The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGreen Lake AK Hydro Project NO.2818 Final Impact Statement 1979RECEIVED a FEB 281979 _REEN LAKE ALASKA PROJECT NO. 28418 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY LIBRARY COPY DO NOT REMOVE FROM OFFICE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Electric Power Regulation FEBRUARY 1979 Seer ee eat { ! ; ; | e i ; k | 7 : - FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 OEPR-LP Project No. 2818-Alaska City and Borough of Sitka FEB 5 1979 RECEI yep FE TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED Bee 1979 ALASKA Pow, Copies of the enclosed Environmental Impact Statement FR AUTHOR prepared by the Commission's Staff in connection with an application for a license filed by the City and Borough of Sitka for the proposed Green Lake Project No. 2818 are being transmitted for your information pursuant to the require- ments of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and Commission Order No. 415-C, issued December 18, 1972. The Final Environmental Impact Statement is on file with the Commission and available for public inspection at its Office of Public Information, 825 N. Capitol Street, N. E., Washington, D. C, 20426 and its San Francisco Regional Office located at 555 Battery Street, San Francisco, California 94111. Copies may be ordered from the Commission's Office of Public Informa- tion, Washington, D. C. 20426. Sincerely, William W. Lindsay Director, Office of Electric Power Regulation Enclosures: List of Recipients Final Environmental Impact Statement LIST OF RECIPIENTS Director Office of Environmental Project Review Department of the Interior Washington, D. C. 20240 Chief of Engineers Attn: DAEN-CWE-HY Department of the Army 1000 Independence Avenue, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20314 Chief of the Forest Service Department of Agriculture P. O. Box 2417 Washington, D. C. 20013 Dr. Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs Department of Commerce Washington, D. C. 20230 Secretarial Representative Region X Department of Transportation 1321 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 The Honorable Joseph A. Califano Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Washington, D. C. 20201 Office of Environmental Affairs Office of the Secretary for Administration and Management Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Washington, D. C. 20201 Mr. Robert Garvey Executive Secretary Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1522 K Street, N. W., Room 430 Washington, D. C. 20005 Mr. Donald Dubois Regional Administrator, Region X Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 NO. OF COPIES 20 LIST OF RECIPIENTS Mr. Eric Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Ms. Rebecca Hammer Office of Federal Activities Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S. W., Room 537 Washington, D. C. 20460 Director (Mail Code A-104) Office of Federal Activities Environmental Protection Agency Room 537 West Tower Waterside Mall, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20426 Alaska Public Utilities Commission 1100 Mackay Building 338 Donali Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. James V. Williamson Assistant Manager Western Design Office R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. 200 Tower Building Seattle, Washington 98101 State Federal Coordinator Office of the Governor Pouch AD Juneau, Alaska 99811 Mr. Fermin Gutierrez Administrator City and Borough of Sitka Post Office Box 79 Sitka, Alaska 99835 Alaska Power Administation Post Office Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 NO. OF COPIES 15 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF ELECTRIC POWER REGULTION FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT GREEN LAKE PROJECT NO. 2818 - ALASKA Applicant: The City and Borough of Sitka Post Office Box 79 Sitka, Alaska 99835 Additional copies of this statement are available from the: Office of Public Information Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20426 February 1979 RELEASE TO ae Authorized by Date_/"26-f3 FOREWORD The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), L/ pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FP Act) and the Department of Energy (DOE) Act, is authorized to issue licenses for terms up to 50 years for the construction and operation of non-Federal hydroelectric developments subject to its jurisdiction, on the necessary condition: (T)hat the project adopted . .. shall be such as in the judgment of the Commission will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and utilization of waterpower development, and for other beneficial public uses, including recre- ational purposes ... .* The Commission may require such other conditions not inconsistent with the provisions of the FP Act as may be found necessary to provide for the various public interests to be served by the Project.** Compliance with such conditions during the license period is required. Section 1.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure allows any person objecting to a licensee's compliance with such condi- tions to file a complaint noting the basis for such objection for the Commission's consideration.*** * 16 U.S.C. Sec. 803(a) ** 16 U.S.C. Sec. 803(g) wR 18 C.F.R. Sec. 1.6 (1977) 1/ This proceeding was commenced before the Federal Power Commission (FPC). By regulation of October 1, 1977, entitled "Transfer of Proceedings to the Secretary of Energy and the FERC" (CFR ), it was continued before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The "Commission", when used in the context of action before October 1, 1977, refers to the FPC; otherwise, it refers to the FERC. -iii- Title Forward Table of Contenis List of Figures List of Tables Summary 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR PROJECT POWER NEED PREP RPP RPRPR CONDUPWNE 5 Sitka's Isolated Load Center Load Growth Projections Effects of Conservation on Demand Effects of Rate Revision on Demand Capacity vs. Energy as a Determining Factor Existing Resources and Reserve Requirements Other Planned Resource Additions Overall Need and Uses for Project Power PROPOSED ACTION NNN oe Wher NN Nh NO wn 2.8 Purpose Land Requirements Proposed Facilities 2.3.1 Project Works 2.3.1.1 Green Lake Dam 2.3.1.2 Power Tunnel 2.3.1.3 Powerhouse 2.3.2 Green Lake Reservoir 2.3.3 Access Roads 2.3.4 Transmission Facilities 2.3.5 Recreation Facilities Design Limitations 2.4.1 Seismic Risk Evaluations 2.4.2 Cost Considerations and Estimates Compliance with Applicable Laws and Regulations Construction Schedule Operation and Maintenance 2.7.1 Operation 2.7.2 Maintenance 2.7.3 Safety Inspection Future Development * on B 1 hr COCO COD NOE he SN DDWNR EH BR Re 1 BPReRR PwWWHHH NNNNNNNNNNNNNNY ND RRR RP RRR e e 2-15 2-15 2-15 2-15 2-18 2-18 2-19 THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Location 3.2 Meteorology 3.2.1 Climate 3.2.2 Air Quality 3.2.3 Noise Levels 3.3 Hydrology and Hydrography 3.4 Aquatic Environment 3.4.1 Water Quality 3.4.2 Aquatic Communities 3.4.2.1 Fish 3.4.2.2 Plankton 3.4.2.3 Benthos 3.4.3 Endangered and Threatened Species 3.5 Land Environment 3.5.1 Physiography and Topography 3.5.2 Geology and Soils 3.5.3 Geological Hazards and Problems 3.5.4 Species and Ecosystems 3.5.4.1 Vegetation 3.5.4.2 Wildlife 3.5.5 Threatened or Endangered Species 3.6 Land Uses 3.6.1 Forest Resources 3.6.2 Recreational Resources 3.6.3 Power Generation 3.6.4 Mineral Extraction 3.7 Socio-Economic Factors 3.7.1 Employment and Income 3.7.2 Population Growth 3.7.3 Housing 3.7.4 Local Government 3.8 Visual Resources 3.8.1 Description of Visual Resources 3.8.1.1 Green Lake 3.8.1.2 Silver Bay Shoreline 3.8.2 Assessment of Visual Resources 3.9 Cultural Resources IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION, Se MITIGATI MEASURES PROPOSED, AND ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH ARE UNAVOIDABLE 4.1 Air Quality-Construction, Operation, and Maintenance 4.1.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts 4.1.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed 4.1.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts -vi- WWWWWWWWWWW Ww 1 FPRADWWWEHHE HL ' bh BH Pee of PRR RF 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 oise Levels-Construction 2.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts -2 Mitigative Measures Proposed -3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Levels-Operation and Maintenance Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts Mitigative Measures Proposed Unavoidable Adverse Impacts PREZ PRPSZ ° 0 © WWWFr ee 2 WNHrO » r Quality-Construction 1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts 2 Mitigative Measures Proposed 3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts tic Communities-Construction 1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts 2 Mitigative Measures Proposed 3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts a QO UUnMnGE PEP PEES oe 8 Water Quality and Aquatic Communities- Operation and Maintenance 4.6.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts 4.6.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed 4.6.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Geology and Soils 4.7.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts 4.7.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed 4.7.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Vegetation-Construction 4.8.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts 4.8.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed 4.8.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Wildlife-Construction 4.9.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts 4.9.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed 4.9.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Wildlife-Operation and Maintenance 4.10.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts 4.10.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed 4.10.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Recreation-Operation and Maintenance 4.11.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts 4.11.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed 4.11.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts -vii- ot ! tt 1 rPrROW wowo eo DDUU OP wWwW WNHNN NNNND SHEEP HSH LF LHHEHKSF Peer FEHR FHFHF 4.12 Mineral Extractions-Construction, Operation, and Maintenance 4.12.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts 4.12.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed 4.12.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 4.13 Socio-economic Impacts-Construction 4.13.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts 4.13.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed 4.13.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 4.14 Visual Resources-Construction 4.14.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts 4.14.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed 4.14.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 4.15 Visual Resources-Operation and Maintenance 4.15.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts 4.15.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed 4.15.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 4.16 Cultural Resources 4.16.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts 4.16.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed 4.16.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS Air Quality Fisheries Wildlife Mineral Extraction Visual Resources oe © we UPWNHR RREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF ESOURCES Land Features and Uses Aquatic Communities Species and Ecosystems Visual Resources ee PWNH AANA AIH AManun RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S IRO F G- PRODUCTIVITY 7.1 Short-Term Uses 7.2 Long-Term Productivity -viii- N DADO 1 FP ONRPRER NN 4 HR 8. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 LIST Alternatives Design, Construction, Operation, and Maintenance 8.1.1 Dam Alternatives 8.1.2 Reservoir Elevations 8.1.3 Powerhouse, Switchyard, and Disposal Alternatives 8.1.4 Power Conduit Alternatives 8.1.5 Access Road and Transmission Lines Alternatives Alternative Hydroelectric Sites and Locations 8.2.1 Carbon Lake 8.2.2 Takatz Lake Alternative Equivalent Power 8.3.1 Small Steam-Electric Plants 8.3.2 Combustion Turbine Plants 8.3.3 Diesel-Electric Plants Economic Comparison of Alternative Forms of Generation 8.4.1 Alternatives Considered 8.4.2 Interest Rates and Economic Service Lives Applicable to Alternatives 8.4.3 Annual Cost Comparison Summary of Selected Engineering Parameters and Environmental Impact Areas Associated with Proposed and Alternative Power Systems Denial of Application for License OF REFERENCES Appendix A - Letter to the Commission from the State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Dated March 15, 1978 Appendix B - Form L-2: Terms and Conditions of License for Unconstructed Major Project Affecting Lands of the United States Appendix C - Federal Permit Requirements for Various Wastewater Discharges as Defined by the Environmental Protection Agency in a letter Dated November 17, 1978 Appendix D - Graphs Drawn by Applicant showing Peak Looks and Energy Requirements at Load Center Appendix E - Letters of Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement -ix- 1 FPRRPODOD FN PERE FP RR rROOO 0 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 00 CO 0 C0 CO oo co ' 00 00 1 ao BPR 8-11 8-15 8-15 Figure Cover 2-la 2-1b 2-1c 2-1d 3-4a 3-4b 3-5 3-6 3-7 LIST OF FIGURES Looking Northwest Over the Vodopad River Valley and Green Lake Proposed Project Boundary Proposed Project Boundary (Continued) Proposed Project Boundary (Continued) Proposed Project Boundary (Continued) Dam Plan, Elevation and Section Power Tunnel, Profile and Section Powerhouse and Substation Plan and Section Proposed Green Lake Reservoir Area-Capacity Curve Proposed Construction Schedule General Project Map Bathymetric Chart of Green Lake Generalized Bedrock Geology of Silver Bay- Green Lake Area Eagle and Nest Along East Shore of Silver Bay Silver Bay Eagle Survey Surrounding Environment of Green Lake (Photograph) Green Lake, Vodopad River, and Silver Bay (Photograph) Snow Covered Peaks Around Green Lake (Photograph) Silver Bay Fjord (Photograph) Eastern Shore of Silver Bay (Photograph) 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-7 2-9 2-10 2-12 2-16 3-2 3-14 3-25 3-26 3-40 3-40 3-42 3-42 3-43 3-10 3-11 3-12 3-13 3-14 3-15 3-16 3-17 8-1 Western Shore of Silver Bay (Photograph) Avalanche Chute on Silver Bay (Photograph) Log Rafts along Silver Bay (Photograph) Boat Launch to the Silver Bay Shore (Photograph) Head of Silver Bay (Photograph) Vodopad River Oulet at Silver Bay (Photograph) Forest Canopy Typical of Area (Photograph) A View of Green Lake (Photograph) Existing and Potential Hydroelectric Developments -xi- 3-43 3-44 3-44 3-46 3-46 3-47 3-48 3-49 8-7 Table 1-1 1-2 1-3 2-1 3-1 3-7 8-1 LIST OF TABLES Sitka Public Utilities Residential Electric Rates Sitka Public Utilities Commercial Electric Rates Sitka Public Utilities Generation Resources- 1978 Green Lake Project Estimated Land Require- ments Morphometric and Hydrographic Statistics for Green Lake Green Lake Monthly Inflows Summary of Water Quality Data for Green Lake Labor and Proprietors Income by Major Industry Employment Change by Major Industry Group Past and Projected Population Within the City of Sitka and the Sitka Census Division Annual Residential Construction Activity Within the Sitka Census Division Alternative Powerhouse and Switchyard Excavation Quantities Annual Cost Comparison of Alternatives Annual Charge Rates Summary of Selected Engineering Parameters and Environmental Impact Areas Associated with Proposed and Alternative Power Systems (3 pages) -xii- 1-7 2-1 3-5 3-7 3-8 3-33 3-35 3-36 3-38 8-3 8-12 8-13 8-16 Summary Sheet sles This is an administrative action. 2. The City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska (Applicant), has filed an application for a license for the proposed Green Lake Project No. 2818, a conventional hydroelectric operation. The issuance of a license to the Applicant would authorize the construction of: (1) a dam at the outlet of Green Lake; (2) a power tunnel leading to a powerhouse at tidewater on Silver Bay; (3) a switchyard; (4) access roads; (5) a transmission line; and (6) appur- tenant facilities. This license would also authorize the operation of these project works to produce an electric power supply that would serve the growing power demands of the City and Borough of Sitka. With the exception of the transmission line and the access road, the major project features would be located approximately 10 air miles southeast of the city proper on the Vodopad River. The project's generating equipment would have an installed capacity of 16,500 kilowatts(kW). A 69-kV transmission line, approximately 8 miles long, would extend in a northeastern direction from the proposed switchyard to the Applicant's licensed Blue Lake Project No. 2230. Access roads, generally paralleling the transmission line, would connect the proposed project site to the terminus of Sawmill Creek State Highway at Herring Cove. i The Applicant would either obtain a loan from the Alaska Water Resources Revolving Loan Fund or issue bonds to finance the Green Lake Project. The Applicant states that: (1) it is financially able to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed project because it has annually submitted finan- cial statements demonstrating its ability to construct, oper- ate, and maintain its existing power system; (2) the project is the most desirable generation alternative available; (3) the continuing costs of debt service, operation, and mainte- nance would be consistent with an anticipated rate structure; and (4) the project's power output would be fully utilized within about 10 years of its on-line date. 4. Environmental impacts caused by construction and opera- tion of the project would include: (1) elimination of about 830 acres of existing vegetation and wildlife habitat at the reservoir site; (2) elimination of the present spawning grounds of resident brook trout in the Vodopad River; (3) diversion of all waters, except flood and spillage waters, below the project dam, from the natural Vodopad River channel to the -2- project power tunnel; (4) clearing of about 55 acres of land to construct the powerhouse, switchyard, transmission line, and access roads; (5) loss of wildlife habitat and temporary disruption of resident wildlife species in or near construction areas; (6) creation of turbidity in Silver Bay during con- struction; (7) temporary adverse impacts on air quality and ambient noise levels during construction; and (8) changes in the characteristics of visual and recreational resources. 5. Alternatives to the proposed action that were considered are: Conservation and rate revision; alternative design arrangements; other sites and locations; alternative forms of generating equivalent power; and denial of the application for license. 6. The following is a list of Federal, State, and local agencies from which comments on the draft environmental impact statement were requested (asterisks indicate those that responded) : Federal Departments and Offices: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation *Department of Agriculture, Forest Service *Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Department of Commerce , *Department of Health, Education, and Welfare *Department of the Interior Department of Transportation *Environmental Protection Agency State Agencies: Governor of Alaska Attorney General, State of Alaska *Alaska Power Authority Alaska Public Utilities Commission Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation *Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Department of Natural Resources Alaska Department of Health and Social Services Applicant: City and Borough of Sitka 7. The final environmental impact statement was sent to the Environmental Protection Agency and made available to the public on or about February 5, 1979. 