Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoutheast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study Appendices 1987Alaska Power Authority Stote of Aiosko SOUTHEAST ALASKA TRANSMISSION INTERTIE STUDY APPENDICES Prepared By HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY OCTOBER 1987 Alaska Power Authority Stote of Alaska SOUTHEAST ALASKA TRANSMISSION INTERTIE STUDY APPENDICES Prepared By HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY OCTOBER 1987 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDICES "Southeast Alaska Intertie Project Submarine Crossing Surveys Skagway to Ketchikan", Harding Lawson Associates, Novato, California, December 21, 1986. "Comments on Southeast Alaska Intertie Bathymetric Survey Conducted During the Period of October 13-31, 1986", Captain Antonio Nesi, December 1986. "Pirelli Report on Participation in Southeast Alaska Intertie Study", Pirelli Cable Corporation and Societa' Cavi Pirelli, March 20, 1987. "Cultural Resources along the Route of the Proposed Southeast Alaska Intertie Project (Draft)", Herbert D. Maschner, North Archaeological Consultants, April 23, 1986. Public and Agency Contacts Appendix A Leelee kaa ale nr a NE ee eg "a" \_J A Report Prepared for Harza Engineering Company 150 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606-4288 SOUTHEAST ALASKA INTERTIE PROJECT SUBMARINE CROSSING SURVEYS SKAGWAY 10 KETCHIKAN, ALASKA HLA Job No. 15,006,005.09 by CLuwd 3D. Fiche Edward J. Ticken Senior Geophysicist Craig A. Rodeick Geophysicist - 880 Harding Lawson Associates 7655 Redwood Boulevard, P.O. Box 578 Novato, California 94948 415/892-0821 December 31, 1986 Harding Lawson Associates me B bee Dama Lama 5 Lee Loli ml enema) Lene Lea ements SL Harding Lawson Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS EIS Te OR STABLES mrcur-ircin clic iicici cNlcINcIICcil (oils INTs INel ar RIT<IN(oimc Sc MNCINT INCE oI INI pul oe iv ISEST) OF UEUSTRATIONS) Ye ico ier tee) a) oe eve) tet wie) or ole tes el ws iv SUMMARY . 2... 2. eee Sen Sancti (ome Be Os OOOO choo 1 TSINTRODUGTIION fia yore einer ©) ets) ee) cel tore) 2) ce) ie) fer) ee 6 A. Project Objectives 5.52.62 ects sms wl as 6 B. Work Scope «ss « = « « OP co On GOlC OcINCN Gc ih omono 8 II EQUIPMENT AND FIELD PROCEDURES ..........2.22422006- 10 A. Bathymetric Survey Equipment .........2.220+4 200. 10 B® Nevwignlion .. 2+ st 4 He ese w eww wee eee ee ll GC, Givey Vessel. ew wet eee he ewe 14 D. Personnels ce ma 6) ee) ere ele fe cel se) rust te fe 2) 14 Exp ELeldiProceduresiny prcur-mrci <i sire) Wool N> Ite /il'o i -UN?- <I ounr rors 15 LT) IRQUTIE, ISGREENING ioc mene ce fe) oe) ie) el Sie) ot ete el at ee] a) ot te) ee 17 A. Qco3eanograply 1.2. sw este woe weet twee ees «mune BF SB. Ganlogic MOZSIUS 2. css wee wee wh Kw 20 G. Cultural Obstacles <5 3a. m1 n ems ee so ss & 24 IV DATAIREDUGTION aac 6 ose ice ine a sme oe he ow! 25 PSone WV Too Goo Ooo Ob OOOO Oo OO Otc 25 VV PINDINGS 23 = 3 sew ws So yews Fe ww os we mw i 8 29 A. Crossing 2.1 (Skagway-Haines) and 2.2 (Haines-Bridget Cove) . 30 B. Crossing 3 (Douglas Island to Young's Bay, Admiralty Island)... . 2... see cece esc cee c cee, 32 C. Crossing 5.2/5.4 (Point Snettisham to Kupreanof Island) ... 33 D. Crossing 6.1 (Wrangell Narrows, Lindenberg Peninsula to Mitkof Island). .. «6 «sexes eee seen wnvvewes 35 E. Crossing 6.5 (Duncan Canal, Kupreanof Island to Lindenberg Peninsula) . . . 2.2.2. 2-2. eee eee eee vee 36 F. Crossing 7.1 (Kake, Kupreanof Island to Warm Springs Bay, Baranof Island)... 2... 2. eee eee eee eevee vee 37 G. Crossing 8.5/8.6 (North Behm Canal) .........4..2.-. 39 ii a ee ee oe ee ee ee ee ee ee Harding Lawson Associates H. Crossing 9.1 (Kasaan Peninsula, Prince of Wales Island to Revillagigedo Island) .........2+4.+4.24-242-ee- ei to 5 (4) 1. Crossing 10.6 (Behm Canal - Wasp Point Vicinity, Revillagigedo Island to Point Trollop) ........... 43 J. Crossing 11 (Portland Canal) ...........222226-. 44 K. Crossing 12.2 (Revillagigedo Channel - Mountain Point to oe ag) ne a ae ee ee a ee 45 VI REFERENCES CITED ..... we © i ii o © we) es i 5) So 1S fe 48 MIT TCGUSTRATIONS 5 55 3 2 © 6 we fe el 6 cl) oe © 49 Appendix A - TRANSMISSION LINE SUBMARINE CROSSINGS - QCEANOGRAPHY/METEOROLOGY DISTRIBUT LON iii La) |) ee i— iJ Lj to lee) Harding Lawson Associates LIST OF TABI-ES Table 1 Cable Route Selection Criteria Table 2 Project Personnel Table 3 1986 Tidal Predictions - October Table 4 Correspondence Between Original Field and Final Crossing Designations LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1 Location Map Figure 2 Sensor and Navigation Antenna Locations Aboard the M/V Silvia J. Figure 3 Major Faults in Southeastern Alaska Figure 4 Linear Features of Southeastern Alaska Plate 1 Crossing 2.1 and 7.2 Bathymetry (Skagway to Bridget Cove) Plate 2 Crossing 2.2 Alternate Bathymetry Plate 3 Crossing 3 Bathymetry (Douglas Island to Admiralty Island) Plate 4 Crossing 5.2/5.4 Bathymetry (Port Snettisham to Kupreanof Island) Plate 5 Crossing 6.1 Bathymetry (Wrangell Narrows) Plate 6 Crossing 6.5 Bathymetry (Duncan Canal) Plate 7 Crossing 7.1 Bathymetry (Kake to Warm Springs Bay) Plate 8 Crossing 8.5/8.6 (North Behm Canal) Plate 9 Crossing 9.1 Bathymetry (Kassan Peninsula to Revillagigedo Island) Plate 10 Crossing 10.6 Bathymetry (Behm Canal - Wasp Point Vicinity to Point Trollop) Plate 11 Crossing 11 (Portland Canal) Plate 12 Crossing 12.2 Bathymetry (Revillagigedo Channel, Mountain Point to Race Point) iv 1 i 1 — mer) s)he) ace) acer! eee) =e) ec) ed be ke) Cl Cl Ck CCC Ol Harding Lawson Associates SUMMARY Harding Lawson Associates (HLA) conducted marine geophysical surveys at nine submarine crossings between Skagway and Ketchikan, Alaska, in October 1986. The project objective was to provide Harza Engineering Company with water depth and submarine slope configuration data to evaluate the feasi- bility of laying power transmission cables at the crossings as part of the Alaska Power Authority's Southeast Alaska Intertie Project. The project would connect power generators and power consumers throughout southeast Alaska. In addition, this report presents the data of others for three additional alignments. The results of the survey are summarized below. Water depths are referenced to Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). Skagway-Haines, Crossing 2.1 Maximum water depth is 1470 feet. Landfall at Skagway is a rock jetty and at Tanani Point a gravel beach. Relatively smooth seabed with steeper slopes (45°) on Haines approach. Existing Alascom cable corridors along alignment. Sediment cover over much of the crossing, but the Skagway approach is hard bottom. Haines-Bridget Cove, Crossing 2.2 Maximum water depth is 1000 feet. Landfall at Bridget Cove, south of Berner's Bay, is a cobble and gravel beach. Fairly regular seabed except in the Eldred Rock area. Gentle slopes (8°) into Haines landfall, but steeper into Bridget Cove (11°). Sediment cover is available except on both north CS Ca es : Cy 6S Nem Aad Lamm Led Ld bend beef bed eed Harding Lawson Associates and south landfall approaches and in Eldred Rock vicinity. Alascom cable corridor parallels alignment north of Eldred Rock. Douglas Island to Admiralty Island, Crossing 3 Maximum water depth is 240 feet. Douglas Island landfall is a gravel beach and Admiralty Island landfall is the same, plus cobbles and boulders. Gentle approach slopes (3° to 8°) except in shallow water. Seabed is rela- tively smooth hard bottom, either rock outcrop or gravel. Alignment crosses an existing Alascom submarine cable near the north landfall. Port Snettisham to Kupreanof Island, Crossing 5.2/5.4 Maximum water depth is 1535 feet. The seabed beneath the north half of the crossing from the Speel River to the Glass Peninsula is fairly regular with some seabed promontories. Sediment probably covers the sea floor in Stephen's Passage but the landfall approach slope is a hard bottom. Seabed relief is common throughout the crossing's south half and there is more hard bottom than sediment cover. In the south there is a fairly gentle approach (3°) into Kupreanof Island. Landfall on the Speel River is a mudflat atop a fairly gentle approach (4°) and on Kupreanof Island the beach is wide with exposed shale or slate outcrops and local accumulations of cobbles and black sand. Numerous submarine cable corridors are noted on navigation charts of Stephen's Passage. Le Los Ca Le Namen LaLa Ld Ll Harding Lawson Associates Wrangell Narrows, Crossing 6.1 Maximum water depth is 110 feet along this one-mile-wide crossing. The east approach is steeper (27°) than the west (18°) and most of the alignment is sediment covered. Both landfalls are rocky beaches. Duncan Canal, Crossing 6.5 Maximum water depth is 100 feet. This short, bowl-shaped crossing is floored by sediment with few rock outcrops. The west approach to landfall is steep, 22°, with a more gentle slope (9°) in the east. Landfalls are rocky coves on each end of the crossing. Kake to Warm Springs Bay, Crossing 7.1 Maximum water depth is 1880 feet in Chatham Strait. The seabed is fairly regular with some relief. Two deep water areas are separated by the submarine continuation of Admiralty Island. The west. landfall] approach is steep (31°) and probably sediment covered but the east approach is fairly gentle (3°) with hard botlom. Evidence of sediment slumping was found at the base of prominent slopes. Landfall at Warm Springs Bay in the west is a flat, cobble beach and in the east it is a small gravel beach in a small cove just northwest of Point White. The crossing straddles the Chatham Strait fault. North Behm Canal, Crossings 8.5/8.6 Maximum water depths are 525 feet and 435 feet for Crossings 8.5 and 8.6, respectively. Crossing 8.5 is 6000 feet wide and the north approach to landfall varies between 8° and 26°. The south approach is a 26° slope. ] Greed 0 Cmrrel Oaened) ceed) rh Greed ceed eee eed reed Oe Qe) te) gee ee eel Harding Lawson Associates Crossing 8.6 is approximately 3800 feet wide with the north approach sloping between 5° and 32° and the south approach is 26°. Data for this crossing were collected by ITECH. Kasaan Peninsula to Revillagigedo Island, Crossing 9.1 Maximum water depth is 1630 feet. The west approach to landfall is steep, up to 35°, ending at a rocky beach. The east approach is more gentle with considerable sea floor relief that ends in a small cove with a gravel and rocky beach. Some evidence of slump deposits at the base of a steep slope. The upper approach slopes are hard bottom, probably rock outcrops, but the lower slopes are sediment covered. The crossing traverses existing submarine cables and straddles the Clarence Strait fault. There is possible evidence of two traces of the Clarence Strait fault on the bathymetric cross section. Behm Canal - Wasp Point to Point Trollop, Crossing 10.6 Maximum water depth is 1450 feet. Most of the crossing seabed is smooth and sediment-covered with the exception of the upper approach slopes. The northwest approach slopes are about 18° and they end at a small, narrow cobble and boulder beach. The southeast slopes are steeper, up to 27°, and they end at a small beach comprised of broken volcanic rock and bedrock out- crops. Portland Canal, Crossing 11 Data for this crossing are poor, gathered by Sea-Lease, Inc. for U.S. Borax. The maximum water depth is approximately 900 feet with a fairly iY hk ty LH 4 tw ty Ly Lo 1 by ty ty ty Ld tH bY LY Harding Lawson Associates gentle west landfall approach, 3°, and a very steep eastern approach, approximately 68°. Revillagigedo Channel - Mountain Point to Race Point, Crossing 12.2 Maximum water depth is 600 feet. Little seabed relief, but the approach to Mountain Point is steep, 45°, and the approach to Race Point is more gentle, 16° to 27°. The north landfall is a bedrock beach in a small cove with some gravel. The south landfall is a gravel beach in a small cove surrounded by rock outcrops. The upper approach slopes are probably hard bottom, but the deep part of the crossing is sediment covered. Los Harding Lawson Associates I INTRODUCTION Harding Lawson Associates (HLA) conducted marine geophysical investiga- tions of nine submarine crossings (Figure 1) for the proposed Southeast Alaska Intertie Project under contract to Har7za Engineering Company for the Alaska Power Authority (APA). The survey was performed betwecn Octuber 14 and October 31, 1986 to provide the necessary data to complete a feasibility study for a proposed expansion of the power distribution system in south- eastern Alaska. This report includes our examination of bathymetric data acquired by I1ECH for the norlh Behm Canal area in January 1986 and data from Portland Canal acquired by Sea-Lease, Incorporated for U.S. Borax in 1983. Southeast Alaska's electrical energy useage is concentrated in small and isolated load centers that experience large swings in power surpluses and deficits. Currently, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Wrangell, and Sitka have power surpluses whereas Juneau has a deficit. Interconnecting these facilities as well as some mining projects should provide more efficient operation, improve power reliability and provide markets for local hydroelectric proj- ects, wood waste, or for the development of any other alternative energy resource. A. Project Objectives The objective of the program was to collect bathymetric data at 9 sub- marine crossings for use in a feasibility analysis of various segments of 7190 CROSSING 2.1,22 Pistes 1& 2 = a 7 No N Ss Berners Bay oi CROSSING 3 \ Bay ‘ Bridget Ce Plate 3 9 th ri ove \ CROSSING 5.2/5.4 Plate 4 7 v oO : = + CROSSING 6.5 ~_ / Plate 6 i Warm Springs Bay —— CROSSING 6.1 Pr. Gardner ©7 q Gre a CROSSING 7.1 SoS Plate 7 ™~. is CROSSING 9.1 Plate 9 Figure 1. Location Map CROSSING 12.2 Piste 12 CROSSING 10.6 Plate 10 CROSSING 11 Plate 11 iss CROSSING 8.5/8 Plate 8 — Gc Nee be oe eed eee ee UL Le ee a a | a a es a | Harding Lawson Associates the intertie system. Specifically, HLA's proposal outlined five tasks to meet the survey objective. Task 1 Route screening and selection. HLA, Harza Engineering Company and Pirelli Cable Corporation (PCC) cooperated in choosing the submarine crossings by applying the criteria shown in Table 1. Both primary and alternate routes were chosen for each crossing. Table 1. Cable route selection criteria 1. Landing Points a. b. c. d. e. Good accessibility from land and sea Flat beach, if possible, and deep enough to house a land/sea joint and pulling winch Sandy, stable sea floor, not steep to reduce cable protection costs Areas protected from strong winds, waves, and currents Landing areas close to overhead lines 2. Cable Route a. b. Cc. Seabed flat as possible to avoid cable free spans Preferably muddy bottom for natural covering Sufficiently far from: - anchoring, fishing, and boating activities - localized seismic areas - river mouths - areas subject to ice scouring of the sea floor 3. Crossing Existing Services a. b. Task ? Task 3 Telephone cables should be crossed at right angles Crossings are not acceptable where existing services have free spans Mobilization of personnel and equipment to southeast Alaska Collection of bathymetric data. The primary route for each crossing was surveyed first. HLA, PCC, and APA representatives examined the primary route data and if the alignment was acceptable, the vessel moved to the next crossing. If not, field plans called for surveying the alternate alignment. aa | bed bed bt eH bed ss i -—— — Harding Lawson Associates Task 4 Data computation and analysis. Bathymetric data were sent to HLA's Novato, California office where profiles were examined for morphologic features characteristic of slumping, sand waves, erosion channels, and other features that may affect the suitability of the crossing. In addition, data were corrected for tidal variations and normalized to a MLLW datum for plotting. Task 5 Preparation of crossing profiles and a written report. B. Work Scope The scope of work included gathering data along primary submarine cross- ings at all 9 sites and, where necessary, also collecting data along alter- nate alignments. Twin echo sounding transducers were deployed on metal "fish" and towed at the end of outriggers attached to the survey vessel. The tow fish were each offset about 17 feet right and left of the vessel centerline and this configuration provided coverage of about a 200-foot-wide swath of the seabed in water depths of 500 feet. Steep, nearshore slopes were sounded with a lead line. Because of the reconnaissance nature of the project, navigation control was provided by GPS satellite navigation, or a combination single Del Norte UHF shore station and radar range and bearing positioning. Navigational position, "fixes" or shot points, were taken at approx- imately one minute intervals and every fifth shot point was plotted on over- lays of the navigation charts. Bathymetric data were returned to HLA's office and corrected to MLLW with Juneau and Ketchikan tide tables ‘and plotted. sn Harding Lawson Associates Bathymetric data from ITECH's Behm Canal survey were presented as MLLW corrected data. HLA measured depths and distances from ITECH's cross section drawings. The Portland Canal data were poorly annotated and the navigation poorly controlled and thus, the water depths are referenced to sea level at the time of the survey. hicss i | L4 los tL —I Lt 4 L —3 I Harding Lawson Associates 1I EQUIPMENT AND FIELD PROCEDURES The discussion below describes the bathymetric equipment, navigation systems, the vessel, and personnel that participated in the field survey. In addition, we discuss notable events during the survey of each crossing and in Field Procedures we present a description of the landfall markers left by the survey crew. The relative positions of electronic sensors and navigation antennas aboard the M/V Silvia J are shown in Figure 2. A. Bathymetric Survey Equipment 1. Raytheon DE-731 Fathometer Depth Recorder The DE-731 is an ultrasonic echo depth sounder that provides a permanent record (echogram) of underwater topography in water up to 2400 feet deep. The system is powered by the vessel's DC or 115 V ac power source. Two components comprise the system; a strip chart recorder, and a towed transducer. The equipment was calibrated to a speed of sound in water of 4,800 feet per second (fps). This is customary since the speed of sound in sea water is often closer to 4900-5000 fps and calibrating at 4800 fps errs on the conservative side for navigation. In other words, the bottom appears slightly shallower than it is. The published accuracy of the system is +1 percent of the recorded depth. The transducer operates at a frequency of 41 kilohertz (kHz) with a nominal beam width of 40 degrees. Transducers were attached to towfish flown off the end of outriggers on both the port and starboard sides of the vessel. The towfish were deployed between 5 and 6 feet below the surface. 10 7191 PLAN VIEW SIDE VIEW 6’ a © Trisponder UHF Antenna O GPS Antenna O Loran C Antenna © — Hull Mounted Fathometer Transducer OUTRIGGER STEEL WIRE ROPE iN \c EATHOMETER TRANSDUCER Figure 2. Sensor and Navigation Antenna Locations Aboard the M/V Silvia J. 2 oo | bok anil Harding Lawson Associates Lead line soundings were taken near the shoreward side of Crossings 3, 6.1, 6.5, 7.1, 9.1, and 12.2. A wire rope marked at 5-foot intervals was used to determine depths close to shore where the survey vessel could not maneuver. The vessel moved ahead very slowly. Where it was necessary to use a skiff for sounding, the distance of the small boat from the beach was estimated. B. Navigation Five separate navigation systems were aboard the vessel but only three (1, 3, 5) were employed at various times during the survey: 1) Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite, 2) US Navy Navigation Satellite System (NAVSAT), 3) Del Norte 435 UHF trisponder system, 4) Loran-C, and 5) radar. 1. Global Positioning System (GPS) The NAVSTAR GPS is a radio navigation system that requires accurate knowledge of the position of three satellites and the transit time of signals from these positions. The user obtains the apparent (pseudo range) transit time by measuring the phase shift of identical codes that are generated in both the satellite and the user receiver, each synchronized with its own clock. The two codes are shifted until maximum correlation is achieved between the two. The time magnitude of the shift is the receiver's measure of the pseudo range time. By multiplying this time difference by the speed of light, the user determines his distance or range from the satellite. By computing the ranges from the satellites, the user position is defined by the intersection of the three spheres of the determined radii Pye -" Harding Lawson Associates centered at each satellite. Instantaneous position fixes are accurate to approximately +100 feet. Continuous positioning along a survey line allows the system to update itself from position history yielding fixes more accurate than +100 feet. 2. US Navy Navigation Satellite System (NAVSAT) NAVSAT signals were acquired with a Magnavox MX 1107L satellite receiver. The NAVSAT system has a number of satellites in near-earth orbits that are polar and circular. Positioning is accomplished by measuring the received satellite frequency at discrete intervals and demodulating the satellite carrier frequency to recover orbital parameters. Knowing the satellite frequency and the orbital parameters, a small HP 9825 computer can calculate latitude and longitude positions. The NAVSAT system was included as a check on the GPS system position solutions and the radar ranges and bearings. Unfortunately, voltage surges in the ship's power resulted in the destruction of two satellite interface circuits and the system was nonfunctional most of the survey. 3. Del Norte Three-Range System The Del Norte 435 UHF is an over-the-horizon navigation unit designed for long range navigation. Conservative estimates of its range are between 1.8 and 2.5 times the line-of-sight distance when used during winter and summer, respectively. Winter snow storms reduce its effective range. l.ine- of-sight distance depends upon the elevation of the shore-based trisponder (slave station). 12 —s — (er - J L.8 4 bw Harding Lawson Associates The system uses a time/frequency measuring technique operating in the ultra high frequency (UHF) range. It can display four ranges simulta- neously and in its normal operational mode with 2 or more slave stations it is capable of an accuracy of +10 feet (3 meters). HLA investigators used only one shore based station as a check on positions determined by radar Tanges and bearings and the GPS system. The maximum achievable accuracy of +10 feet (3 meters) was beyond the time and budgetary scope of the survey. 4. Loran € Loran C is a pulse and hyperbolic system. Antennas operate in pairs, one serving as a master controlling the other, a slave. By measuring the arrival time of synchronized pulses, or by measuring the phase dif- ference of synchronized continuous wave signals, the navigator can determine the difference in distance from the two stations. Loran C is primarily an open water navigation system and the North Star 7000 Loran receiver onboard was not used for the survey. 5. Radar A Furuno 24-mile range radar was used to measure distances and bear- ings from prominent landforms, navigation lights, and other prominent radar reflectors. The published accuracy of the system is approximately +1.5 per- cent of the radar scale selected, up to a maximum of +230 feet (70 meters) at the farthest scale. We estimate that the range-bearing radar position locations, coupled with the single Del Norte range are accurate to +100 feet or less. 3 Harding Lawson Associates C. Survey Vessel The vessel employed for this survey was the motor vessel (M/V) Sylvia J, owned by Alaska Sea Adventures and operated by Robert H. Horchover. The vessel is 48 feet long with a fiberglass hull and it is normally used to carry fishing and hunting parties to the outlying islands. The vessel was chosen because Robert Horchover is an experienced master, and the vessel's interior is spacious providing ample room inside for all survey personnel at this inclement time of the year. Onland communication support was provided by Mr. Horchover's family. D. Personnel The following personnel participated in all or part of the field program for the Southeast Alaska Intertie Project. Table 2. Personnel List Aboard the M/V Sylvia J. Name Company Position Date Richard Lee Harding Lawson Associates Geophysicist 10/13-10/31/86 larry Whiting Gregco, Inc. Navigator 10/13-10/31/86 Tanzeem Rizvi Alaska Power Authority Observer 10/13-10/17/86 Eric Marchegiani Alaska Power Authority Observer 10/17-10/31/86 Antonio Nesi Pirelli Cable Corp. Cable Spec. 10/13-10/31/86 Bob Horchover Alaskan Sea Adventures Master 10/13-10/31/86 Terry Kullander Alaskan Sea Adventures Mate 10/13-10/31/86 Eric Yould Harza Engineering Company Observer 10/17-10/19/86 14 -™ “= Harding Lawson Associates E. Field Procedures Since submarine crossings were chosen from maps rather than through intimate knowledge of the survey area, the field investigators located likely starting and end points in the field in the vicinity of the chosen locations. The survey crew then made shore where they installed permanent markers for the crossing landfalls (No. 4 steel reinforcing bars painted fluorescent orange, marked with survey flagging, and set in concrete). Where necessary, they also installed a navigation station at a prominent location identifiable on navigation or topographic maps to aid in real-time navigation plotting. Where appropriate the crew lead-lined depths near the beach with the M/V Silvia J's Boston Whaler skiff. Otherwise, lead-lining was conducted from the vessel. When lead-lining was performed from the vessel, locations were plotted from GPS or radar range and bearings. Distance from the beach was estimated "by eye" when sounding from the skiff. GPS satellite positioning was employed whenever possible during the survey because of its greater accuracy. As the vessel progressed along a survey line navigational "fixes" were taken approximately every minute. Every fifth position was plotted on the navigation charts. When the GPS time window expired, the crew reverled to radar ranges and bearings (even while using the GPS system the field investigators checked positions against radar data). When using radar ranges ‘and bearings and a shore-based Del Norte station, the surveyors were forced to stop a number of times to set 15 Harding Lawson Associates new navigation stations when crossings extended beyond the range of the initial Del Norte station. Hard copy echo sounding records were electronically marked and hand annotated to correspond to the navigational data. The annotations are referred to as "shot points" for the remainder of this report and as event marks on the bathymetric plates presented in Section V. The survey was designed to take maximum advantage of daylight hours because of the danger of approaching rocky shores at night. Thus, the crew surveyed during daylight hours and travelled between crossings at night. Inclement weather was experienced throughout the survey except for isolated periods of sunshine. The crew worked in swells up to about 5 feet, but normally the seas were slightly calmer. Despite the poor weather, only one weather day was recorded on October 22, 1986. The vessel was forced to wait out six- to eight-foot seas and 30 knot winds in Pybus Bay before completing Crossing 5.2. The poor weather made it difficult to retrieve a navigation station from Midway Island in Stephens Passage. In addition, retrieving the station would have taken valuable field time so HLA's field representative decided to abandon the station and retrieve it during the M/V Silvia J's return to home port in Juneau. Foul weather prevented recovery of the shore station during the vessel's return to Juneau, but it was finally retrieved by helicopter on November 11, 1986. 16 Harding Lawson Associates III ROUTE SCREENING Prior to conducting the field survey for the Southeast Alaska Intertie Project, HLA investigators reviewed charts, maps, and the available litera- ture to identify potential problems along the submarine crossings chosen for this investigation. Specifically , we reviewed the available oceanographic and geologic literature to evaluate potential hazards, such as strong currents in the landing areas, earthquake faults, and seismically active zones. The review is detailed below. A. Oceanography Oceanographic information specific to southeast Alaska between Skagway and Dixon Entrance is contained in three, constantly updated publications issued yearly by the National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce. These three publications are: 1. Tidal Current Tables (1986), Pacific Coast of North America and Asia. 2. Tide Tables (1986), High and Low Water Predictions 3. United States Coastal Pilot, Volume 8, Pacific Coast Alaska: Dixon Entrance to Cape Spencer, Seventeenth Edition; January 1986. It is important to remember that while these sources have incorporated all available observations, current velocities and tide ranges are fre- quently disturbed by atmospheric conditions (barometric pressure and wind) or variations in river discharge. This is particularly true in southeast Alaska where winds are often funneled through the narrow straits and 17 Harding Lawson Associates Passages resulting in reduced current velocities when opposed to the direc- tion of tidal flow, and more importantly increased current velocities when blowing in the same general direction as tidal flow. Accordingly, the predicted values of current velocity and tidal range will underestimate worse-case conditions when, for example, northerly winter winds exceeding 70 knots blow down Lynn Canal. The "Current Tables" present predicted times of slack water, maximum flood, and maximum ebb, and predicted velocities (in knots) and bearings (degrees true) of the maximum ebb and flood flows for each day of the year at 32 reference stations, including Wrangell Narrows (off Petersburg) and North Inian Pass (Cross Sound). More importantly, these parameters can be calculated, based upon conditions at Wrangell Narrows and North Inian Pass, for subordinate stations that are geographically more representative of oceanographic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed marine transmission- line crossings. The average speed and bearing of maximum ebb and maximum flood flows are also tabulated for each subordinate station. For the purposes of this Teview, we have focused on maximum predicted flow velocities since it is these worse-case conditions that could possibly impact route selection. Accordingly, we have tabulated both the "average" maximum ebb and flood flows presented in the Current Tables (which average spring and neap tide conditions) and the yearly maximum ebb and flood flows (based on the strongest single ebb and flood flows, not necessarily occurring on the same day) predicted for 1986. 18 Harding Lawson Associates The "Tide Tables" permit calculation, much like the "Current Tables", of predicted daily high and low water (time and elevation) at 33 subordinate stations chosen as representative of conditions in the study area. While tide predictions on any specific day are not important to this study, the mean tide ranges at these stations are useful since they are related to tidal current strengths at these stations. Furthermore, knowledge of tidal range, combined with representative beach profiles at the proposed cross- ings, permits a rough calculation of the width of the tidal zone, subject to wave action, that must be traversed at a given crossing. The "Coastal Pilot" contains both very general observations of typical current velocities and meteorological conditions for selected straits, canals, and channels as well as very specific oceanographic concerns, such as tide rips, that may pose a danger to the mariner. General meteorological and oceanographic conditions between Dixon Entrance and Ketchikan, and in Clarence Strait, Annette, Summer Strait, Frederick Sound, Stephens Passage, Juneau, Chatham Strait, Lynn Canal, Haines, and Skagway are presented in Appendix A which reviews all the submarine crossings. 1. General Oceanographic Conditions Average maximum predicted tidal velocities throughout the study area range from 0.5 knots about 2 miles east of Pt. Gambier, Stephens Passage along Crossing 5.2/5.4 to 4.3 knots at Petersburg, Wrangell Narrows north of Crossing 6.1. The maximum current velocities predicted for these same stations during 1986 are 0.6 knots and 6.5 knots, respectively. 19 te 1 oH) ty 1! 0 Harding Lawson Associates Tidal currents in the study area may be symmetrical (ebb and flood strengths equal) or asymmetrical (ebb and flood strengths unequal). Furthermore, the asymmetric tides may be ebb dominated (for example Taiya Inlet, Lynn Canal, Behm Narrows, and the Walden Rocks area of Nichols Passage) to flood dominated (Wrangell and Tongass Narrows). The degree of tidal asymmetry ranges from slight (flood velocity equals 1.1 x ebb velocity at Wrangell Narrows) to extreme (ebb velocity equals 6 x flood velocity at Behm Narrows). Elsewhere the predicted values of average maximum flood and ebb flow are equal: Chatham Strait, Stephens Passage, Frederick Sound, Behm Canal, Nichols Passage south of Walden Rocks, and the Portland Canal. The mean tidal range (difference between mean high water and mean low water) in the study area varies from 10.2 feet at Red Bluff Bay (Baranof Island, Frederick Sound) to 14.2 feet at Haines in Chilkoot Inlet. The diurnal tidal range (difference between mean higher high water and mean lower low water) varies from 12.7 to 16.8 feet at these same stations. Refer to Appendix A for more specific weather and tidal information for each proposed crossing. B. Geologic Hazards 1. Faulting The major potential geologic hazard in the project area is faulting and the subsequent effects of ground shaking. Earthquake faults are common in southeast Alaska and two major faults cut through most of the study area: the Chatham Strait fault and the Clarence Strait fault. A much 20 Harding Lawson Associates larger, more active fault, the Queen Charlotte-Fairweather fault (hereafter Fairweather fault), lies on the Pacific side of the archipelago (Figure 3). Most fault movement in southeastern Alaska is right lateral. The Chatham Strait fault is a continuation of the Denali fault system that cuts through Lynn Canal and Chatham Strait and possibly coverges with the offshore Fairweather fault. The age of faulting is estimated to be Cretaceous (135 million years old) or younger, but offset of Pleistocene to Recent deposits has not been documented (APA, date unknown). The fault parallels the entire length of Crossing 2.1 and 2.2 from Skagway to Berner's Bay. Clarence Strait fault cuts through the straits, at least from Dixon Entrance to Kupreanof Island. It may underlie the Tertiary rocks of Kuiu, Kupreanof, and the Admiralty Islands (Twenhofel and Sainsbury, 1958). Crossing 9.1 straddles the fault east of the Kasaan Peninsula. There is no evidence of recent movement on the Clarence Strait fault. Twenhofel and Sainsbury (1958) mapped prominent linear features termed "lineaments," from aerial photographs of southeastern Alaska (Figure 4). They considered a number of possible origins including: Glacial drag scars Foliation of batholith rocks Dikes Erosion along bedding planes or geologic contacts Erosion along foliation and schistosity in metamorphic rocks Erosion along joints Erosion along faults, fault scarps, and fault line scarps After considering each possibility, they interpreted most of the lineaments as faults or fault zones because 1) the similarity of the gross 2y 7192 A= Admiralty Islend B - Berenof Is) C = Central Chichagof Island Ch- Chilket Renge D = Dell Islend F = Freshwater Bey Syacline R= kuru Isiend ewiiciaw P= Prince of Beles Inland newer bar -\ $= San Crratovel Bay wean Figure 3. Map showing major faults of Southeast Alaska (Modified after Lathram, 1964) 7193 of Southeastern Alaska (after Twenhofel and Seinsbury, 1958) Figure 4. Linear Features Harding Lawson Associates pattern and length of the lineaments throughout southeastern Alaska can best be ascribed to faults, and 2) most of the lineaments observed in the field are faults. Figure 4 shows that lineaments and hence faults are so common in southeastern Alaska that every crossing is exposed to them. This does not mean that transmission lines placed at the proposed crossings are in danger, merely that faults, which are evidence of past ground motion, should be expected at each crossing and accounted for during the design phase. The ages of most recent movement on most of the lineaments of Figure 4 are unknown. 2. Seismicity Southeast Alaska is a seismically active area. Two recent studies show that despite the location of the project area in a seismically active zone, historical earthquake epicenters generally lie to the east and west rather than within the study area. Rodgers (1976) recorded earthquakes over an 8l-day period in the summer of 1969. Three small earthquakes with epicenters within 20 miles of Juneau registered magnitudes between 1.2 and 2.5 on the Richter scale. In addition, three small earthquakes of magnitude 1.8 to 2.4 occurred beneath Prince of Wales Island. Numerous other low frequency events ascribed to ice movement were recorded in areas containing large glaciers. Rodgers' work also showed that most recorded earthquakes occurred east of the project area in the Coast Range batholith and west of the area along the Queen Charlotte- Fairweather fault system. 22 Harding Lawson Associates Horner (1983) reviewed the historical record for the St. Elias Region of northwestern Canada and southeastern Alaska and described the results of a monitoring program initiated in 1978 in the southeast Yukon to provide a basis for seismic risk evaluation along the proposed Alcan gas pipeline route parallel to the Alaskan Highway. The historical record shows 36 earthquakes along the Fairweather fault system adjacent to the project area with magnitudes ranging between 4.0 and >7.0 between 1899 and 1978. The record is somewhat distorted because of the paucity of seismograph stations and the limited sensitivity of recording instruments in the past. During that time, no major earthquake epicenters were recorded directly in the project area. Horner's monitoring program recorded seismic events between September 1, 1978 and March 31, 1981. North of 58°, the approximate lati- tude of Port Snettisham, three events ranging between magnitudes of 2.0 and 5.0 were recorded with epicenters along the Chatham Strait fault. Hundreds more seismic events were recorded during the same time period to the west and north of southeast Alaska. 3. Potential Hazards Associated with Seismic Activity Several potentially hazardous phenomena are often associated with ground motion caused by earthquakes: tsunamis, seiches, and submarine lLand- slides. Tsunamis or "tidal waves" can be created by sudden ground motion near the epicenters of major earthquakes. They can destroy onshore support facilities by wave action and cause submarine landslides by raising the pore pressure and reducing the shear strength of unstable sediments on steep sub- marine slopes. A seiche is a form of standing wave that occurs in a a> ——~= eo Harding Lawson Associates confined body of water. It is a long wave, usually with its crest at one end of the confined space, and its trough at the other. Its period may Tange from a few minutes to an hour or more but somewhat less than the tidal period. Seiches are usually attributed to strong winds or differences in atmospheric pressure, but they can be created by ground motion. Submarine landslides will be considered during our discussion of the submarine cross- ings in Section V. C. Cultural Obstacles Submarine cables and resource activities are the major cultural obstacles that may dictate whether a crossing can be exploited or at least the timing of construction activities. Submarine cables, including telephone lines, are found at Crossings 2.1, 2.2, 3, 5.2/5.4, 9.1, and 12.2. These crossings should be surveyed with side-scan sonar and high resolution subbottom profiling in the future to accurately map the locations of these submarine cables. Resource activity, specifically crab fishing, is common in much of southeastern Alaska. Field investigators observed numerous crab pots near Crossings 6.1 and 6.5 near Petersburg. Transmission line installation schedules may be dictated by local fishing seasons. Seasonal fishing information in this report was provided by the Alaskan Department of Fish and Game. Specifically, Don Engledue (907-465-4250) provided fisheries information for Crossings Zelign 2-2ieds Deelocd, and Fal, Robert Larson (907-772-3698) for Crossings 6.1 and 6.5, and Donald House (907-225-5195) for Crossings 8.5/8.6, 9.1, 10.6, 11, and 12.2. The fishing periods detailed in this report are subject to change. 24 ™- oo Harding Lawson Associates IV DATA REDUCTION Tasks 4 and 5 of HLA's proposal include reducing the acquired survey data into a form applicable to assessing the feasibility of laying submarine transmission cables on the seabed at the surveyed crossings. This section describes the procedures followed to arrive at the final data product presented in Section V. A. Bathymetric Data 1. Measuring Recorded Depths The DE-731 echo sounders employed for this survey "sounded" a 200-foot wide swath of the sea floor, not just single points directly beneath the survey vessel. Using two echo sounders enabled us to assess the variability of the seabed along and to the side of the vessel's path. Water depth data were read from the recording charts (echograms) and transferred to computer coding forms for subsequent file creation on an IBM-PC. The time for each shot point was recorded so that the data could be corrected for tidal variations. The data were then entered into an IBM-PC. 2. Tide Correction The recorded water depths were merged with published tidal data for Juneau, Alaska or Ketchikan (NOAA, 1985) to create a computer file of water depths referenced to the Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) datum of the navigation charts. Corrections were referenced to the Juneau tide station for Cross- ings 2.1, 2.2, 3, 5.2/5.4, 7.1, 6.1, and 6.5, and were referenced to the Ketchikan tide station for Crossings 9.1, 10.6, and 12.2. The tidal 25 oat Harding Lawson Associates ranges used for the correction are shown on Table 3. We have used straight line segments between the published high and low water predictions as there are no data available to construct a more accurate tidal curve. Note that the corrections apply for the tidal predictions only. They do not take into account meteorological variations in water depth that occurred during the survey. Data for Crossing 8.5/8.6 were provided to HLA for inclusion in this report already referenced to MLLW. We have elected to reference data for Crossing 11 to sea level at the time of the survey because uncertainties in the location of the data and the time of day the surveys were performed preclude correction to MLLW. 3. Bathymetric Cross-Sections Final water depth and navigation data were input to HLA's computer graphic system (CPS/PC by Radian and AutoCad by AutoDeck) to create bathy- metric cross-sections of the submarine crossings. Distances along the cross sections are accurate for GPS event marks and for approximately every 5th radar range and bearing event mark plotted on the navigation chart. The distance for event marks between those plotted from range and bearing data have been interpolated between the plotted event marks on the navigation charts. 4. Trackline Maps The navigation charts provide the base for trackline maps con- structed by plotting GPS latitudes and longitudes provided by GREGCO, Inc. and retaining the original field positions plotted from radar ranges and bearings and Del Norte trisponder distances. 26 mee 23 Th 25 Sa Table 3. Time 0427 1057 1654 2302 0548 1206 1814 0105 0656 1306 1922 0215 0757 1401 2029 0329 0900 1502 2145 0411 0939 1537 2232 0624 1136 1736 0205 0855 1447 2037 Published Tidal Predictions Used to Correct Bathymetric Data October 1986 Height (feet) 0. 16. 2s 16. NOWS 0.0 18. -0. Ui 0. 18. el. 15. 2 ye -0. 13. 4. 15. i. 12. 6. 14. 2. La Us 12, 12. 20 SNA Wuoom m Aww wnrenvwo NE wOO ~wN mow 27 Day 0510 1134 1735 2347 0027 0624 1238 1850 0141 0727 1336 1957 0251 0828 1433 2104 0411 0939 1537 2232 0507 1024 1626 2333 0050 0750 1322 1914 0236 0913 LS1S 2113 Harding Lawson Associates Height (feet) ro PY roe ye ~ ~ OnWwWY w w NLSEAN worwo Woon ~ Wane ~ vos 2 6 ~ roe NNrWwW oon nono fSuwe RM Orn NOSNN @oOomwon ene oarpbr N@Ano URNA OnnNO Harding Lawson Associates Day Time Height (feet) Day Time Height (feet) *29 0324 201 =30 0406 15 Ww 0950 14.2 Th 1022 15.6 1556 3.0 1636 oh 2203 13.8 2251 14.8 eli 0445 1-2 1059 16.8 1718 -0.6 2333 15.6 Time Meridian is 135 degrees W. 0000 is midnight. 1200 is noon. Heights are referred to Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). "Ketchikan Tide Station. All others are predictions for Juneau tide station. 28 mJ tI tu tI beWV ty LY LIU LO i wi we te «el I Harding Lawson Associates V_ FINDINGS Below we discuss the nine crossings surveyed for the Southeast Alaska Intertie Project. The original crossing designations retained from the APA's request for proposal (RFP) have been changed for this report. Table 4 below shows the equivalence between the original and final designations so that all pertinent field data and office memoranda can be reviewed in the future, if necessary, with a minimum of confusion. Table 4. Correspondence between original and final crossing designations Final Original Crossing Field Designation Designation Crossing Coverage 2.1 B Skagway-Haines (Tanani Pt) ee B Haines (Tanani Pt) - Bridget Cove 3 Cc South Douglas Island to Young Bay, Admiralty Island 5.2/5.4 E Port Snettisham to Kupreanof Island Tok G Kake to Warm Springs Bay, Baranof Island 6.1 H Wrangell Narrows, Mitkof Island to Lindenberg Peninsula 6.5 H Duncan Canal, Kupreanof Island to Lindenberg Peninsula 8.5/8.6 - North Behm Canal 9.1 Is, Ketchikan to Grindall Point, Kasaan Peninsula, Prince of Wales Island 10.6 a Pt. Trollop to Revillagigedo Island ll K Portland Canal Wz L Mountain Point, Revillagigedo Island to Race Pt., Annette Island 29 ul - meJenoet tw LI eI tI ey ty ey LI ow A. Harding Lawson Associates Crossing 2.1 (Skagway-Haines) and 2.2 (Haines-Bridget Cove) Survey Date: 10/14/86 - 10/17/86 Survey Mileage: Crossing 2.1 - 12.5 nautical miles (nm) (14.3 statute miles) Crossing 2.2 - 43.9 nm (50.5 miles) Landfall Markers: Bridget Cove - Set #4 steel reinforcing bar (rebar) in beach with cement. Rebar painted fluorescent orange and wrapped with survey flagging. Skagway - Set #4 rebar with cement on top of rock wall/jetty between a small marina and the pier used by cruise liners. Rebar painted fluorescent orange and flagged. Tanani Point (Haines) - Placed two #4 rebar on beach in Tanani Bay. Rebars are approximately 350 feet apart, painted orange and flagged. Landfall Description: Skagway - Rock wall/ jetty Tanani Point - Loose gravel beach with road parallel to it Bridget Cove - Cobble and gravel beach at the south end of the cove Approximate End Points: Bridget Cove - 58°37.0'N; 134°56.4'W Tanani Point - 59°16.3'N; 135°26.3'W Skagway - 59°26.9'N; 135°19.3'W Comments: Positioning for 2.1 and 2.2 was accomplished with both GPS, radar range-bearing, and Del Norte UHF systems. Extra data gathered at Bridget Cove and Tanani Point to verify lateral extent of seabed relief. Alternate crossing route investigated between Pt. Sherman and Shikosi Island. 1. Findings Plate 1 shows. the bathymetry for Crossings 2.1 and 2.2. Crossing 2.1 covers Skagway to Tanani Point, the landfall at Haines and Crossing 2.2 from Tanani Point to Bridget Cove, just’ south of Berner's Bay. Crossing 2.1 30 4 i. to Loy LI LY LI LI LY LI eee Harding Lawson Associates is flanked by approximately 14° slopes near Skagway and up to 45° slopes approaching Tanani Point. Echogram reflection characteristics suggest the upper seabed slope into Skagway is hard, either gravel or bedrock outcrop, but gradually becomes sediment covered in the 1470-foot-deep basin and along much of the approach into Tanani Point. Seabed slopes along Crossing 2.1 vary between 1 foot horizontal:1 foot vertical (45°) to virtually flat at the deepest part of the crossing. Relief is subtle except for the last 32,000 feet of the approach into Tanani Point. Crossing 2.2, with a maximum depth of 1000 feet, exhibits irregular bottom relief throughout most of the alignment with numerous rock outcrops. Evidence of possible slump deposits was found at the base of three steep slopes. Major slopes at the crossing are steepest on the approach to Bridget Cove, approximately 5:1 (11°), but they vary between 3:1 (18°) and 96:1 (0.5°). Navigation chart annotations suggest much of the crossing is covered by soft sediments; however, the irregular bottom relief shown on Plate 1 and the frequent occurrence of rock outcrops suggests the sediment cover is thin. Plate 2 shows an alternate route investigated as a possible path around the irregular bottom relief of the submarine ridge exposed at Eldred Rock and the Alascom telephone cable corridor that runs between Eldred Rock and Kataguni Island. a. Potential Obstacles The crossing parallels an Alascom telephone cable from Skagway to Eldred Rock and it crosses the cable on the approach to Tanani Point. 31 tj ty tJ te tJ Ed Ll] bed tJ obs ke ia eee es at —~ tJ Harding Lawson Associates South of Eldred Rock, Crossing 2.2 diverges from the cable corridor that intersects the coastline at William Henry Bay. There is little commercial fishing between Skagway and Tanani Point to interfere with cable installation. However, commercial salmon fishing traffic should be expected between Tanani Point and Bridgett Cove between the third Sunday in June until mid-October. Commercial crab fishing is generally restricted to shallower sections and bays on the flanks of Lynn Canal. B. Crossing 3 (Douglas Island to Young's Bay, Admiralty Island) Survey Date: 10/18/86 - 10/19/86 Survey Mileage: 4.5 nm (5.2 miles) Landfall Markers: Douglas Island - Set #4 rebar with concrete in the beach approximately 500 feet southeast of Middle Point navigation light. Painted fluores- cent orange and flagged. Admiralty Island - Set #4 rebar with concrete in the beach. Marker painted and flagged in small cove in southwest part of Young's Bay. Landfall Description: Douglas Island - Gently sloping, loose sandy beach Admiralty Island - Gently sloping, loose sandy beach Approximate End Points: Douglas Island - 58°14.8'N; 134°37.4'W Admiralty Island - 58°11.8'N; 134°42.4'W Comments: GPS navigation. Crossing surveyed twice because strong currents pushed vessel off course. Lead line survey at both ends of the crossing. 32 mH ad od ie eee Cd (= iy wes tI HJ tJ 4 4 Harding Lawson Associates 1. Findings Crossing 3 (Plate 3) is a 240-foot-deep bowl-shaped depression, flat in the center with the approach slopes to Admiralty Island ranging between 38:1 (2°) and 2:1 (27°) and the approach to Douglas Island between 16:1 (3°) and 4:1 (14°). Scattered annotations on navigation chart 17315 suggest much of the crossing is floored by mud. Our interpretation of the data indicates the bay floor and flanks are hard bottom, either rock outcrops or gravel, and any accumulations of fine-grained bottom sediments are thin. a. Potential Obstacles The centerline of the Alascom cable corridor parallels the shoreline approximately 5500 feet seaward of the Douglas Island landfall of Crossing 3. Potential construction delays should be anticipated between approximately November 15 and early December and between January 15 and mid-March for king crab fishing. C. Crossing 5.2 (Speel River)/5.4 (Point Snettisham Mouth to Kupreanof Island) Survey Dates: 10/19/86 - 10/23/86 Survey Mileage: Crossing 5.2 - 13.7 nm (15.7 miles) Crossing 5.4 - 54.1 nm (62.3 miles) Landfall Markers: Speel River - Set #4 rebar in mudflats with concrete. Rebar is painted fluorescent orange and flagged. Location is small cove south of Star Point in the Sentinel Arm of the Speel River. Kupreanof Island - Set #4 rebar, painted and flagged in beach. 33 4 ty be Ly td te to wi t— = Harding Lawson Associates Landfall Description: Speel River - Landfall is on extensive mudlfats. Very cohesive clay. Kupreanof Island - Long, fairly wide beach with shale bedrock exposed between localized areas of cobbles and black sand. Some large boulders are present. Approximate End Points: Speel River - 58°07.5'N; 133°44.4'W Kupreanof Island - 57°04.6'N; 133°44.4'W Comments: Navigation was by GPS and radar range and bearing systems. Numerous surveying direction changes. One towed transducer mal- functioned. Installed a transducer at centerline of vessel and shoot through the vessel's hull. Transducers approximately 17.5 feet apart from October 22, 1986 to end of survey. Unable to lead line at south landfall due to 3-4 knot currents. 1. Findings Plate 4 shows the seabed configuration at Crossing 5.2/5.4. With a few exceptions, the seabed is fairly regular from the Speel River through the north half of the alignment. Sea floor slopes vary between 104:1 (0.5°) and 4:1 (14°). Our interpretation of echogram reflections suggests much of the seabed in the Speel River to the mouth of Port Snettisham is hard bottom, probably rock outcrops. The remainder of the north half of the crossing is probably floored by sediment. Annotations on navigation charts 17313 and 17360 generally confirm this interpretation although they suggest a greater accumulation of sediment on the floor of Speel River than our examination indicates. Evidence of slumping was found at one location. The seabed for the south half of the crossing is very irregular with Numerous rock outcrops. This half also contains the greatest water depth measured as 1535 feet. Major slopes vary between 63:1 (1°) and 3:1 (18°). 34 tRejJe tb by be by ba be be be te totet4 t4 eI te! tJ eal Harding Lawson Associates Hard bottom predominates in this section of the alignment with accumulations of sediment between bathymetric highs. Field investigators attempted lead line soundings at the south land- fall, but they were unsuccessful because of the estimated 3 to 4 knot currents encountered. a. Potential Obstacles Submarine cable crossings are common in Stephens Passage. Three cable corridors occupy the passage from Port Snettisham to Point Glass where they merge into two. South of Point High on the south tip of the Glass Peninsula there are again three corridors that cover much of Stephens Passage until they turn eastward into the east arm of Frederick Sound at Cape Fanshaw on the mainland coast. Strong longshore currents were encountered at the landfall on Kupreanof Island. Salmon drift and gill netting traffic should be anticipated at the mouth of Port Snettisham between the third Sunday in June and the end of September. Between the mouth of Port Snettisham and Kupreanof Island shallower water king crab fishing occurs in November and Tanner crab fishing between January and March. Deep water brown king crab fishing also occurs between January and March. D. Crossing 6.1 (Wrangell Narrows, Lindenberg Peninsula to Mitkof Island) Survey Date: 10/26/86 Survey Mileage: 0.7 nm (0.9 mile) 35 1 1 d i Wm Ae) «Addl Harding Lawson Associates Landfall Markers: Set #4 rebar in the beaches at both ends of the crossing. Landfall Description: Rocky coves at both landfalls. Approximate End Points: West - 56°44.7'N; 132°57.9'W East - 56°45.1; 132°56.8'W Comments: Located approximately 3.6 mm south of proposed crossing because Coast Pilot says strong currents (5-7 knots) and dredging are common along proposed primary crossing. Lead line survey at both ends of the crossing. Navigation by trisponder and radar range and hearing. 1. Findings The crossing on Plate 5 is a bowl-shaped depression as deep as 110 feet. Most of the alignment is soft bottomed except the eastern approach to Mitkof Island. Slopes on the east approach vary between 10:1 (6°) and 2:1 (27°) whereas those in the west approaching the Lindenberg Peninsula of Kupreanof Island are more gentle, varying between 14:1 (4°) and 3:1 (18°). a. Potential Obstacles There do not appear to be any obstacles to construction at this crossing. Wrangell Narrows is a busy thoroughfare for ship traffic, both commercial and recreational. Tanner crab fishing occurs from mid-January to mid-February and salmon trolling lasts from May through the first week in June. —. Crossing 6.5 (Duncan Canal, Kupreanof Island to Lindenberg Peninsula) Survey Date: 10/27/86 Survey Mileage: 0.9 nm (1.1 miles) 36 tjJoet eo be LY by Ey ES lee | =) t (as Harding Lawson Associates Landfall Markers: Set #4 rebar with concrete in small coves at both ends of the crossing. Rebars are painted fluorescent orange and flagged. Both end points are north of Castle Islands. Landfall Descriptions: Both landfalls are in rocky coves. Approximate End Points: West - 56°42.7'N; 133°13.0'W East - 56°42.9'N; 133°11.4'W Comments: Navigation by GPS. Lead Jine survey both landfalls. Com- mercial crab fishing popular in Duncan Canal. Warned by Department of Fish and Game of numerous crab pots in Castle Island area. 1. Findings Crossing 6.5, Plate 6, is bowl-shaped in cross section with a fairly gentle west approach to Kupreanof Island, 11:1 (5°), and a steeper approach to the Lindenberg Peninsula, 6:1 (9°). Echograms indicate the crossing is probably floored by soft sediments and its deepest point is approximately 100 feet. The very nearshore parts of the approach sounded with lead line may be hard bottom. a. Potential Obstacles There are no submarine cables in Nuncan Canal. Construction in Duncan Canal may be delayed if emplacement is planned during the commercial crab fishing season. Dungeness crab fishing season is split with a summer season from May through September, and a winter season from October through January. F. Crossing 7.1 (Kake, Kupreanof Island to Warm Springs Bay, Baranof Island) Survey Dates: 10/23/86 - 10/25/86 Survey Mileage: 30.5 nm (35.2 miles) 37 Lo bey LY bY bY LY by by by bY by bo eI bw el = Harding Lawson Associates Landfall Markers: Warm Springs Bay - Set #4 rebar in large downed tree on the beach in a small cove approximately 0.5 mile east of Baranoff. Rebar painted and flagged. Point White - Set #4 rebar with concrete in the beach in a small cove just northwest of Point White. Landfall Description: Warm Springs Bay - Fairly flat beach comprised of cobbles with some boulders. Point White - Landfall is a small gravel beach with very loose gravel, probably shale or slate. Bedrock is probably very shallow. Approximate End Points: Warm Springs Bay - 57°05.6'N; 134°47.8'W Point White - 57°00.4'N; 134°00.8'W Comments: Navigation by GPS and radar range and bearings and Del Norte UHF trisponder. Lead line soundings at both landfalls. 1. Findings Bathymetry for Crossing 7.1 is shown on Plate 7. Bottom slopes vary between 88:1 (0.5°) and 0.6:1 (59°) with the approach to the west landfall at Warm Springs Bay being much steeper than the eastern approach to Kake. The profile is dominated by the deep water channel of Chatham Strait, 1880 feet deep, and the apparent submarine continuation of Admiralty Island south of Point Gardner. Echo sounder data indicate much of the east landfall approach and the submarine high south of Point Gardner are rock outcrops or hard gravel bottom. Apparently, sediment covers the seabed on the very steep west approach and the floor of Chatham Strait. Navigation chart 17320 shows 38 i tJ Harding Lawson Associates bottom type annotations indicate hard bottom south of Point Gardner and soft bottom in Chatham Strait. Evidence of slump deposits from the downslope transportation of unstable bottom sediments was found at the base of both approaches to land- fall and at the base of both flanks of the submarine extension of Admiralty Island. a. Potential Obstacles No submarine cables are indicated on the navigation charts of Crossing 7.1. The only apparent obstacle to this crossing is that it traverses Chatham Strait and, hence, the transmission line will straddle the Chatham Strait fault. Fisheries activity in Frederick Sound is primarily restricted to the shallower shorelines and bays. However, there is short period in September where deep water black cod are fished and deep water fishing for brown king crab occurs between January and March. There is a salmon hatchery in the vicinity of — Bay. G. Crossing 8.5 (Bell Island to Beaver Creek)/8.6 (Point Lees to Claude Point), North Behm Canal Survey Dates: 1985 Survey Mileage: Crossing 8. 5 nm (1.1 miles) Crossing 8.6 1 0.6 nm (0.7 miles) Landfall Markers:* None Landfall Description: Not available 39 Harding Lawson Associates Approximate End Points: Bell Island - 55°57.1'N; 131°25.3'W Beaver Creek - 55°56.1'N; 131°26.0'W Point Lees - 55°57.6'N; 131°23.3'W Claude Point - 55°57.1'N; 131°22.7'W Comments: Survey by ITECH of Anchorage, Alaska 1. Findings Plate 8 shows the approximate location and bathymetry for Crossings 8.5 and 8.6. No information is available on the distance between the survey end points and the beaches on Bell Island or Revillagigedo Island. Crossing 8.5 landfall approach slopes appear to be more gentle in the north to Bell Island, varying between 7:1 (8°) and 2:1 (26°), and steeper along the south approach to Beaver Creek, 2:1 (26°). Note that the entire crossing is described by only 12 measured depth points available from ITECH's data. No information is available regarding the amount of sediment cover at this crossing. The deepest point of the crossing is -525 feet (MLLW). Crossing 8.6 is similar to Crossing 8.5 in that the north approach slopes are gentler, varying between 11:1 (5°) and 1.6:1 (32°), whereas the south approach to Claude Point is approximately 2:1 (26°). The deepest point of the crossing is -435 feet (MLLW). No data are available to assess the amount of sediment cover at the crossing. a. Potential Obstacles Recreational fishing traffic may be significant in Behm Narrows during the salmon fishing season. The area is closed to commercial trolling and purse seining for salmon. Dungeness crab fishing occurs between October and the end of February along with shrimp fishing. 40 4 tt tt We AJ Ld i a Harding Lawson Associates H. Crossing 9.1 (Kasaan Peninsula, Prince of Wales Island to Revillagigedo Island) Survey Dates: 10/28/86 Survey Mileage: 14 nm (16.1 miles) Landfall Markers: Kasaan Peninsula - Set #4 rebar in large downed tree approximately 0.25 mile north of and along east side of peninsula in a small cove. Rebar painted fluorescent orange and flagged. Revillagigedo Island - Set #4 rebar with concrete into beach. Rebar painted and flagged in small cove just west of Mud Cove. Landfall Description: Kasaan Peninsula - Small rocky cove Revillagigedo Island - Small cove with gravel and rocky beach Approximate End Points: Kasaan Peninsula - 55°27.7'N; 132°08.5'W Revillagigedo Island - 55°25.4'N; 131°46.4'W Comments: Navigation by trisponder and radar range and bearing. lead- lined both ends of the crossing. 