouse Road Critical Habitat Area
Kachemak Bay
Critical Habitat Area
k} Powerhouse to Kachemak Bay
Camp Access Road Critical Habitat Area
AS 16.20.260
AS 16.20.260
AS 16.20.260
Because of the complexity of this project. the department will issue
separate permits for each of the eleven activities. The plans and
specifications, and mitigation plan are part of the permit applications and
are therefore incorporated by reference in the permits.
The department recommends that this project be found consistent with the
Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP} subject to the following
stipulations which will be included on each of the eleven required Title 16
permits:
1. Revisions to the plans and specifications or mitigation plan which
deal with activities regulated by the department under its various
statutory authorities will require departmental approval and/or
permit amendment. Plans of Operations for construction of
permitted activities shall be submitted to the department for
review and approval for compliance with stipulations contained
herein. The department reserves the right to condition the
approval and to require mitigation as appropriate.
2. The APA shall upon request, furnish transportation from Homer to
the project site and quarters ·for department representatives to
inspect project activities.
3. Routes to minimize flights over concentrations of wildlife in
Kachemak Bay and Fox River Flats Critical Habitat Areas will be
developed by the Power Authority and approved by the ADF&G.
4. Access to the project site shall be limited to air access and
water access only. Construction activities and access will be
restricted to within the clearing limits or working limits shown
on the construction drawings. Landing craft and shallow draft
barges may beach near the Martin River borrow site on the gravel
· ..
. -· . . . "'~ ... : ~-'· '':'-~·· . -..... -. .... . ... ' ..
Ms. Patty Bielawski -3-February 26, 1986
outside the work area, near the construction campsite between
Access Road Station 590+00 to 595+00 only in the work limits, in
the powerhouse area Access Road Station 520+00 to 490+00 only
within the work limits, and near Sheep Point Access Road Station
567+00 to 550+00 only within the work limits. Landing areas shall
be accessed as follows: at the campsite when the tides exceed
elevation 7.0 feet (project datum), at the powerhouse when tides
exceed elevation 6.0 feet, at Sheep Point when tides exceed
elevation 4.0 feet and at the Martin River Borrow Site when tides
exceed elevation 0.0 feet.
The barge dock area may be used for access when the tide exceeds
elevation -4.0 feet {project datum) within the work limits only.
5. Access areas and work limits of project features shall be surveyed
and staked in the field.
6. Plans and specifications for access to and construction of the
transmission line within Fox River Flats Critical Habitat Area and
crossings of fish streams shall be developed by the APA and
approved by the ADF&G.
In addition, the following stipulations will be placed on specific permits
to ensure consistency with the ACMP:
A. Bradley River Dam
1. The lake drawdown to initiate diversion through the tunnel
shall be controlled so that the Bradley River flow remains
within 1.5 times historical average monthly flow as measured
at the USGS Gauge above Riffle Reach in the Lower Bradley
River. ·
2. If initial filling of the reservoir begins between January 1
and July 1, then during this period flows measured at the
USGS streamflow gage near Riffle Reach in the Lower Bradley
River shall be a minimum of 40 cfs during reservoir filling.
After July 1, flows shall be increased 5 cfs per day to 100
cfs by July 15. Thereafter, the following minimum flows
shall be maintained as measured at the USGS streamflow gage
near Riffle Reach in the Lower Bradley River to the extent
controllable at the Bradley lake Dam:
May 1 through September 15
September 15 through October 31
November 1 through April 30
100 cfs
50 cfs
40 cfs
3. During project operations (after initial reservoir filling),
the minimum stream flows as measured at the USGS streamflow
gage near Riffle Reach in the Lower Bradley River will be
Kerr and Associ ares-----------------
Mr. Del LaRue
Dryden and LaRue
6436 Homer Drive
Anchorage, A 1 ask a ·
(Hand Delivered)
Dear Mr. LaRue,
21 March 1986
This letter report is a follow up to our discussion on Wednesday. March 19,
at your office, regarding the proposed Bradley Lake transmission corridor.
In our •Timber ReconnaissanceM report to the Alaska Power Authority (APA),
dated January 21, Dick Sanders and I noted clearing will expose the residual
timber to both windthrow and subsequent bark beetle infestation. ·
Specifically, on page 24:
"This segment (the transmission line) and the support facility wi l1
likely experience moderate to severe windthrow problems from trees
newly exposed to down slope and southeasterly winds ••• exposed stand
boundaries will "unravel" along the. road, construction areas, and any
cleared area under the transmission line. Prompt removal or treatment
will keep insect hazard low."
We discussed this on Wednesday with Tom and Mark Baringham. I gathered
research material on blowdown from the U.S. forest Service and have
summarized it in this letter along with recommendations.
The Problem. Windthrow commonly follows initial cutting in Alaskan coastal
forests. Interior trees have not been exposed to wind stress along their full
stem lengths; roots and stem support systems are not able to withstand the
wind. The worst case scenario would find significant blowdown.and a major
beetle infestation followed by fires; the most likely case would be some
blowdown·requiring "maintenance" or clean up for several years. The best
situation would be not exposing any interior timber.
Once windthrown. spruce trees provide an ideal breeding ground for bark
beetles that can grow rapidly to epidemic proportions and emerge to attack
living trees. This happened at Tyonek when oil company seismic lines were
cleared and trees left untreated. The dead trees are a fire hazard and
aesthetically "jarring"; the Summit lake area is a good example (on the
Chugach National forest) of beetle killed trees with both characteristics.
There were few bark beetle infested trees in the areas we cruised. However,
timber felled by the Corps for helicopter landings has apparently attracted
large numbers of beetles. Dave Trudgen (APA) and Jim Peterson (State Division
of Forestry) visited the area after our report was written.
P.O. Box I I 1293 • Ar.,:horage. Al<lska D!lSI I • (007) 346·3141 /346·1624
-
Wind. I found wind rosettes for the Kodiak and Kenai areas only. A copy is
enclosed, as published in the University of Alaska Regional Profiles. It
appears that southeast to southerly winds are common storm winds in the area.
Hazards. The following are listed from the three (3) sources collected.
1. Blowdown is greater on the leeward sides of ridges.
2. More damage is noted on upper slopes, less damage is found along
bottoms where wind turbulence is less pronounced.
3. Slowdown is ~ore severe on areas of high water table and/or very
shallow soil.
4. Saddles, notches, and valleys will channel winds and create greater
local turbulence.
Mitigation. There are several possible mitigating factors.
I. Cutting lines may be located parallel to prevailing storm winds.
2. Heavy blowdown will be found quite soon after exposing the stand.
Losses will decline as trees grow root systems to compensate. Plan for
salvage prior to cutting (e.g. roads).
3. Leeward boundaries may be thinned to "lift" the wind and decrease
pressure on exposed crowns and stems.
Leave strips are ineffective, based on my experience on Prince of Wales
Island. Winds find an area of least resistance and "blow ~ut" narrow portions
of the strip. Later winds widen the opening an~ eventually create a
continuing salvage problem. I -have enclosed a photocopy of a leave strip on
Prince of Wales that I checked with an ADF&G Habitat Biologist in the mid
1970's. The area we are walking in was originally a minimum of 100 feet in
width; you could not see through the leave strip.
Identification. Alaskan experience suggests hazard identification as the
first step in estimating the problem. I have enclosed copies of one of the
references, "A Presentation to the Logging Systems Workshop on Minimizing
Windthrow as a Result of Logging" by Bob Burke, February 12, 1979.
Dick Sanders and I did not find any major patches of windthrow. The
occasional tree found was-blown down by southeasterly winds, at least on ~Y
sa~ple plots. The stand is young and windfirm at this time.
Recomnendatfons. Either Dick Sanders or I could prepare the hazard overlay
discussed in Burke's paper. This could be compared with likely corridors and
areas of major problems identified. Keeping the corridor as lo\~ as possible
(on the slope) and cutting a minimum amount of timber (or none at all) is the
easiest solution.
I suspect serious chalJenges would be made to relocating the corridor out of
timbered areas. In that event, an outside Mexpert" in the field of windthrow
should be considered. I believe Dr. Bob Ruth and Dr. Bob Alexander are both
retired now from the U.S. Forest Service and could possibly serve in that
capacity. Bob Burke is still working for the Forest Service in Petersburg and
could possibly be retained through an Intergovernment transfer for a week or
so.
References. I used three (3) publications, listed below.
1. "Reducing Wind Damage in the Forests of the Oregon Coast Range" by
Dr. Robert Ruth and Ray Yoder, Research Paper Ho.7, U.S. Forest
Service, July, 1953.
2. "Minimizing Windfall Around Clear Cutting in Spruce-fir Forests" by
Dr. Robert R. Alexander, U.S. Forest Service, June, 1963.
3. ''A Presentation to the Logging Systems Workshop on Minimizing
Windthrow as a Result of Logging" by Bob Burke, Forester, U.S. Forest
Service, February, 1979.
Let me know if I can help with hazard overlays or in securing services of an
outside expert.
Sincerely,
Calvin L. Kerr
Forester
CLK;clk
encl
cc: Mr. Richard C. Sanders
\ ";) (:) UV • v I I.~ ( \
NOTES OF CONVERSATION WITH FORREST SERVICE IN PETERSBURG, AK
April 10 1 1986
Caller:
Called:
Ron Krohn, Lead Electrical Engineer, SWEC
Bob Burk, U.S. Forrest Service, Petersburg, Ak (Cl.o\l '"111.-~~\ 1
Discussed having Bob evaluate our transmission line corridor for windfall
along a cleared corridor. Also, if we need to write a scope of work to have
him come to the site, we would have a better idea of the requirements that
need to be in the scope of work.
Bob requested that I bring a set of "stereo covers" of the entire route
along with some kind of aerial photos showing know windfall/unravelling
problem areas. With this knid of information, he should be able to assess the
type of problem.
One of the things I need to discuss with him on the meeting is how much
clearing should be required in specific areas of the corridor. The current
plan is that I will have a set of stereo covers run by Walker Alaska to take
along with me. I will travel on April 17 and meet with Bob on that day and
the next morning if necessary. If problems arise, I can stay over and return
on the 19th.
Ron Krohn
Lead Electrical Engineer
f" I~ .1. II'\""-
~ c.o-J-.1 ,._ ~ ~-e
112 -'{Z..8<6
ll2--L-!'2..~ \
1
DEPARTMENTOFNATURALRESOURCES
DIVISION OF LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT
April 11, 1986
Gary L. Ransan
Right-of-Way Agent
Alaska Power Authority
P.O. Box 190869
Anchorage, Alaska 99519
Oear Mr. Ransom:
REC!IVf!) ~y ALASK:. :-· · :· · -.·,.-, · ·J
.86 ABR 18
BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR
555 CORDOVA STREET
POUCH7.oo5
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99510..7005
PHONE: (907)276-2fl53
You have asked questions in your Ma.rch 24, 1986 letter about the Seldovia
exchange that do not have clear answers; first a short background.
The state's catmittment to the Seldovia exchange canes fran a May 7, 1979
memorandum of understanding between the state, the Kenai Peninsula Borough,
Seldovia Native Association, Inc. and Cook Inlet Region Incorporated. In
this memorandum Seldovia Native Association (SNA) and the state agreed to a
full exchange of all SNA 1 and within Kachemak Bay State Park for state
land. A shortfall of this agreement is that it sets no deadline for
completion of the exchange~ Progress has been made over the years in two
small phased exchanges and this particular proposal you have asked about
was to result in the completion of tne exchange.
The value of the state land offered in this exchange proposal exceeded a
threshold dollar limit and thus required legislative approval for
completion. SNA did not accept the land appriasal report and we therefore
did not enter into the final exchange agreement that should have been
submitted to the legislature in January. SNA did, however, introduce
through their local legislators their own bill for completing the
exchange. Tl1e state fee 1 s the tenns of this bill are unf.avorab 1 e to the
state's int~rests and has not supported it.
It seems u'llii<ely at this time that the land near Caribou Lake that you are
intere.sted in will be conveyed to SNA this year. There is however, an
unfulfilled committment to complete this exchange and these lands may
remain segregated fran the state public domain for an attempt next year to
canplete the exchange. It is therefore not possible to answer your 1 ast
three questions with any credibility.
r f a 1 tern ate
possible, a
appropriate.
routing for the Bradley Lake transmission line is not
right-of-way application to cross these lands may be
The current land status does not prevent ONR from processing
Gary L. Rans<l"1
Page 2
April 11, 1986
such an application on lands contained in the state's Seldovia pool. The
outccme of any such application will depend on canments received through
agency and public review.
Sincerely,
Dennis P. Oaigger, Manager
Special Projects Unit
cc: Meg Hayes, SCRO
Tom Hawkins. DLWM
7) ~.:(~~;:; ..
·.·
NOTES OF CONFERENCE
AGENCY DESIGN REVIEW
BRADLEY LAKE HDYROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Held at Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation (SWEC) Conference Room
800 "A" Street, Anchorage, Alaska
April 15, 1986 at 9:00 AM
PURPDSE
Present for:
J.O. No. 15800.12
WP 98A
Alaska Power Authority
(APA)
Tom Arminski
Dave Trudgen
Dames & Moore
Jim Hemming
John Morsell
Dryden & LaRue, Inc.
Del LaRue
Agencies
Hank ijosking, USF&WS
Robert Cutler, DNR
Deborah Heebner, DNR
Bill MacClarence, ADEC
Mike Lewis, ADEC
Dan Wilkerson, ADEC
Tim Rumfelt, ADEC
Don McKay, ADF&G/Habitat
Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation (SWEC)
Norm Bishop
Ron Krohn
Elaine Pucb
The meeting was held to discuss (1) Project Status, (2) Transmission
Line Alignment, (3) Site Preparation Contract Bid Documents, (4)
Proposed Salmon Escapement· Survey Methods, (5) Vegetation Clearing
Plan, (6) Erosion Control Plan, and (7) Visual Resources Mitigation
Plan. Attachment 1 is the agenda. Attachment 2 is the sign-in
attendance sheet. Attachment 3 is a draft of the Assessment of
Transmission Line Alternatives. Attachment 4 is a draft of the Salmon
Escapement Survey Scope of Work.
2-533-JJ 1
of timber to be burned was not stated. The ADEC calculated close to
2700 acres to be burned. Mr. MacClarence was also concerned about the
control strategy for smoke. ADEC is concerned that this would have the
potential to be another Point MacKenzie. Mr. Bishop explained that the
total clearing in Phase I is less than 77 acres. The powerhouse
clearing is complete, the roads will be run along the tidal flats where
possible. Clearing will be done in the camp site area and the Martin
River. Some of the timber to be cut is cottonwood. Timber classified
as commercial will have the bark removed. Timber to be used for house
logs will not have the bark removed. Mr. calvin Kerr, Forester,
determined there would be enough logs to construct approximately 1 to 2
houses. No reservoir clearing or transmission line clearing will take
place under Phase I site work. The ADNR is concerned about use of the
timber if merchantable. Merchantability will be determined through
on-project utilization or timber sale. It is expected that the
contractor will bury slash and debris from road clearing due to the
narrow road width. Spoil locations have been identified and a permit
submit ted. It is made clear to the contractor in the bid documents
that he will need to obtain a ADEC permit to burn slash and debris.
The ADEC asked that the opacity standards be explained for
incinerators. Mr. Bishop responded that the incinerator specification
is complete and that the incinerator is sized so that a permit is not
required for its operation. Mr. Dan Wilkerson requested a few points
of clarification be made to the bid documents.-Solid Waste permits
must be obtained as well as food service permits and a plan review for
potable water. The contractor will be the operator for the temporary
facilities. Mr. Bishop responded that the wastewater from the
permanent camp leach field will have zero discharge. The water rights
are being obtained for the permanent camp well. The bid docunents
include information to flag permits that have been obtained or are
needed. Dames & Moore will be responsible for permit tracking for
compliance.
3. Transmission Line Alignment
Del LaRue or Dryden & LaRue, Inc. discussed the work completed to date
on the transmission line design and the alignment. Th~ current plan is
to do a centerline survey this summer and a fabrication contract in
1987/88 followed by a construction contract. The line will consist of
two individual tower 115 kV circuits. The types of structures being
considered are the wooden H frame and the steel X tower. The steel X
tower is simple, stronger and fewer towers per mile are required,
therefore, the spans can be increased. On an economic basis there is
no significant cost differential. Mr. Hosking asked if foundations had
to be built for the towers. Driven steel H-pile foundations are
proposed. No concrete foundations are anticipated. The foundations in
the Fox River Valley will have riprap armament. The Corps of Engineers
route has been modified and the line terminates at the Homer Electric
line. The line runs parallel to section lines and avoids swamps and
private property where possible. Exceptions are where the line crosses
the . SE corner of the Swanson property and the western edge of the
Hilmer-Olsen fox farm. Coming out of the Fox River Valley near the
2-533-JJ 3
' '~"'; :
Swanson property, the transition from plateau to valley is made in one
span thus eliminating towers on the hillside. The Fox River Flats
emergency airstrip is avoided. The towers will be of varying height
depending on the topography (approximately 80 to 85 ft). A windthrow
problem may exist on the steep spruce covered slopes north of the
powerhouse. These trees have weak root support systems. If a
right-of-way is cut through this vegetation some additional trees may
blow down. Therefore, the line bas been moved down from the hillside
to span knob to knob. Right of way clearing has been greatly reduced.
Windtbrow consultation with Mr. Bob Burke of the U.S. Forest Service in
Petersburg, Alaska has been on-going. Mr. Burke has worked on
windthrow problems in logging operations in Alaska and has been asked
to investigate the severity of the problem and to m1n1m1ze this
problem. Mr. Ron Krohn (SWEC) will be meeting with Mr. Burke on
Thursday and Friday, April 17 and 18. Mr. Don McKay requested the
notes from Mr. Krohn's meeting with Mr. Burke. With regards to
aesthetics, the lines will alter the visual quality of the area and be
in contrast with the existing natural character.
Mr. Norm Bishop summarized the attempts being made to address
environmental concerns. All streams and the Bradley River will be
crossed perpendicularly, minimal crossing of wetlands will be done,
clearing will be minimized, the Fox Farm buildings will not be
disturbed, no towers Will be located· in the flats. A question was
raised as to what type of access is needed to put up the lines and
towers. Del LaRue responded that in certain areas it may be done by
helicopter. Some sections could be erected with ATV's. It was noted
that Don McKay had not seen the alignment before today. Mr. McKay will
send comments in a few weeks.
Hank Hoskings asked if a higher wire span would be used in the pond
area near the Olsen Fox Farm to accommodate the flight path of the
water fowl. Hr. LaRue said the towers could be heightened to
accomplish this. All that changes is the economics of the tower design
and the limitations of space on the knobs for the foundations.
Attachment 3, the Draft Assessment of Transmission Line Alternatives
was distributed at the meeting. Written comments were requested by the
end of April.
4. Salmon Escapement Survey
Attachment 4, the Draft Salmon Escapement Survey, was distributed. Mr.
Bishop indicated that this document was a working copy and comments
were requested. Comments are to be submitted by the end of April to
Mr. Tom Arminski, APA. A request was made that Brad Smith, NMFS (who
was not in attendance) be sent a copy of this survey.
5. Vegetation Clearing Plan
ADEC voiced a concern that the contractor clearly understands the
requirements and permits needed for burning as a method of disposing of
2-533-JJ
·").·" ' .
.....
APRIL 15, 1986
AGENCY MEETING
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
AGENDA
Attachment l
Held at 9:00 AM at the office or Stone & Webster Engineer ~orporati~n,
800 •A" Street, Anchorage, Alaska.
1. PROJECT STATUS
2. TRANSMISSION LINE ALIGNMENT
3. SITE PREPARATION CONTRACT BID DOCUMENTS
4. SALKIN ESCAPEMENT SURVEY
5. VEGETATION CLEARING PLAN
6. EROSION CONTROL PLAN
7. VISUAL RESOURCES MITIGATION PLAN
2-506-JJ
······ ······· ..•...•.•. ~.·-"····-~-" ...... ~.\.-~.·~t-..· ... ,.,. _.,._., ............ .
tl ~
).io~u f31Sf.IO~
; j~ A~ J~· jt.'
:t:~·-i ve.. -Vet£( ~en.
f/AH /<C. !lo.sR'/,.J t7
f;. t c"' f/er
t~~~w~"-. He e.lo ''vY
41 i-!1-e~«JIItlltl:f'
,·-j ~ f\ll e r-~ 1/
T2e-t.. t.,;z {?;r
Lot0 'l_-ro~\'
f/jjtiVE.. '7/_, ({!-
() 1 / f /Vf J C. C/rl ~ "7 r ~
.:. 1;'!-:c L ~ ~.v,· 1
,,'~ 11)~~/i12.S'fA./
. ~ ;f{,m/l.t.T
... . \/\IV~ ,.....C\t\ PI-, -~
ATTENDANcE
AG>E.tJC.y M E'E Tl NG:..