1-1 id NEED FOR PROJECT POWER Med SITKA'S ISOLATED LOAD CENTER Sitka Municipal Utilities is owned and operated by the City and Borough of Sitka, a municipality organized under the laws of the State of Alaska. The City of Sitka has full control and ownership of all electric generation and distribution facilities serving the area in and around the City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska, with the exception of a 25,000-kVA facility, owned and operated by Alaska Lumber and Pulp Company (ALPC). The ALPC generating units are operated at a high load factor to provide power for a continuous industrial process. Sitka has purchased limited amounts of power from ALPC in the past, but this source is fully committed to serving the needs of the ALPC pulpmill and cannot be considered dependable. Sitka is located on Baranof Island in the southeastern region of Alaska. Baranof Island is electrically isolated from the rest of the state, and there are no plans to inter- connect with other power systems. In southeastern Alaska, most load centers are served by small isolated power systems separated by great distances and rough terrain. These factors have discouraged system interconnections in Alaska's southeast- ern region and will most likely continue to limit the feasi- bility of interconnections for the foreseeable future. Based on these considerations, it is apparent that Baranof Island will have to remain self-sufficient in power generation. 1.2 LOAD GROWTH PROJECTIONS In 1975, Sitka's 30-minute average peak demand reached 7.2 megawatts (MW), and its monthly system load factors ranged from 0.624 percent to 0.823 percent (FPC, 1975). The city's annual growth rate in energy consumption and peak demand averaged 6 percent and 4 percent, respectively, during the period 1967-1976 (R. W. Beck, 1977). Applicant's long-term growth rate projection for plan- ning purposes is 6 percent; however, economic expansion and associated load growth for Sitka will probably fluctuate with surges in economic development. For example, the expected addition of a new Coast Guard facility, together with other planned major business developments, will add approximately 2,500 kW of demand by late 1978, which represents an annual growth in peak demand of 10 percent over the 3-year period. 1-2 In addition to normal customer load growth, the City of Sitka is planning to install a sewage treatment plant with an expected electric load demand of 1,250 kW. ALPC has already installed its own wastewater treatment plant, which is expected to have an electric load demand of 4,000 kW. ALPC has, in the past, provided power to the city in times of emergency. During a recent power shortage, ALPC and the city negotiated with the Environmental Protection Agency for a delay in the planned start-up of ALPC's wastewater treatment plant, so that ALPC could continue to provide electrical energy to Sitka. Sitka has ordered 5,500 kW of new, diesel, generator units due for installation by late 1978. This step should be viewed as a temporary stopgap measure until the Green Lake Project is operational. Continued reliance on diesel generators for other than emergency peaking capability would be undesirable from the standpoints of both economics and system reliability. 1.3 EFFECTS OF CONSERVATION ON DEMAND Conservation has been defined as a reduction in the amount of résources consumed in serving society's current needs in order to provide resources for the future. The goal of con- servation is to manage the use of natural resources to realize the greatest benefit to the largest number of people for the longest possible time. Conservation efforts must not preclude advances in social well-being, standards of living, and other amenities of life. Conservation of energy under this concept involves a reduction in energy waste at any point in the produc- tion or distribution process, as well as in the end use of energy. Conservation of electric energy has been advocated as one means of reducing the demand for electric power, thereby reducing the need to install new generating facilities. To date, most conservation measures have been voluntary and have been encouraged through public education or Federal programs. These measures include encouraging the use of major applicances during off-peak hours, lowering the thermostat setting on heat- ing units, and raising the thermostat setting on air conditioning units. Conservation could also be encouraged by providing tax incentives or low-cost Federal loans for insulating residential and commercial establishments, for designing and constructing energy-efficient homes and offices, and for manufacturing energy- efficient equipment. Although conservation measures would be helpful, Sitka's current economic growth is increasing power requirements at a faster rate than conservation efforts alone could offset. 1-3 1.4 EFFECTS OF RATE REVISION ON DEMAND While the economic theory of rate revision is basically sound, the implementation of rate revision presents a variety of practical problems. Energy demand appears responsive to price in the long run, but is limited in response during shorter periods. Most electric consumers have a significant investment in electric equipment, and for them, operating existing equipment, even at considerably higher electric rates, may be less expensive then investing in more efficient equip- ment, even though operating costs would be lower. Therefore, implementation of increased rates has the potential to penalize the consumer while achieving little or no conservation benefits. In the case of Sitka Public Utilities, rate revision could be less effective than for other systems. Most utilities have a declining block-rate schedule under which the cost per kilowatt hour (kWh) decreases with increasing consumption; Sitka's residential rate increases when consumption exceeds 1,600 kWh in one month. Analysis of Sitka's residential electric rate schedules for 1975 and 1977 (Table 1-1) shows that the rates have increased substantially in 2 years, which is an incentive for conserva- tion. More significant to conservation practices, however, is the increasing block rate beyond 1,600 kWh. A similar analysis of Sitka's commercial electric rate schedules is also included (Table 1-2). Table 1-1. Sitka Public Utilities Residential Electric Rates (77) RESIDENTIAL SERVICE - July 1, 1975 Applicable: To residential customers for all domestic uses. Eisctric water and space heating installations must conform with utility's specifications. Rate: 5.5¢ per kWh first 100 kWh 4.4¢ per kWh next 200 kWh 3.3¢ per kWh next 300 kWh 1.8¢ per kWh next 1,000 kWh 3.3¢ per kWh all additional kWh Minimum Bill: Per month - (1) $5.50 for service rendered for more than a 15 day period. 1-4 (2) $2.75 for service rendered for less than a 15 day period. Tax Adjustment: The amount of any and all revenue, kWh, or any other tonn of tax imposed by any municipality, borough, Federal State, or other governmental subdivision taxing body on the utility or upon its property, revenue, or income may be apportioned by the utility to the customer. » RESIDENTIAL SERVICE - July 1, 1977 (1) Applicable to all residential customers for all uses in the home or residence, subject to the rules and regula- tions and Customer Service Policies of the City/Borough Electric Department. (2) Rate per Month First 100 kWh, @ 8.0¢ per kWh Next 200 kWh, @ 5.0¢ per kWh Next 300 kWh, @ 3.8¢ per kWh Next 1,000 kWh, @ 3.3¢ per kWh Additional kWh, @ 5.0¢ per kwh (3) Minimum Monthly Charges For services rendered for 15 days or less, the minimum shall be $4.00, and the customer shall be entitled to the use of 50 kWh or less for this charge. For service rendered for 16 or more days, the minimum shall be $8.00, and the customer shall be entitled to the use of 100 kWh or less for this charge. Where the use of kWh exceeds the number allowed for the minimum charge, the foregoing rates shall apply. Source: Applicant Table 1-2. Sitka Public Utilities Commercial Electric Rates (78) COMMERCIAL SERVICE - July 1, 1975 Applicable: To commercial or industrial customers for all uses, including lighting, heating and power, at a single point of delivery. Not applicable to resale. Character of Service: A-C; 60 cycles; single phase 120/240 volts; 3-phase, 240, 120/208 volts, at utility's option as available. Voltages to be used for motor loads aggregating 25 hp or larger shall be arranged for with the utility. 1-5 Rate: (A) For customers having measured demands of not more than 30 kVA-- 5.5¢ per kWh first 100 kWh 4.4¢ per kWh next 200 kWh 3.9¢ per kWh next 700 kWh 3.3¢ per kWh all additional kWh (B) For customers having measured demands of not less than 30 kVA-- DEMAND CHARGE: $1.95 per kVA demand ENERGY CHARGE: 3.3¢ per kWh first 50 kWh per kVA demand 2.2¢ per kWh next 250 kWh per kVA demand 1.9¢ per kWh all additional kWh per kVA demand Minimum Bill: Under (A), same as (77); under (B), $0.50 per kVA of installed transformer capacity. Tax Adjustment: Same as (77). Billing Demand: The maximum 15-minute measured kVA demand in the month. Power Factor: Utility shall not be obligated to deliver power to the customer at any time at a power factor below 85 percent. COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE - July 1, 1977 (1) Applicable to all commercial, industrial, and government customers for all uses, including lighting, heating, and power, subject to the rules and regulations and Customer Service Policies of the City/Borough Electric Department. Included in this class are schools, hospitals, churches, and governmental buildings. (2) Rate per Month ENERGY CHARGES: First 300 kWh, @ 8.0¢ per kWh Next 700 kWh, @ 5.0¢ per kWh All additional kWh, @ 4.0¢ per kWh 1-6 DEMAND CHARGES: First 25 kW - No charge Over 25 kW - $2.00 per kW (3) Minimum Monthly Charge For service rendered for 15 days or less, the minimum shall be $4.00, and the customer shall be entitled to the use of 50 kWh or less for this charge. For service rendered for 16 or more days, the minimum shall be $8.00, and the cus- tomer shall be entitled to the use of 100 kWh or less for this charge. Where the use of kWh exceeds the number allowed for minimum charges, the foregoing rates shall apply. Source: Applicant i CAPACITY VS. ENERGY AS A DETERMINING FACTOR The need for generating capacity is determined not only by the quantity of energy to be supplied, but also by the time patterns of energy usage. Electric system loads vary seasonally, daily, and hourly. Electric energy, to be stored in large quantities, requires large capital invest- ments to be made in such devices as pumped storage projects or batteries. Without storage facilities, electricity is produced and consumed simultaneously. In order to meet customer demands, the utility must install sufficient gener- ating capacity to meet the peak system demand expected, plus enough additional capacity or reserve to be available in the event of failure of generating or transmission equipment. The amount of reserve capacity available in relation to peak demand is an indication of system reliability. 1.6 EXISTING RESOURCES AND RESERVE REQUIREMENTS Table 1-3 lists Sitka's existing power generation resources as of 1975 (FPC, 1975). Peak system demand was 7,200 kW in 1975 (FPC, 1975). A comparison of 1975 genera- tion resources with 1975 peak system load shows that Sitka's overall reserve margin was 26.3 percent (installed - 9,100 kw, demand - 7,200 kW, reserve - 1,900 kW). A generally accepted range of reserve margins for large interconnected power systems is 18 to 22 percent. For small systems, a more reasonable criterion for reserve is to have enough available capacity to cover peak demand plus an outage of the largest generating unit of the system or part of the transmission line. Based on this criterion, Sitka did not have sufficient generation resources to provide a safety reserve margin in 1975. 1-7 Table 1-3. Sitka Public Utilities Generation Resources-1978 » Nameplate Unit Capacit KW) Fuel Blue Lake 1 3,000 kW Hydro Blue Lake 2 3,000 kW Hydro Halibut Point 1 300 kW Diesel Oil Halibut Point 2 500 kW Diesel Oil Halibut Point 3 300 kW Diesel Oil Halibut Point 4 2,000 kW Diesel Oil Total Capacity as of 1975 = 9,100 kW New Diesels to be added late 1978 = 5,500 kW Projected Capacity 1978 = 14,600 kW Source: Federal Power Commission 1.7 OTHER PLANNED RESOURCE ADDITIONS A new government installation and several business expansions are expected to increase Sitka's peak load demand from 9,200 kW in 1975 to approximately 9,700 kW by late 1978. Since the proposed project will not be available for service until 1981, Sitka will have to take expensive interim measures to meet its power needs. This will be accomplished by install- ing two 2,750-kW, high-speed, diesel generating units at a cost of $1,980,000. These units are designed for peaking service only and will be provided with comparatively small fuel storage facilities. Sitka's peak load projection for 1981 is approximately 10,900 kW (R. W. Beck, 1977), and the existing generating plant, together with the diesel units installed to meet the 1978 peak, would provide sufficient generating capacity to meet peak loads until the proposed Green Lake Project is available for service. Beyond 1981, if the proposed Green Lake Project is not avail- able, additional diesel generation would have to be installed to maintain adequate system reserves. 1.8 OVERALL NEED AND USES FOR PROJECT POWER Although future growth in energy consumption and peak demand could be curbed somewhat if Sitka's customers practice conservation, the load growth resulting from economic develop- ment within its system would place additional demands on Sitka's power resources. 1-8 The proposed project is the most economical and most practical alternative available to Applicant for providing an adequate and reliable source of power and energy to meet Applicant's requirement for the time period studied. 2-1 2. THE PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 PURPOSE The primary purpose of the proposed project is to add 16,500 kW of capacity and an average of 64,900,000 kWh per year of energy to the City of Sitka's electric system to serve present and future loads. The proposed project would be a baseload hydroelectric facility that is suitable for meeting the growing energy needs of Sitka. A secondary purpose of the project would be to utilize an available renewable resource in place of oil-consuming, diesel-driven generators. It is necessary for Applicant to install an additional 5,500 kW of diesel capacity in the near future to meet an expected growth in load, Completion of the proposed project would allow Applicant to assign this costly- to-operate diesel capacity to standby status. This secondary purpose is consistent with the President's National Energy Plan. 2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS The lands that would be occupied by the project would total approximately 1,500 acres. Approximately 1,000 acres of land would be flooded by the project reservoir. The re- maining 500 acres would be used for the power tunnel, power- house, switchyard, access roads and transmission line, and a buffer zone around the reservoir and damsite, as shown in Table 2-1. Figures 2-la through 2-ld show the proposed project boundary. A borrow area, which would be inundated by the project reservoir, would be established in the alluvial plain at the eastern end of the existing Green Lake. Table 2-1. Green Lake Project Estimated Land Requirements EEE Feature Length Width Area 1/ Power Tunnel 1,910 ft 200 ft. 9 acres Powerhouse (approx.) 200 ft. 200 ft. 1 acre Switchyard (approx.) 180 ft. 100 ft. 1 acre Access Roads and Transmission Line (approx.) 8.0 mi. 200 ft. 194 acres Reservoir N/A N/A 1,000 acres Reservoir Buffer Zone and Damsite N/A N/A 380 acres TOTAL PROJECT AREA N/A N/A 1,585 acres Note: 1/ Area within project boundary Source: Applicant. ld U.S.6.8. Triangulation De End of existing Sawmill Creek Highway ond y ©) start of Green Lake Access Rood \ \ ec \o N % Stotion Bucko 7 % | [- N1,904,500 « eONeSE| BEARING LENGTH COURSE] BEARING LENGTH . 2 1 N_0*00'00" 130.00° | 25 |s3e°20'24"w| 540.02" SA, 2 |sease'30"E| 315.00° 26_|s51°15'00"w| 487.26" SY 3__| 831° 18'30"E ci 27__|sisese'4e"e | 526.71' » 4 [s7#si'e a 20 [sas-34'12"e | 565.06" XY dL 5 |[s e27re 29 _|sizse'oo"e | 251.10° | SRS 6 | Sé6zse'e 30 204.02" 7 | ssa*3e'e 31__|se3ese'24"e | 191.06" On pies 6 | sesr0¢e 32_ | se2*12'36"E 200 ft typical 9 |s7eraa'e 33_ | ser-2z'i2"e to | see*s7'e 34 | S4e°3e'24"E i | sas’ 35 | s3seai'2q"e Se 12 | NSe*se'E 36 | sS7*03'02"e | “ 13 [Nese2i'w 37__ | N87*42'35"E z 14 [Nasr IS'E 38__|s42-42'33"e | 884.59" 15 | sesor'e 30 |s2a-ze'se"e | 241.66" 16 | Neerol'e 40 |s56°43'10°E | 382.75" 17 |seaage 41__|s14ese'33"e | 200.24" 1 | NE7*IS'E 42__|$2e°36'1e"E | 250.60" 19 | S33°09'E 43__|stovse'ss"e | 366.74" Ht MOMCT SODURT SHOWN HERE 18 AN UmBUREYED KETIATE OF 20 |S 3e30'F 44__|s33°4i'0s"e | 432.67° (mnamiay sama mugut. te Meant seupeinars ros ean 21 |s #2a'oo'e 45__|se6aroi'is"e | 433.62" 22 | s3eroa'i2"e 46__| Nez*24'so"e | 453.98" 23 | sie*is'36"w 47__|si7eae'43"e | 556.60" 24 [sorac'aene 48 |[s43°24'13"E | 1018.63" _ }-E 2,385,500 KEY MAP. 10, | Mile ‘Seale |. Land lines represent unsurveyed and unmarked locations from computations by the State of Alaska Division of Lands, Copper River Meridion taken from U.S.G.8. 63,360 topographic series. 2 Grid based on Alaska coordinate system zone |. 3. Shoreline from topography prepared by H.G. Chickering, Jc January 1975. Horizontal and vertical control based on U.S.G.S. Quadrangle control. ‘4. Elevations based on Mean Sea Level (MSL) datum. FIGURE 2-1a. PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY. SOURCE: APPLICANT TZ [ Match Line Exhibit K-1 BEARING S 22°56's8"E ‘S527 34°E 8 66°34 19"E S 42°42 06° E $ 88°09'1 1"E S 722s 17°E N 86°07 IS"E N 77°28 14"E 8 41°49 1S"E S 12°59'38"W S$ 51°20'22" S 74°28'30"W| 373.63" Ne4*ss'I7*wl 451.77" $s 40°29'06"w| 539.07" s 5o*ie'48"w| 610.74" 772.53" 375.90" N76"13'O7*w| 545.71" S_9°27'45"E | 486.62 $53°54'07"E | 594.05" Slie4e'os*w| 245.15" '$ ST*08'42"E | 202.48" S e202 w! lel. S 42°42'34"E Ss 3 10'47"w $ 25°27'48"E | 232.59" $ 48°21'54"E | 1160.00" siesriw! SBP 14 4a"E S$ 51°S0'34E 'S 66°48' 05"E S42 16'25°E S 3228 16"E $8 57°31'44"E |, Lond lines represent unsurveyed and unmarked $8 39°59'13"E locations from computations by the State of so 4 ‘Aleaka , Division of Lands, Copper River Meridian seeeere taken from U.S.6.$. |: 63,360 topographic series. ‘S$ 34°59'3I"E 2. Grid based on Alaska , coordinate system ,zone |. S$ 51°40°00"E ‘3. Shoreline from topography prepared by H.6, SSO IZ34E Chickering, Jr., January 1975. Horizontal and S 17°02 08" E vertical control based on U.S.6.S. Quadrangle controf- $ 69°29'5I"E 4 based on Mean Sea Level (MSL) datum. ot [Nes iore Elevations on 180. 374.84" 439.09" 459.62" 357.81' 410.77" 152.32" 499.93" 367.97" ay eee 633. (On THE PROVECT FEATURES AB CONSTRUCTED WITH @ YEARY OF THE ve SS OY ahtee | Tre § j g. 30 \eowerhoue ste Troe I a g 4 “TN —n1e44s00 i 4 2-1b. PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY. (Continued) SOURCE: APPLICANT KEY MAP. 1.0, |Mile Seale \® course umber °\ Access road base tine DESCRIPTION OF RESERVOIR, DAM, AND POWERHOUSE PROJECT BOUNDARY A tract of land bounded by a line beginning at point A located at the intersection of the dam access road north ---— Project boundary —— _Unsurveyed land lines *B Meander point 36 Section number NOTES: |. Land lines represent unsurveyed and unmarked locations from computations by the State of Alaska ,Division of Londs, Copper River Meridian and taken from USGS. I:63,360 topographic series. Grid based on Alaska coordinate system, zone |. Match Line Exhibit K-4 . boundory and the contour elevation 450 in the vicinity of the dam thence along the levation 450 enclosing the reservoir area © point south of the left abutment of the dam , 3 thence north 63°07' west a distance of GIO feet to point C; thence ‘south 83°00" west 1,350 feet to mean high water line, point D; thence northwest along the mean high water line of Silver Bay approximately 220 feet to point E located on the end of the access rood to the powerhouse boundary; thence north 83° 00' west 1,540 feet to point F; thence north 2*10' east 290 feet to the point of true beginning, being point A. g RESERVOIR eae HH i sewn eS 200! ° 40 80 zoo RESERVOIR CAPACITY, ACRE-FEET X 1000 AREA -CAPACITY CURVE 3. Topography prepared by H.G.Chickering , Jr., January 1975. Horizontal ond vertical control based on U.S.6.S. Quadrangle control. 