1. Findings Plate 9 shows a bathymetric cross section of Crossing 9.1. The alignment is asymmetrical with a relatively steep west approach to landfall and a fairly gentle east approach. Between the approaches are the depths of Clarence Strait. Seabed slopes of the west approach to Kasaan Peninsula vary between 9:1 (6°) and 1.4:1 (35°) and echograms indicate hard bottom on the upper slope. The. lower slope is probably covered with sediment. Slopes on the east approach are variable between 29:1 (2°) and 1.3:1 (38°). The upper slope of this Revillagigedo Island approach shows hard bottom returns 41 uw ee ee | J a Harding Lawson Associates on the echograms down to a depth of 800 feet. Some indications of slumping were found at the base of a minor slope along the approach. The deep water part of the crossing underlies Clarence Strait and there the deep, flat bottom is flanked by two troughs: the west trough is approximately 2500 feet wide and 200 feet deep and the east trough is 2500 feet wide and 120 feet deep. The deepest point at the crossing is 1630 feet MLLW in the bottom of the west trough. The origin of these troughs is unknown, but Clarence Strait is the site of one of southeast Alaska's major faults, the Clarence Strait fault. The troughs may reflect differential erosion along two fault traces or the sea floor there may have been uplifted by differential movement between faults on either side of the straits. a. Potential Obstacles Submarine cables are found in Clarence Strait and in the approach channel to Ketchikan. Ketchikan is a major fishing port and con- struction schedules may be delayed by scheduled fishing and crabbing seasons and ship traffic. Crab fishing in this area is minimal. Salmon trolling occurs between late June and the end of September and purse seining between July and August. Recreational fishing also occurs at this time. There is some long-line fishing for halibut in deep water, but the season is generally very short. Although the Clarence Strait fault appears to have little historical seismic activity, its presence should ‘be planned for as any future ground Movement will probably be perpendicular to the trend of the proposed trans- mission line. 42 msi i CC OL CO Harding Lawson Associates I. Crossing 10.6 (Behm Canal - Wasp Point Vicinity, Revillagigedo Island to Point Trollop) Survey Dates: 10/30/86 - 10/31/86 Survey Mileage: 6.7 nm (7.7 miles) Landfall Markers: North of Wasp Point - Set #4 rebar in large downed tree on the edge of the beach. Rebar painted and flagged. Point Trollop - Set #4 rebar into beach with concrete. Rebar painted and flagged. Landfall Description: North of Wasp Point - Small narrow beach with cobbles and boulders. Point Trollop - Small cove with a narrow beach comprised of broken volcanic rock and volcanic bedrock outcrops. Approximate End Points: North of Wasp Point - 55°23.8'N; 130°58.2'W Point Trollop - 55°19.1'N; 130°52.6'W Comments: Navigation by GPS and radar range and bearings. No lead line survey conducted. 1. Findings Plate 10 shows Crossing 10.6 is symmetrical in cross section with slightly steeper slopes on the south approach to Point Trollop than on the north. Slopes along the south approach range between 13:1 (4°) and 2:1 (27°) and, as shown on the plate, hard bottoms, probably rock outcrops are more extensive on these steeper slopes. The west approach has 3:1 (18°) slopes and more of the seabed is covered by sediment. The maximum water depth at this crossing is 1450 feet. 43 Harding Lawson Associates a. Potential Obstacles There do not appear to be any construction obstacles at this crossing. There may be some commercial salmon trolling in mid-August, but typically commercial fishing occurs south of Smeaton Island. Crossing 11 (Portland Canal) Survey Date: 1983 Survey Mileage: 1.2 nm (1.4 miles) Landfall Markers: None Landfall Description: Not available Approximate End Points: Tombstone Bay - 55°24.3'N; 130°03.05'W Portland Canal Centerline - 55°24.35'N; 130°01.9'W Portland Canal Centerline - 55°24.65'N; 130°01.95'W Columbia Point - 55°24.7'N; 130°01.0'W Comments: The bathymetric profile shown on Plate 11 is a composite of two survey lines acquired by Sea-Lease, Inc. for U.S. Borax in 1983. Data from Portland Canal in the Tombstone Bay vicinity were naviga- tionally uncontrolled. We were unable to accurately determine the dis- tance from the beach to the ends of the lines nor were we able to establish a precise horizontal scale. Instead, we have matched the water depths for the center of Portland Canal shown on NOAA Chart 17425 with like depths on the bathymetry records. Then we located the 50-fathom depth mark on the bathymetric records and measured the dis- tance between these two points off the NOAA chart to establish a scale for the bathymetric records. None of the three profiles of Portland Canal contained both east flank and west flank slopes, hence the profile presented on Plate 11 is a composite of the west half of Line C and the east half of Line B (line designations applied by Sea-Lease, Inc.). 1. Findings Plate 11 shows seabed slopes that vary between 17:1 (3°) and 0.4:1 (68°) at Crossing 11. Because of the uncertainty in the horizontal scaling, 44 Ll 3 ® Lk ts tJ { Harding Lawson Associates the best information obtained from this crossing is that the east approach slopes appear to be much steeper than the west slopes on all three bathy- metric profiles obtained by Sea-Lease, Inc. This is partially confirmed by the positions shown for the 10- and 50-fathom curves on NOAA Chart 17425. On the west flank they are farther apart than on the east flank indicating a gentler western slope. The greatest water depth lies at the base of the east flank at about -900 feet. The data are referenced to sea level at the time of the survey because the survey time and actual date in 1983 are unknown. In addition, the navigational uncertainty makes the application of a tidal correction relatively useless. a. Potential Obstacles Fishing is typically sporadic in the Tombstone Bay area of Portland Canal. Most American fishing occurs far south of Tombstone Bay, but Canadians do fish there. Dungeness crab fishing may be expected between mid-July and mid-August as well as October through February. K. Crossing 12.2 (Revillagigedo Channel - Mountain Point to Race Point) Survey Date: 10/29/86 Survey Mileage: 0.7 nm (0.8 miles) Landfall Markers: Race Point - Set #4 rebar into beach with concrete. Rebar painted and flagged in small cove. Mountain Point - Set #4 rebar, painted and flagged, into beach in small cove with concrete. 45 tJ boy ws by bey LI eI [oo | Harding Lawson Associates Landfall Description: Race Point - Small cove with gravel beach. Cove is surrounded by rock outcrops. Mountain Point - Small cove with a bedrock beach covered with some gravel. Most of the shoreline is bedrock. Approximate End Points: Race Point - 55°17.0'N; 135°33.2'N Mountain Point - 55°17.6'N; 135°32.6'W Comments: Mountain Point landfall approximately 400 feet northwest of proposed landfall. Navigation by trisponder and radar range and bear- ing. Lead line soundings at the north landfall. 1. Findings Crossing 12.2 bathymetry, Plate 12, shows Revillagigedo Channel is 600 feet deep at the proposed crossing. The channel is symmetrical but the approach to Mountain Point is steep, 1:1 (45°), whereas the approach to Race Point is more gentle, ranging from 3.5:1 (16°) to 2:1 (27°). The upper flanks of both approach slopes are probably rock outcrops as echogram reflections indicate hard bottom. The lower slopes and channel bottom appear to be sediment covered. a. Potential Obstacles Two submarine cable corridors are shown in the Revillagigedo Channel on navigation chart 17428 and both converge on the northern landfall at Mountain Point. The proposed crossing lies within the existing cable corridors. Ketchican is the major fishing port in this part of southeast Alaska and Revillagigedo Channel is a major ship traffic channel. 46 Li! ae | co) i) cS Harding Lawson Associates Construction here will require coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard and the fishing population of this community. Construction schedules may be delayed during the fishing season. Around Mountain Point, purse seining, trolling, and recreational salmon fishing occurs in late July through September. There is a public launch facility at Mountain Point. Purse seiners and gill netters work the Race Point area between June and September. 47 tod Lo Ld tb LJ ptt tt’ tlt I ( Lb titi L tJ Harding Lawson Associates VI REFERENCES CITED Alaska Power Authority, (date unknown), West Creek Project, Application for FERC License, Vol. II, Exhibit E, p. 7-11 to 7-13. Horner, R. B., 1983, Sesimicity in the St. Elias Region of Northwestern Canada and Southeastern Alaska, Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, Vol. 73, No. 4, p. 1117-1137, August. Lathram, E. H., 1964, Apparent Right-Lateral Separation on Chatham Strait Fault, Southeastern Alaska, Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 75, p. 249-252, March. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1985, Tide Tables 1986-High and Low Water Predictions, West Coast of North and South America, Including the Hawaiian Islands, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Ocean Service, p. 107 and 111. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1986, United States Coastal Pilot, Pacific Coast-Alaska: Dixon Entrance to Cape Spencer, vol. 8, 17th edition, January. Rodgers, G. C., 1976, A Microearthquake Survey in Northwest British Columbia and Southeastern Alaska, Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, Vol. 66, No. 5, p. 1643-1655, October. Twenhofel, W. S. and Sainsbury, C. L., 1958, Fault Patterns in Southeastern Alaska, Bulletin of Geological Society of America, Vol. 69, p. 1431-1442. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1985, Tide Tables 1986 High and Low Water Predictions - West Coast of North and South America Including the Hawaiian Islands, NOAA-NOS, p. 107 and 111. 48 VII ILLUSTRATIONS 49 Harding Lawson Associates pe erm (FEET BELOW MLLW) NOAA Chart 17300 Soundings In Fathome constant © = Alternate Cromine (See Piete 2) MOTE: Crowings were not necessarily surveyed from bronnmg Yo end without mterruntion "Dvrection chanars #3 wrimqar numierine sequences were dectated hy Ss SKAGWAY BRI0ceT cove N HAINES EVENT MARKS SI a6 79175" 709 636 ses f 828 475 47 330 m 264 222 176 3s 18 971 OSS o+—4 | 4 es 4 ' \ i 4 1 i ) , $4 — SLOPE (S) + 4 WORIZONTAL = 1 VERTICAL (14 ) So 7:1 (8) “See e) Se is:t (ed Se 221 (35 “Se @1 e) -400 Ses: (0) S71 (8) -S* 9:1 (67) So 3:2 (27) S131 (8), S = 3:1 (18")~ a. S= et (| S + $:1 (7) “sear e) S © ated (3°) -Se4: (0) So 9:2 (6) $+ 10:1 (6°) sear qe) — S$» 23:1 (2) $+ 5.5:1 (10°) Mawes UNDFALL = TAMA PONT ———> = 59:1 (6) VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 60:1 S$ * 6:1 (10°) JUNE STARTS APPROMMATTLY \400 FEET FROM ROCK ALL le $2 96:1 (9.59) so 153 (©) $9 9:1 (8) Sos: (I) DISTANCE (FEET) SEA FLOOR TEXTURE INTERPRETED FROM ECHOGRAMS Hard Bottom Stump Deposits Soft Bottom Submarine Cable Corridor > CROSSING 2.2 —— > 72090 ‘e090 120000 144000 yeno00 182000 218000 ‘240000 reso00 ‘zano00 312000, yyH000 ‘ye0030 Harding Lewson Associates Engnenrs, Geotogrsts 6 Gaoonnecrsts 15006.005.09 OD Famat 12/86 Crossing 2.1 and 2.2 Bathymetry (Skagway to Bridget Cove) Harza Engineering Company Southeast Alaska 7189 S' 942 954 5 ea 1) Sey) (18>) SLOPE (S) = 7 HORIZONTAL : Fo: 1 VERTICAL (8°)p:: ~~]: (FEET BELOW MLLW) | -600 LINE STARTS AT PRIMARY . CROSSING EVENT MARK 315 LUNE ENDS AT PRIMARY CROSSING EVENT MARK 225 | VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 60:1 Q 24000 48000 -1200 DISTANCE (FEET) SEA FLOOR TEXTURE INTERPRETED FROM ECHOGRAMS Hard Bottom Note: See Plate 1 for Location Soft Bottom Crossing 2.2 (Alternate) Bathymetry PLATE (Haines to Bridget Cove) Harding Lawson Associates Engineers. Geologists na & Geophysicists Harza Engineering Company Southeast Alaska ORAWN JOB NUMBER 15006 ,005.09 DATE REVISED 12/86 0 Wise berm (FEET BELOW MLLW) ADMIRALTY ISLAND, ) MOKA Cuart 17315 Boenomos im fathoms OTE: Crommnes were not necessarily surveyed from bape wero rman ererrumiion Dwrecion cranes anc ereanue numonweg srovences eere Ousted by fie eorerere —— ue oes . nes . 3 ‘ (Anerocenee Seni Feet ADMIRALTY ISLAND EVENT MARKS DOUGLAS ISLAND SW NE 20 v109 19 1093 1086 1076 1087 1062211125 + + + t $ + 7 ; + $0 2:3 (2° © 7:2 (8°) 16:1 (3°) VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 10:1 SLOPE (5) © 4 HORIZONTAL <1 VERTICAL 1167) S33 $+ 18:1 BW, DISTANCE (FEET) ‘zagoe zacoe zsco0 SEA FLOOR TEXTURE INTERPRETED FROM ECHOGRAMS FESS) Hard Bottom Li _ Lead Line Soundings mmm Submarine Cable Corridor Crossing 3 Bathymetry (Dougtas tstand to Admiralty tstand) Harza Engineering Company Soutneast Alaska 15006.005.09 C.. Wreck 12/86 bePT™H (FEET BELOW MLL) Soundings in Fatnoms OAA Charts 17300, 17360 ° 70.900 000 0.000 cc: NOTE: Cromings were nor recemarnity surveyed trom begreang ss aoa to merean nimeen Dowson are re, Soepe eonaey eapeanaes wore Octoues Ov "APPROXIMATE SCALE OW FEET PORT SNETHSHAM KPRANE SWS 7 . N a les s 490 wis y2ast?Sbre 288% ist asd 1346 aes) 1477 14131387 | 1533 1585 1632 1708 1787 1802 1834 1886 i9ee 2003 7100 2204 ne rive 702 } va aT t : . : : 1 ' . 1 _ : - : ta ‘ * 7 — SLOPE {S) = 26 HORIZONTAL = 1 VERTICAL (4°) 400 a 24:12 06) [es © et (5) 4-s-3 08} ‘ =S = 108:2 (0.5 } 3. -S*S: (1) 5 z ‘ 1 5 3 i = : | i = | = w i z 2 | = a -f: { ¥ = sen» 3! : = at “ z —= - = = - CROSSING 5.2 z CROSSING 5.4 | z - | UNE STARTS 300 FEET FROM BEACH 2 VERTICAL EXAGGERATION © 60:1 UNE ENDS 60C FEET FROM BEACH si —_ 7 . a 78 sz008 wos ‘ped0o 12e506 weonoe wazba0 zaec08 Pssooo rees00 szae00 sstoac seeoo0 irae DISTANCE. (FEET) SEA FLOOR TEXTURE INTERPRETED FROM ECHOGRAMS ES a | Hard Bottom Stump Deposits Sot: Bottom Submarine Cable Corridor 15006.005.09 Crossing 5.2/5.4 Bathymetry. (Port Snettisham to Kupreanof tstand) Harza Engineering Company Southeast Alaska Ca nent 12/86 ws wise Niro Petersburg MITKOF ISLAND . LINDENBERG PENINSULA, KUPREANOF ISLAND x \ NOTE. Crome were not necemrity mervevec from bepinning tape ease Stampesssen Beacon conga on Seog marron mavercin ee Sctated By fe aoe =— ei i gilt 4 ales SOAK Cuert noe \ Aooren amen heme a Fae Soundings in Fatnoms * sou t 7 , sa aw a ihe UNDENBERG PENINSULA ‘MITKOF ISLAND r yn (EVENT MARKS: E ‘zs01 me me Be (2582) 2604 et 1 4 4 —s gy + + - SEA FLOOR TEXTURE INTERPRETED FROM ECHOGRAMS 3 ¢ SLOPE £5) 2 7 WORIZONTAL 1 VERTICAL (8° —_ aoe - 2 eo S42 0) oS Has onnm zE $33 ne) S + 2:1 (27°) Bg aoa wr [4s Sott Bottom s Sk & “UNE ExDS 20 LL Lead Line Soundings FEET FROM BEACH VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 101 Crossing 6.1 Bathymetry (Wrangell Narrows) Harza Engineering Company Southeast Alaska 15006.005.09 LG Rehad 12/86 seal 7254 | UNE STARTS 150 UNE ENDS 65 | FEET FROM BEACH FEET FROM BEACH -200 VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 10:1 r T o 2000 T 4000 6000 DISTANCE (FEET) 56°46" SEA FLOOR TEXTURE INTERPRETED FROM ECHOGRAMS CL, Soft Bottom on 133° 00" salle r Slough 56°46" LINDENBERG PENINSULA, 4 KUPREANOF ISLAND 4 KUPREANOF ISLAND x Bb aeh Na 3 : < a: ? E70, 13 +2 oul Rookery I'\"-) | oF 17 . 56°40" Castle River NOAA Chart 17360 Soundings in Fathoms (see inset 133°20° 133°00° 0 10,000 N — NOTE: Crossings were not necessarily surveyed from beginning Approximate Scale in Feet 10 end without interruption. Direction changes and irreguiar numbering sequences were dictated by field conditions. KUPREANOF ISLAND LINDENBERG PENINSULA W EVENT MARKS. FE S 2625 2608 2612 ©, 2617 2621 \ = ot } { tT = <——SLOPE (S) = 10 HORIZONTAL : 1 VERTICAL (6°) zz —S = 90:1 (1°) $= 8:1 (7°) aT os LL. = S$ = 38:1 (1.5°) > B » salina we Lead Line Soundings Harding Lewson Associstes Engineers Geotogists Crossing 6.5 Bathymetry (Duncan Canal) al Puate X pene Harza Engineering Company 6 Southeast Alaska —_ SEGRE <p SH aa = 15006,005.09 070 Veretoceye- 12/86 qe 57°00 ISLAND BARANOF We 7 167 erasec 23n SM YP 67 175 we hae ADMIRALTY ISLAND : : { Turnsbout! M79 186 @ 200 ; se i @ x00 o Peed, 78 5" 21 Ichart 17336) to’. 178 7 7 wv oe ot ths poste oo sEEs > cs Nr a ae berm (FEET BELOW MLLW) 2552 2505 2472 2435 ze as z98 : ! ‘ : : 1 — SLOPE (S) = 4 WORIZONTAL = 2 VERTICAL (167) —S + 36:1 (2") $= 18:1 (3 $= 6.8: 02") S* 16:1 oo = 8:1 (0.5°) S = 29:1 (2*) x S = 0.€:2 (59°) S = 19:1 (28°) VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 30:1 UNE BXDS 600 FEET FROM BEADK | 298000 388000 aezo0c DISTANCE (FEET) —— SEA FLOOR TEXTURE INTERPRETED FROM ECHOGRAMS =: Hard Bottom Siumo Deposits Sott Bottom Lead Line Soundings Crossing 7.1 Bathymetry (Kake to Warm Springs Bay) 7 Harza Engineering Company Southeast Alaska | 15006,005.09 C.Q.Kicleuck. 12786 t wre erm (FEET BELOW MLLW) 1000 ~ = Ss ae LALDE PONT EVENT MARKS iS) MS9 S4EC 346) 3462 sed see S=an (a) SLOPE(S) = 2° HORIZONTAL = VERTICAL (26°) S = 2.6:1 (32°) VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 251 1990 2008 3995, 008 DISTANCE (FEET) CROSSING 8.6 NOAA Chart 17422 Pt Fitzgibbon 208 % Soundings in tathoms t = bepm (FEET BELOW MLL) Bane Sane Bese Meso 3452 3455 mL SAN BEAVER CREEK aN event ans S SLOPE(S) = 2" WORIZONTAL = 2° VERTICAL {26°} S + 2:1 (28°). S$ = 7:1 (8) Sea Floor Textural Features: No intormation Available | VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 51 | | | | | 8 2050 ‘s000 ‘e000 DISTANSE (FEET) CROSSING 8.5 Harding Lawson Associates ngrwers, Geooo'st & Geoowscss Crossing 8.5/8.6 Bathymetry (North Behm Canal) Harza Engineering Company Southeast Alaska CO rtohck 12/86 i ww wo a i . = 276 N_ S16? ~ __ 235 a To 045 Ff I ssr2t Sureete 1 (22) s Ss M— 117-203 648 j 240. G _ able Ares 221 - = i. =—— cessed che 2k | geese si PF ape ESE tes $71 2686 i an 233 vps 2 | 225 ey ae: _ | Gnodail 1 227 229 ard Thornton Mt. ' 18 LOCAL MAGNETIC DISTURBANCS.,9 rot c FSS REVILLAGIGEDO 2608 | " 249 230 OQjese 4 RBn ao ISLAND i proaches 267, ,!07 yr’ 2107 252 — (seejnote) PL . Villenar Rock & - 227 2420 . ard 2000™ 442133 — al ieee os % Patterson I 3 © ~ 43 222 zr 33 Few 36 re pol WES ai >} be ny ©). High I x e pee ¥ Brosh Hill 6' %y -~ % 2 48 (418) 2047 Dae S mM 567 , 80, Ward Mr 23 33 in 60 LS cS 22 ‘ 3 ’ " 20 * 22t aa\ $28 {125 : 236 _ 235 ' ” Twenty Fathom Bank M : iM ° ‘v0.00 pest na 222 woaacnensvezo ! re : a er u7 | sectors eens Song j APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET we ow we | KASSAN PINS LA COVE NORTH OOF MUD Bay nN (EVENT MarR E (2628 2s4 2683 2703 2727 ms x7es 2020 2es4 OS ston {8} = $ vORIZOKTAL = 2 WERTICAL 227) , : 3 Ls ' [S$ = 9:3 (€") S$ © $:1 (12°) | —S = $22 (23°) : i t SEA FLOOR TEXTURE | INTERPRETED FROM ECHOGRAMS S = 13:3 (38°) pai Hard Bottom . 1 sigan ; Siumo Deposits = i t Sott Bottom = ze os | mmm Submarine Cable Corridor 3 & } S= $22 (1% g | LL Lead Line Soundings $2 2.4:1 (35°) sen os ee ey x TROUSHS +1800 pirceiad ecaaaascoasts LUNE ENDS 30 FEET FROW BEACH THE CLARENCE STRAIT FAULT S = 4:1 (06°) \ s+ 92 (695 MAY MARK TRACES OF A VERTICAL EXASGERATION = 30:1 LUNE ENDS 50 FEET FROM BEACH e azo00 ‘ee300 DISTANCE (FEET) 2ao00 ssoooe rza00 4200 fat Harding Lawson Associates é Geooost: 15006.005.09 Crossing 9.1 Bathymetry (Kasaan Peninsula to Revillagigedo tsiand) Harza Engineering Company Southeast Alaska LL mie 12/86 oePm (FEET BELOW MLW) REVMLLAGIGEDO + ISLAND) Siew NOK ature 4 <_Soundmps m Fathoms t 1 so srrequiar numbering sequences were G:curted By fel conditions. PONT TROLLOP NW EVENT MARKS Swat 3048 3x7 3025 sors 3o10 2934 (2945 7854 2964 2976 ‘2982 30883055 ne 1 : : a 1 ‘ ‘ 1 : {S) = 3 HORIZONTAL = 1 VERTICAL (1e°) Se OO) So 2:2 (27) $241 OO) 2 $= 3:1 (18) seen er ° S323 (187) S © 2.8:1 (22°). | S = 33:2 (e) 2 UNE ENDS 20 FEET FROM BEACH VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 10:1 or aoe one 12500 3800 ‘zones pase pease % DISTANCE (FEET) ~~ \ SEA FLOOR TEXTURE INTERPRETED FROM ECHOGRAMS EES dard Bottom [73 Sott Bottom Heregny Lncewen A: . Crossing 10.6 Bathymetry ie Enorwess Geooost: (Behm Canat-Wasp Pt. | & Gecorvsess Vicinity to Pt. Troliop) | Harza Engineering Company Soutneast Alaska 15006,005.09 <7 4 Frtuc 12/86 yon] 2 2 brie o £ & ; 5 8 OS Vy oFes : ro es] ovPa] , ee eal dy ® > we a 2/0}: oot ay 5 : 56223 S @ g 3 8 4 3 ain {8 tg 7 i qh bb Sea Floor Textural Features: No information Available my amar | P i Ee t 5 q é 2 = 3 7 i ‘ i 1 4 i | 7 & : i 4 | E ; : g | 8 2+. x ; 8 ; ; : z |, a : 3 : e+ 5 i j i q 5 & ‘ - =. a oS 7256 DEPTH 131735" 131734" 131733" 131°32" b= ) : : z \ \ 2S La) Porter Rk 31\Z REVILLAGIGEDO | C13 RE '3. 86 ee ISLAND’ \ ASA Ok FIR BELL aio SLA 55°18 16\ 34./ 620 >? PA 2 55°17 58°16" ANNETTE “SS S = Mountain my, 31 Ae) bd aT 12 ‘ ier Rocky NOAA Chart.17428 Soundings in Fathoms MOUNTAIN POINT RACE POINT N EVENT MARKS oy 2912 2911 2910 aC as cae i t + | 1 j { | | SLOPE (S) = 1 HORIZONTAL : 1 VERTICAL (45°)| oy pe | S = 3.5:1 (167)- = | s \ = | = | °o 3 ad bse _- GS. wg & ! iLL | mera STARTS 100 DINE. ENDS 250 ET FROM SEACH FEET FROM SEACH VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 5:1 | 2 g g T T T 1600 2000 3000 4000 DISTANCE (FEET) ne aoa de 131°31" NOTE: Crossings were not necessarily surveyed from beginning to end without interruption. Direction changes and irregular numbering sequences were dictated by field conditions. SEA FLOOR TEXTURE INTERPRETED FROM ECHOGRAMS Hard Bottom LU Soft Bottom Submarine Cable Corridor ee Lead Line Soundings PLATE 12 Crossing 12.2 Bathymetry (Revillagigedo Channei, Mountain Pt. to Race Pt.) Harza Engineering Company Southeast Alaska Fo ad aaa an Harding Lawsen Associates Engineers Geologists 4 Geoorysicists rs ere JAS 15006 005.09 = Harding Lawson Associates Appendix A TRANSMISSION LINE SUBMARINE CROSSINGS - OCEANOGRAPHY/METEOROLOGY Loo bd bY by bo ty by bo bY LI LI LI LI LI LI LUI tI tI to Harding Lawson Associates TRANSMISSION LINE SUBMARINE CROSSINGS This section reviews relevant oceanographic and meteorological informa- tion for each proposed crossing. A. Skagway-Haines, and Haines to Bridget Cove (Crossing 2.1 and 2.2) 1. General Skagway (Coastal Pilot, p. 214) Currents -The velocity of the tidal current ranges from 0.3 knot on the flood to 0.7 knot on the ebb. During the ebb, the current sets toward the railway wharf, so that vessels departing from the N half of the wharf have difficulty clearing another vessel moored at the S end. Weather - The prevailing wind direction is S from March through November and reverses to N during December, January, and February. Haines (Coastal Pilot, p. 212) Weather - The prevailing winds at Haines are from the W and SE. Lynn Canal provides a funneling effect to produce the SE winds; the narrowing canal often tends to intensify winds moving from the S or SE direction. The relatively low Passageway from the W provides a channel through which winds reach Haines from that direction. Lynn Canal (Coastal Pilot, p. 208) Currents - Currents in Lynn Canal have a velocity of 0.3 to 1 knot in the S part, diminishing in velocity toward the head. From Point Whidbey to Point Sherman the currents are quite regular and apparently tidal. Off Berners Bay, rips and eddies are noted and sets across the channel occur. From Point Sherman to Chilkoot Inlet currents are quite regular and of moderate strength. Off the mouth of the Endicott River, at times, the river water extends a con- siderable distance offshore, where its Limits are often well defined. In the vicinity of the Chilkat Islands the currents are moderate and no peculiarities were noted. In Chilkoot Inlet, the currents are regular and apparently LS tS es i te ee to ce eee ce oc ce ee ee Lo to Ll Harding Lawson Associates tidal. South of the Katzehin River much freshwater is noticeable. In the constricted channel, between the bar and the W shore, the currents are strong, but not irregular. In the vicinity of Indian Rock, an E set across the channel has been noted. The current in Taiya Inlet is moderate and regular. Weather - The high shores of Lynn Canal tend to guide winds along its axis while the narrowing to N intensifies winds blowing from S or SE. Southerlies often reach 16 knots or more. In winter, winds from N have been reported to 70 knots along the canal. 2. Predicted Tidal Currents (knots) yearly average maximum maximum (1986) Station ebb flood ebb flood Skagway Taiya Inlet -3 @ 015° -7 @ 195° oo 8 Low Point, Entrance to Taiya Inlet -3 @ 005° -7 @ 185° a) 8 Battery Point, Chilkoot Inlet -3 @ 345° -7 @ 165° or 8 Eldred Rock -3 @ 350° -7 @ 170° 5 8 Point Sherman, 2 miles west of -3 @ 345° -7 @°165° 35) 8 Vanderbilt Reef, 2 miles west of -4 @ 340° 1.0 @ 151° A, 1.6 3. Predicted Tidal Ranges (feet) Station mean range diurnal range Skagway, Taiya Inlet 14.1 16.7 Haines, Chilkoot Inlet 14.2 16.8 William Henry Bay, (opposite Berners Bay) 1332. 1537 A-2 Ly Le Le Le Le Le ee Le Lb ee Harding Lawson Associates B. South Douglas Island to Young Bay, Admiralty Island (Corssing 3.2) 1. General Juneau (Coastal Pilot, p. 187) Weather - Juneau is well within the area of maritime influences that prevail over the coastal areas of south- eastern Alaska, and is in the path of most storms that cross the Gulf of Alaska. Consequently, the area has little sun- shine, generally moderate temperatures, and abundant precipitation. The surrounding rugged terrain causes con- siderable variation in the weather within relatively short distances. Periods of severe cold, which usually begin with strong northerlies, are most often the result of cold air from NW Canada flowing across the Juneau ice field and are usually of short duration. During such periods, gusty, sometimes strong winds, known locally as "Taku Winds," occur in the city and other local areas. They draw down the mountain passes from N. but their force is modified somewhat under the lee of the highland E of Juneau. SE gales may occur in the vicinity of Juneau at any season, but they are much more frequent in winter than in summer. They are usually accompanied by rain. In summer, SE winds seldom blow home and when they do, the confined channel admits but little sea. 2. Predicted Tidal Currents (knots) yearly average maximum maximum (1986) Station ebb flood ebb flood nearest station is Point Arden 1.0 @ 355° 1.0 @ 175° 17. 18 3. Predicted Tidal Ranges (feet) Station : mean range diurnal range Juneau. 137 16.3 A-3 a ee ee ee ee oe oe on a a a a ao a a eo | Harding Lawson Associates C. Hawk Inlet to Whitestone Harbor, Chicagof Island (crossing not surveyed) 1. General Chatham Strait (Coastal Pilot, p. 193) Currents. The flood current enters Chatham Strait at the S entrance between Cape Ommaney and Cape Decision and sets N entering Frederick Sound, Peril Strait, and other bodies of water. The flood from the N enters the strait from Icy Strait. The two meet in the vicinity of Point Hayes and South Passage Point. On the ebb, the directions are reversed. The average velocity of the current is between 1.0 and 2.0 knots with an estimated maximum velocity of 3.5 knots. Strong tide rips are found around the various points, sometimes extending 1 mile or more into the strait when the current is strong. These are dangerous for small, open boats, especially at points surrounded by broken ground. Sometimes they will be encountered well offshore without apparent cause. Along the E shore from Cape Decison to Point Crowley, a strong NW set has been noted during the flood. During the ebb the current in the opposite direction is weak, and very often there is a NW eddy. The current seems to travel along the shore in definite streams. The outer limit of the current stream is marked by drifting material, and the dif- ference in current on either side can be noted. It appears that the flood current travels from the sea toward and up the E shore of the strait and that the ebb is strongest on the W side. Weather - The wind generally draws through Chatham Strait parallel to its axis, but, if from NE, will come down Frederick Sound and be felt in heavy squalls through the divides in the mountains on the E side. It sometimes draws through Tenakee Inlet and Peril Strait if blowing strong NW outside. Most of the W shore is so high and bluff that the strong SW winds cannot blow down into the strait, but draw around Cape Ommaney and N through the strait, usually bring- ing fog and rain as far as Point Gardner. Harding Lawson Associates 2. Predicted Tidal Currents (knots) yearly average maximum maximum (1986) Station ebb flood ebb flood Point Augusta Light 2 miles east of 1.0 @ 160° 1.0 @ 340° Lu 1.8 3. Predicted Tidal Ranges (feet) Station mean range diurnal range Swanson Harbor 12.6 15.1, Port Shettisham to Kupreanof Island via Stephens Passage (Crossing S22) 1. General Stephens Passage (Coastal Pilot, p. 171) Currents - The flood current enters Stephens Passage from both ends and meets in varying places W of Point Arden; the ebb current flows in the opposite direction. The velocity of the current is 0.5 to 2 knots. In Saginaw Channel, the current frequently ebbs throughout the day when the moon is in quadrature. The ebb current in this channel is con- siderably stronger than the flood. The currents have considerable velocity in the entrance to all the larger bays and inlets that make off from Stephens Passage, causing tide tips and swirls. Weather - The prevailing winds are SE throughout the year. During the winter the winds are more variable and winds from the NE quarter may prevail, particularly in January. SE gales may occur at any season, but they are more frequent and more severe in winter than in summer. Ice is discharged from glaciers in Tracy and Endicott Arms and is always found in Holkham Bay, and is prevalent in Stephens Passage off the entrance to that bay. Occasional pieces of ice may be expected in all parts of the passage. ( ‘ a ee ee | Harding Lawson Associates Frederick Sound (Coastal Pilot, p. 163) Currents - The tidal current on the flood enters Frederick Sound from Chatham Strait; it sets N into Stephens Passage and through the E arm. The ebb sets in the reverse direc- tion. Current observations made between Cape Fanshaw and Cape Strait indicate that the ebb or W current is considerably stronger than the flood. In the vicinity of Cape Strait the ebb velocity is about 1.5 to 2 knots and it is probable that the current floods only with the largest tides of the month. Weather - Although sheltered from the open Gulf, Frederick Sound and its surrounding waterways are subject to local effects because of the high ground that surrounds the area. Many locations are vulnerable to strong SE winds, which are a problem from October through February. Ice - Glacial ice from Le Conte Bay is generally present in the —£ arm of Frederick Sound, and at times in large quan- tities. The ice generally follows the N shore of the sound as far as the entrance to Thomas Bay. Under certain condi- tions of wind and weather, ice may be expected as far as the Sukoi Islets, and it may also be found at Cape Strait and Turnabout Island. Occasionally a few stray pieces of ice work into Wrangell Narrows as far as Green Point, making navigation dangerous. . 2. Predicted Tidal Currents (knots) yearly average maximum maximum (1986) Station ebb flood ebb flood Midway Island 1.0 @ 335° 1O01@ 155° died, 1E6) Pt. Hugh 1.0 @ 355° 1.0 @ 175° oie, 1.8 Point Gambier, 2 miles east of -5 @ 005° -5 @ 185° -6 -6 The Brothers, 2 miles , east of - 1.0 @ 025° 1.0 @ 205° eid, 1.8 Additional Observations - moderately heavy tide rips are sometimes found at the entrance to Port Shettisham o Us Lary Le ES Harding Lawson Associates - currents are estimated at 4 knots at the entrances to Tracy and Endicott Arms, forming swirls in these areas 3. Predicted Tidal Ranges (feet) Station mean range diurnal range Port Snettisham, Point Styleman 13.4 15:8 Holkam Bay, Wood Spit 13.0 15.4 Windham Bay L207. LS al) Good Island, Gambier Bay 12.4 14.8 Hobart Bay 12.7 15.1 Port Houghton, Robert Islands 13.0 15.4 Cleveland Passage, Whitney Island 12.6 15.0 Pybus Bay, Admiralty eo, 14.3 Island Eliza Harbor, Liesnoi Island 11.3 14.3 Kake, Kupreanof Island to Warm Springs Bay, Baranof Island (Crossing Te2) 1. General (see C and D) 2. Predicted Tidal Currents (knots) yearly average maximum maximum (1986) Station ebb flood ebb flood Point Gardner Light, 2 miles west of 2.0 @ 350° 2.0 @ 170° 7.0 3.6 Additional Observations - Cornwallis Point and rocks/shoals north of it; on an ebb tide the current from Saginaw Bay sets toward the rocks. When current is against the wind a considerable tide rip develops - heavy tide rips between Yasha Island and the buoy, sometimes extending across to Point Gardner and north to Carrol Island - in Keku Strait currents typically 1.2 knots A-7 tJ oe} ts tt) tt LI | io Harding Lawson Associates 3. Predicted Tidal Ranges (feet) Station mean range diurnal range Saginaw Bay, Kuiu Island 11.6 14.0 Kake 7, 14.0 Red Bluff Bay, Baranof Island 10.2 1257 Warm Springs Bay, Baranof Island 11.0 13.4 F. Wrangell Narrows and Duncan Canal (Crossings 6.1 and 6.3.1b) 1. General Sumner Strait (Coastal Pilot, p. 145) Currents - From the S entrance to Sumner Strait in Iphigenia Bay, the current floods N to the vicinity of Point Baker, where it turns E with an estimated velocity of 2 knots. W of Zarembo Island the current divides. One branch passes through Snow and Kashevarof Passages and meets the flood current from Clarence Strait near Key Reef. The second branch sets N and E of the island until it meets and is overcome by the current from the Stikine River. The ebb sets in generally the opposite direction with considerably greater velocity. The edge of the current from the Stikine River is well defined by its muddy white appearance. Near the end of the ebb, it is sometimes noticed to be W of Vank Island and S in Chichagof Pass and Stikine Strait. Between Point Baker and Strait Island, the irregularities of the bottom produce heavy swirls and surface disturbances. The ebb current flows from the vicinity of Wrangell through Sumner Strait and through Stikine Strait and Chichagof Pass to Clarence Strait. It is reported that strong currents and heavy tide rips occur off Cape Decision, Fairway Island, Point St. Albans, and the small islands to the N. Weather - The S part’ of Sumner Strait is most susceptible to strong winds with a S component, whereas the N part is vulnerable to easterlies. These winds blow year round, but are strongest from October through February when gales in mam i Harding Lawson Associates the nearby open sea occur about 10 percent of the time and wave heights of 10 feet or more are encountered about 15 to 20 percent of the time; many of these open-ocean waves arrive from SE through SW. 2. Predicted Tidal Currents (knots) yearly average maximum maximum (1986) Station ebb flood ebb flood Wrangell Narrows, Turn Point 4.3 @ 220° 3.8 @ 040° 6.1 6.5 Petersburg 3.7 @ 225° 3.4 @ 045° 5.4 5.9 3. Predicted Tidal Ranges (feet) Station mean range diurnal range Petersburg 13.4 pa Revillagigedo Island to Grindall Point, Kassan Peninsula, Prince of Wales Island (Crossing 9.2) 1. General Clarence Straight (Coastal Pilot, p. 83) , Currents - The current has a maximum velocity of 4 knots in Clarence Strait from the S entrance to the vicinity of Zarembo Island. At Cape Chacon, the flood current sets NE around the cape and the ebb SW. S of the line of Cape Chacon the tidal currents are much confused. In general the currents in the strait set directly in and out during flood and ebb, except in the vicinity of the entrances to the tributaries, where a slight set across the channel may be experienced setting to or from them, especially the large tributaries; and along the shores of the strait where the current is either slack or there is a small countercurrent. The most noticeable of these counter- currents is at Dewey Anchorage and among the islands at Onslow Point, where it has considerable velocity, from 2 to 3 knots, and sets directly opposite in direction to the current in the strait. This countercurrent meets the main current at the entrance of the large bay E of point Stanhope, and is confined to the bay and the immediate vicinity of the shore SE. A-9 J 2. Harding Lawson Associates Weather - The orientation of Clarence Strait and its proximity to the continent influence its weather. The strait is exposed to the strong southeasterlies of fall and early winter, although shelter may be found in several bays and inlets. Winter gales may also blow down the strait from the NW. Williwaws blow in many of the anchorages that are off the strait. Predicted Tidal Currents (knots) (no suitable stations) Additional Observations at Vallenar Point tidal velocity estimated at 2.5 knots on the flood and 1.5 knots on the ebb. Moderate tide rip reported when wind and current opposed. west of Vallenar Point flood is approximately 3 knots and ebb 1.5 knots, with strong tide rips on the ebb during southeasterly storms Predicted Tidal Ranges (feet) Station mean range diurnal range Kassan Bay Entrance 13.0 15.2 Vallenar Point 12.9 15.3 Ward Cove, Tongass Narrows ik . 15.7 Behm Canal - Wasp Point Vicinity to Point Trollop (Crossing 10.2) Revillagigedo Channel - Mountain Point to Race Point (Crossing 12.2) Ls General Ketchikan (Coastal Pilot, p. 72) Tides and currents - At Ketchikan the mean range of tide is 13 feet, and the diurnal range 15.4 feet. There is usually a direct current or eddy setting W along the face of the wharves. For this reason all large vessels make a port landing, those from the S frequently using West Channel, which is marked by a light and buoys, and making the neces- sary turn around the W end of Pennock Island. Weather - Winds are prevalent from the SE, and gales are infrequent in this sheltered port. Calm conditions are frequent. A-10 Harding Lawson Associates Annette (Coastal Pilot, p. 89-90) Weather - The climate of Annette is governed by the Gulf of Alaska, topography, and its nearness to the paths of extratropical storms. Its maritime location provides rela- tively mild temperatures with small daily variations. Storms moving E across the Gulf of Alaska dump frequent and heavy precipitation with annual amounts similar to those along the Washington and Oregon coasts. Winds blow out of the ESE through SSE. Strong southeasterlies are frequent from October through March with windspeeds attaining 28 knots or more 2 to 4 percent of the time. During summer afternoons, southerlies are common and conditions with wind- speeds of 4 to 10 knots, temperatures between 33°F and 89°F, and no precipitation are encountered on about 20 days per month. Dixon Entrance to Ketchikan (including Portland Canal, Revillagigedo Channel, Tongass Narrows, Behm Canal, and the city and harbor of Ketchikan; (Coastal Pilot, p. 59) Weather - Dixon Entrance is exposed to the rigors of the nearby Pacific. Gales blow frequently from October through April, mainly out of the SE, up the Hecate Strait. Some- times N gales draw down Portland Inlet across the NE end of Chatham Sound, making the crossing from Dundas Island to Cape Fox hazardous. Strong SW winds create a heavy beam sea on this same crossing. Swells approach Dixon Entrance mostly from the W and SW, particularly in winter. They move through passages, break on shoals or against shorelines, and are heavy at times. In Caamano Passage, the W coast of Dundas Island experiences almost continuous heavy swell. Parry Passage, as well as the W and N coasts of Langara Island, is subject to prevailing ocean swell. A-11 Harding Lawson Associates 2. Predicted Tidal Currents (knots) yearly average maximum maximum (1986) Station ebb flood ebb flood Behm Canal Point Sykes 1.0 @ 040° 1.0 @ 220° 1.7 1.8 Point Nelson weak and variable Behm Narrows -2 @ 062° 1.2 @ 264° 6 2.4 Nichols Passage Village Point, 2 miles north of Metlakatla weak and variable Wharburton Island 2.2 @ 025° 2.2 @ 205° 3.5 Bud Driest Point 1.9 @ 355° 1.9 @ 175° 2.8 3.0 Walden Rocks, .6 mile north of 1.0 @ 025° 1.6 @ 205° 1.7 3.0 Walden Rocks 2.8 @ 025° 2.8 @ 205° 4.4 4.7 Tongass Narrows Ketchikan -8 @ 310° -2 @ 120° 1.1 -6 Point Higgens, 1 mile west of -4 @ 010° -2 @ 200° -6 6 Portland Canal Tree Point 1.8 @ 345° 1.8 @ 165° 2.8 3.0 Dickens Point 1.5 @ 020° 1.5 @ 200° 2.2 2.4 Additional Observations - currents of 2.5-3.0 knots noted in vicinity of Idaho Rock, off- shore Saxman, Tongass Narrows - Tidal currents eddy off Charcoal Point, setting vessels off wharf (Ketchikan) A-12 Harding Lawson Associates Predicted Tidal Ranges (feet) Station mean range diurnal range ts tt LI Ls) l tJ i Hassler Harbor, Annette Island 13.1 pL Mop Point, Thorne Arm 12.8 15.2 Alava Bay, East Behm Canal 12.8 1.2 Smeaton Bay, Wilson Arm 13.7 15.6 Shoal Water Pass 13.2 15.6 Fitzgibbon Cove 13.4 15.8 Burroughs Bay 13.4 15.8 Bell Arm, Bell Island 13.6 15.9 Metlakatla, Port Chester 12.5 14.7 Ketchikan 13.0 1554 Halibut Bay 13.4 16.0 A-13 Appendix B Been eh Oe case cal ca yeaa ee eee ee od recut CABLE CORPORATION COMMENTS ON SOUTHEAST ALASKA INTERTIE BATHYMETRIC SURVEY CONDUCTED DURING THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 13-31, 1986 Prepared by: Captain Antonio Nesi For: Societa Cavi Pirelli - Milano, Italy Pirelli Cable Corporation - Union, New Jersey Submitted to: Harza Engineering Company December, 1986 3e3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Se 4.0 Table of Contents Introduction Equipment and Personnel Survey Comments General Crossing B B-1 Bridget Cove to Tanai Pt. B-2 Tanai Pt. to Skagway Crossing C Middle Pt. to Young Bay Crossing E Port Snettisham to Kupreanof Island Crossing G Kupreanof Island to Baranof Island Crossin§ H H-1 Wrangell Narrows H-2 Duncan Canal Crossing I Kassan Peninsula to Ketchikan Crossing L Race Pt. to Mountain Pt. Crossing J J-1 Pt. Trollop to Wasp Pt. Conclusions 1.0 Introduction A survey to determine the bathymetry along several crossings between islands in Southeast Alaska was carried out by Harding Lawson Associates, for the Harza Engineering Company. Pirelli Cable Corporation and Societa' Cavi Pirelli furnished an observer to participate in the survey. The following constitutes comments and recommendations with regard to the survey. 2.0 Equipment and Personnel Survey operations were conducted from the vessel "Sylvia J" during the period October 13-31, 1986. Navigational control for the survey routes was maintained utilizing, one at a time, the following equipment: - Trimble 4000 A GPS Receiver - Magnavox 1107 RS NNSS - North Star 7000 LORAN C - Delnorte 435 UHF Trisponder System The equipment was connected to the following: - HP 9825 B Desk Top Computer - HP Plotter 9285C - EPSON Printer - Helmsman Steering Indicator In addition to the above mentioned equipment, the vessel was also equipped with Furono Model 2400 Radar. Depths records were recorded by means of two Raytheon Model DE-371 fathometers. The following personnel participated in the survey: Mr. Richard Lee/HLA In charge of survey - Fathometers Mr. Larry Whitting/HLA Navigation - (on hire from Hitech) Mr. Tanzeem Ziuki APA Representative (part time) Mr. Eric Marchegiani APA Representative (part time) Capt. Antonio Nesi Pirelli Observer Mr. Bob Harchover, Jr. Skipper Mr. Terry Kullander Mate 3.0 Survey Comments 3.1 General One sounding line was carried out for each crossing between points located at about 300-400 feet from the respective landing sites. The depths between the points and shore were measured by means of lead lines at three to four locations approximately 100 feet apart. Navigational fixes were obtained where possible at one minute intervals along the proposed routes and were plotted every five minutes. Bathymetric records were annoted with a corresponding “event number". Practically all of the landing sites were selected during the survey mainly from the available charts or by sight without inspection. Lacking a side scan sonar, there was no possibility to determine superficial bottom conditions or to identify specific geologic hazards. 3.2 - Crossing B B-1 Bridget Cove to Tanani Pt The bathymetric data indicate three major areas encompassing significant features which may be considered as hazards to power cables or to the laying operations: (1) the approach to Bridget Cove, (2) the passage between Kataguni Island and Eldred Rock, and (3) the approach to Tanani Pt. for the submerged ridge extending south of Taiya Pt. An alternate route surveyed east of Eldred Rock proved to be more smooth. Slopes of more than 3.5 to l (16°) were encountered with indications of the existence of prominent ledges or outcrops. Landing sites were covered by cobbles and pebbles with occasional logs. B-2 Tanani Pt, to Skagway The bottom profile on leaving Tanani Pt. presents the same features as observed on the B-1 line. At the crossing of Taiya Pt. ridge, prominent outcrops and/or ledges with 3.5 to 1 (16°) slopes were observed. The depth leaving Tanani Pt. drops to 230 fathoms (1380 ft.) and the bottom becomes relatively smooth. The bottom along the Taiya Inlet rises towards Skagway with a 2.5 to 1 (22°) slope. The landing site at Skagway is covered with gravel. An additional line was run north of the proposed route over Taiya Pt. Ridge confirming noted features. The area between Tanai Pt. and the entrance of Taiya Inlet should be considered a critical area for cable operations. 3.3 - Crossing C 3.4 a5 Middle Pt. to Young Bay The bottom profile along the proposed route exhibits a gentle slope from Douglas Island entry point down to a maximum depth of about 87 fathoms (522 ft.), occurring some 7000 ft. from Middle Pt. The bottom then rises gradually towards the Admiralty Island landing point. Both landing sites are covered by gravel. No significant hazards to the cable were noted, except for low relief outcrops which were noted near shore. Crossing E Port Snettisham to Kupreanof Island The bottom contour in Speel Arm and Port Snettisham does not appear to present significant problems except in the areas south of Bogart Point and south of Pt. Styleman where some steep slopes may require special attention. The proposed route along Stephens Passage has been modified to allow better crossing of existing telephone cables. The bathymetric data shows some areas of irregular surface suggesting the presence of low relief outcrops or boulders. Steep slopes and ledges were noticed between event marks 1770 and 1829 south of Pt. Hugh, between event marks 1905 and 1920, and beyond event marks 1949 and 2010. These areas could present a hazard to power cables or laying operations. The approach to Kupreanof Island is steep and rocky and requires further investigation prior to finalizing the landing point. Crossing G Kupreanof Island to Baranof Island The bottom profile from Pt. White to the 200 fathoms (1200 ft.) line is very irregular with prominent ledges and slopes in excess of 4.5 to 1 (13°). The landing site, selected during the survey is located in an area containing rocks above and below the surface of the water. The entire area requires special consideration in selecting the cable route. The crossing of Frederick Sound does not _ present significant problems, while the passage between Pt. Gardner and Yasha Island is to be considered hazardous to cable operations because of its topography. ° 3.6 Jel Depths of less than 30 fathoms (180 ft.) have been recorded over the ridge and some kind of fishing activity may be expected. West of Pt. Gardner, the bottom deepens rapidly reaching a depth in excess of 330 fathoms (1980 ft.) along Chatam passage then steepens sharply within quarter mile off Baranof Island with a 1.4/1.3 to 1 (36°) slope. Sounding records indicate the possible existence of outcrops and/or ledges along the shore-end route in Warm Spring Bay. Crossing H H-1 Wrangell Narrows The proposed route was not surveyed because of frequent dredging operations in the area and strong tidal currents. No significant hazards to cable were noted on the sounding records. H-2 Duncan Canal Duncan Canal crossing is about 1.0 mile in length. The bottom profile exhibits an almost gentle slope from the west shore to a maximum depth of about 16 fathoms (96 ft.). There are some irregularities within 300 ft. of landing point, denoting the possibility of rocks or boulders as observed on the nearby beach. Approximately 500 ft. from the east shore the bottom steepens moderately with slopes of 5.5 to 1 (9°). This landing site is steep, wooded and is covered by cobbles. Crossing I K —— ee The area of primary concern from a cable routing standpoint appears to be the section of the crossing on leaving Kasaan Peninsula. Although moved south in a small cove, the landing site is located in a steep coast line bordered by low reliefs and large patches of kelp suggesting a rocky bottom. Bathymetric data indicate steep slopes and occurrence of ledges that may prove hazardous to underwater power cables. The central portion of the route, reaching almost 250 fathoms (1500 ft.) in depth is very irregular but no significant features have been observed. Approaching the Tongass Narrows, the bottom steepens with critical slopes. Navigational control in the area was very poor, based mainly on radar ranges. 4 3.8 3.9 The sounding records in the narrows suggest possible existence of outcrops that require further investigation. The landing site in Totem Bight is covered by gravel and pebbles but few boulders were visible in the vicinity. Crossing L Race Pt, to Mountain Pt. The crossing is approximately 0.8 of a mile in length, with a maximum depth of 102 fathoms (612 ft.). Within 225 ft. of Annette Island landing site, the bottom drops sharply reaching a depth of 100 fathoms (600 ft.) about 2150 ft. from shore. A slope of 1.3 to 1 (37°) was noticed with a ledge in about 55 fathoms (330 ft.) of water. The bottom is quite smooth in the central portion. At approximately 1480 ft. outwards of Mountain Pt. it becgmes more steep with a maximum slope of 1.4 to 1 (36°) along the proposed route. Three lead soundings were taken on the - segment connecting the surveyed line to the new landing site. In the vicinity of both landings, awash rocks and boulders were noted. According to bottom contours and soundings shown on Chart 17428 a route west of the proposed one would present a smoother profile and less critical features. Crossing J Jl Pt. Trollop to Wasp Pt, Bottom contours drop sharply along both shore lines of Behm Canal. Although modified according to large scale chart data, along the proposed cable route out of Wasp Pt. the bottom drops to 50 fathoms (300 ft.) within 525 ft. of the beach with a slope of 1.3 to 1 (37°). The sounding profile suggests the possible existence of steep ledges or outcrops and a very irregular bottom. The bottom deepens reaching the canal depth in excess of 220 fathoms (1320 ft.) with a less critical slope of 3 to 325 to 1 (27>). No indications of significant hazards were noted along Behm Canal route. However, as soon as the vessel headed towards shore, the bottom became significantly more steep with slopes in the region of 3 to 1 (18°). Approximately 3100 ft. from the shore line, from a depth of 115 fathoms (690 ft.) on, the bottom profile becomes very irregular denoting ledges and/or outcrops with a slope of 1.4 to 1 (35° ) at about 1300 ft. The coast at the Trollop side is of volcanic nature. The landing site is very steep with outcrops throughout. The shore-end routes must be reconsidered since features indicated by the sounding records present serious hazards to cable and laying operations. 4.0 Conclusions On the basis of the data collected during the survey, although not complete and not exact, it appears that the laying of cables appears feasible in most of the proposed routes. A more accurate survey should be carried out to determine bottom conditions in greater detail and to finalize a _ suitable corridor for each cable crossing free from geological hazards. Alternate routes should be considered to achieve a decrease in the severity of hazards encountered off Warm Spring Bay, Wasp Pt. and Trollop Pt. The next survey, considering the complex bottom conditions of the area, should foresee the use of side scan sonar, expanded scale fathometer and navigational equipment with high repeatability capacity. Slope data included in these comments are approximate. More accurate figures may be obtained from the bottom profile diagrams prepared by HLA. PIRELLI REPORT ON PARTICIPATION IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA INTERTIE STUDY Prepared by: PIRELLI CABLE CORPORATION and SOCIETA CAVI PIRELLI MARCH 20, 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS Le TENTRODUCTION | (5) |) |: |) 6 | \11 | [e)) 161! | @! | (oi! for [|| lie) | ker 20) lie! | ||| (0 Ze eo) a ee a ee ee ee ee ee 3. SUBMARINE CABLE DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Sia Genera elt ile ied sisi ie) =| iret iol Fell ell |xet Ifo Bie. Electrical Power System Characteristics 363 Cable Demlene . st tee ee ees we ee 3.4 Cable..Desiign | Specifications | <)| 5) |<) |. |< 4. BUDGETARY COST8 .« -e*# 8s e® © woe ewewness 5. RECOMMENDATIONS .. - «© «© © © © © © © © © © « APPENDIX A - CRITERIA FOR CABLE ROUTE SELECTION INTRODUCTION The involvement of Pirelli Cable Corporation and its affiliate Societa Cavi Pirelli in this project consisted of (1) participation, as a cable specialist, in the Southeast Alaska Intertie Bathymetric Survey which had as its purpose’ the collection of bathymetric and bottom characteristics to supplement existing data and, (2) the use of this data in conjunction with preferred voltage ratings and load requirements for the design of suitable submarine cables. In addition, Pirelli was charged with the preparation of cost estimates for the submarine cables and their installation. SCOPE Submarine cable designs and their respective dimensions, weights and electrical characteristics are presented in this report for each of the crossings. Cable costs and costs associated with their installation are also included. This report also contains Pirelli's recommendations for further surveys to achieve a better knowledge of hottom morphology and profiles in order to select final cable routes. In this regard, criteria for cable route selection are offered. SUBMARINE CABLE DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS San General Based on the Hardinq Lawson Associates (HLA) survey conducted for this program, it appears that the bottom exhibits frequent. rock outcrops, rapid changes in slope and direction and boulders at the base of steep approaches to landfalls. Under these conditions, a cable installation structure which depends on a lead sheath for its electrical stability and long life is not recommended. When lead sheathed submarine cables are laid with long free spans (due to rock outcrops, pinnacles or boulders) and are subjected to movements during long term operation due to the action of sea currents, fatigue of the lead sheath can occur. This can result in the development of cracks in the lead sheath thereby compromising its integrity and abilitv to exclude moisture from the cable insulation structure. For this reason, the use of state of the art laminar dielectric cables was eliminated from consideration. 3312 Plate No. 1. In the category of extruded dielectric high voltage cables, EPR insulation was selected in preference to conventional crosslinked polyethylene insulation because of its superior resistance to development and propagation of water trees and hence improved performance under ac stress when exposed to moisture. Pirelli's EPR insulation compound, specifically formulated and processed for submarine cable application, is highly resistant to development and propagation of water trees and has proven to be electrically stable in non-leaded submarine cables. So called tree retardant crosslinked polyethylene insulation compounds are available, however, their use to date has been limited to voltages up to 35 kV and there is question as to their suitability for higher voltage ratings. In any event, crosslinked polyethylene insulated cables are not recommended for high voltage submarine cable application without the use of a moisture impervious lead sheath. Electric Power System Characteristics Cable designs were developed for each of the crossings based on the following electric power system characteristics: Approx. Length of Crossing Rated Power Cable Naut. Voltage Transfer Design Cable Crossing km miles kv (1) No 2.1 Skagway to Haines 25.9 14.0 +75 DC 25 MW 5 2.1 Haines to Bridget Cove 98.2 53.0 +75 DC 25 MW 5 3. South Douglas Island to Young Bay, : Admiralty Island 74 4.0 69 AC 5.9 MVA 4 5.2/5.4 Port Snettisham to Kupreanof Island 126 68 +100 DC 50 MW 6 6.1 Wrangell Narrows, Nitkof to Lindenberg Penin. 1.5 0.8 138 AC 70.5 MVA 1 6.5 Duncan Canal Ley, reel 138 AC 53 MVA i 7.1 Kake to Warm Springs Bay, Baronof Island 56.3 30.0 +75 DC 30 MW 5 8.5 Bell Island- Beaver Creek 129 30 138 AC 53 MVA a 10. it. 12. 3.3 8.6 9.0 10.6 11. 12.2 (1) Port Lees- Claude Point North Behm Canal Ketchikan to Grindall Pt., Kasaan Peninsula, Prince of Wales Is. Pt. Trollop to Revillagigedo Is. Portland Canal Mountain Point, Revillagigedo Is. to Race Point, Annette Island ToL 26 12-5 2.2 1.3 0.6 138 AC 53 MVA 14.0 +75 DC 10 MW 6.7 138 AC 59 MVA 1.2 +100 DC =—-:100 MVA 0.7 69 AC 11.8 MVA All circuits are 65% load factor Cable Designs Five submarine cable designs were developed to satisfy the requirements of the eleven crossings. of each cable design including cable overall diameter, weight and electrical characteristics are indicated as follows: Cable Design No. 1 Voltage Rating: Conductor Size: Number of Conductors: Armor: O.D.: Weight: Cable Characteristics: 138 kV ac 240 mm@ 3 in a Single Cable Single Wire Armor 7.2 inches (185 mm) 30.2 lbs/ft (45 kg/m) Conductor Resistance at Maximum Permissible Operating Temp: Reactance at 60 Hz: Capacitance: 0.0977 ohm/km 0.173 ohm/km 0.133 uf/km The details Cable Design No. 2 Voltage Rating: 138 kV ac Conductor Size: 240 mm? Number of Conductors: 3 in a Single Cable Armor: Double Counterhelical Armor O.D ei 7.1 inches (182 mm) Weight: 32.2 lbs/ft (48 kg/m) Cable Characteristics: Conductor Resistance at Maximum Permissible Operating Temp: 0.0977 ohm/km Reactance at 60 Hz: 0.173 ohm/km Capacitance: 0.133 uf/km Cable Design No. 3 Voltage Rating: 69 kV ac Conductor Size: 120 mm Number of Conductors: 3 in a Single Cable Armor: Double Counterhelical Wire Armor ODay: 4.8 inches (123 mm) Weight: 17.4 lbs/ft (26 kg/m) Cable Characteristics: Conductor Resistance at Maximum Permissible Operating Temp: 0.196 ohm/km Reactance at 60 Hz: 0.163 ohm/km Capacitance: 0.160 uh/km Cable Design No. 4 Voltage Rating: 35 kV ac (Selected by Pirelli) Conductor Size: 70 mm Number of Conductors: 3 in a Single Cable =| 2 Armor: Single Wire Armor O.D.: 3.5 inches (90 mm) Weight: 9.4 lbs/ft (14 kg/m) Cable Characteristics: Conductor Resistance at Maximum Permissible Operating Temp: 0.342 ohm/km Reactance at 60 Hz: 0.160 ohm/km Capacitance: 0.177 uf/km Cable Design No. 5 Voltage Rating 75 kv dc Conductor Size: 150 mm Number of Conductors: i Armor: Double Counterhelical Wire Armor O.D.¢ 2.3 inches (58 mm) Weight: 6.0 lbs/ft (9 kg/m) Cable Characteristics: Conductor Resistance at Maximum Permissible Operating Temp: 0.161 ohm/km Reactance at 60 Hz: Not Applicable Capacitance: Not Applicable Cable Design No. 6 Voltage Rating: 100 kV dc Conductor Size: 240 mm Number of Conductors: 1 Armor: Double Counterhelical Wire Armor ©.D.¢ 2.7 inches (68 mm) Weight: 8.0 lbs/ft (12 kg/m) 3.4 Cable Characteristics: Conductor Resistance at Maximum Permissible Operating Temp: 0.0972 ohm/km Reactance at 60 Hz: Not Applicable Capacitance: Not Applicable Cable Design Specifications Since a United States industry specification for EPR insulated 138 kV cable has not been issued to date, reference to IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) Standards is suggested. It is not the practice of IEC Standards to indicate thicknesses of conductor shield, insulation and insulation shield and hence Pirelli recommended thicknesses are shown. 1. Tinned Copper Conductor: IEC 228 and IEC 28 2. Conductor Shield, Insulation and Insulation Shield Thicknesses: These are not speci- fied in IEC Stan- dards. Pirelli specification values are as follows: Conductor Insulation Cable Design Shield Insulation Shield No. mm (mils) mm (mils) mm_ (mils) 1 1 (40) 24 (950) 1.3 (50) 2 1 (40) 24 (950) 3 (50) 3 1 (40) 13. (520) LSet 510) 4 1 (40) 8.76 (345) 1.0 (40) 5 1 (40) Ties 2(295) 1.3 «(50) 6 1 (40) 10 (400) 1.3 (50) 3. Armor Dimension: In accordance with following table: Armor Cable Design Design Dimension No. mm (mils) al Single Round Wire 6 (240) 2 Double Flat Wire 3. (120) 3 Ditto 2 3 (120) 4 Ditto 1 5 (200) 5 Ditto 2 3 (120) 6 Ditto 2 3 (120) 4. Test Procedure and Requirements: j Draft Standard (approved and soon to be published) LEC) |20A (C205) |) 599 entitled "Tests for Power Cables with Extruded Insulation for Rated Voltages Above 30 kV Up to) 150 kV". 5. Reference Standards in 4. Above: IEC 230 - IEC 60 Impulse Test IEC 540 - Partial Discharge Tes IEC 811 - Dimensional Check BUDGETARY COSTS Budgetary cost estimates for the five submarine cable designs are indicated for each crossing in which they would be utilized. Budgetary cost estimates for submarine cable installation are categorized and indicated as follows: - Mobilization, Demobilization and Transportation - Installation of One Three Core Cable Installation of Two Three Core Cables - Installation of Two Single Core Cables - Additional Survey, if Required yw UD Awe YP ' - Additional Engineering Plus Contingency Allowance Plate No. 1 Crossing 2.1 and 2.2 Skagway to Bridget Cove Crossing Description: 2.1 Skagway - Haines (Tanani Pt) Cable Cost: $18,000 per 1000 feet of cable Installation Cost: A. $6,910,000 D. $14,600 per 1000 of crossing E. $288,000 F. $98,000 Crossing Description: 2.2 Haines (Tanani Pt) - Bridget Cove Cable Cost: $18,000 per 1000 feet of cable Installation Cost: A. $7,600,000 D. $6,000 per 1000 feet of crossing E. $670,000 F. $98,000 Plate No. 3 Crossing 3 Douglas Island to Admiralty Island Crossing Description: South Douglas Island to Young Bay, Admiralty Island Cable Cost: $30,000 per 1000 feet of cable Installation Cost: A. $1,350,000 B. $20,000 per 1000 feet of crossing C. $28,000 per 1000 feet of crossing E. $96,000 F. $68,000 Plate No. 4 Crossing 5.2/5.4 Port Snettisham to Kupreanof Island Crossing Description: Port Snettisham to Kupreanof Island Cable Cost: $25,000 per 1000 feet of cable Installation Cost: A. $8,000,000 D. $4,800 per 1000 feet of crossing E. $670,000 F. $98,000 Plate No. 5 Crossing 6.1 Wrangell Narrows Crossing Description: Wrangell Narrows, Mitkoff Island to Lindenberg Peninsula Cable Cost: $105,000 per 1000 feet of cable Installation Cost: A. $1,350,000 B. $82,000 per 1000 feet of crossing C. $114,000 per 1000 feet of crossing E. $67,200 F. $52,000 Plate No. 6 Crossing 6.5 Duncan Canal Crossing Description: Duncan Canal, Kupreanof Island to Lindenberg Peninsula Cable Cost: $105,000 per 1000 feet of cable Installation Cost: A. $1,350,000 B. $82,000 per 1000 feet of crossing C. $114,000 per 1000 feet of crossing E. $67,200 F. $52,000 Plate No. 7 Crossing Kake to Warm Springs Bay Crossing Description: Kake to Warm Springs Bay, Baranof Is. Cable Cost: $18,000 per 1000 feet of cable Installation Cost: A. $7,200,000 D. $12,800 per 1000 feet of crossing E. $288,400 F. $74,000 Plate No. 8 Crossing 8.5/8.6 North Behm Canal Crossing Description: 8.5 Bell Island - Beaver Brook Cable Cost: $105,000 per 1000 feet of cable Installation Cost: A. $1,350,000 B. $82,000 per 1000 feet of crossing - $114,000 per 1000 feet of crossing - $67,200 » $52,000 yoa Crossing Description: 8.6 Point Lees - Claude Point Cable Cost: $105,000 per 1000 feet of cable Installation Cost: A. $672,000 B. $97,500 per 1000 feet of crossing Cc. $178,800 per 1000 feet of crossing E. $67,200 F. $52,000 Plate No. 9 Crossing 9.1 Kasaan Peninsula to Revillagigedo Island Crossing Description: Ketchikan to Grindall Point, Kasaan Peninsula, Prince of Wales Island Cable Cost: $18,000 per 1000 feet of cable Installation: A. $6,910,000 D. $14,600 per 1000 feet of crossing E. $288,000 F. $98,000 Plate No. 10 Crossing 10.6 Behm Canal - Wasp Point Vicinity to-Pt.