A'i>RlL 15,1'i9lo
AGENcy
::5-r;,,.;e ~ WB~JC!:f2-
At:. (Yow iL rz. A v.-fh-
4-Pft
F ti.J S
A/'A
DN~
./)a.t~SJ./41161'6
' o~.,.. t1AI}4U'e_
~Ybtr.v{4:z&t. ~e.
SwL_c_
Sw£c
Aoc=c
4PFc
AD~
ft'De=-c..
P;.\J;. ~ " It-ir-A),\..~
Attachment 2
PI-toNe fr
277 ~ z. q.c_ 1
~6 i -t-e;:;
.56~-787 7
7C2-:Z.:t 7 9-
1& )._-).). --:tf
~'L -3J'-~
._r, (_ -)] c,"
. .:::Sc:f?-~6~5
z. ( -z -Z..J·{ z_ l
z 77-2.40 7
z::e?-z':>-3_s
2 77'-25".??
:l-7 ~ . ';f _:) 3 3
r •
)
DRAFT
ASSESSMENT OF TRANSMISSION LINE ALTERNATIVES
1.0 GENERAL
Alaska Power Authority proposes to construct two parallel 115,000 volt
( 1 1 5 kV) transmission lines from the Bradley Lake powerhouse to the
Fritz Creek-Soldotna 115 kV transmission line (Bradley Junction),
planned for construction by Homer Electric Association (Figure 1).
The Alaska Power Authority has considered several route and structure
alternatives, including {1) FERC alignment, (2) refined FERC alignment
and (3) submarine cable.
1.1 Previously Considered Route
A total of three alternative route alignments were addressed in the
Alaska Power Authority's Application for License and the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement. The FERC alignment, which was included in the FERC
License issued December 31, 1985, is shown on Figure 2.
As an alternative to routing the proposed transmission lines in the
rugged, tree covered terrain between the powerhouse and the Fox River
Valley crossing point, the Alaska Power Authority, during 1985
conside~ed locating the .115 kV lines on the Kachemak Bay mud flats.
C'onstruction of' overhead transmission lines on the mud flats would
infringe upon the Fox River Flats Critical Habitat Area. The
transmission lines would also be threatened by foundation failure
resulting from soil liquefaction. Because of these problems, this
route alternative was eliminated from further consideration by the
Alaska Power Authority.
1.2 Submarine Cable Route
The Alaska Power Authority also evaluated the use of submarine cables.
Each of the proposed 115 kV transmission lines would require a to tal
3-028-mc -1-
of four cables (three cable circuits plus one spare}. Installation of
these cables within the mudflats would be quite difficult and
expensive. Unlike a typical submarine crossing, where most if not all
of the cable is placed directly on the floor of the effected
waterbody, the Bradley Lake cables would be trenched and buried for
their entire length. Each line (four cables total} would probably
require its own trench.
Data indicates that cohesionless, saturated soils would likely be
encountered along at least part of the trench routes. These granular
materials could make it difficult to hold trench walls in place and/or
cause water problems within the trenches. Additionally, heavy cable
reels (approximately 60 tons per phase per run) would have to be
removed from a barge and transported over the mudflats for instal-
lation in the trenches. This movement of heavy materials and
equipment could create significant impacts on the Fox River Flats
Critical Habitat Area.
It is estimated that the submarine cable option would cost approxi-
mately 4.5 times more than a comparable length or overhead line.
Because or this additional cost, along with the above mentioned
construction difficulties, use of submarine cable was not considered
rurther.
1.3 Refined FERC Route
Public concern and further evaluation and refinement of the FERC
alignment, conducted as a part of the Project's design phase, has
resulted in a third possible alternative (Figure 2). Although both
alignments are feasible, the refined alignment offers certain
advantages over the FERC alignment.
3-028-mc -2-
)
2.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION
2.1 ROUTE
2.1.1 Soils
Soil boring information received after the issuance of the FERC
License revealed the presence of large amounts of peat in the swampy
areas between Bradley Junction and the bluffs on the western side of
Fox River Valley. To minimize potential foundation problems, the FERC
route was adjusted to take advantage of better drained, glacial till
upland areas. This alignment provides greater long term line
reliability. It also offers less potential for adverse environmental
impacts resulting from having to maintain and/or repair structures
when the ground is thawed in the summer, the likely time when
foundation problems would occur. Where unavoidable, swampy areas are
crossed at narrow points . utilizing the most direct route possible.
Location of Angle Points requiring heavy, guyed and anchored
three-pole structures, is also avoided in these areas.
2.1.2 Slope Erosion (Fox River Valley)
The headwardly eroding bluffs along the west side of the Fox River
Valley are characterized by active surface slab failures. Utilizing
results of a detailed field investigation along with a comprehensive
geotechnical study or the rate of bluff erosion, a preferred route
alignment was selected which facilitates the transition from plateau
to valley in one span. By avoiding the use of intermediate
transmission structures, the line's susceptibility to slab failure is
minimized. (This route refinement also minimizes the crossing of
Remote Parcel Lease ADL 206393, as noted in Section 3.0).
3-028-mc -3-
'··
2.1.3 Liquefaction
The Kachemak Bay tidelands and Fox River Valley are subject to
liquefaction caused by minor earth tremors (i.e., given a 5.5
magnitude earthquake on the Richter scale, the saturated soils will
liquify resulting in zero shear values). Theoretical techniques to
reduce this problem have so far proven to be unacceptable. It vas
therefore concluded that the best way to minimize the potential
negative effects of liquefaction on the proposed transmission lines
vas to: a) modify the FERC alignment such that the Fox River Valley is
crossed with the fewest number of transmission structures possible and
minimum line angles, and b) avoid placement of the transmission lines
within the mud flats north of the powerhouse. River scour depth
studies and loop meander investigations were also conducted to assist
in the selection of the most suitable foundation design and structure
site locations.
2. 1. 4 Windthrov
A vindthrov problem may exist on the steep, spruce covered slopes
north of the powerhouse. Interior trees in this shallow soiled
bedrock area have weak root and stem support systems that have never
been exposed to full wind stress. I.f a right-of-way is cut through
this vegetation, a significant number of additional trees along the
right-of-way edge are expected to blow down due to heavy down slope
and south.:Jasterly winds. The blovdovn would be greatest on the
leeward side of the ridge, with the largest amount
upper slopes where wind turbulence is more
o.f damage done on
pronounced. Once
vindthrown, the spruce trees may provide an ideal breeding ground for
bark beetles and increase the potential for fire damage, unless
promptly removed. Overall, the wind throw effect would create an
on-going right-of-way maintenance problem and may degrade the
aesthetic quality of the area. To minimize the potentially disruptive
effects, the route has been realigned along several peninsula-like
3-028-mc -4-
high points or headlands which extend into the mud flats. Here the
tree clearing for the right-of-way is reduced and the threat of
residual timber blowdown limited to the immediate headland areas only.
Windthrown consultation with Mr. B. Burke of the U.S. Forest Service
in Petersburg, Alaska is on-going. Mr. Burke has worked with
windthrow problems associated with logging operations in Southeast
Alaska and has been requested by the Alaska Power Authority to suggest
measures to minimize the opportunity for windthrow from occurring.
2.2 TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE
Both the wood pole H-frame and steel X-tower are technically
acceptable structure types for the Bradley Lake 115 kV transmission
lines. From the standpoint of reliability and maintenance, each
structure has its own advantages. For example, the wood pole H-frame
is not guy dependent; is a structure commonly known to maintenance
personnel. They are easier to replace in an emergency as most
utilities maintain an inventory of wood poles and associated hardware
and materials. Conversely, the X-tower is simpler in design; weighs
approximately one-third less than a comparable H-frame structure; has
a longer ruling span; offers greater foundation stability with driven
H-piles (over direct embedment of the wood H-frame) ; and is fire
resistant. In terms or constructability, the X-tower has a distinct
advantage over the H-frame in that it has fewer structural parts and
is easier to assemble.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
3.1 ROUTE
3.1.1 Land Use/Ownership
In its April 12, 1985 letter to the FERC regarding the Project's Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, the Alaska Office of
3-028-mc -5-
Management and Budget, Division of Governmental Coordination (on
behalf of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources), requested that
the final transmission line right-of-way be located near the outer
boundaries of' section line easements to avoid conflict with future
public use. In response to this request, the first 4.5 miles of the
FERC route alignment extending f'rom Bradley Junction have been moved
orr the section line (Land OWnership Inf'ormation, Sheet 1 of 3). The
shif't in route alignment from the 'south side of the section line to
the north side in this area was made to assure sufficient distance
between the 1 15 kV transmission lines and State Subdivision ASLS
80-155 (Land Ownership Information, Sheet 1 of 3) and to minimize the
crossing of' poorly drained peat filled swamps. An additional mile of
the FERC route along the section line between Sections 26, 27, 34 and
35 (T3S, R10W) has also been eliminated in conjunction with a route
ref'inement that: 1) provides a shorter, more direct crossing of
relatively similar terrain·, and 2) limits the crossing or -property
included in a land exchange application by the Seldovia Native
Association (ADL 221933) to the extreme southwest corner of the parcel
(Land Ownership Information, Sheet 2 of 3).
The FERC route crossed Remote Parcel Lease ADL 206 393 in Section 35,
T3S, R10W (Land Ownership Inf'ormation Sheet 2 of 3). Efforts to
minimize impact on this parcel have resulted in an alignment that now
traverses only the extreme southern corner of the property, yet still
facilitates an acceptable routing through the complex terrain along
the Fox River Valley (Route Map, Sheet 2).
The ref'ined route alignment maintains suff'icient distance from all
other private property to minimize possible land use conf'licts, with
the exception of the privately owned Hilmer Olsen Fox Farm (U.S.S.
2937). To avoid placement of the 115 kV transmission lines within the
steep, tree covered terrain north of the powerhouse, the refined route
alignment is now centered on several headlands that extend into the
Kachemak Bay mud flats. As a consequence,. the alignment now crosses
3-028-mc -6-
.))
over the western edge of the Fox Farm property (Land Ownership
Information, Sheet 3). The proposed transmission lines could have an
adverse impact on the potential use and economic value of this
property. The Alaska Power Authority is sensitive to this problem,
but recognizes it as a necessary trade-off to limiting the side hill
scare and minimizing windthrow problems associated with the clearing
of a right-of-way on the steep, bedrock slopes immediately east of the
property. Further discussion on the subject of windthrow is included
in Section 2.0 of this Assessment.
3.1.2 Cultural Resources
An intensive cultural resource pedestrian survey has been conducted on
the entire FERC route alignment. No previously unidentified cultural
resources were located during the survey. Although portions of the
refined route have not been field surv~yed, it can be assumed that
fev, if any, cultural resources would be encountered along the nev
alignment, given that it: a) is located in relative close proximity
to the route of the original survey, b) crosses similar terrain to
that previously investigated, and c) the terraine types crossed are
not those that generally reveal cultured resources.
Although not crossed by the FERC route, the Hilmer Olsen Fox Farm was
also field surveyed. Evaluation of the Fox Farm resulted in the
determination that the site was eligible for inclusion in the National
R"egister or Historic Places. The Alaska State Historic Preservation
Officer concluded that no direct impact to the Fox Farm was expected.
However, indirect impact resulting from increased human activity in
the area was possible. The Alaska Power Authority was therefore
directed to implement the following protective measures:
1) The historic site will be posted as "off limits" to all
personnel associated with the construction and operation of
the Bradley Lake Project. As part of each employees ' job
briefing, there will be an educational segment to sensitize
3-D28-mc -7-
) the employee to the cultural resources on-project and to the
potential for encountering other such resources in the
project area.
2) There will be periodic monitoring of this "off-limits"
policy to be conducted by the Alaska Power Authority's
Environmental Field Officer (EFO).
3) Should cultural resources be located during construction,
all work which would disturb such resources will be stopped
and the appropriate authorities contacted for consultation.
The Alaska Power Authority and the State Historic
Preservation Office, as well as the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation and FERC may participate in
determining the resources' eligibility to the National
Register as well as a mitigation plan, if appropriate.
Routing the proposed transmission lines along the headlands
immediately adjacent to the mud flats will not have a direct impact on
any of the structures located on the Fox Farm site. It could,
however, have an unavoidable indirect influence on the site's visual
integrity. The potential for vandalism could also increase as
construction activities would occur closer to the immediate Fox Farm
area. Adverse effects should, however, be minimized by strict
enforcement of the above mentioned measures. The State Historic
1'!-eservaticrn Officer will be requested to render an opinion on this
matter along with the need for additional field survey of the refined
route alignment.
3.1.3 Visual/Aesthetics
The proposed 115 kV transmission lines will alter the visual quality
of the area, and be in contrast with the region's existing natural
character, particularly when viewed from the air. There are no
appreciable differences in visual impact between the two alternative
3-028-mc -8-
<•"''"'):
< < <
routes with the exception of that area between the powerhouse and the
Fox River crossing point. Here the FERC alignment was located higher
on the mountainside, thus requiring an uninterrupted clear-cut through
heavy closed coniferous forest. The windthrow effect of trees
~unraveling" along the exposed right-of-way edge, as described
elsewhere in this assessment, would further increase the visual impact
from both aerial and ground perspectives. By moving the transmission
lines off the mountainside and onto the headlands extending into the
Kachemak Bay mud flats, clearing requirements are greatly reduced.
Aerial views of a cleared, straightline corridor area are also broken
by the forested areas between the high points. Although this
alternative places the transmission lines in closer, more open view
from the immediate bay area, overall visual consequences are reduced
by the tree covered mountain "back-drop" to the immediate east of the
route. Both wood pole H-frame and weathering steel X-tower
transmission structures can blend effectively with this type of
landscape back-drop.
3.1.4 Terrestrial Resources
It is anticipated that the refined transmission route alignment will
not present any appreciable differences in wildlife and vegetation
impacts over those previously addressed in the Alaska Power Authority
License Application, Mitigation Plan, and Terrestrial Impact
Assessment Report. Some benefit could be gained from a shorter, more
dlrect crossing of the Fox River Valley in terms of reducing the
possibility of birds colliding with the transmission lines. Despite
its closer proximity to the Fox River Flats Critical Habitat Area
north of the powerhouse, the refined route is not expected to cause
any significant increase in waterfowl collisions in that flight
intensities are expected to be relatively low along the mountainous
shoreline.
To avoid crossing of poorly drained, peat filled bogs and parcels of
private property, that po~tion of the refined route alignment between
3-028-mc -9-
)
·.··)''·.·.' '-""><,·,
ii }
Bradley Junction and Fox River Valley would cross more coniferous
forest type vegetation and less low shrub bog (Figure 4).
Between the powerhouse and the Bradley River, the refined route
crosses approximately one mile less closed coniferous forest than the
FERC alignment. This relocation also offers the added benefit of
reducing the potential effects of windthrow, as discussed in Section
2.1.4.
3.2 TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE
The wood pole H-frame and steel X-tower transmission structures are
compatible with the environmental setting of the Bradley Lake
Hydroelectric Project area. Aesthetically, both structure types can
blend well with the surrounding landscape. Both are comparable in
size, will require essentially the same amount of. right-of -way, and
will utilize similar construction and maintenance procedures. The two
structures meet or exceed recommendations contained in the Raptor
Research Foundation's Raptor Research Report No. 4 Suggested
Practices for Rapt or Protection on Power lines ( 1981 ) • Neither the
H-frame or X-tower would utilize an overhead ground wire, thereby
avoiding a high ground plane in close proximity to energized
conductors. The structures' horizontal conductor configuration will
also reduce the probability of bird collisions. The X-tower does
provide for longer span lengths, thus reducing the total number of
structures-required on the landscape and increasing the opportunity to
reduce overall environmental impact. Greater foundation stability
provided by the X-tower's driven H-piles also offers less potential
for environmental impact caused by a higher frequency of maintenance
activities.
4.0 ECONOMIC EVALUATION
It is desired to see if the refinement in the transmission line
effect! vely changed the l~ngth of the transmission lines and thereby
3-028-mc -1'0-
changed the cost. Also forested lengths were compared to determine
comparative clearing costs. Lengths are scaled from Figure 2 as
follows:
FERC alignment
Refined alignment
20 miles
19.2 miles
The overall length is essentially unchanged based on this scaling
accuracy. The vertical relief may add some inaccuracies. The cost of
the two routes is essentially the same.
Forested lengths were compared based on Figure 2 and the photomosaics.
The results are as follows:
FERC alignment
Refined alignment
10 miles
9 miles
The clearing costs are essentially the same.
In conclusion, this cursory examination shows no definitive cost
differences, the economics are essentially unchanged.
5.0 SUMMARY
The Alaska Power Authority believes that it can best meet the
transmission requirements of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project by
constructing two parallel X-tower type 115 kV transmission lines along
the refined transmission line route.
3-028-mc -11-
BRADLEY JUNCTION
,...._HOMER ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION
I FRITZ CREEK-SOLDOTNA 116 KV
TRANSMISSION LINE
I
I
~~~
/~
REFINED TRANSMISSION
LINE ROUTE
.... ···!,; .! ...
:' t!} .... : <II 0
,.,
REVISED 4/8/88
,r J( "'
\\ 'r','
r-'<"'--? )
~. \1
_'.;... .... ~~
@
"'~ ..... ... ..,
"'~ t \ ..
: \
...... ...C) .....
\. ·· ... ,.~ .. --..
· .. .....
\ ·~-~ .. --...... -.! ~~ ...
'
•,
't
'~ .. ···--··-
•.·, -... _ _:
....... """".e ....... ... . .,.
···-•• 1 ..
-.···
·-:.;-__ .. : .. _.:.:· -~ ~--'~·.
:r:~~ .. -...
_)) .---·· : :, ··.·.
G(-..,.c:-('1"~
I )> -\== :' ,. ... / ,. .,,.4. ~
'
,/ # /-~ \%. GENERAL PLAN
·; . ~ / FIGURE 1
·· ..
-~ ! ,
I
1/.
\
/
\
\
/
/
a: w
~
0
I-
I
X
..J w w
1-
(/)
w
::E < a:
1.1.
I
J:
w
..J
~
8
0
~
United States Department of the Interior RECORD CCPY
Western Alaska Ecological Services
Sunshine Plaza, Suite 28
411 W. 4th Ave.
Anchorage, Alaska 99501 RECEIVED
IN REPL V REFER TO: APR 21 1986
(
WAES
Mr. Thomas Arminski
Alaska Power Authority
P.O. Box 190869 '86 ABR 21 A9 :18
. ...,
SWEC-ANCHORAGE
.1\PR I 7 1986
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869
Dear Mr. Arminski:
Re: Assessment of Transmission Line Alternatives
Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the subject document which was
distributed at the agency meeting on 15 April 1986. We have no objection to
the Alaska Power Authority pursuing the refined Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission alignment as proposed.
Under this proposed alignment revision, wetlands habitat (saitwater herbaceous
sedge grass) and small ponds southwest of the Hilmer Olsen Fox Farm will be
crossed by the overhead transmission line. To minimize the frequency of birds
colliding with the conductors, we suggest the line sag be held to an elevation
corresponding to the tree tops on the headlands where the towers are to be
located. As birds will access and exit the area from and to the Kachemak Bay
side of the ponds, waterfowl flight patterns to this pocket of habitat will
likely be over sedge flats and below the tree top level of the landward
spruces.
We thank you for the opportunity to comment and request you keep us apprised of
any new alignment developments. ·
;iW-~
Field Supervisor
cc: ADF&G, ADEC, ADNR, DGC, EPA, NMFS -Anchorage
'·; "1 (,, ... t'-;":'1.· . -·-· ..... ____ ......... .
MEMORANDUM State of Alaska
DEPT. CF NATURAL RESOURCES, DIV. CF LAND & WATER MGH., SOUTHCENTRAL REGION
TO: Tom Arminski, Acting o.ULEIVED DATE: Aprill8, 1986
Environment and Licensing
APR 2'2 1986 FILE NO: Bradley Lake Hydro
~~~ SWEC-ANCHORAii!EPHONENO: 762-2274
FROM: Robert B. Cutler suBJECT: SHPO Concurrence on
APA Unit, Project Manager Transmission Line
Alignment
In a conversation with Judith Bittner, SHPO, on April 14, 1986, it was agreed
that APA's proposed alignment of the Bradley Lake Transmission Line near the
Hilmer Olsen Fox Farm, on the Bradley River side, was acceptable. Although
the transmission line will have secondary impacts to the site, in the sense of
the negative visual impact, it will have no direct effects on the site.
The following conditions will apply to SHPO's concurrence with the
transmission line alignment in the vicinity of the Hilmer Olsen Fox Farm:
cc
1. The site will be "off-limits" to all personnel.
2. No direct impacts will occur on the site.
3. The educational program stipulation on historic sites will be
adhered to at all times.