4. Elevations based on Mean Sea Level (MSL) datum, FIGURE 2-1c. PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY. (Continued) SOURCE: APPLICANT Match Line Exhibit K-3 2,410,500 + £2,413,000 + £2,415,500 4 MAGNETIC [—N 1,879,500 For project boundary description-see Exhibit K-3 1. Land tines represent unsurveyed and unmarked locations from computations by the State of Alaska, Division of Lands, Copper River Meridian taken from USGS. I:63,360 topographic series. . Grid based on Aloska coordinate system ,zone |. ‘Topography prepared by H.G. Chickering, ur. January 1975. Horizontal and vertical contro! based on U.S.G. $. Quadrangle control. ‘4 Elevations based on Mean Sea Level (MSL) FIGURE 2-1d. PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY. (Continued) SOURCE: APPLICANT 2-6 The project lies entirely within lands selected from the Tongass National Forest, except for a small portion of the access road and transmission line easement which has been retained by the Forest Service. The lands, except for access road and transmission line lands, are subject to a powersite withdrawal. The Applicant is currently seeking title, under Section 6(a) of the Alaska Statehood Act, to a little less than 5,693 acres of land, which includes most of the project lands. 2.3 PROPOSED FACILITIES 2.3.1 Project Works 2.3.1.1 Green Lake Dam The dam would be a double-curvature, concrete-arched structure, located about 80 feet downstream from the outlet of the existing Green Lake. It would have a maximum height of 230 feet and a crest length of 460 feet at elevation 400.0 feet mean sea level (msl). It would have a crest thickness of 10 feet, a bottom thickness of 23 feet, and a centerline radius at the crest of 240 feet. Plan, elevation, and section draw- ings of the Green Lake Dam are provided in Figure 2-2. An ungated, ogee-spillway section, 100 feet in length, with a crest at elevation 390 feet msl, would be centrally located in the dam. Due to the excellent quality of the rock in the streambed, no stilling basin would be provided; however, a natural control section in the river channel, just downstream of the dam, would act as a plunge pool which would assist in dissipating the energy of spills. The spillway would be designed to discharge 11,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) at a reservoir elevation of 399.3 feet msl. A power intake would be located on the upstream face of the dam to the north of the spillway section. The intake invert would be at elevation 260 feet msl. Trashracks would protect the power intake from trash and debris. A 7-foot-by 9-foot, fixed-wheel gate would be provided for emergency closing and to permit draining of the power conduit for inspec- tion and maintenance. For operation and maintenance, a single lane roadway would extend along the crest of the dam from the north abutment to a point immediately over the power intake. 2.3.1.2 Power Tunnel The power tunnel would be approximately 1,910 feet long and would extend from the power intake to the power- house. It would have a maximum hydraulic capacity of 744 FIGURE —Zye ii so’ 0 . Seale: |"* 50° DAMSITE — PLAN 50’ 100' 150" 200' 250" Seale: I"= 50" DAM — MAXIMUM _ SECTION so 0 50’ 100' 150’ 200 250! Scale: I"= 50° SPILLWAY RATING CURVE 2-2. DAM PLAN, SECTION AND ELEVATION. DAM - ELEVATION 50’ Wo" 150’ 200° 250° L-@ NOTES: |. Topography prepared by HG. Chickering, Jr. Jonuary 1975. Horizontal and vertical contro! dosed on U.S.6.8. Quadrangle control. 2. Elevations based on Mean Sea Level (MSL) datum. J SOURCE: APPLICANT 2-8 cfs at the normal reservoir elevation of 390 feet msl. The circular tunnel would have approximately a 15 percent grade. It would be partially concrete lined at the portals and in areas of poorer quality rock, and unlined elsewhere. The diameter of the unlined sections would vary between 10.5 and 11.5 feet, and the concrete-lined sections would have an inside diameter of 8 feet. A steel-lined section of the tunnel, begin- ning about 50 feet upstream of the powerhouse, would bifurcate into two 5.6-foot-diameter, steel-lined sections, each extend- ing to a generating unit within the powerhouse. A tunnel adit would be provided at the lower end of the power tunnel for construction and maintenance purposes. Profile and section drawings are shown in Figure 2-3. 2.3.1.3 Powerhouse The powerhouse would be an indoor surface installation, located on Silver Bay, about 350 feet north of the mouth of the Vodopad River. It would be set into a hillside excavation at elevation 38 feet, and would be anchored to the rock slope. The reinforced concrete powerhouse would be approximately 50 feet wide, 80 feet long, and 70 feet high, and would contain room for two generating units and a service bay. Each genera- ting unit would consist of a vertical Francis turbine, with a best-gate output of 11,300 horsepower under a net head of 349 feet (average conditions), and an 8,250-kW umbrella-type gene- rator, operating at a speed of 514 rpm. The discharge through each unit would be 310 cfs. A 54-inch butterfly valve, capable of operating under emergency shutdown conditions, would guard each unit. A small tailwater weir at an elevation of minus 2.3 feet msl would be provided in the tailrace to protect the turbines against cavitation. The powerhouse would be remotely controlled from the Blue Lake powerhouse. Plans and sections of the powerhouse are shown in Figure 2-4, 2.3.2 Green Lake Reservoir The Green Lake Reservoir, at the proposed normal reser- voir elevation of 390 feet msl, would have a surface area of approximately 1,000 acres and an active storage capacity of 74,000 acre-feet. The reservoir would be approximately 4 miles long by one-half mile wide, and would extend about 3 miles up the Vodopad River Valley from the present upper end of Green Lake. The proposed minimum reservoir elevation would be 280 feet msl, with a corresponding surface area of 390 acres. The area-capacity curve of the proposed Green Lake Reservoir is shown in Figure 2-5. NOTE: REVISED POWERHOUSE AND SUBSTATION NOT SHOWN. 400 - 400 M44 TN Intoke structure-} | | 7 round paren 300 —— — - : — — + ~ 300 ‘Trashracks——| Concrate lined tunnel | | | | | | b 7 200 — { i 200 z i | | a ge —t -— I —T —j 00 5 | | | 4 | | | a | | | ° 1 | | | | ° 10+00 15+00 20400 400 T ] 400 | | /Sround surface | | | 300 |&—_—. ———_- { +————| 300 & | | o e | | = 5 |< | g g — g 200 |£ —| 200 5 a d ‘Rock trap 100 ——| 100 Silver Boy Sq LINED TUNNEL LINED PENSTOCK ° so POWER TUNNEL SECTIONS Steel lined penstock: monte " * io’ 6 1s' 20's ast ‘Scale: 1"= 5° POWER TUNNEL PROFILE 5so' 0 50! 150’ 200' 250° Scale: I" = 50" NOTE: Elevations based on Mean Sea Level (MSL) datum. FIGURE 2-3. POWER TUNNEL PROFILE AND SECTION. SOURCE: APPLICANT 6-7 FIGURE 2-4. POWERHOUSE AND SUBSTATION PLAN AND SECTION. SOURCE: APPLICANT 01-7 1600 1400 500 1200 1000 SURFACE AREA, ACRES 800 600 400 200 ° 500 450 400 F + 450 ° L, < a ° ° 8 3 } ° r oa 400 Normal Reservoir El. 390 K WwW Ww wu 2 350 o = =z > in | Ww 300 350 Minimum Reservoir El. 280 ~q 300 T | naa 250 200 NOTE: Based on topography prepared by H.G. Chickering , Jr., January 1975. Vertical and horizontal control based on U.S.G.S. Quadrangle control. Elevations based on Mean Sea Level (MSL) datum. 40 60 80 100 CAPACITY,!1000 ACRE - FEET FIGURE 2-5. 250 200 120 140 160 SOURCE: APPLICANT PROPOSED GREEN LAKE RESERVOIR AREA - CAPACITY CURVE. II-7 2-12 2.3.3 Access Roads The access road, which is under construction, would be approximately 8 miles long, and would extend from the end of the existing Sawmill Creek State Highway at Herring Cove to the project site. The road would be unpaved and of single-lane con- struction with turnouts, and would be constructed to standards adequate only for construction access and for maintenance of the project. Since the access road would not be built to public use standards, public vehicular traffic on the access road would not be allowed, and a permanent barricade at Herring Cove would be installed. The road alignment would generally follow the shoreline, as shown in Figures 2-la and 2-lb. The first 3 miles would vary between a half-bench cut and a full embankment section. The remaining portion of the road would require a full-bench cut for most of its length. The road would divide near the powerhouse, with one branch extending to the dam area, and another to the powerhouse and switchyard area. The roadway width would be 14 feet, the maximum grade would be 13 percent, and the minimum- curve radius would be 100 feet. Construction is expected to be complete in the spring of 1979. 2.3.4 Transmission Facilities A substation would be located north of and at the same elevation as the powerhouse. Single-phase transformers would transform the voltage from 13.8 kV to the desired 69-kV trans- mission voltage. A spare transformer would be provided. The 69-kV transmission line, approximately 8 miles long, would generally parallel the access road and the Sawmill Creek State Highway from the proposed Green Lake powerhouse substation to the Blue Lake powerhouse substation. Structures would be single wood poles with a wishbone crossarm configuration. Construction of the Green Lake Project would necessitate the upgrading from 34.5 kV to 69 kV of an existing transmission line, about 4 miles long, extending from the Blue Lake powerhouse substation to the Marine Street substation. 2.3.5 Recreation Facilities Limited recreational facilities are proposed for development at the Green Lake Project, due chiefly to the steepness of the surrounding terrain, its inaccessibility, the limited public use of the existing lake, and the avail- ability of more desirable recreational attractions for the residents of Sitka on other portions of Baranof Island. 2-13 Access into the Green Lake area would be improved by (1) upgrading and rehabilitating an existing hiking trail from Silver Bay to Green Lake; (2) providing a mooring buoy in Silver Bay for moderate-size pleasure craft, which would carry smaller watercraft for access to the shore of the Bay; and (3) using the access road that would be constructed from the end of the existing State Highway near Herring Cove to the project as an alternative hiking trail to the Green Lake area. 2.4 DESIGN LIMITATIONS 2.4.1 Seismic Risk Evaluations The Green Lake Project is located in an active tectonic belt. The pre-Tertiary rocks on Baranof Island are folded, faulted, and intruded by plutonic rock. The combination of folding and faulting has produced a series of northwest-trend- ing belts, bounded by northwest-striking faults. Although most of the faulting took place during Tertiary time, some movement is continuing today. The project is located between two important fault systems, the north-striking Chatham Strait fault, approxi- mately 15 miles to the east, and the northwest-striking Fairweather fault, approximately 17 miles to the west. The faults are shown on Figure 4, Appendix W-9, of Exhibit W of the application for license. The Chatham Strait fault, which is a strike slip fault, may still be active and may be subject to microearthquake activity. There is some disagree- ment as to the location of recent epicenters along the Chatham Strait lineament. The offshore or Fairweather fault system is a complex of vertical northwest-striking faults that is seismic- ally active. Movement during the July 10, 1958, earthquake of magnitude 8 consisted of both vertical and horizontal displace- ment. Figure 5, Appendix W-9, shows the location of earthquakes during the period 1899 to 1972. This figure illustrates the concentration of epicenters near the coastline of southeastern Alaska, and specifically for this project, along the offshore or Fairweather fault system. Figure 6, Appendix W-9, is a seismic probability map for most of Alaska, and Figure 7, Appendix W-9, is a 100-year probability map for southeastern Alaska, showing the distribution of peak earthquake accelera- tions as percents of gravity. A peak acceleration of 50 to 100 percent gravity might be expected within any 100-year period at the project. 2-14 At least 73 earthquakes have been felt in Sitka from 1832 through 1973. Nine earthquakes, of magnitude 7 or greater have occurred near the coastline of southeastern Alaska in the last 150 years. ’ In view of the seismic history of the area, the licensee proposes to perform a dynamic analysis of the proposed concrete arch dam during final design. A maximum credible earthquake and a maximum probable earthquake will be considered. With proper design considerations and foundation treatment, a safe dam can be constructed at this site. The foundation for the dam is hard, competent graywacks. 2.4.2 Cost Considerations and Estimates The cost estimates for the Green Lake Project are based on actual prices bid by contractors for similar projects, adjusted to a 1977 bid price level. This was escalated to the estimated 1977 bid price by a 7 percent annual inflation rate. Allowances proposed were: 15 percent for contingencies; 12.5 percent for engineering and owner's administration; and 5 percent for interest during construction. The interest rate was determined from a cash flow developed for the construction schedule. The cost-estimate summary for the Green Lake Project, as projected in the Applicant's environmental report, is as follows: Power Structures and Improvements .. Reservoirs, Dams, and Water ..... Water Wheels, Turbines, and Generators Accessory Electric Equipment ..... Miscellaneous Power Plant Equipment. . Roads and Bridges. . ......-e.e. 5,699,000 Transmission Facilities. ....... 871,000 : 1,888,000 Subtotal - Direct Construction Cost. . . . 29,784,000 16,122,000 3,910,000 444,000 850,000 DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST . ......-.. © « « 29,784,000 Contingencies, 15% . . . 2. 2 © © © «© © « © ~ «© 4,468,000 Subtotal . . . 2... © «© © © © © © w © © «© 34,252,000 Engineering, 12.5% . . . «© 2 © © © © «© «© © © © © 4,282,000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST .......-.-.-e +e 38,534,000 Interest During Construction, 5% ....... . 3,361,000 CAPITAL INVESTMENT COST. . . 2. 2. © © © © © «© e 41,895,000 2-15 2.5 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS In order to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed project, Applicant would have to obtain the following Federal and State permits and authorizations: Federal 1. Section 10 Permit - Corps of Engineers 2. Section 404 Permit - Corps of Engineers (Appendix C) 3. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Section 402 - Environmental Protection Agency (Appendix C) 4. Hydroelectric License - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 5. Special Use Permit - Forest Service ue Tidelands Permit 2. Title 16 Permit 3. Water Rights Application 4. Section 401 Certification . Access to Navigable or Public Waters 2.6 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE The construction schedule for the Green Lake Project (Figure 2-6) is based on the assumption that the contract for the access road would be awarded for construction in June 1978, with completion planned in March 1979. This would permit the Applicant to start construction of major project features in May 1979 and to complete the project in June 1982. Time for clearing of the reservoir and for excavation, concrete placing, and reservoir filling would be adjusted in accordance with weather conditions and with the time required for transportation of construction material and mechanical equipment to the island and project site. 2.7 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 2.7.1 Operation The proposed Green Lake Project, a conventional hydroelectric power plant, would operate in coordination with the existing Blue Lake Project to generate baseload GREEN LAKE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AWARD CONTRACT (JUNE 1978) A. ACCESS ROAD MAJOR PROJECT FEATURES MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION RESERVOIR CLEARING DIVERSION FACILITIES POWERHOUSE EXCAVATION POWER TUNNEL EXCAVATION DAM EXCAVATION AND GROUTING DAM CONCRETE DAM JOINT GROUTING OUTLET WORKS POWER TUNNEL CONCRETE POWERHOUSE CONCRETE MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL START-UP DIVERSION CLOSURE RESERVOIR FILLING TRANSMISSION LINE FIGURE 2-6. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE. SOURCE: FERC STAFF 1-7 2-17 energy for Applicant's electric system. The reservoir would have a total usable storage capacity of 74,000 acre-feet between maximum water surface elevation 390.0 feet msl and minimum water surface elevation 280.0 feet msl. Power opera- tion would cause the reservoir to fluctuate a maximum of 110 feet annually. The normal daily fluctuation would depend on system power requirements and hydrologic conditions. The two vertical Francis turbines would each discharge 310 cfs when operating under an average head of 349 feet. The estimated average annual energy output of the project is 64,900,000 kWh. The power plant would normally be operated to generate firm energy; however, at such time as the reservoir would be full and water would have to be spilled, the power plant would generate secondary energy to the extent that it could be used by the electric system. During dry years, the reservoir would normally be drawn down to secure generation of firm energy. During normal and wet years, there would be little drawdown of the reservoir. The reservoir, as sized, would regulate about 95 percent of the streamflow. Although flood control storage is not provided, the surcharge storage above the crest of the ungated ogee spillway would reduce peak flood flows downstream. For instance, the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) peak discharge would be reduced from 42,300 cfs to 32,600 cfs, and the Standard Design Flood from 21,150 cfs to 11,000 cfs. The PMF would overtop the non-overflow section of the concrete arch dam by 4.9 feet. The water would fall on bare rock or rock covered by soil-muskeg deposit, would follow the Vodopad River, and would be discharged into Silver Bay. Overtopping would not adversely affect dam safety and would not endanger life and property downstream from the dam. Filling of the reservoir would begin as soon as the dam, intake structure, outlet works, tunnel, penstock, and powerhouse are sufficiently completed. While the quality of inflowing water is not expected to change from an increase in the size of Green Lake, water quality within the newly formed impoundment would undergo changes during the first few years of existence. These changes would result from the inundation of organic and inorganic materials in the river valley and from the more stable thermal stratification caused by an increased water depth. The changes would diminish and water quality would stabilize, as the reservoir ages. Any releases downstream would generally reflect the water quality of the reservoir at the depth of withdrawal. 2-18 At present, there are no proposals to divert water from the dam or powerhouse to operate any fish ladder or hatchery. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) stated in a letter of April 13, 1978, that it has investi- gated the possibility of a hatchery on the Vodopad River, both with and without the project. ADFG concluded that there is the potential for a hatchery in the area, but that costs prevent any development in the foreseeable future, and that other sites are more economically feasible. 