| Trollop Crossing Description: Pt. Trollop to Revillagigedo Island Cable Cost: $115,000 per 1000 feet of cable Installation Cost: A. $6,800,000 B. $21,500 per 1000 feet of crossing C. $32,000 E. $96,000 F. $52,000 Plate No. 11 Crossing 11 Portland Canal Crossing Description: Tombston Bay - Columbia Point Cable Crossing: $25,000 per 1000 feet of cable Installation Cost: A. $672,000 D. $178,000 per 1000 feet of crossing E. $67,200 F. $52,000 Plate No. 12 Crossing 12.2 Revillagigedo Channel, Mountain Point to Race Point Crossing Description: Mountain Point, Revillagigedo Island to Race Point, Annette Island Cable Cost: $60,000 per 1000 feet of cable eu stiO ps Installation Cost: A. $672,000 B. $97,500 per 1000 feet of crossing C. $178,800 per 1000 feet of crossing E. $67,200 ; F. $52,000 RECOMMENDATIONS Further surveys are deemed necessary with appropriate means to achieve an accurate knowledge of bottom morphology and profiles in order to select the final cable routes and to define the most appropriate protection at the shore ends. These additional surveys are particularly necessary for Crossings No. 2.1, 2.2, 7.1 and 10.6 where, according to Harding Lawson Associates interpretation of the echograms, areas of significant irregularities are present, i.e. frequent rock outcrops, rapid changes in slope’ and direction, and boulders at the base of steep approaches as seen on the landfalls. These rock outcrops, boulders and other bottom irregularities increase the risk of cable spans which can adversely affect the performance of lead sheathed submarine cables. Very few landing points satisfy the Pirelli cable route selection criteria (See Appendix A). Most of the landfalls are exposed to the action of the sea as evidenced by the number of logs present at the shore which have been washed there by strong currents. In many cases landfalls are accessible only by sea and are of insufficient depth. It is considered that it will be very costly to bury the cables and to house the land/sea joint if the landing points remain unchanged. Based on information presently available, it can be concluded that a more intensive survey(s) will allow selection of acceptable routes. In this regard, it is recommended that side scan sonar, expanded scale Fathometer and navigational equipment with high repeatability be employed. P -ll- 1. Sie APPENDIX A CRITERIA FOR CABLE ROUTE SELECTION Landing Points ° ° Good Accessibility from both land and sea sides Beach quite flat and deep enough to house the land/sea joint (if any) and pulling winch Sea bottom preferably sandy and stable, not steep, to reduce cable protection costs. Areas protected from strong wind, waves and current. Ares close to overhead lines Route Bottom as flat as possible to avoid free spans of cable. Bottom preferably muddy to obtain natural covering. Sufficiently far from - anchoring, fishing and boating activities - localized seismic areas - river mouth - areas subject to ice motion on bottom Unless strong currents are present, deep water depths and turning points along the route do not create any disadvantage during laying and service. The width of the area to be surveyed depends on water depth and ability of the cable laying vessel to accurately follow pre-plotted routes. Usually the width is approximately 3 times the water depth. The landing approach is usually carried out perpendicular to the shore line unless strong currents are present. In that case, cable direction must take into account the current influence. Crossing of Existing Services fe) In the event of unavoidable crossings, arrangements are usually agreed to between the involved utilities. When crossing existing cables, there are usually no technical restrictions on the cable (thermal problems are not significant) In crossing telephone cables, normal practice is to cross at an angle close to 90 degress. Crossings are not acceptable where existing services have free spans. When free spans are suspected, the situation should be checked by a ROV’ (Remotely Operated Vehicle). Where water depth does not impose high installation costs, it is recommended that the existing and new systems be separated by means of sand/cement bags or concrete supports. Appendix C Lpaee aces eee ck lc in ne CULTURAL RESOURCES ALONG THE ROUTE OF THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST ALASKA INTERTIE PROJECT HERBERT D. MASCHNER NORTHERN ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS REPORT SUBMITTED UNDER CONTRACT TO HARZA ENGINEFRING COMPANY TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: CHAPTER 2: CHAPTER 3: CHAPTER 4: CHAPTER 5: CHAPTER 6: CHAPTER 7: CHAPTER 8: INTRODUCTION. ceccccccccccccsccccsccseceseseseeed BACKGROUND. oo ccccccccccccccccccssccsscesessseeed STUDY APPROACH. -cccccccccccccccccsccecssccesesed THE NATIVE INHABITANTS..-ccceccccccccccccecseeel PREHISTORY OF SOUTHEAST ALASKA. ..eesesseseeee ld CULTURAL RESOURCES SITES AND SITE TYPES.......11 PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS....31 SITE LOCATIONAL PRIORITY. oscccscccccccccccsesed2 SEGMENT le ccccccccccccccccccccccsccccsscseseesesessse SEGMENT 2..cccccccccccccscccccccccsccscscsceseesese dd SEGMENT 3. cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccescecesses 30 SEGMENT Swcccccccccccccccccscccescvcccccsecessesees sl SEGMENT 6. ccccccccccccccccsccccccccccssecsscesses edd SEGMENT 7occccccccccccccccccccccccscscccscccsscc sce SEGMENT B.ccccccccccccccccscccccsccsccccccsscssee see SEGMENT 9. ccccccccccccccccccccccccccssccessessessse4d SEGMENT 10. .ccccccccccccccccccccccsccscccscccesces eS) SEGMENT ll.ccccccccccccccccccvccsccccccsscccesscese DO SEGMENT 13. cccccccccccccccccccccsccccccccccccsccescol SEGMENT 14. ..ccccccccccccccccccccccccsssssssssscsesoe CHAPTER 9: REFERENCES a MROPORARORRSE RRSRAMRPRE AEST RE ET ET APPENDIX 1: SITE FORMS cecccccccccccccccccccccscevecees sO CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION This is an overview of the cultural resources that are lo- cated along the proposed Southeast Alaska Intertie Project. The appropriate ethnographic sources as well as the site inventory in the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey file of the State Department of Natural Resources have been utilized. Eighty-three sites were located within 18 miles of the proposed intertie. A model of site location was constructed in order to rank certain segments in regards to the probability of locating cultural resources. CHAPTER 2: Southeast Alaska is one of the best known areas ethnographi- cally in Alaska yet it is one of the least known areas archaeologically. The only major archaeological surveys have been conducted as a result of State and Federal agencies monitoring lands leased for timber harvesting or as part of small energy projects (see Mobley, 1984; Ackerman, 1985; and others referenced in Chapter 7). Little if any academic research has been conducted in the area. Recent research by Dr. S. Langdon of the University of Alaska, Anchorage on the west coast of Prince of Wales Island is a notable exception (Langdon, 1987). None of these projects are in areas near the proposed intertie. Most of the surveys that have been conducted as a result of timber leases are in interior areas, few of which are applicable to this study. The areas of greatest potential for cultural resources will be along the coasts, sheltered bays, and fresh water stream outlets. Me or ~ more of these conditions are met in many areas of the intertie and will be discussed below. Recent cultural resources surveys by Campbell of the United States Forest Service (1982) and by Langdon, Reger, and Wooley (1986) have focused on fishing systems and land use by the prehis- toric and historic Tlingit and Haida Indians of Southeast Alaska. These surveys have located numerous fish weirs and fish weir com plexes at many stream outlets. These sites are located on streams Or at the mouths of streams that have seasonal salmon runs. I- have had much personal correspondence with Drs. Reger and Langdon on the distributions and locations of sites in Southeast Alaska and much of the comments I have about survey priorities are based om that correspondence. Almost no data on the sites or surveys in southeast Alaska have been published so much of the information presented below is from unpublished materials. CHAPTER 3: STUDY APPROACH As demonstrated above, the primary ecomamic focus of the Tlingit and Haida was the intense harvesting and storage of salron. In association with a dependence on salmmn, a strong orientation toward marine resources, particularly bottom fish, sea memmals, and shellfish, requires direct access to coastal and marine areas. A direct result of this dependence on aquatic resources is manifested in the distribution of settlements and the diversity of settlement types. Settlements regularly occur on the coast or on salmon spawning streams. Where these two situa- tions arise in the same place, the chance of a prehistoric or his- toric occupation is very high. Taking the above information into account, a model of site location was created based on a subjective evaluation of the literature. This model relies heavily on the role of aquatic resources and the physical environment in the subsistence system of historic Southeast Alaska Natives. For example, a stream with a heavy salmon run is not considered important if the slope above the stream is impassable or exceedingly steep, etc. It must be emphasized that not all salmon streams in southeast Alaska have been documented and a section's priority could be changed with new information. Following are categories that are use in this study. This is not intended to be a model of where to do field survey for cultural resources but rather it is intended as a guide to where cultural resources are most likely to be located. Very High Priority Areas Coastal areas with outlet of a major salmon stream and low vertical rise. Interior areas on major salmon streams with a low vertical rise. High Priority Areas Coastal areas with a fresh water stream outlet where there are no salmon or the salmon run is not known. Also included are spits or other points of land extending out into major waterways that may have acted as inter- ception points for sea mammals. Interior areas along major rivers, Streams, and lakes. Medium Priority Areas Coastal areas with a low vertical rise. Interior areas with low vertical rise that are relatively dary. Low Priority Areas Coastal areas with a steep vertical rise. Mountainous interior areas, steep slopes, muskeg bogs and other marsh areas. The above criteria were applied geographically to the study are based on review of topographic maps and aerial photographs. ~ Ancient beaches and other significant gearorphic landforms are difficult to ascertain from maps and photos in Southeast Alaska because of the vegetation. Some of the following areas will prob- ably need to be reevaluated during field reconnaissance. In Chapter 8 are summary descriptions of cultural resource potential associated with the proposed segments. Routing of the Transmission Line through a very high priority area means that there is a high probability of encountering cultural resources during construction. Routing through a low priority area means that there is a small probability of encountering cultural resources. The criteria used in this report may need revision as little field survey for cultural resources has been done in southeast Alaska. CHAPTER 4: THE NATIVE INHABITANTS The Tlingit and Haida Indians are two of the most socially complex hunting and gathering peoples in North America. The processes that led to the formation of these complex cultures can at present only be speculated but it is commonly held that these social systems are a product, at least in part, of adaptations to the Southeast Alaskan environment. The moderate temperatures and minor seasonal variation be- cause of the Japanese current, coupled with aquatic resources without equal, probably formed the foundation for the development of these societies. The salmon wes the primary aquatic resource with five species present in the region which include Chinook (king), Coho (silver), sockeye (red), pink (humpback), and the chum (dog). Herring, smelt and eulachon (candlefish) also are harvested in immense quantities. Deep water species such as halibut and several species of cod were harvested and dried during the winter. Invertabretes played a major role in the subsistence strategy. Harvested mollusks included clams, mussels, and various univalves. Sea mammals were also present including several species of whales, sea lions, hair seals, and porpoises. Land mammals were important but not as significant as the aquatic species. Sitka deer, mountain goat, black and brown bear and many small fur bearers were an integral part of the subsistence system. As stated by Niblack in 1888 "Fish and berries form the staff of life amongst the Indians of this region" (1979:276). Fish, particularly salmon, was the underlying basis for the economic stability and the political stability of these societies. The ability to predict salmon runs and then harvest and store surpluses of salmon can be compared with complex farming societies in other parts of che seed. Qnly through large surpluses could a hunting society develop a social system of social ranking, unequal distribution of wealth, and hereditary power. This dependence on salmon influenced everything in in the lives of these peoples. The size and nature of a village was in- fluenced by the size and distributions of salmon runs (Oberg 1973:56). The season of the run also was important because it limited options for other strategies. In general the sockeye come in July and remained into October. Chinook, Pink, and chum begin the run in September and lasted until December. The coho run_from November to February and the Steelhead and Dolly Varden run from February to April. Thus the mainland rivers were supplied with fish nearly year round and the large villages were to be found on the banks of the rivers. The inhabitants only needed to move in May in order to fish for eulachon to make oil (Qberg 1973, Drucker 1965). The inhabitants of the outer islands had a slightly dif- ferent subsistence pattern because not all Natives had access to streams that had large runs of all the species mentioned above. Most groups diversified their production to include deep water fish such as halibut and cod, and also sea mammals. The Natives would move to their salmon streams in summer and return in November. Groups with less access to salmon were often expert seal hunters (Cberg 1973:57). During the winter the outer island inhabitants would deep sea fish and in the spring would intensify sealing and shellfish use. This diversification of subsistence strategies “affected the allocation of resources, the modes of settlement, and the conceptions of property" (dberg 1973:57). Certain Athabascan groups also inhabited areas of southeast Alaska but documentation on these peoples is limited at best. it appears that many of the mainland drainages supported Athabascan populations until very early historic times but by the end of the nineteenth century these groups were very small or no longer existed. As described above, the natives inhabitants of Southeast Alaska represent the most complex social organization of any hunt- ing and gathering peoples in North America. This complex or- ganization results in very diversified settlements. CHAPTER 5: PREHISTORY OF SOUTHEAST ALASKA There have not been any large or regional projects aimed at understanding the prehistory of Southeast Alaska. The emerging picture is a conglameration of many small and disparate projects and studies. The most comprehensive discussion of the prehistory of the Northwest Coast culture area is by Fladmark and is based on studies done in Northern British Columbia (1975). Many of the temporal markers seen as important for British Qlumbia have been recognized in Southeast Alaska and it appears that the processes of cultural change were similar in both areas. According to Flad- mark there are two distinct periods in the development of Northwest Coast prehistory. The first extended from approximately 9,008 years ago to 5,5@8 years ago and consisted of microblade cores and microblades. Similar sites in Alaska include the Ground Fog Bay 2 site (Ackerman, 1974) the Hidden Falls site (Davis, 1984), and the Chuck Lake Site (Ackerman, 1985). These sites ap- pear to represent mobile hunters and gatherers without permanent villages and without an intensive dependence on marine resources. Approximately 5000 years ago we see a radical shift in tech- nology and land use. Rather than mobile peoples, we see and in- creasing dependence on marine resources and a technology that ap- proximates that of the Natives known historically in the region. There are many historic sites known to have been occupied prehis- 18 torically and many of these extend into this time period. Al- though there is much variability between areas these two broad temporal zones seem to be widespread. CHAPTER 6: CULTURAL RESOURCE SITES AND SITE TYPES The different types of sites and settlements that are repre- sented in Southeast Alaska are described below. In addition to Native sites, the rich and diversified history of exploration in Southeast Alaska resulted in numerous historic sites and settlements. The historic sites are also described below. Native Sites Villages are the most obvious type of settlement represented by large depressions or standing timbers that are the remins of permanent structures. Also associated with villages are cache pits, totem poles, and other permanent features. Forts are village sites in a defense locality such as a knoll or point of land. There are many reports of inter-group warfare among the Tlingit and between the Haida and Tlingit and Ppalisaded forts played a defensive role in the hostilities. Midden sites are accumulations of shells, bone and household refuse that may have been associated with an ancient village or less permanent settlements such as fish camps or hunting camps. Middens are usually only recognized by sub-surface testing, in road or beach cuts, or in the roots of fallen trees. Middens may range in size from a few square meters to thousands of square meters and up to several meters deep. rT Fish wiers can be made of stone or wood. They are usually located in intertidal areas of coves and stream mouths but are also found in many inland streams. Their primary purpose was the harvesting of salmon. These sites are very common in many areas of southeast Alaska. Fish wiers can range in size from three meters to several hundred meters across. They can be recognized by alignments of piled stones or by alignments of branches and small trees placed in the ground. Fock shelters (over hanging cliff faces) and caves were of- ten used as temporary camps. At present there are several known sites in Southeast Alaska in this category. Petroglyph sites are sites where figures or geometric pat- terns have been carved on boulders or rock out crops. In Southeast Alaska these sites are most often found in inter-tidal zones. This is a very common site type for the region. Garden sites can often be assigned to the Tlinget. Potatoes, introduced to the area in the 178s, were quickly ab- sorbed into the traditional economic system. These sites are of- ten found at summer fish camps and can be recognized by rows of furrows. Canoe ramps are found on beaches and can be recognized by parallel rows of rocks on which the Natives slid the canoe. These © ramps were constructed perpendicular to the beach line and ex- tended above the high tide line. Lithic scatters are most often ascribed to early and middle 12 Holocene peoples in Southeast Alaska. These sites are most often found on ancient beach ridges above the current high tide line. Cut trees are a commn site in the region. Trees that were notched or cut for plank or pole use are found in many areas and are easily identifiable. Cemetery sites are mostly all historic and are known to the current inhabitants. Euro-American Sites Cannery sites are common throughout the area and mostly all date to the end of the nineteenth or beginning of the twentieth century. Farm sites are less common but can be found in a few areas. These sites are characterized by a few buildings and garden plots. Mines and other sites associated with mining can be found in most areas but these are well known and and need not be discussed in detail. Trapping cabins and other cabins are the most common Euro- American sites in Southeast Alaska. These are usually located on the coast near a fresh water stream. Below is a list of the types of sites encountered in this study. The total is greater than the number of individual sites investigated because some sites have more than one component. “3 COUNT 12 14 CUM CUM COUNT PERCENT PCT SITE TYPE 2 4 1S 19 27 28 31 35 45 48 53 59 a 75 89 2.2 2.2 12.4 4.5 9.8 1.1 3.4 4.5 11.2 3.4 5.6 6.7 13.5 4.5 15.7 2.2 Russian site 4.5 State historic park 16.9 cabin 21.3 cannery 38.3 cemetery 31.5 farm 34.8 fish weir 39.3 garden 50.6 historic village 53.9 lithic scatter 59.6 mine site or mining related 66.3 other historic site 79.8 petroglyph 84.3 prehistoric village 100.8 shell midden Sites Potentially Impacted by the Transmission Line The sites listed below are sites that may be impacted directly by construction of the various transmission line segments. propriate as well as recommendations for further study. Locations of identified sites are keyed to 1:63,360 maps. tive nature of such sites, General recommendations for mitigation are made as ap- 14 Due to the sensi- these maps are not included in the report. SEGMENT 2. HAINES TO JUNEAU Segment 2.2A JUN-248. Berners Bay Jim's Grave and Petroglyph. Petroglyphs were reported at this site but none were found. Supposedly they com memorate a battle victory by the Auke tribe over the Berners Bay people. The Transmission Line will probably bypass this site. JUN-033. Comet (Seward City). Name of a landing and mining camp used at the turn of the century. A few homes were located here in the recent past. The Transmission Line will probably bypass this site. JUN-287. Point Sherman Li Station. This was the third ligh- thouse encountered from juneau to Skagway. It was first lighted on October 14, 1984 and abandoned by 1932. The Transmission Line will probably bypass this site. JUN-193. Slate Creek Village. This site was identified by an in- formant as a 500-600 year old village site. Sealaska personal lo- cated a large flat area with many cut trees but found no struc- tural remins. The Transmission Line will probably bypass this site. Segment 2.2B SKG-043. Tanani Village. Informant Paddy Goodnette reported that "there was also a big village at Tanani point which was cleaned out by an epidemic. The village was called t'ani.ni and there were four houses there in my time." This is a confimmed village 15 site and will need to be bypassed by the Transmission Line. SKG-952. Dalton Trail (Thorp Trail). This trail was originally laid out in 1897 by Jack Dalton and connected Pyramid Harbor with the Yukon Territory. It fell into disuse in the early 1900s and is at present overgrown and destroyed in some areas. Since the Transmission Line will cross this trail the significance of the impact will need to be assessed during construction. SKG-@14. Pyramid Harbor (L'chtinige). Reportedly a former Tlingit Village this was the site of a 1880s cannery and the head of the Dalton Trail. This was the site of Seward's 1869 meeting with the Chilkat Chiefs. This site will probably be bypassed by the Trans- mission line. SKG-266. Deishu Cemetery. This is a cemetery consisting of 52 graves with markers dating from 1878 to 1943. It has also been referred to as part of Yindastuki (SKG-@54). The Transmission , Line will bypass this site. Segments 2.4 JUN-234. Eagle River/ Echo Cove Trail. This is a trail that runs approximately tens miles starting at the south end of Echo Ove and going south to Eagle River. This trail is poorly marked with blaze marks in some areas and corduroy logging in spots where it crosses muskeg areas. Long sections are unrecognizable. There is no historic information associated with this trail and it was con- sidered unqualified for the National Register of Historic Places. It probably cannot be avoided on this section. Further study is 16 needed to access its significance. Segment 2.5 JUN-119. Greuning's Cabin. The home of the former Sen. Ernest Gruening. The Transmission Line will need to bypass this structure. JUN-248. Tee Harbor Petroglyph. An informant reported that “on the beach in front of the Eldon Wilson home is a large boulder with several groups of concentric circles carved on it." The Transmis- sion Line will probably bypass this site. JUN-925. Auke Bay Village. This is a Tlingit Village site reported by many sources but with no visible remains. The State of Alaska has erected picnic and camping spaces along this shoreline. The Transmission Line will probably bypass this site. JUN-299. Stabler's Cabin. This is a 1 and 1/2 story, rectangular house that was built about 1924 by Howard Douglas Stabler. The Transmission Line will pass very near this structure and an impact assessment will need to be done. Segment 2.7 JUN-315. Alaska Gastineau Mine Workers Houses 1. These struc- tures are located at JUN-176 and consists of buildings built prior to 1928 as part of the Gastineau mining operations. The Transmis- sion Line will probably bypass these structures. JUN-176. Salmon Creek Powersite #1. Structures and equipment built by Gastineau Gold Mining Company for power to operate their mining operations. L7 JUN-@81. Eldred Rock Light Station. A light tower that marks the transportation route to Skagway and Chatham Strait. The transmis- sion line will bypass this site. JUN-117. Mendenhall Road House. Two story stucco structure cur- rently being used as a single family dwelling. No danger of Im Pact by the Transmission Line. Segment 2.8 JUN-258. Peterson Creek Shell Midden. USFS reported a 28 meter x 38 meter shell midden that is at least .5 meters deep. The Trans- mission Line will probably bypass this site. JUN-251. Outer Point Garden and Midden. USFS reports a site con- sisting of a 28 meter x 40 meter garden plot on a large, flat raised beach and a low density shell midden. There were also two deeply axe cut trees on the site. The Transmission Line will bypass this site. Segment 2.9 JUN-227. Fish Creek (Anguxeye). This is a former Tlingit settle ment that was homesteaded in the 1888s. The new settlement was called fish creek and there is still evidence of the schoolhouse and other structures. The Transmission line should be able to bypass this site. SEGMENT 3. JUNEAU TO GREENS CREEK Segment _3 JUN-@45. Pildriver Cove Pictograph. Investigators were told of a Ppictograph on a rock wall near the cannery. It remains uninves- 18 tigated at present. JUN-898. Greens Creek Midden site. This midden consists of shell, charcoal and some fire altered rock. A few artifacts were recovered. The extent of this midden is not known and it should be avoided unless further investigation is undertaken. JUN-@91. Youngs Bay Midden site. This is a midden site that con- tains one historic component and two prehistoric components, based on remains found. The site has not been dated and its extent is not known. It can probably be avoided although it should be in- vestigated further if the Transmission line passes near enough to warrant. JUN-292. Hawk Inlet Cannery. These facilities were built in 1919 and in operation until 1959. The site includes smoke houses, na- tive houses, oriemtal and anglo quarters, workshops, docks, etc. Over forty structures are standing and a caretaker is present. Avoidance is the easiest recommendation at this site. JUN-236. Jacobson's Cabin. This is a two story summer cabin that has mostly fallen. This site can probably be avoided by the transmission line. JUN-237. Soldier's Additional Homestead Cabin (SAHC). This site is a fallen historic cabin om or near Soldier's Additional homes- tead claim. Historic debris are associated with the cabin. It can probably be avoided although it should be investigated further if the Transmission line passes near enough to warrant. JUN-238. Green's Creek Cabin. Fallen frame cabin used by A. Garr 19 bel and F. DeWitt during the middle twentieth century and possibly earlier. Some surface trash associated and the cabin was built with wire nails. The significance of this cabin as a historic resource is unknown at present. JUN-245. Piledriver Cove Pictograph/Petroglyph. This is a pos- sible pictograph that has not been field confirmed. The Transmis- sion line will probably pass by this site. JUN-219. Whitestone Burial. This site is reported as consisting of two adjacent graves of two adjacent rocky headlands. The aerial extent of the site is estimated at 20 meters x 20 meters. The transmission line will bypass this locality. SEGMENT 5. SNETTISHAM TO KAKE Segment 5.1 XTR-@16. This site was field checked by Sealaska investigators but no surface remins were found. The investigators claim that the vegetation is consistent with other sub-surface sites but they did not perform sub-surface testing. This is probably a site since there are major salmon streams both north and south of the location. It should be investigated further should the Transmis- sion line pass near enough to warrant. SEGMENT 6. PETERSBURG TO KAKE Segment 6.1 PET-118. Alaska Experimental Fur Farm. This farm was operated from 1939 to 1972 and consists of buildings, pens and other features. The Transmission Line will bypass this site. 28 PET-161. Mitkof Highway Burial. An apparent removed burial site 100' west of the Mitkof Highway. The remains consist of an open pit. The body is presumably removed. the Transmission Line will probably bypass this site. Segment 6.2 PET-219. Fivemile Creek Fish Weirs. Sealaska investigators lo- cated two fish weirs, each about 508 feet in diameter. These are located just below the normal water line. This site will probably be bypassed by the transmission line but the area above the weirs should be surveyed for habitations. PET-199. Wrangell Narrows Burial. A number of Native and non- Native burials are located here with dates ranging fram 1911 to 1928. This site will need to be avoided because of the current status of Native cemeteries in Alaska. Segment 6.2 PET-086. Twelvemile Cabin. This is a 180 x 18 foot trapper's cabin of planks and a roof of cedar shakes. This site can prob- ably be avoided. Segment 6.3 PET-165. Little Home Cabin Site. Several structures located within a 38.5 x 9.5m area include a shed, several collapsed enclosures, cabin remains, a smokehouse, etc. This site can prob- ably be avoided by the transmission line. Segment. 6.3 : PET-163. _Ohmer Slough Cabin. This cabin is approximately 40 21 years old. There are numerous historic artifacts associated with the cabin. The site is located within a 20 x @m area. This site can be easily avoided. PET-164. Ohmer Slough Garden. This site consists of a 3lm x 15.5m garden with no visible furrows because of dense vegetation. The site can probably be avoided. Segment 6.9 PET-253. Portage Bay Midden. Road building activities have severely disturbed this midden and little of it remains. This site could be further investigated should the Transmission line Pass near enough to warrant. PET-254. Little Gumnuk Creek Midden. This is a heavily disturbed shell midden with little chance of impact by the transmission line. The site is probably greater then 100 x 4m in extent. This site may need to be investigated further should the Transmis- sion line pass near enough to warrant. PET-255. Bunkhouse Creek Midden. This is a dense shell midden (over .75 meters deep). The actual size of the midden is not known. No other data are provided about this site. If this site cannot be avoided then it will need to be investigated further. SEGMENT 7. KAKE TO SITKA Segment 7.7 SIT-228. Jamestown Bay Shell Midden. This is a dense shell mid- den that measures approximately 25m x 3am. The midden contains shell, bone, burnt rock, and charcoal. This site is located 22 directly above the bay and will probably not be disturbed by the Transmission line. SIT-231. Russian Charcoal Pits and Midden. This is a fairly large midden that contains shell and many historic Russian artifacts. This site will need to be avoided or excavated but at present further information is necessary. SEGMENT 8. TYEE LAKE TO SWAN LAKE Segment 8.4 KET-064. The USFS reported a petroglyph on a bedrock outcrop about .5 meters above mean high tide. The design is a circle and dot motiff about .38 meters in diameter. This site can probably be avoided. There are three other petroglyph sites in the vicinity and are listed below. The descriptions are as supplied by the United States Forest Service archaeologist C. Campbell. KET-071. The USFS reported a small shelter 2 x 2 x 1.2m high which was constructed of logs or poles 6 inches in diameter. Ap- pears relatively recent but the actual date of occupation is unknown. Segment 8.5 KET-267. The USFS reported a petroglyph on a bedrock outcrop about .5 meters above mean high tide. The design is a circle and dot motiff about .38 meters in diameter. This site can probably be avoided. Segment 8.6 ale KET-@63. The USFS reported three massive stone fish weirs, the 23 remains of two wood fish weirs, and a canoe landing in the inter- tidal zone. In the woods above are three house depressions, the remains of a historic house, and a possible garden plot. KET-@65. The USFS reported a petroglyph on a bedrock outcrop about .5 meters above mean high tide. The design is a circle and dot motiff about .38 meters in diameter. This site can probably be avoided. SEGMENT 9. KETCHIKAN TO PRINCE OF WALES ISLAND Segment 9.1 KET-@72. The USFS noted historic materials that probably predate 1933 when the Ward Lake Recreation Area was developed. The materials include cores, railroad ties, and the chassis of a Model T. This site will be easily avoided by the transmission line. KET-987. Ward Lake CCC Camp Generator Foundation. This a 2x1.1x.95m concrete foundation that is the only remains of the Civilian Conservation Corps camp that was here. It was destroyed after the interned Aleuts were released during the 194%s. The Transmission Line will bypass this site. Segment 9.2 KET-214. Totem Bi Historic Park. This is a replica commmity house and 13 totem poles built as a cultural preservation resource by the USFS and the CCC program. This was acquired by the Alaska © Division of Parks as a State Historical Park. This site will need to be avoided as it is under complete protection as a Historic Park. 24 Segment 9.3 CRG-O@1. _Grindall Passage Village. This is a reported seasonal fishing camp that was field checked by Sealaska investigators but little on-site evidence was found. A post office was established here in 1980 and discontinued in 1994. The site is well known to the people of Kasaan. The transmission line can probably bypass this site. Segment 9.4 CRG-@15. _Kasaan (New Kasaan). This Village was established in the 189@s when a salmon-packing plant was located here. Haida In- dians from Old Kasaan (CRG-@28) relocated here. A post office was established in 1980 and named for the old village. If the trans- mission corridor passes through this village then further inves- tigation will be needed to assess that impact. CRG-218. _New Kasaan Totem Park. A 1938 CCC reconstruction of Chief Sonihat's Whale House, nine totem poles, several graves. This site is in the village of New Kasaan. The transmission line will probably not impact this site. CRG-@51. This is a cemetery that contains 42 graves and inscrip- tions in New Kasaan (CRG-@15). Since site is a native cemetery it will need to be avoided. Segment 9.6 CRG-@19. Salt Chuck Mines (Goodro Claims, Joker Group). This site consists of mining claims discovered in 1984 which produced copper ore and some gold, borite, and silver. Historic remains 25 include the stamp mill, a generator shop, three cabins, two sheds and other historic remains. These claims may be private and will Probably need to be avoided on legal grounds as well as historic grounds. CRG-033. Chuck Lake Petroglyph. Although reported for this area by native informants, field identification failed to locate this site. This site can probably be avoided by the transmission line. CRG-162. This site is a historic trail approximately 2.5 miles long that was first used by natives according to a 1914 letter. At that time blazes on trees were determined by the foresters to be 5@ years old which dates the trail to at least 1864. Since the trail crosses the island avoidance is impossible. Field appraisal will be necessary to best deal with this resource. CRG-177. Thorne River Site. Lithic remains were found in a road cut and a shovel test revealed more stone tools in an undisturbed context. Excavations are now being conducted by the Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. This site is very sig- nificant as it is an Early Holocene site, ome of only a few in Southeast Alaska. Further recommendations can be made only after the current excavations are completed. CRG-265. Linderman Cove 1 Site. This site contains at least nine carved boulders along a 108 foot section of beach. This site can probably be bypassed by the transmission line. 26 SEGMENT 16. SWAN LAKE TO QUARTZ HILL Segment 19.4 KET-@19. This is a possible petroglyph site but investigations did not find anything. These site can be easily avoided. Segment 19.6 KET-@28. Sealevel Mine. This was a mining camp that was developed after the discovery of gold in 1897 and was heavily used until the 1949s. There are several collapsed buildings and overgrown trails associated. The transmission Line will probably bypass this site. Segment 19.10. KET-203. A 5.7m by 4.3m cabin ruin in very poor condition. Test- ing found historic artifacts to 28cm below surface. Possibly dates from 1908-1938 and may be a Tlingit smokehouse. The Trans- mission Line will pass by this site. KET-038. The existence of this site has not been verified and there is no further data available. SEGMENT 11. QUARTZ HILL 7 PORTLAND CANAL Section 11 Martin and Tombstone Rivers. This area has not been surveyed for cultural resources but it has been found to have been the major transportation route for the Wetalth Athabascans who inhabited the Portland Canal region (Campbell 1981). It is quite likely that this pass will have mmerous cultural resource sites. 27 SEGMENT 13. TYEE LAKE TO THORNE BAY AND KETCHIKAN. KET-106. Santa Anna Inlet Cannery. Tlingit Packing Company Plan No. 2 that was in use around the turn of the century. The Trans- mission line will pass very near this site and impact will need to be determined. SEGMENT 14. HOONAH TO SITKA. Segment 14.2 and Segment 14.3 SIT-096. Muri. A recent camp and cabin were found at this site associated were pilings from a dock and several pitch trees. The. Transmission Line will pass to the west of this site. SIT-118. Kadashan Bay. Besides numerous historic remains in this bay a sub-surface site was located here. Little more of detail is available on the cultural resources of this area. The Transmis- sion Line will pass to the east of this site. SIT-182. Tenakee Inlet Burial. Reported by informants to be a grave site though little was found. The Transmission Line will Probably pass to the west of this site. SIT-848. Tenakee Petroglyph. Informants have reported petroglyphs on one of the two points that jut out from Tenakee. The Transmis- sion Line will probably pass to the east of this site. SIT-084. Tenakee Springs (Tenakee Hot Springs, Hoonah Hot Springs). Name derived from a cannery that was located here at the turn of the century. The Transmission Line will probably pass to the east of this site. ea 28 SIT-167. Indian River Burial. Sealaska investigators reported several marble gravestones on a small rise in a stand of timber. The Transmission Line will probably pass to the west of this site. SIT-181. Tenakee Springs Burial (Grave Island Cemetery). This is reported as an old cemetery with markers. The Transmission Line will need to bypass this site. Segment 14.48 SIT-238. Lake Eva. Preliminary excavation at this site revealed a multi-componant occupation and was date at over 5200 years old. This site will either need to be bypassed by the Transmission Oor- ridor or further investigated. SIT-824. Todd Cannery (Lindenburg Harbor Village). This has been reported as a Pre-Russian Village or Fort which wes later covered by the cannery. It appears the Transmission corridor will pass very near this site and further evaluation will need to made. Segment 14.4F SIT-233. Granite Creek Shell Midden. This is a very dense shell midden that may cover a 18 meter x 20 meter area. This site has been impacted by road construction and recreational activities. The Transmission Line will pass to the east of this site. SIT-027. Halibut Point Shell Midden (Halibut Point Site). This is a shell midden on an elevated beach 28 meters behind high tide. This site has been heavily impacted by erosion and recreation. The Transmission Line will pass to the east of this site. = 29 SIT-246. White Rock Shell Midden. Site consists of a shell midden on a low terrace above the high tide line. The site covers an area approximately 38 meters x 30 meters. This may have been a fort or village. The Transmission Line will. pass to the east of this site. SIT=239. Harbor Point Shell Midden. This site consists of a small, localized midden deposit. The Transmission Line will pass to the east of this site. SIT-206. Old Sitka Site (Redoubt St. Archangel). This is the site of Old Sitka that Baranof founded in 1799 and which was destroyed by the Tlingit in 1802. This important site was studied in the 193@s but bull dozed during World War II. The Transmission Line will pass to the east of this site. SIT-230. Starrigavan Garden Area. A distinct garden area with an associated cache pit. The Transmission Line will pass to the east of this site. SIT-229. Starrigavan Midden Area. A dense shell midden covering at least a 10 meter x 19 meter area. The Transmission Line will pass to the east of this site. SIT-039. Katlian Bay Petroglyph. Petroglyphs were found here of a frog and a nine-rayed sun disc with a central dot. The Trans- mission Line will pass to the east of this site. SIT-237. Mosquito Cove Shell Midden. This shell midden deposit covers an area approximately 26 meters in diameter. It is situated about 20 meters behind the high tide line. The Transmis- 38 sion Line will pass to the east of this site. CULTURAL RESOURCE SITES WITHIN CITY LIMITS The towns of Skagway, Kake, Juneau, Sitka, Ketchikan, and Petersburg have many places that are listed in the Alaska Historic Resources Survey files. These sites are not discussed in the text but many are included on the working maps. CHAPTER 7: PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS At several locations along the route of the Transmission In- tertie surveys for cultural resources have already been completed for other projects. These surveys were conducted with varying de- grees of intensity and will need to be evaluated prior to future survey along the transmission line corridor. The area near Quartz Hill was surveyed by Robert E. Ackerman and James D. Gallison of Washington State University (1981). This area includes the section of Segment 18 along Wilson Arm and on the Wilson and Blossom Rivers. It also includes the western por- tion of Segment 11. Segment 14 the majority of Tenakee Inlet has been surveyed by Robert E. Ackerman and Douglas Reger (1974). The Silver Bay-Green Lake area was surveyed by Robert Ackerman in conjunction with the Silver Bay-Green Lake Hydroelectric Project (1977). The Carroll Inlet area of Segment 8 and Segment 18 was surveyed by Robert E. Ackerman and Robert D. Shaw (1978). This project was done as part of the Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project. There have been numerous small clearance projects for timber leases in Southeast Alaska but none are directly relevant to the 31 Intertie. CHAPTER 8: SITE LOCATIONAL PRIORITY This is a complete description of each segment of the Proposed Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie in relation to the probability of locating cultural resources. Geographic descrip- tions have been provided where necessary to increase the level of resolution. SEGMENT 1. CANADIAN BORDER TO SKAGWAY Segment 1.1 From the town of Skagwey northeast to the juncture of Seg- ments 1.2 and 1.3: medium priority. The steep slopes along the Skagway River reduce the priority in this area. Segment_1.2 Qn the west side of the Skagway River between Segments 1.1 and 1.4: low priority. This is low priority because of the very steep slopes. This area is probably medium to high priority for Historic resources. Segment 1.3 GQ the west side of the Skagway River between Segments 1.1 and 1.4: low to medium priority. This is low priority because of the very steep slopes. Some areas may have a lower slope and can be classified as medium priority. This area is probably medium to high priority for Historic resources. Segment 1.4 - Along the Skagway River from the juncture of Segments 1.2 32 and 1.3 north to the juncture of Segments 1.5 and 1.6: medium priority. This area has steep slopes but same valley bottam area is present. This area is probably medium to high priority for historic resources. Segment 1.5 From the point where the Skagway River turns south north to the Canadian Border along an unnamed stream: low priority because of steep slopes and high mountains. This area is probably medium to high priority for historic resources. Segment 1.6 From the mouth of the White Pass Fork on the Skagway River north to White Pass, Canadian Border: low priority. This area is Probably medium to high priority for historic resources. SEGMENT 2. HAINES TO JUNEAU Segment 2.1 From the town of Skagway southwest across Taiya Inlet to the town of Tanani: medium to high priority near Tanani. Segment. 2.2 From the town of Tanani south to the juncture of Segments 2.3 and 2.4 on Favorite Channel north of Juneau: low priority as it is underveter. Segment 2.1A From Skagway south along Taiya Inlet to the juncture with Segments 2.1B and 2.2A: low to medium priority because of the steep slope. There may be high priority areas at some stream 33 Mouths, especially at Dayebas Creek. Segment 2.1B Connection across Chilkoot Inlet: low priority because it is underwater. Segment 2.2A From the junction with Segment 2.1A and 2.1B south to ap- proximately 10 miles north of Comet: low to medium priority be- cause of the steep slopes. The mouth of the Katzehin River is considered a high priority area. From approximately 12 miles north of Comet to just north of Berners Bay then east across the lace River and south across the Antler River: high priority. From the south bank of the Antler River south to Echo Cove: medium Priority. Fram Echo Cove to the gauging station om Favorite channel: high priority. Segment 2.2B From Tanani southwest to McClellen Flats: high priority be- cuase this is a high use area historically. From the south shore of McClellen Flats south to the north side of the Endicott River: medium priority because of the topography except some stream mouths may be considered high priority. The Endicott River Valley is considered here a high priority area. From the south side of the Endicott River Valley south to William Henry Bay: medium priority because of the high relief. From William Henry Bay south to Boat Harbor: high priority because of the low relief and the proximity to the coast. From Boat Harbor east across Lynn Canal 34 oa to the Gauging Station on the east shore of Favorite Channel: low priority because it is underwater. Segment 2.3 From the juncture of Segments 2.2 and 2.4 south along the east side of Favorite Channel to the Eagle River:medium to low priority. There are very steep slopes along this stretch of coastline. The mouth of the Eagle River should be considered high priority. Segment 2.4 From the juncture of Segments 2.2 and 2.4 pean to the Cowee Creek drainage then south up South Fork and then down Boulder Creek to the Eagle River: low to medium priority. This area is Characterized by very steep slopes. The Eagle River and Herbert River valleys should be considered high priority. From the Herbert River south to Juneau: medium to low priority because this area has very steep grades. Segment 2.5 From its juncture with Segment 2.6 south along the highway to Auke Bay: medium to high priority. This area is probably very disturbed but there is a good probability of locating historic resources. This area has probably been surveyed for cultural resources in the past. Segment 2.6 From the mouth of Eagle River south to Auke Bay: medium priority. This area is fairly steep and I have no salmon run data 35 but there are several streams and some plateau like areas. Segment 2.7 From Auke Bay southeast to Juneau: medium priority. This area is probably very disturbed and it has probably been surveyed for cultural resources in the past. Segment 2.8 From the juncture with Segments 2.2A and 2.2B south to Douglas Island: low priority as it is underwater. Segment 2.9 From the juncture of Segment 2.8 and 3.8 east along the north shore of Douglas Island to East Juneau: medium to high priority. This area is characterized by low relief and numerous small streams. SEGMENT 3. JUNEAU TO GREENS CREEK Seqnent 3 Along the west shore of Douglas Island: high priority. This area contains many small streams, low relief, and an excellent shoreline. From Douglas Island west to Young Bay, Mansfield Peninsula, Admiralty Island then south along Young Bay: high priority. From the southwest side of Young Bay southwest to near the mouth of Hawk Inlet: high priority. These two areas have all of the characteristics necessary for high priority status espe- , cially since there is an overland route here connecting Stephens Passage with Chatham Strait. Greens Creek flows north into_Hawk Inlet. This stream should be considered very high priority be- 36 a cause it supports runs of Chum and Pink salron. SEGMENT 5. SNETTISHAM TO KAKE Segment 5.1 From the powerplant on the north shore of Speel Arm, Port Snettisham, southwest along the north shore of Port Mettisham to Point Styleman on the north side of the the mouth of Port Snettisham: medium to high priority. Becuase of the steep slope for most of the rout this area is considered medium priority. Prospect Creek, which flows into Mallard Cove has runs of Chum and Pink salmon and can be considered very high priority. Segments 5.2 and 5.3 These Segments are under water and are considered low priority. Segment 5.4 From the juncture of Segments 5.2 and 5.3 in the mouth of Port Gnettisham south to Kupreanof Island then southwest to the juncture of Segments 5.5 and 5.6: high priority. The numerous small streams and low relief along the north shore of Kupreanof Island make this a high priority area. Segment 5-5 Southwest from Segment 5.4 and then south to Segment 5.7: medium to high priority. This is an inland area with low relief and numerous small streams. Segment 5.6 - South fram Segment 5.4 then southwest along Gunnuk Creek to 37 Segment 5.7: medium to high priority. This is an inland area with low relief and numerous small streams. Segment 5.7 From the juncture of Segments 5.5 and 5.6 southwest along Gannuck Creek to the town of Kake: high priority. The numerous small streams, the proximity to Kake, and the low relief make this a high priority area. SEGMENT 6. PETERSBURG TO KAKE Segment 6.1 From the existing Transmission Line west across Wrangell Narrows to near Green Point: low priority under the Narrows. From near Green Point west across Lindenberg Peninsula to Duncan Canal: very high priority. The majority of the Segment follows a stream that empties into Mitchell Slough on Duncan Canal. This stream has runs of Chum, Coho, and Pink salmon. Segment 6.2 From Protewy Point north of Petersburg north along the west coast of Frederick Sound to near the mouth of Twelvemile Creek: high priority. Proximity to the shore, low relief, and numerous small streams make this a high priority area. From near the mouth of Twelvemile Creek southwest to the. headwaters of Petersburg Creek then west to the area between Salt Chuck and Goose Cove on Portage Bay: high to very high priority. The majority of the area can be considered high priority because of the topography and mumerous streams. The headwaters of Petersburg Creek are con- 38 sidered very high priority because the stream supports runs of Chum, Coho, Pink, and Sockeye salmon. Segment 6.3 From the west end of Segment 6.1 north along Duncan Canal to just southeast of Salt Chuck: high to very high priority. This area has low relief, access to the coast, and many small streams. The mouth of Duncan Creek is considered here very high priority because it has runs of Chum, Coho and Pink salmon. Segment 6.4 From Segment 6.3 to Segment 6.7 along the east side of Salt Chuck: high priority. Low relief and shore access are important but areas of this Segment may be low priority due to marsh or standing water. Segment 6.5 From the west end of Segment 6.1 west across Duncan Canal then northwest across the island to just south of Hamilton Creek: high priority. There are no reported salmon streams along this part of Segment 6.5 but there are enough streams and low relief areas to justify this as a high priority area. From just south of Hamilton Creek, across Hamilton Creek northwest to Cathedral Falls Creek: very high priority. Hamilton Creek and Cathedral Falls Creek support rums of Chum and Pink salmon. The salmon combined with access to the coast and low relief justify this classification. i 39 Segment 6.6 From the juncture of Segment 6.3 and 6.4 southeast of Salt Chuck west across North Arm to North of Towers Lake: very high priority. The streams that flow east out of Towers Lake and into Towers Arm have runs of Coho and Pink Salmon. Some of this area may be marsh which would alter the status. From west of Towers Lake across the headwaters of the Hamilton Creek drainage and then to the Cathedral Falls Creek drainage:very high priority. These two streams have runs of Chum and Pink salmon and access to the shore. Marshes along this route could result in a change of status. Segment 6.7 From the juncture of Segments 6.2 and 6.4 southwest of Goose Cove west to just east of the Bohemian Range: high priority. This area contains several streams and low relief. Marshes in this area could alter the status. From west of the Bohemian Range west to the Cathedral Creek Drainage and on to the juncture with Seg- ment 6.8: very high priority because of the Chum and Pink salmon run in Cathedral Creek. Segment 6.8 From northwest of Cathedral Creek northwest to Slo Duc Creek and then north to Segments 6.7 and 6.9: high to very high priority. This area contains several small streams, has slight relief and shore success. = 4 Segment 6.9 From the junction of Segments 6.7 and 6.8 west to Portage Bay then north along the coast to Kake: very high priority. The coast, the several small streams and the low relief coupled with the knowledge that cultural resources are already known in this area justify a very high priority status. SEGMENT 7. KAKE TO SITKA Segment 7.1 From Kake northwest to just north of Point White: high priority. The area has low grades and several stream which are reported to have salmon runs. From Kupreanof Island west to Baranof Island and west to Baranof Lake: medium to high priority. The shore access and the several small streams in the area are im- portant but the steep topography lower the priority in this area. Segment 7.2 Northwest from Baranof Lake and then west through the moun- tains to the juncture with Segments 7.4 and 7.5: low priority. The mountainous character of this area is the determining factor. Segment 7.3 Along the north shore of Baranof Lake and west along the Baranof River to Segments 7.4 and 7.5: medium priority. This is medium because of Baranof Lake and the broad floodplain along the Baranof River. Segment 7.4 = From the Baranof River north to the stream that empties into 41 Blue Lake, the juncture of Segments 7.2 and 7.6: low priority. This area has very steep slopes. Segnent 7.5 From the south end of Segment 7.4 west along the upper reaches of the Baranof River and on to Medveive Lake and Bear Cove: low to medium priority because of very steep slopes. From Bear Cove northwest along Silver Bay to just west of Herring Cove: medium priority. This area has very steep slopes but also has several streams and shore access. Segment 7.6 From the north end of Segment 7.4 west along the south shore of Blue Lake Segment 7.5 just west of Herring Cove: medium priority. The lake and small streams are offset by the steep slopes over most of the route. Segment 7.7 From just west of Herring Cove west along Eastern Channel to the town of Sitka: high priority. This area has shallow slopes, shore access and small streams. There-is also a high priority for location of historic resources in this area. SEGMENT 8. TYEE LAKE TO SWAN LAKE Segment 8.1 From the mouth of Tyee Creek on Bradfield Canal west to Eagle Bay: low priority do to steep vertical rise. Eagle Bay southeast along Eagle River to the juncture of Segments 8.2 and 8.3: very high priority due to low vertical rise and salmon mns. 42 Eagle River maintains runs of Chinook, Chum, Coho, and Pink salmon. Segment 8.2 Along the east shore of Eagle Lake: generally medium priority due to the steep grade. High priority at the outlets of €@ small stream that empties into the lake from the east. From the south end of Eagle Lake to Bell Arm: moderate to low priority. The area has moderately steep slopes but may have been used as an overland route between Bradfield Canal and Bell Arm. From Bell Arm south to Behm Canal: high priority, especially at stream outlets. 8.3 Along the west shore of Eagle Lake: generally medium priority due to the steep grade. High priority at the outlets of two small streams that drain into the lake from the west. Fram the southwest side of Eagle Lake south across Bell Island to Betm Narrows: medium priority because of steep slopes except in the Bell Island Lakes area where salmon runs are reported which are considered high priority. The juncture of Segments 8.3 and 8.4 should be considered very high priority as both Long Lake and Eagle Creek have substantial runs of salmon. Segment 8.4 To the North shore of Revillagigedo Island at the outlets of Beaver Creek and the stream that drains from Long Lake on the west: very high priority due to runs of chum and coho salmon. 43 South to the headwaters of beaver creek: high priority due to sal- mon runs but possibly offset by moderately steep slopes. From the headwaters of Klam creek southwest to Klu Bay: moderate to high priority. There is a chum run in Klam Creek but the slopes are very steep. Segment 8.5 From Segment 8.4 near Klu Bay southeast to Segment 8.19: high priority at Klu Creek, Cedar Lake and near Orchard Creek but no known salmon runs. Low priority on steep slopes between Klu Creek and Orchard Creek. From the juncture of Segments 8.8 and 8.9 southeast to Orchard Creek and then southwest to Carrol Creek: low priority because of steep slopes except where tie Segment crosses Orchard Creek which is high priority. Carrol Creek south to Carrol Inlet: very high priority. Carrol Creek maintains mms of Chum, Coho, and Pink salmon and has many low grade areas. From the mouth of Carrol Creek to Falls Creek (east shore of Carrol Inlet): low priority along steep slopes, moderate priority at stream outlets. Segment 8.6 Klam Creek is considered very high priority as it has runs of Chum and Pink salmon. Southwest from Klam Creek, across Shrimp Bay to Neets Bay: medium to high priority because of streams and low relief. Neets Creek to its headwaters and the juncture with Segment 8.5 is considered very high priority because of its salmon run. 4s Segment 8.7 From the headwaters of Carroll Creek down to the mouth of Carroll Creek is considered very high priority because of Chun, Coho, and Pink salmon runs. From the mouth of Carroll Creek along the east shore of Carroll Inlet to the Gauging Station at Falls Creek is considered medium priority because of the steep slopes in SEGMENT 9. KETCHIKAN TO PRINCE OF WALES ISLAND Segment 9.1 From the upper end of Ward Cove northwest to upper Ward Creek: very high priority. Ward Creek supports runs of Chinook, Qoho, Pink amd Sockeye salmon. If the route is nearer to Slide Ridge than Ward Creek then moderate to low priority. From upper Ward Creek north and northwest to Clover Passage: moderate to high priority primarily because of the numerous small streams. The Segment over slide ridge: moderate to low priority. Segment 9.2 From Ward Cove northwest to Whipple Creek then North to Clover Passage: moderate to high priority. The low relief and Mumerous small streams and nearness to the coast make this a high priority. The farther inland the route the less the priority. Seqnent_9.3 From the west shore of Revillagigedo Island on Clover Pas- sage west across Clarence Strait to Grindall Point, Kasaan Peninsula, Prince of Wales Island: high priority. There are no 45 reported salmon streams on Grindall Point but its position on Kasaan Bay, the low coastline and shallow relief make this a high Priority area. From Grindall Point north along the east shore of the Kasaan Peninsula to Segment 9.4: high priority. There are numerous small streams and areas of low relief long this coast. Segment 9.4 From Lyman Anchorage on the east side of the Kasaan Penin- sula west to Kasaan Bay: medium priority. This may have been a Na- tive trial which would increase the priority. Northwest to the village of Kasaan: moderate to high priority. There are very steep slopes along this Segment of the route but there may be cul- turally significant resources because of a proximity to Kasaan. From Kasaan to to juncture of Segments 9.5 and 9.6 south of Tolstoi Bay: very high priority. The small streams that flow north into Tolstoi Bay support runs of Chum and Pink salmon. Segment 9.5 From Lyman Anchorage to Windfall Harbor: high priority be- cause of the numerous streams and the low beach line. From Windfall Harbor west to the juncture of Segments 9.4 and 9.6 near Tolstoi Bay: very high priority. The stream flowing east into Windfall Harbor and the streams flowing north into Tolstoi Bay maintain runs of Chum and Pink Salmon. Segment 9.6 From the juncture of Segments 9.4 and 9.5 near Tolstoi Bay northwest to Salt Chuck then north to the Thorne River: high 46 priority. There are numerous small streams in this area and the relief is low. Same low areas between Salt Chuck and the Thorne River may be low priority due to standing water. The Thorne River can be considered very high priority as it supports runs of Chinook, Coho, Pink, and Sockeye salmon. SEGMENT 18. SWAN LAKE TO QUARTZ HILL Segnent. 