Norm Bishop, SWEC
Judith Bittner, SHPO
Mike Vediner, CO
Ned Farquhar, CO
02·001A Rev. 10/79
I
TRIP REPORT
WINDTHROW OF TREES ALONG
TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
J.O. No. 15800.09
WP 46A
Trip to Petersburg, Alaska
April 18, 1986
Present for:
Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation (SWEC)
R. Krohn
1. Bob Burke of U. S. Forest Service met with me in his office
to discuss possible windthrow problems. The transmission
corridor is presented on drawings SWB9-211-1 through 3 and
has been physically divided up into one inch lengths for
reference in this document. Reference numbers for stereo
covers taken t'or the route are indicated on the drawings.
What follows is · a seotion by section description . of
recommendations by Mr. Burke as to where we may expect
problems, starting from Bradley Junction.
2. Recommendations:
SECTION
0 -1.5
1.5 -2.5
2.5 -3
3 -4.25
4.25 -7-75
7-75 -9.5
9-5 -15
15 -18
18 -22.75
22.75 -24.5
24.5 -27
27 -32.5
32.5 -34.5
34.5 -36.5
36.5 -44.5
44.5 -51
51 -511.5
54.5 -56
56 -62.5
62.5 -63
63 -63.5
63.5 -66
2-586-JJ
CQMMENIIRECOMHEUDATION
Open grown, windfirm
llliskegg/peet
Scrubby timber, windfirm, take only miniDlUJil
Peet
Open grown, wind firm
Peet
Open grown, windfirm
Peet, sparse trees, windfirm
Peet, scrubby timber, windfirm
Open grown, windfirm
Peat, scrubby timber
Open grown, scrubby timber, windfirm
Peet
Open grown, scrubby timber, windfirm
Peet, scrubby timber, open grown, windfirm
Peet, scrubby timber, open grown, windfirm
scrubby timber, open grown, windfirm
Bluff, sparse windfirm timber
Peat, scrubby timber
Cottonwood, don't take extra
River and Silt
Scattered cottonwood, windfirm
1
(
'
SECTION
66 -71
71 -71.5
71.5 -74.25
75 -79
79 -81
81 -82
82 -84
84 -85
85 -86.5
'86.5 -88
88 -89.5
89.5 -95.5
95.5 -98
QQMMENT/RECQMHENPATION
River, silt, scrubby timber and peet
Small trees, don't take extra
Ridges and draws, most likely windfirm, don't
take extra
Nice timber, potential for windtbrow on the
steep slope. Recommend minimal cut.
Open grown, open slopes
Fairly well open grown, should be windfirm
Adjacent to tidal flats, take extra point of
trees on the seaward side or the knob
Small timber, windfirm
Nice timber, possible windthrow on downhill
side, fringing only, don't take extras
River
Small timber, should be no windthrow
Very good potential for windtbrow, take
timber all the way to tideline. Landside or
corridor is small t:lmber and should be
windtirm
Mud and knobs. Clear •knobs all the way ~o
tideline
Good potential for windthrow on the few
remaining trees, clear all the .wa.y tg ·the
tideline.
I ·requested that Mr. :Burke provide me with a general set or
guidelines concerning windthrow. The following are his
comments.
a. When the trees are open grown, they are likely to be
wind.firm.
b. Short trees will be windtirm.
c. Windthrow is most likely to occur in tall trees that are
closely grown. The root systems are all near the
surface.
d. In general, don't take extra trees to circumvent
windthrow unless an end ot the unravel can be predicted.
4. r asked Mr. Burke to assess the previous alignments between
the powerhouse and the Fox River that had been considered
with respect to windthrow. His general observations are as
follows:
a. The best timber appears to be those that are closest to
the tideline.
b. The higher elevation the timber is, the more windfirm it
will be because it is shorter and more open grown.
2-586-JJ 2
I
'
c. Mild windthrow is all that would be expected in the
higher elevations with the smaller trees.
d. In corridors in between, the wind throw could be worse as
the timber is bigger and not as open grown.
5. I draw the tollowing conclusions trom J11f discussions with Mr.
Burke:
a. For the majority ot the transmission line corridor,
windthrow is not a problem. On all but the Eaat end of
the corridor the trees are all open grown.
b. On the tina! run from the Fox River to the powerhouse,
the trees are larger. This is the only area along the
transmission line corridor where windthrov is even
ooncievable.
c. On the downhill side ot the headland knobs where only a
narrow strip would be lett it minillUII clearing were to
occur, the maxiiiiUil opportunity for windthrow exists.
Mr. Burke concurs that these narrow strips should be
taken.
d. In all other locations, the mini.JDull amount ot timber
should be cleared tor the right ot way to meet technical
requirements.
e. In general, windthrow is not the problem that we bad
suspected and little action will be required to
circumvent problems.
Ronald F. Irohn
Lead Electrical Engineer
RFIC/JJ
Attachment
2-586-JJ 3
(
MEMORANDUM State of Alaska
DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES, OIV. OF LAND & WATER MGMT. , SOUTHCENTRAL REGION
ro: T 001 ~nn~nski, Ac~ing ~-Mtert= J V ED DATE: Perm;~ing and L1cens1~L\,~
~~ ~ • FILENO:
TI-RU: Robert B. Cutler APR 2 4 1986
APA Unit, Project Manag~r TELEPHONE NO:
WEC-ANCHORME
FROM: Deborah K. Heebner SUBJECT:
Natural Resource Off
April 23, 1986
Bradley Lake Hydro
762-2274
Transmission Line Route
Land Ownership Information
At your request, we have reviewed the Proposed Transmission Line Route Land
Ownership Information maps provided to us by APA March 18, 1986. The
information is adequate except for two discrepancies.
1. The remote parcel lease of Daniel M. Cowart, ADL 216838, is not
drafted accurately, but instead parallels the seismic line 30 feet
away and is totally within Section 35, T3S, RlOW, S.M. Cowart's
Corner #2 is 70 feet, at a 55°NE bearing, from Swanson's ADL 206393.
2. The 50 foot right-of-way application of Joseph F. De Smidt, ADL
219905, does not extend northwest from Section 29 to Section 19 of
T3S, RlOW, S.M. as depicted on the APA maps, -but instead makes a
corner to a southwest direction and intersects the transmission line
route.
We would like to emphasize the importance of submitting the right-of-way
application as soon as possible due to the current status of the remote parcel
lease, AOL 206393, and the Land Exchange Application, ADL 221933, in
Sec. 27, T3S, RlOW, S.M. The current remote parcel lease agreement provides
the state with the authority to reserve the right-of-way. If this lease
should go to sale contract and patent, the parcel owner could not convey or
rent any portion of the land for 10 years and the state could not reserve the
right-of-way except through condemnation, or possibly exchange.
The final Land Exchange Agreement, ADL 221933, was never signed by Seldovia
Native Association who disagreed with the appraisal. It is unlikely the state
will abandon the exchange (pers. comm. Dennis Daigger, AONR) which·is due to
expire June 1. A new preliminary exchange agreement will have to be
renegotiated at that time, with a reappraisal of the land. The current status
of the Preliminary Exchange Agreement does not preclude the issaance of the
right-of-way, although AONR must go through agency and public contact prior to
issuing the letter-of-entry. Seldovia would have the opportunity at this time
to object to the right-of-way.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call.
DEPARTltiENT OF FISII AND GAltiE
April 24, 1986
Tom Anni nski
Alaska Power Authority
P. 0. Box 190869
701 E. Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869
Dear Mr. Anninski:
RECEIVED
APR 2 4 1986
BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR
SWEC-ANCHORAGE
333 RASPBERRY ROAD
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99518·1599
Re: Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project-Assessment of Transmission Line
Alternatives
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (AOF&G) has reviewed the Draft
Assessment of Transmission Line Alternatives for the Bradley Lake
Hydroelectric Project. The department is cognizant of the slope erosion,
liquefaction, and windthrow problems associated with the placement and
construction of transmission Tines from the Bradley Lake powerhouse to the
Fritz Creek-Soldotna junction. Based on the available information presented
in the assessment of transmission line alternatives, the department does not
object to the refined Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) alignment
as the preferred Bradley Lake transmission line alignment.
Waterfowl mortality resulting from collision with transmission lines is
expected to be insignificant in terms of the total number of waterfowl found
at the head of Kachemak Bay. However, the siting of the refined FERC
alignment along headlands between the Bradley Lake powerhouse and the
Bradley River could have some impact on waterfowl that use mud flats, ponds,
and the shoreline in this area.
At the April 15, 1986 Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project Agency Meeting,
department personnel were infonned that transmission line height between the
two towers situated on the headlands immediately southwest of the Hilmer
Olson Fox Farm would be approximately 27 feet above ground level at their
lowest point. Low transmission line height between the headlands could
result in high localized collision mortality for waterfowl that utilize the
mud flats and ponds between the headlands. The department therefore makes
the recommendation that transmission structures on the two headlands
southwest of the Hilmer Olsen Fox Farm be increased in height so that the
transmission lines would be no less than 50 feet above ground level at their
lowest point between structures. Increasing the transmission line height in
this area would reduce waterfowl collision mortality and preserve waterfowi
local use of the mud flats and ponds between the headlands.
(
Mr. Tom Arminski -2-April 24, 1986
Siting of the refined FERC alignment across Sheep Creek and the Fox River
inland of high density waterfowl areas alleviates much of the department's
early concern with respect to waterfowl collision mortality in this area.
With respect to the visibility of the transmission line, the department
recorrmends that the transmission line itself be made as visible as possible
to avoid waterfowl collision mortalities.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Assessment of Transmission
line Alternatives for the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. Should you
have any questions concerning our comments or recommendations, please
contact myself or Don McKay of the Habitat Division at 267-2283.
Sincerely,
/) //.d / {;tdf~t~~
Carl M. Y gawa~
Regional upervisor
Habitat Division
Anchorage
(907) 267-2283
cc: G. Bas, ADF&G
D. Clausen, ADF&G
R. Kramer, ADF&G
D. Holdermann, ADF&G
H. Hosking, USFWS/WAES
0. Wilkerson, ADEC
B. Cutler, ADNR
C'i.
· .. ,, :"·'·
' •..
~ . : :,. t '> • •• r • • , i . ~ ·, I • . ·.,, , -.
Land Field Services
301 West 64 th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
JJMPlante/DLMatchett
Gen Files/DOC
JJGarrity/chron
TCritikos, JBK 46A-ld
NABishop
RKrohn
w/att
w/att
w/att
w/att
w/att
April 25, 1986
J.O. No. 15800.09
WP 46A-1d
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES COMMENTS
LAND OWNERSHIP INFORMATION
TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Enclosed is C:.l.l April 23, 1986 memo from the Department of Natural
Resources to Mr. T. Arminski of the Alaska Power Authority. This memo
provides comments concerning land ownership along the transmission line
route. Please review the Cowart and De Smidt land parcel locations,
and if you agree with ADNR's comments, please make the necessary
changes in the ownership information maps and advise us accordingly.
Please call Mr. R. Krohn at 277-2427 if you have any questions on the
above.
Theodore Critikos
Deputy Project Manager
TC/RK/JJ
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Del LaRue, Dryden & LaRue, w/enc
NOTED APR 2 ~ 1986 r. Critlkos
2-559-JJ
MEMORANDUM State of Alaska
RECEIVED DIVISION OF PARKS AND
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES OUTDOOR RECREATION
Bob Cutler
APA Unit, Project Manager MAY 0 5 19~tTE TO
DNR FILE NO:
·sWEC-ANCHORAGE
FROM:
~ ¥-1-~7
Judith E. Bittner~~~~
TELEPHONE NO
SUBJECT:
State Historic Preservation Officer
April 25, 1986
1130-13
762-4108
Draft Transmission Line
Alternatives Review,
Bradley Lake Hydro
We cannot agree with Stone & Webster's conclusion on page 7 that " ••• it can
be assumed that few, if any, cultural resources would be encountered along the
new alignment •.• " At least portions of this new alignment are in areas of
considerably higher probability than the surveyed route. We request consulta-
tion with APA and Stone & Webster to determine those portions of th new
alignment that should be surveyed.
We do agree that the previously proposed mitigation measures should accommo-
date the new visual effect on the Hilmer Olsen Fox Farm.
cc: Tom Arminski, APA
Norm Bishop, Stone & Webster
DR:tls
ALASKA STATE PARKS
Let's Put Them on the Map!
(
LAND FIELD SERVICES, INC.
P.O. Box 111705
AnchOI'age, Alaska 99511
561·1671
P.O. Box 2510
F ai rtlanks, Alaska 99707
452·1206
April 30, 1986 RECEIVED
MAY 051986
SWEC-ANCHORAGE
Mr. Theodore Critikos
Deputy Project Manager
Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation
Bradley Lake Project Office
P. 0. Box 101520
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
RE: Land Ownership Information
Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project
Dear Mr. Critikos:
As requested in your letter of April 25, 1986, we have reviewed
the ADNR comments in the April 23, 1986, memo from the Department
of Natural Resources to Tom Arminski, and do not feel that
changes in the ownership maps are necessary at this time. Our
response to Ms. Heebner's comments follow:
1. The narrative legal descriptions applicable to the
Daniel Cowart (ADL-216838) and John Swanson (ADL-
206393) parcels, as taken from the ADNR records, con-
tain rather vague and imprecise data. In fact, if
taken literally: (1) The Swanson parcel does not close
upon itself; and (2) The Cowart parcel would overlay,
or conflict with, the southwesterly portion of the
Swanson parcel. The portrayal of both parcels on the
ownership maps represents our best estimate of the
intended locations of said parcels based upon not only
their narrative legal descriptions, but also the sketch
plats associated with such parcels, also derived from
the ADNR case files. We have found that in some in-
stances this information conflicts with itself. We too
noted the intent of Mr. Cowart's parcel to be 30 feet
from and parallel to the seismic trail centerline. The
seismic trail as depicted on the ownership maps is
based upon the trail as observed from the aerial photo
mosaic prepared by Dryden & LaRue Inc. for Stone &
Webster. Due to the uncontrolled nature of the mosaic,
some distortion in position of the various features is
expected. Thus it was necessary for us to bring to-
(
Mr. Theodore Critikos
April 30, 1986
Page 2
2.
gether the imprecise legal description data , and the
uncontrolled photo mosaic features, onto an accurate
portrayal of the various Section, Township and Range
data. In such instances compromises must be made, and
the only alternative that .. we had was to try to arrive
at what we felt was the intent of the parties (Cowart
and Swanson), given the priority of their filings.
Only an on the ground survey will finally define the
parcels' actual locations.
It is our understanding from ADNR that Joseph DeSmidt's
right-of-way application (ADL-219905) is intended to
follow the seismic trail (note that it is only an
application, and has not been granted): and was filed
to establish access rights for Mr. DeSmidt and the
public. Again using the aforementioned aerial photo
mosaic, a great many trails become evident; however
none. are readily apparent on the photos that •make.s a
corner to a southwest direction and intersects the
transmission line route•. I'm not trying to imply that
such a trail does not exist: it just was not apparent
in the materials that we had to work with. Also, my
recollection of the ADNR case file for ADL-219905 was
that there is only the most meager of a map in the file
to describe the intended location of the trail; and
that there was no narrative legal description to sup-
port it. Again using the photo mosaic, we tried to
portray the seismic trail to the best of our ability:
however its actual location cannot be.determined until
an actual survey takes place.
I have discussed the foregoing with your Mr. Ron Krohn; and by
copy hereof I am providing my comments to Mr. Arminski and Mr.
LaRue.
Very truly yours,
LAND FIELD SERVICES, INC.
tU~~
Warren L. Krotke
WLK/jb
~ MEMORA:~t;M State of Alaska
DEPT. Cf" NATaT• DIV. Cf" LAKl & WATER MGMT., SruTHCENTRAL REGION
TO: Oav~d ft,_.: '.~~~~i . DATE: April 30, 1986
ProJe£t M'at@, PPA . /' t:t::t, R E c E I v Eo· FILE NO: Bradley Lake Hydro
.t
,~~:.~. ... (···· .... , . ·.> APR~& 1986
TELEPHONE NO: 762-2274
~~:· ·:· t.t,argaret J. Hayes
~··' :: ·~·:.:;_·,'J!tegional Manager
~,~ .,_~·::"~.:7::--··-~···; ·~ .. ' .... ?
SWEC~ANCHORAGE
suBJECT: Review of Assessment of
Transmission Line
Alternatives
..... ·,·-~ .) .. : ··-~ \ ... x,_~ :1'i:j: · The Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the draft "Assessment of
. }~· Transmission Line Alternatives" for the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project.
We have no objection to the refined Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
alignment as proposed.
.:.:-.. ~ : .
' . .... ... : ~-' ... , ....
We understand this document is a cursory examination of the refined alignment
and we expect further detail.inlehe Vegetation Clearing Plan on clearing
limits, number of acres of timber tQ;be c~eared and specific land ownership
data (acres). .. . / .·r : . · .. ;1 .~::: . : .' ·. •·•·• .... . ,
The new alignment should reduce windthrown trees along the transmission
corridor in the Fox River area. The Vegetative Clearing Plan for the.
transmission line should also address the monitoring and disposal of
windthrown trees along the transmission line.
We do not agree with Stone & Webster's conclusion on page 7 that "it can be
assumed that few, if any, cultural resources would be encountered along the
new alignment ••• " At least portions of this new alignment are in areas of
considerably higher probability than the surveyed route. APA should consult
with the State Historic Preservation Officer to determine those portions of
the new alignment that should be surveyed. · '
We do agree that the previously proposed mitigation measures should
accommodate the new visual effect on the Hilmer Olsen Fox Farm.
The Division of Geological and Geophysical SUrveys (OGGS) did not have
adequate time for a thorough analysis of the Assessment of Transmission Line
Alternatives, and, therefore, the comments of DGGS will be submitted in a.
separate memo within the week.
We thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to call.
cc Tom Arminski, APA
Norm Bishop, SWEC
02 ·001 A tRev. 1 01791
.'.
• ··-'t.j
)
)
Mr. Del LaRue
Dryden and LaRue, Inc.
6436 Homer Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
Dear Del:
R E C E l V E D MAY -5 1986
RECEIVED
MAY 12 1986
SWEC-ANCHORAGE
April 30, 1986
In response to our telephone conversation of April 25, 1986, I have examined the
maps and aerial photographs relating to the Bradley Lake 115 kV transmission lines.
Below you will find comments on the routes and their potential impacts on
waterfowl utilizing the wetlands south of the Fox Farm.
The area of concern appears to be two open-water wetlands lying in the floodplain
of Bradley Creek. This portion of the floodplain is apparently in an old river bend
which is occasionally flooded. The ponds are both less than 5 acres in area, appear
to be fairly shallow and as such are probably utilized as feeding areas for dabbling
ducks (mallard, teal, pintail, etc.) which stage on the Fox River Flats prior to
vernal and autumnal migration. These waterfowl typically follow watercourses and
topographic depressions from their loafing and resting areas to and from their
feeding areas during their daily movements. SUch flight paths are generally known
as "communication flywaysn (as opposed to "migratory flywaysn which the birds use
to journey between wintering grounds and summer nesting areas). When using
. communication flyways, waterfowl generally fly within 200 feet of the surface.
However, only direct observation of waterfowl utilizing this area can determine
flight behavior, population density and activity.
It is my opinion that any of the three alternative alignments in this area could be
built with minimum impact to waterfowl. The two alternates would have little
effect on d1:1cks utilizing the ponds in the area in question. The proposed route's
location, in relation to the ponds, could increase the potential for collisions with
the lines. However, the use of orange globes would reduce that potential, as would
the absence of shield or static wires (see enclosed report which I researched and
prepared).
The presence of the lines over these two wetlands will likely reduce waterfowl use
of them. However, because the conductors will be extremely high, it is unclear as
to the extent the utilization will drop.
)
Mr. Del LaRue
April 30, 1986
Page 2
The foregoing observations are based on my professional opinion and my experience
with waterfowl observations in relation to existing transmission lines after
reviewing topographic maps and aerial photographs. As I indicated previously,
actual field observations may indicate this particular area has unique characteris-
tics or provide insight which could revise my stated opinions. However, from the
maps and photographs, there appear to be no major concerns that cannot be
mitigated. ·
I appreciate the opportunity to assist you. If you have any questions or comments
or if I can be of further service, please don't hesitate to contact me.
JMB/ksw
Enclosure
Respectfully,
9-L)11.~
John M. Bridges
·wildlife Biologist
)
INTRODUCTION
BIRD COLIJSIONS
Literature Review
Agency /Utility Contacts
Summary
TABLE OF CONTENTS
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSOCIATED WITH
A SUBMARINE CABLE CROSSING
LITERATURE CITED
CP&L2/Es-40
Page
r
1
1
1
4
9
10
13
)
INTRODUCTION
The primary purpose of this report is to provide a concise summary of the current
literature on bird collisions with high voltage transmission lines (HYTL} and review
some of the problems with this issue encountered by the electrical utility industry
throughout the country. __ Knowledgeable individuals were contacted by Gilbert/
Commonwealth staff to obtain results of recent investigations of bird-HYTL
interactions. Personal contacts included both industry sources and resource
management agencies in each of the four major migratory flyways in North
America. A generic description of the environmental issues that can be associated
with a submarine cable crossing was also included as part of the study effort.