2.7.2 Maintenance The normal maintenance of the Green Lake Project would include inspection, lubrication, cleaning, and over- hauling of the plant equipment on a regular basis, according to a master schedule that would be set up for the project. Equipment inspection and data collection would be scheduled to determine the need for major overhauls. Water passages would be kept clean, and turbine runners and guide vanes would be inspected for pitting. Major maintenance or repairs would be scheduled in coordination with the maintenance of other system generating plants and system operation require- ments, Periodic inspections would be made to determine the extent of leakage, if any, and the general soundness of project structures. Recording instruments would be installed to measure leakage or movement of structures. These proce- dures would be followed during the life of the project, and maintenance would be carried out as necessary. The dam, tunnel, and penstock would be designed, constructed, and maintained to resist safely any earthquake force that could be reasonably expected in the region. The controlled ogee spillway would be capable of passing the spillway design flood. No special maintenance of the spill- way would be required. The 69-kV transmission line route would be initially cleared of vegetation by hand methods during construction, and then maintained chemically. 2.7.3 Safety Inspection The FERC Staff inspects licensed projects, both during and after construction, to ensure their physical safety and the safety of the public, including recreational users, and to ensure that the Licensee complies with any special construc- tion and operating requirements of the license. Except as 2-19 limited by resources, all constructed hydroelectric projects are inspected annually by an engineer from the Commission staff. The engineer observes the general condition of the project structures, looking particularly for any evidence of leakage or structural deterioration that might affect safety. Warning signs, protective fencing, and upstream and downstream safety devices are observed, and suggestions are made for any necessary improvements. In addition, every 5 years, the Licensees of major projects are required to have their struc- tures inspected and evaluated by an outside consultant who is experienced in the design and construction of hydroelectric projects. The consultant's report, which is limited to the safety of the project, is submitted to the Commission for review. 2.8 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT The Applicant states that it has no plans for expansion of the Green Lake Project beyond those proposed in this applica- tion. Staff believes that the project would utilize, to the fullest practicable extent, the stream flow and head available. 3-1 3. THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 31 LOCATION The project would be located on the western side of Baranof Island, approximately 10 air miles southeast of Sitka, Alaska. The reservoir would be on the Vodopad River; the powerhouse would be near the mouth of the river at the southern tip of Silver Bay; and the approximately 8-mile-long transmission line would extend from the power- house to the existing Blue Lake substation, paralleling the project access road. Figure 3-1 shows the location of the project. 3.2 METEOROLOGY 3.2.1 Climate Sitka, the nearest city to the proposed Green Lake project, possesses the longest climatology record of any U.S. weather station in Alaska. Like Sitka, which is rimmed with mountainous islands, the proposed project site has mountainous land between it and the Pacific Ocean, as well as to the north, south, and east. The mountains affect the climate in two ways: they shield Green Lake from occasional cold air outbreaks from Canada, and, by interrupting the pre- vailing flow of air, they decrease the amount of precipita- tion that would otherwise be received. The Pacific Ocean, approximately 30 miles away, across Silver Bay, the Eastern Channel, and Sitka Sound, has sea water temperatures that are warmed by the Alaska Current as it flows north. The area's climate is classified as marine. The annual temperature range is small by comparison to conti- nental areas. In 83 years of record, Sitka's warmest aver- age monthly temperature, 67.3°F, was recorded in August 1927; the summer temperatures average around 60°F, Winter tempera- tures are seldom below freezing. The coldest average monthly temperature, 8.1°F, was recorded in January 1969. The summers are considered cool, and by comparison to continental areas, the winters are considered warm. The annual rainfall is typical of a marine climate, despite the fact that it is modified by the mountains to the south and west. Precipitation occurs mostly as rain. Snow- fall has a very high water content, and averages 50 inches annually. The wettest month on record is October, with 26.65 inches; the driest month on record is February, with 0.43 inch. Heaviest precipitation occurs during the fall and winter months, when the Pacific storms have their greatest frequency of movement into the Gulf of Alaska and the Sitka TRUE MAGNETIC EGEND NORTH NORTH — = Prepoced_ Reeds: — Paved == Unclassified \, Project ----- a / Electric Tronamission \ Lines: — — Location of old stream goge: / Sowmill Creek near Sitke Boundaries: te 2 26, ———— National "Forest 26 |Sowmill Creek ase Unsurve —— Lond is City of Sitka ZL. Mapping Reference -U.S.G.8. Quadrangles: Sitka (A-4), Alaska 1951 minor revisions 1965 Port Alexander (D-4), Alaska 195! minor revisions 1965 Land lines represent unsurveyed ond unmarked locations from computations by the State of Alaske, Division of Lands, Copper River Meridian. Elevations bosed on Mean Sea Level (MSL) datum. FIGURE — 3-1. GENERAL PROJECT MAP. SOURCE: APPLICANT T-£ 3-3 area. The annual average precipitation in the Sitka area is 96.6 inches, approximately the same as the average for all of southeastern Alaska. In an average year, there are 200 days with some form of precipitation. Precipitation increases with an increase in elevation, and cloudy, foggy, and misty conditions are prevalent throughout the year. Prevailing winds, because of terrain features, pre- dominate from the southeast during the fall, winter, and early spring months. Wind speeds average 7.3 mph, ranging from a low of 5.0 mph in July to 9.6 mph in February. Pre- vailing winds in the summer are light and westerly. 3.2.2 Air Quality There are few air quality monitoring sites in Alaska, and there are none within or near the proposed project area. Alaska has set ambient air quality criteria that coincide with the secondary national air quality standards of the Federal Clean Air Act. The state also has a plan, approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, for achieving the primary national air quality standards required by amendments to the Clean Air Act. Due to the climatic conditions and the wilderness character of the land at the proposed Green Lake site, the existing ambient air quality is excellent and well within the standards. 3.2.3 Noise Levels There are no existing noise monitoring data available. No monitoring is presently being conducted, and none is planned. Due to the lack of development and existing land use, there are no excessive or unwanted sounds. Ambient sound levels in the proposed project area are created by such natural forces as wind, fauna, water movement, and rain. 3.3 HYDROLOGY AND HYDROGRAPHY Green Lake, a natural body of water that would be inundated by the project reservoir, is located on the Vodopad River, about 0.5 mile east of the head of Silver Bay and about 10 miles southeast of Sitka, Alaska. A bathymetric map and morphometric and hydrographic data for Green Lake are presented in Figure 3-2 and Table 3-1, respectively. The Vodopad River is the main watercourse in the basin and extends its full length. The Green Lake-Vodopad River basin tends generally eastward and is about 9.5 miles long by 4.5 miles wide. Drainage area is about 28 square miles. Mean basin elevation VODOPAD RIVER OUTLET FIGURE 3-2. —— oo aS as 0 500 1000 \( CONTOUR INTERVAL GREEN LAKE-ALASKA = & 4 aD & Zz Zz 0 200 400 Sy FIVE METERS Eas, a " Basny 15. iN VODOPAD RIVER INLETS BATHYMETRIC CHART OF GREEN LAKE. SOURCE: Mc COY et al., 1977 v-£ 3-5 Table 3-1. Morphometric and Hydrographic Statistics for Green Lake Area at elevation 230 feet (ms1) 173 acres Maximum depth 86 feet Mean depth 48 feet Volume 6.99 x 10° acre feet Maximum Length 1.2 miles Mean Width 984 feet Shoreline Development 2.0 Volume Development 1.67 Length of Shoreline 3.7 miles Maximum Width 0.28 miles Drainage Area 28.8 mi2 Mean Depth/Maximum Depth Relation 558 Source: Applicant, 1977 3-6 is about 2,150 feet msl and ranges from 250 feet msl to over 4,000 feet msl; slopes are fairly steep. From Green Lake, the Vodopad River flows through a series of falls and rapids in a narrow canyon before flowing into Silver Bay. The high runoff periods occur in late spring, summer, and early fall, and the low flow periods in winter and early spring. Almost 50 percent of the total annual runoff occurs from May through August. This extensive runoff originates as snowmelt. Only a minor portion of the total runoff comes from glaciers. There is no indication of appreciable quantities of ground water from fractured rocks in the vicinity. There are presently no recording streamflow gaging stations on the Vodopad River; however, a streamflow gaging station was in operation from 1915 to 1925 at the outlet of Green Lake. The recorded flows of the Vodopad River were compared to the recorded flows of the adjacent Medvetche River, located in Blue Lake basin, and correlation factors were prepared. The flows of the Vodopad River at Green Lake were then constructed by adjusting the recorded flows of the Medvetche River. Because only 2 years of concurrent records were available, the existing long-term precipitation data at Sitka was also used for correlation. The actual and construc- ted flows of the Vodopad River at Green Lake are shown in Table 3-2. The average flow for the 42-year period would be 310 cfs, or 225,000 acre-feet per year. The recorded extremes at the former Green Lake gaging station were 3,300 cfs maximum and 10 cfs minimum. The average runoff rate is equivalent to an annual rate of 7,600 acre-feet per square mile of drainage area. The 24-hour Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) amounts to 28.73 inches, and the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) would have an estimated peak discharge of 42,300 cfs at Green Lake Dam. 3.4 AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT 3.4.1 Water Quality The only water quality data available for Green Lake is that reported by McCoy et al. in 1977, from field studies conducted on two days, May 18 and August 22, 1974. Samples were collected at depths of 0.3, 5, and 8 meters from the east and west basins (Table 3-3). The data generally indicate that the water quality of Green Lake is similar to that of other lakes in southeastern Alaska considered in the same study. The water of Green Lake is of good quality, reflecting the lack of land-use activities such as logging, road building, and min- ing and the absence of commercial and residential developments in the watershed. While numerous parameters were measured *Recorded flows. All others are synthesized September 1977 YEAR JULY AUG SEP ocr Nov Dec JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE AVERAGE wowcccccce weercce eecccce weeewes Sameer emeeeee seneees eemecee aeceens cecence eencese caceces. cooecce 19150168 452 S10 373 487 188 117 23 73 41 116 283 568 286 19169178 445 499 564 471 210 97 82 120 50 m4 310 475 283 19170308 491 $26 620 652 636 78 127 40 18 15 296 se2 345 19180198 600 489 492 420 378 190 aut 38 15 126 25s ase 299 19199208 age 452 500 392 184 128 a7 63 a7 41 172 479 263 19200218 445 437 330 282 254 14 64 412 38 69 285 542 246 19219228 367 309 416 571 160 293 91 36 27 83 352 466 266 1922-238 462 300 S51 246 400 82 34 110 117 219 341 S10 297 19230248 390 250 648 292 484 182 98 119 90 189 479 6e8 323 19240258 674 $39 698 437 285 162 “4 as so 86 474 520 332 1925*26 $60 395 340 434 299 184 iss 78 49 124 296 492 204 1926027 aes 441 $47 400 276 169 143 12 46 114 273 454 28s 1927928 446 407 504 460 317 195 165 83 32 1st 314 $22 300 1928-29 512 468 560 4se 316 194 164 82 52 434 313 520 316 1929°30 $10 466 $77 44g $29 118 106 4 47 110 356 590 328 1930031 590 480 553 484 s70 127 115 80 Si 118 386 636 349 1931932 637 $18 s97 470 324 199 168 es 54 134 324 $33 337 1932933 524 478 592 398 215 90 s3 100 47 83 286 S17 282 1933934 429 429 514 456 314 193 163 82 52 130 31t $i7 299 1934935 soe 464 578 523 616 138 124 6 ss 128 417 687 360 1935°36 688 560 645 612 721 161 145 104 64 180 488 804 428 1936037 bos 655 154 614 723 162 145 101 6s 150 490 807 456 1937938 08 687 757 468 322 198 167 64 53 134 320 S31 375 1938039 521 476 590 502 $92 132 119 83 53 123 401 660 354 1939°40 661 538 619 446 307 189 160 80 51 127 308 506 332 1940"41 497 453 562 319 172 12 42 80 37 67 229 ala 245 1941942 343 343 4i1 456 316 194 164 82 52 a3n 343 520 277 1942043 S10 466 577 432 298 183 155 78 49 123 295 490 305 19430446 481 439 54s 414 285 175 148 chy a7 118 283 470 290 1944945 461 424 $22 449 $29 118 106 4 47 110 ase 590 315 1945°46 590 480 553 400 276 169 143 72 46 114 27) 454 298 1946047 446 407 504 S17 610 136 123 8s 34 127 413 680 342 1947948 681 554 638 480 566 126 114 9 $1 118 383 631 368 1948049 632 514 592 497 586 1 118 82 32 122 397 653 365 1949°50 os¢ 532 613 412 223 93 55 103 48 o7 296 536 304 1950"51 444 444 332 277 150 63 37 69 32 se 199 360 1951952 299 299 358 406 220 92 s4 102 ae as 292 528 1952953 438 438 524 478 329 202 171 86 54 137 327 542 1953954 533 486 603 404 278 m1 145 13 46 115 276 ase 1954955 450 ait 509 442 305 167 158 80 50 126 302 So. 1955956 492 449 557 360 195 82 as 90 42 16 259 1956°S7 368 388 465 404 278 a7 145 13 46 us 276 AVERAGE $20 464 552 442 363 326 saa Source: Applicant Table 3-2. Green Lake Monthly Inflows (cfs) L-€ Table 3-3. Parameter 3-8 Summary of Water Quality Data for Green Lake Depths (m) pH (S.H.) Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved 0 Ke Ca Si09 Na S04 P F Mg Cl Fe (mg/1) Mn (rg/1) TDS (Calculated) V we/1) Zn (wg/1) Mo (wg/1) B Wwe/1) Cu (wg/1) Al Wwg/1) Pb (vg/1) Color (Pt- CO units) Conductivity ( mhos/cm) Total Hardness Non-Carbonate Hardness Alkalinity (CaC03) Turbidity (JTU) Bicarbonate (HCO3) Total P Nitrogen, NH, Kjeldahl, N Total Organic N NO2 + NO3 Total N 5/1 * 8 © © © © © FoONWONNOW UNNWOWOODOKRFNUONDO oo Ore ° Nu Or De Woo 11 nn wn 100 ND 7 48 16 3 14 0 14 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.17 0.22 8/74 8/22 @ © oO b NNRPRrFWOROCOHFOWROOONFRFWONDO NNUNEODW “HD Ove + af an) °o 30 10 3 ND 0 10 0 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.08 /74 & un H Concentrations in milligrams per liter unless stated. ND: Not Determined. Source: Data from McCoy et al., 1977. 3-9 from water samples taken from Green Lake, only those para- meters that provide a general description of water quality are discussed below. Total hardness for Green Lake averaged about 13 milligrams per liter (mg/1) and ranged between 11 and 17 mg/l. Therefore, Green Lake is a soft water lake similar to many other lakes in southeastern Alaska (Schmiege et al. 1974). Total alkalinity averaged around 14 mg/l, which indi- cates the lake has a low buffering capacity. Vertical profiles for pH, specific conductance, temperatures, and dissolved oxygen levels varied little with depth and between the east and west basins. Hydrogen ion concentration (pH) was slightly acidic, ranging from 6.6 to 6.9. Specific conductance, a measure of ionic concentration, ranged from 25 to 48 micromhos/cm in the lake, while calculated concentrations of total dissolved solids ranged from 16 to 28 mg/l. Except for nearby Blue Lake and Redoubt Lake, Green Lake had a higher dissolved solid content than any of the other lakes studies by McCoy et al. in 1977. In the same study, only a slight or weak thermal stratification was observed in Green Lake. Surface and overdepth temperatures were slightly warmer in the west basin. This warming may occur as the water passes from the east basin to the west basin over a shallow bar located 1 to 3 feet below the water surface. Also, the west basin is not as susceptible to mixing by the wind, even though it is shallower than the east basin. While dissolved oxygen satura- tion values were less than 100 percent at some depths, dissolved oxygen concentrations were around 12 mg/1 at all depths in Green Lake. Secchi disc limits, which provide an estimate of visi- bility in water, ranged from 2 to 10 meters on September 18 and June 12, 1974, respectively (Hoopes, 1977). fean Secchi disc depth was 6 meters. Turbidity measurements were zero during the 1974 sampling period (Hoopes, 1977). However, Applicant notes that turbidity may markedly increase in Green Lake after high runoff periods. The susceptibility of soils to erosion and the steep topography of the Vodopad River watershed are two important contributing factors. The low nutrient and chlorophyll a levels suggest that Green Lake has a low biological productivity. A total phosphorus concentration of 0.01 mg/1 was measured; total nitrogen averaged 0.15 mg/1. Chlorophyll a concentrations 3-10 were extremely low, averaging around 0.22 micrograms per liter. Secchi disc depth, which may provide a rough index of plankton density, averaged about 6 meters. Based upon the pre- ceding values and the results of studies conducted on other lakes by the National Eutrophication Survey in 1974, Green Lake would be classified as oligotrophic. 3.4.2 Aquatic Communities Both freshwater and estuarine environments would be affected by project facilities and operation. The proposed project would use water from the Vodopad River drainage for the generation of electricity; discharges from the powerhouse would enter Silver Bay, a tidal estuary. Silver Bay is a semi- enclosed coastal body of water that is affected by tidal action and marine saltwater. Bear Creek, another stream which flows into Silver Bay, would be crossed by the project access road and transmission line. In the following sections of the report, specific animal communities found in these aquatic environments are briefly discussed. 3.4.2.1 Fish The Eastern brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) is the only species of fish reported to occur in Green Lake and in the Vodopad River upstream (Hoopes, 1977). Brook trout were first stocked in Green Lake in 1932, but have not been stocked in recent years (Schmidt, 1978, personal communication). Population estimates for brook trout are not available; how- ever, some sampling has been conducted in Green Lake by Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) biologists (Hoopes, 1977). In July 1968, 37 brook trout, averaging 22 cm (8.8 in.) in length, were collected by gill nets; the largest specimen was 26.5 cm (14.6 in.) long and weighed 1.1 kg (2.4 1b.). Nine brook trout, averaging 23 cm (9.2 in.) in length, were collected by gill netting on November 14, 1974. Age, growth, and condition analyses were not made on the fish collected. Suitable spawning areas are available to brook trout in the Vodopad River above Green Lake. A waterfall at the 500-foot contour prevents access to suitable spawning area further upstream. Spawning may also occur on shallow, gravelly areas near the shores of the lake. Depending upon water temperature, brook trout spawn from late September through November, and eggs hatch from 50 to 100 days after spawning (Scott and Crossman, 1973). No fish have been reported in the Vodopad River between Green Lake and tidewater. A waterfall near the mouth of the river prevents use of the stream by anadromous fish. 3-11 Bear Creek, which flows from Medvejie Lake and enters Silver Bay about 2.5 miles northwest of Green Lake, supports populations of Dolly Varden trout (Salvelinus malma). Some pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), chum (0. keta), and coho salmon (O. kisutch) spawn m3 Bear Creek (Schmidt, 1978, personal ———— communication). Spawning by these salmon species begins in July and continues until late October. Trawl surveys of the fish resources of Silver Bay have been made by the National Marine Fisheries Service (Hoopes, 1977). On October 1, 1967, two hauls were made, one at the head of the bay and one at the entrance to the bay. Flat- fishes, mostly English (Parophrys vetulus) and flathead sole (Hippoglossoides elassodon), were predominant in the catch at the head of the bay; flathead sole, rex sole (Glyptocephalus dae made up zachirus), and rockfishes of the family Scorpaeni most of the catch at the bay mouth. All flatfishes collected were juveniles, suggesting that Silver Bay may serve as a rear- ing area for these species. Adult rockfishes were found mostly at the mouth of the bay. A second series of trawl surveys was made in May 1971 (Hoopes, 1977). Results were similar to the 1967 trawl samples, with rockfishes and a few flatfishes being taken near the bay mouth. Hauls near the center of Silver Bay contained mostly flatfishes. 