19.1 Fram Falls Creek (gauging station) on the east shore of Car- rol Inlet south to the split to Segments 18.2 and 18.3: low priority on steep slopes, high priority at stream outlets, espe- cially Calamity Creek and Marble Creek. Segment 19.2 Fram Segment 18.1 south along Carrol Inlet to Shoal Creek junction of Segments 19.4 and 19.5: very high priority. This is due to the shallow grade along the inlet and the Pink salmon run in Shoal Creek. Fram Shoal Creek southeast to the junction of Segments 19.4 and 18.5: very high priority. Segment 19.3 From Segment 18.1 near Marble Creek on Carrol Inlet southeast to Segment 198.6 on Princess Bay: except for the steep mountain slopes which are low priority this is a very high priority Segment. Nearly every stream that drains this area sup- ports runs of chum, pink, and coho salmon. These include the headwaters of streams draining into Shoal Cove on Carrol Inlet, the Fish Creek system, the Gokachin Lakes system, and the streams 47 that drain south into the north end of Princess Arm. The section of Segment 18.3 that is under water in Behm Canal can be con- sidered low priority. Segments 19.4 From Segment 19.2 east to the junction of Segments 18.6 and 18.8: very high priority. The streams that empty into Thorne Am have runs of Chum, Coho, Pink, and Sockeye Salmon, especially Fish Creek and Silver Creek and their tributaries. Segment 10.5 From the juncture of Segments 18.2 and 18.4 south to the northwest end of Thorne Arm: very high priority. This smll sec— tion is characterized by low relief and known salmon streams. From the northeast side of Thorne Arm south along Thorne Arm to near Eve Point: medium priority. This area is characterized by steep slopes and no reported salmon streams. The section running west from Eve Point across Thorne Arm can be considered low priority. Segment 10.6 From the north end of Thorne Arm south along Thorne Arm to the junction with Segment 18.7: high priority. There are Chum, Coho, and Pink Salmon runs in Gokachin Creek and its' headwaters in the Gokachin Lakes. There are also runs in the streams that drain south into Princess Arm. Segment 19.7 - From the junction of Segments 18.5 and 18.6 on the east side 48 of Thorne Arm south and east to Behm Canal: high to very high priority. This is due to the low relief and the numerous stream outlets. The streams draining into Behm Canal have reported runs of Chum and Pink salmon. Segment 19.8 From the junction of Segments 18.4 and 18.6 northeast of Thorne Arm to the southeast across Gokachin Creek and along Sea Level Creek: very high priority. These streams maintain runs of Pink, Coho, and Sockeye salmon. From the headwaters of Sea Level Creek southeast to Behm Canal: medium priority except on the coast where there are several outlet streams which are considered a high priority area. If Segment 18.8 crosses Ridyerd Island then the Island should be considered a very high priority area because is- lands were utilized intensively in aboriginal times. That portion of Segment 18.8 underneath Behm Canal can be considered low priority. At the juncture of Segments 19.8 and 18.7 am the south side of the mouth of Smeaton Bay there is a high probability of encountering cultural resources. Most low relief points of land at the junctures of major water ways should be considered high priority. Segnent_ 19.9 The mouth of Gneaton Bay, north shore: high priority because of the low relief and shoreline. From the east side of Behm Canal om the north shore of Gneaton Bay east to the mouth of Bartholanew Creek. Low Priority because of the steep slope. Fram the mouth 49 of Bartholomew Creek northeast to the headwaters of Bartholamew Creek: very high priority. Bartholamew Creek has runs of Coho, Pink, and Sockeye salmon. The steep slopes May reduce the Priority farther up stream. From the headwaters of Bartholomew Creek east to Wilson and Blossom Rivers at the north end of Wilson Arm to near Quartz Hill: very high priority. The Wilson and Blos- som Rivers and their tributaries support runs of Chinook, Chum (>58,088 fish), Coho, Pink (>58,0008 fish), and Sockeye salmon. Fach river and several of their tributaries have large floodplains creating one of the highest priority areas on the Intertie. Segment 10.10 The area below Smeaton Arm can be considered low priority. From the mouth of Wilson Arm northeast to the mouth of Tunnel Creek: medium priority because of the relatively steep slopes along this shore. From the mouth of Tumnel Creek to the head- waters of Tunnel Creek: very high priority because of runs of Pink and Chum salmon. From the headwaters of Tunnel Creek to Quartz Hill: low priority. Segment 11. QUARTZ HILL TO PORTLAND CANAL From Quartz Hill to east down Hill Creek to Keta River then southeast along Red Creek to the Martin River: very high priority. The Keta River and its tributaries have runs of Chinook, Chin, Qoho and Pink (>58,@00 fish) salmon. The Martin River has runs of Chinook, Chum, Obho and Pink (>58,000 fish) salmon. From the headwaters of the Martin River west to Tombstone Bay on Portland 58 Canal: very high priority. The stream that drains into Tombstone Bay has runs of Chinook, Chum, Oho and Pink salmon. The lower areas of this stream have fairly steep slopes which may reduce the priority in same areas. SEGMENT 13. TYEE LAKE TO THORNE BAY AND KETCHIKAN Segment 13.9 The Eagle River drainage is considered very high priority because of the massive salmon runs there. Fram Eagle river to Seward Passage is medium to low priority except in the valley of the East Fork of the Anon River which has runs of Chum, Ooho, and Pink salmon. The East Fork is considered high priority. South along Seward Passage to Santa Anna Inlet is considered medium priority because of the steep slopes. The Helen Lake drainage is considered very high priority because of the Coho, Pink, and Sockeye salmon runs. From the south side of Lake Helen south to Wasta Creek is considered low priority. The Wasta Creek drainage is considered very high priority because of Coho, Chum, and Pink salmon runs. From the south side of Wasta Creek to the headwaters of Bear Creek is medium priority. Segment 13.2 From the headwaters of Bear Creek to just south of Union Bay is very high priority because of runs of Coho, Chum, and Pink salmon. The segment across Clarence Strait is considered low priority. From Thorne Head to Thorne Bay is generally medium priority except on the shore which is considered high priority. 51 Segment 13.3 From the headwaters of Bear Creek southeast along the south shore of Helm Bay is medium priority. The point of land at the southeast end of Helm Bay is considered high priority. The por- tion that crosses Behm Canal is considered low priority. From the coast to Ketchikan is considered medium priority. This area has probably been surveyed for cultural resources. SEGMENT 14. HOONAH TO SITKA Segment 14.1 The portion that crosses the north end of Chichagof Island to Hoonah is a very high priority section. The numerous salnon streams and low relief are significant for this area. This is especially important near the mouth of Spasski Creek which has Pink and Chum salmon runs in excess of 58,888 fish for each species. Gartina Creek near Hoonah also has runs of Pinks and Chums and is considered very high priority. Segment_14.2 _ The area from Hoonah to the headwaters of Game Creek is con- sidered very high ran Gartina Creek has runs of Pink and Chum salmon and Game Creek has runs of Pink Salmon (>50,800) and Chum salmon. From the North Fork of Freshwater Creek east to Freshwater Creek and to the headwaters of Freshwater Creek: very high priority. The North Fork of Freshwater Creek has runs of Pink and Chum salmon. Freshwater has runs of Coho, -Pink (>58,803), Chum, and Sockeye salmon. Both areas have relatively 52 low relief. From the head of the Indian River to Tenakee Inlet: very high priority. This area is characterized by low relief and runs of Pink salmon. Segment 14.3 From Tenakee across Tenakee Inlet: low priority underwater. From the south shore of Tenakee Inlet south up the Kadashan River to the headwaters of the Kadashan River: very high priority. The Kadashan River has Chum and Pink (>58,000) salmon. From the head- waters of the streams that flow east into Sitkoh Bay to the junc- ture with Segment 13.1: very high priority because these streams have runs of Chum, Pink, and Sockeye salmon. Segment 14.4A From the headwaters of the streams that flow east into Sit- koh Bay south and west to Peril Strait is fairly mountainous and is considered low priority. The north shore of Sitkoh Lake can be considered medium priority. The part that runs across Peril Strait is considered low priority. From the south shore of Peril Strait west to the stream valley flowing into Appleton Cove and south to the headwaters of that stream: medium to high priority. The are in the Rodman Creek valley is considered high priority be- cause of Chum, Coho, and Pink (>58,000) salmon runs. From the south side of Rodman Creek to Fish Bay Creek is low priority but the Fish Bay Creek area is considered high priority because of the Pink and Chum salmon run. From Fish Bay Creek south to Nakwasina Passage is considered low priority. The area along the north 53 dtl sf yn " ai nemsaccek OOM YLT” "" shore of Nakwasina Passage is considered high priority. Segment 14.4B From the headwaters of the streams that flow east into Sit- koh Bay south to Sitkoh Lake: very high priority because of Chun, Pink, and Sockeye runs in Sitkoh Creek. Fram the southeast side of Sitkoh Lake to Todd: low priority. This area is very moun- tainous ent contains no major salmon streams. The section that crosses Peril Strait is considered low priority. From the south shore of Peril Strait to the headwaters of the stream that flows into Lake Eva is considered very high priority because this stream has runs of sockeye, chum, and pink salmon. From the headwaters of this stream to the juncture with Segment 13.5 is very moun- tainous and is considered very low priority. Segment _14.4¢ From the juncture with Segment 13.2 south along Nakwasina Sound to the stream valley northwest of Cedar Cove is medium priority. The above mentioned stream valley is considered high priority because of Pink and Chum salmon runs. West along the north shore of Katlian Bay to the northeast side of Katlian Bay is considered medium to high priority. Segment 14.4D From the juncture with Segment 13.2 south to the northeast side of Katlian Bay is considered low to medium priority. Segment 14.4E - This small segment connects other segments across the Kat- 54 lian River and is considered a very high priority segment because of the low relief and the Pink and Chum salmon runs. Segment 14.4F Along the south shore of Katlian Bay is considered medium priority. From the mouth of Katlian Bay to Sitka is considered a high priority area because of the nature of the coastline. Segment 14.46 From the southeast side of Katlian Bay south to the head- waters of the stream flowing north to Katlian Bay: medium priority. From the headwaters of the Indian river south to Sitka is considered very high priority. The Indian River supports runs of Pink and Chum salmon. Segment 14.5 From the headwaters of the streams that flow east into Sit- koh Bay east and southeast to Chatham Strait: very high priority at Chatham Strait because the Transmission Corridor follows a stream that has runs of Chum and Pink salmon. The area underwater in Chatham Strait is considered low priority. 55) CHAPTER 9: REFERENCES CITED Ackerman, R.E. n.d. REPORT TO THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE OF AREAS UNDER SURVEY FOR FIVE YEAR CUTTING PROPOSAL, A.L.P., (August 1 - September 15, 1974), Report on file, Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Office of History and Archaeology. Ackerman, R.E. 1977 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD AND DAM IMPOUNDMENT AREA: SILVER BAY — GREEN LAKE RHXGION, BARANOF ISLAND, ALASKA, Report to W.R. Beck and Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA. Ackerman, R.E. and J.D. Gallison 1981 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY, QUARTZ HILL PROJECT (UNITED STATES BORAX AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION AND PACIFIC NORTHWEST MOLYBDENUM COMPANY) MISTY FIORDS NATIONAL MONUMENT SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA, Report submitted to VIN Consolidated, Inc. Ackerman, R.E., K.C. Reid, J.D. Gallison, M.E. Foe 1985 ARCHAEOLOGY OF HECETA ISLAND: A SURVEY OF 16 TIMBER HARVEST UNITS IN THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA, Center for Northwest Archaeology, Washington State University, Pullman. 56 Ackerman, R.E. and R.D. Shaw 1978 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY, SWAN LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, REVILLAGIGEDO ISLAND, SOUTHEAST ALASKA, Report prepared for W.R. Beck and Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA. Atkinson, C.E., J.H. Rose, and T.O. Duncan 1967 INTERNATIONAL NORTH PACIFIC FISHERIES COMMISSION, BULLETIN NUMBER 23, SALMON OF THE NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN, Chapter 4 "Pacific Salmon in the United States," p. 43-223. Vancouver, Canada. Campbell, C. R. 1981 THE WETALTH ATHABASCANS OF SOUTHERN SOUTHEAST ALASKA, Paper presented to the 8th Annual Alaska Anthropo- logical Association meeting, Fairbanks, Alaska. 1982 ANADROMUS SALMON WEIRS AND ASSOCIATED CULTURAL FEATURES IN SOUTHERN SOUTHEAST ALASKA. Paper presented to the 9th Annual Alaska Anthropological Association meeting, Fairbanks, Alaska. Davis, S.D. ed. 1984 THE FALLS SITE, BARANOF ISLAND, ALASKA, manuscript on file, USDA Forest Service, Chatham Area, Sitka, Alaska. Drucker, P. 1965 INDIANS OF THE NORTH PACIFIC COAST, Chandler Press, San Francisco. 57 Fladmark, K. 1975 "A Paleoecological Model for Northwest Coast Prehistory," MERCURY SERIES, NO. 43, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF CANADA, NATIONAL MUSEIM OF MAN, Ottawa. Langdon, S.J. 1987 TLINGIT PROPERTY RIGHTS AND FISHING STRUCTURES ON THE WEST COAST OF THE PRINCE OF WALES ARCHIPELIGO: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS, Paper presented to the 14th Annual Alaska Anthropological Association meeting, Anchorage, Alaska. Langdon, S.J., D.R. Reger, and C. Wooley 1986 USING AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS TO LOCATE INTERTIDAL STONE FISHING STRUCTURES IN THE PRINCE OF WALES ARCHIPELAGO, SOUTHEAST ALASKA, umpublished document in the files of the Office of History and Archaeology, Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage. Mobley, C.M. 1984 AN ARCHAECLOGICAL SURVEY OF 15 TIMBER HARVEST UNITS AT NALKATI BAY ON PRINCE OF WALES ISLAND, TONGASS WATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA, Report to the USDA Forest Service, Ketchikan. Niblack, A.P. 1898 “The Coast Indians of Southern Alaska and Northern British Columbia," ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1888, U.S. NATIONAL MUSHIM, pp. 225-386. 58 THE SOCIAL ECONOMY OF THE TLINGIT INDIANS, University of Washington Press, Seattle. 59 APPENDIX 1 Restrictions The following site forms have a restricted distribution. This refers to the distribution of these reports to the general Public. The following statement is quoted from Document No. 2717, CULTURAL INVESTIGATIONS 1979-1965, VOLUME VI, APPENDICES E AND F, by E. James Dixon, et. al., University of Alaska Museum, 1985, page E-i: “A number of federal laws, as well as ethical considerations, mandate that site locational data not be released to the general public if there is a possibility that the release of this proprietary data could create a risk of harm to such resources. The specific laws and ethical standards concerning the confidentiality of such data are summarized below: (a) The National Historic Preservation Act, 1966 (Public Law 89-665), Title I, Section 191, (a) 4. Information relating to the location of sites or objects listed on, or eligible for, in- clusion in the National Register, should be withheld from the general public if it would create a risk of destruction or harm to such sites or objects. (b) Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic | Preservation, 36 CFR 800, Part 880.15(a). Information concerning the undertaking and effects of sites on or eligible for the N- tional Register, should be made available to the general public within the limits of the Freedam of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 68 552), but need not include information on budget, financial, per- sonal and other proprietary matters, or the specific location of archeological sites. (c) Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-95), Section 9(a). Information concerning the na- ture and location of any archeological resource for which the ex- cavation or removal requires a permit or other permission under this Act or under any other provision of Federal Law, may not be made available to the public unless the federal land manager con- cerned determines that such disclosure would not create a risk of harm to such resources or to the sites at which such resources are located. (d) Code of Ethics and Standards of Performance for the Society of Professional Archeologists, Section. III, 3.2. An ar- cheologist shall not reveal confidential information unless required by law." 61 Appendix D | aoe alae eee esos APPENDIX D PUBLIC AND AGENCY CONTACTS hes Se A ations FS HEE “Een aes v ‘ a] 5 3 . - 9 Tel hua aten er Mein linac TES RMSE SERRA Tp ay % AGENCY DATE U.S.F.S. 9/22/86 (Ketchikan) State of Alaska 9/30/86 Division of Geo- logical and Geo- physical Surveys, Cadastral Survey Section U. S. Army Corps 10/1/86 of Engineers Alaska District. State of Alaska 10/2/86 Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys WD2 AGENCY YONTACT DOCUMENTATION FORM | AGENCY/ORGANIZATION CONTACTS ! ' ‘ SOURCE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE COMMENT / ISSUE Introductory meeting with Win Green, Forest Supervisor Introductory meeting with Jerome Pape, State Cadastral Surveyor Introductory meeting with Larry Reeder, Regulatory Functions Branch Introductory meeting with Doug Jones, Chief Resource Analysis t ' Page / of INFORMATION RECEIVED a Assignment of contact individuals for each region of the Tongass National Forest None None None fo res TIE - Oe ress 03} ee i= jos Ea ZY PEI CONSULTANTS ' wow eR uw & & oa 56 > o o > o o° % «a z $ @G Ee 2 G oO © wu 39 oo = < ix o 8 6 a a 2 c o San iIxwo otw Og Ban ozo Fa5 ED 2 a5 “FE Ww < SCALE eee AG OATE COMMENTS Bi ta Devoe — ny ) Poa. Ww VG _ Dap Lederer Fiehe willl % Dt Trams, — FAA USES — Stiktue Are vets — Cail avn wee Sten CNR @ Bites, Oizeeh:, ie apurabedh IS>-27 STAG Plots Zr, Ctl « Sas eae, oe City of ska Sloe Duh Prorat Muy aXe Cok, Een” Cop» Lox Corp- Ske — DES LS Lost Gy pach SES" Bud brtionn, Neen 6 sy J2- ZI- Be Sst Chevdy, Gos Nae es i 1 A. sb Cannt Gada te Vikan aad \y Sob. 7-14-27 Clag ON ecm Ener vsosiht by Irak | ta, Ses _f i avoloing Kloot a. (7 4 Ia L Nad a 22-87 I Necoes Regal Medic eins 7 | eateries Ur apseens wu, Play sites Gow) iach wry J-29-27 [ra Jorakron | Garren Cavenay Ae. So Biale easliag, easel Secdivp bales J-Z -87 Sola Crow seni Gao. ben ne Sov “babwdime ne Reesspers an I Nt I2-IB-BL Nee Rdbud Lymn | Keke Pubwibung Sey. — ecnpessces jCemamct iw C165 12-15-84 \Cou| Puvaesen oe ward Cone Des PiCwviceie?, uwaad, — Sal ke, caren oaps (-6-37 wd. Fite Hishoric Orns hy Sey eaprenad art Cone Galilasesl VPS. See I-15-27 riches Sadi] Su 442° tek) red ha Sy il ne )-G- 37 ed Mobecon. Kien 4 ‘ual ris Cocks j ua swath, 1791 /-Z) -27 Cd ep lien Po AQ Ve pes - J AY spelt Row) 4 ’ a - a a : /}-5-37 Deewana lakis es Pare _ an le for a proposed Ad jeogee 1-38-37 Cea, 4S. Naw\), fle commas Ou. Vela d Proposed Bern aXe )-78-8) suayrelal olen Aa Me flue 5 gue B- BC. SOUTHEAST ALASKA INTERTIE STUDY (TRANSCRIPT OF A PRESENTATION TO THE SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE, IN PETERSBURG, ALASKA, BY G.J. KOCIAN, HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY SEPTEMBER 16, 1986) Good Afternoon, As Mr. Heath has explained, my company, Harza Engineering, has been selected to perform the Southeast Intertie Study. My name is Gene Kocian and I am Harza's Project Manager for this work. The purpose of this study is to determine the most suitable routes for power transmission interconnections between the various load centers and generation sources in Southeast Alaska, and to prioritize the routes. By that I mean, we will rank each transmission segment according to near-term need, cost, constructibility, environmental impact, etc. The transmission interconnections to be considered are as follows: Skagway - Whitehorse, Yukon Skagway - Haines - Juneau Douglas Island - Young Bay Hawk Inlet - Whitestone Bay Juneau/Snettisham - Kake Kake - Petersburg Kake - Takatz Lake Tyee Lake - Swan Lake Ketchikan - Prince of Wales Quartz Hill - Kitsault, B.C. and Possibly, ° Ketchikan - Prince Rupert, B.C. The study has been divided into two phases. The first phase will be selection of preliminary routes, and data collection including bathymetric surveys of several proposed submarine cable routes. The second phase will be the preliminary design -of the transmission facilities for each interconnection, cost estimates and economic analyses resulting in the priority ranking of one transmission link versus another. The final product of the study will be a written report to the Power Authority documenting the work performed and the study results, and giving a summarization of the data collected. To assist us in performing the work we have subcontracted with three Alaskan firms. These are: PEI Consultants, of Ketchikan, who most of you know as Pool Engineering; Harding Lawson Associates of Anchorage; and Northern Archaeological Consultants, Iincs, also of Anchorage . AY fiojuint/h) |£ixmm, | Picel ly cable Corioration, a major supplier and designer of submarine cable, is also a Harza subcontractor on this project. PEI Consultants will head up the effort to collect relevant existing data to support the preliminary route selection work in Phase One. They will also coordinate contacts with the various interested State and Federal Agencies and will be the day-to-day contact for communications with the Southeast communities and utilities. PEI will also obtain the necessary permits and authorizations required for this study and prepare a list of permits and authorizations likely to be required for future implementation of the proposed interconnections. They will prepare current land use and land cover maps and will review each transmission segment's constructibility and access requirements. Don Fordney, who many of you may already know, will be in charge of this effort by PEI. Please feel free to call him, in Ketchikan, with your questions and comments regarding the project. Harding Lawson Associates will perform bathymetric surveys of approximately 10 potential submarine cable routes throughout Southeast Alaska. To facilitate this work they are planning to charter a vessel from Ketchikan.* The submarine routes to be surveyed are, tentatively, as follows: ° Berner's Bay to Haines * Douglas Island - Young Bay on Admiralty Island (Green's Creek) ° Hawk Inlet - Whitestone Bay on Chichagof Island °* Kake - Snettisham - Juneau, via Stephens Passaqe & Fredrick Sound Kake - Takatz Lake Area, for a line to Sitka ° Underwater Portions of a Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie * Underwater portions of Ketchikan - Quartz Hill Line and, ° Ketchikan - Prince of Wales Island Pirelli Cable of New Jersey will provide guidance for the underwater survey and will perform preliminary submarine cable selection and design. They will prepare submarine cable cost estimates and a report describing the cable installation procedures for the various cable segments. . Northern Archaeological Consultants will review existing literature and aerial photographs to identify existing and potential cultural resource sites as input to the route selection and priority ranking of the proposed transmission lines. *® Subsequently changed to Juneau Harza will provide overall project management for the study and will also have overall responsibility for it. We will perform the route selection for overland routes, the environmental review and impact ranking for each route, civil, electrical and overall transmission line cost estimates, economic analyses and preparation of the study report. The study is scheduled as follows: Notice to proceed was given last Friday. Data collection has already commenced. Review of collected data and preliminary selection for the submarine cable routes will take about one month. ° The bathymetric surveys are tentatively planned to start in mid-October and will take about two to three weeks. ° Selection of not more than two overland routes per overland segment will proceed in November. We are planning to conduct public and agency meetings in Southeat Alaska at the end of Phase One route selection and before we begin the preliminary design and cost estimating activities. These would be conducted towards the end of November. * Phase One route selection will be completed by mid December 1986. °* Phase Two preliminary design and cost estimates are planned to be completed by mid-January 1987. * Economic analysis, priority ranking and the draft report are scheduled to be completed by mid-February. ° Power Authority review and the final report are scheduled to be completed by mid-March, 1987. I'd like to restate at this time that the purpose of the study is to select and prioritize the transmission routes that will ultimately compose an interconnected regional power system for Southeast Alaska. The study now underway is not a detailed feasibility analysis, nor is it an environmental impact assessment. It is, however, the next logical step towards implementation of the intertie. In this effort we will need your cooperation and input. I ask those of you from major load centers to start considering possible areas for substation locations and transmission corridor approaches to your communities. We need your input to eliminate from consideration potential transmission corridors that are incompatible with your future development plans. Another very important part of this study is the development of credible electric load growth forecasts. I urge you to cooperate with R.W. Beck and the Power Authority in the next few weeks and to furnish them with the information they need to update the electric load forecast for your community. Thank you. a. Rocerd mm. (1-2) 70 * Untied etee Depertment of Agrientture x a c. Forest ($6) ‘orest Service 05 f. Kind ef wee (13-15) Feasibility410 e@. User number (9-12) 2005 h. County (18-20) Alaska 02 | NONE 000 SPECIAL USE PERMIT : Act of June 4, 1897 ‘This permit is revecable and aontrenaferble (Ref. F $a 2710) . @. Stare (16-17) k. Card me. (21) 1 Permission is hereby granted to__Alaska Power Authority of_P.0. Box 190869, Anchorage, AK 99519 . hereinafter calied the pemnittee, to use subject to the conditions set out below, the following described lands or improvements: Various routes through the Tongass National Forest. As shown on the map attached hereto and made a part of this permit. This permit covers. acres and/or miles and is issued for the purpose of: To conduct a feasibility study of an intertie and evaluate alternate routes. This permit does not authorize any ground disturbing activities. ~~~}, Construction or occupancy and use under this permit shall begin within___. 1" months, and construction, if any, shall be completed within__12 months, from the date of the permit. This nse shal! be actually exercised at least _ 35 days each year, unless otherwise authorized in writing. 2. In consideration for this use, the permittee shal! pay to the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the sum of One Hundred Do! ars ($ 100.00 ~ ) for the period from October 13 ___19_88 | to October 13 , 19.87 _, and thereafter annually on a eee Dollars ($ NE Provided, however, Charges for this use may be made or readjusted whenever necessary to place the charges on a basis commensurate with the value of use authorized by this permit. 3. This permit is accepted subject to the conditions set forth herein, and to conditions _to attached hereto and made a part of this permit. MAME OF PEARMITTEE PERMITTEE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY INAME AND SIGNATURE ISSUING OFFICER WIN GREEN (CONTINUED ON REVERSE) 2700-4 (7/71) ~ veveiopinent plans; 1evoui pians; Coastruction, reconstrucuon, or alteration or improvements; or revision of layout or construction plans for this area must be approved in advance and in writing by the” forest supervisor. Trees or shrubbery on the permitted area may be removed or destroyed only after the forest officer in charge has approved, and has marked or otherwise designated that which may be removed or destroyed. Timber cut or destroyed will be paid for by the permittee as follows: Merchantable timber at appraised value; young-growth timber below merchantable size at current damage appraisal value; pronided that the Forest Service reserves the right to dispose of the merchantable timber to others than the per- mittee at no stumpage cost to the permittee. Trees, shrubs, and other plants may be planted in such manner and in such places about the premises as may be approved by the forest officer in charge. 5. The permittee shall maintain the improvements and premises to standards of repair, orderliness, neatness, sanitation, and safety acceptable to the forest officer in charge. 6. This permit is subject to all valid claims. 7. The permittee, in exercising the privileges granted by this permit, shall comply with the regulations of the Department of Agriculture and all Federal, State, county, and municipal laws, ordinances, or regula- tions which are applicable to the area or operations coveted by this permit. 8. The permittee shall take all reasonable precautions to prevent and suppress forest fires. No ma terial shal] be disposed of by buming in open fires during the closed season established by-law or regula- tion without a written permit from the forest officer in charge or his authorized agent. - - 9. The permittee shall exercise diligence in protecting from damage the land and property of the United States covered by and used in connection with this permit, and shall pay the United States for any damage resulting from negligence or from the violation of the terms of this permit or of any law or regulation appli- cable to the National Forests by the permittee, or by any agents or employees of the permittee acting within the scope of their agency or employment. 10. The permittee shal] fully repair all damage, other than ordinary wear and tear, to national forest roads and trails caused by the permittee in the exercise of the privilege granted by this permit. 11. No Member of or Delegate to Congress or Resident Commissioner shall be admitted to any share or part of this agreement or to any benefit that may arise herefrom unless it is made with a corporation for its general benefit. 12. Upon abandonment, termination, revocation, or cancellation of this permit, the permittee shall remove within a reasonable time all structures and improvements except those owned by the Lnited States, and shall restore the site, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing or in this permit. If the permittee fails to remove all such structures or improvements within a reasonable period, they shall become the property of the United States, but that will not relieve the permittee of liability forthe cost of their removal and restoration of the site. 13. This permit is not transferable, If the permittee through voluntary sale or transfer, or through enforcement of contract, foreclosure, tax sale, or other valid legal proceeding shall cease to be the owner of the physical improvements other than those owned by the United States situated on the land described in this permit and is unable to furnish adequate proof of ability to redeem or otherwise reestablish title to _ Said improvements, this permit shall be subject to cancellation. But if the person to whom title to said improvements shall have been transferred in either manner provided is qualified as a permittee and is willing that his future occupancy of the premises shall be subject to such new conditions and stipulations as existing or prospective circumstances may warrant, his continued occupancy of the premises may he authorized by permit to him if, in the opinion of the issuing officer or his successor, issuance of a permit is desirable and in the public interest. 14. In case of change of address, the permittee shall immediately notify the forest supervisor. 15. The temporary use and occupancy of the premises and improvements herein described may be sublet by the permittee to third parties only with the prior written approval of the forest supervisor but the per- mittee shall continue to be responsible for compliance with all conditions of this permit hy persons to whom such premises may be sublet. 16. This permit may be terminated upon breach of any of the conditions herein or at the discretion of the regional forester or the Chief, Forest Service. 17. In the event of any conflict between any of the preceding printedclauses orany provisions thereof and any of the following clauses or any provisions thereof, the following clauses will control GPO 814875 ise: 136° t3ae 132" 130° Chatham Ares Ranger Districts 1. Juneau Ranger District 2. Hoonah Ranger District 3. Sitka Ranger District Stikine Area Ranger Districts 4. Petersburg Ranger District 5. Wrangell Ranger District Ketchikan Area Ranger Districts 6. Thorne Bay Ranger District 7. Craig Ranger District 8. Ketchikan Ranger District Nationa! Monuments 9. Admiralty isiand 10. Misty Fiords Figure 1: Tongass National Forest Ranger Districts & Administrative Areas ' 4 | j 4 18 Bill Snetieic, Governor Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska October 24, 1986 Mr. Bill Kaltenekker General Manager Metlakatla Power & Light Company P.0. Box 346 Metlakatla, Alaska 99926 SUBJECT: Southeast Intertie "Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract Dear Mr. Kaltenekker: This is to keep you apprised of the progress Alaska Power Authority has made on the Southeast Intertie project. On September 10, 1986 we awarded the “Route Selection & Feasi- bility Analysis" contract to the project team led by Harza Engineering Company. The other members of this team are PEI Consultants Inc. (Formerly Pool Engineering) of Ketchikan, Harding Lawson Associates of Anchorage, Pirelli Cable Cor- poration and Northern Archaeological Consultants. Following are the names and addresses of the key personnel from the project team who are involved in this effort. Gene Kocian, Project Manager Harza Engineering Company 150 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606-4176 Phone: (312) 855-7000/855-7059 Donald Fordney, Southeast Contact PEI Consultants Inc. 1225 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 (907) 225-6626 Both Mr. Kocian and Mr. Fordney are very familiar with South- east Alaska and have worked on a number of projects in that region. In the next several days they may be contacting you directly to discuss and obtain any relevant data or informa- tion. We would appreciate your cooperation and feel free to 6479/645 PO Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 Southeast Intertie "Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract October 24, 1986 Page 2 convey any concern or input you might have on this phase of the project to them. If you have any other questions or comments, please call me or Tanzeem Rizvi at the Power Authority. Sincerely, WLLL Don Shira Director/Program Development = DS/TR/fw cc: Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Co. Donald Fordney, PEI Consultant Inc. 6479/645 Bill Snettieic. Governor Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska October 24, 1986 Mr. Marvin Kadake P.O. Box 193 Kake, Alaska 99830 SUBJECT: Southeast Intertie "Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract Dear Mr. Kadake: This is to keep you apprised of the progress Alaska Power Authority has made on the Southeast Intertie project. On September 10, 1986 we awarded the "Route Selection & Feasi- bility Analysis" contract to the project team led by Harza Engineering Company. The other members of this team are PEI Consultants Inc. (Formerly Pool Engineering) of Ketchikan, Harding Lawson Associates of Anchorage, Pirelli Cable Cor- poration and Northern Archaeological Consultants. Following are the names and addresses of the key personnel from the project team who are involved in this effort. Gene Kocian, Project Manager Harza Engineering Company 150 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606-4176 Phone: (312) 855-7000/855-7059 Donald Fordney, Southeast Contact PEI Consultants Inc. 1225 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 (907) 225-6626 Both Mr. Kocian and Mr. Fordney are very familiar with South- east Alaska and have worked on a number of projects in that region. In the next several days they may be contacting you directly to discuss and obtain any relevant data or informa- tion. We would appreciate your cooperation and feel free to 6479/645 PO Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 564-787 o Southeast Intertie "Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract October 24, 1986 Page 2 convey any concern or input you might have on this phase of the project to them. If you have any other questions or comments, please call me or Tanzeem Rizvi at the Power Authority. Sincerely, Lae Don Shira Director/Program Development * DS/TR/fw cc: Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Co. Donald Fordney, PEI Consultant Inc. 6479/645 Bill Sne‘ie:a Goverrcr Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska October 24, 1986 Mr. Dennis Lewis Utility Manager Municipal Power & Light P.0. Box 329 Petersburg, Alaska 99833 - SUBJECT: Southeast Intertie “Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract Dear Mr. Lewis: This is to keep you apprised of the progress Alaska Power Authority has made on the Southeast Intertie project. On September 10, 1986 we awarded the "Route Selection & Feasi- bility Analysis" contract to the project team led by Harza Engineering Company. The other members of this team are PEI Consultants Inc. (Formerly Pool Engineering) of Ketchikan, Harding Lawson Associates of Anchorage, Pirelli Cable Cor- poration and Northern Archaeological Consultants. Following are the names and addresses of the key personnel from the project team who are involved in this effort. Gene Kocian, Project Manager Harza Engineering Company 150 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606-4176 Phone: (312) 855-7000/855-7059 Donald Fordney, Southeast Contact PEI Consultants Inc. 1225 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 (907) 225-6626 Both Mr. Kocian and Mr. Fordney are very familiar with South- east Alaska and have worked on a number of projects in that region. In the next several days they may be contacting you directly to discuss and obtain any relevant data or informa- tion. We would appreciate your cooperation and feel free to 6479/645 PO Box 190869 704 Fast Tudor Road Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 564-7877 Southeast Intertie "Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract October 24, 1986 Page 2 convey any concern or input you might have on this phase of the project to them. If you have any other questions or comments, please call me or Tanzeem Rizvi at the Power Authority. GL ZX Saleh Director/Program Development DS/TR/fw cc: Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Co. Donald Fordney, PEI Consultant Inc. 6479/645 Bill Snefieic. Governor Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska October 24, 1986 Mr. Richard Anderson City Administrator Municipal Electric Department City and Borough of Sitka P.O. Box 422 Sitka, Alaska 99835 SUBJECT: Southeast Intertie "Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract Dear Mr. Anderson: This is to keep you apprised of the progress Alaska Power Authority has made on the Southeast Intertie project. On September 10, 1986 we awarded the "Route Selection & Feasi- bility Analysis" contract to the project team led by Harza Engineering Company. The other members of this team are PEI Consultants Inc. (Formerly Pool Engineering) of Ketchikan, Harding Lawson Associates of Anchorage, Pirelli Cable Cor- poration and Northern Archaeological Consultants. Following are the names and addresses of the key personnel from the project team who are involved in this effort. Gene Kocian, Project Manager Harza Engineering Company 150 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606-4176 Phone: (312) 855-7000/855-7059 Donald Fordney, Southeast Contact PEI Consultants Inc. 1225 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 (907) 225-6626 Both Mr. Kocian and Mr. Fordney are very familiar with South- east Alaska and have worked on a number of projects in that region. In the next several days they may be contacting you directly to discuss and obtain any relevant data or informa- tion. We would appreciate your cooperation and feel free to 6479/645 PO Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 Southeast Intertie "Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract October 24, 1986 Page 2 convey any concern or input you might have on this phase of the project to them. If you have any other questions or comments, please call me or Tanzeem Rizvi at the Power Authority. LG. LE. Don Shira Director/Program Development . ~ DS/TR/ fw cc: Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Co. Donald Fordney, PEI Consultant Inc. 6479/645 Bill Snetieia Governc’ wi Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska October 24, 1986 Mr. James Taylor Superintendent Municipal Electric Department City and Borough of Sitka 304 Lake Street Sitka, Alaska 99835 Es SUBJECT: Southeast Intertie "Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract Dear Mr. Taylor: This is to keep you apprised of the progress Alaska Power Authority has made on the Southeast Intertie project. On September 10, 1986 we awarded the "Route Selection & Feasi- bility Analysis" contract to the project team led by Harza Engineering Company. The other members of this tean are Pf” Consultants Inc. (Formerly Pnol Engineering’ cf Ketchitea, Harding Lawson Associates of Anchorage, Pirelli Cable Cor- poration and Northern Archaeological Consultants. Following are the names and addresses of the key personnel from the project team who are involved in this effort. Gene Kocian, Project Manager Harza Engineering Company 150 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606-4176 Phone: (312) 855-7000/855-7059 Donald Fordney, Southeast Contact PEI Consultants Inc. 1225 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 (907) 225-6626 Both Mr. Kocian and Mr. Fordney are very familiar with South- east Alaska and have worked on a number of projects in that region. In the next several days they may be contacting you directly to discuss and obtain any relevant data or informa- tion. We would appreciate your cooperation and feel free to 6479/645 PO Box 190869 704 East Tudor Rood Anchorage Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 564-7877 Southeast Intertie "Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract October 24, 1986 . Page 2 convey any concern or input you might have on this phase of the project to them. If you have any other questions or comments, please call me or Tanzeem Rizvi at the Power Authority. Peri ey Don Shira - Director/Program Development DS/TR/fw cc: Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Co. Donald Fordney, PEI Consultant Inc. 6479/645 Bili Snetieic Governor Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska October 24, 1986 Mr. Jarrett D. Broughton General Manager Tlingit and Haida Regional Electrical Authority P.O. Box 210149 Auke Bay, Alaska 99821 SUBJECT: Southeast Intertie "Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract Dear Mr. Broughton: This is to keep you apprised of the progress Alaska Power Authority has made on the Southeast Intertie project. On September 10, 1986 we awarded the "Route Selection & Feasi- bility Analysis" contract to the project team led by Harza Engineering Company. The other members of this team are PEI Consultants Inc. (Formerly Pool Engineering) of Ketchikan, Harding Lawson Associates of Anchorage, Pirelli Cable Cor- poration and Northern Archaeological Consultants. Following are the names and addresses of the key personnel from the project team who are involved in this effort. Gene Kocian, Project Manager Harza Engineering Company 150 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606-4176 Phone: (312) 855-7000/855-7059 Donald Fordney, Southeast Contact PEI Consultants Inc. 1225 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 (907) 225-6626 Both Mr. Kocian and Mr. Fordney are very familiar with South- east Alaska and have worked on a number of projects in that region. In the next several days they may be contacting you directly to discuss and obtain any relevant data or informa- tion. We would appreciate your cooperation and feel free to 6479/645 PO Box 190869 701 EastTudorRoad Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 Southeast Intertie "Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract October 24, 1986 Page 2 convey any concern or input you might have on this phase of the project to them. If you have any other questions or comments, please call me or Tanzeem Rizvi at the Power Authority. DLA. Don Shira Director/Program Development DS/TR/ fw cc: Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Co. Donald Fordney, PEI Consultant Inc. 6479/645 vy Bill Snetfieia. Governor Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska October 24, 1986 Mr. Archie N. Hinman General Manager Haines Light & Power Co., Inc. P.0. Box 40 Haines, Alaska 99827 - SUBJECT: Southeast Intertie "Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract Dear Mr. Hinman: This is to keep you apprised of the progress Alaska Power Authority has made on the Southeast Intertie project. On September 10, 1986 we awarded the “Route Selection & Feasi- bility Analysis" contract to the project team led by Harza Engineering Company. The other members of this team are PEI Consultants Inc. (Formerly Pool Engineering) of Ketchikan, Harding Lawson Associates of Anchorage, Pirelli Cable Cor- poration and Northern Archaeological Consultants. Following are the names and addresses of the key personnel from the project team who are involved in this effort. Gene Kocian, Project Manager Harza Engineering Company 150 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606-4176 Phone: (312) 855-7000/855-7059 Donald Fordney, Southeast Contact PEI Consultants Inc. 1225 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 (907) 225-6626 Both Mr. Kocian and Mr. Fordney are very familiar with South- east Alaska and have worked on a number of projects in that region. In the next several days they may be contacting you directly to discuss and obtain any relevant data or informa- tion. We would appreciate your cooperation and feel free te 6479/645 PO Box 190869 704 EastTudorRoad Anchorage Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 Southeast Intertie “Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract October 24, 1986 Page 2 convey any concern or input you might have on this phase of the project to them. If you have any other questions or comments, please call me or Tanzeem Rizvi at the Power Authority. Sincerely, Lh, BE. Don Shira Director/Program Development DS/TR/fw cc: Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Co. Donald Fordney, PEI Consultant Inc. 6479/645 Bill Snetfiela. Governor Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska October 24, 1986 Ms. Joyce Rasler City Manager Wrangell Light Department P.0. Box 531 Wrangell, Alaska 99929 - SUBJECT: Southeast Intertie "Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract Dear Ms. Rasler: This is to keep you apprised of the progress Alaska Power Authority has made on the Southeast Intertie project. On September 10, 1986 we awarded the "Route Selection & Feasi- bility Analysis" contract to the project team led by Harza Engineering Company. The other members of this team are PEI Consultants Inc. (Formerly Pool Engineering) of Ketchikan, Harding Lawson Associates of Anchorage, Pirelli Cable Cor- poration and Northern Archaeological Consultants. Following are the names and addresses of the key personnel from the project team who are involved in this effort. Gene Kocian, Project Manager Harza Engineering Company 150 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606-4176 Phone: (312) 855-7000/855-7059 Donald Fordney, Southeast Contact PEI Consultants Inc. 1225 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 (907) 225-6626 Both Mr. Kocian and Mr. Fordney are very familiar with South- east Alaska and have worked on a number of projects in that region. In the next several days they may be contacting you directly to discuss and obtain any relevant data or informa- tion. We would appreciate your cooperation and feel free to 6479/645 PO Box 190869 704 EastTudorRoad Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 Southeast Intertie "Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract October 24, 1986 Page 2 convey any concern or input you might have on this phase of the project to them. If you have any other questions or comments, please call me or Tanzeem Rizvi at the Power Authority. Don Shira Director/Program Development DS/TR/fw cc: Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Co. Donald Fordney, PEI Consultant Inc. 6479/645 Bill Snetieic. Governor N\| Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska October 24, 1986 Mr. Charles Y. Walls General Manager Glacier Highway Electric Association, Inc. P.0. Box 210547 Auke Bay, Alaska 99821 SUBJECT: Southeast Intertie "Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract Dear Mr. Walls: This is to keep you apprised of the progress Alaska Power Authority has made on the Southeast Intertie project. On September 10, 1986 we awarded the "Route Selection & Feasi- bility Analysis" contract to the project team led by Harza Engineering Company. The other members of this team are PEI Consultants Inc. (Formerly Pool Engineering) of Ketchikan, Harding Lawson Associates of Anchorage, Pirelli Cable Cor- poration and Northern Archaeological Consultants. Following are the names and addresses of the key personnel from the project team who are involved in this effort. Gene Kocian, Project Manager Harza Engineering Company 150 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606-4176 Phone: (312) 855-7000/855-7059 Donald Fordney, Southeast Contact PEI Consultants Inc. 1225 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 (907) 225-6626 Both Mr. Kocian and Mr. Fordney are very familiar with South- east Alaska and have worked on a number of projects in that region. In the next several days they may be contacting you directly to discuss and obtain any relevant data or informa- tion. We would appreciate your cooperation and feel free to 6479/645 PO Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 Southeast Intertie "Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract October 24, 1986 nm. Pzge 2 convey any concern or input you might have on this phase of the project to them. If you have any other questions or comments, please call me or Tanzeem Rizvi at the Power Authority. Since y, 1... Llc Don Shira 2 Director/Program Development DS/TR/fw cc: Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Co. Donald Fordney, PEI Consultant Inc. 6479/645 Bill Snettie!a Governor Dy Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska October 24, 1986 Mr. William A. Corbus President and Manager Alaska Electric Light and Power Company 134 North Franklin Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 - SUBJECT: Southeast Intertie "Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract Dear Mr. Corbus: This is to keep you apprised of the progress Alaska Power Authority has made on the Southeast Intertie project. On September 10, 1986 we awarded the "Route Selection & Feasi- bility Analysis" contract to the project team led by Harza Engineering Company. The other members of this team are PEI Consultants Inc. (Formerly Pool Engineering) of Ketchikan, Harding Lawson Associates of Anchorage, Pirelli Cable Cor- poration and Northern Archaeological Consultants. Following are the names and addresses of the key personnel from the project team who are involved in this effort. Gene Kocian, Project Manager Harza Engineering Company 150 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606-4176 Phone: (312) 855-7000/855-7059 Donald Fordney, Southeast Contact PEI Consultants Inc. 1225 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 (907) 225-6626 Both Mr. Kocian and Mr. Fordney are very familiar with South- east Alaska and have worked on a number of projects in that region. In the next several days they may be contacting you directly to discuss and obtain any relevant data or informa- tion. We would appreciate your cooperation and feel free to 6479/645 PO Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 Southeast Intertie “Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract October 24, 1986 Page 2 convey any concern or input you might have on this phase of the project to them. If you have any other questions or comments, please call me or Tanzeem Rizvi at the Power Authority. Sin ly, Ly, LA. Don Shira Director/Program Development DS/TR/fw cc: Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Co. Donald Fordney, PEI Consultant incs 6479/645 Bill Snetielc Governor Alaska Power Author}ty, n.-eived State of Alaska , ay ocean October 24, 1986 OMPANY © groizct Number HARZA ENOCH EER T Mr. Alan See Manager Skagway Power & Light System Skagway, Alaska 99840 Subject Desigzztisca J SUBJECT: Southeast Intertie "Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract Dear Mr. See: This is to keep you apprised of the progress Alaska Power Authority has made on the Southeast Intertie project. On September 10, 1986 we awarded the "Route Selection & Feasi- bility Analysis" contract to the project team led by Harza Engineering Company. The other members of this team are PEI Consultants Inc. (Formerly Pool Engineering) of Ketchikan, Harding Lawson Associates of Anchorage, Pirelli Cable Cor- poration and Northern Archaeological Consultants. Following are the names and addresses of the key personnel from the project team who are involved in this effort. Gene Kocian, Project Manager Harza Engineering Company 150 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606-4176 Phone: (312) 855-7000/855-7059 Donald Fordney, Southeast Contact PEI Consultants Inc. 1225 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 (907) 225-6626 Both Mr. Kocian and Mr. Fordney are very familiar with South- east Alaska and have worked on a number of projects in that region. In the next several days they may be contacting you directly to discuss and obtain any relevant data or informa- tion. We would appreciate your cooperation and feel free to 6479/645 PO Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 564-7877 Southeast Intertie "Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract October 24, 1986 Page 2 erg convey any concern or input you might have on this phase of the project to them. If you have any other questions or comments, please call me or Tanzeem Rizvi at the Power Authority. eye Le - oom = Don Shira Director/Program Development - DS/TR/fw cc: Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Co. Donald Fordney, PEI Consultant Inc. 6479/645 Bill Snetieic. Governor ut &- as its : Alaska Power Authority State of Alasko October 24, 1986 Mr. Richard Southworth General Manager Ketchikan Public Utilities 334 Front Street Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 SUBJECT: Southeast Intertie "Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract Dear Mr. Southworth: This is to keep you apprised of the progress Alaska Power Authority has made on the Southeast Intertie project. On September 10, 1986 we awarded the "Route Selection & Feasi- bility Analysis" contract to the project team led by Harza Engineering Company. The other members of this team are PEI Consultants Inc. (Formerly Pool Engineering) of Ketchikan, Harding Lawson Associates of Anchorage, Pirelli Cable Cor- poration and Northern Archaeological Consultants. Following are the names and addresses of the key personnel from the project team who are involved in this effort. Gene Kocian, Project Manager Harza Engineering Company 150 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606-4176 Phone: (312) 855-7000/855-7059 Donald Fordney, Sdutheast Contact PEI Consultants Inc. 1225 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 (907) 225-6626 Both Mr. Kocian and Mr. Fordney are very familiar with South- east Alaska and have worked on a number of projects in that region. In the next several days they may be contacting you directly to discuss and obtain any relevant data or informa- tion. We would appreciate your cooperation and feel free to 6479/645 PO Box 190869 704 EastTudorRoad Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 Southeast Intertie "Route Selection and Feasibility Analysis" Contract October 24, 1986 Page 2 convey any concern or input you might have on this phase of the project to them. If you have any other questions or comments, please call me or Tanzeem Rizvi at the Power Authority. Sincerely, GLE. “Don Shira Director/Program Development - DS/TR/fw . cc: Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Co. Donald Fordney, PEI Consultant Inc. 6479/645 j= United States Forest Region 10 Tongass National Forest \\49;) Department of Service Chatham Area Agriculture 204 Siginaka Way Sitka, Alaska 99835 Reply To: 2730 Date: December 15, 1986 Mr. Don Fordney PEI Consultants, Inc. 1225 Tongass Ave. Ketchikan, AK 99901 Dear Mr. Fordney: Enclosed are our review comments in response to a November 21 request from Harza Engineering Company. These comments were not consolidated due to other pressing business and the tight time frame requested verbally by your office. Please allow us at least 60 days to review future proposals of this nature. We would like to comment on cultural resources and visual resources at a later date. Sincerely, CARL M. BURGESON Recreation/Land Uses Staff Officer Enclosures ccs John Morrell Sitka Ranger District Juneau Ranger District Admiralty National Monument Fish, Wildlife, and Watershed Staff Officer Engineering Staff Officer Planning Staff Officer 121586 1310 RL 2730 JM GS FS-6200-28(7-82) * General comments on the overland transmission lines (TL) are that they should not parallel streams or come close to lakes. Most streams are high vaiue ‘recreational fishing streams and improved access end clearing along the streer would be detrimental. We also need to consider the effects on percl ing raptors. Comments relating to specific USGS quadrangle maps are as follows: Juneau Juneau Juneau Juneau B-2 1. DOT is proposing a road extending Glacier Highway from Fred Meyer to the McNugget intersection and possibly to the Mendenhall Loop road. Possibly TL could align with road. 2. Waydeleigh Creek is a domestic water source and there is concern for soil disturbance in the upper watershed. 3. There is concern for visual effect of TL on Spaulding trail. B-3 1. The western TL route comes unacceptably close to the John Muir recreation cabin. This is also a popular ski erea in winter. 2. There is concern for visual effect of TL where it parallels Montana Creek trail and Peterson Creek trail. 3. Montana Creek route would have less impact than eastern route on fish and wildlife as long as it was placed away from the creek zone. 4, If corridor clearing is done with terrain vehicles, impacts would be significant to bear, deer and furbearers. We suggest helicopter construction and maintenance. C-3 1. Coastal route has less impact on wildlife. Possible cross to coast could be made somewhere near Herbert River. 2. There is concern for visual effect of TL as it crosses Windfall Lake and the Windfall Lake, Herbert River and Eagle River trails. 3. Peterson Lake public recreation cabin should be avoided. 4, Backcountry route runs into mountain goet and fishery concerns. 5. Planned roads for Cowee-Davies timber sale are near Bessie Creek end TL could follow road corridor if road is built. The two routes come together about 2.5 miles south of Echo Cove. The westerly route passes through the area where roads are proposed. 6. Cultural resources from mining need to taken into effect in the Peterson Lake and Bessie Creek areas. A-3 1. TL goes through prime deer and brown bear habitat. We suggest following the road corridor planned by the Greens Creek Mining Company to access their holdings. We may have to consider alternatives such as underground transmission lines to reduce visual impacts on Monument lands. . Skagway B-1 1. Less resource and administrative impact if TL stays on highway corridor. There may be mountain goat concerns in steeper area. 2. . Steeper area commonly has rock slides and erosion. 3. Railroad and oil pipeline ROW's are in this area. TL coutd be aligned with ROW's or the ROW's might need to be avoided. t . United States Forest Region 10 Sitka Ranger District Department of Service Chatham Area Agriculture 204 Siginaka Way Sitka, Alaska 99835 Reply To: 2720 Date: December 16, 1986 Subject: Southeast Alaska Intertie Study Overflight of Transmission Line Routes To: Forest Supervisor It has been brought to my attention that PEI Consultants, Inc. are planning to survey some potential power transmission corridors as part of the study they are conducting for the Alaska Power Authority as potential intertie routes. Your December 5, 1986, memo requested comments on known resource impacts or construction problems associated with the proposed transmission corridors noted on the map supplied with the November 21, 1986, request by Harza Engineering Company. In general, issues, concerns, and opportunities (ICOs) associated with any transmission corridor development can be looked at in two major phases: construction, and then the physical occupancy, operation and maintenance of a transmssion line corridor. The construction phase tends to have generally short term impacts, whereas the physical occupancy, operation, and maintenance of a transmission line corridor has more long term effects. IcO's for the construction phase include the following: 1. Soil stability, erosion, and water quality impacts from surface disturbing construction activities. 2. Visual resource impacts. Se Displacement of wildlife and disturbance of habitat. 4, Displacement of recreation users. 5. Competition with existing permitted uses for forest resources during construction phase by construction activities. Examples could include water rights, and physical occupancy of site under SUP. 6. Potential cultural resource impacts. 7. Displacement of subsistence activities. FS-6209-28(7-82) ND Forest Supervisor ICO's for the longterm physical occupancy, operation, and maintenance of a powerline and corridor include the following: 1. Visual resource impacts. 2. Longterm soil stability and related water quality concerns for high hazard soil areas within the corridor(s) and occupied by associated developments. 3. Modification of wildlife habitat to early successional stages, and the displacement of species dependent upon later successional stages. 4, Potential displacement of primitive recreation pursuits by project development. 5 Potential enhancement of developed recreation pursuits by project development. 6. Potential interference with existing resource commitments such as special use permits at Baranof Warm Springs. ie Potential reductions in commercial forest land available to timber management in VCU 318C, Blue Lake. This VCU is a LUD IV and subject to timber management but has been excluded from the Alaska Pulp Corporation harvest for other land use, namely for power and water. 8. Portions of the proposed corridor locations are encumbered with power withdrawals, state land selections, and ownerships other than National Forest. 