BffiD COLI.J.SIONS
Literature Review
Birds in flight have been known to collide with obstacles in their flight path. These
collisions have occurred with buildings, t_elevision and radio towers, transmission
and distribution lines, telephone lines and fences. A synopsis of pertinent issues
gleaned from Gilbert/Commonwealth's in-house literature relating to bird collision
mortality is presented below.
Bird-transmission line interactions are not a new phenomenon, as evidenced by
Michener (1928} who authored one of the earliest accounts of this problem. There
is a plethora of literature on bird collisions with man-made obstacles, much of
which has been annotized in Weir (1976). Avery (1978) presents a fair summary of
transmission line impacts on birds. However, until recently, few researchers
included sufficient information in their data to assess the significance of collisions
to the regional bird population (Gauthereaux, 1978). While many different species
have been reported as apparent collision casualties (Goddard, 1976), the primary
concern in the literature seems to be with large, slow-flying birds which are less
maneuverable, such as wading birds, and fast, low-flying birds, such as wa~erfowl
and shore birds. Resident birds tend to rapidly acclimate to new transmission lines,
while immatures and migrants, which are newly arrived, tend to avoid feeding
and/or loafing within one-quarter mile of transmission lines until· they become
CP&:L/Es-40 1
accustomed to it, which takes approximately one month (Bellrose, illinois Natural
History Survey, personal communication).
Within the last fiv~ years, few studies of the problems dealing with bird strikes at
HVTL's have been conducted. One of these studies was conducted by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and funded by utilities in the Mid-American Power Pool
(MAPP) (McConnon, United Power Association, personal communication). The
report has been out in draft form since 1983; however, according to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Editorial Office, the final report will not be published until
late spring 1986. The draft report of the study funded by MAPP foun.d the observed
mortality for all species was about 1.8 percent of the bird flights observed, which
Faanes (in press) concluded: "This in itself, for the species considered, was not
biologically significant." Two other studies have been funded by Bonneville Power
Administration (Willda.n Associates, 1982; Beaul.aurier, 1981}. Beaulaurier {1981}
conducted experiments on short sections of two transmission lines, one in Washing-
ton and one in Oregon, in which the overhead groundwire was removed from
previously studied transmission lines. The purpose was to determine what effects
this removal would have on bird collisions. Willdan Associates (1982) examined the
impact of a 500 kV transmission line at an island in the Columbia River. Their
) studies included the effects of habitat alteration and changes in waterfowl use.
_)
Older studies, before 1983, which provided sufficient data to determine the effects
on regional populations indicate that mortality associated with transmission line
collisions generally represent less than 1.0 percent of the populations studied
(Table 1). For comparison, Willard et al. (1977) considered hunting mortality to be
as high as 30.0 percent in some waterfowl populations, which apparently recovered
sufficiently on an annual basis to provide a huntable population.
Special concern has been expressed by Central Power & Light Company about
diving ducks colliding with transmission lines. The populations of individual species
of diving ducks seem to have fewer numbers than other anatid subfamilies.
Therefore, in reviewing the literature, special efforts were made to find those
sources which identified the species involved in collisions. Results of studies
examined in this review indicate that diving ducks were not a major component of
the birds which collided with lines. Among these were Faanes (in p'ress): 11 Among
CP&L/E$-40 2
)
)
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF REPORTS OF BrRD COLLISIONS WITH "POWER LINES"
WHERE PERCENTAGE OF POPULATIONS STUDIED COULD BE DETERMlliED
Author(s)
Stout and Cornwall (1976)
Anderson (1978)
Wiese (1979)
James and Haak (1979)
Beaulaurier (1981)
Malcolm (1982)
Willdan Associates (1982)
CP&L/E5-40
Percentage of population suspected
of collid~ with "power lines. n
0.07 percent of nonhunting mortality of North
American waterfowl was by collision with tele-
phone or power line
Between 0.2 and 0.4 percent · of maximum
number of birds present in power plant slag pit
collided with lines exiting from plant
0.03 percent mortality observed in 2,791 flights
of wading birds flying near three different sets
of HVTLs
Based on population estimates at two study
areas, 0.57 and 0.46 percent daytime collisiorl$,
0.84 and 0.92 percent nighttime collisions
Collision rate averaged 0.52 percent of bird
flights for two studies on one site and 0.89
percent of bird flights on another site
Collision percentage of birds using a wetland in
Montana is between 0.3 and 0.4 percent based on
population estimate
Collision percentages during two year study at
two different study areas ranged from 0.002
percent to 0.05 percent
3
)
)
waterfowl, the diving ducks appeared to encounter few problems when in flight
near a power line."; :Malcolm (1982) reported diving ducks represented approxi-
mately 100 of 3,218 known bird collisions; Cassel et al. (1979) reported 4 of 105
individuals were diving ducks; Anderson (1978) reported approximately 1. 7 percent
of those waterfowl that collided with lines were diving ducks; and McKenna and
Allard (1976) found 4 of 2~4 individual birds found were diving ducks.
In summary, birds do collide with man-made objects, including electric transmis-
sion and distribution lines. In some studies, most bird collisions with transmission
lines were found to occur at the shield wire. These collisions occur d~ring all types
of weather conditions and may or may not be fatal to the birds. Large birds,
waterfowl and wading birds (herons, egrets, etc.) are the most commonly reported
casualties, but it is unclear whether larger birds are more likely to collide with the
line or merely more observable after the collision than smaller birds. Current
published literature on the subject provides no means to eliminate these collisions,
and attempts to minimize them are poorly studied. In one reported mitigative case
history, B.eaulaurier (1981) found tha.t bird collisions with a transmission line were
reduced by 50 percent when shield wires were marked with orange globes or
removed entirely.
Agency/Utility Contacts
Resource management agencies and utility companies throughout the United States
were contacted to determine their experience with and/or policies regarding bird
collisions with transmission lines. In cases where Gilbert/Commonwealth staff had
prior knowledge of experiences with this issue, we contacted specific individuals
within the agency/utility. Where specific personnel were not known, we directed
our inquiries to staff of Utility Transmission Engineering Departments and the
Environmental Planning Departments of agencies.
The contacts made are reported in Table 2. These are divided into the four major
migratory flyways: Atlantic, Mississippi, Central and Pacific. Many.· of the
agencies' and utilities' areas of concern overlap more than one nyway. In. these
instances, contacts are listed in the table based on the headquarter location of the
agency/utility.
CP&L/E5-40 4
TADLB 2
THLHPIIONB CONTACTS RBOARDING BIRD COLLISIONS WITH TRANSMISSION LINBS•
i\gcncy
Atlnntic Flyway
Florida Game nnd Freshwater
fish Commission
Florida Deportment of
Environmentnl Review
Suneoast Seabird Sanctuary
Florida Power Corpora lion
Seminole Electric Cooperative
Orlando Utilities Commission
Person Contacted
Perry Oldenberg
Landon Ross
Ralph lleath
Or. Dave Voigts
Mike Roddy
DIU Shoup ·
Bird Collision JnrormaUon
The agency hBll no poUcy or regulations regarding bird collisions with transmission Unes.
The agency has no policy or regulations regarding bird colUslons with transmission Unes.
The Suncoast Scnblrd Sanctuary round that 9-lnch orange globes attached to transmission lines
reduce the number or bird collisions.
Bird colUslons were a problem on an HVTL Intersecting a waterbird nesting and feeding area.
Orange balls were used to reduce the number or collisions.
No problems known.
At a coai-Cired power plant, the USPWS and Florida G&FC recommended, among other things,
that wetland habltot be established on the site. The only area available Cor such a development
was under an IIVTL exiting the plant. Both agencies withdrew their recommendation.
• Attempts were olso mnde to contact the following Individuals, who were unavailable!
1. Bob Jessen, Minnesota Department or Natural Resources
2. Or. William Anclcrson, nllnols Natural History Survey
3. Roger Woodworth, Woshington Water and Power Compony
4. John llucknllee, Electric Power Research Institute
CP&: 1.1/Es-40
Agency
A lion tic Flyway (Cont 'd.)
Florida Power and Light
Compnny
South Carolina Public
Service Authority
Mnrylnnd Department oC
Natural Resources
Allegheny Power Service
Corpora tlon
New York Power Authority
Mississippi Flywn;r:
United Power A.~soclntlon
Cooperative Power Association
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service
C P& 1.2/E&-40
Person Contacted
Dr. Ross Wilcox
CharUe Hamer
Tom Magette
Don Thomas
John Hecklau
Dan McConnon
Will Kaul
Carl Korschgen
TABLB2
(Continued)
Bird Collision Information
Nearly all or their problems have been with response to consumer complaints associated with
distribution lines. Response was to use 9-lnch orange balls. There were no repeated complaints
rouowlng placement.
No problems known.
The agency has no poUcy or regulations regarding bird collisions with transmission lJnes.
No problems known.
There have been occasional collisions by great blue heronsr no mitigation measures have been
Implemented.
They relocated a lJne route to avoid crossing an open water wetland.
The Minnesota DNR required a submarine crossing (1500 reet) to avoid the potential Cor
collisions with migratory waterCowl. C.P.A. also uses conductor sized shield wire In some
wetland crossings, which Jppears to be errectlve.
The LaCrosse, Wisconsin, ortlce was conducting studies on avian movement patterns on the
Upper Mississippi River using radar and laser techniques. The study was not completed due to
lack or rundlng. Observations Indicated some collisions with a new transmission line would be
Inevitable; however, local populations would become accustomed to the line and migrants would
be higher than the line.
Agency
Mississippi Flywoy (Cont'.d)
Illinois Nnlurol History
Survey
Tennessee Volley Authority
Central Flyway
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service
Nebraska Public Power District
l(anso~ Gns and Electric Company
Knnsos Power and Light Company
C P& 1.3/ E5-4 0
Person Contacted
Dr. William Anderson
Dr. Frank Bellrose
Walter Thomas
Dr. Harold Kantrude
Mark Czaplewski
Mike Miller
Tom Bozeman
TADLR 2
(Continued)
Bird Collision Information
In studies on Lake Sangchris In central fiUnols, Anderson noted that waterfowl avoided an IIVTL
rather than Cly through It or under lt. lie recommends that, when possible, waterfowl use sreos be
avoided during the routing process.
Dr. Bellrose has noticed a reduction or waterfowl use within one-quarter mile or a new
transmission line tower. lie round that local residents would acclimate quickly, and did not
believe waterfowl collisions were a problem.
TVA has used orange boLls (size unknown) to minimize bird collisions at speciCic locations. Studies
or bird movements In relation to HVTLs have been conducted, and the results are In press.
The Northern Prairie Research Center conducted a study In the northern Great Plains on bird
collisions with transmission lines (see Fasnes, In press). No recent (since 1983) studies hove been
done by their ornce.
The company relocated a 345 kV line route to minimize Impacts to a waterfowl staging area on
the Platte River. They also experimented with vibration dampers and wind spoilers on shield
wires to Increase visibility. These had little effect and Increased Icing and wind loading problems.
There have been no problems with birds colliding with transmission Unes1 however, some ducks
Clew Into the side or a power plant. No mitigation measures have been Implemented.
During routing shidles, several agencies suggested the use or orange globes at a crossing or a
Corps or Engineers reservoir. None were req~lred and none were placed on the line.
00
Agency
Central Flyway (Cont'd.)
Public Service Company of
Colorado
Public Service of New Mexico
Pncifie Flyway
Pugct Power Company
Pnclfie Gas and Electric
Compnny
Sierra Paclflc Power Company
Pacirlc Power nnd Light
Company
Donncville Power Administration
WRshington Water & Power
Company
CP& L4/E&-40 .,
Person Q>ntactcd
A. Dean Miller
Dale Stahlecker
Mel Walters
Mark Dedon
Steve Siegel
Steve Wilder
Jack M. Lee
Roger Woodworth
TADI.H 2
(Continued)
Bird Q>Uislon Information
They Cllmed 20 days during two migration periods to monitor crane movements In relation to
transmission lines. It was noted that most casualties were caused by panic (lushes. They noticed
no difference In flight behavior at spans with normal static wires and spans with larger static
wires.
A report on bird coUlslons with HVTI.s was prepared u part oC Section 1 consultation and Is not at
this time available Cor public distribution.
When rebuilding an existing line across a lake with 300-400 resident trumpeter swans, 1 or 2 swans
were killed In the Clnt 30 years or the line's llfe1 orange globes were plnced on the new
conductors. (No static wires were used.) The effectiveness of globes was questioned.
They use orange globes on IIVTL crossings of flyways when required. Their effectiveness Is
unknown.
No problems known.
They were required to move a Une route In Klamath Basin to minimize the potential for waterfowl
collisions.
Studies conducted Indicate coUislons were reduced by approximately 50 percent It shield wires
were marked or removed. State or Montana accepted monetary compensation for loss of 100-200
waterfowl per year In lieu or other mitigation.
No problems known.
)
The Atlantic flyway contacts reported the occurrence of occasional bird collisions,
which has resulted in utility attempts to minimize these impacts using orange
globes on the shield wires. None of the regulatory agencies contacted within the
Atlantic flyway had policies or guidelines regarding bird/transmission line inter-
actions.
Incidents of occasional bird collisions were also reported by selected utilities in the
Mississippi flyway. Where mitigative measures were implemented to reduce bird
mortality, -orange balls were used on shield wires: except in one instance, where a
69 kV line crossed the inlet of a lake heavily used for recreation and regulatory
agencies required installation of a submarine cable. None of the agencies
contacted had developed specific policies or guidelines regarding this issue.
In the Central flywayt very few instances of bird/transmission line problems have
been encountered by the utilities contacted. In the few instances where utilities
were required to implement some mitigation, usually orange balls, no studies have
been undertaken to determine their effectiveness. The Public Service Company of
Colorado, with others in the "Crane Study Group," has completed the most recent
work to document bird/transmission line problems. The concensus of their work
was that most collisions were caused by "panic flushes" (birds startled into flight)
and that increasing the size of shield wires had limited effect on bird flight
patterns. The assumption was that larger shield wires would be more visible to
birds.
Those utilities contacted in the Pacific flyway which reported problems with bird
collisions indicated they have used orange balls as a means of mitigation. An
interesting side note is that, the State of Montana has accepted monetary
compensation, in lieu of requiring other mitigative measures to compensate for
waterfowl losses.
Summary
In general, bird collisions with transmission lines are not considered a· major
problem except in isolated cases. The accepted method for reducing collisions has
consistently been the use of orange globes on shield wires and/or conductors, and
CP&L/E$-40 9
removal of shield wires in areas of low isoceraunic activity. These measures have
been reported by several utilities and agencies to reduce bird collisions. While
) certain groups of birds reportedly are more vulnerable to collisions, the loss of
these birds seldom represents more than one percent of the population present.
Although particular concern for diving ducks has been expressed, they normally do
not appear to have problef!.lS avoiding transmission lines.
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSOCIATED WITH
A SUBMARINE CABLE CROSSING
Options to overhead transmission line construction are available, but generally
speaking are more costly and also pose potential hazards to the environment. Con-
sideration of a submarine cable for electrical distribution purposes generally
requires more time for permitting activities and construction because of the
seasonal aquatic studies often needed to prepare an acceptable environmental
assessment, and the time restrictions often placed on construction schedules to
avoid conflict with sensitive ecological issues.
Results of previous submarine cable crossing projects indicate that once construc-
tion of a cable is complete, under normal operating conditions, there are no known
environmental impacts on the marine ecosystems under which they pass. The
primary marine environmental risks associated with the installation of an under-
water circuit occur either during their construction or as a result of the accidental . .
discharge of the cooling fluid during the line's operation (assuming that cooling
fluid is required).
Offshore construction activities, particularly dredging operations, involve physical
disruption·· of the bottom substrate material, resulting in suspension of fine
sediments with attendant temporary deterioration of water quality, and redeposi-
tion of these materials in surrounding areas. Potential adverse effects on biota
from these operations include physical disruption of bottom habitat, destruction of
benthic organisms, decreased light penetration and reduced photosynthetic activity
of phytoplankton, avoidance of the near-field area by fish and other larger mobile
organisms, and release of potentially toxic materials from sediments, if they are
contaminated. The severity of potential impact is dependent upon the 'sensitivity
CP&::L/E5-40 10
)
of existing aquatic resources and the specific construction techniques to be
employed. Regulatory agencies frequently require ecological studies to identify
the presence or absence of sensitive ecological species and the characterization of
dredge spoils to as::ist in the evaluation of potential impact. Results of regulatory
review and project approval frequently restrict construction schedules to specific
time frames aimed at a~~iding critics.} fish spawning or migratory periods. If
dredge spoils are found to be contaminated they must be hauled to an approved
upland or ocean disposal site. These types of restrictions attendant to addressing
environmental concerns, only add to the high cost of a submarine cable.
If rock substrata are encountered in the trench required for cable placement,
additional potential impact to aquatic resources can be realized. Explosives used
for this type of work produce a sharp shock wave with an abrupt front of great
pressure intensity. This type of shock wave is potentially injurious to fish,
particularly those having air bladders. The impaCt range for fish with air bladders
appears to be about 150-200 yards when utilizing a 30 pound charge. Fish without
air bladders usually are not injured unless they are very close to an explosion.
The potential impacts due to blasting on fish can be an important environmental
issue associated with a submarine cable project. For this reason, blasting is usually
scheduled to avoid spawning periods of commercial and sport fisheries. The
establishment of such construction windows frequently eliminates many of the
concerns of regulatory agencies, but may restrict construction to a few months of
the year. Should blasting .be necessary during other months, appropriate methods
of detecting large schools of fish can be implemented and all blasting operations
performed only when aggregations of fish are outside the area where harmful
effects may be expected (i.e., 250 yard radius).
Operational-phase impacts to the aquatic ecosystem relate primarily to the
potential escape of the line's cooling fluid (if such a system is required). Rupture
of the line can be caused by such incidents as a ship running aground, erosion of the
cover material and exposure to currents and wave action, potential damage from
future dredging or construction operations, or potential damage due to an .anchor
being dragged across or snagging the cable. Low viscosity polybutane dielectric
fluid (L VP} is a commonly employed cooling fluid in submarine 'cables. The
CP&L/E5-40 11
)
)
potential release of this substance into the water column has been the concern of
regulatory agencies and environmental intervenors. While toxicity studies with
pollution-tolerant fish and brine shrimp have resulted in high survival percentages,
the effects of L VP on sensitive plankton, algae and other fish species are
apparently not known.
CP&L/E5-40 12
)
IJT.ERATURE CITED
Anderson, W. L. 1978. Waterfowl collisions with power lines at a coal-fired power
plant. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 6:77-83. ·
Avery, M. T. (ed.) 1978. Impact of transmission lines on birds in flight.
u.s.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OB5-78/48. 151 p.
Beaulaurier, D. L. 1981. Mitigation of bird collisions with transmission lines.
Bonneville Power Admin. Portland, OR. 83 p.
Cassel, J. F., D. W. Kiel, Janet J. Knodel, and J. M. Wiehe. 1979. Relation of
birds to certain power transmission lines in central North Dakota. United
Power Assoc. Elk River, MN. 50 p.
Faanes, c. A. (in press}. Assessment of powerline siting in relation to bird strikes
in the northern Great Plains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jamestown,
North Dakota.
Gauthreaux, S. A. Jr. 1978. The impact of transmission lines on migratory birds:
Assessment of completed, ongoing and planned research and an analysis of
future research needs. Depart. Zool., Clemson Univ.
Goddard, S. V. 1976. Special studies: number and composition of birds killed by
striking transmission lines from the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant.
Northern States Power Co.
James, B. W. and B. A. Haak. 1979. Factors affecting avian flight behavior and
collision mortality at transmission lines. U.S. Depart. Energy, Bonneville
Power Admin. 109 p.
Malcolm, J. M. 1982. Bird collisions with a power transmission line and their
relation to botulism at a Montana wetland. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 10:297-304.
McKenna, Michael G. and Gary E. Allard Nov. 1976. Avian mortality from wire
collisions. North Dakota Outdoors. Vol. XXXIX, No. 5.
Stout, Jack and George W. Cornwell. 1976. Nonhunting mortality of fledged North
American waterfowl. J. Wildl. Manage. 40(4):1976.
Weir, R. D. 1976. Annotated bibliography of bird kills at man-made obstacles: A
reivew of the state-of-the-art and solutions. Environ. Manage. Serv.,
Canadian Wildl. Serv ., Ontario.
Wiese, J. H. 1978. A study of the reproductive biology of herons, egrets and ibis
nesting on Pea Patch Island, Delaware; report for the period March through
September 1977. Delmarva Power & Light Co. .-
Willard, D. E., J. T. Harris, and M. J. Jaeger. 1977. The impact of a proposed
500 kV transmission route on waterfowl and other birds. Willard and Assoc.