3.4.2.2 Plankton Plankton tows were made in Green Lake at a depth of about 13 meters by ADFG during the period from May 15 to September 17, 1974 (Hoopes, 1977). The zooplankton collected consisted of rotifers, cladocerans, and copepods, with rotifers being the most abundant and diverse group. Zooplankton densi- ties ranged from 2,500 to 154,000 organisms per square meter. One blue-green algae and two diatoms comprised the phytoplankton collected; densities ranged from 0 to 17,000 organisms per square meter. Green algae was not collected during the survey, perhaps because of the depth at which the plankton tows were made. 3.4.2.3 Benthos Sampling for macrobenthic invertebrates has not been conducted in Green Lake, but an analysis of the stomach con- tents of brook trout by ADFG biologists provides some informa- tion on what organisms are present (Hoopes, 1977). Fourteen different benthic invertebrates were identified from the stomach contents of the inlet fish, while 10 forms were iden- tified from stomach contents in lake fish. Stomach contents of brook trout indicate that these fish fed on stoneflies 3-12 (Plecoptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera), beetles (Coleoptera) , and true flies (Diptera). Diptera larvae of the chironomid genus Pseudodiamesa were the dominant insects in stomachs of lake fish. No mayflies or stoneflies were identified from the stomachs of fish collected from the lake; no beetles were identified from the stomach samples of fish taken from the in- let. The absence of these organisms, however, is no clear indication that they do not occur in these respective habitats (with the exception of stoneflies, which are normally found only in streams). A survey of the benthic community of Silver Bay, adjacent to the proposed access road, was conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service in June 1977 (Hoopes, 1977). Bottom types and plant and animal species were noted at each of six sites. Near the shore, all sites had bedrock or large rock bottoms that graded into sand and silt as the water depth increased. A diverse assemblage of marine invertebrates was observed, with echinoderms (starfishes, sea urchine, and sea cucumbers) and mollusks (clams, snails, and nudibranchs) being dominant. Various species of sponges marine worms, barnacles, crabs, and tunicates (lower chordates) were observed. Rockfishes, searcher (Bathymaster signatus), and the kelp greenling (Hexagrammos decagrammus) were also present at the sites. Brown and red algae were the dominant attached plants. 3.4.3 Endangered and Threatened Species No fish or aquatic macroinvertebrates collected from Green Lake and Silver Bay are listed as endangered and threat- ened in the Federal Register, Volume 43, No. 238, Part 3, dated December 11, 1978. > i LAND ENVIRONMENT 325r Physiography and Topography Baranof Island, with moderately high, rugged mountains, is part of the Alexander Archipelago. These mountains form the southern portion of the Chilkat-Baranof Mountains, located in the Pacific Border Ranges Physiographic Province of the Pacific Mountain System. The Green Lake project would be located at about the center of Baranof Island, at the head of Silver Bay, one of many fjords, inlets, bays, and coves that indent the drowned, glaciated western coast of the island. The mountains in the Silver Bay-Green Lake area commonly reach elevations of more than 4,000 feet. They are dissected by numerous deep, straight valleys and fjords, which often com- bine with other erosion features to form prominent topographic lineaments whose location and orientation are controlled by 3-13 the major faulting, foliation, and jointing of the bedrock. The Silver Bay fjord and the Pinta Lake drainage valley immediately southwest of the Green Lake valley are part of a major northwest-southeast lineament controlled by the Neva Strait fault. The Medvejie Lake valley is part of a north- east-southwest-trending lineament controlled by the Medvejie Lake fault. Another north-south-trending lineament, extending south from the head of Silver Bay, includes the Salmon Lake valley and a low elevation, inter-valley pass that connects the valley with the Redoubt Lake valley. The higher elevations in the Silver Bay-Green Lake area were modified by alpine glaciation, and so are presently charac- terized by sharp-pointed, pyramid-shaped, horn peaks; sharp- crested, serrate-ridge divides or aretes; amphitheater-shaped cirques; and U-shaped, troughlike, hanging tributary valleys. Many of the cirques contain tarn lakes, which are sometimes stream linked down-valley to other lakes occupying other ice- scoured basins on the valley floors, forming chains of pater noster lakes. A number of the cirques in the higher elevations of the Vodopad River drainage contain perennial snow or firn, and some still contain glaciers. Intense glacial erosion beneath great thicknesses of glacier ice widened the main valleys, such as the Green Lake and Medvedjie Lake valleys and Silver Bay fjord, giving them their present steep-sided, U-shaped, cross profiles. Project- ing spurs and other sharp features at the lower elevations were planed off, and quarrying action by the ice of the valley floor bedrock formed deep rock basins, such as Medvejie Lake and the double-basined Green Lake, and giant rock steps, such as those presently being notched by the Vodopad River as it drains the lake. 3.5.2 Geology and Soils The intensely folded, low-grade, Mesozoic metasedimen- tary and metavolcanic rocks of the Silver Bay-Green Lake region of Baranof Island were intruded and extensively faulted during Tertiary time. The generalized geology map in Figure 3-3 shows the location of the major rock units and major faults in the Silver Bay area and in the area of the proposed reser- voir. The principal sources of geological information used in this section are reports by Loney and others (1975) and Converse Davis Dixon Associates, Inc. (1974, 1977, 1978). The oldest rocks in the project area are classified in the Khaz Formation. Northwest of the Medvejie Lake fault, the Khaz Formation rocks are a regular sequence of alternating layers of metagraywacke, phyllite, slate, and metachert. Some Rock Units Faults ip Indigo Lake Pluton NS Neva Strait Fault — tonalite, granodiorite NS(n) Neva Strait Fault, north branch sg Sitka Graywacke — graywacke, phyllite NS(s) Neva Strait Fault, south branch kf = Khaz Formation ML Medvejie Lake Fault — metagraywacke, phyllite, slate, metachert Symbols km Khaz Formation, metamorphosed — biotite schist, gneiss ——— Geologic Contact; approximately located kg Khaz Formation wm me Fault; approximately located, dotted where — greenstone, greenschist, amphibolite @ @ © © concealed FIGURE 3-3. GENERALIZED BEDROCK GEOLOGY OF SILVER BAY - GREEN LAKE AREA. SOURCE: FERC STAFF vI-€ 3-15 of these rocks have been altered to biotite schist and gneiss by contact metamorphism due to intrusion by the Indigo Lake Pluton. Southeast of the Medvejie Lake fault, the Khaz Forma- tion consists largely of greenschist and greenstone, some of which has been altered to amphibolite by contact metamorphism near the Indigo Lake Pluton. The Sitka Graywacke, which is younger than the Khaz Formation, consists mostly of tightly folded, very hard, poorly sorted, massive graywacke. The Sitka Graywacke also contains a few.very hard interbeds of phyllite (metamorphosed shale). At least one nearly vertical phyllite interbed, 10 to 20 feet thick, crosses the site of the proposed powerhouse; a few thin interbeds cross the proposed tunnel alignment and the proposed dam site. The metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks of the Silver Bay-Green Lake region are intensely folded into tight, isoclinal folds. Bedding, or layering, and foliation dip very steeply and are often vertical. The strike of bedding and foliation and the trend of the dominent fold axes are northwest. The rocks in the project area are also commonly jointed. Most of the joints are very steep or nearly vertical; their major strike direction is northeast. The Neva Strait fault, which passes beneath Silver Bay from the northwest, near Sawmill Creek, is part of the Sitka fault zone. The fault "splits" near Bear Cove. The north branch passes about 3,000 feet northeast of the damsite. The south branch passes about 1,200 feet southwest of the power- house site and about 2,400 feet southwest of the damsite. These two branches of the Neva Strait fault are part of a complex group of south-southeast-trending en echelon faults and other southeast-trending faults that comprise a transition zone between the Neva Strait fault and the northern end of the south-southeast-trending Patterson Bay fault (also part of the Sitka fault zone), located about 7 miles east of Green Lake. Much of the region's topography was formed by the beginning of the Pleistocene epoch (about 2 million years ago). Many of the land features, particularly the drainage patterns, were and continue to be influenced or controlled by faults and joints in the bedrock. Erosion and deposition by Pleistocene (2 million to 10,000 years ago) alpine and continental glacia- tion and by post-Pleistocene glaciers have further modified the topography to its present configuration. The principal process of erosion and slope reduction at present is soil mass movement, which includes various types of creep, slides, flows, avalanches, and falls. 3-16 Compact glacial till deposited by Pleistocene glaciers is the parent material for many of the soils in the project area. Another soil parent material is alluvium, primarily alluvial fan (delta), floodplain, and terrace deposits, as well as some beach deposits. Among these are alluvial fan, floodplain, and terrace deposits that have filled in part of the original Green Lake bedrock basin in the Vodopad River valley bottom, from the east end of the lake upstream through the eastern end of the proposed reservoir. Another example is the alluvial fan, or delta, at the mouth of Bear Creek at Bear Cove. Other parent materials for soils in the project area are unconsolidated deposits of colluvium (rock fragments and soil material moved by soil mass movement or local wash and deposited at the base of slopes), residuum (weathered bed- rock), and organics (accumulations of decayed forest debris). The climate of the area has had a strong influence on the development of the soils. High rainfall, cool summer temperatures, a short growing season, and moderately low soil temperatures allow accumulation, at the surface and in the soils, of an abundance of organic material and iron oxides, both of which strongly attract and hold water. Thus, many of the differentiating soil characteristics, and the vegetation which is supported, are largely reflective of the soil depths, slopes, their ability to drain, and the permeability of the underlying materials. The following soil descriptions are based on information included in a report of the Green Lake area biotic communities by Hoopes (1977). Deep, moderately well- to well-drained soils, consisting mainly of silt loams containing gravel and cobbles, often over- lain by a gray, leached horizon, are found on many of the foot- slopes, lower slopes, benches, and elevated alluvial terraces in the area. These soils support good stands of Sitka spruce and western hemlock. More complex, comparatively shallow, well-drained soils occur on some side slopes underlain by highly fractured gray- wacke bedrock. These soils support good stands of predominatly western hemlock with lesser amounts of Sitka spruce. Shallow to deep, imperfectly drained, black, mucky soils occur on some less productive slopes and support mostly western hemlock. Some of these soils are "thixotropic"; that is, they have a strong tendency to become fluid when disturbed, as by shaking. Poorly drained, brown to black, greasy, woody, mucky peat, which often occurs as transitional zones between muskeg 3-17 and timbered areas, is found on some gentle side slopes or benches near the outlet of Green Lake. These soils support scrubby, somewhat open stands of western and mountain hem- lock, Alaska cedar, and a scattering of Sitka spruce. Very poorly drained, spongy, boggy, muskeg soils, consisting of dark reddish brown, partially decomposed, firm, woody, sedge peat, underlain by compact glacial till, occur in the vicinity of the proposed contractor work area at the dam site. These soils support a scattered, poor, open stand of lodgepole pine, Alaska cedar, and mountain hemlock. Their use is severely limited by wetness and low-bearing strength; the water table is at or within about 12 inches of the surface. A thick base and added drainage are required for good roads. 3.5.3 Geological Hazards and Problems Potential geological hazards in the Silver Bay-Green Lake area include earthquakes, soil mass movement, soil erosion, submarine slides, stream floods, high-water waves, and volcanic activity. The principal sources for this section are Brew, Muffler, and Loney (1969); Harris and others (1974); Swanston (1974); and Yehle (1974, and 1978, personal communication). None of the known major faults in the project vicinity -- the Medvejie Lake fault and the two branches of the Neva Strait fault -- are believed to have been active in the recent geologic past and none show signs of potential activity in the foresee- able future (Yehle, 1974), but they should not necessarily be considered "dead." Ground shaking by earthquake activity out- side the project area is to be expected within any projected life-expectancy of the proposed project. Predicted intensities and their probable occurrences are discussed in Subsection 2.4.1. Potential hazards which could occur due to ground shaking include local compaction and settlement of alluvial and delta deposits; liquefaction of saturated muskeg deposits and uniform sand or coarse silt beds in alluvial and delta deposits; land- slides, avalanches, and other types of soil mass movement; and landsliding of submarine delta fronts. The hazard of potentially damaging large tsunamis, seiches, and other earthquake-induced water waves also exists in the Silver Bay-Green Lake area. Large landslides, which occurred along the sides of Silver Bay before historic records, could have been triggered by earth- quakes and could have generated waves of substantial height (Yehle, 1974). Similar waves could be generated in the future. Slopes in the Silver Bay-Green Lake area and throughout southeastern Alaska have been oversteepened by glacial erosion and other geologic influences, and are frequently steeper than 3-18 the stable angle for the soils on the slopes. Consequently, soil mass movement is the principal process of erosion and slope reduction in the area. Landslides, avalanches, creep, flows, falls, and other types of soil mass movement occur on steeper slopes throughout the area, usually during or immedi- ately after periods of heavy rainfall. Soil mass movement could occur when soils are saturated and are experiencing rapid snowmelt, as in seasonal freezing and thawing, or as a result of clearing of protective vegetative cover, road con- struction, and other alterations of slopes by man's activities. The hazard of erosion of soils by rainfall and surface runoff, particularly on steeper surfaces, also exists when protective vegetative cover is removed and when soils are otherwise dis- turbed naturally, such as by landsliding, or by various of man's activities. Numerous landslides, avalanches, and active talus (landslide debris) areas occur on the steep slopes of the Silver bay fjord along the proposed access road route. A few areas of talus occur along the south shore of Green Lake, and avalanche chutes have developed on the slope high above the north shore, but none of the chutes extends into the area of the proposed reservoir itself. Stream flooding, usually caused by heavy fall rains or by rapid snowmelt, could pose problems at the Bear Creek access road crossing or at the dam. Large water waves could result from non-earthquake-induced landslides or submarine slides into Silver Bay, by storm waves or by other waves originating in the Pacific Ocean (Yehle, 1974). Renewed volcanic activity on or near Kruzof Island is another possible geologic hazard. The closest volcanic vents on the island are about 15.5 miles west of Herring Cove and about 19.5 miles west-northwest of the proposed powerhouse and dam sites. The last major eruption, about 9,000 years ago, included widespread deposition of airfall, volcanic ash, and lapilli over much of Chichagof, northern Baranof, and other nearby islands. Minor periods of volcanic activity accompanied by thin ash deposition have since occurred. The date of deposition of one thin ash layer has been estimated at some- where between 3,000 and 700 years ago; no historic eruption activity has been substantiated (Yehle, 1974). There is apparently no geologic evidence that would suggest renewed volcanic activity in the near future or dur- ing the lifetime of the project, but the possibility, although remote, still exists. The following possible associated hazards are therefore considered. The distribution of volcanic ash and lapilli deposits largely east and north of Kruzof Island (Brew, Muffler, and Loney, 1969), was governed by then prevailing wind directions. Some ash deposition is reported near Sawmill Creek 3-19 at the north end of Silver Bay (Yehle, 1978, personal communica- tion), but none has been documented at the southern end of the bay in the Green Lake vicinity. Present prevailing winds are from the northwest during the months of June, July, and August. Eruptions of volcanic ash during those months or during other times when west to northwest winds prevail could have profound effects on the Silver Bay-Green Lake area. Airfall material from a large eruption could load and possibly collapse project building roofs. Floating and water-suspended ash could clog the power tunnel intake structure and outlet works, and could cause abrasion of the turbines. The greatest potential hazard associated with a volcanic eruption would be ash-laden torrential rains, which could cause flooding and could trigger landslides and other soil mass movement on moderate and steep slopes through- out the area. Volcanic earthquakes could generate damaging water waves and cause ground-shaking problems. 