9. Interception of and potential impact on four public access trails on National Forest and other land ownerships. These trails are, the Mt. Verstovia, Thimbleberry Lake, Beaver Lake, and Sadie Lake trails. Cow Ce CRAIG V. COURTRIGHT District Ranger 121686 0820 SRD1 2720 CC FS-6200-28(7-82) United States Forest Region 10 Tongass National Forest Department of Service Stikine Area Agriculture P.O. Box 309 Petersburg, AK 99833 Reply To: 7710 Date: December 18, 1986 PEI Consultants, Inc. ATTN: Don Fordney 1225 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Dear Mr. Fordney: This is a response to the request from Harza Engineering Company for review and comment on the preliminary transmission line routes for the Southeast Alaska Intertie, and the project's potential impacts or construction problems. KAKE-PETERSBURG The preliminary transmission line routes presented by Harza for the Kake-Petersburg portion of the intertie are very similar to the South Route Alternative as displayed by EBASCO in their Draft Kake-Petersburg Intertie Routing and Environmental Report, November 1982, prepared for the Alaska Power Authority. The Harza-proposed alternative that includes the submarine cable crossing of Duncan Canal is nearly identical to the EBASCO route with the exception of the Wrangell Narrows crossing location. We still prefer this southern route alternative. The EBASCO route crossed the Wrangell Narrows in the vicinity of the Forest Service's B. Frank Heinzleman Tree Nursery (formerly the University of Alaska Experimental Fur Farm). The crossing site proposed by Harza Engineering is located a few miles north. Harza's route appears to be somewhat longer, but it is in deeper water, (17 fathoms as opposed to 9 fathoms) and may be less expensive to lay when considering the reduced trenching necessary to bury the submarine cable in the mud flats. However, the north crossing is less desirable from the environmental standpoint. To access the east-west pass over the Lindenberg Peninsula, the Harza route will traverse approximately 2.5 miles southerly on the west side of the Wrangell Narrows from the crossing location. This is currently an unroaded area, which has fairly steep sideslopes. From the visual resource perspective, this alternative would have greater impacts than the EBASCO crossing to the south. The area of concern is viewed from the Alaska Marine Highway (ferry) lane and is a major transportation corridor used by the local recreationists. Due to the steep slopes and consistent topographic character of the area, it would be extremely difficult to mitigate visual impacts associated with the development of the power line right of way. Other environmental concerns associated with the Harza-proposed crossing location include eagle nests along the beach and a historic site. FS-6200-28(7-82) PEI Consultants, Don Fordney Page 2 Enclosed for your information are the Stikine Area Transportation Maps covering the proposed transmission line routes. The maps show the possible location of an "opportunity road" along the stretch of the Harza-proposed route along the west side of the Wrangell Narrows. Opportunity roads have not been cleared through the NEPA process and are displayed only to show future possibilities. In this case, the road would serve as an alternative route to access the timber at the head of Skooge Creek. Future area analysis will determine the economic feasibility of this road. Because of the greater environmental concerns associated with the Wrangell Narrows crossing location proposed by Harza, it is our recommendation that further analysis only consider the southerly EBASCO crossing site. The Harza alternative that traverses north along the east side of Duncan Canal to Bohemia Pass is burdened with a multitude of environmental concerns including potential impacts to wildlife, visuals, recreation, and the Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Area. It would take an Act of Congress to allow ingress through the Wilderness Area. This alternative is approximately 5 miles longer than the southerly route and offers the elimination of the Duncan Canal submarine cable crossing as the single benefit. It is our recommendation that this route be eliminated from further consideration. KAKE-SITKA INTERTIE The overland portion of this route on Kupreanof Island is proposed entirely on land owned by the Kake Tribal Corporation. Therefore, the Forest Service has no comments on the proposal. KAKE-JUNEAU INTERTIE The overland portion of this proposal crosses Kake Tribal Corporation lands, Kake Tribal Corporation proposed land selection, and unencumbered National Forest lands. Harza shows two alternatives for traversing around an unnamed ridge. We have no significant environmental concerns with either alternative. Should you have any questions concerning this evaluation, please contact Dave Helmick, Transportation Planner at 772-3841. Sincerely, [0. Catine (kh ROBERT E. LYNN = Forest Supervisor ee: District Ranger, PRD Enclosures FS-6200-28(7-62) ALL PERMITS ISSUED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WILL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES AS A MINIMUM: 1. The holder will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The holder will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, ungrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection of training, including apprenticeship. The holder agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the Forest Service setting forth the provisions of the nondiscrimination clause. The holder will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the holder, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The holder will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agree- ment or other contract or understanding, a notice, to be provided by the Forest Service, advising the labor union or workers' representative of the holder's commitments under this clause, and shall post copies of the notice in conspic- uous places available to employees and applicants for employment. The holder will comply with all provisions of Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, as amended by Execu- tive Order No. 11375 of October 31, 1967, and of the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor. The holder will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, and by .the rules, regulations and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to his books, records, and accounts by the Forest Service and the Secre- tary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders. In the event of the holder's noncompliance with the nondis- crimination clauses of this permit or with any of such rules, regulations, or orders, this permit may be cancelled or terminated in whole or in part and the holder may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as provided in Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, or by rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor or as otherwise provided by law. Surveys, Land Corners: The holder shall protect, in place, all public land survey monuments, private property corners, and Forest boundary markers. In the event that any such land markers or monuments are destroyed in the exercise of the privileges authorized by this permit, depending on the type of monument destroyed, the holder shall see that they are reestablished or referenced in accordance with: a) The procedures outlined in the "Manual of Instructions for the Survey of the Public Land of the United States" b) The specifications of the country surveyor, or c) the specifications of the Forest Service. Further, the holder shall cause such official survey records as are affected to be amended as provided by law. Nothing in this clause shall relieve the holder's liability for the willful destruction or modification of any Government survey marker as provided at 18 U.S.C. 1958. The holder agrees to take all necessary precautions to avoid damage to property and resources of the United States, and will, independently, and upon request of the Forest Service, prevent and suppress fires on or near lands occupied, or to be occupied, under this permit, and to pay and indemnify the United States for any and all injury, loss, or damage, including but not limited to fire suppression costs, the United States may suffer as a result of claims, demands, losses, or judgments caused by the holder's use or occupancy to the maximum extent possible in accordance with State laws, ordinances, regulations and rules. The holder shall be held liable for all injury, loss, or damage, including, but not limited to fire suppression costs, directly or indirectly resulting from or caused by the holder's use and occupancy of the area covered by the permit, regardless of whether the holder is negligent, provided that the maximum liability without fault shall not exceed $1,000,000 for any one occurrence and provided further that the holder shall not be liable when such injury, loss, or damage results from a negligent act of the United States, or a third party not involving the facilities of the holder. 10. 2a. 22.6 Liability for injury, loss, or damage, including fire suppression costs, in excess of the specified maximum, shall be determined by the laws governing ordinary negligence. Archaeological/Paleontological Discoveries: If, prior to or during excavation work, items of archaeological, paleon- tological, or historic value are reported or discovered, or an unknown deposit of such items is disturbed, the holder will immediately cease excavation in the area so affected. Holder will then notify the Forest Service and will not resume excavation until written approval is given by the authorized officer. If it deems it necessary or desirable, the Forest Service May require the holder to have performed recovery, exca- vation, and preservation of the site and its artifacts at the holder's expense. At the option of the Forest Service, this authorization may be terminated at no liability by the United States when such termination is deemed necessary or desirable to preserve or protect archaeological, paleon- tological, or historic sites and artifacts. Improvement Relocation: This permit is granted with the express understanding that should future location of United States Government -owned improvements or road rights-of-way require the relocation of the holder's improvements, such relocation will be done by, and at the expense of, the holder within a reasonable time as specified by the auth- orized officer. Nonexclusive Use: This permit is not exclusive; that is, the Forest Service reserves the right to use or permit others to use any part of the permitted area for any pur- pose, provided such use does not interfere with the rights and privileges hereby authorized. Consulting Engineers and Surveyors Consultants. Inc. Inc. 1225 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Commander J. S. Merrill U. S. Coast Guard Commander (oan) 17th Coast Guard District Post Office Box 3-5000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Dear Commander Merrill: As discussed during our previous contact with your department, our company is working with Harza Engineering, of Chicago, in analyzing the potential for an electrical grid system in South- east Alaska. This study known as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the State of Alaska, Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of establishing an intertie system for at least some parts of Southeast. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. If your department has already submitted comments based on an earlier version of these drawings, no additional review is necessary unless you feel the alignment had changed sufficiently to warrant it. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. cae By: Don ¥6 Principa DF: chb PE Consultants, Inc. Consulting Engineers and Surveyors 1225 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Federal Aviation Administration Post Office Box 14, 701 G Street Anchorage, Alaska 99513 ATTN: AAL-530 Dear Sir: As discussed during our previous contact with your department, our company is working with Harza Engineering, of Chicago, in analyzing the potential for an electrical grid system in South- east Alaska. This study known as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the State of Alaska, Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of establishing an intertie system for at least some parts of Southeast. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. If your department has already submitted comments based on an earlier version of these drawings, no additional review is necessary unless you feel the alignment had changed sufficiently to warrant it. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. Cae By: Don Fordney Princi DF: chb Pel Consultants. Inc. Consulting Engineers and Surveyors 1225 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Mr. Fletcher Shives Environmental Protection Agency Alaska Operations Office 3200 Hospital Drive, Suite 101 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Dear Mr. Shives: As discussed during our previous contact with your department, our company is working with Harza Engineering, of Chicago, in analyzing the potential for an electrical grid system in South- east Alaska. This study known as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the State of Alaska, Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of establishing an intertie system for at least some parts of Southeast. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. If your department has already submitted comments based on an earlier version of these drawings, no additional review is necessary unless you feel the alignment had changed sufficiently to warrant it. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. A ie By: Don Foruney Principal DF: chb PEt Consulting Engineers and Sur Ss Consultants, Inc. _ Seno nary 1225 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Mr. Richard D. Reed State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game Southeastern Regional Office Post Office Box 20 Douglas, Alaska 99824 Dear Mr. Reed: As discussed during our previous contact with your department, our company is working with Harza Engineering, of Chicago, in analyzing the potential for an electrical grid system in South- east Alaska. This study known as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the State of Alaska, Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of establishing an intertie system for at least some parts of Southeast. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. If your department has already submitted comments based on an earlier version of these drawings, no additional review is necessary unless you feel the alignment had changed sufficiently to warrant it. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. - By: A ge Principa DF:chb Pri —_—_—_—_—_—_—— Consulting Engineers and Surveyors Consultants, Inc. Sage ay 1225 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Mr. Larry Reeder Department of the Army U. S. Army Engineer District, Alaska Post Office Box 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898 Dear Mr. Reeder: As discussed during our previous contact with your department, our company is working with Harza Engineering, of Chicago, in analyzing the potential for an electrical grid system in South- east Alaska. This study known as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the State of Alaska, Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of establishing an intertie system for at least some parts of Southeast. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have _ seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. If your department has already submitted comments based on an earlier version of these drawings, no additional review is necessary unless you feel the alignment had changed sufficiently to warrant it. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. Princip DF:chb ——————— Consulting Engineers and Surveyors Consultants. Inc. 1295 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Ms. Deena Henkins State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Quality Southeast Regional Office Post Office Box 2420 Juneau, Alaska 99803 Dear Ms. Henkins: As discussed during our previous contact with your department, our company is working with Harza Engineering, of Chicago, in analyzing the potential for an electrical grid system in South- east Alaska. This study known as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the State of Alaska, Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of establishing an intertie system for at least some parts of Southeast. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. If your department has already submitted comments based on an earlier version of these drawings, no additional review is necessary unless you feel the alignment had changed sufficiently to warrant it. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. By: pot Kea y Principal DF: chb Pri Consulting Engineers and Surveyors Consultants. Inc. 1295 Tongass Ave, Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Mr. Mike Jacobson U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Post Office Box 1287 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Dear Mr. Jacobson: As discussed during our previous contact with your department, our company is working with Harza Engineering, of Chicago, in analyzing the potential for an electrical grid system in South- east Alaska. This study known as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the State of Alaska, Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of establishing an intertie system for at least some parts of Southeast. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have _ seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. If your department has already submitted comments based on an earlier version of these drawings, no additional review is necessary unless you feel the alignment had changed sufficiently to warrant it. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questicns or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. Principal DF: chb PEA Consulting Engi Consultants, Inc. _ ins sulting Engineers and Surveyors 1225 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Mr. Ted Meyers National Marine Fisheries Post Office Box 021668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Dear Mr. Meyers: As discussed during our previous contact with your department, our company is working with Harza Engineering, of Chicago, in analyzing the potential for an electrical grid system in South- east Alaska. This study known as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the State of Alaska, Alaska Power Authority and is intended toc determine the possibility and economic feasibility of establishing an intertie system for at least some parts of Southeast. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. If your department has already submitted comments based on an earlier version of these drawings, no additional review is necessary unless you feel the alignment had changed sufficiently to warrant it. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. Principa DF:chb Consultants. Inc. Ei Consulting Engineers and Surveyors 1225 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Ms. Diane Mayer State of Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination Pouch AW Juneau, Alaska 99811-0165 Dear Ms. Mayer: As discussed during our previous contact with your department, our company is working with Harza Engineering, of Chicago, in analyzing the potential for an electrical grid system in South- east Alaska. This study known as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the State of Alaska, Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of establishing an intertie system for at least some parts of Southeast. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. If your department has already submitted comments based on an earlier version of these drawings, no additional review is necessary unless you feel the alignment had changed sufficiently to warrant it. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. By: el Principa DF:chb | Consulting Engineers and Surveyors Consultants. Inc. 1295 Tongass Ave.. Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Ms. Paula Burgess Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Land & Water Management Southeastern Regional Office Post Office Box MA Juneau, Alaska 99811 Dear Ms. Burgess As discussed during our previous contact with your department, our company is working with Harza Engineering, of Chicago, in analyzing the potential for an electrical grid system in South- east Alaska. This study known as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the State of Alaska, Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of establishing an intertie system for at least some parts of Southeast. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. If your department has already submitted comments based on an earlier version of these drawings, no additional review is necessary unless you feel the alignment had changed sufficiently to warrant it. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. —) By: Don Fordney Principal DF: chb Consulting Engineers and Surveyors Consultants. Inc. 1225 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Ms. Judith Bittner Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer DNR/ADPOR/OHA Post Office Box 7001 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Ms. Bittner: As discussed during our previous contact with your department, our company is working with Harza Engineering, of Chicago, in analyzing the potential for an electrical grid system in South- east Alaska. This study known as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the State of Alaska, Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of establishing an intertie system for at least some parts of Southeast. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. If your department has already submitted comments based on an earlier version of these drawings, no additional review is necessary unless you feel the alignment had changed sufficiently to warrant it. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. By: bate Principal DF: chb Pics Consultants, inc. Consulting Engineers and Surveyors 1225 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Mr. Ray Meketa Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Utilities Southeast Region Post Office Box 3-1000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Dear Mr. Meketa: As discussed during our previous contact with your department, our company is working with Harza Engineering, of Chicago, in analyzing the potential for an electrical grid system in South- east Alaska. This study known as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the State of Alaska, Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of establishing an intertie system for at least some parts of Southeast. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. If your department has already submitted comments based on an earlier version of these drawings, no additional review is necessary unless you feel the alignment had changed sufficiently to warrant it. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. : Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. By: Don Principa DF:chb Pri Consultants. Inc. Consulting Engineers and Surveyors 1225 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Mr. Ron Hawk Kootzncowoo, Inc. Post Office Box 116 Angoon, Alaska 99820 Dear Mr. Hawk: As discussed during our previous contact with your company, we are assisting Harza Engineering Company in analyzing the need for an electrical grid system in Southeast Alaska. This study, here- after referred to as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of estab- lishing an intertie system for at least some portions of South- east. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. So please take a few minutes to review these maps and inform us of any concerns you may have about this project as it relates to either your existing holdings or proposed future selections. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. By: “Don For Princi DF:chb Consulting Engineers and Surveyors Consultants. Inc___ 4295 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Mr. Gordon R. James, Sr. Shaan-Seet, Inc. Post Office Box 90 Craig, Alaska 99925 Dear Mr. James: As discussed during our previous contact with your company, we are assisting Harza Engineering Company in analyzing the need for an electrical grid system in Southeast Alaska. This study, here- after referred to as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of estab- lishing an intertie system for at least some portions of South- east. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. So please take a few minutes to review these maps and inform us of any concerns you may have about this project as it relates to either your existing holdings or proposed future selections. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. Lp mccbes By: 7 Don For ey Princi DF: chb Prd Consultants, Inc. Consulting Engineers and Surveyors 1225 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Mr. Clarence Jackson, Sr. Kake Tribal Corporation Post Office Box 263 Kake, Alaska 99830 Dear Mr. Jackson: As discussed during our previous contact with your company, we are assisting Harza Engineering Company in analyzing the need for an electrical grid system in Southeast Alaska. This study, here- after referred to as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of estab- lishing an intertie system for at least some portions of South- east. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. So please take a few minutes to review these maps and inform us of any concerns you may have about this project as it relates to either your existing holdings or proposed future selections. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. Ze, By: Don Ford Princip, DF:chb Consulting Engineers and Surveyors Consultants.Inc.__ 1225 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Mr. Roger Snippen Shee Atika, Inc. Post Office Box 1949 Sitka, Alaska 99835 Dear Mr. Snippen: As discussed during our previous contact with your company, we are assisting Harza Engineering Company in analyzing the need for an electrical grid system in Southeast Alaska. This study, here- after referred to as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of estab- lishing an intertie system for at least some portions of South- east. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. So please take a few minutes to review these maps and inform us of any concerns you may have about this project as it relates to either your existing holdings or proposed future selections. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. yy By: Don For Principal DF:chb PE —_—_—_—_—_—— Consulting Engineers and Surveyors Consultants. Inc. Shane yo 1225 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Mr. Rick Harris Sealaska Corporation One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1276 Dear Mr. Harris: As discussed during our previous contact with your company, we are assisting Harza Engineering Company in analyzing the need for an electrical grid system in Southeast Alaska. This study, here- after referred to as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the Alaska Power Authority and is intended te determine the possibility and economic feasibility of estab- lishing an intertie system for at least some portions of South- east. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. So please take a few minutes to review these maps and inform us of any concerns you may have about this project as it relates to either your existing holdings or proposed future selections. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. — By: Don rd Principal DF: chb Consulting Engineers and Surveyors Consultants. Inc. 1225 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Mr. George Cooper Huna Totem Corporation Post Office Box 3-6500, Suite 175 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Dear Mr. Cooper: As discussed during our previous contact with your company, we are assisting Harza Engineering Company in analyzing the need for an electrical grid system in Southeast Alaska. This study, here- after referred to as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of estab- lishing an intertie system for at least some portions of South- east. I The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. So please take a few minutes to review these maps and inform us of any concerns you may have about this project as it relates to either your existing holdings or proposed future selections. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PE1 CONSULTANTS, INC. cm By: Don Fordnes : Principal DF:chb Pr Consultants. Inc. Consulting Engineers and Surveyors 1225 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Mr. Craig Burger Cape Fox Corporation Post Office Box 8558 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Dear Mr. Burger: As discussed during our previous contact with your company, we are assisting Harza Engineering Company in analyzing the need for an electrical grid system in Southeast Alaska. This study, here- after referred to as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of estab- lishing an intertie system for at least some portions of South- east. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. So please take a few minutes to review these maps and inform us of any concerns you may have about this project as it relates to either your existing holdings or proposed future selections. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. By: bn teas c Principal DF:chb Pri Consulting Engineers and Surveyors Consultants. Inc. 1225 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Mr. Matthew Carl Haida Corporation Post Office Box 89 Hydaburg, Alaska 99922 Dear Mr. Carl: As discussed during our previous contact with your company, we are assisting Harza Engineering Company in analyzing the need for an electrical grid system in Southeast Alaska. This study, here- after referred to as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of estab- lishing an intertie system for at least some portions of South- east. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. So please take a few minutes to review these maps and inform us of any concerns you may have about this project as it relates to either your existing holdings or proposed future selections. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. By: Don ota ey Principal DF:chb i Consulting Engineers and Surveyors Consultants. Inc___ 1225 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Ms. Corrine M. Garza Klawock Heenya Corporation Post Office Box 25 Klawock, Alaska 99925 Dear Ms. Garza: As discussed during our previous contact with your company, : we are assisting Harza Engineering Company in analyzing the need for an electrical grid system in Southeast Alaska. This study, here- after referred to as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of estab- lishing an intertie system for at least some portions of South- east. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. So please take a few minutes to review these maps and inform us of any concerns you may have about this project as it relates to either your existing holdings or proposed future selections. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway, to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. By: al Principal DF: chb Pri il Consulting Engineers and Surveyors Consultants. Inc p05 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Mr. Joseph Kahklen Goldbelt, Inc. 2233 North Jordan Avenue Juneau, Alaska 99801 Dear Mr. Kahklen: As discussed during our previous contact with your company, we are assisting Harza Engineering Company in analyzing the need for an electrical grid system in Southeast Alaska. This study, here- after referred to as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of estab- lishing an intertie system for at least some portions of South- east. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. So please take a few minutes to review these maps and inform us of any concerns you may have about this project as it relates to either your existing holdings or proposed future selections. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. By: “Don Férdney Principal DF:chb PEI Consulting Engineers and Surveyors Consultants, Inc. _ Inc. ee i 1225 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Mr. Robert Loiselle Klukwan, Inc. Post Office Box 2077 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Dear Mr. Loiselle: As discussed during our previous contact with your company, we are assisting Harza Engineering Company in analyzing the need for an electrical grid system in Southeast Alaska. This study, here- after referred to as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of estab- lishing an intertie system for at least some portions of South- east. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. So please take a few minutes to review these maps and inform us of any concerns you may have about this project as it relates to either your existing holdings or proposed future selections. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. By: tae = Principal ~ DF:chb Consulting Engineers and Surveyors Consultants. INC. 1295 Tongass Ave. Ketchikan, AK 98901 (907) 225-6626 December 22, 1986 Mr. Louis Thompson Kavilco, Inc. General Delivery Kasaan, Alaska 99924 Dear Mr. Thompson: As discussed during our previous contact with your company, we are assisting Harza Engineering Company in analyzing the need for an electrical grid system in Southeast Alaska. This study, here- after referred to as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of estab- lishing an intertie system for at least some portions of South- east. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. So please take a few minutes to review these maps and inform us of any concerns you may have about this project as it relates to either your existing holdings or proposed future selections. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. Che By: “Don Fordney Principal DF: chb Consulting Engineers and Surveyors Consultants. Inc. 1225 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-6626 PEI December 22, 1986 Regional Director National Park Service 2525 Gambel Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Sir: As discussed during our previous contact with your department, our company is working with Harza Engineering, of Chicago, in analyzing the potential for an electrical grid system in South- east Alaska. This study known as the Southeast Intertie is being conducted under a contract with the State of Alaska, Alaska Power Authority and is intended to determine the possibility and economic feasibility of establishing an intertie system for at least some parts of Southeast. The enclosed maps reflect the latest revision of the alignment and supersede any previous drawings you may have seen. We realize the holiday season is probably not the best time to send you this information. However, our contract time schedule requires that we have you comments no later than the 10th of January. If your department has already submitted comments based on an earlier version of these drawings, no additional review is necessary unless you feel the alignment had changed sufficiently to warrant it. Although general comments are helpful, whenever possible they should be addressed to a segment and link. A link is identified on these drawings as a decimal portion of a segment. For in- stance, segment 1, the portion from Skagway to the British Columbia border has 6 links, 1.1 to 1.6. If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, feel free to contact our Ketchikan office. Sincerely, PEI CONSULTANTS, INC. By: ‘Don on Principal DF:chb MEMORANDUM State of Alaska TO: SCOTT CHRISTY DATE: December 30, 1986 FILE NO: TELEPHONE NO. FROM: ELATNE NELSON SUBJECT: Land Status - Southeast Intertie Project The attached plats cover areas of state interest that appear to be within the route of the Southeast Intertie Project. State interest includes patented state land, tentativly approved state land, patented state land selected by a municipality and other third party interests. Additional status plats may be required in more conjested areas when the route is more closely defined. — With the exception of patented tidelands to a municipality or city, all tide or contiguous submerged lands are state-owned. Land status actions reflected on the plats are not necessarily current and need a more thorough check when the route is defined. 02-0014 (Rev.-10/79) F . BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PO. 80x 7016 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99510 DIVISION OF MINING & GEOLOGY RECEivEeD December 31, 1986 JAN 02 ive: PE! Consultants, inc. Mr. Don Fordney PEI Consultants 1225 Tongass Ave. Ketchikan, AK 99901 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Dear Mr. Fordney: Under separate cover (small box) I have sent you the following: ‘1. Current Land Status platts from the Department of Natural Resources data base for the proposed intertie route. 2. A general geotechnical review of the intertie route in relation to areas of State land by Randy Updike. We hope this information will be of use to you and assist the project. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact us. Sincerely, lh. Set (OnSte M. Scott Christy Geologist IV MSC/sla ec: Doug Jones Randy Updike Laurel Murphy Pat Beckley Alaska Power Authority Southeast Intertie Project Comments by Randall G. Updike Chief, Engineering Geology Section Alaska Division of Mining and Geological & Geophysical Surveys December 31, 1986 The following comments are based upon examination of 1:250,000 scale maps upon which the proposed Intertie route is indicated. Comments are only for those areas indicated to be on, or adjacent to, State lands, and are made on the basis of limited personal experience in the region. SEGMENT 1: l. 2. SEGMENT 2: 1. Whitehorse - Skagway This segment is in glacially eroded valleys with relatively narrow valley floors. . If siting is on valley wall bedrock should be anticipated to be at the surface or very shallow, except locally where deposits of glacial till can be found. Valley walls are subject to avalanches and shallow landslides on bedrock. Rockslides are a potential hazard, especially if blasting and/or excavation are included in the scope of work. Floodplains should provide good foundation conditions and flood hazard low to moderate. Due to steep terrain, substantial access benefits would be derived from construction parallel to Whitehorse - Skagway highway. Tidal flat silts occur in upper Taiya Inlet near Dyea Point to Skagway. This may pose foundation stability problems, particularly under seismic loading. Submarine cable in the Haines area should be no problem provided the route runs directly offshore as indicated on map. Shallow water cable may be subject to damage due to boat anchorages in the area. Haines - Juneau Timber clear-cutting in the regions of State land may cause certain steep-slope areas to be subject to shallow landslides of soil over bedrock. Steeper areas with relief of more than a few hundred feet above sea level are prone to large-volume and repeated avalanches. Examination of vegetation and specific topography can reduce hazard. This region is exposed to moderate to large magnitude earthquakes. Founding transmission system on bedrock, till, and coarse gravel floodplains will reduce damage potential. Siltation near the mouth of Herbert River north of Juneau may cause foundation stability problems (i.e., low bearing strength, saturated, liquefiable). 5. Areas directly north of Auke Bay should be dominantly shallow bedrock with sporadic till and sand/gravel overburden, i.e., good foundation conditions. SEGMENT 3: Douglas Island - Hawk Inlet 1s Topography at Outer Point suggests that tidal flat muds may be common there. This may well be the case south to Middle Point. Foundation construction and post-construction stability may be impacted by these saturated muds. 2s No avalanche or landslide hazards are indicated at this scale, on State lands. SEGMENTS 4, 5: No State lands. SEGMENT 6: Kake - Petersburg Ls Area near Kake could be subject to tsunami run-up. Submarine topography directly offshore and height of corridor above mean high tide should be evaluated/ 2. Clear-cut timber operations have affected several steep-slope areas near Petersburg. These areas are subject to gradual soil creep or rapid soil failures over bedrock. Vertical aerial photographic examinations should be made alomg steep slope segments from Kake to Petersburg. 3s Review of technical literature should be made to accurately locate major faults of Kupreanof Island that may be active. SEGMENT 7: Kake - Sitka 1. Mt. Edgecumbe adjacent to Sitka is a volcano which has produced ash covering the Sitka region. Check with Jim Richle, Branch of Alaskan Geology, USGS - Anchorage, regarding historic activity. 2s Clear-cut timber harvests have occurred in Sitka region and historic ground failures have resulted. Check with Doug Swanston, U.S. Forest Service, Juneau, regarding landslide potential in all these regions. 3. Steep mountain-side topography of corridors resultant from glacial erosion. Most of the route should encounter bedrock at or near the surface. 4. Substantial avalanche hazard along steeper slopes where significant accumulation-zone upland terrain exits. Runouts to floodplains should be anticipated. SEGMENT 8: No State land. SEGMENT 9: Ketchikan - Prince of Wales Island Le Ketchikan area subject to moderate to large magnitude earthquakes. Check technical literature for accurate location of faults in region. Check with John Daries, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska-Fairbanks, regarding regional seismicity. 2h Substantial clear-cut timber operations have occurred throughout this segment. Again, there is a potential for shallow soil failures over bedrock in this region. 3. Topography suggests there should be a periodic danger of avalanches along the Tonga Narrows north of Ketchikan, particularly near Mud Bay. Check aerial photography for avalanche zones. 4. Tsunami and seismic-induced ground failure hazards should be considered low in the Ketchikan area. SEGMENTS 10, 11: No State lands. é @ US.Department Alaskan Region 701 C Street, Box 14 of Transportation Anchorage, Alaska Federal Aviation 99513 Administration R ©CEiveD January 2, 1987 JAN 08 is; Pi EI Coney ants, in . Ine, Mr. Don Fordney PEI Consultants, Inc. 1225 Tongass Ave. Ketchikan, AK 99901 Dear Mr. Fordney: We researched our files and did not find any information on your proposed project; therefore, we do not know what the original proposed alignment was. FAA's primary concern in regard to the proposed power line construction is the effect it might have on aeronautical operations in proximity to airports or heliports, and wires or cables across rivers and canyons. Therefore, in order to provide comments, we are in need of specific information on location and heights of supporting towers, and height of wires or cables above ground level. We have enclosed information in regard to (1) the requirements for filing notice of construction, and (2) guidelines on marking and lighting towers and cables. If you have any questions please call our office, (907) 271-5902. 4 ay Ly! —y/ 7 John H. Groeneveld Manager, Operations, Procedures and Airspace Branch, AAL-530 2 Enclosures — = i 50 Years of Air Traffic Control Excellence — A Standard for the World — US Department Commander P.O. Box 3.5000 of Transportation Seventeenth Coast Guard District Juneau, AK 99802 Staff Symbol: | (Oan) United States Phone (907) 586-7368 Coast Guard 16500 Recs eu 8 JAN 87 VED PEI Consultants, Inc. YAN 19 | Consulting Engineers and Surveyors Io, 1225 Tongass Ave. PEI C, Consuttants * ine, Ketchikan, AK 99901 Gentlemen: This is in response to your letter dated 22 December 1986 concerning routing of the Southeast Alaska Intertie. I appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal though I have no comments regarding your intended routing. In order to minimize the potential for damage to your cable from fishing, crabbing and trawling vessels, I request you provide me with the exact locations of your cable installations when determined. I will publish that information and arrange for nautical charts to be updated to identify the cable crossings. Sincerely, Polat re Ceesiandars e « Coast Guard Chief, Aids t aepigaiion Branch Seventeenth Coast Guard District By direction of the District Commander yer Telephone (907) 225-6125 Post Office Box 8620 South Coast Inc. 4049 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 RECEIVEp JAN 07 Iyo/ PE! Consultants, Inc, January 6, 1987 PEI Consultants 1225 Tongass Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Attn: Don Fordney Dear Don: This letter is written as a follow-up to your request on a statement of road costs in Southeast Alaska. 7 We do a lot of road construction for the U.S. Forest Service. Based on our experience the standard Forest Service road (14' top width, 3' thick, with turnouts) will cost between $170,000 and $300,000 per mile, depending on difficulty. The average road cost is probably close to $200,000 per mile. These costs are at today's prices with labor at the Davis-Bacon rates. If there is a substantial increase in the price of fuel, you would probably see a dramatic increase in these road costs. Sincerely, i epee ul LT Edwin E. Johnson, P.E. Vice Presideft HEAVY CONSTRUCTION i = : STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Telephone:(907) 789-3151 SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE Adaress:P.0. Box 32420 Juneau, AK 99803 RECEIVED JAN 08 1987 PE: Consultants, inc, January 5, 1987 PEI Consultants, Inc. 1225 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Don Fordney Dear Mr. Fordney: Re: Southeast Intertie Project We have no comments on the maps on the latest revisions of alignments for the southeast intertie system. In this case, we don't have the type site-specific information to be able to make substantive comments. However, we ask you to allow more time in the future when comments from us are needed. Sincerely, ~ UC oa dd 4 MON a afi Reem PEC EY Deena J.‘Henkins Regional ‘Environmental Supervisor / cc: Diane Mayer, DGC United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park P.O. Box 517 Skagway, Alaska 99840 IN REPLY REFER TO: L58 January 14, 1987 Don Fordney, L.S. Principal PEI Consultants, Inc. 1225 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Dear Mr. Fordney: Enclosed are our comments on Segment 1 (Skagway to Whitehorse) of the Southeast Alaska intertie. We thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Sincerely, , OBE Clay Algerson Superintendent Klondike Gold Rush NHP National Park Service G,: TECHN/CAL 4/87 - a wh ENVIRONMENTAL REMARKS/ > - SUGGESTED Vv 4 ais OMS |B peo/te/se ALTERNAT/VES € US eA Sy OW ye 04 ¥ SEY OEE IY FY ES ie 6 yr ts WEY LO/ VC ee vhost se Better location at base of hill adjacent to Yes |Poor |Yes |No No Yes |No No No Yes |No No Yes | * Yes || railroad corridor, Extreme visual impact on Small Facto historic Skagway landscape. Ld _| | 7 Possible impact on historic routes in Black Lake Yes One |No No Yes |No No No * No No Yes |* No area. Suggest following railroad corridor to Major suitable river crossing. Better than 1.3 route. Construction and maintenance would be very Yes |Poor {Two {No No Yes [No No No Yes |No No Yes |* No difficult. Two major stream crossings in rugged ) Major | terrain with difficuit access. Extreme north end within park boundary and would Yes Yes |No Yes * Yes No No * No No No * Yes require special permission to construct line. Small : Fa | _| | Make use of existing road corridor. Small portion No Yes [No Yes {Yes [Yes No No * No No No * * at south end in park requiring special permission Small to construct line. Better than 1.6 route. Entire route in park with serious land use Yes |Poor |Two |No Yes {Yes res No No Yes |No No Yes |* Yes conflicts. Serious impacts on cultural resources Major Avalanche danger extreme. Heavy winter snows and 1.6 | | icing conditions. Sections of route pass through historic sites undisturbed since gold rush era. Possible alternative to follow railroad and communications corridor. =| }_ | ae ee | *Mode rate City and Borough of Sitka 304 LAKE STREET. SITKA, ALASKA. 99835 JANUARY 15,1987 Don Fordney, L.S. P.E.I. Consultants, Inc. 1225 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 RE: A.P.A. Study S.E. Intertie Dear Don, Pursuant to our meeting in Sitka on January 14th, I am writing to express information on the maps left on potential routes for a intertie. 1. I have drawn in the proposed Takatz Lake Land Selection. Sitka feels we must proceed with all efforts to secure that land, regardless of any possible intertie. With the deadline for land selections from the Tongass National Forest approaching, Sitka must be assured of having a handle on our only additional power generation location. 2. I have enclosed the maps with minor markings on them identifying , known situations, hazard areas, etc. 3. I met later with our Electrical Foreman and offer the following: Both routes indicate a tie-in to the existing system from Green Lake/Blue Lake. We feel that continues to place "all our eggs in one basket". A downed tree, breakdown at the powerhouse, any number of events would leave Sitka totally in the dark with no options. If a intertie is a reasonable possibility, we would Suggest a new route coming into Halibut Point Road or Indian River or some other location PAST the existing generation locations so that a feed from the opposite side is a potential. While we realize that may add some costs in additional power facilities, it would appear to be the most practical manner to assure uninterrupted service. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sin ely, Zt at Michael Schmidt : CC: Administrator Planning Director Electric Dept. United States Department of the Interior RECe, VED FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE JAN 22 (987 Raptor Management Studies PE; IN REPLY REFER TO: P.O. Box 021287 Consultants, ing. Juneau, Alaska 99802-1287 (907) 586-7243 Don Fordney January 20, 1987 PEI Consultants, Inc. 1225 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Dear Mr. Fordney: I appreciated the opportunity to attend the Juneau meeting 1/15/87 concerning the Southeast Intertie Study. I have some general comments to make which may be useful in your planning efforts: : Powerline corridors should be located landward of shoreline bald eagle nesting habitat. Powerlines adjacent to the coast are incompatible with bald eagles because of the obstruction of flight paths to the eagles' feeding areas and the potential for aerial strikes. Powerlines across streams are hazardous to eagles during salmon spawning when eagles concentrate in large numbers and flight paths along the stream are perpendicular to the powerlines. Preferred nesting areas are prominent points, small islands, narrow passages with tidal currents, and shorelines exposed to large bodies of water, especially those facing into the predominant winds. Clearcut logging should not occur along the shoreline in these areas. The heads of bays and backwater sloughs with little or no tidal current are used by fewer eagles for nesting. Clearcuts adjacent to shorelines destroy bald eagle nesting habitat for at least 200 years. Timber harvest within 1/8 mile of the beach is not recommended. A protection zone should be maintained around bald eagle nest sites. All land use activities should be excluded within 330 feet of an eagle nest. Ninety-two percent (92%) of bald eagle nests in Southeast Alaska are within 100 yards of the coastline. The average distance from nest to shoreline is 40 yards. If the upland terrain is relatively flat, the nests will tend to be close to the shoreline. If the terrain is steep, the nests may be located up to 600 feet in elevation. Helicopters should not hover within 1500 vertical or horizontal feet of occupied nests. Please let me know if you would like additional information. Sincerely, Pa) ' , Whe pperbisnd Mike Jacovel Eagle Management Specialist ad Cape Fox Corporation P.O. Box 8558 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 (907) 225-5163 SAXMAN CFC January 21,1987 Don Fordney PEI Consultants, Inc. 1225 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Dear Mr. Fordney: We have reviewed the proposed alignment to the Southeast Intertie and determined that the routing would directly affect neither our existing holdings nor our anticipated selections. As you know, the existing T/line from Swan Lake does cross Cape Fox Corporation lands and we definitely have an interest in the nature of any possible upgrade of that line (reference segment 10). Please keep us advised as more information becomes available concerning the intertie system routing in this area and the possible upgrading of the T/line. Sincerely, United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ALASKA REGIONAL OFFICE 2525 Gambell Street, Room 107 IN REPLY REFER TO: L76 (ARO-REC) Anchorage, Alaska 99503 - 2892 ‘JAN 22 1887 Mr. Don Fordney PEI Consultants, Inc. 1225 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Dear Mr. Fordney: In response to your letter of December 22, 1986 requesting comments on the proposed preliminary Southeast Intertie Project, we have the following preliminary comments: The route as shown on prelimary drawings dated December 15, 1986 has the potential to impact upon both the Skagway and the White Pass units of the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park. However, it is difficult for us to discern precisely what impacts are possible because of the lack of detail as to the route and the method of construction of the line as shown on the preliminary document. : The route (Segment 1, link 1.5) indicated on the preliminary maps that runs on the west side of White Pass appears to be outside the national park, whereas the route (segment 1, link 1.6) occurs within the national park. Link 1.5 would appear to have little or no impacts on the national park, while link 1.6 would certainly have impacts upon the national park. Please be advised that any proposed routing of the electrical line through a unit of the National Park System would require application for a right-of-way permit fran the National Park Service. Such an application would be processed in accordance with existing federal regulations, i.e., 43 CFR 36 and 36 CFR 14. In addition, in determining whether to approve an application for an electrical transmission line in Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, we are required by 43 CFR 36.7(a) (2) (ii) to assess whether there are any economically feasible and prudent alternative routes to the proposed route. These requirements of existing federal regulations should be considered in your deliberations on routing of the subject transmission line. The preliminary proposal appears to indicate a routing through the Skagway and White Pass National Historic Landmark. Any project through a National Historical Landmark would require the initiation of a 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. That process would be coordinated through the State Historic Preservation Officer. We would like to be kept informed of any future developments with regard to this project as well as the likelihood of impacts upon National Park Service lands. Please contact Jonathan Halpern (Environmental Campliance Officer) at 271-2715 if you require any further information about National Park Service environmental requirements or concerns. For cultural resource information contact Bob Spude, Regional Historian, at 271-2638. Sincerely, A ge deere <a fT Associate Regional Director Operations / The following are my comments of the map proposal from PEI for the Intertie aeross Misty. C) 1. Visual impact is quite high....especially from Trollop Point on toward the east to Wilson Arm. 2. Line in Smeaton Bay should be underwater 33 Impact would be far less is the Right of Way is not clearcut. Does it have to be clearcut? 4, How is the line proposed to be installed and maintained? Does it have a road following the line? 5. Economics of both installation and maintenance need to be added together to arrive at the best option. Is the underwater line that more expensive and is it more or less dependable compared to overhead in windy and snowy conditions. 6. Would like to see an alternative considered for the corridor to enter the Monument just North of Alava Ridge and proceed to the vicinity of Rudyerd Island, cross the Behm and come out of the water at Bartholomew creek. From this point on the existing alignment or go underwater to the warf area at the head of Wilson Arm. FeEmM Keeton KAly RMCER Ai SIE | )-ZB-27 ais FS-6200-28(7-82) UMITED STATES CEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Nationa! Cosanic end Atmespi ‘¢ Administration Nattonal lacing Pisheriss Service F.0. Bor 18468 Junemu, Alaska 99802 RECEIVED FEB g9 1987 PE! Commeranes, ime. February 3, 1987 Mr. Don Fordney PEL Consultants, Inc. 1225 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alasxa 99901 Dear Mr. Fordney: The Alaska Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, has re- viewed the documents presented during the January 15, 1987, meeting regarding the southeast Alaska electrical intertie. The following comments are offered for your consideration. The information presented during the meeting indicated the alignment shown on the maps is preliminary and subject to change. Until we know the final alignment, we cannot be specific as to impacts the proposed project might have on marine or anadromous fish species. Any information we give, therefore, will be general and subject to change pending final line alignment. Information on the location and identification of anadromous fish streams is available from the State of Alaska anadromous fish stream catalogs. All construction activities should avoid streams, ponds, lakes, rivers, and their associated wetlands. Laying of the underwater cable in waters deeper than 100 feet should have minimal effects on marine resources provided areas of pot, seine, and gilinet fishing are avoided. We cannot provide the specific sites used by any fishing industry and recommend you contact the various fishing organizations once you have identi- fied a specific route alignment. The power line routing ig proposed to come ashore near Benjamin Island north of Juneau. The shoreline from Point St. Mary, north of Bernars Bay, to Douglas Island/Fritz Cave is used for both spawning and overewintering by Pacific Herring. Laying cable or coming ashore at certain sites in this area may not be advisable. However, final line alignment probably could be adjusted to avoid significant impacts. 2 LSE =. ore ADE TREC PRIME SS CRC TO ial EE a The maps do not indicate the locations of the saltwater ground stations. Depending upon their locations, these stations could significantly affect marine resources and are of concern to our agency. We would like to review any plans for those stations as soon as they are available. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment of this proposal. Sincerely, Theodore F. Meyers Chief, Habitat Conservation Division van tl | ae eo Tyee STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR = a oe ener Division . . , + O. Bx 667 DEPARTIIENT OF FISH AND GAME Petersburg, Alaska 998 907-772-3801 February 23, 1987 _ RECEIVES EY, Don Fardney Haste” PEI Consultants =~ -1225 Tongass Avenue 37 HER <4 ANS Ketchikan, AK 99901 Dear Don: RE: Southeast Intertie The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed preliminary routes which have been identified as potential alternatives for the southeast intertie electrical grid system. It is our understanding final alignments may vary as much as 5 to 10 miles from the alternatives presented an the maps. In response to a previous letter from Rick Reed, Habitat Division. Regional Supervisor in Juneau, we understand you are preparing master maps which incorporate data fram our Habitat Management Guides and Anadromous Waters Catalog. This information needs to be included in environmental disclosure documents which will need to be prepared for el] portions of this intertie. This Department has identified the following additional conflicts or concerns which need to be addressed before finalizing the route for the intertie: 1. Underwater lines may conflict with commercial bottom fisheries. Areas used to longline for halibut, black cod, rockfish or other species and for commercial trauling should be avoided in selecting the underwater routes. Final alignments should be thoroughly reviewed by, representatives of the Commercial Fishing industry. 2. Underwater lines should avbid anchorages and sites used for mariculture activities. 3. Surface lines need to avoid aerial crossing of estuaries, wetlands and intertidal areas frequented by waterfouw). shorebirds, eagies and other avian species. 4. Surface lines need to avoid crossing productive portions of anadromous fish streams which are frequented by eagles and other birds which feed on salmon or their eggs. Use of fluorescent of colored balls on yer may reduce this problem. Don 10. 11. Fordney --2- February 23, 1987 Timber cut for right-of-way. clearing adjacent to Bnadromous fish streams needs to be fetled avay from the watercourses. Preferred crossing sites will be in upper portions of streams in areas with lover volume class timber with lesser value riparian habitat. Extensive spans across valleys used by migratory birds pose a navigational hazard to both birds and man. Such spans should be avoided. Surface lines need to be spaced to preciude electrocution of eagles when they spread their wings. Routes need to avoid high use recreation areas such as Forest Service cabins, and hunting and fishing areas where individuals are seeking quality recreational experiences, The project should consider and be phased into other Plans for the area including the Forest Service’s Revilla Island Plan, the Prince of Wales Area Plan and Local Coastal Management Programs. Legal and other concerns regarding the impacts of the project on established wilderness area which will be affected by the intertie need to be addressed. In addition, we have the following site specific comments which are identified by map number: 1. Skaguay (B-1) Powerline supports should svoid materisls sale sites along the Skagway River. A route which parallels the highway or railroad will have less additional impact on habitat than one sited away from these transportation corridors. This portion of the route needs to avoid mountain goat habitat and productive portions of anadromous fish streams including Pullen Creek where eagles and other birds will concentrate. Skagway (C-1) This portion of the route should be located to avoid areas used by mountain gnats and important salmon spawning areas where eagles and other bird species concentrate. Juneau (C-3) Following the Glacier Highway route would lessen impacts which would result if a second “transportation” corridor is developed further inland but may conflict with 8 number of eagle nesting sites. The inland route would impact wetlands along the interior corridor as well as adversely affecting recreational experiences on the Windfall - Montana Creek Trail. This is a high-use recreationa) area. A | Le | Don Fordney -3- February 23 4. . 