Inst. Environ. Studies. Madison, WI. ·
CP&L/E5-40 13
)
)
Willdan Associates, Inc. 1982. Impact of the Ashe-Slatt 500 kV transmission line
on birds at Crow Butte Island: post-construction study final report. Bonne-
ville Power Assoc. Portland, OR.
r
CP&:L/E5--l0 14
MEMORANDUM State of Alaska
DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOLRCES, DIV. Cf' LAND & WATER MGMT., SOUTHCENTRAL REGION
TO: Tom Arminski, Acting Director DATE: May 2, 1986
Environment and Licensing
FILE NO: Bradley Lake Hydro
THiU: Robert B. Cutler
APA Unit, Project Manager TELEPHONE NO: 762-2274
FROM: Deborah K. Heebner SUBJECT: Transmission line Route
Natural Resource Officer RECEIVED w Map Review
ALASK,,~.~~~-·-~ ·
We have reviewed the Transmissi~i~2Yt~~ketch 17, SWB9-2ll-3 for
Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Power~o!@et-~r~~~by Stone & Webster. A check
of the most current land status data on file with OLWM revealed only the land
conflicts listed below.
ADL 24501 Fox River Cattlemen's Association Grazing Lease
USS 2937 Fox Farm
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
. ---; ~L":':..~l'l __ _
_____ i Sw6<-
l
I
1---------2 ----
02.001A IRw. 10/791
-
MEMORANDUM State of Alaska
DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOLRCES, DIV. OF LAND & WATER MGMT., SOUTHCENTRAL REGION
TO: Tom Arminski, Acting Director
Environment and Licensing
DATE: May 2, 1986
FILE NO: Bradley Lake Hydro
~~~ TELEPHONE NO: 762-2274
FROM: Robert B. Cutler suBJECT: SHPO Concurrence on
RE'c;:-rv=-o ov r1r· d T i . APA Unit, Project Manager ALA SK,~ ~ -~·; --.·: '-,, ... J.ne ransm ss1on
ine Route
"86 HAY -7 A9 :So
The APA's proposed refinement of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project's
Transmission Line is acceptable to the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO), subject to the following being accomplished:
An Intensive Pedestrian Archaeological Survey be performed in that area
of the proposed transmission line corridor, in non-muskeg areas, as
generally depicted on the enclosed map and specifically identified, at
the meeting held at Stone & Webster (May 1, 1986) on your photo map by
Tim Smith, SHPO, in the following general areas:
Sec. 25, T3S, RllW, S.M.
Sec. 30, T3S, RlOW, S.M.
Upon review of the survey results, SHPO will advise you as to their
concurrence on this portion of the transmission line.
Except for the area identified above, SHPO has agreed (by conversation with
Judith Bittner, SHPO, on May 2, 1986) that the Refined Transmission Line Route
satisfies FERC Sec. 106 requirements. Your evaluation of alternative routes
has resulted in an alignnent that alleviates, to the maximum extent possible,
any impact to known resources, including the Hilmer Olsen Fox Farm.
tnclosure
cc Judith Bittner, SHPO
Tim Smith, srFO
Ned Farquhar, CO
Mike Vediner, CO
Norm Bishop, SWEC
02-001A IR8¥. 101791
RECEIVED
MAYo 7 1986
SWE'C-ANCHORAGE
-I !J ,._., '
........ -.
, .• ...1 • "-.
_.._/U..nau::::::~.z;ul~,J~JU!,i;;~Jl..-.-_~ -~tf;-_C:
~J,;],Nt
1-------.
,.., ~, •• ,<•;tt s .! ).J, n ~rf!: f
:II' ........._.. p~ l ;nc.,,.,.., w (/lf4rll} ..# H r::. I . r-
J'~~.
DEJ•ART,IEXT OF XATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT
SOUTHCENTRAL REGION
~~ay 5, 1986
BILL SHEFFIELD. GOVERNOR
3601 C STREET
BOX 7.005
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99510-7005
PHONE: (907) 561-2020
RECEIVED
MAY 07 1986
SWEc-ANCHORAGE
Joseph F. De Smidt, Jr.
Box 776
CERTIFIED MAIL # P 540 499 145
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Sterling, AK 99672
Re: ADL 219905, Right-of-Way Permit Application
Dear Mr. ~t :.Jo-e.....-
I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter of November 24, 1985,
regarding the Right-of-Way Application, ADL 219905. A review of this
application has raised several concerns on the route selected.
Although the easement requested has been traditionally used, the location may
not be the most advantageous due to the long circuitous route and the presence
of peat and poorly drained soils. Also, it does not appear that one single
route is continually used but rather several routes are taken across wetland
areas, especially south of Caribou .Lake. An example of this is on the ~GS
topographic map; a trail is depicted which parallels your requested
right-of-way, but isn't the trail that was applied for by you.
In conclusion, this office feels that it may be premature to reserve an
easement across an area that may be unsuitable for a longterm, permanent
easement. Your use of those state lands as described (i.e. four wheel drive
vehicles, ATV's, three wheelers, etc.) is a generally permitted activity which
can occur without a right-of-way easement.
If you are able to identify a specific alignment where a right-of-way easement
can be properly located (i.e. centerline description tied into survey
monumentation) that will be used by the public continually and avoid having a
variety of trails across this area, then a right-of-way permit will be
considered. This situation is not unique, but it is not in the state's best
interest to establish a specific right-of-way easement on a "floating11 trail.
Mr. De Smidt
May 5, 1986
Page 2
This decision is final insofar as the Southcentral Region is concerned. Any
further appeal should be addressed to the Director of the Division of Land and
Water Management, in writing, within 30 days from receipt of this letter:
Tom Hawkins, Director
Division of Land and Water Management
P.O. Box 7005
Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7005
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Deborah
Heebner at 762-2274. ·
Sincerely,
~~
Regional Manager
~
Alaska Power Authority
APA/OTHR/0018
May 5, 1986
Mr. Robert Cutler
Division of Land and Water
Alaska Department of Natural
Resources
State ot Alaska
3601 "C" Street, Frontier Building
Pouch 7-005
Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7005
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
( ADNR) APRIL 23 AriD 25 MEMO
VISUAL RESOURCES MITIGATION PLAN
VEGETATION CLEARING PLAN
EROSIO~! CONTROL PLAN
BRAPLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Sill Sheti1e1d. Governor
~~
Thank you for providing agency consultation on the Bradley Lake
Project '·s Visual Resources Mitigation Plan, Vegetation Clearing Plan
and Erosion Control Plan. The Power Authority has responded to each of
ADNR' s April 23 and 25, 1986. comments on the attached pages. For your
convenience, the ADNR comment is followed by the Power Authority's
response.
Thank you for your continued consultation. Should you wish to discuss
the responses please contact Mr. Thomas J. Arminski or my self at
(907) 561-7877.
Very truly yours,
ALAS~A POWER AUTHORITY
~fi~J(~
David R. Eberle
Project Manager
DRE/NAB/JJ
Attachment
PO Box 190869 701 East Tudor Rood Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 (907)561·7877
2-601-JJ
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (ADNR)
DIVISION OF LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT
APRIL 23, 1986 LETTER FROM MS. MARGARET J. HAYES
VISUAL RESOURCES MITIGATION PLAN
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Page 2-13. Paragraph two:
ADNR Comment
On page 2-13, it is stated that the "Regulatory agencies contacted
during ongoing consultation have reported no public concern over visual
effects of the project." On April 15, 1986, DNR held a public hearing
in Homer to discuss Phase I of the permitting process (i.e., leases,
material sales, contracts). Testimony taken during that hearing did
not indicate visual impacts as a primary concern. However, DNR feels
that given the keen awareness of local residents to environmental
concerns of the project, comments specific to the Visual Resources
Mitigation Plan, if solicited, would be received. Public concern over
visual impacts regarding the. transmission line corridor is expected.
Alaska Power AuthoritY Response:
The transmission line will have a visual assessment once the alignment
is finalized. Visual Resources are being considered in the
transmission line design as well as many other environmental, technical
and economic. Your concern will be addressed as part of the
transmission line visual assessment.
2-569-JJ 3
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (ADNR)
DIVISION OF LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT
APRIL 23, 1986 LETTER FROM MS. MARGARET J. HAYES
VISUAL RESOURCES MITIGATION PLAN
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
5. 1 Description of Pro 1ect Design Considerations to Minimize Erosion
and Sedimentation -General
ADNR Comment
The feasibility of maximizing winter construction activities to
minimize erosion should be addressed. Guidelines for the design phase
should also include specifications for monitoring of activities causing
erosion.
Alaska Power Authority Response:
Due to scope and geotechnical considerations winter construction will
be limited during the Site Preparation Contract and Main Construction
Contract. Prudent engineering practice requires the placement of
unfrozen soil · and rock in the dams, roads and work areas. The
underground work can proceed during the winter.
Winter construction and special ATV's (i.e., nodwells or wide track
vehicles) will be utilized for the transmission contract in
environmental sensitive areas. This measure will limit land
disturbance and erosion.
2-569-JJ 8
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NationaZ Marine Fisheries Se~Jice
P.O. Bo:c 1668
Juneau, Alaska 99802
RECEIVED
May 7, 1986 PEC~IVfr'J qy
ALAS~,' -· . -..• '·
MAY 1 4 19BS
.SWEC·ANCHDRAGE
"86 HAY 13 A10 :44
Mr. Tom Arminski
Alaska Power Authority
P.O. Box 190869
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869
Dear Mr. Arminski:
We have reviewed the draft Assessment of Transmission Line
Alternatives for the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project and have
recently met with Stone and Webster personnel to discuss
proposed revisions to the line routing. Based upon this in-
formation, we agree with the "refined alignment" corridor
utilizing steel x-tower supports.
Sincerely,
/f _(·kg~
Ro)iert w. McVey
~rector! Alaska Region
---·
., '! -:
~~~:;._:~--<_: ---· ·\--.. t-.;.-;..;...::i: ;...;,;, r .Cf.:
I &:zt-N'JJGI
::= I s~k
I
' ' ..... :·~. 'J ". I ---------------
---J'l'ans'",)reJ ~! ./f/asi~<
R.t.~!lW) LUI IJw,·SI;,... i
il.tpMI-m-.f ( )}a/-AJ
L"'"J ..,..d. wc:t;;;;\ RECEIVED
/f)MJ~~~-r
Fox River Flats Critical Habitat Area . MAY 2 3 RfCO
AUsKA POWER AUlliORITV (A) Township 4 South, Range 10 West. Seward Meridian
Section 20 S~ (not tide or submerged land)
Section 21 ~ (not tide or submerged land)
Section 2Z ~
Section 23 ~ (not tide or submerged land)
Sections 25-29
Sections JJ .. J6
(B) Township 4 South, Range 9 West, Seward Meridian
Section 30 ~ (not tide or submerged land)
MEMORANDUM State of Alaska
DEPT. Cf" NATURAL RESOURCES, DIV. CF LAND & WATER MGMT., SOUTHCENTRAL REGION
TO: David R. Eberle DATE: June 4, 1986
Project Manager, PPA
THRU: Robert B. Cutler~
APA Unit, Project Manager
FILE NO: Bradley Lake Hydro
TELEPHONE NO: 762-2274
FROM: Deborah K. Heebner u'./J
Natural Resource Officer
suBJECT: Review of Assessment of
Transmission Line
Alternatives
The Division of Geological and Geophysical SUrveys (DGGS) has finally reviewed
the draft "Assessment of Transmission Line Alternatives" for the Bradley Lake
Hydroelectric Project. OGGS indicated in their comments that the concise,
rigorous thoroughness of the report was to be ccmnended. I have attached the
specific comments of OGGS for your examiniation.
!l<H:bsp/0176p
BECEIYEO.
.~JN 0 5 1986
~'M POWER AUTHCRI'll
RECEIVED
JUN 061986
. SWEC-ANCHORAGE
MEMORANDUM State of Alaska
TO:
FROM:
SCOTT CHRISTIE
DGGS:ANCHORAGE
. .-:?/
RANDY UPDIKE l L
DGGS:EAGLE RIVER
MAIL STOP:
DATE:
FILE NO:
TELEPHONE NO:
SUBJECT:
29 May 1986
688-3555
BRADLEY LAKE HYDRO
TRANSMISSION LINE
REALIGNMENT REVIEW
At long last I have had an opportunity to review the
above referenced document. Attached herewith you will
fin~ my comments which I hope will be of some value
to the team working on this project. As indicated
in my comments, I was very pleased with the quality
of the report ..• someone should be congratulated on
some thoughtful and thorough work.
Please express my apologies for being so late in getting
the review completed. Also,. express my thanks for giving me
the opportunity to comment on this aspect of the project.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECTION
Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys
.c , JiT~~~:t:;r ;:it.
;SUBJECT: Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Dam Project
. i. 1 ,l. l~_;·-::,-:..::· ~:~;.::;;: -~ .. ·,-::.:. ... ""-:: .. · .....
'ITEM: Draft ~ransmission Line Alternatives Review ,.,r_.....,,,c. . ,,, J ,, 1 , ,,.;.·; .' •• : ; . • .
1 Updike::chief of Section
'-:--.~··; .1:·£~-;"'
~;~~~ ."~-:
discussed: (1) FERC alignment,
+E,;;;i~~riHil'fl"'•:•';...::;;,e..r;~:iit~02~t."~= .. t .. ·'-'"·r::;·· ·~ ! ., .;-;.' , ~· · i ·
Bay mud flats route, (3) Submarine
._;tj~~~l!';~,;~.:;·~ :. ~,~· -. I.' .. -!_ -t, 1 ~ • ·~:~-•.
) Refined FERC ·alignment-. ·
'!fd~~~~,~!..;;·~'"--~~;·.1"-'i.-;i,..~ .;<..;, ~1r~(~--:· r·~ 'f,;L~},
_not appear· 'feasible from a ge.o-:.:··
' ' . -. : .. • :. •,. ·! 1·-; -:.•..:·~·~ . -· '' I -
andpoint .. because of serious lique~ :
_..;:..~ .. , •• ~--. :i<.~~---~ ..... ~~-.:~· ·~; ••.
b-le-ms. ~ .. I agree.: w·i th the elimination
~t. ~r;..~~..: "" .. ; .. ~..J.J: ... :.. ,. -: : :....;"l.t.~-;11,-. :· . . ·--~
1 ternat~ ve. ·,. ·., .. .:rl:,~::: ;..,. •. , •.... r • "·
·~1~·~ f·a·~·f~~-~e ~o~:i:~~·'' tha~,-other"subm~~i
.?"j•~.~:.lt:~'.f,;:S::"'!-:141"'~?~!~1;.~~ .-\~.""1":"~-:· • ..: ' : ... ;..:;:: -;' .•. -J ."': • • • : ---.... -
'presently in operation in the state-.
. :~~·1:f;!l'-, ,li,.,;.· !;.;;s~:;,_ .... ~-i-•. ·: .• :--: . .."· ..... ···,··':·!'·, •. .1. . ... ;.~ --~--.._ ..• · • -. ~: . -·~. '-~ .
• ,• Chugach Electric Beluga line across Knik ~·
.:;~.-:_::~::-~·-·' ::'•>.· : .. :· .,.,.···~~---: :' ,., -:.-1~-~·
Arm to· Anchorage).· "Trenching problems of lique-
:~·· ·:l,; :. ~:-..:.· .. :;t.i~'.: ~~-' -. \ .<!'• ...... ~.:~. . . ·.~ ~ i '. ' ..
iable ~,soils, water ··inflow;·· and maintenance of
:.J~::i~.~~-·-~!t·~·.-.:~;·t::::~ .... :.· -~. . .4. • ', • '. :;--' --· j
· grade "alignment, ·plus the logistics· of ·reel
: , .... ~t~ .·,~ ;, ·; ··:.:r:-:~; .. -"1":'o<<.-~ • • . y . • , • ~
. . ::~'>: . fr.l~~>-_tran~port . affects not only. the cost of the project f;r~:r.,.,:.~~;i6.,1:r~¥-',..;•!' ·, .. ·:•i,;;.·.,· .. .-:.f·_;:> ..• ·''· ' . .. _. ; , .; -1 , .::,~·~:-;. ...i: :.;.:~.;;::.but the assurance of success, maintenance and .l~t<.·~----"~,·~· -~·-~~·-_,-·_, .. :tr,. a'"l-1-.· -. .... ~1 .::~.' :·' ·-. ··:· ;;io~i ~-oz:'i~g~·du~~ng life_, ().f. .. th~ _f ~ci.~i ty,. and -~~~1.;;:·-.. -A,,.,
'-'~ifillii7~Tx ~~t~~.i~~~~,de~;f -~ht·~~·~~~1i~r~~~~-~~ddi.~i~~~·i1~;,
. ;.!J~:-;.!.(~~1)-.,.~-~.:-:-· ... ·.1~-·;:~~t _ _., ~ ··.:'.: ~d , ... ;;._" ••• ~·;·>·.. ~ j ---..... --.~:_-•. : -~->-. -~~--., i_
:·:the potential .for lateral displacement. of sub-'';:".
,)~~~~ ~.--~. · ···?--=:..J-;::~>t.. ·• · · ..... .:·· ·• ·~ ~ ···~~-........ ; ... :: · • 1 ·-. :·~·"'"" ··~·~;:.e.:'~..:. .;r~·:· .. : ·
·i-';, ·marine soils in the event of major earthquakes · ·~-·
' ... ~ -~ , '.,.;. ~·f ' .. ' ' -• ·! ,« -~..:· ..... ' , ..... ·~!"! ...... ..., .. ....,~ ~ -...... ..:::;., ]"·-· ~~-:-'-~-::..;i,~3•<;;i:~
_could cause rupture of one or more lines·; with. -' ... ".1 ..
:.·" .. "'; ~ .. ~l-. · ~~, .. '""-·-:-_ .. · .• , J ·~· : .. ~ : •••• -... '" • -1 ··~•. ~.-.~··.'".:.:..~'":'·"'~-;., ... ~.l~~··r··"r.,_:."':'::,;-r~-~-.\.' , .. _,·--::u ..
, ~repa'i~·s· bei~g ,;ery difficult. ~location ·-a:nd ·ac~~s.SY:~-::<.
:~-·:-~·' • _...:-:-' .~.·,,: !~ ::·~. • • .,., ,.L~·,. '"• :~..,_ .. ~~ ._.. ''"','.._'
·-·on the plus side, habitat and visual concerns would
...
be benefited. I agree with the elimination of
this alternative.
4.] Concerning Route (4), the northwest segment has
been realigned to take advantage of till hills
rather than peat low areas. Thick peat was cited
as the main concern. What type of soil underlies
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECTION
Alaska Dirision of Geological & Geophysical Surveys
l.: :·:•:;\~;1~~~:;~~~::~~~:~ ~;.:
[ Bradley--L~ke' ·Hy-dro Transmission Review/· Page 2]
· .:<·· b~',1::1J~~~l~;-S" :' : ,; -:
' ·, 1,~,~~~--:~>~~~J.}.~,"-~~!.l...t~t~~I.~-----~-·-~;. ~ .. \ ·l < • • ·: •• ~t.:.=:;'•i::;;~;.b~ ·:.eccepta)?le ~-contingent upon strip excavation
· ~.:U.r:_~cl, '•~~~~et'~,,.;;.~~~~~~~~~'~;;~ ·?•--"" -~ . . .;j ~ .. _ .. ~:.!:·'".:-._~--·--_-.• -_·---.·-:_··~~···1·;··~·,·1~.:._ •• ~.~-••• ·.::_~···:·:··.·:·;•-~.-'..: • · "'f · '~-S ~~·:If<·· ·c) f · the .,.pe_!'-t .zone , ,>:ins t a 11 at ion of drain system ,· ~~-:" · . -~-~:;.;>!. .,J:<>"-··:;,_,i·:;::>.1I'._.:~..,.J'••!::;j,',..~•· C•i•T·~ ,l _, . ·-~~:~.{.and ''backfill. wfth.NFS gravel. However, I would
· .:.· ,, ·,$?-"fi;:-~.,o.:.::J,11;·~A~~j;;~;,<t'~~..;~ .'~~"'· ''r0 • .: • ,ct~·~·!;.i··~· .. . i:4 ·,.:-:-:!i.'-t..-';;\_:.:,_ten,d. to ·.t!u~p~:-~.Jr~~t .. s':lscept.1.ble clayey .si 1 ts !~.:..~·~ ,_,-.;.'~~~--~~~jf{J:;::r~~~;-;· ..,.,;:.~-1H ·-:-''-· .. ·."1-·. ~ ..