3.5.4 Species and Ecosystems 3.5.4.1 Vegetation The forest on Baranof Island, on which the proposed project would be located, is a segment of a larger, continuous, temperate rain forest that extends along the coast of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, and for about 900 miles along the coast of Alaska, from its southern tip to Cook Inlet and Kodiak Island in the south-central portion of the state. The forest is composed primarily of western hemlock (Isuga heterophylla) and Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), with scattered stands of western red cedar (Thuja plica) and Alaska cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis). Other common tree species include ack cottonwood (Populous trichocarpa), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and less commonly found species, such as subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) and Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis). Generally, the prime timber stands are located near the tidewater along Silver Bay, and diminish progressively in quality and quantity from the bay, up the slopes, to timberline. Because of the abundant rainfall and resulting high humidity, mosses grow in great profusion on the forest floor, on fallen logs, and on the lower branches of the trees in the forest (Viereck, 1974). Suppressed alders (Alder spp.) and willows (Salix spp.) sprawl beneath the canopy in the more open spaces of the forest. Important shrub species are: salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Pacific red elder (Sambucus callicarpa), devil's club (Oplopanax horridus), and currant (Ribes spp. Many ferns and focbe are abundant on the forest floor. These include: fancy fern (Aspidium spinulosum), holly fern (Polysitchium braunii), spleenwort Asplenium filixfoemina) , 3-20 and wood fern (Dryopteris dilata), and geranium (Geranium erianthum), rattlesnake root (Prenanthes alata), shooting star (@odecatheon anserina), thread moss (Minium glabrescens), and ostrich-plumed feather moss (Ptilium crista-castrensis) (Shelford, 1963). Treeless bogs or "muskegs" occur within the forest in depressions, flat areas, or gentle slopes with poor drain- age. Vegetation is variable, but most commonly consists of thick mats of sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), low shrubs, and lichens. Ponds are also present in the peat substrate. Characteristic species of these bog communities include: bog rosemary (Andromeda olifolia), crowberry (Empetrum nigrum), common juniper Cunt erus communis), bog Kalmia (Kalmia polifolia), Labrador tea (Ledum roenlandicum), rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea), willows (Salix spp.), bog cranberry (Vaccinium onyecoreus » moun- tain cranberry (Vaccinium vitas-idaea), and bog ueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum) (Shelford, 1963). Open forest stands growing upon primarily organic soils are interspersed between the muskeg and dense rain forest. These forests are slow in growth and consist of poor stands of mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), western hemlock, Alaska cedar, lodgepole pine, and Sitka spruce. The open canopy of these forest communities permits sufficient sunlight to pene- trate the forest floor, which supports a dense understory of blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), rusty menziesia, salmonberry, thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus), and numerous other shrubs and herbs. 3.5.4.2 Wildlife Baranof Island provides a suitable habitat to support a healthy population of brown bear (Ursus arctos), the largest terrestrial carnivore on earth. The brown and grizzly bear are generally considered to be of the same species. Bears of the southern Alaskan coast are usually called brown bears, and bears of northern Alaska or the interior are usually called grizzly bears. The size of the brown bear (up to 1,300 pounds) is larger than that of the interior grizzly. This difference in size has been linked to a richer food supply for the brown bear, and especially to the diet of protein-rich salmon that is generally available to coastal bears (ADFG, 1973). Grizzly bears of the interior exist predominantly on grasses and herbs during the spring, supplementing this diet with fruit and berry-produc- ing plants during the fall. Studies by the U.S. Forest Service and ADFG suggest that Baranof Island has a brown bear population of something less than 1,000 animals (ADFG, 1976). Sport hunting has been the dominant use of the brown bear resources of southeastern Alaska. In 1975, a record kill of 105 brown bears was taken from the Admirality, Baranof, and Chichagof Islands. Baranof Island has histori- 3-21 cally accounted for about 15 percent of the total kill from the islands, (ADFG, 1976). The brown bear is known to inhabitat the project area (Staff observation, 1978). No bears have been reported to have been killed in the project area during the annual hunting season, however, and the local biologist from ADFG does not consider the project area to be important bear habitat (1978, personal communication). Although black bears (Ursus americanus) are widely distributed over about three-fourths of Alaska, none are found on Baranof Island. (ADFG, 1976). The natural range of the mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) in Alaska extends from the southeasternmost tip of Alaska, north along the entire coast of Cook Inlet; inland; and then north almost to Mount McKinley in central Alaska (ADFG, 1973). Mountain goats were introduced on Baranof Island in 1923. These goats now occupy most of the suitable habitat on the island. Aerial surveys of the Baranof goat herds have been conducted sporadically since 1954 by ADFG. The number of goats observed ranged from 116 in 1960 to 263 in 1954. In 1973, 253 goats were counted (ADFG, 1976). Inclement weather on the island has precluded comprehensive surveys, but based on actual sitings and other techniques for predicting numbers of the herd, the Baranof goat population is estimated to be about 300 animals. A 1973 big-game survey of the Vodopad River drainage by ADFG recorded five goats. Three goats were harvested from the project area during the 1975 hunting season. Mountain goats prefer the high alpine meadows of the mountain ranges during the warm summer months, and are often found on the slopes in rugged, broken terrain with cliffs, ledges, pinnacles, and talus slopes. In winter, they migrate to lower elevations near the timberline where more food is available. Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis) are found in relative abundance on Baranof Island and within the project area, and are the most abundant big-game species in southeastern Alaska. Reports from Silver Bay and Herring Cove indicate that 33 deer were harvested from these areas during the 1975 hunting season (Hoopes, 1977), but none were reported to have been taken specifically from the Green Lake area. The only serious predator of the deer on the island is the brown bear, since the wolf (Canis lupis), the primary predator of deer populations throughout Alaska, is not found on the island. The shoreline of Silver Bay and the vicinity of the project provide good to poor deer habitat. During the winter, most deer are forced to move below an elevation of 750 feet msl. The carrying capacity of this critical habitat is most important for the survival of the herd. Baranof 3-22 Island and other nearby islands have some of the poorest range conditions and yet support the most deer per square mile of any available habitat. The lack of predation by wolves on the islands apparently contributes to a larger deer population. Silver Bay provides a suitable habitat for a number of marine mammal species. Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) are relatively abundant. Population size is controlled primarily by the availability of food, while predation by killer whales and sharks, as well as by man, provides some control of the seals. The seals are primarily fish eaters, and often compete with fishermen for certain species of sport and commercially valuable fish. Harbor seals were once hunted extensively as a source of food and clothing, but are now protected. Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubata) are abundant along the southeastern coast and may be found on occasion in Silver Bay. Sea lion habitat can be found nearly anywhere along the coast, although the best habitat is on the remote islands that have extensive shallow water and rocky bottoms with productive sea life. The Pacific coast of Baranof Island Pees ieaieee large populations of sea otters (Enhydra lutris). In the 19th century, commercial fur hunters exterminated the sea otter from these coastal waters, as well as from most of the areas of the otter's range along the. entire Pacific coast. Between 1965 and 1967, sea otters were transplanted into the Management unit which included the Baranof Island area. A well-established population of sea otters now inhabits Yokobi Island, just off the northwest coast of Chicagof Island (ADFG, 1976). Otters are also occasionally seen in inland waters and may infrequently occur in Silver Bay. Several species of whales can be found in the waters off the southeastern coast and may occur in Silver Bay. These species include the sperm (Physeter catodon), Sei (Baleanoptera borealis), gray (Eschrichtius gibbosus) , minke (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), an iller whale (Orcinus orca). The Pacific whiteside dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obli uidens), dall porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), and harbor porpoise ocoena hocoena) occur in Alaskan coastal waters. The mammals are abundant in inshore waters during the winter, and May occur in the project area around Silver Bay (ADFG, 1976; National Marine Fisheries, 1978, personal conversation). They feed on several species of commercially valuable fish, such as herring, cod, flounder, and sardines, and are often caught in fishermen's nets. 3-23 The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 now affords protection to all marine mammals, and reduces the loss of mammals by hunting and fishing. Small game species are relatively abundant within the project area. The willow ptarmigan (Lagopus lagopus) is found in the project area, living in the willow and alder flats and the foothills near the timberline during the summer and fall, and moving to a lower riparian habitat during the winter. Blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus) may be found in the spruce-hemlock forest surrounding Green Lake and along the proposed access road near Silver Bay. Spruce grouse (Canachites canadensis) and ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) are not commonly found in the project area. Several species of furbearers have wide distribution in Alaska, but southeastern Alaska has relatively few species of furbearers, although large numbers of any one species may occur. Marten (Martes americana) was introduced to Baranof Island in 1934 and may now occur in the project area. Other important furbearers that may be found in the Green Lake area include beaver (Castor canadensis), mink (Mustela erminea), and red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) (Meehan, 1974). Southeastern Alaska annually supports millions of water- fowl that are enroute to and from breeding grounds in northern Alaska and Canada. Breeding habitat in southeastern Alaska is limited by the steep mountainous terrain. There are no major production areas in the project area, although the small sedge flats at the head of Silver Bay and at the deltas of small streams entering the Bay could collectively support a substan- tial number of birds. Most of the world's population of Vancouver Canada geese (Branta canadensis fulva) breeds in southeastern Alaska and remains there throughout the year. Some are known to exist in the Green Lake area. Game Unit 4, a division of land and water provinces established by ADFG for wildlife management purposes, includes the Baranof Island and adjacent islands of the southeast. Unit 4 provides waterfowl habitat for one-fourth of the breeding ducks and one-third of the breeding Vancouver geese in south- eastern Alaska. A 1970 winter inventory counted 10,200 mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) in Unit 4, but actual populations could be over 20,000 (ADFG, 1973). No estimates are available from the project area, but Green Lake provides likely habitat for mallards. 3-24 Non-game ducks also may be found on Green Lake or near the project area. These include the common merganser (Mergus merganser), scoter (Oidemia nigra), harlequin (Histrionicus histrionicus), king eider (Smateria spectabilis), and old squaw (Clangula hyemalis). Some common dabbling ducks found on and around Baranof Island and that are most likely to be in the project area include: the pintail (Anas acuta), American widgeon (Marcea americana), green-winged teal (Anas crecca carolinensis), bluewinged teal (Anas discors), and black duck (Anas rubripes) (ADFG, 1976). Diving ducks common to the area are the goldeneye (Bucephala clangula americana), bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), canvasback (Aythya valisineria), redhead cave ya americana), ringneck (Aythya collaris), and ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis). Pelagic and shore birds can also be found in relative abundance in the vicinity of Silver Bay and Green Lake. Species common to the shore and open waters include: petrels (Oceanodroma spp.), plovers (Charadrius spp.), gulls (Larus spp.), Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea), cormorants (Phalacrocorox spp.), auklet (Cerorhinca moncerata), and Horned puffin (Fratercula corniculata). Birds of prey or raptors which would be expected to be located in or near the project vicinity are: the boreal owl (Aegolius funereus), snowy owl (Nyctea scandiaca), great gray owl trix nebulosa), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) , goshawk (Accepiter gentilis), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), marsh hawk (Circus cyaneua), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus bins, 19 leucocephalus) (Rob 66). A variety of perching birds or songbirds may be found in the project area at any one time. Species common to the area are: the wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), junco (Junco spp.), sparrows (Melospiza spp.), kinglet (Regulus spp.), robin (Turdus i ) migratorius), pine siskin (Carduelis pinus), crow (Corvus caurinus), raven (Corvus corox), Secitaria jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), thrushes (Catharus spp.), warblers (Dendroica Spp.), and a variety of other species (Robbins, 1966). 3.5.5 Threatened or Endangered Species No threatened or endangered plant or animal species are known to occur within the project area. On occasion, several previously mentioned whale species, all of which have been declared endangered under provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, may enter Silver Bay and swim to the project vicin- ity near the mouth of the Vodopad River. No adverse effects upon individual animals or the total population should result from these visits. Figure 3-4a. Eagle and nest located on the east shore of Silver Bay. Source: Staff 3-26 SILVER BAY EAGLE SURVEY 1977 HERRING \3 COVE NOTE: EXACT LOCATION OF NESTS IN RELATION TO PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD AND TRANSMISSION LINE ARE NOT KNOWN AT THIS TIME. z te = ACTIVE EAGLE NEST @ = EAGLE NEST (P] POWER STATION \ ROAD (Proposed) “.. TRANSMISSION LINE (Proposed) GREEN LAKE VODOPAD RIVER OUTLET FIGURE 3-4b. SILVER BAY EAGLE SURVEY . SOURCE: U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 3-27 The northern bald eagle population in Alaska is relatively large, but these eagles have not been declared endangered or threatened, and they do not receive protection under the provisions of the 1973 Act, as bald eagles in the lower 48 states do. Two Federal laws, the Bald and Golden Eagles Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, provide protec- tion for the Alaskan eagle population as well as for their nesting trees. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Staff biologists have identified four nesting trees of the northern bald eagle in the project area (Figure 3-4a). Three nesting trees, two active and one inactive, were found along the eastern shore of Silver Bay, near the proposed access road right-of-way, and one inactive nesting tree was found along the western shore of the bay (Figure 3-4b). 3.6 LAND USES 3.6.1 Forest Resources The forested areas of southeastern Alaska are estimated to comprise about 11,201,000 acres, about 46 percent of the total land area. About 4,884,000 acres are considered to have timber of commercial quality; of this, 87 percent is classified as old-growth saw timbers, 150 years old or more. Ninety-two percent of the forest of southeastern Alaska is within the Tongass National Forest. The forest contains at least 9 conifer species and 22 broad leaf species that attain tree size (Harris, 1977). Of these, four species are sought for commercial harvest: western hemlock, Sitka spruce, western red cedar, and Alaska cedar. Mountain hemlock is logged with western hemlock when the two are found in mixed stands. Pacific silver fir and subalpine fir occur in limited areas and may be cut, although neither is sought for harvest separately. Lodge pole pine is used locally for firewood and Christmas trees. Red alder is used for firewood, carvings, and smoking fish (Harris, et al. 1974). The timber resources of southeastern Alaska support an industry which provides over 2,700 jobs for Alaska residents and have an annual production value of about $103 million. The principal wood products produced by sawmills and pulp mills are exported. The Alaska Lumber and Pulp Company (ALPC) was awarded a 50-year contract for the cutting rights to 5.25 billion board feet of timber located on Baranof and Chichagof Islands in 1956. The company established a mill on Silver Bay, near 3-28 the project area, that manufactures hi-alpha cellulose and paper grade pulp from local sources of spruce and hemlock timber (Harris, et al. 1974). Timber stands near the project area are composed primarily of old-growth western hemlock. About 64 percent of the growing stock consists of hemlock. Sitka spruce comprises about 28 percent of the growing stock. Red cedar, some hardwoods, and occasional cottonwoods occur along the Vodopad River and slide areas. On deep, well-drained sites, Sitka spruce volumes may reach 16 million board feet per hectare. Poorly drained soils with a predominantly hemlock overstory may have volumes of 18 million board feet per hectare (Hoopes, 1977). Red alder, Sitka willow, and black cottonwood occur in relatively dense stands on alluvial plains on the Vodopad River, upstream of Green Lake. 3.6.2 Recreational Resources Sitka and its outlying areas have a unique combination of natural features, including glaciers, mountains, inland waterways, fjords, wildlands, and forest lands, which support significant fish and wildlife populations. All of these natural resources provide opportunities for a wide range of recreational opportunities for Baranof Island residents and visitors. Sitka's location, directly on Sitka Sound, near many bays and inlets, provides a wide range of opportunities for water-oriented recreationists. The City of Sitka forms an enclave within the Tongass National Forest. The wilderness solitude offered by the forest and the adjacent lands and waters’ provides a pleasing atmosphere for diversified recreation, such as boating, beachcombing, fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, and photo- graphy, all of which account for most leisure-time activities for area residents. Two campgrounds within the Tongass National Forest are within easy driving distance of Sitka. One 17-unit campground is located about 6 miles northeast of Sitka at Starrigavan Bay, near the ruins of Old Sitka, and the other Forest Service camping area consists of seven camping units along Sawmill Creek, downstream of Blue Lake. The City of Sitka also maintains camping facilities at Halibut Point Recreation Center, located about 4 miles northeast of town, just off Halibut Point Road. 3-29 The Blue Lake Project is accessible by road and provides some freshwater fishing. Nearby streams provide fishing for Dolly Varden trout. Trails near Sitka provide relatively easy access to nearby Thimbleberry and Heart Lakes. Numerous distant recreational opportunities are avail- able to those persons traveling by boat or airplane to other areas around Baranof Island or elsewhere on Sitka Sound. Hiking trails permit access from Silver Bay to Green Lake, Salmon Lake, Salmon Creek, Lucky Chance Mountain, and Redoubt Lake. Fishing and hunting are the two primary recreational activities that Sitka residents pursue. Salmon fishing in the sound is a popular sport, particularly during the spawn- ing run of these anadromous fish. Brown bear, mountain goat, and deer provide ample opportunities for big game hunt- ing in the outlying areas. Within the city, Moller Park offers activity space for baseball, track, and soccer. Swan Lake, also located within the city, has been stocked with trout to provide fishing opportunities for those who prefer less strenuous recreational activities. Located within walking distance of downtown Sitka is the Sitka National Historic Park, under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. The park has a wide variety of attractions. Approximately 2 miles of walkways are construc- ted through dense spruce-hemlock forest. A visitor's center provides an audio-visual program describing the cultural significance of the park. Picnic facilities, fireplaces, tables, and a shelter area are available for those who wish to have an unhurried lunch in the quiet of the surrounding forest. Sitka presently has three major harbors. Crescent, the newest of the harbors, chiefly provides service for recreational boating, but has some services for commercial boating; A.N.B.Harbor is exclusively for commercial boating; and Thomasen Harbor serves all types of boats, including live-aboards. 