1987 Forest Service cabin i¢ located on Windfall Lake. The crossing of the Herbert River - Eagle River - Windfall Lake valley bottom is an extensive wetland high in fish and wildlife values. Eagles concentrate in this area in response to salmon spawning activity. Any road constructed in conjunction with the intertie would have adverse impacts on the wetlands. We recommend extension of the submarine cable along the Juneau C-3 map portion of the route. Juneau (B-3) A number of trails including the Windfall - Montana Creek Trail are located along this portion of the proposed route. Recreational experiences would be adversely affected by construction of the powerlines through this high use area, A submarine cable would be preferable in order to avoid wetlands. A second best alternative would be to follow the Glacier Highway along this section of the route. Juneau (B-2) We recommend this portion of the intertie avoid Montana Creek Wetlands including the Windfall - Montane Creek Trail. This wetlands within Brotherhood Park located downstream from the junction of Montana Creek with the Mendenhall River should also be avoided because of high recreation values, Juneau (A-3) The portion of the Sine to the Greens Creek Mill on Admiralty Island reaches the shore approximately a mile and a quarter north of the terminus of the road to the Greens Creek Cannery. The line then uses a separate corridor up Fowler Creek and ends at the cannery site. It would seem more logical te follow the roadway and continue to the Greens Creek Mill. The underuater cable crossings af Chathem Strait and Stephens Passage need to avoid conflicts with black cod and other longline fisheries. Sumdum (A-6) This portion of the route needs to avoid important salmon spawning habitat with consequent eagle concentrations in lower Schooner Creek and Point White Creek. Portions of the route in the Gunnuk Creek drainage cross the watershed for the City of Kake water supply. Petersburg (D-6) Construction of portions of the line parallejing Gunnuk Creek needs to consider maintenance of water quality in the City of Kaké’s water supply. The line needs to avoid crossing Tower Gunnuk Creek where large number of salmon attract eagles and other i L Don Fordney -4- February 23, 1987 10. qn Portions of the line in this area should follow USFS logging roads rather than crossing overland. A crossing of the Hamilton River will be of particular concerns This is a major salmon stream along which eagles and other avian species concentrate during the Salmon spauning season. Petersburg (D-5) The Tine could follow existing and proposed roads over a portion of this route. Touers Lake and Towers Arm are important waterfowl concentration areas which should be avoided» A number of salmon spauning areas and wetlands are crossed in this section of the route. Attention needs to be paid to minimize impacts on migrating waterfowl, eagies end other birds. Petersburg (D-4) All proposed routes across the narrow neck of land between upper Duncan Canal and Portage Bay cross a major waterfow!) migration path. This portion of the route should avoid large open areas. The upper route crosses anadromous fish streams at the head of Portage Bay in close proximity to their mouths. This is the type of area in Which eagles and other birds are attracted to concentrations of sSpauning salmon. Again, such areas should be avoided. The middie route crosses the lower portion of the tributary to the Duncan Canal Salt Chuck where eagies are also expected to concentrate. This portion of this alternative needs to consider impacts on eagies and other birds. The Jower route across the entrance to the Duncan Canal Salt Chuck is unacceptable unless the line can be fully buried because of extremely high waterfowl and human recreational use, This portion of the route may need to be designed to- minimize impacts on wilderness values of the Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Area- A proposed crossing of Twelvemile Creek needs to be moved upstream away from high value salmon spawning areas which will attract concentrations of eagles and other avian species. ‘Petersburg (C-4) Lower portions of salmon streams slong Duncan Canal need to be avoided to protect eagliese A crossing of Duncan Canal is totalfy unacceptable unless it is completely submerged including the e F sive intertidal areas. This is one off the majon Lbeterfoul 4 | | t : Don Fordney ae February 23, 1987 12, 14. 15. 16. ie F [ concentration areas in southeast Alaska.» Ouncan Canal is 8iso the location of a shrimp trau) fishery which produces as much as 80 percent of the total shrimp catch in Southeast Alaska. Representatives of the commercial shrimp trawl fishery should be contacted regarding potential conflicts with use of this site. Petersburg (€-3) A line across Wrangel] Narrows would have to be buried or submerged from tree line to tree line in order tao avoid conflicts with large concentrations of migrating and overwintering waterfowl. This area also supports important commercial crab and pot shrimp fisheries, Petersburg (B-3) A line crossing Fivemile Creek would need to be located further upstream to avoid extensive Salmon spawning areas with consequent high use by eagles and other birds. @& crossing of Wrangell Narrows in this area would need to be submerged and buried to avoid impacts on ae major waterfowl and shorebird migration and overwintering area. Many thousands of birds travel up and down Wrangel} Narrows across this route several times a day from October through early April. Tideflats on the Kupreanof side of the Narrows are used extensively by feeding waterfowl and for recreational and subsistence purposes by area residents. The portion of the line across these flats would also need to be buried. Sitka (A-3) The route needs to address the private 7 property at Menleyville (Baranof Warm Springs) and the? identified hatchery site on the south side of the bay. The route from Takatz should follow the proposed cross Barancf route for the Takatz hydro plant, (and ~ associated road). The residents of Mantveyville have j3 expressed concerns over the aesthetic problems of | constructing @ pipeline corridor and may have major ~ | problems with this project as proposed. The option of i going ashore at Takatz should be explored. - Sitka (A-4) The route ends to go around Green Lake. Bradfield Canal (A-5) This portion of the route needs to maximize the distance between the line and Eagle River. This system supports a building run of- chinook salmon and habitat degradation by cutting the ROW close to the stream needs to be avoided. A Forest Service cebin on Eagle Lake should also be completely avoided to protect its recreations] values. Don 18. 19, 20. 2). 22. 23. 24, Fardney -6- February 23, 1987 Craig (B-1) The south end of the Kasaan Peninsula is 6 major trolling area, both for commercial and sport fishing purposes, Craig (C-2) The proposed portions of the route at the heads of Tolstoi Bay and Windfall Harbor cross the mouths cf several anadromous fish streams. These are high-use areas for bald eagles and other birds which need to be avoided, Ketchikan (C-4) The tine needs to svoid the mouth of Calamity Creek because of eagle and other bird concerns associated with mouths of anadromous fish streams. Ketchikan (B-4) The proposed middle route crosses through the Gokachin Lakes area which hes particularly high recreational values. We recommend against selecting this alternative in this portion of the intertie. Ketchikan (8-3) The portion of the route on the east side of Short Pass needs to be aligned to avoid conflicting with a good bottom fishery. Bringing the line ashore further inside Smeaton Bay rather than at Point Trollup will have less serious impacts on wilderness values of Misty Fiords National Monument. Ketchikan (B-2) The crassings of bath the Wilson and Blossom Rivers are in high value salmon spawning areas with consequent high use by eagles and other avian species. The specific site of this crossing and method of crossing will naed to be closely coordinated with ADF&G. The crossing af the Keta River will also need to be considered. The Proposed route crosses the Keta in an area with a braided channel. It may be preferable to cross this river where the watercourse is confined in a single channel. The portion of the route between the Quart2 Hill Mine and the Keta River is along a mountainside which supposedly could not be used for an access road to the mine as ADF&G recommended because of high avalanche danger. This hazard needs to be considered. Ketchikan (B-1) The route closely follows Tombstone River before crossing it near the River’s mouth. This is a particularly important salmon stream which needs to be avoided slong its entire Jength. This would be an undesirable location for such a crossing. It may be more desirable ta avoid crossing this system entirely and enter Portland Canal on the north side of the Tombstone River. steel Don Fordney -7- February 23, 1987 Please recognize that the above comments, which have been assembled on short notice, are in response to a recent verba} request regarding initial scoping for the project. As such, these comments are of a very preliminary nature and do not constitute a full or detailed review of the environmental concarns which may be sssociated with the intertie, This Department needs to be involved during planning for construction of each phase of the intertie. During the review of EIS’'s and ACMP consistency determinations we wil) have more detailed site specific comments. Fish habitat permits will need to be issued for crossings of anadromous fish streams and may prescribe timing for activities within the wstercourses, as well as limit other inwater activities. We look forward to participating in planning phases throughout the development of the Southeast Intertie. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, soon Crome, Pe Don Cornelius a Area Habitat Biolbgist cet R. Reed, ADFG, Juneau J. Gustafson, ADFG, Ketchikan D. Hardy, ADFG, Sitke J. Hall, ADFG, Juneau D. Mayer, DGC, Juneau P. Petrie, APA, Anchorage yt Steve Cowper Governor Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska June 22, 1987 Mr. Bill Kaltenekker Manager Metlakatla Power & Light Co. P.O. Box 346 Metlakatla, AK set Dear Mr. Kalt, ker Attached is the draft of "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study" prepared by Harza Engineering Company and other consultants for your review. Please note that this is the first draft and does not necessarily represent any particular point of view and is subject to major revisions. We therefore request that it not be released to the general public yet. We are also enclosing a copy of the load forecast report prepared for your community by the R.W. Beck and Associates. We would like to get your review comments on the "intertie" draft by July 15, 1987. It is very important that you convey your concerns and suggestions to us by this date. We hope to finalize the report shortly thereafter. We once again thank you for your cooperation and assistance in preparing this report. If you have any other questions on this project, please call Tanzeem Rizvi or me at the Alaska Power Authority. Sincer owt Donald L. Shira Director/Program Development Attachment as stated TR:DLS:it cc: Mr. Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Company The Honorable Harris L. Atkinson, Mayor, Metlakatla 9310/DD18(8) PO. Box AM = Juneau, Alaska 99814 (907) 465-3575 PO. Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 Steve Cowoer Goverrc’ Alaska Power A uthority State of Alaska June 22, 1987 Mr. Vern Neitzer/Alan See Alaska Power & Telephone P.O. Box 415 Skagway, Alaska 99840 Dear Mr. Neitzer and Mr. See: Attached is the draft of "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study" prepared by Harza Engineering Company and other consultants for your review, Please note that this is the first draft and does not necessarily represent any particular point of view and is subject to major revisions. We therefore request that it not be released to the general public yet. We are also enclosing a copy of the load forecast report prepared for your community by the R.W. Beck and Associates. We would Tike to get your review comments on the "intertie" draft by July 15, 1987. It is very important that you convey your concerns and suggestions to us by this date. We hope to finalize the report shortly thereafter. We once again thank you for your cooperation and assistance in preparing this report. If you have any other questions on this project, please call Tanzeem Rizvi or me at the Alaska Power Authority. onald L. Shira Director/Program Development Attachment as stated TR: DLS: it cc: Mr. Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Mr. Robert Grimm, Alaska Power & Telephone 9310/DD18(2) PO. Box AM —s Juneau, Alaska 99814 (907) 465-3575 PO Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 He] Steve Cowoer SGcverrc Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska June 22, 1987 The Honorable April S. Lapham Mayor P.0. Box 576 Haines, Alaska 99827 Dear Mayor Lapham: Attached is the draft of “Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study" Prepared by Harza Engineering Company and other consultants for your review. Please note that this is the first draft and does not necessarily represent any particular point of view and is subject to major revisions. We therefore request that it not be released to the general public yet. We are also enclosing a copy of the load forecast report prepared for your community by the R.W. Beck and Associates. We would like to get your review comments on the “intertie" draft by July 15, 1987. It is very important that you convey your concerns and suggestions to us by this date. We hope to finalize the report shortly thereafter. We once again thank you for your cooperation and assistance in preparing this report. If you have any other questions on this project, please call Tanzeem Rizvi or me at the Alaska Power Authority. Did Donald L. Shira Director/Program Development Si Attachment as stated TR:DLS:it cc: Mr. Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Company Mr. Archie N. Hinman, General Manager, Haines Light & Power Co., Inc. 9310/DD18(3) PO. Box AM Juneau, Alaska 998141 (907) 465-3575 PO. Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 st Steve Cowne’ Soverror Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska June 22, 1987 Mr. Jarrett (Jack) D. Broughton General Manager Tlingit and Haida Regional Electrical Authority P.O. Box 210149 Auke Bay, AK 99821 Dear Mr. Broughton: Attached is the draft of "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study" prepared by Harza Engineering Company and other consultants for your review. Please note that this is the first draft and does not necessarily represent any particular point of view and is subject to major revisions. We therefore request that it not be released to the general public yet. We are also enclosing a copy of the load forecast report prepared for your community by the R.W. Beck and Associates. We would like to get your review comments on the "intertie" draft by July 15, 1987. It is very important that you convey your concerns and suggestions to us by this date. We hope to finalize the report shortly thereafter. We once again thank you for your cooperation and assistance in preparing this report. If you have any other questions on this project, please call Tanzeem Rizvi or me at the Alaska Power Authority. Since ; 9 pera Donald L. Shira Director/Program Development Attachment as stated TR:DLS:it cc: Mr. Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Company The Honorable Henry Smith, Mayor, Kake, Alaska 9310/DD18(7) PO. Box AM = Juneau, Alaska 99814 (907) 465-3575 PO. Box 190869 704 £EastTudorRoad Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 vals Steve Cowoe’ Goverror Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska June 22, 1987 Mr. Dennis Lewis Utility Manager Municipal Power & Light P.O. Box 329 Petersburg, Alask 9833 Dear Mr. L Attached is the draft of "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study" prepared by Harza Engineering Company and other consultants for your review. Please note that this is the first draft and does not necessarily represent any particular point of view and is subject to major revisions. We therefore request that it not be released to the general public yet. We are also enclosing a copy of the load forecast report prepared for your community by the R.W. Beck and Associates. We would like to get your review comments on the “intertie" draft by July 15, 1987. It is very important that you convey your concerns and suggestions to us by this date. We hope to finalize the report shortly thereafter. We once again thank you for your cooperation and assistance in preparing this report. If you have any other questions on this project, please call Tanzeem Rizvi or me at the Alaska Power Authority. Sincerety, J, on Donald L. Shira Director/Program Development Attachment as stated TR:DLS: it cc: Mr. Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Company The Honorable Thomas J. Gustafson, Mayor, Petersburg 9310/DD18(3) PO. Box AM = Juneau, Alaska 99811 (907) 465-3575 PO Box 190869 704 £EastTudorRoad Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 Steve Cowper Governor Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska June 22, 1987 Ms. Joyce Rasler City Manager P.0. Box 531 Wrangell, Alaska 99929 Dear Ms. Rasler: Attached is the draft of "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study" prepared by Harza Engineering Company and other consultants for your review. Please note that this is the first draft and does not necessarily represent any particular point of view and is subject to major revisions. We therefore request that it not be released to the general public yet. We are also enclosing a copy of the load forecast report prepared for your community by the R.W. Beck and Associates. We would like to get your review comments on the "intertie" draft by July 15, 1987. It is very important that you convey your concerns and suggestions to us by this date. We hope to finalize the report shortly thereafter. We once again thank you for your cooperation and assistance in preparing this report. If you have any other questions on this project, please call Tanzeem Rizvi or me at the Alaska Power Authority. Ltt BE. Donald L. Shira Director/Program Development Attachment as stated TR:DLS:it cc: Mr. Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Company The Honorable William B. Privett, Mayor, Wrangell Mr. Frank Fields, Superintendent, Wrangell Light & Power 9310/DD18(4) PO. Box AM = Juneau, Alaska 998114 (907) 465-3575 PO. Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 fit) Steve Cowcer Governor Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska June 22, 1987 Mr. Richard Anderson City Administrator P.O. Box 422 Sitka, AK 99835 Dear Mr. Anderson: Attached is the draft of "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study" prepared by Harza Engineering Company and other consultants for your review. Please note that this is the first draft and does not necessarily represent any particular point of view and is subject to major revisions. We therefore request that it not be released to the general public yet. We are also enclosing a copy of the load forecast report prepared for your community by the R.W. Beck and Associates. We would like to get your review comments on the "intertie" draft by July 15, 1987. It is very important that you convey your concerns and suggestions to us by this date. We hope to finalize the report shortly thereafter. We once again thank you for your cooperation and assistance in preparing this report. If you have any other questions on this project, please call Tanzeem Rizvi or me at the Alaska Power Authority. wa ; Donaid L. Shira Director/Program Development Attachment as stated TR:DLS:it cc: Mr. Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Company 9310/DD18(2) PO. Box AM Juneau, Alaska 99814 (907) 465-3575 PO. Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 tlt Steve Cowne’. Sovernor BS Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska June 22, 1987 The Honorable Dan Keck Mayor City & Borough of Sitka 304 Lake Street Sitka, Alaska 99835 ‘ Dear Mayor Keck: Attached is the draft of "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study" prepared by Harza Engineering Company and other consultants for your review. Please note that this is the first draft and does not necessarily represent any particular point of view and is subject to major revisions. We therefore request that it not be released to the general public yet. We are also enclosing a copy of the load forecast report prepared for your community by the R.W. Beck and Associates. We would like to get your review comments on the "intertie" draft by July 15, 1987. It is very important that you convey your concerns and suggestions to us by this date. We hope to finalize the report shortly thereafter. We once again thank you for your cooperation and assistance in preparing this report. If you have any other questions on this project, please call Tanzeem Rizvi or me at the Alaska Power Authority. Sincerely, | th hee. Donald L. Shira Director/Program Development Attachment as stated TR:DLS:it cc: Mr. Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Company 9310/DD18(1) PO. Box AM Juneau, Alaska 99814 (907) 465-3575 PO Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 GT Steve Cowper. Governor BN Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska June 22, 1987 Mr. Charles Y. Walls General Manager Glacier Highway Electric Assoc., Inc. P.O. Box 210547 Auke Bay, Mae 9 Dear Mr. SA “ Attached is the draft of "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study" prepared by Harza Engineering Company and other consultants for your review. Please note that this is the first draft and does not necessarily represent any particular point of view and is subject to major revisions. We therefore request that it not be released to the general public yet. We are also enclosing a copy of the load forecast report prepared for your community by the R.W. Beck and Associates. We would like to get your review comments on the "intertie" draft by July 15, 1987. It is very important that you convey your concerns and suggestions to us by this date. We hope to finalize the report shortly thereafter. We once again thank you for your cooperation and assistance in preparing this report. If you have any other questions on this project, please call Tanzeem Rizvi or me at the Alaska Power Authority. Donald L. Shira Director/Program Development Attachment as stated TRIDESEAt cc: Mr. Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Company 9310/DD18(6) PO. Box AM —s Juneau, Alaska 99811 (907) 465-3575 PO Box 190869 701 £EastTudorRoad Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 red Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska June 22, 1987 The Honorable Ernest E. Polley Mayor City and Borough of Juneau 155 S. Seward St. Juneau, Alaska 99801 Dear Mayor Polley: Attached is the draft of "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study" prepared by Harza Engineering Company and other consultants for your review. Please note that this is the first draft and does not necessarily represent any particular point of view and is subject to major revisions. We therefore request that it not be released to the general public yet. We are also enclosing a copy of the load forecast report prepared for your community by the R.W. Beck and Associates. We would like to get your review comments on the "intertie" draft by July 15, 1987. It is very important that you convey your concerns and suggestions to us by this date. We hope to finalize the report shortly thereafter. We once again thank you for your cooperation and assistance in preparing this report. If you have any other questions on this project, please call Tanzeem Rizvi or me at the Alaska Power Authority. Sincerely, Lh th Lee Donald L. Shira Director/Program Development Attachment as stated TReDLS=tt cc: Mr. Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Company 9310/DD18(4) PO. Box AM Juneau, Alaska 99814 (907) 465-3575 PO. Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 ft Steve Cowper. Goverrc’ Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska dune 22, 1987 Mr. William A. Corbus President & Manager Alaska Electric Light & Power Co. 134 North ay ies arr Juneau, Alaska aU Dear Mr. _ Copbiis: Attached is the draft of "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study" prepared by Harza Engineering Company and other consultants for your review. Please note that this is the first draft and does not necessarily represent any particular point of view and is subject to major revisions. We therefore request that it not be released to the general public yet. We are also enclosing a copy of the load forecast report prepared for your community by the R.W. Beck and Associates. We would like to get your review comments on the "intertie" draft by July 15, 1987. It is very important that you convey your concerns and suggestions to us by this date. We hope to finalize the report shortly thereafter. We once again thank you for your cooperation and assistance in preparing this report. If you have any other questions on this project, please call Tanzeem Rizvi or me at the Alaska Power Authority. Sincerely, ox Donald L. Shira Director/Program Development Attachment as stated TR:DLS: it cc: Mr. Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Company 9310/DD18(5) PO. Box AM Juneau, Alaska 99814 (907) 465-3575 PO. Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 tea Steve Cowpe’ Governor Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska June 22, 1987 The Honorable Ted Ferry Mayor City of Ketchikan 334 Front Street Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Dear Mayor Ferry: Attached is the draft of "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study" Prepared by Harza Engineering Company and other consultants for your review. Please note that this is the first draft and does not necessarily represent any particular point of view and is subject to major revisions. We therefore request that it not be released to the general public yet. We are also enclosing a copy of the load forecast report prepared for your community by the R.W. Beck and Associates. We would like to get your review comments on the "intertie" draft by July 15, 1987. It is very important that you convey your concerns and suggestions to us by this date. We hape to finalize the report shortly thereafter. We once again thank you for your cooperation and assistance in preparing this report. If you have any other questions on this project, please call Tanzeem Rizvi or me at the Alaska Power Authority. Lal he Donald L. Shira Director/Program Development Attachment as stated TR:DLS:it cc: Mr. Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Company 9310/DD18(5) PO. Box AM = Juneau, Alaska 99814 (907) 465-3575 PO. Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 (rt) Steve Cowper Governor Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska June 22, 1987 The Honorable Ralph C. Gregory Jr. Mayor Ketchikan Gateway Borough 334 Front Street Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Dear Mayor Gregory: Attached is the draft of "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study" prepared by Harza Engineering Company and other consultants for your review. Please note that this is the first draft and does not necessarily represent any particular point of view and is subject to major revisions. We therefore request that it not be released to the general public yet. We are also enclosing a copy of the load forecast report prepared for your community by the R.W. Beck and Associates. We would like to get your review comments on the “intertie" draft by July 15, 1987. It is very important that you convey your concerns and suggestions to us by this date. We hope to finalize the report shortly thereafter. We once again thank you for your cooperation and assistance in preparing this report. If you have any other questions on this project, please call Tanzeem Rizvi or me at the Alaska Power Authority. Wade Donald L. Shira Director/Program Development Attachment as stated TR:DLS:it cc: Mr. Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Company 9310/DD18(6) PO. Box AM Juneau, Alaska 99814 (907) 465-3575 PO. Box 190869 701 EastTudorRoad Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 110) Steve Cowpe’. Governor Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska June 22, 1987 Mr. Richard Southworth General Manager Ketchikan Public Utilities 2400 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Dear Mr. user? Attached is the draft of "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study" prepared by Harza Engineering Company and other consultants for your review. Please note that this is the first draft and does not necessarily represent any particular point of view and is subject to major revisions. We therefore request that it not be released to the general public yet. We are also enclosing a copy of the load forecast report prepared for your community by the R.W. Beck and Associates. We would like to get your review comments on the “intertie" draft by July 15, 1987. It is very important that you convey your concerns and suggestions to us by this date. We hope to finalize the report shortly thereafter. We once again thank you for your cooperation and assistance in preparing this report. If you have any other questions on this project, please call Tanzeem Rizvi or me at the Alaska Power Authority. Sincer ‘ Conn Donald L. Shira Director/Program Development Attachment as stated TRDESS tt cc: Mr. Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Company 9310/DD18(7) PO. Box AM = Juneau, Alaska 99844 (907) 465-3575 PO Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 (ty Steve Cowper Governor BS Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska June 22, 1987 Mr. Bob Cross Administrator Alaska Power Administration P.0. Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Dear hes Cops | Attached is the draft of "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study" prepared by Harza Engineering Company and other consultants for your review. Please note that this is the first draft and does not necessarily represent any particular point of view and is subject to major revisions. We therefore request that it not be released to the general public yet. We are also enclosing a copy of the load forecast report prepared for your community by the R.W. Beck and Associates. We would like to get your review comments on the “intertie" draft by July 15, 1987. It is very important that you convey your concerns and suggestions to us by this date. We hope to finalize the report shortly thereafter. We once again thank you for your cooperation and assistance in preparing this report. If you have any other questions on this project, please call Tanzeem Rizvi or me at the Alaska Power Authority. Sincerely, or Donald L. Shira Director/Program Development Attachment as stated TR:DLS:it cc: Mr. Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Company 9310/DD18(1) PO. Box AM Juneau, Alaska 99814 (907) 465-3575 PO. Box 190869 701 EastTudorRoad Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 Steve Cowper. Governor Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska June 22, 1987 George Davidson Executive Director Southeast Conference P.O. Box 2317 Juneau, Alaska 99803 Dear Mr. Davidson: Attached is the draft of "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study" prepared by Harza Engineering Company and other consultants for your review. Please note that this is the first draft and does not necessarily represent any particular point of view and is subject to major revisions. We therefore request that it not be released to the general public yet. We are also enclosing a copy of the load forecast report prepared for your community by the R.W. Beck and Associates. We would like to get your review comments on the "intertie" draft by July 15, 1987. It is very important that you convey your concerns and suggestions to us by this date. We hope to finalize the report shortly thereafter. We once again thank you for your cooperation and assistance in preparing this report. If you have any other questions on this project, please call Tanzeem Rizvi or me at the Alaska Power Authority. Donald L. Shira Director/Program Development Attachment as stated TR:DLS:it cc: Mr. Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Company 9310/DD18(2) PO. Box AM Juneau, Alaska 99814 (907) 465-3575 PO. Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 {907) 561-7877 Steve Cowper. Sovernor Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska June 22, 1987 Sealaska Corporation One Sealaska Plaza Suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1276 Attn: Mr. Rick Harris Dear Mr. Harris: Attached is the draft of "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study" prepared by Harza Engineering Company and other consultants for your review. Please note that this is the first draft and does not necessarily represent any particular point of view and is subject to major revisions. We therefore request that it not be released to the general public yet. We are also enclosing a copy of the load forecast report prepared for your community by the R.W. Beck and Associates. We would like to get your review comments on the "intertie" draft by July 15, 1987. It is very important that you convey your concerns and suggestions to us by this date. We hope to finalize the report shortly thereafter. We once again thank you for your cooperation and assistance in preparing this report. If you have any other questions on this project, please call Tanzeem Rizvi or me at the Alaska Power Authority. Lt hn Donald L. Shira Director/Program Development Attachment as stated TR: DLS: it cc: Mr. Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Company 9310/DD18(1) PO. Box AM Juneau, Alaska 99814 (907) 465-3575 PO. Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 t Dv oye CITY of WRANGELL, ALASKA INCORPORATED JUNE 15, 1903 BOX 531, 99929 (907) 874-2381 ADOPTED AUGUST 1972 June 29, 1987 RETEWeD’ ys OM, a Donald L. Shira ‘S7 AL 1 P2514 Director/Program Development Alaska Power Authority P. 0. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Dear Mr. Shira: In the late mail on Friday, June 26th, the draft of "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study" was received in this office. Please be advised that Mrs. Joyce Rasler, City Manager is on annual leave and will not return to her office until the morning of July 20, 1987, therefore will be unable to meet your schedule of reviewing and commenting on the document by July 15, 1987, as your letter requested. I am sure that Mrs. Rasler will be in contact with you as soon as she returns to her office. Sincerely, 4 Leaeelhsediedicer— “ vanor City Clerk Alaska Power Authority Responses to Public and Agency Comments on Draft Report Date Comments From Response 6/29/87 City of Wrangell No response required. STATE OF ALASKA / === DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GA ME P.O. BOX 667 PETERSBURG, AK 99833-0667 PHONE: (907) 772-3801 June 30, 1987 RECENWFD ~ WLASKA & Donald L. Shira Director/Program Development mr Alaska Power Authority ‘g7 JL -6 A? P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, AK 99519-0869 Dear Mr. Shira: The Department of Fish and Game has received a copy of the draft "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study" prepared by Harza Engineering Company. This draft study requires review by our staff in various area offices in southeast. To date, we have only received one copy of the document for review. As per our phone discussion I have requested copies be sent to our offices in Juneau, Sitka and Ketchikan. As 1 indicated, we cannot initiate review of this draft until these individuals have received a copy of the document. Given the magnitude of the project we cannot make an adequate review and still make your July 15 deadline. Upon receipt of the documents we will initiate our reviews and comment as soon as possible- Thanks for your patience. Sincerely, A es Don Cornelius Area Habitat Biologist Reed, ADFG, Juneau Gustafson, ADFG, Ketchikan Hardy, ADFG, Sitka Hall, ADFG, Juneau Mayer, DGC, Juneau cc: oLo0uUD 11-K58LH Alaska Power Authority Responses to Public and Agency Comments on Draft Report Date Comments From Response 6/30/87 Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game No response required. SENT BY! ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY: 7- 6-87 12:@1Pm : 90746527674 CCITT G3s# 2 Hh @ NALA Alaska State Legislature but. Senate P.O. BOX V State Capitol Juneau, Alaska 99811 July 1, 1987 Mr. Robert LeResche, Director Alaska Power Authority Departnent-ocf- Commerce - oa cnenan CR) Pee een enn: 0102 Juneau, Alaska 99833 Dear Mr. LeRescha: Members of the Thomas Bay Power Authority have contacted our office's ragarding the excess power at the Tyee Lake hydro- electric project. They raised what we believe is an interesting option with regard to the Blackbear Lake hydro- electric project. It was suggested that an intertie be constructed between the Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project and Prince of Wales Island (POW). This would serve two purposes; it would fulfill the electrical requirenents of Prince Of Wales Island, and it would help utilise the excess power production at Tyee Lake. Additionally, it was suggested that the Blackbear Lake Project could be delayed until there is sufficient power demand. At that point the project could be financed and would be acces~ sible to all of the communities on the intertie. _ : Pe eEPECeE Eee, We urge the Alaska Power Authority to consider a Tyee-POW intertie option. It would seem to be prudent considering the state's considerable investment at Tyee Lake. Two possible routes were suggested for an intertie from Tyee Lake to POW. One route might proceed from the existing sub- marine Tyee Lake intertie crossing near Anan Creek down the west side of the Cleveland Peninsula beyond Deer Island. There may be, in the future, some logging roads that would follow the valleys from south of Deer Island to the south along Vixen Inlet and on to Port Stewart. An intertie could be constructed along this alignment, it would continue through various drainages to near Meyers Chuck for a submarine crossing from the Cleveland Peninsula to the Kasaan Peninsula on POW. From there paral- leling the POW road system for distribution. This route could be interconnected via submarine cable to Ketchikan by way of Port Stewart. az SENT BY!:ALASKOA POWER QUTHORITY: 7- 6-87 12:02PM : 90746527675 CCITT Gi:# Z Blackbear=Tyee Intertie Page 2, July 1, 1987 The other suggested route might be through interconnection via the Tyee Laka Intertia weat of wrangell on Woronkofski or vank Island with submarine cable to Zarembo Island paralleling existing roads to a southwest submarine crossing to POW. The power line could parallel existing roads to the southern popu- lation centers on POW Island. This route, of course, would not serve as an intertia to Ketchikan. In summary, we think Blackbear Lake should be developed, how- ever, it might be mora economical to use Tyee Lake power over the short term. With the optional third turbine installed, Tyee Lake would have the capacity to meet the forseeable power demands of POW, ‘Wrangell, Petersburg, and XKatchikan for “strie™ © time. We think an intertie of Tyee Lake, POW as well as Ketchikan might offer the best short term solution. We encourage you to consider these alternatives and work in conjunction with the Forest Service and the Department of Transportation to determine thair feasibility. Sincerely, anator ard Eliason Senate District B Senate District A cc: Thomas Bay Power Authority Dennis Lewis, PRLEP Dick Southworth, KPU Joyce Rasler, City of Wrangell Don Schira, APA Win Green, Forest Service Mark Mickey, DOT/FF Ley Steve Cowper Governor ON Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska July 21, 1987 The Honorable Lloyd Jones Alaska State Senator 3813 Denali Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Dear Senator Jones: This is in reference to your letter dated July 1, 1987 regarding feasi- bility of a transmission line intertie to market surplus power from Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project to the communities on Prince of Wales Island (POW). This subject has drawn considerable interest in the last few years and has instigated several studies to check the feasibility of marketing this excess power to Kake, Ketchikan, POW and Quartz Hill; to name a few. The “Southeast Intertie" project study is currently looking into the feasibility of an interconnected grid system in southeast Alaska. The initial draft of this study is presently being reviewed by communities and agencies. Some of the factors which inhibit development of a grid system in Alaska are: high cost of construction; long dis- tances and small electrical load centers. The Black Bear Lake project feasibility report has compared this project with a transmission line interconnection to Ketchikan (Swan Lake Power). The February 87 update report for the project shows that a smaller-scale development of Black Bear Lake, though marginal, is still better than the transmission line option. The Ketchikan to POW transmission line is considerably shorter (hence less expensive) than a transmission line from Tyee Lake to POW. The first route, (through Cleveland Peninsula) suggested in your letter is very similar to the one being considered in the “Southeast Intertie” report. This route was discussed with the local authorities including the U.S. Forest Service, Department of Transportation and various other resource agencies earlier this year during our community visits. I am enclosing copies of the maps showing various alternate routes considered for Tyee, Swan Lake and POW inter- ties. Segment 8 shows the most direct and least costly route between Tyee Lake and Swan Lake projects. Segment 13 is the route similar to the one suggested in your letter through Cleveland Peninsula. As you will notice, this route is quite a bit longer and, therefore, more expensive to build than Segment 8. If one considers this route just for POW from Tyee Lake project, the economics look even worse, and it does not compare favorably with either existing localized diesel generation or the proposed Black Bear Lake facility. This is especially true when you add the cost of an inner island transmission system and the price POW consumers would have to pay for Tyee Lake power. 9597/742/3 PO. Box AM Juneau. Alaska 99811 (907) 465-3575 PO Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 The second route discussed in your letter looks even less attractive. Such a route would require considerably longer submarine cable crossings and will be more difficult and expensive to build. At this time, the information we have suggests that localized generation would be more beneficial to the POW consumers. The best hope to absorb present plus expanded Tyee Lake power stil! appears to be an interconnection to Ketchikan, and possibly Metlakatla when Ketchikan fully absorbs the surplus of Swan Lake project and/or an interconnection to Quartz Hill is developed. This fiscal year we intend to follow-up on recommendations from the Southeast Intertie Report. We will be looking more closely at the Tyee/Swan intertie; and interconnections between Juneau and Green's Creek, Ketchikan/Metlakatla and alternatives to supplying small com- munities from Kake to Hoonah. We will also schedule another look at the Tyee/POW alternative to determine if there is merit for more detailed studies. I am enclosing a copy of the updated Black Bear Lake project report for your information. The Power Authority is recommending putting 8lack Bear "on hold" until loads increase and/or a rise in oil prices could justify its early development. I will mail you the final report on the “Southeast Intertie" project, which discusses several smaller potential intertied segments for Southeast Alaska, as soon as it comes off the press - hopefully by late August. We are also keeping the Forest Service and the Department of Transportation apprised of our study effort. Sincerely, -Robert E. LeResche Executive Director Enclosure as stated. TR: REL: nc cc: The Honorable Richard Eliason, Alaska State Senator Mark Hickey, DOT/PF Win Green, U.S. Forest Service Dennis Lewis, PML&P Dick Southworth, KPU 9597/742/4 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S, ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA P.O. BOX 898 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99506-0898 ATTENTION OF: 2 JUL i Regulatory Branch Special Actions Section Donald L. Shira, Director/Program Development Alaska Power Authority Post Office Box A.M. Juneau, Alaska 99811 Dear Mr. Shira: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has reviewed the draft Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study and offers the following comments for your information and use: a. Enclosed for reference is a copy of our letter to PEI Consultants, Incorporated, dated January 29, 1987, which provided general comments to be considered in project development. This letter is not included in Appendix D. b. Table 8-3 of the draft study lists the Department of the Army (DA) permit requirements for authority of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. However, Table 8-3 does not identify USACE (or the Forest Service) regulatory jurisdiction under Title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C 3161-3173 (1982 and supplement). c. The size of the macro-corridors with the broadly categorized environmental assessment (physical, biological, and social/cultural constraints matrix elements) does not provide the information necessary for site specific comments, evaluation of potential impacts to navigable waters and wetlands or identification of route specific DA jurisdictional determinations. The study has noted general public and agency concerns which are pertinent to the intertie system for southeast Alaska. We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft study. If you have any questions concerning these comments, please feel free to contact Ms. Jean A. Marx or me at the address above, ATTN: CENPA-CO-R-S or by calling (907) 753-2712. Sincerely, Special Actions Section Regulatory Branch Enclosure ROJAN WB7 O- Regulatory Branch Special Actions Section Mr. Don Fordney PEI Consultants, Incorporated 1225 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Dear Mr. Fordney: In response to your letter of December 22,: 1986, and as a followup to our meeting with you concerning the proposed Southeast Intertie project, we offer the following comments. While much of the proposed project involves suspended powerlines through mountainous terrain and therefore not likely to be subject to Department of the Army (DA) regulatory jurisdiction, there are sizeable portions of the proposed intertie which involve either submarine or overhead crossings of navigable waters of the United States. These portions of the project will require authorization through DA permits by authority of Section 10 of the River ana Haroor Act of 1899. Further more, if any fill material is required for access roads or construction Pads through wetlands or other waters of the United States for the onshore portion cf the project, those activities will be subject to DA permits by authority or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The magnitude of the project and the limited data about the project at tinis early stage prevents us from identifying in aetail any substantial environmental issues. However, we do have some general comments about environmental issues wnicn you snould consider in your project development. These include: a. Potential impacts to bald eagles, especially in the Haines area, from eagle interaction with powerlines. D. Endangered species concerns witn submarine power lines and nuimpoack whales throughout much of southeast Alaskan marine waters. c. conflicts with wilderness status in Misty Fjords National Monument. c consolidated and expedited permits review under Title 1] of Alaska Natiunai interest Lanus Conservation Act for Misty Fjords National Monument. 2. Pussiole conflicts witn tne risning industry in trawling areas with suomarine cables. f. The granting of Federal permits for the project would likely require an environmental impact statement prior to issuance due to the magnitude of the project and the issues identified above . We realize tnese general comments may not meet your needs, but, based on the limited project information that you have provided and our limited staff resources due to a very heavy workload this is the best that we can provide at this time. Should you have any questions about the concerns that we have raised . or have any more detailed information about the project to provide us for further comments, please feel free to contact Mr. William M. Fowler of my staff at (907) 753-2712. Sincerely, FOveg, Larry L. Reeder Chief, Special Actions Section Regulatory Branch Alaska Power Authority Responses to Public and Agency Comments on Draft Report Date Comments From Response 7/2/87 Department of the Army, US Army Comments incorporated Engineer District, Alaska into final report, no further response required. CITY OF PETERSBURG P.O. BOX 329 ¢ PETERSBURG, ALASKA 99833 ¢ PHONE (907) 772-4203 MUNICIPAL POWER AND LIGHT DEPT. PESUNY,B, 1987 Don Shira ALASK.- Director, Program Development Alaska Power Authority 87) «SL 10 AlO:09 P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Re: Oraft of Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study. Dear Don, I would like to express some ideas to you and your staff concerning some of the proposed generating facilities and transmission access corridors to service the communities and villages of Southeast Alaska. One concern is the economic feasibility of the Black Bear Lake Hydro. If this project was isolated and no other existing generation facilities were located nearby, I feel it might possibly be a viable project. But as you know, the Tyee and Suan Lake projects are in the vicinity and both have excess capacity. I feel that a new transmission line could be routed from existing Tyee transmission facilities on Woronkofski Island to the north end of Prince of Wales Island. By using existing road access on Prince of Wales Island, it would cut costs for line clearing and right of way acquisition. This transmission line could in turn, service mast of the communities and villages on Prince of Waies Island. One other alternative would be to use the Cleveland Peninsula access to Prince of Wales Isiand from the existing Tyee transmission facilities. It is my understanding that the Forest Service would be interested in this concept so they could open some timber sales. To do that they would likely build the access road too. These ideas would be beneficial in a number of ways as they would: 1. relieve the extra capacity at Tyee; 2. begin the grid for transmission intertie to a number of potential generation facilities; 3. service communities and villages in Southeast Alaska; 4. eventually intertie Swan Lake (Ketchikan) and Tyee (Bradfield Canal). After the transmission lines are in place it wouid then be time to look at installing extra generation faciiites as needed. or example, Sunrise Lake on Woronkofski Island would have a potential of 6 MW. The generation power house would be within a couple of hundred yards of the existing Tyee transmission facilities. If the transmission facility was in place, Black Bear Lake could then be built for an extra 6 MW capacity when needed. But before considering that 1 believe the spare generator bay at Tyee should be considered, where another 10 MW could be produced. If even more capacity is needed, Swan Lake in Thomas Bay could generate 80 MW. In conclusion, I feel that transmission facilities are needed in Southeast Alaska- This should be one of the first things lookeg at before any more generation facilities are built. This would offer the potential of providing additional power at a lower rate. Once you have the rail you can always add the locomotive. As far as looking at this from the standpoint of benefits for the City of Petersburg, I see that added transmission lines would benefit us in two ways. Firstly it would provide a way to use some of the extra capacity at Tyee. Using more capacity at Tyee would increase revenue and disperse the O&M expenses and debt service costs among more customers, therefore keeping the wholesale rate at an affordable level. It would also add extra load at Tyee to make it a better working plant. This proposal! stili puts Petersburg at the end of the line but eventually, if and when the transmission intertie is complete, Petersburg could possiblilty nave service from the north from Snettisham as well. Then our system would have good continuity of service fram two generation facilities. Thanks for the opportunity to offer my comments. I hope you will consider my suggestions. Sincerely, Dennis C. Lewis Power & Light Superintendent City of Petersburg cc: Rep. Robin Taylor Senator Lloyd Jones Senator Richard Eliasan Dick Southworth, PMC Chairman Dave Carlson, TBPA Chairman Petersburg Utility Board Alaska Power Authority Responses to Public and Agency Comments on Draft Report Date Comments From Response 7/6/87 City of Petersburg, MP&L Refer to APA 7/21/87 response to 7/1/87 comments by Senators Eliason and Jones. A copy was sent to MP&L in response to their similar concerns. tlingit & haida Regional Electrical authority PO. Box 210149 * Auke Bay, Alaska 99821 ¢ (907) 789-3196 July 9, 1987 Donald L. Shira Director Program Development Alaska Power Authoritg7 JI! 17 P12:13 P.O. Box AM Juneau, AK 99811 Dear Mr. Shira: Thank you for sending a draft copy of the "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study" to Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrical Authority. After reviewing the report, I am encouraged by certain parts. However, I would like to see a review of a plan that would delete the 100KV DC line from Kake to Snettisham- Crater Lake. I would propose instead, a connecting line from Warm Springs to Angoon, continuing to Hoonah, Green's Creek Mine and on to the Juneau area. I have enclosed a drawing indicating this route. Since this study is in draft form, the Electrical Authority, in consideration of its consumers, respectfully request that the Alaska Power Authority include this route scheme in its feasibility study. Very truly yours, out 0. Shaft) Jarrett D. Broughton General Manager Enclosure cc: T.H.R.E.A. Commissioners Dick Eliason Ben Grussendorf Peter Goll FIGURE 1 WHITEHORSE = “~~ O ~~Lo LYNN CANAD M40, (EAST) Y oN — -. Oo . < a ~ ' | HAINES Rap, GREENS CREEK SNETTISHAM- CRATER LAKE TENAKEE SPRINGS ANGOON Sieh PETERSBURG \WARM : A SPRINGS — WRANGELL TYEE LAKE & a PRINCE S LEGEND: ea @ - Loan centers en ; © - GENERATION soURCES S% j——= = EXISTING T/LINE / = —— - POTENTIAL ADDITION QUARTZ o oeac =~ POTENTIAL ADDITION MERLABATEA _ CO ‘ KITSAULT DRAFT RECOMMENDED VOLTAGES I(tACGers A Steve Cowce’ Soverrc’ Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska November 18, 1987 Mr. Jarrett D. Broughton General Manager Tlingit and Haida Regional Electric Utility P.O. Box 210149 Auke Bay, Alaska 99821 Dear Mr. Broughton: This letter is in reply to your comments of July 9, 1987, regarding the draft "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study." In those comments you stated your preference for a transmission line plan similar to the study's so-called "West Route" from Snettisham to Sitka via Greens Creek and Hoonah, versus the "East Route" via submarine cable links between Snettisham and Kake, and Kake and Warm Springs Bay. After reviewing your comments on the draft report and those of others, and preparing its own review, our staff has requested revisions in the report which resulted in a re-evaluation of the various alternatives. As shown on the attached figure, the most economic plan now includes a 69 kV transmission line from Snettisham to Sitka via Juneau, Greens Creek, Hoonah, and Tenakee Springs. As before, the study results indicate that Angoon would best be served by continued reliance on diesel generation. Thank you for your comments on the draft report. The final report is expected to be available by the end of December 1987. We look forward to continued input from the Tlingit & Haida Regional Electric Authority (THREA) as this project proceeds. Sinan es on ti dee Donald L. Shira, Director Program Development & Facilities Operations EAM:DLS:tg 796/DD29/1 = PO Box AM Juneau, Alaska 99844 (907) 465-3575 x PO Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 . WHITEHORSE —~ SKAGWAY @ ae . 4 So, o™N HAINES @ JUNEAU GREENS CREEK 2 ¥ . © SNETTISHAM- CRATER LAKE TENAKEE PETERSBURG PRINCE LEGEND: : OF WALES ISLAND @ - Load centers @ GENERATION SOURCES KET EXISTING T/LINE STEMIRAM 100KV DC (BIPOLAR) ee === - PROPOSED T/LINE & QUARTZ 138KV $ VOLTAGE METLAKATLA oh COST(MILLIONS) ~ ~ KITSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY _MOST ECONOMIC PLAN HARZA ENGINEEM@ING COMMaNY =o COTOBE® wer ( FLAN oD) L.sce YY. Pa Department Of Energy ash wn Alaska Power Administration ie P.O. Box 020050 i Juneau, Alaska 99802-0050 July 10, 1987 Mr. Don Shira Director/Program Development Alaska Power Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, AK 99519-0869 anags RECEVED PY 87 ML 13 PI2:05 Dear Mr. Shira, Thank you for sending the new draft report from Harza on the Southeast Intertie studies. The new report looks at a broader range of intertie alternatives than did the earlier studies and adds some significant new field data. As with the earlier studies, service to the smaller communities shows little promise of feasibility and the large interconnections become attractive only when large new loads are assumed. The study assumes zero cost for projected Alaskan surpluses at Snettisham and Tyee. Such surpluses might be quite cheap at a spot or short-term sale basis. However, any surpluses committed in a firm, long-term basis would carry significant costs. For Snettisham, we believe there is a substantial local market for the surplus in interruptible sales in space and water heating applications. The retail value of such sales is probably on the order of 3 to 4 cents per kilowatt-hour with the oil prices assumed in the Harza study. This retail value might be a good approximation of the economic cost of long term surplus available for export through the interties. Given these conditions, it might be better to do a more detailed financial analysis of the system, particularly the ties from Snettisham, rather than field YY work or feasibility studies. The study assumes a cost of $0.055 per kilowatt-hour for energy exported from Canada. This seems high, especially when compared with the actual price of export energy from B.C. Hydro. In terms of regional planning, the free Alaska surplus assumption (as well as overestimating the cost of Canadian surplus) tends to overstate the benefits for the interties within Southeast Alaska and diminish attractiveness of potential interties with Canadian systems. “Scene Celebrating the U.S. Constitution Bicentennial — 1787-1987 At a recent conference in Seattle (NWPPA Annual Meeting, June 17-19), the BC Hydro Chairman and Administrators from Bonneville and Western Area Power Administrations spoke on regional surplus items. Jim Jura indicated that BPA expected a firm surplus of 1300 to 1700 MW extending past the year 2000. Bill Clagett noted that in the WAPA 15-state service area, there were only two areas now looking to buy long-term surplus. BC Hydro is estimating firm surplus through 1991 and average-year surplus of around 500 MW beyond that date. My guess is that access to power from the larger systems to the South will prove to be a stronger driving force for the Southeast intertie than will the surplus from projects like Snettisham and Tyee. There are other advantages to intertie systems which are not as easy to quantify and incorporate into a B/C ratio. The added flexibility for planning future projects and increased reliabil- ity or system stability for a particular utility are just two examples. Since the draft report was written, the Green's Creek mining project has been given the go-ahead by the parent company. At the time of this announcement the information was that the expected life of the project was 20 years instead of the 10 years used in the report. This may make some difference in the economic analyses of the various alternatives. = ME any OC Core, ‘Robert J. ‘Cross Administrator tit) Steve Cowcer ‘Goverror Alaska Power Authority , State of Alaska November 18, 1987 Mr. Robert J. Cross, Administrator Department of Energy Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 020050 Juneau, AK 99802-0050 Dear Bob: This letter is in response to your comments of July 10, 1987 on the draft "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study". In those comments you noted 1) that the cost of surplus power from existing Alaska hydro plants was omitted from the study; 2) that the $0.055 per kWh cost of Canadian generation may be too high, and 3( that the expected life of the Greens Creek mine should be 20 years rather than the 10 years used for the draft report. Regarding the cost of existing hydro generation, we instructed the consultant to base their analysis on zero cost of power from all existing S.E. hydro plants because, from a regional standpoint, the cost of the existing facilities represents a sunk cost common to all alternatives. The study is intended to reflect the best interests of Southeast as a region and no effort is made to deter- mine the particular economic impact of the alternative on specific load centers. As you suggested, this determination is better left to detailed financial analysis of specific segments or systems. The cost assumed for imported generation was determined by staff after discussions with B.C. Hydro and the Northern Canada Power Commission in 1986. The cost includes the capital and O&M costs of the Canadian transmission facilities required to transmit the exported energy to the U.S. border and may seem high to you for that reason. The Canadian side of the B.C. Hydro to Quartz Hill line would require construction of an estimated 35 miles trans- mission line. . Regarding Greens Creek, staff instructed the consultant to revise the expected life of the mine from 10 to 20 years and as you observed in your letter, this change did have ramifications on the economics of the various alternatives. As could be expected, the Greens Creek intertie to Juneau looks much more favorable than it did under the assumptions of the draft report. A further result of this revision, however, was that the previously recommended plan, Plan C, consisting of an interconnection of Snettisham to Quartz 797/791/1 PO. Box AM —_ Juneau, Alaska 99811 = (907) 465-3575 PO. Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 Mr. Robert J. Cross November 18, 1987 Page 2 Hill via Kake, Petersburg, Tyee and Swan Lake, now appears to be less economically attractive, from a regional standpoint, than Plan B, shown in the attached figure. As shown, Plan B would utilize surplus Snettisham energy to satisfy the demand in Sitka, Tenakee Springs, Hoonah and Greens Creek, as well as the Juneau area. Tyee surplus energy would be utilized by Ketchikan via a Tyee/Swan Lake interconnection and Quartz Hill would be served either by imported Canadian energy or on-site diesel generation. Thank you for your comments on the draft report. We expect the final report out by the end of December 1987 and look forward to continued input from you as this project proceeds. ey Lew fe LE « Donald L. Shira Director/Program Development & Facilities Operations Enclosure as stated. cc: William Corbus, Alaska Electric Light & Power Charlie Walls, Glacier Highway Electric Association 797/791/2 . WHITEHORSE — SKAGWAY @ ag O HAINES @ HOONAH . om nO NW, ~S Ao, JUNEAU GREENS CREEK 2? ¥ ‘. © TENAKEE PRINCE OF WALES ISLAND LOAD CENTERS @ GENERATION SOURCES LEGEND: EXISTING T/LINE PROPOSED T/LINE VOLTAGE COST(MILLIONS) HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY SNETTISHAM- CRATER LAKE PETERSBURG %S 100KV DC (BIPOLAR). /> e QUARTZ = METLAKATLA 41e KITSAULT KETCHIKAN ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY _MOST ECONOMIC PLAN (FLAY BD ‘ { , City and Borough of Sitka 304 LAKE STREET. SITKA, ALASKA. 