:.:'· ~;r:':'~'.-.;:.::~o.'j::jt:under .the· peat ·which· would be poor for foundation
~· /,.~~~t~:~-;~~ Ji ... ¥=1-~!~-~~~,h~'4!..~~~s-:'!,~~#·j,i~i~: 1.~~~;;·":~~.; ~. . ,... . . • -,.·:~ :;; :':~. c~=.r."d:~t"v or.k :and .ma.J.ntenance ;·:.:.·~"'.! .suggest the bor.J.ngs be . ~;t~·;~· .... ·:/'-:-~~ ~f :·.~~~~,~:~~-~-~1 ~ ..... ·~·~:v~:-l:"-t:~?~·;. _. -~.:.;:~!"~ ._!S'~.:,1 ~: ~-:~-. . I . . •.. ·.-: ,.·~ -· .i:~f}.·.~ ", ·_ ·;y·;;:;_ · eviewed ~o-nce· more· for (a) peat thickness, · ·.: ·,, .
t:::\<~-~.,~-·:~;-__ ·~r~a,~ ;:,r.:~~::...;;;a~~~p.,.·r~-:....~·-•:, .... ~~~1"·:~:i~~-: .. l •• j'" .", .... •· --.;_ :~--:··-
.. ):;i.i;~~:;:·~·: ..• .:.;r1~1f-:A · ·soil,:-types 'beneath the peat, ·and (c) natural
;;~·.54:~:i<E?.::~'-t:~:-::,,:s.Jt·;A · !"..:1~~;.~t--r~-~··i_r<"~;·,~_:·-''·t:1 .... :;-:~-·: .:· ·-:" ·. , :_ · _,. · ~ ·:,__ ·..;
~~:~f:.v~X~.;~··;>~.,;.~:;~-~~ oist~r.;
1
7-onteri~, ·yariation with depth. With no , , ;;~-j~-f~;-i~-~·)+'7~;':~~ ~-:~·r:~:r---~-7-.. ~~·.:f-1 w. ·~~·p·· ..• ~ .. · . ... ' ~: ..
.•. ~ •.•. ~~ : ,;_ ,.r•,r-·-"; dd.1.t.1.onal data ava.1.lable to me I would support ...
: :l~~ ... ~.: ... ·.,:.::~~ .. : :_ :.~ .. ~;.:l. -~ ~:: ~~;~"1:..:/.-:-~,.~~--~-o.-.. ;' .~ -:~ ". : . ' '
::~r:;r;fi~·:;::·; :·:_,;;f~.~~~~.f:r _ll..t;::_re_~l.ignmen~. pr~posed •.. ·_The severity of. the
._,.t-<.[ ·•1;'~.: ,..,.. -•.~ : • ' ..,.-~.-.. :_.,.i.:-• .. ~rl-.;;_.1,. U •-• "'~ f f•'l' L4---~t. •· , • • i·K,.;L.: · · ~-~:{.tJ~~:;.cor_r!-do~ .. li~e ·.angles __ pre::;ent_ i~ the_ original FERC
-J: ~•, ; ' ;;.:, ·f~·-;,._ --. f:.~ ;."'r• c J --;:.-:..·-;.f+.r~:t.r • ~ -• t-' .., .. .., .. ~ , • -_, ·.Ir::,:·--·~L ~1: ~~· :; ·:.~ri}~..:~,align~ent ~Is favorably' 'reduced by the revised 1 J1.;..~;:~;-..;-, ~ . ti}'~J·..:l·:.···t"'•_ f:-.:..j:. ~-~~ .. : ... ~~~;::~·.... -··· j I~'·. j+~.: I · ... ·-~
·~1.-~:{~~-..-:· f~~4'.:s.] I:or· the "segment of route '(4). 'traversing the west ,~t,-~~~i~_::._;~ -·~:1j~~t~~1~bl~Jf'f'·~~f-"~F~~ ·,Rl ~e-;''·~~J.'i~~-~--:1~~·: ~hould p~~bably
.-.~-~· ~;~~i··"'!~t"~J~~--__ :_:_:;;·~.-;-:-!;~=~·--;~7: 4:~:;1:-~-'i.~~~~t~-1-r~-~ _.. .... -··-· . -I
·"":. ~ .~~L_1:;,:n · ~~' '~;:;.;:;~i.ti:~..:·}~·ask, ;why· is the supposed resistant projection ~ :1
,:a~ !"':'~;.fr .. !.:.;•;:/ ~-· __ ... ,_-:.. .. 1<. '?:'j.!:~!~~~ '" ', ~ .. :1~; _;_,, · --· _ ~ ~ ·t -~ • ..:..: · ~ ~ ~ : __ _
r:~Y.52:;:(~~·:::~;;:~;~~~;t~~~-~;;~!~+J~~~~--;l?~~se.~~ _a~ ~~:is . selected point? . Ba~ed -
.:!,~:??~~:.:-:~:·-:·~-~;"',:~~:-~¥~;;;:.··solely on _t;he topographic map (fig. 2) I would ,
.,~.. ~·~,_.;·"t'• ..• / 'J ... :r .. ~~ ~~L.-i~·4~~::-.... .t·:~-. -.. .. ~ .. ~. ~~·---:-.:~ :··.: .. io,o• • -·~·.: -~..--··-
·. :: · ~~·,.;·~::n t,--~(0);~":.-:gue.s~-~-t.~a~~~-~is ~i-~_,an~;area _of _gla<:_i~l. mo~a~ne ;/ ~-·: : ;t~t~ !t.~J·~:t· !-..3.~i~1~~~!-~i~t :e.t~J;:"'"~~~~~~ ,r~~:;;c.;.~!.:_.Lj. -... ·~~!• v·., ~··· .,.._...u-.. ~•~~~·-· ~=.,.:~'lA-':t~i--~-~.:i.:~~:~ .. ,.,~ ·
··~;~, O:"'l'l~:·.~:: .Y~~.,·.~. whi_ch }~,·.re,:~dst;~nt ~.to _erosion, stands :·in_: a s.~e_ep · -~~*~.s.. fj~~;j~--\"«t_... :_: : • .::;;..,'{;.: ":"-:£:: ~.;_ ;\.'-_-4 ~-~-~~--~~.-11\··~·.·; ·~~.J~~~-· .. -4~. . ,_ -~. t • ... ~ .. : ...;.e :.,..---..:\~'h.· "':"". :;:;' .. · -·~·'=""''" .....
: ;~~~,~~a:· -: .·r;r:.;·: bluff .. slope, ·and should have excellent foundation
.. ''::"\....::i~'!"~;~.-;::"'~."'1-;. ~· :.:·:~-: ·=; ··.. ·:·--.~:: .... ~~"'_:---._. ~· .. ::. ...... ;:_.;.:.: .. _-:.:;;.:i:':"""~ •• ;:'t'_ .• : . • . ,· :-· --4:.. ,.·:~ , ',• .. ··:· .. ~~··. ~.:;.-c :...*' ··----:~ :~: ~~-· ....
:-;:,;~.:;-:-:;.:;i~:. characteristics~ . The only two alternatives I c·an "
·.0\~,:~;,~~--:.7'; ,,,_, 1 -''.·.see are di'~~·~;i~,,~-ou~h'in sects •. 2 and ll:~he"re'
?<! ::~:: /< ·i :t.~ ~·-"'~~~~t·;~t~;~~~;·o~·inent-c points exisi} :_·I h~:..~~· ''t;·k~n;,.~-
•• 1 _,; -. ' '
the liberty of drawing an optional Fox River .. -~-·
.c-:
approach on a copy of the provided fig. 2. 1 This . .--:-.
option probably impacts the habitat issues but
if not might be worthy of consideration because
it (a) reduces by at least 1 mile the length of
this segment of the corridor,
angles to the slope.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECTION
Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys
-" . ,':.-~ -~1 I. . ~
[Bradley Lake ,Hydro Transmission Review/ Page 3]
quite variable foundation conditions but this will
be ··adequately considered in siting of towers. If
not previously noted this first segment may be
subject to avalanche run-out. At the proposed
tower site locations in the bedrock segment ( 2. 5
-·-.
.. _;;:
~ ~. ~
-:-.1 ... -:...: ---.. :-~
to 4. 5 miles from the powerhouse) careful geologic __ . -----,~:=_?~J-~~
evaluation of bedrock structure will be necessary · , -· '-_ ::._~---:-?
to assure r~ck slope 'stabil-ity~~~ At··"fh~--s:i~~t{~~-~';r,::~:;:~~~~~'
the approach of potentially active faults to the_ ;:7~'· _ ·'i_~-~l
~--~ -·-_:-_ ;._:_-·:£~?~
. --~--·--~-,~' --~!;-~::-: ·~--~ .. ~-~~~j·~-----~-71-~ --~
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECTION
Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Sutveys
' . , .
·: .
·· .. ,_ -.:;
.·
~ .--~ -./
-...... ~4-.... -.
-"·-"" • ~, L,
__.
........_
I
(/')
UJ
(\J
~ w ~
0 0: a: ::) w > CJ
i= -
~ lJ..
z a: w
~
....J
~
[~
~!OTES OF CO!'JFERENCE
MIDDLE FORK DIVERSION
AGENCY REVIEW MEETING
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POHER AUTHORITY
J.O. 15500.12
\·!P 980-6
Held in the Conference Room Present for:
Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
8oo A Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
June 5, 1986
PURPOSE
Agencies:
Don McKay, ADF&G/Habitat
Hark Kuwada, ADF&G/Habitat
Bob Cutler, ADNR
Michael Granata, ADNR
Deborah Heebner, ADNR
Leroy Latta, ADNR
Hank Hosking, USF':.JS
Scott Hansen, COE
Patty Bielawski, DGC/ACHP
Alaska Power Authority (APA):
Toa Arminski
Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation (SWEC)
Uorm Bishop
Hyrl Fisk
Bill Steigers
The meeting was held to discuss a preliminary assessment of the
technical, econooic, and environmental considerations of alternatives
for the Middle Fork Diversion. Two distinct alternatives to the FERC
Lioonse Application were discussed: (1) an open channel
diversion; and (2) overland construction access to the Middle Fork
diversion site. Attachment 1 is the meeting agenda. Attachment 2 is
the sign-in attendance sheet. Attachment 3 is a pz>eliminary
assessn~nt of the proposed alternate open channel diversion and
construction access for the Middle Fork Diversion.
DISCUSSION
T. Arminski presented a short introduction to the Middle Fork
Diversion.
1-303-JH
1.0 Old 3usiness
N. Bishop presented the results of a May, 1986 assessment by SWEC of
the height of transmission lines over the tidal flats near the Hilmer
Olsen Fox Farm. It has been determined that the 50 feet minimum
conductor heights can be maintained as recommended by ADF&G/Habitat
without major tower modifications.
o The minimum height of the transmission line conductors above the
mud flats under "normal" loading conditions will be approximately
67 feet. This condition is taken with a temperature of 40°F
which represents the prevailing condition when waterfowl are
present during spring and fall.
o When the temperature increases on the conductors from 40° to
60°F, the minimum height of the conductors will be about 65 feet.
o A 30 foot minimum sag height could occur under the extreme design
case when 1.7 radial inches of wet snow occurs on the conductors.
This has a probability of occurring once in 50 years based on our
meteorologist's report.
o The probability of waterfowl being in the area at the time when
the extreme design case will occur is low. This design case will
occur during the winter when the birds are not present.
T. Armin ski reported that no settlement with the U.S. Department of
Interior (USDI) and the National Park Service (NPS) has been reached
related to the resolution of water rights fr001 the Nuka Glacier,
although APA is continuing to discuss the matter with them. All FERC
Article Compliance plans have been approved, and APA is prepared to
begin construction of the Bradley Lake Project. However, the APA
Board of Directors has, at this time, decided to delay proceeding with
the Project until an agreement is reached.
Responding to a question by P. Bielawski on whether an amendment to
the FERC License Application would be needed if final resolution of
the matter resulted in less water being diverted froc the Nuka
Glacier, T. Arminski indicated that APA might have to go back to FERC
if water quantities differed substantially fran those stated in the
License Application. N. Bishop stated that total diversion of the
Nuka Glacier flows contributed about 13% of the average annual energy
output of the Project. Existing flows from the Nuka Glacier would
contribute about 7% of the average annual energy. Up to 30% of the
average annual energy of the Project could be derived during short
periods of time fran the Nuka Glacier flows, depending on localized
summer precipitation anomalies in the basin.
2.0 New Business
N. Bishop introduced B. Steigers as a new addition to the staff at
SWEC. With this staff addition, SWEC will be in a position to conduct
revisions of terrestrial impact assessments and mitigation plans for
1-30 3-JW 2
~
Alaska Power Authority
APA/OTHR/0054
June 19, 1986
Ms. Patty Bielawski
Office of the Governor
Sto:e of Alos~o
Office of Management and Budget
Division of Governmental
Coordination
2600 Denali Street, Suite 700
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
COASTAL PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE
TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY
APPLICATION
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Attached is the completed Coastal Project Questionnaire, the Alaska
Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Application for the Transmission
Line Right-of-Way Permit and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G} Application for a Transmission Line Stream Crossing Anadromous
Fish Protection Permit.
Should you have any questions please contact Mr. T.J. Arrninski.
Very truly yours,
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
David R. Eberle
Project Manager
DRE/EP/JJ
Attachment
2-690-JJ
• * * • • * * • • * * * * * * * * * * *
PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS. PLEASE INCLUDE MAPS OR PLAN DRAWINGS WITH YOUR PACKET. AN
INCOMPLETE QUESTIONNAIRE MAY BE RETURNED AND WILL DELAY THE REVIEW OF YOUR PROJECT.
PART A
Applicant: Alaska Power Authority
P.O. Box 190869
Contact Person:H.r. D.R. Eberle, Project Mgr.
P.O. Box 190869
Address: __ ~70~l~E~a~s~t~T~u~d~o~r~R~o~a~d __________ _ Address: 701 East Tudor Road --------~~~~~~~~~------------
Anchorage, AK 99519-0869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869
Phone (day): (907) 561-7877 Phone (day): (901) 561-7877
Brief description of project or activity, including timing: -------------------------------
See Attachment
··Location of Project: --------------------------------------------------------------
Township ___ Range ___ Meridian ___ Section ___ Aliquot Parts ___ USGS Map ______ _
Is the project on: private land x __ ;:;.;;._ __ _ state land x federal land x __ __;,:~--------
municipal land __ _ ownership not known ---
Identify which region of the State (see attached map) the project is in:
northern southcentral x southeast ------
* * * * * * * * * * * • * * * • * * * *
PART B
1. Do you currently have any State or federal approvals/permits for
this project? If yes, please list below.
Permit/Approval Type Permit/Approval # Ex pi ration Date
See Attachment
2. Will you be placing structures, or placing fills in any of the
following: tidal waters. streams, lakes, wetlands*?
Yes No
X
X
* If you are uncertain whether your proposed project area is in a wetland, contact the
Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch at (907) 753-2720 for a wetlands determination.
3. If yes, have you applied for or do you intend to apply for a U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) permit? (The COE has jurisdiction
over activities described in No. 2 above.) If yes, please indicate
[in Question No. 4 below], when you applied to the COE or when you
intend to apply.
4. Have you applied or do you intend to apply for other permits from
any federal agency? If yes, list below.
Agency
See Attachment
Permit/Approval Type
Date you submitted or
plan to submit application
• • • • • * * * * * * • • * * * * • * *
PART C DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Yes
X
X
1. Is the proposed project on State-owned lands or will you need to cross x
State lands for access? (Note: ln addition to State owned uplands, the
State has jurisdiction over most lands below the o'rdinary high water 1 ine
of streams, rivers, lakes, and mean high tideline of the tidelands seaward
for three miles.)
2. Do you plan to use any of the following State-owned resources?
a. Sand and Gravel Yes --No X If yes, amount? ------
Source? -----------------------------------------------------
b. Timber Yes --. If yes •. amount? -------------------No X
c. Other Materia 1 s Yes No x
If yes, what material?
----7(-pe-a~t-.~b-u~il~dr.i-n_g __ st~o-n-e-,-e~t~c-.~)--------
3. Are you planning to use surface water?
Subsurface water?
If yes , amount? ________________________________ _
Source? ___________________ ___
4. Will you be building or altering a dam?
5. Do you plan to drill a geothermal well?
6. Will you be exploring for or extracting coal?
7. Will you be harvesting timber from 10 or more acres?
- 3 -
X
No
X
X
X
X
X
Yes No
·3. Will you be investigating or removing historic or archeological
resources on State-owned lands?
·9. Will the project be located in a State park or State Recreation Area?
(including the Kenai River Special Management Area)
.~JO. Is any portion of your project placed below the ordinary high water
line of a stream, river, lake or other water body?
IF YOU CORRECTLY ANSWERED NO TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS, YOU DO NOT NEED APPROVAL
-~ROM THE ALASKA DEPARTMENTicrF NATURAL RESOURCES (ONR). GO TO PART. 0.
IF YOU ANSWERED YES TO ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS, CONTACT ONR TO IDENTIFY AND OBTAIN ANY
.. ,~ECESSARY APPLICillON FORMS. ·
lf you have already contacted ONR, are you now submitting application(s)
.. .for permits or approvals? If yes, list DNR approvals for which you are now
!pplying: Transmission Line Right of Way
If no, indicate the reason below:
a. (ONR contact} told me on (date)
that no DNR approval.s or permits were required for this project.
b. Other. ----------------------------------------------------
.~ART 0 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Yes
X
Will you be working in a stream, river, or lake (this includes running x
water or on ice, within the active floodplain, on islands, the face
of the banks, or the stream tideflats down to mean low tide)?
Name of stream or river Sheep Creek, Name of lake -------Fox River, Fox Creek, Lower Bradley River
If no, go to question number 3.
2. If yes, will you be doing any of the follow·ing:
a) Building a dam or river training structure?
b) Using the water?
c) Diverting the stream?
d} Blocking or dammi~g the stream (temporarily or permanently)?
e) Changing the flow of the water or changing the bed?
f) Pumping water out of the stream or lake?
g) rntroducing silt, gravel. rock, petroleum products, debris,
chemicals, or wastes of any type into the water?
h) Using the stream as a road (even when frozen), or crossing
the stream with tracked or wheeled vehicles, log-dragging
or excavation equipment (backhoes, bulldozers, etc.)?
X
X
X
X
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
i) Altering or stabilizing the banks?
j) Mining or digging in the beds or banks?
k} Using explosives?
1) Building a bridge (including an ice bridge)?
m) Installing a culvert or other drainage structure?
n) Constructing a weir?
3. Is your project located in a State Game Refuge, Critical Habitat Area,
or State Game Sanctuary?
4. Does your project include the construction and operation of a
salmon hatche_ry?
5. Does your project affect a previously penmitted salmon hatchery?
IF YOU CORRECTLY ANSWERED NO TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS, YOU 00 NOT NEED A
PERMIT FROM THE ALASKA OEP~ENT OF FISH AND GAME (DFG). GO TO PART E.
IF YOU ANSWERED YES TO ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS, CONTACT THE REGIONAL HABITAT
DIVISION OFFICE TOIDENTIFY AND OBTAIN ANY NECESSARY APPLICATION FORMS ..
Yes
If you have already contacted OFG, are you now submitting an application x
for penmit(s)? If yes, list DFG approvals for which you are now applying:
Transmission Line Stream Crossings/Anadromous Fish Protection Permit
If no, indicate the reason below:
a. (DFG contact) told me on (date)
that no OFG approvals or permits were required for this project.
b. Other. --------------------------------------------------
PART E DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
1. Will a discharge of wastewater from industrial or commercial operations
occur?
2. Will your project generate air emissions from the following:
a) Diesel generators totaling more than 1000 hp?
b) Other fossil fuel-fired electric generator, furnace, or boiler
totaling greater than 1000 hp?
c) Asphalt plant?
d) Incinerator burning more than 1000 1 bs. per hour?
e) Industrial process?
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3. Will a drinking water supply be developed that serves more than a
single-family residence?
4. Will you be processing seafood?
5. Will food service be provided to the public or workers?
6. Will the project result in dredging or disposal of fill in wetlands or
placement of a structure in waterways? (Note: If you are applying to
the Corps of Engineers for a permit for this activity, the Corps will
automatically request certification from DEC.)
7. Is on-lot sewage or greywater disposal involved or necessary?
··-a. Will your project result in the development of a currently unpermitted
facility for the disposal of domestic or industrial solid waste?
--9. Will your project require offshore drilling or vessel transport of oil,
or other petroleum products as cargo, or include onshore facilities
with an effective storage capacity of greater than 10,000 barrels of
such products?
10. Will your project require the application of oil or pesticides to the
surface of the land?
IF YOU CORRECTLY ANSWERED NO TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS, YOU DO NOT NEED A PERMIT
Yes
OR OTHER APPROVAL FROM THE~LASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) .
. -GO TO PART F.
IF YOU ANSWERED YES TO ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS (SEE CLARIFYING NOTE IN NO. 6~ ABOVE,
CONTACT THE DEC RtGIONAL OFFICE TO IDENTIFY AND OBTAIN ANY NECESSARY APPLICATION FORMS.
If you have already contacted the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, are you now submitting an application for permit(s)?
'··If yes, list the permits for which you are now applying: ·
If no, indicate the reason below:
a. (DEC contact) told me on (date)
that no DEC approvals or permits were required for this project.
b. Other. --------------------------------------------------
* * .-. * * * * * * * .... * .... * *. *
.. .PART F
."o the best of my knowledge, this information is accurate and complete.