3.6.3 Power Generation Located approximately 8 miles north of the proposed project is the Applicant's Blue Lake Project, a conventional hydroelectric development which was completed and operational in 1961. This 6,500-kW facility utilizes water from the 1,334-acre Blue Lake Reservoir. The Applicant also owns and operates a 3,150-kW diesel generating plant in the City of Sitka. 3-30 In addition to the electric generating capacity owned by the Applicant, the Alaska Lumber and Pulp Company operates a generating plant adjacent to its pulp mill complex, at the eastern end of Sawmill Creek State Highway at Herring Cove. There is currently one major transmission line within the project area. This extends southward from the Blue Lake Project powerhouse to a point near Thimbleberry Bay and then parallels Sawmill Creek State Highway east to the City of Sitka. 3.6.4 Mineral Extraction The Silver Bay area has been the scene of extensive mineral exploration and some mining since 1871, primarily of lode deposits of gold. The gold occurs with pyrite, arsenopyrite, chalcopyrite, and rare galena and sphalerite, and is found in quartz veins deposited from between the Neva Strait fault and the Patterson Bay fault. The gold-bearing hydrothermal solutions were apparently genetically related to nearby intrusions by Tertiary magmas, and were probably either derived from the magmas or were created when the heat from the magmas mobilized the quartz, gold, and sulfides from the country rock (Loney and others, 1975). All of the known gold-bearing ore bodies in the Silver Bay area have so far contained only low-grade ore, and there has been no recorded production. The only serious attempts at development were outside the project area, at:three abandoned mines on the Lucky Chance Mountain ridge, south- west of Green Lake and outside of the Vodopad River drainage. Many of the claims in the area were made on quartz veins or quartz-rich layers that looked promising, but contained no valuable minerals whatsoever. A few inactive gold claims and prospects are located in or near the project area. One claim, on the north side of Green Lake, a short distance from the shore of the lake (the exact location is not specified), is reported to have been worked in the 1920's and 1930's (Ackerman, 1977). A short tunnel of unknown origin is reported to have been in existence by about 1919, just above the high tide elevation on the south side of the bight on Silver Bay into which the Vodopad River (Green Lake outlet) flows (Ackerman, 1977). A shaft (Robert's Tunnel), reported to have been sunk near the outlet to Green Lake on the south shore of Silver Bay in 1936 (Ackerman, 1977), could possibly be at the same location as the 1919 tunnel, or could be at another location indicated on the U. S. Geological Survey Port Alexander (D-4), Alaska, topographic map, at about elevation 240 feet, approximately 800 feet southeast of the mouth of the Vodopad River. 3-31 At least two prospects, the Baranof Queen prospect and the Silver Bay prospect, are reported along the shore of Silver Bay between the Vodopad River outlet and Bear Cove a third prospect, the Henrietta prospect, would have been a considerable distance upslope from the shoreline and the proposed access road (Knopf, 1912). Evidence of mining activity, possibly at the Baranof Queen prospect, is reported at a temporary camp site at Point Rasal (Ackerman, 1977). The Edgecumbe Exploration Co., Inc., presently owns a chain of mining claims located outside the project area. The claims lie along the southwest shore of Silver Bay and along the south branch of the Neva Strait fault, in the stream valley that drains the Pinta Lakes, immediately southwest of the Vodopad River valley. Two unpatented mining claims are owned by Joseph Gangola on the proposed access road route on the northeast shore of Silver Bay, about halfway between Herring Cove and Bear Cove. The claims are in two tungsten-bearing, quartziferous veins, located about 700 feet from the shore at about elevation 220 feet. Tests and assays of samples indicate that recovery of tungsten would be very good, and that recovery of some gold and silver could also be expected. Further exploration to determine the size and exact location of the ore bodies is planned for the 1978 field season (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1978). 3.7 SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS The relatively small size and geographic isolation of the City and Borough of Sitka require that its economy be supported by one or more fairly stable industries that sell goods and services to customers located outside the area, and also that wage rates be sufficiently high and living conditions attractive enough to induce workers to migrate to the area. The first condition stems from the need to obtain income to import goods and services that cannot be produced economically in the area, while the second condition results from the fact that it is difficult for non-residents of Sitka to commute to jobs based in Sitka. Conversely, residents of Sitka cannot conveniently commute outside the area. 3-32 Because commutation into and out of Sitka is difficult, the growth of the area's household population is totally dependent upon the expansion of local employment. As discussed in the following subsection, the primary factors behind Sitka's growth since the late 1950's have been the establishment of a major logging and pulp manufacturing opera- tion by the Alaska Lumber and Pulp Company; the expansion of commercial fishing and fish processing facilities; the reloca- tion of several Federal government agency offices to Sitka; and the development of a viable tourist industry. 3.7.1 Employment and Income In 1975, the latest year for which data are available, Sitka's economy generated 4,490 jobs and $60.7 million income for employees and proprietors. Manufacturing, the area's most important industry, accounts for 34 percent of total labor and proprietors income (Table 3-4). One firm, the Alaska Lumber and Pulp Company, produces most of the manufacturing income. Established in 1957, it uses the area's abundant supply of spruce and hemlock to manufacture pulp. This is shipped to Japan to produce rayon (Comprehensive Development Plan, 1976). Fish processing, the next most important manufacturing activity, experienced a major setback in 1973, when a fire destroyed the Sitka Cold Storage Company's fish freezing plant. Although this facility has not been rebuilt, the Sitka Sound Seafood Corporation, the area's other fish processing establishment, expanded its capacity in 1974 to accommodate the local commercial fishing industry. The latter involves a fleet of over 100 fishing vessels and approximately 150 seasonal work- ers. In 1973, Sitka Sound Seafood employed 15 permanent and 38 seasonal workers to process 900,000 pounds of fish and 600,000 pounds of crab, which had a total ex-vessel value of $850,000 (Comprehensive Development Plan, 1976). Federal and state governmental activities in Sitka represent the next most important element of the area's basic economic sector. The largest employers within this sector are the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which operates a secondary school for Native Americans, and the U.S. Public Health Service, which operates an 82-bed hospital. 3-33 Table 3-4. Labor and Proprietors Income by Major Industry, Sitka Division, 1975 Industry Group Income Percentage Manufacturing $20,767 34.2% Contract Construction 3,452 5.7 Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities 3,544 5.8 Wholesale and Retail Trade 3,364 5.5 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 1,661 2.7 Personal, Repair, Business, Medical, Legal, Educational, and Tourist Services 1/ 5,288 8.7 Federal Civilian Government 12,051 19.9 Federal Military Personnel 1,627 Zot State and Local Government 7,459 12.3 Other 2/ 1,510 2.5 Total $60,723 100.0% 1/ Includes only private sector employees. 2/ Includes income of mining, fishing, and household workers. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economics Information System, Table 5, unpublished data, 1978. 3-34 As shown in Table 3-5, Federal and state government agencies in Sitka employed approximately 470 more persons in 1975 than in 1970. Most of this employment expansion resulted from the establishment of new facilities. For example, in 1974, the U.S. Forest Service moved the head- quarters. of its Chatham District of the Tongass National Forest from Juneau to Sitka. This office currently employs 118 persons, including 85 who moved to Sitka (Schmidt, 1978, personal communication). Another major development has been the transfer of the U.S. Coast Guard's Annette Island air station from a location near Ketchikan to Sitka. This move was predicated upon the new missions of monitoring the Alaska oil pipeline tanker traffic and patrolling a 200-mile fishery conservation zone created by Congress. A total of 19 officers and 96 enlisted men were involved in this move (Schmidt, 1978, personal communi- cation). Tourism has become another major industry to Sitka. Currently, 70 percent of all visitors are passengers aboard cruise ships that berth at Sitka for the day. Overnight stays have been discouraged by the lack of first-class transient accommodations. This problem should be solved after the two hotel facilities that were under construction in April 1978 open to the public. These are the 80-room Sheffield House and the 102-room Shee Atika Lodge (Schmidt, 1978, personal communication). 3.7.2 Population Growth As discussed above, Sitka's population expands or contracts in direct response to increases or decreases in local employment opportunities. Following the transfer of the capitol of Alaska from Sitka to Juneau in 1906, Sitka's population declined. As shown in Table 3-6, the city's population remained relative stable until the establishment of a commercial fishing industry about 1935. During the Second World War, a major U.S. Army and Navy base was developed on Japonski Island, part of the Borough of Sitka. The base brought a considerable number of military personnel to the area. Following the war, the base was closed, and its buildings were transferred to the Alaska Native Service to be used as a boarding school and hospital for Native Americans from southeastern Alaska. Consequently, the out-migration of officers and enlisted men was followed by the in-migration of students and workers. 3-35 Table 3-5. Employment Change by Major Industry Group, Sitka Division, 1970-1975 Average Yearly Change in Employment 1/ Employment Industry Group 1970 1975 1970-1975 Fishing 70 90 20 Manufacturing 527 430 -97 Contract Construction 160 314 154 Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 245 392 147 Wholesale and Retail Trade 316 524 208 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 63 133 70 Personal, Repair, Business, Medical, Legal, Educational, and Tourist Services 2/ 555 619 64 Federal Civilian Government 487 856 369 Federal Military Personnel 141 is3 -8 State Government 118 221 103 Local Government 285 350 65 Non-farm Proprietors 256 299 43 Other 3/ 80 129 49 Total Employment 4/ 3,303 4,490 1,187 1/ Includes both full and part-time workers. 2/ Includes only private sector employees. 3/ Includes mining and household workers. 4/ Excludes unpaid family workers. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economics Information System, Table 25, unpublished data, 1978; and City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska, Comprehensive Develop- ment Plan, November 1976. 3-36 Table 3-6. Past and Projected Population Within the City of Sitka and the Sitka Census Division, 1900-1990. City of Balance of Sitka Census Year Sitka Division Division 1/ 1900 2/ 1,396 na na 1910 2/ 1,039 na na 1920 3/ P75 L175 2,350 1930-3/ 1,056 1,036 2,092 1940 3/ 1,987 1,408 3.395 1950 3/ 1,985 2,565 5/ 4,550 1960 3/ 3,237 3,453 5/ 6,690 1970 3/ 3,370 2,739 5/ 6,109 1975 4/ na na 7,100 1980 4/ na na 7,900 1985 4/ na na 8,650 1990 4/ na. na 9,400 na = Data are unavailable. Areas included within the Sitka Census Division were changed in 1960 and 1970. They currently include the entire City and Borough of Sitka. Hubbell & Waller, Engineers, 1958 Comprehensive Plan, of Population of Sitka, Alaska. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population, 1940, 1950, 1960, and 1970. City d Plan, November 1976, and Borough of Sitka, Alaska, Comprehensive Development Native Americans who reside in dormitories at Mt. Edgecumbe High School, operated by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, were counted as residents of Mt. Edgecumbe in 1950 and 1960 but were excluded in 1970. 3-37 During the late 1950's and early 1960's, the develop- ment of logging and pulp manufacturing facilities by the Alaska Lumber and Pulp Company was the primary impetus behind Sitka's population growth. More recently, the expansion of government employment has been the primary factor behind population in-migration. In April 1978, the total population of the Sitka Census Division, which includes the entire City and Borough of Sitka, was estimated to be 7,500 persons. Population projections in- cluded in Sitka's 1976 Comprehensive Development Plan indicate that the number of area residents will total 7,900 in 1980, 8,650 in 1985, and will reach 9,400 by the year 1990. 3.7.3 Housing Population expansion usually implies a need for addi- tional housing. As shown in Table 3-7, Sitka's recent popula- tion influx has resulted in a substantial increase in residential construction activity. Because of the relatively small size of the local housing market, the high rates of interest for con- struction funds, and a limited supply of venture capital, almost all of the area's new housing units are built under contract. Few units are constructed on a speculative basis. Consequently, the number of units which are available for sale or for rent is insignificant (Schmidt, 1978, personal communication). Based on data from the 1970 Census of Housing and build- ing permits issued, the planning director of the City and Borough of Sitka estimates that the area's housing stock currently totals 2,578 units, including 1,182 single-family houses, 380 duplex units, 503 units in multi-family structures, and 513 mobile homes. As indicated above, very few of these are available for prospec- tive buyers or renters. 3.7.4 Local Government The recent population influx into the area and the increased pace of residential construction activity within Sitka has resulted in the need to expand local government services, such as general government administration, police and fire protection, municipal water supply, and public education. 3-38 Table 3-7. Annual Residential Construction Activity Within the Sitka Census Division, 1971- 1977 Year New Housing Units Single Multi Mobile Family Duplex Family Home Total 1971 19 2 - - 21 1972 27 8 - - 35 1973 30 14 12 41 97 1974 40 16 12 22 90 1975 33 18 6 - 57 1976 78 16 11 31 136 1977 _57 56 28 A 152 Total Number 284 130 69 105 588 Percentage 43.3% 22.1% 11.7% 17.9% ° 100.0% Source: City and Borough of Sitka, official building permit records. 3-39 Because public education usually absorbs more than half of all local governmental expenditures, school enroll- ment trends are carefully monitored by local officials. Enrollment in Sitka's four elementary schools, which declined from 952 in 1970-71 to 757 in 1975-76, increased in both 1976- 77 and in 1977-78. Total public school enrollment in the Sitka School District expanded by almost 100 within the past year. Clearly, the area's current population expansion is placing increasing demands on the area's public school system. If recent trends continue, enrollment in the area's elementary schools and one high school may soon exceed the maximum capa- cities of those schools. 3.8 VISUAL RESOURCES 3.8.1 Description of Visual Resources An estimated 1,500 acres of land would be required for proposed project facilities. This land area is rural in character, with a rugged and even austere quality that is not unlike the surrounding environs, as well as most of southeastern Alaska. Project lands are steep, heavily forested, and relatively inaccessible, and are therefore essentially undeveloped, with the exception of limited mineral extractions and some recreation. Almost all of the proposed project lands lie within the Tongass National Forest (Figure 3-5). 3.8.1.1 Green Lake Approximately 12 percent of proposed project lands is currently inundated by Green Lake, which is a naturally occurring lake created by a barrier falls at the mouth of the Vodopad River. The lake lies in a U-shaped valley with high, rising slopes. Flows from the lake cascade through a narrow, 20-to-40-foot-wide, deep canyon into the steep-walled tidal fjord at the head of Silver Bay. In the horizontal dis- tance of about 1,500 feet from Green Lake to Silver Bay, the water descends a total of 230 feet, and intermittent vertical drops within that distance of 20 to 30 feet are repeated throughout. The U-shaped valley containing Green Lake averages less than 3,280 feet in width for the first 4 miles, heading generally east from the barrier falls, and then narrows abruptly to about the width of the river, until it reaches its beginning at a glacier-topped headwall, almost 3,000 feet above the valley floor (Figure 3-6). 3-40 Figure 3-5. Surrounding environment of the Green Lake area, showing steep, forested slopes of rugged and austere quality. Arrow indicates Green Lake location. Source: Staff Figure 3-6. Green Lake, surrounded by mountains and its outlet into the Vodopad River, which cascades through a series of falls to Silver Bay. Source: Staff 3-41 A rim of peaks 3,900 to 4,900 feet high, with slopes exceeding 75 percent grade, extends steeply upward and surrounds the shores of Green Lake. These peaks and connecting ridges are densely forested up to a timberline at about 2,000 feet. Snow covers these mountains almost all year, and some snow persists year-round in the small protected depressions near the summits (Figure 3-7). The Vodopad River flows into the east end of the lake, and out at the extreme west end. The lake is shallow, averaging about 40 feet in depth, is approxi- mately 1 1/4 miles long, and averages about 1,000 feet in width. The lake is generally "hour-glass" in shape, with the midsection approximately a third of the way from the barrier falls. The pinched area is caused by a shallow sand bar and small island that separates the east and west basins. 