99835 Ark W374 RECEIVED RY JULY 13, 1987 BUNSKAL= = Mr. Donald L. Shira Director / Program Developmené? Ju 20 PI2:40 Alaska Power Authority P.0.Box AM CERTIFIED # P_511 316 412 Juneau, Alaska 99811 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED RE: “Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study" Dear Mr. Shira, We have reviewed the draft document per your request and offer the following comments: Regarding Segment #7, Kake to Sitka - Our planners letter dated January 15, 1987 which is included in the study appendix, is not reflected in the study segment. We stated that the proposed routes from Baranof Warm Springs into the Green Lake / Blue Lake route would still leave "all our eggs in one basket" and subject Sitka to long power outages if a tree or other route problem occurred. We had requested your study review the potential for a northerly route to give us a back feed or tie from another direction. We also note that the Alaska Department of Fish and Game comments of February 23, 1987 also speak of the potential Takatz Lake project and the potential for a route across from Takatz rather than Baranof Warm Springs or Manleyville. ( See suggestions #15, #16 ) Again, we would like to go on record, that if a southeast intertie is to become a reality, that a northerly route to Sitka be chosen that utilizes the Takatz scenerio and does not bring the intertie into the Blue Lake / Green Lake feed location. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, icky Coen ichard Anderson Administrator CC: Grissom - Electrical Superintendant Schmidt - Planning Director Hit) Steve Cowce’ Scverror Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska November 19, 1987 Mr. Richard Anderson, Administrator City and Borough of Sitka 304 Lake Street Sitka, AK 99835 Dear Mr. Anderson: This letter is in response to your comments on July 13, 1987 on the draft “Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study". In the draft report, the most economic plan, involved a trunk transmission via the so-called "East Route" from Snettisham to Quartz Hill through Kake, Tyee and Swan Lake. The compatible interconnection of Sitka to this system was stated to be via DC submarine cable from Kake to Warm Springs Bay and thence by overhead line by a southerly route to Blue Lake substation. In your comments you strongly stated Sitka's preference for a northerly route across Baranoff Island from the potential hydro site at Takatz Lake and a separate feed into Sitka rather than the proposed utilization of the existing Blue Lake/Green Lake feed line. In response to the comments received on the draft report and our own staff review comments, our consultant has reevaluated the various alternatives. As shown on the attached figure, the most economic plan now includes interconnection of Sitka with surplus Snettisham generation via a northerly route through Juneau, Green's Creek ,Hoonah and Tenakee Springs. The proposed line would be a predominately 69 kV AC overhead line with submarine cable crossings as required. Though, for compatibility with the other alternatives investigated, the termination for this line continues to be assumed to be at Blue Lake substation, the separate line and substation you desire would add little cost to the overall scheme and is compa- tible with it. Although the proposed route does not provide for an intertie connection with the Takatz Lake Project, the Takatz Project is compatible with the S.E. Intertie since it has the potential of also providing energy to Sitka and the S.E. Intertie system. 0798/791/1 PO. Box AM = Juneau, Alaska 99811 (907) 465-3575 PO Box 190869 701 EastTudorRoad Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 = (907) 561-7877 Mr. Richard Anderson November 19, 1987 Page 2 We appreciate your comments on the draft report and look forward to continued input from you as this project proceeds. We expect the final report out by the end of December 1987. 5 Sincerely, eee WAL Donald L. Shira Director/Program Development & Facilities Engineering Enclosure as stated. 0798/791/2 “~ Ss . WHITEHORSE es O SKAGWAY @ —~ “ay, ie hog N HAINES @ on JUNEAU HOONAH GREENS CREEK 2 sit’ & SNETTISHAM- CRATER LAKE TENAKEE SPRINGS PETERSBURG TYEE LAKE PRINCE LEGEND: _ OF WALES ISLAND @ - Loan centers e © - GENERATION souRCES KET == - EXISTING T/LINE CHIKAN 100KV DC (BIPOLAR) === - PROPOSED T/LINE S QUARTZ o 138Kv _ VOLTAGE METLAKATLA 412 s COST(MILLIONS) ~~ i ~ KITSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY EXPANSION PLAN B HHARZA snaonanana commany ccTros= we” United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Juneau Fish and Wildlife Enhancement IN REPLY REFER TO: Southeast Alaska Ecological Services P. O. Box 021287 5/SEES/cs Juneau, Alaska 99802-1287 (907) 586-7240 i any SRAY DC, 1987 ‘O7) «SUL 20 PZ ‘29 Donald L. Shira, Director Program Development Alaska Power Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, AK 99519-0869 Re: Draft Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study Dear Mr. Shira: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the draft “Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study” accompanying your letter of June 23, 1987. The study was performed by Harza Engineering Company for the Alaska Power Authority to evaluate the feasibility and costs of inter- connecting the various load centers and generation sources in Southeast Alaska. We are pleased to assist your office in planning an environmentally acceptable project during the predevelopmental consultation phase. Construction of a Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie has the potential to cause significant environmental impacts through habitat loss or modification, bird strikes or electrocution, and disturbances of fish or wildlife during critical life stages. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, an environmental evaluation of each alternative on a site-specific basis is required. The submarine route is less environmentally impacting than the overland alternative(s) for all segments if necessary precautions are taken to avoid sensitive habitats. Points of ingress into and egress from the water should avoid eagle nest trees, estuaries, shell fish production areas, anadromous fish streams, and other important habitats. The Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended, protects bald eagles, their nests and eggs. While bald eagle nests are mapped and nest trees are marked by the Service, it is important to note that all nests are protected, whether inventoried or not. Thus, construction of transmission lines must avoid destruction of eagle nest trees. Direct impacts to large raptors such as eagles and ospreys may occur through (1) electrocution, (2) collisions with transmission lines or other structures, (3) modification of habitat via right-of-way clearing or other construction activities and (4) disturbances due to these construction activities. Electrocution may be avoided through design and structural techniques. The last three impacts may be avoided or minimized through route selection or timing restraints. Further information on avoiding impacts to raptors may be found in Suggested Practices For Raptor Protection on Power Lines (Olendorff, et al., 1981). Collisions with transmission lines by certain species of waterfowl may be a concern in some locales. Trumpeter swans, tundra swans, and lessor sandhill cranes require special consideration in evaluating routes along migratory routes or near migratory stopover areas, breeding areas and over-wintering sites. An additional biological factor to be considered when evaluating the possible line routes is "old growth” timber. Old growth timber provides habitat for a multitude of wildlife species in Southeast Alaska. The “beach fringe” old growth is especially important for providing nest and perch trees for eagles and wintering range for Sitka black-tailed deer, as well as inportant habitat for brown bear, mink and river otter. Inclusion of the effects of the intertie alternatives on old-growth habitat would strengthen the evaluation. Certain aspects of development in wetlands may pose regulatory restrictions as well as physical and biological constraints. Consultation with the Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is advised during final route selection and design of facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. We are available to meet with you or your staff to discuss these issues, provide site specific resource information and explore alternatives that will minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources. We will be pleased to provide further recommendations throughout the evolution of this proposal. Sincerely, Nevin D. Holmberg Field Supervisor Juneau Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Reference: Olendorff, R-R., A-D. Miller and R.N. Lehman, 1981. Suggested Practices For Raptor Protection on Power Lines, The State of the Art in 1981. Raptor Research Report No. 4, Raptor Research Foundation, Inc., St. Paul. 111 pp. cc: DNR, EPA, ADEC, DGC, NMFS, Juneau ADFG, Douglas _ 10) Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska November 18, 1987 Mr. Nevin D. Holmberg, Field Supervisor United States Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Juneau Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Southeast Alaska Ecological Services P.O. Box 021287 Juneau, AK 99802-1287 Dear Mr. Holmberg: Steve Cowper. Governor Thank you for your comments of July 16, 1987 on the draft "South- east Alaska Intertie Transmission Study". The final report is presently being prepared and insofar as possible your comments are being incorporated into the study. As stated more clearly in the final report, the scope of the study did not allow detailed en- vironmental comparisons to be made of each and every routing alternative for the numerous transmission segments. Rather, we sought to draw the kind of comments you have provided from the various interested agencies, utilities and other public and private entities, so that these concerns could form the basis of future detailed studies required for those transmission segments to be implemented. Thank you again for your comments. be available by the end of- December 1987. The final report is expected to We look forward to continued input from your staff on this project as it proceeds. hah ai i eeu aleesilh Donald L. Shira Director, Program Development & Facilities Operations 0799/791/1 PO. Box AM PO. Box 190869 Juneau, Alaska 99814 704 East Tudor Road (907) 465-3575 Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 i le ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO. Ave 134 N. FRANKLIN STREET JUNEAU, ALASKA 99801 (907) 586-2222 July 16, 1987 Mr. Donald L. Shira RECEIVE Director/Program Development Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska “9 eek P.O. Box 190869 of JUL 20 PI2 :40 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Dear Don: This letter contains the comments of the Alaska Electric Light and Power Company (AFLP) and Haines Light & Power Company (HLP) regarding the Southeast Alaska Intertie Study accompanying your June 22, 1987 letter. My comments follow: 1. The energy and demand projections for both the Juneau and Haines area are reasonable. 2. Greens Creek Transmission Line a. The enclosed article from the Juneau Empire dated July 23, 1987 indicates the official committment of AMSELCO to proceed with the Greens Creek development. Please note that the life of the mine is now estimated at 20 years rather than 10 years. One would think the additional 10 years might have a major impact on the feasiblity of the Greens Creek transmission line. b. My gut feeling is that a transmission line from } Juneau to Greens Creek might be needed within the | next two years. There are many other factors | associated with the Greens Creek Project that do not appear to be considered in the Study such as, the mine developer intends develop a road from Young’s Bay to Hawk Inlet. This would facilitate the installation of an overhead transmission line without all the necessary clearing work. In view of the imminent need for this transmission link, one would hope that the Study will not throw cold water on it but rather encourage futher detailed study. In Alaska addressi copy to: Snettisham - Peters:burg Transmission Link Feasibility for the transmission link between Snettisham and Petersburg has been established based upon the assumption there will be no charge for Snettisham energy. As you are aware, the U.S. Government has offered the Project for sale. It appears the probable owner will either continue to be the U.S. Government or the Alaska Power Authority.The later would finance the Project Purchase with tax exempt revenue bonds secured by an iron Clad "take or pay" power sales contract with AEI.P. AELP would commit to purchase all of the output of Snettisham as well as pay all debt service. Under such circumstances it it unlikely AELP would be willing to give away energy to other utilities at the expense of its own ratepayers. If the U.S. Government continues to own Snettisham- I believe they would also be reluctant to give away Snettisham energy. In Table 7-7 for Juneau it appears the numbers’ for Capacity and average annual energy requirements have been transposed. general I was pleased with the Study and commend the Power Authority and their consultants in successfully ng a rather complex subject. Very truly yours, William A. Corbus Manager Bob Cross. Alaska Power Administration Charlie Walls,» Glacier Highway Electric Association KATIE FATCUFFEAINENS EMPIRE Hawk Inlet terminal: The former Peter Pan cannery is the hub of construction activity as it is being iranafoamnett i into a storage and transportation terminal for the Greens Creek mine. ie Greens Cre By KIRK McALLISTER ‘THE JUREAU EMPIRE ~ —_rew mining era iit Juneau and Alaska was ushefed in today as the official go- ahead was given for the Greens Creek mine project on Admiralty Island. The mine is expected to be- come the top producing silver mine in the United States. The operator of the mine, Greens Creek Mining sidiary of Amselco Minerals Inc., will begin a $78 million construc- tion program next month and ex- pects the mine to begin ee in July 1988. The life of the mine is estimated to be about 20 years: The announcement of the open- ing of the mine project is a wel- come boost to the Juneau econo- my as the company will employ about 260 workers with an annual payroll of about $10 million. The year-long construction phase, which includes road build- ing, getting the mine tunnel pre- pared, building an ore concentra- tor and a water pipeline and transforming the former Peter Pan cannery at Hawk Inlet into a storage and transportation termi- nal, will provide work for between 150 and 250 people. : The long anticipated al for the the mine, located near Hawk Inlet about 18 miles from Juneau, came from A. Dan Rovig, president of Amselco Mineral Inc., at a meeting of the joint ven- ture partners today in Denver. The majority interest (53 per- Co., a sub-. \ wee A a OEM bee ie. v8 Ee KATIE RATCLIFFE/JUNEAU EMPIRE Greens Creek mine: Construction crews prepare the main mining tunnel located about eight miles up Greens Creek from Hawk Inlet. An ore concentrating plant will also be build at this site. cent) is: owned the Denver- based Amselco, which is in turn owned by British Petroleum North America Inc. The other partners are Hecla Mining Co. (28 percent), CSX Oil and Gas Corp. (12 percent) and Exalas Re- sources Corp. (6 pet'cent). Approval by the joint venture partners was the last step needed to make the mine a reality, since the project had already gotten ap- proval from British Petroleum and Amselco, said Jack-Bingham, vice president and general man- ager of Greens Creek Mining Co. “We feel confident that metal prices have stabilized and our timing is good,” Bingham said. “We'll be the only major under- ground mine operating in Alaska and I think it's a project that is compatible with the environment and will help support the local economy.” Bingham, who will serve as project manager for the mine, said silver (currently selling for $6.76 per ounce) will be the bread and butter for the mine, generat- ek mine gets OK ing more than half of the expected revenue of the project. The mine ore also contains commercial quantities of zinc, gold and lead. About 70 percent of the work force is e: to be from Alas- ka, mostly from the Juneau area, | Bingham said. The mine workers will live in Juneau and will make a one-hour trip to the mine daily. Employees will take a boat from Auke Bay to Young Bay and then be bused about 14.5 miles to the mine. Z The go-ahead for the project culminates work that began in 1973 when geologists found miner- als in the gravel coming down the = Creek drainage into Hawk Inlet. ‘The main ore body was found about 8.5 miles up the creek. About 3.5 million tons of recover- able reserves have been devel- oped with grades of 24 ounces per ton of silver, .18 ounces ounces per ton of gold, 9.7 percent zinc and 3.9 percent lead. Bingham said the 1,000 tons of ore daily production will yield 85,000 tons of ore concentrate per year. From the concentrate an average of 5.67 million ounces of silver, 54,000 ounces of gold, 25,900 tons of zinc and 9,800 tons of lead will be refined each year. The concentrate will be trucked to Hawk Inlet where it will be stored and eventually shipped to Japan or Europe for smelting. Manager of administration for Greens Creek, Pete Richardson, who has been working on the pro- Please turn to Page 8 } JUNEAU EMPIRE, TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1987 Mine ... Continued from Page! ject since 19%1, said the go-ahead for the mine will not only be good for Juneau but good for the min- * ing industry in Alaska. “The mining community may be worldwide but it’s really a small group that keeps track of what each other is doing,” Rich- ardson said. “They (the mining community) thought we were cra- zy trying to open a mine on a salmon spawning stream in a na- tional monument. But now we'll have the opportunity to show that we can have successful industry in a sensitive area.” Greens Creek will be the first major mine to open in Alaska in ' years. The Red Dog lead-zinc mine in Northwest Alaska is slat- ed to open in 1990 or 1991. Several other mine projects could poten- tially open including the Quartz oan 4) Et “ Ketchikan, the Chichagoff gold mine near Sitka and the Alaska- Juneau gold mine in Juneau. ‘The Green’s Creek announce- " ment was hailed as good news by Juneau officials. “This will be a stabilizing com- ponent to the economy and will have an impact on other major in- vestors examining Juneau,’’ said Mayor Ernie Polley today. “It will have a significant psy- chological impact on entrepre- ; Meurs wondering if Juneau is a ' good investment risk. We’ve been | to the alter so many times (on 1 other projects), it's nice to see ! one completed.” . With its 260 workers, Greens Creek, when it goes into full pro- Hill molybdenum mine near © Mine officials: John Mitchell, a senior executive of British KATIE RATCLIFFE/JUNEAU EMPIRE Petroleum in London, and Jack Bingham, vice president and general manager of Greens Creek Mining Co. duction, will become Juneau's largest private sector employer and will create an additional 260 support jobs in the Juneau econo- my, said local business analyst Eric McDowell. “While it won’t change things overnight since we're still down 1,000 jobs from last year, the mine . opening will have a good effect on . —_————_— business and real estate and says to people that Juneau is bottom- ing out and the economy is mak- ing a comeback,”’ McDowell said. McDowell said the addition of a new basic industry in Juneau coupled with fewer anticipated layoffs in the state. workforce be- ‘ cause of higher oil prices is'a dou- ble dose of good economic news. Steve Cowce’ Scverc: Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska November 20, 1987 Mr. William A. Corbus, Manager Alaska Electric Light and Power Company 134 N. Franklin Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Dear Mr. Corbus: This letter is in reply to your comments of July 16, 1987, regarding the draft "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study". As a part of your comments you noted that expectations for the Greens Creek development on Admiralty Island are for a 20 year mine life, as opposed to the 10 year life used for the draft report, and also pointed out an apparent error in draft Table 7-7. Further, you stated your concerns regarding the draft report's assumption of zero cost for energy for the Snettisham Project. Regarding Greens Creek, our staff instructed the consultant to revise the expected life of the mine from 10 to 20 years, as you and others have suggested. As could be expected, the Greens Creek intertie to Snettisham looks much more favorable than it did under the assumptions of the draft report and further studies of the interconnection appear warranted. A further result of this revision, however, was that the previously recommended plan, Plan C. consisting of an interconnection of Snettisham to Quartz Hill via Kake, Petersburg, Tyee and Swan Lake, now appears to be less economically attractive, from a regional standpoint, than Plan B, shown in the attached figure. As shown, Plan B would utilize surplus Snettisham generation to satisfy the demand in Sitka, Tenakee Springs, Hoonah and Greens Creek, as well as the Juneau area. Tyee surplus generation would be utilized by Ketchikan via a Tyee/Swan Lake interconnection and Quartz Hill would be served either by imported Canadian energy or on-site diesel generation. Regarding Table 7-7, you are correct, the energy and capacity figures for Juneau were transposed in the draft table. The table will be corrected for the final report. Regarding the cost of Snettisham hydro generation, our staff instructed the consultant to base its analysis on zero cost of power from all existing S.E. hydro plants because, from a regional standpoint, the cost 0908/793/1 = PO. Box AM Juneau, Alaska 99814 (907) 465-3575 B PO Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 Mr. William A. Corbus November 20, 1987 Page 2 of the existing facilities represents a sunk cost common to all alternatives. The study is intended to reflect the best interests of Southeast as region and no effort is made to determine the particular economic impact of the alternative on specific load centers. We consider this determination to be better left to detailed financial analysis of specific segments or systems. Thank you for your comments on the draft report. We expect the final report to be available by the end of December 1987 and look forward to continued input from you as this project proceeds. Sincerely, a cael Donald L. Shira, Director Program Development and Facilities Operations EAM/DLS/ds Enclosure as stated. 0908/793/3 . WHITEHORSE ™~N. SKAGWAY @ ca - Ag HAINES @ i GREENS CREEK 2 $e o° SNETTISHAM- CRATER LAKE TENAKEE PETERSBURG WRANGELL “oe, a < TYEE LAKE PRINCE LEGEND: OF WALES ISLAND LOAD CENTERS e GENERATION SOURCES S% KET EXISTING T/LINE GHIRAN ‘ ‘s 100KV DC (BIPOLAR). _/> PROPOSED T/LINE e@ QUARTZ Go VOLTAGE METLAKATLA 4 lo COST(MILLIONS) KITSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY EXPANSION PLAN B HARZA QNGNEERING COMPANY CCTOSE® we? | STATE OF ALASKA / 11-K58LH DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GA ME P.O. BOX 667 PETERSBURG, AK 99833-0667 PHONE: (907) 772-3801 July 17, 1987 Donald L. Shira Director/Program Development, ,.. RE Alaska Power Authority oo P.O. Box 190869 as Anchorage, AK 99579-0869 ‘67 ML 24 AIG 33 CEIVED 2 Dear Mr. Shira: The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the draft Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study prepared by Harza Engineering Company. We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft copy of this document. We note that this study is primarily an economic and engineering analysis which only lightly touches on environmental concerns and effects on southeast Alaska resource user groups. On page 1-2, Task Description 5 included environmental investigations as part of this study. The only discussion of what impacts may result was a brief section on portions of pages 6-3 and 6-4. Elsewhere in the document references to environmental effects merely said they would occur. There was no real comparison of magnitude of these impacts. In section 6 the document often states that one alternative is preferred over another for environmental reasons, but these reasons are not substantiated. In comparing numbers of anadromous streams crossed, minor streams that may only support small runs of salmon are rated equally with major spawning systems. In reality one crossing close to the mouth of a major system could have far more impact than a number of crassings at preferred sites further upstream. Anticipated environmental impacts from the intertie will occur in the construction and maintenance of the line as well as from the physical presence of the poles and conductors. Activities including equipment access, water withdrawals, camp and staging area location, blasting, slope cuts, slope stabilization, clearing/brushing of the right-of-way, slash burning, helicopter disturbance and submarine cable placement all have impacts on fish and wildlife and users of these resources. Each affected habitat; streams/lakes, wetlands, estuaries, tidal areas, steep hillsides and old growth forest has its particular group of species which may be affected and needs to be considered. Donald L. Shira —2— July 17, 1987 On page 1-1 the document refers to the "need to establish criteria to guide development of future segments" of an intertie. Our concern is that this guidance is occurring without fully considering effects of the project on fish and wildlife and consequently, on individuals who use and depend on these resources. Decisions regarding route locations or even if lines will be built will be made based upon this study before these issues are even addressed. We do not feel this study is adequate to determine environmentally preferred routes for this project. We trust that environmental impact studies for each portion of the project will be completed before selection of final route locations can be made. The Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Forest Service all have a great deal of resource information which needs to be collected and analyzed in these EIS’s. Throughout the document there are references to cost/benefit ratios, but nowhere is it stated who pays the costs and who benefits. Cost/benefit ratios need to include casts to resource user groups, including decreased benefits to users of fish and wildlife, in order to be meaningful. Many of these costs are ongoing and should be considered as permanent. One item with which we do not agree was a statement on page 6-4 that collisions of waterfowl with conductors is not expected to be significant. This does not take into consideration that much of the intertie route is frequently shrouded in fog or low clouds which may obscure visibility for waterfowl. This combines with the fact that many waterfowl movements occur in early morning and late evening under poor lighting conditions and that major migrations frequently occur at night. An example which demonstrates our concern occurred locally when two trumpeter swans were killed when they struck the transmission line from the Crystal Lake Power Project which had been suspended across Blind Slough, an important waterfowl concentration area. We believe the statement made in the document regarding this issue is not entirely correct. Another potential problem area which is not adequately addressed is the effect of submerged cables on longline and crab fisheries. This conflict will be more extreme in areas where the submerged line will span underwater pinacles. Generally rock fish harvest areas will be located in shallower waters (20-80 fathoms), halibut at mid depths (40-100 fathoms) and sablefish and king crab in deep areas Donald L. Shira -3- July 17, 1987 (king crab at 100-150 fathoms and sablefish from 150-500 fathoms). A major area of concern is the deep water to the north of Kupreanof Island where 10 to 20 percent of the northern southeast Alaska sablefish catches are made. Conflicts with fisheries would be less severe in cases where bottom contours are flat, but in instances where "seamounts" are spanned by submarine cables, conflicts detrimental to the fishing industry with consequent long term costs may be expected. An item of concern is the discounting of agency suggested routes based on incomplete studies. For example, it may cost $14 million to construct an underwater route between Bridget Cove and Juneau (over 2 1/2 times the cost of a surface route). However, the document states that changing technology may change the economic picture, but this document "guides development" away from a submarine cable. Resource and social considerations may be sufficient to warrant extra expenditures in this portion of the route and we are concerned that alternatives are being prematurely discounted. We note that segment 14, the Hawk Inlet to Hoonah to Sitka route, had a negative recommendation. We concur with that recommendation. This route includes the environmentally sensitive Kadashan drainage as well as a USFS LUD II area next to Lake Eva. Construction of an overhead transmission line in these areas would have biological impacts that would be of concern to this Department. Route alignments need to consider policies for all LUD II areas which may be impacted and the public provided the opportunity to comment. The only discussion of siltation impacts refers to the effect of burial of the line across intertidal areas adjacent to submarine cable entry points. Another area of concern is that, in essence, each line segment is one long clearcut logging unit. A number of environmental impacts to both fish and wildlife are associated with removal of timber from these areas and need to be addressed. Removal of this timber needs to be conducted in a manner to preclude logging across numerous anadromous fish streams and their tributaries. Streambank integrity needs to be protected both during and after the construction. We also have the following specific comments: 1. Table 6-1: The biological constraints should include mountain goat kidding and wintering areas and longline Donald L- Shira —4— July 17, 1987 pelagic fish harvest areas. A habitat quality and resource quantity factor needs to be included in these evaluations. 2. Page 6-4, paragraph 1: The 200 foot setback from streams should be increased to at least 300 feet, but will be limited by geographical constraints. Tributaries to anadromous fish streams important for water quality also need to be protected. 3. Page 6-4, paragraph 2: The reference to turbidity needs to include streams where the effects can be more long lasting. 4. Page 6-4, paragraph 5: Muskeg/wetlands also provide important habitat for deer, bear, moose, shorebirds and other terrestrial and avian species with recreational, subsistence and non-consumptive values. 5. Page 6-1-2, last paragraph: This is the only mention of mountain goats which are very susceptible to disturbance, particularly by helicopters. 6. Page 6.2-3, paragraph 3: Waydeleigh Creek is also a designated anadromous fish stream. 7. Page 6-2-3: The Selection/Recommendations do not compare long term losses to the resources with short term economic gains. This is an example of the reference to cost/benefits covered in our general discussion. 8. The Skagway-Haines-Juneau portion of the route passes through important mountain goat habitat in Echo Cove as well as several wetland/salmon stream complexes. Again, we recommend the submarine cable route be selected in preference to the overland routes along this section of the line. Finally, ADF&G staff made a number of comments in our letter of February 23, 1987 which is included in appendix D. We would like to reiterate our comments in that letter and are enclosing an additional copy of that letter with these comments. This Department feels that given the magnitude and potential impacts of this project, that far more biological data needs to be evaluated before any decisions are made. Given the apparent time which is available before any segments will be Donald L. Shira =o July 17, 1987 constructed we urge the Alaska Power Authority to begin collection of relevant data early in the planning process so that it is available for inclusion in necessary environmental impact statements. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward to working with your staff and their consultants in this important planning effort. Sincerely, Lv ea Don Cornelius Area Habitat Biologist cc: Re. Reed, ADFG, Juneau J. Gustafson, ADFG, Ketchikan D. Hardy, ADFG, Sitka J. Hall, ADFG, Juneau STBTE OF ALASKA / >" DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME P.O. BOX 667 PETERSBURG, AK 99833-0667 PHONE: (907) 772-3801 February 23, 1987 RECEIVED 7’ Don Fordney ‘Lashes PEI Consultants 1225 Tongass Avenue co Mn 2A Bie 43 Ketchikan, AK 99901 pint Dear Don: RE: Southeast Intertie . The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed preliminary routes which have been identified as potential alternatives for the southeast intertie electrical grid system.e It is our understanding final alignments may vary as much as 5 to 10 miles from the alternatives presented on the maps- In response to a previous letter from Rick Reed, Habitat Division, Regional Supervisor in Juneau, we understand you are preparing master maps which incorporate data from our Habitat Management Guides and Anadromous Waters Catalog. This information needs tc be included in environmental disclosure documents which will need to be prepared for all portions of this intertie. This Department has identified the following additional conflicts or concerns which need to be addressed before finalizing the route for the intertie: 1. Underwater lines may conflict with commercial bottom ' fisheries. Areas used to longline for halibut, black cod, rockfish or other species and for commercial trawling should be avoided in selecting the underwater routes. Final alignments should be thoroughly reviewed by representatives of the Commercial Fishing industry. 2. Underwater lines should avoid anchorages and sites used for mariculture activities. 3. Surface lines need tao avoid aerial crossing of estuaries, wetlands and intertidal areas frequented by waterfowl, shorebirds, eagles and other avian species. 10. 11. In addition, we have the following site specific comments Surface lines need to avoid crossing productive portions of anadromous fish streams which are frequented by eagles and other birds which feed on ..}mon or their eggs. Use of fluorescent or colored balls on the wires may reduce this problem. Timber cut for right-of-way clearing adjacent to anadromous fish streams needs to be felled away from the watercourses. Preferred crossing sites will be in upper portions of streams in areas with lower volume class timber with lesser value riparian habitat. Extensive spans across valleys used by migratory birds pose a navigational hazard to both birds and man. Such spans should be avoided. Surface lines need to be spaced to preclude electrocution of eagles when'they spread their wings. Routes need to avoid high use recreation areas'*such as Forest Service cabins, and hunting and fishing areas where individuals are seeking quality recreational experiences. The project should consider and be phased into other plans for the area including the Forest Service’s Revilla Island Plan, the Prince of Wales Area Plan and Local Coastal Management Programs. Legal and other concerns regarding the impacts of the project on established wilderness area which will be affected by the intertie need to be addressed. ue which are identified by map number: 1. Skagway (B-1) Powerline supports should avoid materials sale sites along the Skagway River. A route which parallels the highway or railroad will have less additional impact on habitat than one sited away from these transportation corridors. This portion of the route needs to avoid mountain goat habitat and productive portions of anadromous fish streams including Pullen Creek where eagles and other birds will concentrate. Skagway (C-1) This portion of the route should be located to avoid areas used by mountain goats and important salmon spawning areas where eagles and other bird species concentrate. Juneau (C-3) Following the Glacier Highway route would lessen impacts which would result if a second “transportation” corridor is developed further inland but may conflict with a number of eagle nesting sites. The inland route would impact wetlands along the interior corridor as well as adversely affecting recreational experiences on the Windfall - Montana Creek Trail. This is a high-use recreational area. A Forest Service cabin is located on Windfall Lake. The crossing of the Herbert River - Eagle River - Windfall Lake valley bottom is an extensive wetland high in fish and wildlife values. Eagles concentrate in this area in response to salmon spawning activity. Any road constructed in conjunction with the intertie would have adverse impacts on the wetlands. We recommend extension of the submarine cable along the Juneau C-3 map portion of the route. Juneau (B-3) A number of trails including the Windfal] - Montana Creek Trail are located along this portion of the proposed route. Recreational experiences would be adversely affected by construction of the powerlines through this high use area.» A submarine cable would be preferable in order to avoid wetlands. A second best alternative would be to follow the Glacier Highway along this section of the route. Juneau (B-2) We recommend this portion of the intertie avoid Montana Creek Wetlands including the Windfall - Montana Creek Trail. This wetlands within Brotherhood Park located downstream from the junction of Montana Creek with the Mendenhall River should also be avoided because of high recreation values. : Juneau (A-3) The portion of the line to the Greens Creek Mill on Admiralty Island reaches the shore approximately a mile and a quarter north of the terminus of the road to the Greens Creek Cannery. The line then uses a separate corridor up Fowler Creek and ends at the cannery site. It would seem more logical to follow the roadway and continue to the Greens Cree Mill. The underwater cable crossings of Chatham Strait and Stephens Passage need to avoid conflicts with black cod and other longline fisheries. Sumdum (A-6) This portion of the route needs to avoid important salmon spawning habitat with consequent eagle concentrations in lower Schooner Creek and Point White Creek. Portions of the route in the Gunnuk Creek drainage cross the watershed for the City of Kake water supply. 10. Petersburg (D-6) Construction of portions of the line paralleling Gunnuk Creek needs to consider maintenance of water quality in the City of Kake’s water supply. The line needs to avoid crossing lower Gunnuk Creek where large number of salmon attract eagles and other birds. Portions of the line in this area should follow USFS logging roads rather than crossing overland. A crossing of the Hamilton River will be of particular concern. This is a major salmon stream along which eagles and other avian species concentrate during the salmon spawning season. Petersburg (D-5) The line couid follow existing and proposed roads over a portion of this route. Towers Lake and Towers Arm are important waterfowl “ concentration areas which should be avoided- A number of salmon spawning areas and wetlands are,craossed in this section of the route- Attention needs to be paid to minimize impacts on migrating waterfowl, eagles and other birds. Petersburg (D-4) All proposed routes across the narrow neck of land between upper Duncan Canal and Portage Bay cross a major waterfowl migration path. This portion of the route should avoid large open areas. The upper route crosses anadromous fish streams at the head of Portage Bay in close proximity to their mouths. This is the type of area in which eagles and other ° vv. birds are attracted to concentrations of spawning salmon. Again, such areas should be avoided. The middle route crosses the lower portion of the tributary to the Duncan Canal Salt Chuck where eagles are also expected to concentrate. This portion of this alternative needs to consider impacts on eagles and other birds. The lower route across the entrance to the Duncan Canal Salt Chuck is unacceptable unless the line can be fully buried because of extremely high waterfowl and human recreational use. This portion of the route may need to be designed to minimize impacts on wilderness values of the Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Area. 11. 12. 14. 15. A proposed crossing of Twelvemile Creek needs to be moved upstream away from high value salmon spawning areas which will attract concentrations of eagles and other avian species. Petersburg (C-4) Lower portions of salmon streams along Duncan Canal need to be avoided to protect eagles. A crossing of Duncan Canal is totally unacceptable unless it is completely submerged including the extensive intertidal areas. This is one of the major waterfowl concentration areas in southeast Alaska. Duncan Cana) is also the location of a shrimp trawl fishery which produces as much as 80 percent of the total shrimp catch in Southeast Alaska. Representatives of the commercial shrimp trawl fishery should be concacted regarding potential conflicts with use of this site. Petersburg (C-3) A line across Wrangell Narrows would have to be buried or submerged from tree line to.tree line in order to avoid conflicts with large . concentrations of migrating and overwintening waterfowl. This area also supports important commercial crab and pot shrimp fisheries. m Petersburg (D-3) A line crossing Fivemile Creek would need to be located further upstream to avoid extensive salmon spawning areas with consequent high use by eagles and other birds. A crossing of Wrangell Narrows in this area would need to be submerged and buried to avoid impacts on a major waterfowl and shorebird migration and overwintering area. Many thousands of birds travel up and down Wrangell Narrows across this route several times a day from October through early April. Tideflats on the Kupreanof side of the Narrows are used extensively by feeding waterfowl and for recreational and subsistence purposes by area residents. The portion of the line across these flats would also need to be buried. Sitka (A-3) The route needs to address the private property at Manleyville (Baranof Warm Springs) and the identified hatchery site on the south side of the bay. The route from Takatz should follow the proposed cross Baranof route for the Takatz hydro plant, (and associated road). The residents of Manleyville have expressed concerns over ine aesthetic problems of constructing a pipeline corridor and may have major problems with this project as proposed. The option of going ashore at .Takatz should be explored. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Sitka (A-4) The route needs to go <cround Green Lake. Bradfield Canal (A-5) This portion of the route needs to maximize the distance between the line and Eagle River. This system supports a building run of chinook salmon and habitat degradation by cutting the ROW close to the stream needs to be avoided. A Forest Service cabin on Eagle Lake should also be completely avoided to proiect its recreational values. Craig (B-1) The south end of the Kasaan Peninsula is a major trolling area, both for commercial and sport fishing purposes. Craig (C-2) The proposed portions of the route at the heads of Tolstoi Bay and Windfall Harbor cross the mouths of several anadromous fish streams. These are high-use areas for bald eagles and other birds which need to be avoided. ; Ketchikan (C-4) The line needs to avoid the mouth of Calamity Creek because of eagle and other bird concerns associated with mouths of anadromous fish streams. Ketchikan (B-4) The proposed middle route crosses through the Gokachin Lakes area which has particularly high recreational values. We recommend against selecting this alternative in this portion of the intertie. Ketchikan (B-3) The portion of the route on the east side of Short Pass needs to be aligned to avoid conflicting with a good bottom fishery. Bringing the line ashore further inside Smeaton Bay rather than at Point Trollup will have less serious impacts on wilderness values of Misty Fiords National Monument. Ketchikan (B-2) The crossings of both the Wilson and Blosson Rivers are in high value salmon spawning areas with consequent high use by eagles and other avian species. The specific site of this crossing and method of crossing will need to be closely coordinated with ADF&G. The crossing of the Keta River will also need to be considered. The proposed route crosses the Keta in an area with a braided channel. It may be preferable to cross this river where the watercourse is confined in a single channel. The portion of the route between the Quartz Hill Mine and the Keta River is along a mountainside which supposedly could not be used for an access road to the mine as ADF&G recommended because of high avalanche danger. This hazard needs to be considered. 24. Ketchikan (B-1) The route closely follows Tombstone River before crossing it near the River’s mouth. This is a particularly important salmon stream which needs to be avoided along its entire length. This would be an undesirable location for such a crossing. It may be more desirable to avoid crossing this system entirely and enter Portland Canal on the north side of the Tombstone River. Please recognize that the above comments, which have been assembled on short notice, are in response to a recent verbal request regarding initial scoping for the project. As such, these comments are of a very preliminary nature and do not constitute a full or detailed review of the enviromental concerns which may: be associated with the intertie. This Department needs to be involved during planning for construction of each phase of the intertie. During the review of EIS’s and ACMP consistency determinations we will have more detailed site specific comments. Fish habitat permits will need to be issued for crossings of anadromous fish streams and may prescribe timing for activities within the watercourses, as well as limit other inwater activities. We look forward to participating in planning phases throughout the development of the Southeast Intertie. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Don Cornelius Area Habitat Biologist cc: R. Reed, ADFG, Juneau J. Gustafson, ADFG, Ketchikan D. Hardy, ADFG, Sitka J. Hall, ADFG, Juneau D. Mayer, DGC, Juneau P. Petrie, APA, Anchorage oOo Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska November 18, 1987 Mr. Don Cornelius, Area Habitat Biologist Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.0. Box 667 Petersburg, AK 99833-0667 Dear Mr. Cornelius: Thank you for your comments of July 17, 1987 on the draft “South- east Alaska Transmission Intertie Study". The final report is presently being prepared and insofar as possible your comments are being incorporated into the study. As-stated more clearly in the final report, the scope of the study did not allow detailed envi- ronmental comparisons to be made of each and every routing alterna- tive for the numerous transmission segments. Rather, we sought to draw the kind of comments you have provided from the various interested agencies, utilities and other public and private en- tities, so that these concerns could form the basis of future detailed studies required for those transmission segments to be implemented. Thank you again for your comments. The final report is expected by the end of December 1987. We look forward to continued input from your staff on this project as it proceeds. eo Mh hb ane L. Shira Director/Program Development & Facilities Operations 0799/791/2 PO. Box AM = Juneau, Alaska 99814 (907) 465-3575 PO Box 190869 701 EastTudorRoad Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 = (907) 561-7877 SVATE 0) F AL A § K Al ee DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 789-3151 SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE P.O. Box 32420 Juneau, AK 99803 July 20, 1987 Donald L. Shira 7 Director/Program Devel opment ALASK RECEIVED 8 State of Alaska Alaska Power Authority 7 P.0. Box 190869 87 We 24 M0:41 Anchorage, AK 99519-0869 Re: Draft Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study Dear Mr. Shira: I have reviewed the Draft Intertie Study transmitted by your June 23, 1987 letter. Our staffs' personal knowledge of the areas studied is limited, but it appears that account has been taken of most of the more obvious concerns of Environmental Conservation, such as municipal watersheds. We would be most involved with construction camps and route clearing including log transfer and storage. I do have a few minor comments: Segment 7.0, Kake to Sitka Alternative A includes a Segment in the Blue Lake watershed. Although alter- native A was not chosen, you should note that Blue Lake is the water source for the Alaska Pulp Corporation pulp mill, and the City & Borough of Sitka public water supply, both of which depend on high quality water. Segment 10.0, Swan Lake to Quartz Hill Iternative D contains an underwater portion continuing up Smeaton Bay to Wharf Point. While this alternative was not chosen, it should be mentioned that U.S. Borax proposes to dispose of mine tailings in Wilson Arm/Smeaton Bay. If this is allowed, underwater portion of Alternative D would pass through an area of active tailings deposition and movement at some point during the life of the mine. Thank you for continuing to involve us in the studies on possible interties. Sincerely, bea ) J ! nu i ins Deena J. Hétk Regional Environmental Supervisor a BN Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska November 18, 1987 Ms. Deena J. Henkins, Regional Environmental Supervisor Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation P.O. Box 32420 Juneau, AK 99803 Dear Ms. Henkins: Thank you for your comments of July 20, 1987 on the draft "South- east Alaska Transmission Intertie Study". The final report is presently being prepared and insofar as possible your comments are being incorporated into the study. As stated more clearly in the final report, the scope of the study did not allow detailed en- vironmental comparisons to be made of each and every routing alternative for the numerous transmissions segments. Rather, we sought to draw the kind of comments you have provided from the various interested agencies, utilities and other public and private entities, so that these concerns could form the basis of future detailed studies required for those transmission segments to be implemented. Thank you again for your comments. The final report should be available by the end of December 1987. We look forward to continued input from your staff on this project as it proceeds. Sincerely, , Donald L. Shira Director, Program Development & Facilities Operations 0800/791/1 PO. Box AM Juneau, Alaska 99814 (907) 465-3575 PO. Box 190869 701 EastTudorRoad Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 y Thomas Bay TBPA Power Authority — TYEE LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT — P.O. BOX 1318 +WRANGELL, ALASKA 99929 (907) 874-338% 3834 July 20, 1987 PECEIED 2 ed ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY P.O. Box 190869 Me eed Anchorage, AK 99519 a? SJL 22 ACE: Attention: D.L. Shira Subject: Review of the draft "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study" by Harza Engineering Company Gentlemen: Although I was not officially invited to participate in the review of the subject document, I took the liberty of looking it over. My specific comments are on the attachment to this letter. A study of the magnitude and scope of this one is always vulnerable to criticism and I realize that the document being reviewed is a first draft. Knowing this I hope my comments are received in the spirit intended. Sincerely, 7G. Manager WGE: fv cc: Commissioner Sundberg Commissioner Ingle Commissioner Olson Commissioner Carlson Commissioner Oines The Honorable Lloyd Jones The Honorable Robin Taylor The Honorable John Sund Joyce Rasler Ed Pefferman File ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY from: W.G. Edgley July 20, 1987 Attachment 1. Some published data indicates Tyee Lake has a firm annual capacity of 130,000,000 KWH, not the 114,000,000 KWH used in the study. Regardless, firm annual energy is based on low water year of record and normally there is power available in excess of the firm power rating. In this comment, Tyee is used as an example. The question applies to all Southeast hydro projects. Would the fact that normally more hydro energy is available than indicated by the study change the CBR and the timing of construction of the various intertie segments? No consideration is given in the study to the fact that an addi- tional 10 MW of generation capacity can be obtained at Tyee for a relatively modest investment. Tyee Lake is an unregulated reservoir. Would the addition of a third 10 MW generator provide a better match between generation capacity and lake hydraulic conditions making more energy available to the intertie? The study, with one exception, considers all of the D.C. segments to be monopolar systems. This brings two issues up in my mind. First, no one to my knowledge (admittedly limited) has installed a D.C. transmission system designed to use earth as a normal current return. I question whether enough is known about the performance of earth as a return path in the recommended D.C. locations to make the assumption that a monopole system will perform without undue problems. Secondly, I believe the issue of the reliability of a monopole system should be evaluated. With a two wire system, earth can be used as the current return in an emergency or if one conductor is out of service for any reason. In the existing Tyee submarine cable crossings, four single conductor cables (three active and one spare) are used. The study considers using a three conductor cable in AC submarine crossings. If a fault occurs in one conductor of a three conductor cable, the other two conductors will more than likely be involved or damaged. The time to find and repair a fault in a submarine cable could easily be several months. With the four single conductor cable system, the spare cable can be substituted for a faulted cable in a matter of hours. The advantages of a three conductor cable versus installation of four single conductor cables has presumable been evaluated in this study. The study should define these in some detail so the APA can apply their ow judgement in evaluating this. In the study, 0 & M costs are assumed to be one percent of the construction cost for segments of the transmission line. As the D.C. converter/inverter stations are manned, I question whether one percent of construction is sufficient to cover O & M. Steve Cowper Governor BS Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska November 18, 1987 Mr. W.G. Edgley, P.E., Manager Thomas Bay Power Authority P.O. Box 1318 Wrangell, AK 99929 Dear Mr. Edgley: Thank you for your comments of July 20, 1987 on the draft "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study". In those comments you asked: 1. How would the study results change if the existing hydrogen- eration capability of the existing hydro projects is underes- timated in the report? 2. Would the addition of a third 10 MW unit at Tyee make more energy available to the intertie by better utilizing the Tyee resource. 3. Has monopolar direct current transmission (DC) with earth (sea) return been successfully implemented? Do we know enough about the site specific DC earth (sea) return characteristics to assure successful applications in the recommended loca- tions? How does the reliability of monopolar compare to that of bipolar systems? 4. Should the study define and evaluate the advantages of a four single cable conductor system for alternating current subma- rine crossings versus the proposed three conductor single cable? 5. Is the 1.0% allowance for 0&M cost for the DC converter stations sufficient? Addressing these questions in the order given above: 1. Review of the medium load forecast upon which the study is based indicates that without the Quartz Hill load demand, the presently developed hydro generation, even if underestimated, exceeds the forecast demand during the study's 20 year plan- ning horizon. This is not true if the Quartz Hill load is included. Increasing the estimated available hydrogeneration 801/D026(1) = PO. Box AM Juneau, Alaska 99814 (907) 465-3575 §@ PO Box 190869 = 701 EastTudorRoad == Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 = (907) 561-7877 Mr. W.G. Edgley, P.E., Manager Thomas Bay Power Authority November 18, 1987 Page 2 would, up to a point, increase the B/C ratio of any alterna- tive which connects Quartz Hill to a hydro surplus. Load centers served by local hydro would have less need for an intertie if more generation were available from the local source; therefore, the B/C ratios for interties without Quartz Hill would decrease if you are correct. The timing or need for implementation of an intertie is related to the amount of diesel generation required to satisfy load center demand. If Swan Lake's output were greater than that used in the study, for example, the need for a Swan Lake/Tyee Intertie would diminish. The addition of a third unit at Tyee would make more energy available to a Southeast Intertie system or other potential loads. However, unless Tyee were connected to the Quartz Hill load or other significant loads, there does not appear to be a need for expansion of Tyee during the next 20 years. Regarding DC monopolar systems; attached is an excerpt from the revised report showing data on some of the existing applications of monopolar DC. Regarding the characteristics of the assumed return paths; all of the recommended DC appli- cations would use sea water return and are expected to be technically feasible. Regarding the reliability of monopolar versus bipolar; in general a bipolar system would cost signif- icantly more than a monopolar system, but you are correct in your assertion that the bipolar system would be more reliable than monopolar. The report recognizes this by assuming for the economic analysis that adequate back-up diesel generating capacity must be maintained in the interconnected load centers in case of a single contingency intertie outage. Monopolar systems can be upgraded to bipolar at a future time. The question boils down to cost vs. reliability and is admittedly not addressed in detail in the study. The question of one three-conductor cable versus four single- conductor cables is one of cost versus reliability as noted in #3 above. It is expected that the final decision in this regard would be based on a project specific detailed feasibil- ity study. The use of one percent for transmission line O&M costs is in the right range for this level of study, even for the manned DC converter stations. Including contingencies and engineer- ing and administration allowances in the construction cost, the annual O&M costs for DC converter stations in the study range up to $277,000 per station. In their report, "Southeast Alaska Intertie DC Transmission System", 1982, Teshmont 801/DD26(2) Mr. W.G. Edgley, P.E., Manager Thomas Bay Power Authority November 18, 1987 Page 3 Consultants, Inc. also used 1.0% of capital costs to estimate the 0&M costs for the various AC and DC interconnections investigated for that study. : We expect the final report to be available by the end of December 1987. Your comments are appreciated and we look forward to continued coordina- tion as this project moves forward. Sincerely, iu Donald L. Shira, Director Program Development and Facilities Operations Enclosure as stated EAM: DLS:it 801/DD26(3) LIST OF MONOPOLAR HVDC INSTALLATIONS Project Location Gotvand-Sweden Skagerak, Norway- Denmark Kanti-Skan, Denmark-Sweden Sardinia, Italy Installation Date 1954 1970 1976 1965 1967 Vancouver 1968 Pole #1 Island, B.C. 1969 Pole #2 Canada 1976 Pole #3 Rauma, Finland - Under Forsmark, Constr. Sweden 20 30 250 250 200 78 312 500 420 Initially operated as monopolar. Capacity MW MW MW EEE Voltage 100 150 250 250 200 130 260 280 360 KV Kv zag Comments No overhead transmission: 60 miles (96 km) underwater cable. Upgraded to bipolar opera- tion in 1977.2/ 54 miles (88 km) overhead transmission and 54 miles (87 km) of underwater cable. 187 miles (301 km) overhead transmission and 73 miles (118 km) of underwater cable. 26 miles (41 km) overhead transmission and 20 miles (32 km) under- water cable. 112 miles (180 km). Route survey under- way in 1986. Steve Cowper, Governor BS Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska July 22, 1987 Mr. Vern Neitzer Mr. Alan See Alaska Power & Telephone P.O. Box 415 Skagway, Alaska 99840 Dear Mr. Neitzer: This is a follow-up to my letter of June 23, 1987, soliciting your comments on Southeast Intertie Feasibility Draft Report. Your input is very important for successful conclusion of this phase of the project. Your comments could also provide the basis of any further investigation. Therefore, please let us know if you have any concerns on the above draft report. We will appreciate a quick response. Should you have any questions on the draft, please call me or Tanzeem Rizvi at 561-7877. Sincerely, Sy Ny fe ; ly’ Donald L. Shira, Director Program Development & Operations TR: DLS: tg See: Mr. Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Company Mr. Robert Grimm, Alaska Power & Telephone 9678/DD23/2 O PO. Box AM Juneau, Alaska 99814 (907) 465-3575 O PO.Box 190869 701 EastTudorRoad = =Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 Distribution List 9678/Rizvi/DD0023 (7/22/87) The Honorable William E. Feero Mayor of the City of Skagway P.O. Box 415 Skagway, Alaska 99840 cc: Gene Kocian, Harza Engineering Company Mr. Vern Neitzer/Alan See Alaska Power & Telephone P.0. Box 415 Skagway, Alaska 99840 cc: Mr. Robert Grimm Alaska Power & Telephone P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, WA 98368 The Honorable April S/ Lapham Mayor\of the City of Haines The Honorable Ernest E. Polley Mayor of the City of Juneau City and Borough of Juneau 155 S. Seward St. Juneau, Alaska 99801 Mr. Charles Y. Walls General Manager Glacier Highway Electric Assoc., Inc. P.0. Box 210547 Auke Bay, Alaska 99821 Joyce/Rasler Fields endent Wran Light & Power Alaska 99929 Mr. Bill Kaltenekker, Manager Metlakatla Power & Light Co. P.O. Box 346 Metlakatla, AK 99926 cc: The Honorable Harris L. Atkinson Mayor of the City of Metlakatla P.O. Box 8 Metlakatla, AK 99926 Sealaska Corporation One Sealaska Plaza Suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1276 Attn: Mr. Rick Harris Mr. Fletcher Shives " Environmental Protection Agency Alaska Operations Office 3200 Hospital Drive Suite 101 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Mr. Richard D. Reed Department of Fish and Game Southeastern Regional Office P.0. Box 20 Douglas, Alaska 99824 Ms. Deena Henkins State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Divison of Environmental Quality P.0. Box 2420 Juneau, Alaska 99803 Mr. Ted Meyers National Marine Fisheries P.O. Box 021668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Ms. Paula Burgess State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Land & Water Management Southeastern Regional Office P.0. Box MA Juneau, Alaska 99811 Mr. Ray Meketa State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Southeast Region P.O. Box 3-1000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 9678/DD23 P.O. Box 210547 © Auke Bay, Alaska 99821 © Phone (907) 789-7344 July 27, 1987 Donald L. Shira, Director Program Development & Operations Alaska Power Authority P. O. Box 190869 701 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Don, Sorry to be tardy with our comments. We felt the comments of the Alaska Power Adnministration expressed our concerns and have only one other comment. In the Juneau area, the prospective Greens Creek Mine load should be better defined now that the mine is moving into production development. We understand the mining firm is building an on-site total energy base load diesel plant. It may be that their waste heat load is as important as their electric load. We suggest you confirm their power requirements. They have not expressed any interest to date in connecting to Juneau's energy grid despite our and AELP's efforts. Sincerely, Charles Y. Walls, General Manager Glacier Highway Electric Association, Inc. Steve Cowre’. Soverror Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska November 20, 1987 Mr. Charles Y. Walls, General Manager Glacier Highway Electric Association, Inc. P.O. Box 210547 Auke Bay, Alaska 99821 Dear Mr. Walls: This letter is in reply to your comments of July 27, 1987, on the draft "Southeast Intertie Transmission Intertie Study". In response to your letter and the comments of others regarding the interconnection of Juneau and Greens Creek, our staff instructed the consultant to reevaluate the interconnection assuming a 20 year mine life rather than the 10 year life assumed for the draft report. The mine's average annual energy requirement was also adjusted for the study, from 18,000,000 kWh/year to 26,000,00 kWh/yr. As may be expected, the Greens Creek intertie to Snettisham looks much more favorable than it did under the previous assumptions and further studies of the interconnection appear warranted. A further result of this revision, however, was that the previously recommended plan, Plan C, consisting of an interconnection of Snettisham to Quartz Hill via Kake, Petersburg, Tyee and Swan Lake, now appears to be less economically attractive, from a regional standpoint, then Plan B, shown in the attached figure. As shown, Plan B would utilize surplus Snettisham generation to satisfy the demand in Sitka, Tenakee Springs, Hoonah and Greens Creek, as well as the Juneau/Auke Bay area. Tyee surplus generation would be utilized by Ketchikan via a Tyee/Swan Lake interconnection and Quartz Hill would be served either by imported Canadian energy or on-site diesel generation. Thank you for your comments on the draft report. We expect the final report to be available by the end of December 1987 and look forward to continued input from you as this project proceeds. Zhi 5 , 2 Z S aan ae Donald L. Shira, Director Program Development and Facilities Operations EAM/DLS/ds Enclosed as stated. 0909/793 = PO. Box AM Juneau, Alaska 99814 (907) 465-3575 K PO Box 190869 704 EastTudorRoad = Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 = (907) 561-7877 SKAGWAY @ gg HAINES @ HOONAH GREENS CREEK 2 ¥ A © TENAKEE PRINCE OF WALES ISLAND LEGEND: LOAD CENTERS GENERATION SOURCES EXISTING T/LINE PROPOSED T/LINE VOLTAGE COST(MILLIONS) HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY CCTOSE® We7 — KETCHIKAN METLAKATLA WHITEHORSE O “Oy iN, ~ 40,4 om™ JUNEAU 2. © Sr SNETTISHAM- CRATER LAKE PETERSBURG TYEE LAKE LAKE a 4 Ag ¢ QUARTZ G 100KV DC (BIPOLAR) 4 12 KITSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY EXPANSION PLAN B METLAKATLA POWER & LIGHT a Annette Island Reserve ae Metlakatla, Alaska 99926 Date: July 27, 1987 Time: 15:57:10 Mr. Donald L. Shira Director, Program Development Alaska Power Authority Box 190869 701 East Tudor Road RECEIVOR a Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 ALASKA 2 Dear Don: 87 JUL 31 P2:45 This letter is in response to your request for comments on the draft version of the " Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study". I apologize for the delay, but things here have been rather hectic. The study contains an awful lot of data and is well done. Let me keep my comments on only those sections dealing with MP&L. In the section, near the beginning, labeled " Findings", paragraph 7 the study briefly mentions Metlakatla. MP&L in 1986 produced a total of 22 million Kwh of energy, 50% of that with diesel generation equipment. This makes the diesel facility here prime power rather than standby, the system requires diesel continuously now. Also a total of three outages in all of 1986 will not necessarily accrue any benefits from a connection with Ketchikan. All three of the forecast scenarios have underestimated the energy production we expect to see. For the first 6 months of 1987 we produced in excess of 12 million Kwh and I expect the next 6 months to be higher. Page 1-9, table 1-6, has MP&L listed as 4.0 Mw, annual generation of 22,150 Mwh, of hydro capability. The highest ever year of hydro production here was 14,800 Mwh some years ago. The things listed here are extremely minor compared to a study of the size you just completed but I have been working hard to bring everyone here and outside in touch with what the requirements of the consumers of MP&L are. The points I have mentioned are the ones that almost all people miss because they are not familiar with our system. I keep plugging away at correcting them especially when it is to appear in print. APA is on a good course to try and make this intertie a reality and I am sure it will benefit a lot of people. What it would do for a 7.5 cent/kwh power rate in Metlakatla is not certain. On another subject, I would like to thank you, Roy Taylor and Tanzeem very much for the help with the new Chester Lake Hydro Facility. The project is on schedule. The turbine/generator has been ordered and we expect to pick a contractor August 7th to do the civil work. Tanzeem's and Roy's help was very much appreciated and they often brought out things that may otherwise have been overlooked. Lt Lot Dwr y Bll Ut inrhh MWikt s Bill Kaltenekker, MP&L cc: The Honorable Harris L. Atkinson, Mayor MIC Mr. T.A. Littlefield, Chairman MP&L Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska November 18, 1987 Mr. Bill Kaltenekker Metlakatla Power and Light Annette Island Reserve Metlakatla, Alaska 99926 / Sah my fe Dear Mr. Kalt Ker:! This is in response to your comments of July 27, 1987, on the draft "South- east Alaska Transmission Intertie Study." In those comments you expressed your concern that the load forecasts for Metlakatla were to low and that the study overstated the energy production at Metlakatla Power and Light's (MP&L) hydro plants. Regarding the load forecasts, our consultants (R.W. Beck) completed the forecast called "Southeast Alaska Electric Load Forecasts" (April 1987) which was utilized by Harza Engineering in the Southeast Intertie analysis and draft report. I have attached the portion of that forecast which is applicable for Metlakatla. Given the historic use of electricity and what is known about the activity in Metlakatla, it is our perception that the forecast brackets the potential range of future load demand. If you know of some large development or a reason why there would be a substantially larger load added to the system, we would be happy to include it in future work, Regarding the apparent overstatement of MP&L's hydro generation, it was not clearly stated in the draft report that, for the purposes of the study, MP&L's Chester Lake project now under construction, was considered an existing hydro plant. Its anticipated average annual energy output plus that of Purple Lake equals the 22,150 MWH shown in Table 1-6 of the study. We expect the final report to be out by the end of December 1987 and it will more clearly state this assumption. We appreciate your comments on the draft report and look forward to con- tinued work with you on the Southeast Intertie. Sincerely, oh y / fA ° ait Pe ~ a Donald L. Shira, Director Program Development & Facilities Operations EAM:DLS: tg 802/DD29/1 = PO. Box AM Juneau, Alaska 99814 (907) 465-3575 SPO Box 190869 = 704 EastTudor Road = Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 = (907) 561-7877 Southeast Alaska Electric Load Forecast April 22, 1987 Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority by R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. Seattle, Washington I]1-31 Metlakatla Overview The community of Metlakatla is located on Annette Island, 15 miles south of Ketchikan. The community is organized under federal law and has a population estimated to be about 1,750 (according to a community official) which is up from 1,050 in 1970 and about 1,370 in 1980. Recent increases in population have resulted from a trend of former residents returning to the area and less out-migration, primarily because of increased economic activity and improved employment possibilities. Although the potential of stable employment appears good, it is not anticipated that mucn further population expansion will occur. Originally established in its present location in 1887 as a native community, Metlakatla's economy is based on fisning, fish processing, logging and timber processing. The community owns and operates a sawmill that pro- duces wood chips for Ketchikan Pulp Company of Ketchikan under a long-term contract and a cannery and cold storage facility. Electricity is supplied to Metlakatla by Metlakatla Power and Light (MPL), an electric cooperative. In the past, MPL has supplied much of its power requirements from low cost hydroelectric resources. Low cost power has encouraged the widespread installation of electric heat in Metlakatla. Con- sequently, the usage of electricity per customer is the highest in the State. Tne need to utilize more expensive diesel generation to supplement hydro generation to supply increased load requirements in recent years has increased overall power costs and appears to have caused a decrease in usage per custo- mer. MPL's peak demand and generation reuirements are significantly dependent on weather conditions because of electric heat requirements. 111-32 The following table summarizes various historical statistics of MPL: Table 11-15 " Metlakatla Power and Light Historical Statistics Residential Residential Total Total Number of Energy Usage Per Energy Energy Peak Calendar Residential Sales Customer Sales Requirements Demand Year Customers (MWh) (kWh) (MWh) (MWh) (kW) 1975 328 6,813 20,746 14,111 17,022 5,280 1980 349 6,471 18,536 14,729 17,484 4,770 198) 361 6,179 17,104 13,242 16,201 4,230 1982 373 6,747 18,079 13,363 15,711 3,580 1983 386 6,429 16,656 14,590 17,045 3,880 1984 415 7,416 17,856 18,496 20,036 5,340 1985 442 7,562 17,105 17,246 20,274 7,200 Average Annual Increase: 1975-85 3.0% 1.0% 1.9% 2.0% 1.8% Ss. en 1980-85 4.8% 3.2% -1.6% 3.2% 3.0% 8.6% 1983-85 7.0% 8.5% 1.3% 8.7% 9.1% 36.2% Forecast Assumptions The forecast for MPL has been developed separately for each custo- mer class and projections of the number of customers are based on assumed population growth. Although a stable economy is anticipated, further popu- lation growth as has been experienced in the past few years is not expected to continue. Population growth is assumed to be 0.5%, 1.0% and 0.0% per year for the base, high and low forecast scenarios, respectively. The number of residential and small commercial customers has been projected to increase relative to population growth. Residential usage per customer has been projected assuming typical heating degree days and commer- cial usage per customer has been projected to increase with growth in the area's per capita income. Per capita income has been assumed to grow at 1% per year for the base and high cases and at 0.5% per year for the low case. No change has been assumed in large commercial customer usage beyond present levels until 1996. Forecast Results 111-33 The results of the forecast are summarized in the following table for each of the three forecast scenarios: Table 111-16 Metlakatla Power and Light Summary of Forecast Results 1985 Actual _ 1986 1991 1996 2006 Base Case: Sales of Electricity (MWh): Residential 7,562 7,500 7,700 7,900 8,200 Small Commer. 1,934 1,900 2,100 2,400 2,900 Large Commer. 6,214 6,200 6,200 6,300 8,200 Other 1,536 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,800 Total 17,246 17,200 17,600 18,200 21,100 Total Req. (Mwh) 20,274 20,100 20,600 21,200 24,600 Peak Demand (kw) 7,200 6,200 6,400 6,700 8,200 High Case: Sales of Electricity (MWh): Residential 7,600 7,900 8,300 9,100 Small Commer. 1,900 2,200 2,500 3,100 Large Commer. 6,200 6,200 6,300 8,200 Other 1,500 1,600 1,600 1,900 Total 17,200 17,900 18,700 22,300 Total Req. (MWh) 20,100 20,900 21,900 26,000 Peak Demand (kw) 6,200 6,500 7,000 8,800 Low Case: Sales of Electricity (MWh): Residential 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 Small Commer. 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,300 Large Commer. 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 Other 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,600 Total 17,100 17,200 17,300 17,600 Total Req. (MWh) 20,000 20,100 20,200 20,600 Peak Demand (kW) 6,100 6,200 6,200 6,400 Avg. Annual Inc. 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 2.2% 2.2% «2.2% 0% «600.4% (2.7% -O% -O% «1.1% 0.5% 0.6% 1.5% 0.5% 0.7% 1.5% 0.6% 0.9% 2.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% -0% «(0.4% 2.7% 1.3% 0% «1.7% 0.8% 0.9% 1.8% 0.8% 0.9% 1.8% 1.0% 1.5% 2.3% 111-34 The results of the forecast are shown by year in Section IV. Historical and projected energy requirements and peak demand are shown graphi- cally in Figure III-8a and Figure III-8b, respectively. Figure I11-8& dis- plays historical and projected base case energy sales by customer classifi- cation. : : METLAKATLA POWER AND LIGHT TOTay apwnns CMC RCT RTOURC MENTS i CMEROY REQUME MENTS (new) (Treveenee) = | Figure I11-8a ES) low scDuRD ” | vesTomca, | i I y | s 7s 19800 1963 1990 1998 ‘7000 Fecs METLAKATLA POWER AND LIGHT E apa, PT AK OC AD Figure II1-8b PLAn Of mand (0w) (ireveenes) | 1975 1960 196s 1990 1995 2000 2005 METLAKATLA POWER AND LIGHT TOTAL armas SULCS BASE CASE FORECAST Figure III-8c BAC (wm) (Yreveenee) fa. 8 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY , oe REGION X 4c prove ALASKA OPERATIONS OFFICE 3200 HOSPITAL DRIVE Rin’ de, A0O/J SUITE 101 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99801 July 29, 1987 Donald L. Shira, Director Program Development & Operations Alaska Power Authority P.0. Box AM Juneau, AK 99811 Re: Southeast Intertie Feasibility Draft Report Dear Mr. Shira: We have reviewed the referenced report. We have two major areas of concern: The proposed routing through the Misty Fjords National Monument from Swan Lake to Quartz Hill; and, corridors affecting special aquatic sites (i.e., wetlands). As you may know, the EPA is both a cooperating agency in the preparation and review of the Quartz Hill Molybdenum Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a permitting agency for the tailings discharge. A Revised Draft EIS was recently issued by the U.S. Forest Service. The RDEIS does not include consideration of the Intertie. Regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality require assessment of cumulative impacts which include reasonably foreseeable future projects. We are particularly concerned by the omission of the Intertie from the RDEIS because your study chooses an overland route rather than marine cable through Wilson Arm. Your stated reason for choosing the terrestrial corridor is that the Quartz Hill mine tailings disposal in Wilson Arm/Smeaton Bay will preclude that route. In fact, as stated in the RDEIS, the EPA's preferred alternative for tailings disposal is the middle basin of Boca de Quadra. Our preferred alternative would permit the Intertie connection to proceed via marine cable to the Wilson Arm Road corridor. The terrestrial and visual impacts of a transmission corridor in the Monument (wilderness and non-wilderness) would be significant and avoidable. We request your consultation with the Forest Service to address these concerns in the final EIS. Absent a decision to allow the Wilson Arm/Smeaton Bay discharge, we ask your reevaluation of the Wilson Arm marine cable. Additionally, we will take a close look at impacts to wetlands when the corridor is described on a scale sufficient to make those determinations. We have specific responsibilities under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for “waters of the United States", including wetlands. Specifically, any work in wetlands would be evaluated for compliance with the Secion 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230.10) and the Region 10 EPA mitigation policy. Thank you for your continued interest in our concerns and comments. We appreciate the opportunity for early involvement. Sincerely, ths b Hla Fletcher G. Shives Environmental Protection Specialist cc: ADEC, Juneau ADF&G, Douglas DNR, Juneau DGC, Juneau FWS, Juneau NMFS, Juneau Steve Cowcer Governor Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska November 18, 1987 Mr. Fletcher G. Shives Environmental Protection Specialist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X, Alaska Operation Office 3200 Hospital Drive, Suite 101 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Dear Mr. Shives: This is in response to your comments of July 29, 1987, on the draft "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study." In those comments you expressed your concern regarding the draft's recommendation for imple- mentation of a transmission intertie between Snettisham, Tyee and the Quartz Hill Mine, via Swan Lake; and in particular, the selection of an overland route from Smeaton Bay to Quartz Hill through the Misty Fjords National Monument. As a result of the comments received on the draft report and the review by our staff, we instructed our consultant to reevaluate the various alternatives in light of several suggested revisions. Consequently, as shown on the attached figure, the most economic plan for the final report no longer includes the Swan Lake/Quartz Hill interconnection to which you have taken exception. Instead, it is recommended that Quartz Hill either be interconnected to B.C. Hydro via Kitsault, B.C., or rely entirely on on-site diesel generation. Thank you for your comments on the draft report. The final report is expected to be available by the end of December 1987. We look forward to working with your staff as this project proceeds. Sincerely, elk be = Donald L. Shira, Director Program Development & Facilities Operations EAM:DLS:tg Enclosure as stated 803/DD29/1 = PO. Box AM Juneau, Alaska 99841 (907) 465-3575 SZ PO Box 190869 701 EastTudorRoad Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 . WHITEHORSE — SKAGWAY @ ig . Soa o™ HAINES @ JUNEAU nae GREENS CREEK 2 ¥ ‘. © SNETTISHAM- CRATER LAKE TENAKEE @ ancoon e@ PETERSBURG PRINCE LEGEND: . OF WALES tSLAND LOAD CENTERS @ GENERATION SOURCES KET EXISTING T/LINE GHIKAN 100KV DC (BIPOLAR) PROPOSED T/LINE s QUARTZ VOLTAGE METLAKATLA =. har) COST(MILLIONS) ~ - - KITSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY _MOST ECONOMIC PLAN United States Forest Region 10 Chatham Area Department of Service Tongass National Forest 204 Siginaka Way Agriculture Sitka, Alaska 99835 a OOO E TAT EGG T eee Reply To: 2730 Date: July 31, 1987 Mr. Donald L. Shira Alaska Power Authority P.O. Box AM Juneau, AK 99811 Dear Mr. Shira: In response to your June 23, 1987, letter requesting review and comment on a draft Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study, we offer the following: 1. Page 2-5, second paragraph: We anticipate Plan II would result in more impacts to resources than other plans due to the overland transmission line along the east side of Lynn Canal. If this connection is pursued, we recommend that it be a submarine cable interconnection between Skagway, Haines, and Juneau. 2. Table 6-1: Under Biological Constraints, we suggest you add "Estuarine or Riparian Areas Disturbed". Under Social/Cultural Constraints, we suggest you add "National Monument" to your Land Use category and "Recreation Campgrounds" to your Visual Impact category. 3. Page 6-5, mid page: You state, "forestry or logging is [the] principal land use for much of Southeast Alaska." In the context of this paragraph, "multiple use forest management" is a more accurate description of these uses. a, Page 6-8, bottom paragraph: We suspect the "USFS logging maps" you reference are actually "USS Transportation System maps". These roads accommodate a variety of uses, including, but not limited to, timber harvest. 5. Page 6-9, second paragraph: Same comment as number 4 above. 6. Page 6-10: Your local government contacts do not include the cities of Tenakee Springs, Angoon, or Hoonah. We suggest you obtain input from these city governments in your study. 7. Page 6.1-1, third paragraph: We concur with the elimination of segment 1.3. FS-6200-28(7-82) @ Mr. Donald L. Shira 2 8. Page 6.2-1 to 6.2-6: Although more costly to construct, Alternative E (an underwater cable route from Skagway to Haines, Bridget Cove, and Douglas Island) is our preferred route. 9. Pages 6.2-1 and 6.2-3, Bridget Cove to Juneau: Alternative B is our preferred overland route because it would result in the least impacts to Forest resources, including Forest Service recreation cabins (Peterson Lake and John Muir) and trails (Amalga, Auke Nu, Bessie Creek, Herbert Glacier, Montana Creek, Peterson Lake, Spaulding, Windfall Lake, and Yankee Basin). All three alternatives would cross National Forest lands selected by the State of Alaska for the City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ). 10. Pages 6.2-4 to 6.2-6: Altermmative E is our preferred alternative route. An existing Forest Service recreation cabin is located at Katzehin River and should be avoided. A cabin has also been proposed at Endicott River. Segment 2.2A would cross National Forest lands selected by the State of Alaska for CBJ. There are mining claims with access roads at Comet, North of Berners Bay. 11. Page 6.3-1: This proposed segment would follow an existing road from the substation on Douglas Island to Outer Point. This segment crosses private lands, CBJ lands, Goldbelt lands, and National Forest lands selected by the State for CBJ. Any activity on National Forest lands selected by the State will require concurrence from the State of Alaska. Although not part of the Recommended Plan, this section discusses a proposal to construct an overhead transmission line parallel to the existing road from the Admiralty National Monument boundary to the Greens Creek Mine. An overhead line would require significant additional tree clearing alorg the road corridor to provide reasonable protection to the line. This entire area is windthrow prone and risks of major blowdown would be increased. Visual impacts to the Monument would be increased and the line would pose a hazard to raptors as well as other birds in the area. Due to the risks and impacts anticipated to Monument values, we request that you evaluate an alternative to bury cable within Admiralty National Monument lands, if this connection to Greens Cre& Mine is pursued. 12. Pages 6.5-1 and 6.5-2: We concur with the preferred alternative of an underwater cable from Snettisham. 13. Table 8-6: Although necessary to the project, cultural resource surveys and environmental assessments are neither permits nor authorizations, as labeled. Also, it may be more appropriate to reference the NEPA requirements as "environmental analysis". These may result in either a categorical exclusion, envirormental assessment, or envirormental impact statement, depending upon perceived impacts. 14, Bibliography: If any activities are contemplated in wilderness, we suggest consulting the appropriate Wilderness Management Plan for the wilderness involved. Copies of these plans may be obtained from appropriate Forest Service Supervisor Offices. FS-6200-28(7-82) @ Mr. Donald L. Shira 3 15. Appendix D, Public and Agency Contacts: There is no mention of consultation with Greens Creek Mining Company or the cities of Tenakee Springs, Angoon, or Hoonah. We recommend that your public se ianenbianecr ou efforts be expanded to include these groups. Thank you for he opportunity to comment on this draft study. If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact John Morrell at the above telephone number. Sincerely, ran oP can. M. BURGESON fre Recreation/Larmd Uses Staff Officer ee: Ron Skillings Jere Christner Mike Johnson JRD SRD HRD ANM 072987 1515 RL 2730 JM as FS-6200-28(7-82) Steve Cowper Soverror Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska November 18, 1987 Mr. Carl M. Burgeson Recreation/Land Uses Staff Offices U.S. Forest Service Region 10, Tongass National Forest Chatham Area 204 Siginaka Way Sitka, Alaska 99835 Dear Mr. Burgeson: Thank you for your comments of July 31, 1987, on the draft "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study". The final report is presently being prepared and insofar as possible your comments are being incorporated into the study. As stated more clearly in the final report, the scope of the study did not allow detailed environmental comparisons to be made of each and every routing alternative for the numerous transmission segments. Rather, we sought to draw the kind of comments you have provided from the various interested agencies, utilities and other public and private entities, so that these concerns could form the basis of future detailed studies required for those transmission segments to be implemented. As a result of the comments received on the draft report and our own staff review, we asked our consultant to reevaluate the alternatives in light of several suggested revisions. Consequently, as shown on the attached figure, the most economic plan now includes a 69 kV interconnection of the Snettisham project and Sitka via Juneau, Green's Creek, Hoonah and Tenakee Springs. Of these segments, the most immediate need would be for the Juneau-Greens Creek segment; extension of the line from Greens Creek to Sitka would not be required until after the year 2000 when Sitka's load demend will exceed its presently installed hydroelectric generation capacity. Because of this, the final study report will recommend detailed feasibility studies be performed for the Juneau-Greens Creek transmission line. Specific impacts to Admiralty National Monument and their mitigation would be considered in this study. For the Greens Creek-Sitka segment, the final report will recommend additional routing studies and submarine surveys of the 0804/783/1 = PO Box AM Juneau, Alaska 99814 (907) 465-3575 RH PO Box 190869 701 East Tudor Road Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 = (907) 561-7877 Mr. Burgenson November 18, 1987 Page 2 potential cable crossings. Obviously, we would need the participation of your staff for both of these efforts. Thank you again for your comments. The final report is expected to be available by the end of December 1987. We look forward to continued input from your staff on this project as it proceeds. ee - LL LE. at - Donald L. Shira, Director Program Development and Facilities Operations EAM/DLS/ds 0804/783/2 5 WHITEHORSE ™ SKAGWAY & Si” O HAINES @ GREENS CREEK 2 ¥ . © SNETTISHAM- CRATER LAKE TENAKEE @ Ancoon e PETERSBURG PRINCE LEGEND: . OF WALES ISLAND LOAD CENTERS @ GENERATION SOURCES KET EXISTING T/LINE GHIEAN 100KV DC (BIPOLAR) > 3 PROPOSED T/LINE @ QUARTZ o VOLTAGE METLAKATLA — 412 COST(MILLIONS) i ~ ~ KITSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY ._MOST ECONOMIC PLAN WIARZA enanermins COMPANY. ocTOSER we? 10-J35LH ry ree STATE OF ALASKA /““*-— DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES m_a« AVENUE JUNEAU, ALASKA 99801-1000 SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE PHONE: (907) 465-3400 DIVISION OF LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT August 3, 1987 RECEIVED BY ALASKA Tf Ate Donald L. Shira, Director ; Program Development and Operations ‘87 AUG -6 ANI :30 Alaska Power Authority P. O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Dear Mr. Shira: The Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land and Water Management, Southeast Regional Office has reviewed the draft Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the predevelopmental consultation phase. Our concerns will focus on impacts and benefits of the intertie route to state land, and existing and proposed land disposals. We will offer more specific comments when the alternatives are more defined. Thank-you for the opportunity to comment. I hope that a late response has not caused you any inconvenience. Sincerely, Andrew W. Pekovich, Acting Regional Manager By: Su Yl Sara Hunt Plan Implementation Chief Alaska Power Authority Responses to Public and Agency Comments on Draft Report Date Comments From Response 8/3/87 Alaska Department of Natural No response required. Resources United States Forest Region 10 Tongass National Forest Department of Service Stikine Area Agriculture P.O. Box 309 orn wo SSE SERS a ES SSS SSS RS SEUSS SS SESE SESE aeees Petersburg, AK_99833___ Reply To: 7710 Date: August 3, 1987 QECTIVED BY LpwTy Mr. Donald L. Shira ALASKA = Alaska Power Authority PO Box 190869 37. «NG -6 All 330 Anchorage, AK 99519-0869 Dear Mr. Shira: We have reviewed the draft Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study prepared by Harza Engineering. I understand that Doug Barber, Stikine Area Forest Engineer, called you last week to relay our comments. This letter serves as follow-up documentation of that conversation. We are pleased with the preferred route for the Petersburg-Kake transmission line, which has incorporated all of our previous suggestions. The Tyee-Ketchikan route, via Eagle River, is the only other segment that effects the Stikine Area. We believe that the line will need to be constructed on the west side of Eagle River because of steep slopes on the east side. This effects Segment 8.1. The majority of the remainder of the route is located on the Ketchikan Area. We recently received a copy of the enclosed letter from State Senators Eliason and Jones regarding the desirability of constructing the intertie between Tyee and Prince of Wales Island. We agree with the Senators that an altecnative to use surplus Tyee power may be more cost effective than building a new project on Prince of Wales Island. We believe, however, that it would be more efficient to consider the intertie to Prince of Wales as a part of the overall Southeast system. In the long term, a tie between Tyee and Ketchikan, with an additional tie to Prince of Wales, should provide greater benefits than simply connecting Tyee directly to Prince of Wales Island. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important proposal, and for your responsiveness in addressing our previous comments in your preferred route ROBERT (E/ LYNN Forest Supervisor Enclosure Gs FS-6200-28(7-82) “~ Steve Cowcer Soverro’ DN Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska November 18, 1987 Mr. Robert E. Lynn, Forest Supervisor U.S. Forest Service Region X, Tongass National Forest Stikine Area P.0. Box 309 Petersburg, Alaska 99833 Dear Mr. Lynn: Thank you for your comments of August 3, 1987 on the draft "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study". The final report is presently being prepared and insofar as possible your comments are being incorporated into the study. As stated more clearly in the final report, the scope of the study did not allow detailed environmental comparisons to be made of each and every routing alternative for the numerous transmission segments. Rather, we sought to draw the kind of comments you have provided from the various interested agencies, utilities and other public and private entities, so that these concerns could form the basis of future detailed studies required for those transmission segments to be implemented. Thank you again for your comments. The final report is expected to be available by the end of December 1987. We look forward to continued input from your staff on this project as it proceeds. Sincerely, . o ye ae ee oe Donald L. Shira, Director Program Development and Facilities Operations EAM/DLS/ds 0805/783 = PO Box AM _— Juneau, Alaska 99814 (907) 465-3575 KZ PO Box 190869 704 EastTudorRoad = Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 & @.. States Forest Region 10 Tongass National Forest Department of Service Ketchikan Area Agriculture Federal Buildi Ketchikan, AK 901 Reply To: 1560 Date: August 4, 1987 Alaska Power Authority Attn:. Donald L. Shira P.O. Box AM Juneau, AK 99811 Dear Mr. Shira: Thank you for the opportunity to review the "Southeast Alaska Tranamission Intertie Study". Most of our previous concerns have been addressed in the document. There are only three items that we feel need to be changed. On page 6.8=5, the map of segment 8, the boundary line for Misty. Fiords National Monument appears to be wrong. The boundary, as drawn, comes close to the east end of Orchard Lake. The actual boundary turns to the east, north of Orchard Lake, and is about six miles east of where this maps shows it. This results in fewer miles within the Monument. . On page 6.10-3, paragraph six you discuss the crossing of Misty Fiords National Monument. Sentence four also mentions the Monument Wilderness. You do not mention the area of the Monument that is not Wilderness. As mich of the ares the line would cross in this alternative is non-Wilderness Monument this should be discussed. Even though ANILCA allows transmission lines to cross the Wilderness sections if a non-wilderness route is available this would be preferred and needs to be discussed. On page 8-5, umder the Forest Service permits, you need to add segment 10.8 to the list of segments that will need to be included in an Environmental Impact Statement. Also, we ere not sure what is included in the special use permit or cultural resource survey items, but you need to be aware that there may de several special use permits needed for this project depending on the proposed work plans and time sohedules. A permit to conduct the cultural resource survey is one of these permits. You also need to be aware that a clearance from the State Historic Preservations Officer's office is also required before we can issue any permits that may disturb cultural resources. & FB-4200-2017-02) In general comments we ask that you reconsider the segment to Prince of Wales Island. There is considerable interest in this segment as demonstrated in the v July 1, 1987 letter from Senators Eliason and Jones. During our revision of the Tongass Land Management Plan we will be including transportation and utility corridor planning. This should help facilitate the proposed Intertie and any future expansion projects. We will be utilizing your study to aid us in determining these corridors. Again, thank you for the opportunity to review this study. If we can be of any further assistance in helping to finalize this document please give us a call. Sincerely, WIN GREEN Forest Supervisor 073087 0941 ri 1560 prr an FQ-€200-28/7-£2) Date 8/4/87 Alaska Power Authority Responses to Public and Agency Comments U.S. Area on Draft Report Comments From Forest Service, Ketchikan Response Refer to APA 7/21/87 response to 7/1/87 comments by Senators Eliason and Jones. A copy was sent to the Ketchikan Area in response to their similar concerns. Other Ketchikan Area comments were incorpo- rated into the final report. No further response required. fe Quek United States Forest Region 10 P.O. Box 21628 Department of Service Juneau, AK 99802-1628 Agriculture Reply to: 7600 Date: AUG nay Mr. Robert LeResche, Director Alaska Power Authority Department of Commerce MS 0102 Juneau, AK 99833 Dear Mr. LeResche: We have reviewed the preliminary review draft of the Southeast Intertie Study prepared for your office by Harza Engineering Campany. Specific comments on the draft are being furnished to you directly by our Tongass National Forest field offices. This office fully supports the concept of a Southeast intertie. Early identification of the transmission route(s) crossing National Forest lands, enhances their inclusion into our Forest planning process, particularly the upcaming revision of the Tongass Land Management Plan (TIMP). Work on revision of the Tongass plan is currently underway and we expect to have a draft out for public review and camment by late 1989. The intertie report campletion fits well into our TLMP update schedule. On a related subject, I support the creation of a Southeast Alaska Transportation/Utility Corridor Coordination Committee as discussed at a recent meeting between Senator Jones, Mark Hickey, Jon Scribner, Barry Morehead, Jim Wolfe and yourself. I believe there is the potential for significant benefit through improved State and Federal coordination of transportation system planning and development, and utility corridor planning. The group could also provide a forum for reviewing proposals affecting State, private, and forest service lands. We appreciate the opportunity to review and camment on the study. If you have any questions or need additional information, please let me know. CHAEL A. BARTON Regional Forester ce: Forest Supervisors Staff Directors 081087 1252 eam 7600 1p FS-6200-28(7-82) Alaska Power Authority Responses to Public and Agency Comments on Draft Report Date Comments From Response 8/10/87 U.S. Forest Service Region 10 No response required. cLIBh i: j3 at % — i STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR w) i wo ih il Ui iry En he DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES p.0. aox3~1000 : 7 JUNEAU, ALASKA 98802 PHONE: . SOUTHEAST REGION perrn ~ Avgust 10, 1987 RECEIVED BY... - . - ALASKE PSHE * ‘7 NB 13 A059 (BAST27L6 Donald L. Shira, Director Program Development & Operations Alaska Power Authority P.O, Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Dear Mr. Shira: After review of the draft Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study, I have ne specific comments to offer. I agree with the recommendations and conclusions as outlined in the executive g@umary. Continued coordination between APA and the Department is important to determine the most desirable areas for reservation as joint transportation- utility corridors. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to review this study. Sincerely, Lag Meketa Chief of Planning Date 8/10/87 Alaska Power Authority Responses to Public and Agency Comments on Draft Report Comments From Alaska Department of Trans- portation and Public Facilities Response No response required. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service P.0. Box 1668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 September 14, 1987 Mr. Donald L. Shira Director, Program Development and Operations Alaska Power Authority P.O. Box 190869 RED! 701 East Tudor Road SLAs * Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 s7 ser 18 P1103 Attention: Eric Marchegiani Dear Mr. Shira: Reference is made to your July 22, 1987, follow up request for comments on the Southeast Intertie Feasibility Draft Report. We regret the delay in providing our written comments. While the document has addressed economic and engineering con- cerns in detail, we feel it has given only cursory consideration of possible adverse effects to the habitat of commercially valuable marine and estuarine organisms as well as potential conflicts with the commercial fishing industry. If implemented in its entirety, almost 200 nautical miles of submarine cable would be associated with the intertie. Trans- mission lines would be required parallel to more than 40 miles of anadromous fish stream (assuming alternatives recommended for detailed study are chosen). Without adequate planning, construc- tion of a project of this magnitude could result in considerable adverse effects to these streams. Submarine cable crossings which might conflict with commercial fisheries are those transecting underwater reefs or pinacles. At these locations, the cable might not conform to bottom contours and, therefore, could increase the risk of fouling boat anchors or commercial fishing gear (i.e., longline, troll, pot, seine, trawl, or gillnet gear). Areas and depths where cable crossings coincide with high commercial fishery use must be identified and those measures needed to minimize conflicts should be discussed in future intertie documents. We recommend that representatives of the commercial fishing industry be contacted to discuss final alignment locations. Our office can provide contact names and phone numbers for these organizations if you need then. Likewise, alignment could conflict with mariculture activities. Our office has information on locations of Department of the Army permitted mariculture sites. ic Adverse impacts to habitat of commercially valuable marine organisms associated with powerline construction can be minimized by use of proper construction techniques, avoidance of critical areas, and prudent timing of excavation and in-water work. The construction activities must be scheduled to avoid periods of salmon fry and smolt outmigration, herring spawning, eulachon runs, and adult salmon migration. Intertie construction adjacent to over 40 miles of salmon streams is of particular concern. Timber felling and excavation assoc- iated with intertie construction may jeopardize adjacent and downstream anadromous habitat through destabilization of the watershed and habitat alteration. Some general areas where location and construction methods are of particular concern have been identified in the comment letter from the Alaska Division of Mining and Geological & Geophysical Surveys. We are especially concerned with proposed powerline routes along the Tombstone, Marten, and Keta Rivers. These streams are major producers of salmon. The steep terrain associated with these watersheds could contribute to landslides if powerlines are not correctly placed and constructed. Resulting sedimentation to downstream salmonid habitat could result in habitat degradation and lower fish production. For the above mentioned reasons, sections of the intertie which pass through marine waters or adjacent to freshwater may require Environmental Impact Statements. As more definite alternatives are identified the National Marine Fisheries Service needs to be advised. Please contact us if we can be of additional assistance. Sincerely, bee Robert W. McVey Director, Alaska Region Vf ence USA weber 7 cc: ADFG, Douglas EPA, Anchorage, Juneau FWS, Juneau, Anchorage CE, Env. Sec., Anchorage Div. of Governmental ADEC, Juneau Coordination, Juneau ADNR, Juneau Oo Steve Cowper’. Governor Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska November 18, 1987 Mr. Robert McVey, Director Alaska Region National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, AK 99801 Dear Mr. McVey: Thank you for your comments of September 14, 1987 on the draft "Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study". The final report is presently being prepared and insofar as possible your comments are being incorporated into the study. As stated more clearly in the final report, the scope of the study did not allow detailed environmental comparisons to be made of each and every routing alternative sought to draw the kind of comments you have provided from the various interested agencies, utilities and other public and private entities, so that these concerns could form the basis of future detailed studies required for those transmission segments to be implemented. Thank you again for your comments. The final report is expected to be available by the end of December 1987. We look forward to continued input from your staff on this project as it proceeds. ae Mb ‘Donald L. Shira Director/Program Development & Facilities Operations er 0806/791/1 PO. Box AM = Juneau, Alaska 99844 (907) 465-3575 PO. Box 190869 704 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 TRIP REPORT Agencies and Public Participation on Southeast Intertie Project January 12 through January 15, 1987 Following are summaries of meetings held throughout Southeast Alaska with resource agencies, utilities, and local government representatives during the week January 12, 1987. The purpose of the meetings was to present the S.E. Alaska transmission intertie concept to the above mentioned entities and to collect relevant information from them. The presentations were made by Brent Petrie and Tanzeem Rizvi of the Alaska Power Authority, Gene Kocian and Rick Suttle of Harza Engineering Company and Don Fordney of PEI Consultants (formerly Pool Engineering of Ketchikan). The general format of conducting the meetings was as follows: at Opening remarks, introductions, background information and purpose of the meeting by Petrie. 2. Description of ultimate intertie systems and status of study by Kocian. 3. Comments by Rizvi, Suttle and Fordney regarding load fore- casts, environmental and Southeast Alaska issues. 4. Open discussion and question/answer session by all partici- pants. 5. Requests for information/comments and distribution of mate- rials by Suttle and others. Lists of participants and meeting locations are presented in Attach- ment 1. Monday, January 12, 1987 Meeting at Ketchikan Public Utilities offices. The meetina was attended by representatives of Ketchikan Public Utility (KPU), U.S. Borax, City of Ketchikan and City of Thorne Bay. See participant list attached). Particular comments of the meeting were: 1. KPU would like us to analyze a Tyee-Ketchikan intertie to north KPU system (34.5 kV) at Clover Pass. A second line to Ketchikan from a major power project would give more 7914/DD29/1 -1- reliability to the KPU system. (A parallel Swan Lake transmission line would serve the same purpose. ) 2. Services from Swan Lake substation in Ketchikan to Totem Bight substation for Prince of Wales line would be 34.5 kV. 3s KPU said that B.C. Hydro was more interested in selling to a residential/commercial market rather than a large industrial customer. The intertie project could be a selling point to get a B.C. Hydro intertie to Ketchikan. 4. KPU would like to sell power to Metlakatla. 5. KPU (John Zidalis) expressed concern about DC technology and operation. 6. KPU asked who would administer and dispatch the intertie system; Alaska Power Authority or a utility coordinating council? 7. KPU commented that it is important to sell the project in its entirety to B.C. Hydro. 8. Ketchikan Mayor (T. Ferry) made the following comments: - What do we do to meet our loads in the next 10 years? - What is status of Black Bear Lake Project? - What are rates going to be? - What about financing; will a bond issue be needed? U.S. Borax said that its revised draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was scheduled to be issued in February 1987. There is a possible, but very tentative, construction start for Quartz Hill in 1988 with production in 1992. The Power Authority observed FY 1986 sales/capacity for Tyee and Swan Lake were as follows: Sales (kWh) Capability (kWh) Swan 48 ,000 ,000 88,000,000 Tyee 29,000,000 138,000,000 The Power Authority also stated that the Metlakatla peak load was about 7.5 MW in November 1985 - a cold month. 7914/DD29/2 -2- Meeting at U.S. Forest Service Bunkhouse: The meeting was attended by United States Forestry Service (USFS), Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and Fish and Wildlife Service (FSW) resource agency representatives. See attachment. Questions pertained to such generalities as who would make final route selections; and whether an EIS would be done for entire system. We answered that this was a step-by-step process. Environmental overviews will be presented in this study. As various segments become reality, detailed studies will need to be done on those segments. Environmental assessments or impact statements will be done at that time. The U.S. Forest Service observed that the current ANILCA law allows power and access corridors to in-holdings within designated wilder- ness areas, but would not allow something like the through con- nection we have shown, 7.e., Swan Lake - Borax - Kitsault, B.C., without Congressional approval. The Forest Service also pointed out several preferred routes and problem areas for Swan Lake - Quartz Hill and Swan Lake - Tyee segments. Maps showing these were provided by USFS. Tuesday, January 13, 1987 Having flown to Juneau the previous night, we proceeded to fly to Haines, Skagway, back to Juneau and finally to Sitka. Haines, City Hall. We met with Mayor April Lapham and Haines Power and Light (HL&P) manager, Archie Hinman. The following were discussed: 1. Schnabel Mill filed for bankruptcy and never fulfilled its planned power contract with HL&P to provide wood waste gen- eration. 2. Mitkoff Lumber may purchase the Schnable Mill and would seek an outside operator for the generating plant. 3. The base case for Haines should use HL&P diesel, plus 2,000 kw of wood waste generation 24 hours/day at a cost of 90 percent of diesel cost. a. Land is available for a converter station at Tanani Point, across road from the tank farm. 5. What about AC cable (possibly 34.5 kV) from Skagway and only one converter station at Haines versus converters at Haines and Skagway and DC cable between? 7914/DD29/3 -3- 8. Both the Mayor and Mr. Hinman support the intertie and want converter station jobs in Haines. Due to recent national attention, tourism is starting to grow. Native groups are developing some facilities to promote tourism. Side issue may be a transmission line from Haines to Klukwan. We saw the converter station site at Tanani Point from the airplane - looks okay. Skagway City Hall. Meeting with City and National Park Service (NPS) representatives. See list attached. Te Recommended route for the Skagway/border transmission line is along the west side and above the road to Whitehorse. City officials were not knowledgeable of avalanche problems, as the road through the pass has only recently been kept open. It was recommended to keep the transmission line on the upslope road side to minimize visual impact from the road. There is no place to put a converter station at cable terminal site as slopes are too steep. Railroad route crosses Klondike National Park. A site for converter station in vicinity of Skagway River highway bridge was recommended and verified from the air. How would capital recovery be handled? Wednesday, January 14, 1987 Meetings in Sitka and Juneau. Sitka, City Hall. Meeting with the City of Sitka, (Mayor, Planning Director and City Administrator) and U.S. Forest Service, Chatham District. See list attached. ats Takatz Lake is not needed for 15 years; may cost about $90 million. Comment was made that with the intertie Takatz Lake Project may not be needed. Possible world class fish hatchery at Baranof Lake near Warm Springs Bay. Sitka is reluctant to tie into a system. 7914/DD29/4 = 4. 10. ils Sitka wants the State to select the land required for Takatz Lake. There is a slide zone where southern transmission line route turns north. Send Rick Andersen a set of submarine survey maps. Send John Morrell an overall system map. No new Takatz Lake study has been done. Get USFS 86-90 plan for Chatham Forest. J. Morrell (USFS) should be receiving comments from his staff which he will pass on to PEI. USFS asked what FERC's involvement would be. Response was minimal except as related to international connection with Canada and unless associated with a hydroelectric project. Juneau, U.S. Forest Service Office. Meeting with the U.S. Forest Service: 1. Use Green's Creek road from Young Bay to mine site for trans- mission line route. 2. Comments along Segment 2. 2 Link No. 2.3 may have timber sales in this area. e Link No. 2.6 not preferred due to proximity to Forest Service cabins. C Link No. 2.7 is along the heavily used Montana Creek Trail, but this is a better route than 2.6. i Use coastal road, Glacier Highway route, as an alterna- tive to 2.6 or 2.7. S Visual impact will be of concern with route along coast as several private residences exist in this area. 3. No comments on Douglas Island or Juneau portion of trans- mission line. 4. EIS for potential development in the Bridget Cove area is due in 1988. 7914/DD29/5 -5- 5. We should refer to Department of Transportation (DOT) plans for road corridors and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) master plan. 6. Have we considered AJ Mine development in Juneau? No. 7. Comment was made that a positive aspect of the intertie is that it may preclude the need to develop additional dams and hydroelectric facilities in sensitive or undeveloped areas. Green's Creek Mining Company. Meeting with Pete Richardson and Sam Smith. Green's Oratk feasibility report is due out next month, February 1987. Earliest production will begin at the end of 1988; same time as Crater Lake expansion of Snettisham comes on line. Green's Creek plans to install their own diesel plant; 4.0 MW low speed diesel plant with high speed back-up units. They also may contract out for power production. The plan is to off-load fuel in Hawk Inlet and truck it to the mine mouth diesel plant. The road route is already determined (they drew it on our maps). Will have 50 KW load at Hawk Inlet Camp and 3.5 MW continuous load at mine. 1. The road width is 14' cleared with steep cuts and fills and heavy timber to mine mouth. 2. Muskegs are 8' to 15' deep. 3 Diesel plant cost estimated to be about $1.5 million. 4 Would install a $1.3 million back-up plant even with intertie. 5. Transform to 4,160 volts at mine. 6 . Would need 480 V transmission line to Hawk Inlet for 200 hp load at dock for off-loading. 7. Project life equals ten years minimum. 8. Number 2 diesel oi] is $0.47/gal at Seattle. Thursday, January 15, 1987 Remained in Juneau for meetings with state and federal agencies, util- ities and City and Borough of Juneau. Department of Natural Resource (DNR) Office, Juneau. Meeting with tate and Federal! Resource Agencies. ee list. 1. There is no DOT right-of-way on the west side of Douglas Island. Goldbelt Mining owns the land, but would probably be willing to yield right-of-way for transmission line. 7914/DD29/6 -6- 10. 11. 12 EPA stated that the Forest Service EIS for Quartz Hill noted that transmission line was considered but rejected in favor of an on-site diesel plant. We should check this with U.S. Borax and USFS. For Segment 2, the ADF&G expressed strong opposition to a route up Montana Creek. ADF&G stated there would be roads along the northern route 6.6 for Petersburg-Kake, but noted that part of the route crosses a major water fowl fly-away. ADF&G expressed concern over’ transmission line impacts on great blue heron. Mike Jacobsen requested that Don Fordney collect additional resource information in Juneau at USFS. Rick Reed, ADF&G, referred us to the ADF&G resource atlas available in Ketchikan. The suggestion was made to consider a submarine cable to Auk Bay substaion or to Douglas Island rather than over land from Bridget Cove. What about service to Hoonah, Angoon and Tenakee? Comment was made to check Juneau Comprehensive and Open Space Plans. Duane Peterson, National Marine Fisheries (NMF), stated he had not seen maps sent earlier to their office. He was given a set of Harding Lawson maps showing terminal locations for review and comment. Mr. Shives, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), commented that a line through Misty Fjords was not in the public's interest. AEL&P Office, Juneau. Meeting with Bill Corbus, AEL&P. ie Alaska Electric Light and Power (AEL&P) has two 60 kV circuits through Juneau and could upgrade to 138 kV. Already has some poles designed for 138 kV but conductored at 69 kV. Ten-year plan includes replacing much of the 69 kV system and poles would be sized for a future upgrade; 652 conductor now. On Douglas Island, most of the system is 12.5 kV on 69 kV poles. 7914/DD29/7 -7- 3. We should consider 34.5 kV to Green's Creek. 4. AEL&P 1986 loads were down 4 percent from 1985. Expect a flat year, 0 percent growth for 1987. AEL&P Office, Juneau. Meetings with Alaska Power Administration, AEL&P, Glacier Highway Electric, City and Borough of Juneau. See list. 1. We should contact the Juneau Planning Department for land use development plans. 2. Ira Winograd requested a set of 1:63,000 maps. 3. Jack Broughton strongly suggested we evaluate a transmission line service Hoonah, Tenakee and Angoon instead of Snettisham- Kake. 4. Glacier Highway Electric has a 69 kV line along the coast road. Will send GJK a system map and future plans. 5. Montana Creek area is part of a designated future road corri- dor according to Juneau comprehensive plan. 6. Why not use proposed West Lynn Canal road from Haines to St. James Bay with crossing to Bridget Cove? Road corridor on West Lynn Canal is already surveyed. Dan Fordney and Rick Suttle accompanied Ira Winograd to the City planner's office and reviewed proposed Montana Creek and Auke Bay road corridor maps and obtained copies of Juneau Comprehensive Plans. Friday, January 16, 1987 Planned itinerary included meetings in Petersburg and Wrangell; trans- portation was to be via a charter plane from Juneau. Weather precluded the landing in Petersburg and Wrangell and those meetings were conse- quently cancelled. The extra time in Juneau was utilized for a meeting with Sealaska Regional Native Corporation in their Juneau offices. Participants from Sealaska were Bob Loesher, Randy Wanamaker, and Ed Hillman. 1. Sealaska is in favor of the intertie project to support their mineral resource developments. 2. Snettisham-Kake segment goes through a dead section of South- east with respect to industrial or commercial development. 7914/DD29/8 -8- 3. Most economic activities are planned for west of Admiralty Island on Chichagof Island. Many mine prospects .there will benefit from the availability of power. 4. Suggest we re-route down the west side of Lynn Canal and to Hoonah, Tenakee and Angoon. 5. Also suggest we consider Tyee-Prince of Wales intertie via Cleveland Peninsula to Thorne Bay. 6. Will discuss resource development plans with the Power Author- ity later. 7. Stated that we should contact Rick Fredrickson regarding and advisory report from City on potential or planned Echo Bay Development. 8. Bob Loesher commented that Sealaska is where Green's Creek Mining Company was 6 years ago (i.e., they know they will develop some of their mine sites; they just can not pin the time down yet). By: Es 0, lvl = “23 f 67 anzeem K1ZV1 7914/DD29/9 -9- ATTACHMENT 1 AGENCY MEETING PARTICIPANT LIST 7914/DD29/10 - 10 - City: Ketchikan Place: Ketchikan Public Utility Office Date: January 12, 1987 Name Organization Gene Kocian Harza Engineering Elizabeth Stone U.S. Borax Tanzeem Rizvi Alaska Power Authority Ron Post Ketchikan Daily News John Zidalis Ketchikan Public Utilities Brent Petrie : Alaska Power Authority Roger Logan Ketchikan Public Utilities Ted Ferry Mayor, City of Ketchikan Don Fordney PEI Consultants Rick Suttle Harza Engineering Lynn Ramsey Thorne Bay 7914/DD29/11 Sill City: Ketchikan Place: United States Forest Service Bunkhouse Date: January 12, 1987 Name Gene Kocian Rick Suttle Tanzeem Rizvi Brent Petrie Don Fordney Larry Mullias Gene DeGayner Martin Prather Les Russell Chad DeVore Dave Morton Fred Prange John Short Bob Latham Jim Moe Chuck Osborn Bill Jones Bill Fagen Casey Nelson, Sr. Jack Gustafson Doug Campbell Don Ranne 7914/DD29/12 Organization Harza Engineering Harza Engineering Alaska Power Authority Alaska Power Authority PEI Consultants United States Forest Service United States Forest Service United States Forest Service United States Forest Service/Craig RD United States Forest Service/TNB RD Forest Service, Ketchikan Forest Service, Ketchikan F.S. - $.0. Ketchikan United States Forest Service United States Forest Service U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Ketchikan Ketchikan Gateway Borough ADEC Metlakatla Power & Light Alaska Department of Fish & Game United States Forest Service United States Forest Service = 12) < City: Haines Place: City Hall Date: January 13, 1987 Name Gene Kocian Rick Suttle Tanzeem Rizvi Brent Petrie Don Fordney April Lapham Archie Hinman 7914/DD29/13 Organization Harza Engineering Harza Engineering Alaska Power Authority Alaska Power Authority PEI Consultants Mayor, City of Haines Haines Power and Light = 13 - City: Skagway Place: City Hall Date: January 13, 1987 Name Organization Gene Kocian Harza Engineering Rick Suttle Harza Engineering Tanzeem Rizvi Alaska Power Authority Brent Petrie Alaska Power Authority Don Fordney PEI Consultants Jay E. Cable National Park Service Clay Alderson National Park Service Casey McBride Skagway City Council Mike Sica Skagway Public Radio H.M. Walker Skagway City Council Ed Fairbanks Skagway City Council Alan See Alaska Power & Telephone Company Malcolm Boyle City of Skagway Bob Ward City of Skagway 7914/DD29/14 = 14 = City: Sitka Place: City and Borough of Sitka Office Date: January 14, 1987 Name Organization Gene Kocian Harza Engineering Rick Suttle Harza Engineering Tanzeem Rizvi Alaska Power Authority Brent Petrie Alaska Power Authority Don Fordney PEI Consultants John Morrel] United States Forest Service, Sitka (747-6671) Mike Schmidt Planning Director City and Borough of Sitka (747-3294) Dan Keck Mayor, City of Sitka Rick Anderson City Administrator 7914/DD29/15 - 15 - City: Juneau Place: United States Forest Service, Admiralty Island Headquarters Date: January 14, 1987 Name Gene Kocian Rick Suttle Tanzeem Rizvi Brent Petrie Don Fordney Les Paul Lynn Humphrey Wayne Ash Steve Amarug 7914/DD29/16 Organization Harza Engineering Harza Engineering Alaska Power Authority Alaska Power Authority PEI Consultants FS-RO Engineering FS-Juneau Ranger District FS-RO Lands District Ranger - 16 - (586-8866) (486-7847) (789-3111) City: Juneau Place: Green's Creek Mining Date: January 14, 1987 Name Gene Kocian Rick Suttle Tanzeem Rizvi Brent Petrie Don Fordney Peter Richardson Sam Smith 7914/DD29/17 Organization Harza Engineering Harza Engineering Alaska Power Authority Alaska Power Authority PEI Consultants Green's Creek Mining Green's Creek Mining eile City: Juneau Place: Date: Name Gene Kocian Rick Suttle Tanzeem Rizvi Brent Petrie Don Fordney Charles Walls Scott Willis George Davidson Jack Broughton Kurt S. Dzinich Ira Winograd Corry Hildenbrand Bill Corbus (Separately) 7914/DD29/18 Alaska Electric January 15, 1987 Light & Power Organization Harza Engineering Harza Engineering Alaska Power Authority Alaska Power Authority PEI Consultants Glacier Highway Electric Alaska Power Administration City and Borough of Juneau and Southeast Conference Tlingit & Haida REA Senate Advisory Council City & Borough of Juneau Alaska Electric Light & Power Alaska Electric Light & Power 18 = Phone No. (312) (312) (907) (907) (907) (907) (907) (907) (907) (907) (907) (907) 855-7000 855-7000 561-7877 561-7877 255-6626 789-7344 586-7405 586-3460 789-3196 465-3114 586-5235 586-2222 City: Juneau Place: Department of Natural Resource Office Date: January 15, 1987 Name Gene Kocian Rick Suttle Tanzeem Rizvi Brent Petrie Don Fordney Terry Otness Janet Hall Rick Reed Duane Peterson Mike Jacobsen Andy Pekovich Ron Schonenbach Rich Poor Fletcher Shives 7914/DD29/19 Organization Harza Engineering Harza Engineering Alaska Power Authority Alaska Power Authority PEI Consultants Sen-elect Sones, Box V, Juneau, 99811 Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Habitat Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Habitat National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of Natural Resources, DLWM, SERO Department of Natural Resources, DLWM, SERO Department of Transportation & Public Facilities U.S. Environmental Protection Agency = 19) ie City: Juneau Place: Sealaska Corporation Date: January 16, 1987 Name Organization Gene Kocian Harza Engineering Rick Suttle Harza Engineering Tanzeem Rizvi Alaska Power Authority Brent Petrie Alaska Power Authority Don Fordney PEI Consultants Bob Loesher Sealaska Corporation Randy Wanamaker Sealaska Corporation Ed Hillman Sealaska Corporation 7914/DD29/20 - 20 -