.. s:; gned Date
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10 COMPLETE YOUR PACKET, PLEASE ATTACH YOUR STATE PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND COPIES OF YOUR FEDERAl
.A.PPLICATIONS TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR PACKET AS INDICATED ON PAGE ONE.
p questionnaire/PERMIT
BL-D-128
PART A
ATTACHMENT
COASTAL PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Description of Project:
Alaska Power Authority (Applicant) proposes to construct and operate a
hydroelectric generation project with an installed capacity of 90 mega-
watts (MW) on the Kenai Peninsula, approximately 105 miles south of
Anchorage and 27 miles northeast of Homer, Alaska. The project would
consist of the following:
(1) 125-foot high, concrete-faced, rockfill dam, with a crest
elevation of 1,190 feet above project datum, located at the
outlet of Bradley Lake.
(2) 20-foot high diversion dam with a crest elevation of 2, 204
feet, located on the Middle Fork of the Bradley River.
(3) 6-foot diameter underground pipe from the Middle Fork
Diversion Dam to Marmot Creek, a tributary to Bradley Lake.
(4) A low diversion dike on the Upper Nuka River immediately below
the Nuka Glacier.
(5) 11-foot diameter, 18,610 foot long power tunnel from an intake
at Bradley Lake to a powerhouse at sea level.
(6) Powerhouse located adjacent to Kachemak Bay, containing two
45-MW Pelton generating units.
(7) A 20-mile long, 115 kilovolt (kV) two-circuit transmission
line from the powerhouse to the proposed Horner Electric
Association Fritz Creek-Soldotna Transmission Line.
(8) Access facilities, including a barge dock, airstrip, approxi-
mately 10 miles of on-site access roads, and two construction
camps.
A more detailed description of the proposed project is provided in the
Corps of Engineers (COE) Application for Department of the Army Permit,
submitted with the Coastal Zone Consistency Review Permit Application
Packet. Drawings of the various project facilities are included on COE
Application Sheet Numbers 3-21.
- 1 -
BL-D-128
The proposed Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project will be constructed
under three primary contracts, as follows:
ACTIVITY START DATE COMPLETION DATE
Construction of barge dock, May, 1986 January, 1987
access roads, main dam diversion,
and power tunnel portal
excavation; establishment
of camp facilities and
telecommunications; reservoir
clearing.
Construction of powerhouse, May, 1987 March, 1990
power tunnel, main dam, and
all other facilities except
transmission lines.
Construction of transmission
lines.
January, 1988 December, 1988
Location of Project
The proposed project is located on the Kenai Peninsula within a Federal
Power Withdrawal executed under Public Land Orders (PLO) 3953 and 4056
dated March 15, 1966 and July 18, 1966, respectively. The withdrawal
lands are administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska Dis-
trict. The Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project lands were originally
reserved in the Geological Survey Power Site Classification No. 436,
dated August 29, 1955.
The tentative project. boundary is presented in FERC Application for
License, Volume 1, Exhibit G. A tabulation of lands of the United
States and State of Alaska within the project boundary is included in
FERC License Application, Exhibit A, Section 6.0 (Project Lands).
The Kenai Peninsula Borough is the local governing body with
jurisdiction over the Project site.
PART B
Question No. 1 -State or Federal Approvals/Permits
Permit Approva 1 Type Permit/Approval No. Expiration Date
ADNR Water Rights LAS No. 2836
ADNR Water Rights LAS No. 2838
ADEC Solid Waste Disposal No. 8523-BA006 January 25, 1991
-2 -
BL-D-128
Permit Approval/Type
ADFG Lower Camp
Including Effluent
Discharge, Battle Creek
Stream #241-14-10610
ADFG Powerhouse and
Switchyard
ADFG Barge Dock and
Staging Area
ADFG Airstrip to
Powerhouse Access Road
ADFG Martin River Material
Site Access Road, Battle
Creek Stream #241-14-10610
ADFG Powerhouse to Lower
Camp Access Road
ADFG Martin River Material
Site Martin River Stream
/1241-14-10600
ADFG Spoil Disposal/
Waterfowl Nesting Are•
ADFG Bradley River Dam
Bradley River-Stream
#241-14-10625-2010
ADFG Airstrip Construction
and Operation
ADNR Lease of Alaska Tide
and Submerged Lands
ADNR Leasing of Lands
Other Than For The
Extraction of Natural
Resources
ADNR Material Permit
Permit/Approval No.
Bradley Lake-1
071-0YD-2-850502
(AK851213-l4A)
Bradley Lake-l
071-0YD-2-850502
(AK851213-14A)
Bradley Lake-1
071-0YD-2-850502
(AK851213-14A)
Bradley Lake-1
071-0YD-2-850502
(AK851213-14A)
Bradley Lake-1
071-0YD-2-850502
(AK851213-14A)
Bradley Lake-1
071-0YD-2-850502
(AK851213-14A)
Bradley Lake-1
071-0YD-2-850502
(AK851213-14A)
Bradley Lake-1
071-0YD-2-850502
(AK851213-14A)
Bradley Lake-l
071-0YD-2-850502
(AK851213-14A)
Bradley Lake-1
071-0YD-2-850502
(AK851213-14A)
Submitted
November 15, 1985
Submitted
November 15, 1985
Submitted
November 20, 1985
- 3 -
Expiration Date
December 31, 1990
December 31, 1990
December 31, 1990
December 31, 1990
December 31, 1990
December 31, 1990
December 31, 1990
December 31, 1990
December 31, 1990
December 31, 1990
BL-D-128
Question No. 4 -Other Federal Permits
Agency
Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission
Army Corps of
Engineers
Army Corps of
Engineers
Environmental
Protection Agency
Permit/Approval Type
Hydroelectric License
Discharge of Dredged or
Fill Material into U.S.
Waters
Structures or Work in or
Affecting Navigable Waters
of the U.S.
Permit to Discharge into
Water -National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES)
- 4 -
Date
Submitted
April 4, 1984
Submitted
November 1, 1985
Submitted
November 1, 1985
Submitted
August 29, 1985
STATE CF ALASKA
DEPARTMENT Cf NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF LANDS
APPLICATION FOR RIGHT -OF -WAY PERMIT
ACL -------
Date June 2 1 86
The undersigned Alaska Pot..rer Authority residing at 701 E. Tudor Road, ---------------------------------------
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 hereby applies to the Director of the Division of Lands,
(See
Department of Natural Resources, for Right-of-Way Attached) feet in width and Approx. 19
miles (See
~~ in length located in Section Attached) , Township , Range --------
Meridian, containing an area of Approx. 810 ------acres as shm.,.n on
the plat attached hereto in triplicate copies, for the purpose of constructing and
maintaining thereon~ Two (2) 115-kv transmission lines for private,
~~~ii«~x±Rk~~' yearlong use (strike inapplicable words).
State briefly the standards of construction of proposed improvements:
The propo~ed transmission lines will be design~d in accordance with t~e National Electric
Safety Code and Rural Electrification Administration (REA), Bulletin 62-1 (Design Manual
for High Voltage Transmission Lines) as well as permit stipulations of the Alas~a
Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) and other affected Agencies. Specific construction
practices will be included in the Construction Contractor's Plan of Operation which will
be submitted to ADNR following Contractor selection.
Constructed -------~~----------Construction to begin ----~J~a~n~u~a~rJy~,~l~9~8~8~----------
To be completed ____ D~e~c~em~be~r~~l~98~8~-----------------------------------------
If this application is approved, I agree to construct and maintain the improvements
authorized in a workmanlike manner, to keep the area in a neat and sanitary condition;
if said right-of-way is to be constructed across leased lands, I agree to reimburse the
lessee for all damages to crops and improvements, to the extent of the fair market value
thereof, which may be damaged or destroyed as the resulc of the constnJction of said
right-of-way, and to comply with all the laws, rules and regulations pertaining thereto:
and *provided further that upon termination or relocation of the Right-of-Way for which
application is herein made, I agree to remove or relocate the improvements and resw:-e
the area without cost to the State and to the satisfacticn of the Director.
Signacure of Applicant
( Instruct:.ions for preparation of plat: Attach a copy of a letter-size plat, she·"'
centerline and boundaries of right-of-way, sho'N ties from centerline to establis:.::d
mom.rnents and section corners, show conflicts ·,...ith other rights-of-way, if any, sea
3"-4" per mile, type of survey.)
*Not applicable to State Agencies.
10-112 (75)
ll/84
Right of Way Width
ATTACHMENT
APPLICATION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Right of .Way between Bradley Junction and Bradley River is to be 350
feet in width, except for the section of transmission line from the
powerhouse to the Bradley River which may be 400 feet in width. In this
section, 2300 foot spans and topography dictate a wider width at the
tower base.
State Lands Crossed By Proposed llSkV Transmission Lines
T.3S, R.lOW
Section 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36
T.3S, R.llW
Section 21, 22, 23, 15, 26, 28, 29, 30
T.4S, R.9W
Section 6, 7, 8, 17, 19, 20, 30, 31
T. 4S, R. 1 OW
Section 1, 35, 36
Drawings
Title
Land Ownership Information*
Route Map*
Number
SWB9
SWB9
220-1, 2, 3
211-1, 2, 3
*NOTE: This information will be field verified by the survey.
BL-D-128
TRANSMISSION LINE STREAM CROSSINGS
ANADROMOUS FISH PROTECTION PERMIT
This letter constitutes the Alaska Power Authority's Application to the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game ( ADF&G) for the transmission line
stream crossings for the Anadromous Fish Protection Permit.
The APA plans to construct two parallel 115 kV transmission lines from
the proposed Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Power Plant to the Fritz
Creek-Soldotna 115 kV transmission line at Brad!ey Junction located
approximately 20 miles northeast of Homer. The total length of
transmission line is approximately 38 miles (two 19 mile parallel
lines). The APA has considered several route and structure
alternatives and has selected a refined FERC alignment. The
transmission line route follows the Kachemak Bay tidelands on the east
side up into Fox River Valley. The transmission line crosses the
valley and up the bluffs on the western side of Fox River Valley, The
anadromous streams being crossed include Sheep Creek, Fox Creek, Fox
River, and the Lower Bradley River. The transmission centerline has
been located off sectionlines to provide for future public use of
sectionline rights of way. Access to the project site is only by
helicopter. A trail to Caribou Lake crosses the transmission line route
in the Caribou Hills. The attached Drawings, Nos. SWB9-220-1, 2, 3 and
SWB9-211-1, 2, 3 show the refined route. Also attached is a table
describing the alignment.
The assessment of the transmission line alternatives was distributed
for agency review and comments incorporated into the design. The
transmission line was previously included in an ADF&G application for
the Anadromous Fish Protection Permit and Critical Habitat Area Permit.
Construction is scheduled to begin in January 1988 and be completed in
December 1988.
2-712-JJ
TABLE 1
BRADLEY 115 kV TRANSMISSION LINES
BQUIIHQ ALIQNMEHI
May 151 1986
BRADLEY/SOLDOTNA LINE BRADLEYIDIAt1QND RIDQE LINE
_fL Hoc thing Easting Section/Towoshio/Ran&e _ll_ Northing Easting Sect1on/Townsb1o/Raog~
1 BS 2,155,496 275,949 SEC.29, T3S, R 11W 180 2,155,396 275,948 SEC. 29 I T3S,
2BS 2,155,360 283,749 SEC.28, T3S, R 11W 280 21155,260 283,771 SEC. 28, T3S,
3BS 2,156,158 286 1 124 SEC. 21, T3S, R11W 3BD 2,156,056 286,137 SEC.21 I T3S,
4BS 2,156,222 293,841 SEC. 23, T3S, R 11W 11BD 2,156,121 293,807 SEC. 23, T3S,
5BS 21154,458 296,209 SEC.26, T3S, R 11 W 5BD 2,154,358 296,165 SEC.26, T3S,
6BS 2,153,746 306,727 SEC.30, T3S, R10W 6BD 2,153,6118 306,710 SEC. 30, T3S,
7BS 2,148,975 321 1912 SEC.34, T3S, R10W 7BS 2,148,881 321,858 SEC.34, T3S,
8BS 2,145,861 3 24 ,117 7 SEC.35, T3S 1 R10W 8BD 2,145,769 324,1123 SEC.35, T3S,
9BS 2,144,8114 332,200 SEC. 36, T3S, R10W 9BD 2,144,751 332,148 SEC.36, T3S,
lOBS 21 1341 3 30 34 0, 890 SEC. 8, T4S, R 9W lOBO 21 1 34 1 17 0 340,760 SEC. 8, TllS,
11 BS 2,123,360 338,435 SEC. 19 I T11S, R 9W 11 BD 2,123,388 338,338 SEC. 19, T4S,
12BS 2,120,518 336,975 SEC. 30, T4S, R 9W 12BD 2,120,585 336,895 SEC.30 1 T4S,
13BS 2,115,405 330,818 SEC.36, T4S, R10W 13BD 21115,1163 330,729 SEC.36, T4S,
14BS 2,1131530 327,840 SEC. 35, T4S, R10W 14 BD 2,113,585 327 174 5 SEC. 35 I T4S,
15BS 2,113,155 327,482 SEC.35, TitS, RlOW 15BD 21113,215 327 1400 SEC.35, TllS,
16BS 2,112,590 3 27, 17 7. 5 SEC. 2, T5S, R10W 16BD 2, 112,590 327 1 131. 5 SEC. 2, T5S,
1iQ.lE.S
1. Coordinates are projected state plane coordinates.
2. PI 1BS and PI 1BD is the proposed Bradley Junction and intersection of HEA's proposed Fritz Creek/
Soldotna line.
3. Final layout of Bradley Junction may require structures to be located in SEC.30, T3S, R11W.
2-639-JJ
R 11 W
R 1 1W
R 11 W
R 11W
R 11W
R10W
RlOW
R10W
RlOW
R 9H
R 9W
R 9W
R10W
R10W
R10\V
R10W
NOTES OF CONFERENCE
AIR TRAFFIC VOLUMES NEAR
HOMER, ALASKA
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Held in the Anchorage
Federal Building,
Air Traffic Division,
Third Floor,
July 3, 1986
PURR:lSE
Present for:
J.O.No. 15800.12
WP 98A
Federal Aviation Administration
Jack Schommer
Dick Mathews
Stone & Webster
Engineering Corporation
Bill Steigers
The meeting was held to discuss Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
records on volume and routes of air traffic in the vicinity of the
Bradley Lake Project in reference to the transmission line visual
assessment. After intrcduction of the type of records and information
sought by B. Steigers, J. Schommer and D. Mathews looked up records of
the number ~ contacts that Homer Flight Service Station has recorded
during fiscal year and calendar ;year 1985.
Homer Flight Service Station has no tower and is operated on part-time
basis from 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. daily. Aircraft contacts include
arrivals, departures, and overflights of airplanes. During fiscal
year 1985 (October 1, 1984 through September 30, 1985), 5,430 IFR
aircra.f't and 46,767 VFR aircraft were contacted •. During 9alendar year
1985, 6,264 IFR aircraft and 46,819 VFR aircraft were contacted. VFR
contacts include air taxi operators operating under VFR.
During fiscal year 1985, 625 IFR flight plans and 19,260 VFR flight
plans were filed with Homer Flight Service Station during calendar
year 1985, 699 IFR flight plans and 19,642 VFR flight plans were filed
with Homer Flight Service Station. Closed flight plans are not
maintained on permanent file.
During fiscal year 1985, 42,027 aircraft advisories were given by
Homer Flight Service Station. During calendar year 1985, 43,099
aircraft advisories were given by Homer Flight Service Station.
Advisories can be given to approaching, departing, or overflying
aircraft.
4-037-DB
2
J. Schommer and D. Mathews emphasized that this information was the
best known available tor air traffic volumes in the Bomer area. The
information contained ·in advisories, contacts, and tiight plans. are
not compiled by FAA by point o~ origin or departure. The air traffic
controller at Bomer Flight Service station doea not know the origin or
destination or arriving or departing aircraft not tiling flight plans.
Many pilots do not tile flight plans. FAA does not have the
information to determine which airplanes are travelling the northern
route in the vicinity or the transaaission line corridor. Many
aircraft travelling the northern route do not even contact Homer
Flight Service Station. Soma aircraft do not have radios, and may
land and take ott trom the uncontrolled Bomer airport without
contacting the Flight Service Station.
4-037-DB
J.O. No. 15500
& 15800
File No. 15800. ( 12
NOTES OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Alaska Power Authority
SUBJECT Air Tratric Patterns Near Homer, Alaska
DISTRIBUTION:
Sheet 1 of _2_
INSTRUCTIONS: Summarize your phone
discussion, noting participants,
date & time of call. Indicate
desired di.stribution at right. Call
reporter must insert File Number(s)
and Subject(s) in file box above.
Clerk takes care or Chrono rile copy
and distribution.
JJMPlante/DLMatchett DOC GF __ 1:..-_
B. SteiS!rs 1
M. Fisk 1
J. Finnimore 1
E. Pucb 1
D. Eberle {APA~ 1
Call Date 7-7-86 Time
Between Bill Steigers
Originated by: Bill Steigera
DISCUSSION:
JJGarrity/Chron Files 1
T Critikos JBK TK WP 98A ---"'-1 _
DPRyan
RPWynn (Homer}
NABishop
LCDuncan
CLClark
JHron
GEEng
MMiddaugb
WCSherman
JSYale
RKrobn
JNowak
T1.4
1
2:00 p.m. Incoming Outgoing __ x_
SWEC & APA
SWEC & Chi2 Dodd& Homer FSS (FAA)
(907) 235-8588
& ( )
The Homer FAA Flight Service Station (FSS) was called to request inrormation
on volume and altitude of air trarric flying between Victor 438 airway and
the Fox River Lowlands. Chip Dodd was the air trarfic controller on duty.
IFR trafric flying Victor airways north of Homer are directed to fly at
5,000 reet MSL or above. VFR traffic flys at any altitude that meets VFR
minimums. ERA Helicopters and South Central Airlines are the two air taxi
operators flying scheduled routes between Anchorage and Homer. Flight
Service Sta tiona record number or contacts, which is equal to number of
airplanes, each day by IFR and VFR categories. South Central Airlines and
ERA Helicopters are considered air taxis because or the size and type or
aircraft they fly, whereas Alaska Airlines is considered an air carrier
because of the larger aircraft they fly. Flight Service Stations separate
air traffic into three oa tegories: air taxi operators, general aviation,
and military. Up to one-half of the air taxi contacts on a daily basis may
in fact be categorized as general aviation trarfic. For example, a South
Central Airlines oargo airplane passing over Homer but not landing may be
catagorized as general aviation, depending upon how the aircrart identifies
itself.
4-036-DB
Sheet 2 of _g_
About six military aircraft contacts are made per week at the Homer Flight
Service Station. Three to four air carrier contacts are made per week. Air
carriers contacting Homer include Alaska Airlines and Japan Air Lines. Mr.
Dodd obtained the daily activity record for the month of July, and provided
the number of contacts by IFR and VFR designations for July 3 through July
6, 1986. July 3rd had 18 VFR and 12 IFR contacts, totaling 30 contacts.
July 4th had 22 total contacts, and July 5th had 22 contacts. July 6th had
12 VFR and 7 IFR contacts, totaling 19 total contacts. A contact is
equivalent to aircraft arriving or departing Homer. Only one contact is
recorded per approach or departure although the aircraft may contact the
flight service station more than one time. Mr. Dodd estimated that Homer
Flight Service Station has 20 to 30 VFR and IFR aircraft contacts per day on
the average. When asked how many of these air taxi contacts were aircraft
who took the direct route north out ot Homer, he estimated well over
one-half ot the VFR contacts take the direct route to the north.
ACTION R~UIRED:
Contact Homer Flight Service Station Air Traffic Manager tor additional
inforua tion.
4-036-DB
J.O. No. 15500
& 15800
NOTES OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Alaska Power Authority
File No. 15800.(12) 98A
SUBJECT Air Traffic Volumes and Routing North of Homer
DISTRIBUTION:
Sheet 1 of 1
INSIRQCTIONS: Summarize your phone
discussion, noting participants,
date & time of call. Indicate
desired distribution at right. ~
reporter must insert File Number(s)
and Sub1ect(s) in file box above.
Clerk takes care of Chrono file copy
and distribution.
JJMPlante/DLHatchett DOC GF _ __._ __
JJGarrity/Chron Files
T Cri tikos JBK TK ~ WP ill _ _.._ __
DPByan
NABishop
LCDuncan
CLClark
JHron
GEEng
B. Steigers HMiddaugh
J. Finnimore WCSberman
E. Puch JSYale
H. Fisk BKrohn
D. Wnln (Homer) Jlfowak
D. Eberle (APA) T1.4
Call Date 7-9-86 Time _.....,1 ;&,;;l4~0"-P._.M...__ Incoming __ Outgoing __.x.__
Between _ __.B""i .... l..,.l~Stllt.leii.OiiW!ge03iU.rllil.s ___ SWEC & --------------APA
----------SWEC & -----------( )
& Roy Hoyt. Air Traffic Manager (FAA)
Homer Flight Service Station
{901) 235-8588
Originated by: --~Bi.l~l~S~t~e~i~ge~r~s----------
DISCUSSION:
There are no records for determining volume of traffic using the northern
routes between Homer and Kenai/Anchorage. Tapes are stored for 90 days and
then erased. Minimum IFR elevation between Homer and Kenai is 5,000 feet
HSL. A heading emanating from a VOB is called a radial. Air traffic is
heavier on weekends than during the week, and heavier in summer than winter.
Hr. Hoyt said that "lots• of air traffic uses the northern route, with the
particular route taken dependent to a large extent on the weather. He would
not venture a guess of the number of airplanes. Many aircraft do not even
contact the Homer FSS. Mr. Hoyt commented that he, as a pilot, would not be
bothered by the presence of the transmission line. Hr. Hoyt felt that most
pilots would use the transmission line corridor as a landmark.
ACTION REQUIRED:
None
2-862-JJ
NOTES OF CONFERENCE
RECOGNIZING CULTURAL RESOURCES
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Held in the Conference Room of
Alaska Power Authority
Anchorage, Alaska
July 11, 1986
10:35 a.m.
PURPOSE
Present for:
State Historic Preservation
Office
Tim Smith
Bechtel Civil & Minerals, Inc.
John Smith
Dames & Moore Consulting
Engineers
Jim Hemming
John Morsell
Dave Eri-ckson
Alaska Power Authority (APA)
Tom Arminiski
Dave Trudgen
Marnie Isaacs
Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation (SWEC)
Bill Steigers
The purpose of the meeting was for environmental monitoring field
officers on the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project to receive a brief
overview on how to recognize cultural resources that may be discovered
during construction.
DISCUSSION
T. Smith, State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in Anchorage,
gave a brief overview of identified cultural resources in the Bradley
Lake Project area. He stated that the transmission line will come
close to, but not harm, the Hilmer Olson Fox Farm. T. Smith indicated
that, to his knowledge, the construction activities for the Bradley
Lake Project should not negatively impact any known cultural
resources.
4-052-DB
T. Smith then gave an overview of the archeology of southcentral
Alaska. Alaska has been inhabited for some 12,000 years. Early
inhabitants were nomadic hunter-gatherer peoples, who established tent
camps which we now called •archeological sites". Stone flakes exist
as the primary cultural remains used to document presence of those
peoples, which are difficult for the untrained eye to recognize. Some
3,000 to 5,000 years ago the peoples were more sedentary, establishing
semi-permanent structures {e.g., 1 year). The houses were
subterranean, built by first digging holes approximately 3 feet deep
and then constructing walls approximately 3 feet in height. The
Kachemak Bay peoples are thought to be related to the Eskimos who came
into the area about the time of Captain Cook. Remnants of occupation
by these people are relatively recent in origin, so they are easiest
to find.
T. Smith then presented a generalized slide show pictorially
describing some of the cultural resources and archeological digs that
have been uncovered throughout the state of Alaska. Shown were atone
and bone tools, cache pits {which were used to store fish), and
remains of dwellings. In the Kachemak Bay area, most of the
archeological sites are located near the sea. At these semi-permanent
campsites, the occupants consumed mostly s~ellfish and sea mammals. A
dark organic layer overlaid by shells, stone flakes, and general
garbage from camps are indications of these sites. These piles of
human garbage are referred to as "middens". Some tools that these
people used included stone tools they made from slate, bone tools, and
net weights made fran stones. T. Smith also brought to the meeting
examples of tools and stones that had been worked.
There was discussion about establishing a list of qualified, local (to
Homer) archeologists or natural historians that would serve as a ready
volunteer source tor the Alaska Power Authority to draw from if
construction activities uncovered a suspected archeological find. J.
Smith (Bechtel) indicated that on a project he was working on in
Washington, a local archeological society produced a list of qualified
members to act on behalf on the State Preservation Officer. When a
suspected cultural resource was uncovered during construction, the
local volunteer archeologist was called upon to assess the
significance of the find. If the find warranted further investigation
or was suspected to be a significant find, the volunteer archeologist
contacted the State Preservation Officer for further direction. If
the Preservation Officer considered the find significant then the site
would be personally inspected. J. Smith felt this system had worked
well because it involved a local group as well as assisted the
Preservation Officer who could not be on site at all times.
The APA has conducted discussions with the Alaska SHPO about
establishing a similar group of local individuals to act on the behalf
ot the SHPO to conduct site inspections when a suspected cultural
resource is discovered. T. Smith indicated that many states had
archeological societies in cities with populations over 50,000 people.
But in Alaska, no such local archeological societies exist. T. Smith
indicated that the closest known registered or certified archeologist
4-052-DB 2
was in Soldotna. However, there are a number ot residents local to
Homer who could probably serve as site representatives tor inspections
ot suspected finds. T. Arminski indicated the local archeologists
would donate their time on a volunteer basis, but the APA would pay
their expenses and provide transportation to and trom the site.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:59 a.m.
8&~
BSteigers/DB
4-052-DB 3
r
r n
[
L
[
u
[.
SECTION 12.0
APPENDIX A
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
NEAR CARIBOU LAKE, SOUTHCENTRAL ALASKA
A Research Report
Prepared By
ALASKA HERITAGE RESEARCH GROUP, I~C.
FAIRBANKS , ALASKA
For
STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
June 1986
INTRODUCTION •
Project Focus •
Physical Setting
Cultural Setting
METHODS
Projected Impacts •
Survey Methods
Navigation •
Shovel Probes
RESULTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Aerial Investigations •
Surface Investigations
Subsurface Investigations •
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES CITED
FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location Map
Figure 2. Survey Area and Vicinity
Figure 3. Approximate Line of Survey ..
Figure 4. View Eastward Toward Base of Hill South
of Caribou Lake •
Figure 5.
Map Pocket:
Example of Tree Stump and Nearby Ground
Disturbance •
Blueline Photomosaic of the Survey Area
page
1
1
1
4
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
12
2
3
5
6
6
INTRODUCTION
Project Focus
The Alaska Power Authority engaged the consulting firm of Stone
and Webster to provide engineering and environmental technical expert-
ise for the proposed Bradley Lake hydroelectric project, located on
the Kenai Peninsula, southcentral Alaska. Following consultation
between Stone and Webster and the Alaska State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), Alaska Heritage Research Group (AHRG) was contracted
in 1986 to complete cultural resources studies along a realigned seg-
ment of the power transmission line corridor near Caribou Lake (figure
1).
The intent of the cultural resources study was to locate and
evaluate any archaeological and historical properties which might be
located within a segment of the right-of-way designated by the SHPO as
having potential for containing significant cultural sites.
On June lOth, a two ma~-day field effort, augmented by literature
research, covered approximately 3500 meters (11,250 feet) of 152.5
meter (500 foot) wide transmission line right-of-way (ca. 131 acres or
53 hectares). Field research was completed by AHRG archaeologists
Glenn Bacon and Howard Maxwell under State Antiquities Permit AK86-S.
Physical Settina
The survey area (figure 2) is located just south of Caribou Lake
along a linear segment of power transmission line right-of-way located
within Section 25 (Township 3 South, Range 11 West, Seward Meridian)
-1-
.1 .... ... '"'. ~,i:t:~t'> ..
~-:..-..~ ...... "" ....... .:.• ... ~· ........... :,.~.; .. · ~ ...... -~.-,:-.. o-.. •• :::.;....,,.... _ _.1 ...
Modified from Mobley et al. 1985
FIGURE 1
PROJECT LOCATION
}.
~0 KILOMETERS
20 MILES
NORTH
\
:>. -c -Q
> r "a c ,
IIJ { IIJ ' G) \. ... • c ' ... I i G) :>.
CD
> • G) ... ) :I ::I rn .,
+ / c , c . r N 10 .; w a:
::;)
5:! u.
s-a •1Aop1es sasn :d•w •••q
and Sections 29 and 30 (Township 3 South, Range 10 West, Seward Merid-
ian). From wet tundra, this segment of transmission line rises a
little more than 15 meters (50 feet) to an elevation of 415 meters
(1350+ feet), drops again to cross wet tundra, and then climbs to
cross up and over a taiga covered hill reaching almost 460 meters
(1500 feet) lying off the south shore of Caribou Lake (figures 3-5).
The Bradley Lake transmission line corridor intersects the Fritz Creek
to Soldotna power transmission intertie corridor approximately four
miles west of the survey area.
Cultural Settin&
Background research previously completed by Alaska Heritage
Research Group (Mobley et al. 1985) for the Fritz Creek to Soldotna
Power transmission line corridor indicates that the prehistory of the
Kenai Peninsula is poorly known. The Cook Inlet region appears to
have been populated in early post':"'glacial times (approximately 10,000
years ago), but little is known of these early people except that they
manufactured specialized "core and microblade" stone tools. Following
a 3,000 year gap in the archaeological record, people carrying equip-
ment representative of the early Norton tradition are thought to have
occupied the western portion of the upper inlet area. By 1500 years
ago, the Norton sphere of influence was greatly reduced in the Cook
Inlet region, but the Kachemak cultural tradition was expending north-
ward from its hearth in the lower Cook Inlet -Kodiak region. The
late prehistoric period witnessed greater influence from interior de-
rived Athabascan groups (Reger 1981:206).
-4-
Figure 3. Approximate Line of Survey
Figure 4. View Eastward Toward Base of Rill South of Caribou Lake
Figure 5. Example of Tree Stump and Nearby Ground Disturbance
The historic period for the western Kenai Peninsula began in
1786, when the first Russian settlement was established at English
Bay. A year later Fort Georgievsk was founded at the mouth of the
Kasilof River. Information on Russian activities in the interior of
the Kenai Peninsula is fragmentary, but suggests that archaeological
remains are potentially present near the survey area (Mobley et al.
1985:2lff).
After the Alaska Purchase in 1867, life on the western Kenai Pen-
insula continued essentially unchanged for more than a decade. The
U.S. Army occupied a post at Kenai only briefly, from 1869 to 1870;
and the Russian trading stations, acquired by the Alaska Commercial
Company, continued to operate in much their former manner despite
occasional fierce competition from rival firms. From the 1880s on-
ward, however, new industries and employment opportunities attracted a
growing number of visitors, seasonal workers, and settlers to the
area.
The first cannery on the western peninsula was built at Kasilof
in 1882, and a number of other canneries soon followed. Tall swamp
spruce, ideal for pilings and fish traps, were harvested along the
Kasilof and Kenai Rivers and elsewhere. Archaeological evidence of
this activity might consist of isolated hand tools and sled parts as
well as small camps; however it is unlikely that such poles were cut
as far inland as the survey area.
In the late 1890s news of gold strikes attracted many to the
Kenai Peninsula's mountainous interior. There is no record of pros-
pecting in the hills between Tustumena Lake and Kachemak Bay, though
-7-
some likely occurred. Archaeological evidence of prospecting, in the
form of tools, prospect holes, and small camps, could be present near
the survey area. Others were drawn to the Kenai Peninsula in the
1890s by the coal seams which were readily visible along the coast on
the north side of Kachemak Bay. The earliest coal mining there was on
Fritz Creek, where the Alaska Coal Company drove a tunnel in 1888.
Since coal mines required tidewater access in order to be economically
viable in the region, and no coal deposits are known near Caribou
Lake, it is unlikely that evidence of early coal prospects will be
found as far inland as the survey area.
As the outside world grew more familiar with Alaska, fame of the
Kenai Peninsula's game resources spread. From the turn of tne century
onward, professional guides and their clients stalked trophy sheep,
moose, and brown and black bear in the Kenai Mountains between Skilak
and Tustumena lakes and in the valleys south of Tustumena Lake to
Kachemak Bay. Fur trapping was long the major winter occupation of
many permanent residents of the western Kenai Peninsula. Though writ-
ten records are scarce, this activity may have extended into the sur-
vey area. Evidence of fur trapping in the form of cabins, caches, and
traps may be preserved near the survey area.
The general homestead laws, extended to Alaska in 1903, attracted
new settlers to the western peninsula. In the early 1920s, there was
intensive homesteading in the Kachemak Bay area along the benches
above the beach. Many homesteaders around Homer found fox farming
profitable throughout the 1920s, but a great decline in the fur market
in the 1930s forced most to seek other sources of income. A second
-8-
period of intensive homesteading occurred in the Kachemak Bay area in
1941-1950, when the hills above Homer and the Fox River flats were
settled. In 1947 construction began on the Sterling Highway, which
was completed in 1950 and linked Homer with Anchorage.
METHODS
Proiected 1mpacts
Direct impacts of the project will include surface and subsurface
disturbance along the transmission line right-of-way, which will be
brushed prior to tower erection. Towers will be transported by heli-
copter, although tracked vehicles·may be used in the right-of-way as
well. Access roads and marshalling yards were not surveyed as a part
of the effort reported here.
Suryey Methods
The survey methods used for the project were selected as an
efficient means of locating sites and a suitable means for declaring
linear alignments devoid of significant cultural resources. Two sur-
vey methods were used in the field: pedestrian and aerial survey. The
pedestrian survey was implemented by walking parallel zig-zag tran-
sects, spaced approximately 150 meters apart along the proposed trans-
mission line right-of-way. Augmenting the pedestrian survey, judge-
mentally placed shovel test units were excavated. The aerial survey
was implemented with a helicopter and involved low altitude visual in-
spection of the surveyed alignment.
-9-
Navigation.
Since the transmission corridor was not marked on the ground at
the time of the survey, the field archaeologists relied on 1:12,000
scale blueline photomosaic maps (map pocket) furnished by Stone and
Webster, to determine the boundaries of the survey area. Ground navi-
gation was enabled by checking position using a combination of U.S.
Geological Survey topographic maps (1:63,360 scale), blueline mosiac
aerial photographs (1:12,000 scale), and compass bearings.
Shovel Probes.
Shovel probes were excavated to depths of approximately 50 em or
less depending on subsurface conditions. Areas insulated by surface
moss or shaded by trees were generally found to be frozen within 30 em
of the surface. Wet tundra areas with a high water table were not
tested. Probes were placed approximately every 100 meters along the
surveyed corridor segment.
RESULTS
Aerial Inyestiaations
The helicopter aerial reconnaissance of the survey area revealed
several cleared areas in the taiga forest cover of the large hill
located just south of Caribou Lake. In addition, all-terrain vehicle
(ATV) tracks were noted along the base this hill. No architectural
features, such as cabins or caches, were noted.
-10-
Surface Inyestiaations
The surface survey revealed numerous cut tree stumps along the
eastern end of the survey area. These stumps varied in diameter from
approximately 45 em (c. 18 in.) to less than 20 em (c. 8 in.). Micro-
topographic and vegetative disturbance near these stumps revealed the
locations of narrow logging trails, which in turn led to larger trails
leading toward Caribou Lake. The larger trails evidence recent ATV
traffic.
Subsurface Inyestiaations
Approximately seventy shovel probes were attempted during the
course of the survey. Only a few of these located fully thawed ground
enabling deep tests. However, despite the limitations imposed by
partially frozen ground conditions, it is possible to generalize sur-
face sediment characteristics on the basis of completed tests. A
typical section exposed a thick organic mat (c. 20 em thick) overlying
an organic rich forest brown (lOYR) soil (c. 30 em thick), which in
turn overlies a pebbly organic soil grading to gravel. No evidence of
buried cultural deposits were discovered during subsurface testing.
CONCLUSIONS
A review of pertinent literature did not reveal the presence of
significant historic or prehistoric properties within the survey area.
Additionally, the only culturally derived remains discovered within
the survey area were cut tree stumps and recent trails. These are not
-11-
known to be associated with any historically significant person or
event, and do not independently meet National Register eligibility
criteria (cf. 36 CFR Part 800, Appendix A). Thus, on the basis of
data revealed through literature research and field investigations, it
is concluded that the proposed realignment for a segment of the Brad-
ley Lake power transmission line corridor does not appear to represent
a threat to any cultural property listed in or eligible for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places.
Mobley,
1985
REFERENCES CITED
Charles M.; Glenn H. Bacon, Katherine Arndt, and James A. Ketz
1984 an4 1985 Cultural Resources Suryey Beport for the Fritz
Creek to Soldotna Transmission Line Project. Research
report from Alaska Heritage Research Group to Commonwealth
Associates Inc. for the Homer Electric Association.
Reger, Douglas D.
1981 A Hodel for Culture History in Upper Cook Inlet. Alaska.
unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Washington State University, Pullman.
-12-
MAPS
..
I
I
!
i
I
!
I
I ..
I
I
'"''
I
L
I
1.
t.
I
I
+
12
OVERSIZED MAP
NOT MICROFILMED
MAP LOCATED IN
ORIGINAL· REPORT
J
;
6
--1------
7
I
I
I
I
i
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5
+ 2 140 000 !!!._
----+--------
1
I
I
I
8
PROPOSED
"' 0
8
0
I"'
TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE
FOR lNFORr~A TlON ONLY
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
~
g r DRAWING NUMBER
g l SWB9 -220 - 1 _'··· ______ j'L_"' -----1-....l..----~ LAND OWNERSHIP
IN FORMAT ION '<5 DENOTE
·y IPRIVATEi
REI 4
•• E
SOU' RANGE
ON oSE
MAPS REPRESENT LOCATIONS BASED ON AVAILABLE OATA.
3. OWNERSIP FOR PRIVATE PARCELS IS OSTENSIBLE ONLY, AND MAY
NOT REFLECT CURRENT OWNER.
4. CM·I a CM·2 ARE CONTROL MONUMENTS SET BY AOL. PREPARED BY' I DATE: I
Tn• Droftin9 Company Feb., 1986 SHEET I OF :5
\~"'"" 6
'\ \:, ..... ,, ......
'
I
I
I
OVERSIZED MAP
NOT MICROFILMED
MAP LOCATED IN
ORIGINAL· REPORT
I s 4
I I
I . I ZI40~00N I + I I I I -·+---------+---------+
'"" .. '""',~,! ..... ,, .,.:OR INFPRMATION ONLy i
L''"z~~o~.. ,
7 '~j , ' S TRANSM I ==~~:O~~~ E ROUTE ... ;;,.,,_ .... ~. I ' BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
LAND OWNERSHIP
IN FORMAT 10 N
I
I I .
I
'M 6 ·e. I
~
OVERSIZED MAP
-
NOT MICROFILMED
MAP LOCATED IN
ORIGINAL· REPORT
I -----+-----
1 I
I I -
I I
I I I (\j I 1'0
I I
I I
I I
I I -------+--. -·-----t----
1 I
+ I I
\ I I
' .. I I \ \~! N i~ I I q-'
-"· ~+J ' ~ l FOR INFORMATION I ONLy ~
_ ~~ I; I PROPOSED .,-z \? -~ Q I
"'uc ....... IL~~ f---------+--TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE
I I
I 1'0 I
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
LAND OWNERSHIP
INFORMATION
PREPARED BY:
OVERSIZED MAP
NOT MICROFILMED
MAP LOCATED IN
ORIGINAL· REPORT
.
l .
;Y
. '-, )
111. f
..... ~.,~
ROUTE MAP
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FOR:
/A Stone&: 'Webster ~.....--.~
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
OVERSIZED MAP
NOT MICROFILMED
MAP LOCATED IN
ORIGINAL· REPORT
BRADLEY
ROUTE MAP
UNES
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PRO.ECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
I'REPARED fOil:
/A Stooe&~ 6!!A &oli-n .. ~
ALASKA
DRAWING
NUMHfl:
OVERSIZED MAP
NOT MICROFILMED
MAP LOCATED IN
ORIGINAL· REPORT
BRADLEY
ROUTE MAP
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT
ALASKA POWEft AUTHOIUTY
I'IIEI'AIIED FOil:
A~~
AHCHOIIAGE.ALASKA
..
OVERSIZED MAP
NOT MICROFILMED
MAP LOCATED IN
ORIGINAL· REPORT
BRADLEY LAKE HYDRoELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWI!A AUTHORITY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
.KEY MAP
~-------~------.--------~ ~ · · sTONE • .weaamt HIBtT~~'~ Pl.ATE 11 /b. ENGINEERING CORPORATION EX i ,_,.. : . ~ -~ ~ ' ' " ' ______ __... __ ....._.__..._ ___ --1
~I
I
I
J
'
J
I
J '
OVERSIZED MAP
NOT MICROFILMED
MAP LOCATED IN
ORIGINAL· REPORT
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY .
PROJECT BOUNDARY
..
TRANSMISSION LINE
' ..
~ STONE & WEBSTER
ENGINEERING CORPORATION EXHIBIT G PLATE 2
.
.
OVERSIZED MAP
NOT MICROFILMED
MAP LOCATED IN
ORIGINAL· REPORT
. BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
1 PROJECT BOUNDARY'
l TRANSMISSION LINE
I ~ STONE & .WEBSTER E BIT G ··-~ ENGINEERING CORPORATION XHI ·PLATE 3
.. _________________ _____.