3.8.1.2 Silver Bay Shoreline Silver Bay is a narrow fjord, averaging 2,625 feet in width, It runs approximately 5 miles in a southeasterly direction from the end of the Eastern Channel, which is just south of Sitka (Figure 3-8). The bay, which has been eroded hundreds of feet deeper than adjacent subsurfaces, has a sharply descending, submerged shore. In one area (Bear Cove) of the eastern shore, submerged slopes are steeper than a one to one ratio. Land above the tidal waters rises precipitiously to a series of peaks and ridges, at about 4,000 feet in elevation along the eastern shore (Figure 3-9), and somewhat lower on the western shore (Figure 3-10). These peaks and ridges are similar to those surrounding Green Lake in terms of forest cover, timberline, and snow cover. Three principle coves, Sawmill, Herring, and Bear Coves, notch the bay's eastern shore from north to south, respectively. Evidence of landslides and avalanche chutes are visible throughout the land area between Herring and Bear Coves (Figure 3-11). The southern section, between Bear Cove and the Vodopad outlet, exhibits gullies, more landslides, and 40-to-50 foot-high vertical rock bluffs. In addition to the various natural visual characteristics just described, the shores of the bar are used extensively by ALPC to anchor log rafts for future use (Figure 3-12). Pleasure boating and sport fishing are evident on the bay most of the year. 3.8.2 Assessment of Visual Resources The visual resources of the project area must be assessed mainly from the air or water since the dense forests and topography limit views from the land. 3-42 Figure 3-7. Green Lake in middle-ground, with surrounding mountains showing dense forest, timberline, and snow-covered peaks. Source: Staff Figure 3-8. On Silver Bay, looking northwest, showing the bay as a narrow fjord. Source: Staff Figure 3-9. Looking northwest. East shore of Silver Bay is on the right, showing the precipitious rise of the land from the shore. Source: Staff Figure 3-10. Looking southwest at the western shore of Silver Bay. Source: Staff 3-44 Figure 3-11. Avalanche chute on east shore of Silver Bay, south of Herring Cove. Source: Staff Figure 3-12. Log rafts anchored to the east shore of Silver Bay, south of Herring Cove. Source: Staff 3-45 From the air, project lands can be seen by the viewer from many angles and for differing lengths of time, but distance is an important limiting factor. In most instances, a 1l-mile distance away from project lands either severely limits or elim- inates that which was in full view at a closer distance. Steep slopes, high peaks and ridges, and the shapes of the peaks, ridges, valleys, and water bodies intrude upon the viewer and that which was viewed. (See Figure 3-6.) Seen by boat, only the foreground or edges that would be a part of project lands are within view. While the land surface viewed is great in terms of acres, the precipitous nature of the land means that the actual horizontal viewing distance will be relatively short. These views are in effect diagonal, with an inherent loss of depth. A different viewing situation is'’possible after being transported to the viewing areas by boat or airplane (heli- copter or floatplane) and then continuing on foot (Figure 3-13). Views seen on foot, in and around the proposed project lands, are limited, and few instances exist where minor vistas are possible. The basic limiting factors are the surrounding dense forest, the precipitious slopes throughout, and the intruding land features already mentioned. Distance again is a limiting factor in the few instances where minor vistas are possible. A person could hike to the area, but there are no existing trails, and the hike represents a significant undertaking. Project lands viewed from the water, either Green Lake or Silver Bay, exhibit enclosed landscape characteristics (Figure 3-14). A few instances exist, such as viewing the Green Lake outlet from the lake itself, and viewing the water falls at the end of the Vodopad River from Silver Bay, where convergence and terminus, respectively, express focal landscape characteristics (Figure 3-15). The surrounding precipitous slopes accentuate this type of landscape. To a viewer standing within the dense forest, on or near project lands, a canopied landscape character is readily discernible (Figure 3-16), and with closer observation, a detailed landscape is comprehended. Another landscape char- acteristic, a dynamic one, is the ephemeral landscape. This characteristic encompasses all of the previously discussed landscape characteristics by modifying them (Figure 3-17. 3-46 Figure 3-13. Staff being transported by launch from a larger boat anchored in Silver Bay. Source: Staff Figure 3-14. Head of Silver Bay from proposed powerhouse location, showing enclosed landscape character, Source: Staff 3-47 Figure 3-15. Outlet of the Vodopad River into Silver Bay, showing focal landscape character. Source: Staff 3-48 Figure 3-16. Staff hiking up through proposed project area toward Green Lake. The dense forested canopy is typical of the area. Source: Staff 3-49 Figure 3-17. Applicant's consultant observing Green Lake and one of the moods reflected by this ephemeral landscape. Source: Staff 3-50 Of the four basic dominance elements (form, line, color and texture), form and line are the two that dominate the project area. Form, created by the mountains that surround Green Lake and Silver Bay, both individually and collectively, exerts a degree of visual influence, power, or dominance. (See Figure 3-7.) Line, a point that has been extended, is anything that is arranged in a row or sequence. The shorelines of Green Lake and Silver Bay, the ridgelines, timberlines, avalanche paths, and surface drainage patterns, are types of line within the project area that exert influence or accentuate the viewed landscape. Snow-covered peaks, lush, green forest, and exposed rock faces exert some color and textural influence, but not to the degree that form and line exert influence. Basic principles, such as contrast, convergence, and enframement affect the dominating elements. The contrast between Green Lake and Silver Bay as horizontal planes, and the near-vertical side slopes of the mountains that surround them, tend to heighten the impact on these forms and the line created by their intersections. The mountains that converge at the Green Lake outlet create highly visible lines that point to, or focus attention on, that outlet or small point in the larger landscape. (See Figure 3-15.) These converging lines also tend to enframe that outlet. A visual analysis of the proposed project area in- dicates strong form and line elements that exert significant influence on existing landscape characteristics. The topography forms wedges, or "V's", which focus the viewer's attention on the Green Lake outlet, the falls below Green Lake, the Silver Bay and Green Lake shorelines, and even the two water bodies themselves. This analysis is further impacted by the observer's state of mind and the context of observation. A galaxy of visual experiences is possible that would vary with the individual viewer. 3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES Long before the coming of white men to southeast Alaska, Tlingit Indians followed salmon streams southward and settled near the mouth of Indian River, at a place which became Sitka. The Tlingit drew upon the region's abundant fish resources, including cod, herring, and especially salmon, 3-51 to satisfy subsistence needs, and supplemented their food supply with game from nearby forests. Wood from the same forests was used to build canoes, to erect homes, to fashion household articles, and to record family and community histories in the form of crests, house posts, and soaring totem poles. Information on Tlingit activities in the Silver Bay- Green Lake area is very sketchy. Silver Bay was within the territory of the Sitka Kiksadi Tlingit, and they possessed use rights to the resources of the region. In the recent past, the region apparently was used as a seasonal hunting and fishing area, but it was not the site of any major settlements. Little is known about settlement patterns in the more distant past (Ackerman, 1977). In 1797, Alexander Baranof, Manager of the Russian- American Fur Company, established a settlement at Starrigavan Bay, 6 miles north of present-day Sitka. The new post, however, was destroyed by the Tlingit, and so another group of Russians under Baranof's leadership returned to the area and drove the Tlingit from their village and fort on Indian River, thereby founding the community of New Archangel. Within a short time, the town became known by the Indian name, Sitka, meaning "at the place." The only record of Russian activity in the Silver Bay region was the establishment of a sawmill in about 1848 or 1850. Located approximately 5 miles from Sitka at Sawmill Creek, it was the second sawmill in the Sitka area. The sawmill was later destroyed, and the site has since become the location of the Alaskan Lumber and Pulp Company. In 1867, declining economic fortunes and political considerations forced Russia to sell all of its Alaskan holdings to the United States. Shortly afterward, the discovery of gold had a direct, if temporary, effect on Sitka and the surrounding region. In 1872 the Stewart Ledge (later called the Cache Mine) was discovered about 1.25 miles east of the head of Silver Bay. A ten stamp mill was built there in 1879, but it was abandoned and fell into ruins. The Bauer Mine was located about 2 miles southwest of the head of Silver Bay, and three claims were situated on the north shore of the bay--Baranof Queen Prospect, Henrietta Prospect, and Silver Bay Prospect (Knopf, 1912, and Ackerman, 1977). Wagon roads were cut to bring machines and supplies to area mines, but they were apparently located south and west of the proposed project area (Ackerman, 1977). 3-52 Early in 1977, the Applicant, in consultation with the regional archeologist for the U.S. Forest Service, contacted Dr. Robert Ackerman of the Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, to propose that an archeological survey be conducted in the areas to be impacted by the pro- posed hydroelectric facility. A contract of agreement was subsequently signed for an archeological survey to be conducted from June 6 through 12, 1977. A memorandum of understanding permitting survey and testing of archeological sites on lands under Forest Service management was worked out between the Laboratory of Anthropolgy and the Forest Service's Alaska Regional Office. Dr. Ackerman and Dr. Peter Mehringer of the Laboratory of Anthropology carried out field investigations consisting of informant interviews and an archeological survey of the proposed project area. The investigators conducted a 6-day ground survey of: (1) the Silver Bay shoreline from Herring Cove to the Green Lake outlet; (2) the shoreline from Green Lake outlet to Salmon Lake outlet; (3) the proposed power- house and damsite areas; (4) both shores of Green Lake; and, (5) the valley bottom and slopes of the Vodopad River above Green Lake. The areas surveyed include those which could be impacted by construction of the access roads, the transmission line, an alternate section of the line, substation area, and the powerplant facilities; they also encompass lands which would be affected by the increased impoundment of Green Lake waters. In the Silver Bay portion of the survey, the archeo- logists reidentified three cabin areas, at Herring Cove, Bear Cove, and the start of a trail to Green Lake. These sites already had been noted on existing maps. A fourth site, a temporary camp at Point Rasal, was also encountered. The camp appeared to be associated with recent mining activity, perhaps in connection with the Baranof Queen Prospect claim, but a scattering of trash and quartzite samples provided the only clues to its use. The Green Lake-Vodopad River region yielded no evidence of cultural resources. All of the sites discovered were poorly preserved. Most of them, judging from materials found nearby or from the recollections of long-time area residents interviewed by Dr. Ackerman, were less than 50 years old. Based on their survey, the investigators concluded that "the access road, power transmission lines, construction road, damsite, power tunnel, powerhouse, work area, and impoundment area will not threaten significant archeological sites. In fact, there appear to be few sites of even inconsequential archeo- logical value within the entire area." 3-53 Commission Staff has also reviewed the National Register of Historic Places to check on possible historic or archeological sites in the project area. Through the May 2, 1978, supplement, the National Register lists 13 properties in the Sitka region, but all of the sites are approximately 10 miles northwest of the project area in the City of Sitka. In addition, the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer has informed the Commission that the project will not affect any properties listed on, or eligible for, the National Register. He has further indicated that the likelihood of encountering significant properties in the project area would be low, and that he agrees with the findings of the Applicant's consulting archeologists. (See Appendix A.) 4-1 4. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION, SUBSEQUENT MITIGATIVE MEASURES PROPOSED, AND ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH ARE UNAVOIDABLE 4.1 AIR QUALITY-CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE 4.1.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts Actions which would create excessive or unwanted impacts on the existing air quality during construction include: (1) agitation of dust from surface blasting and subsequent excavation activities; (2) particulate matter and gases from construction equipment exhausts; (3) open burning of waste material; (4) particulate matter from any concrete-batching plant; and (5) agitation of dust from the normal movement of construction personnel carriers and of machinery and trucks on projects lands. Logging activities associated with clearing of land to increase the capacity of Green Lake and the excavation of the powerhouse, substation, and access roads are intense construction activities, where all the impacts mentioned above are generated to various degrees. The cumulative impact is severe, but localized and temporary in nature. The impacts are also somewhat tempered by the frequent precipitation in the area, Subsequent operation and maintenance of the proposed Green Lake Project would have indirect beneficial impacts on air quality in the vicinity of Sitka by substantially reducing the need to operate 8,600-kW of diesel-generating capacity located near the city. 4.1.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed The Applicant would require its contractors to comply with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) criteria for air quality. The Applicant would also develop specifications to safeguard against any undue degradation of air quality during construction. No air-quality monitoring is currently proposed. 4.1.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Localized and short-term deterioration of air quality would be unavoidable, and State and local standards would be intermittently and/or temporarily violated. Some recreationists would avoid project lands during these con- struction activities. 4-2 4.2 NOISE LEVELS-CONSTRUCTION 4.2.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts Actions which would create excessive or unwanted noise during construction of the proposed project include intermitt- ent surface blasting and the operation of construction equip- ment, compressors, and other vehicles. During construction, the noise levels would be signif- icantly increased in and around the vicinity of construction activity. The proposed project lands are about 10 miles from any residential habitation, and the overall effect on humans would be minimal if not nonexistent. 4.2.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed Noise level control measures employed would be those necessary to meet OSHA standards only. No measures to monitor noise levels are proposed. 4.2.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The increased noise levels caused by construction activities would deter some recreationists from utilizing lands near project construction activity. 4.3 NOISE LEVELS-OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 4.3.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts Actions which would create excessive or unwanted noise during operation and maintenance of project facilities include: (1) operation of equipment at the powerplant; (2) outflow of water into Silver Bay during generation; and (3) transmission line operation. Operation and maintenance of the proposed Green Lake Project would also have indirect beneficial impacts on ambient noise levels in the vicinity of Sitka by substantially reducing the need to operate 8,600-kW of noisy diesel-generating capacity located near the city. 4.3.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed No mitigative measures are proposed. 4-3 4.3.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts These increased noise levels are unavoidable, but would not contribute significantly to the existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of project facilities. v 4.4 WATER QUALITY-CONSTRUCTION 4.4.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts Construction of project facilities, such as the dam, powerhouse, power tunnel, transmission line, project access road, and other site accesses, and of staging areas, such as the contractor's work area, would contribute inorganic material to Green Lake, Vodopad River, and Silver Bay. Harvesting of timber from that area along Green Lake and that stretch of the Vodopad River to be inundated would cause some land dis- turbance. All of these construction activities would either directly contribute inorganic material to surface waters or would contribute indirectly by exposing areas, thereby making them susceptable to erosion. In 1977, Hoopes stated that an estimated 4,650 cubic meters, or about 5 percent of the material to be wasted into Silver Bay, would cause signifi- cant turbidity. This volume would amount to about 0.001 per- cent of the total volume of the bay. Increased turbidity, caused by suspension of this inorganic material in the water column, would inhibit light penetration and would thereby limit or prevent growth and photosynthesis by macrophytes, attached algae, and phytoplankton. Some decline in the population of these plants could occur. Organisms farther up the food chain that depend upon these plants as a food source could be affected. The increased turbidity resulting from the construction activities discussed above would occur chiefly during high run- off periods, such as spring snowmelt and fall rains. During these periods, natural highly turbid conditions have been observed in Silver Bay and Green Lake and have been attributed to scouring in the Vodopad River valley. The potential would exist for increased turbidity to occur at other times of the year, because areas disturbed by construction activities would be susceptable to erosion until any erosion control measures are implemented and become effective. Formation of the project reservoir would inundate approximately 830 acres of mostly forested lands in the Vodopad River valley. Organic materials on these lands would create a biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in the over- lying waters. The magnitude and duration of the BOD would depend on the amount of organic material present, water 4-4 temperature, amount of siltation, and effects of project operation. Leaching of nutrients and other inorganic substances would occur from the inundated land, thereby providing an increased concentration of nutrients in the reservoir. Primary biotic production in the reservoir should increase in response to increased nutrient concen- trations, but would eventually decline and stabilize at some lower level as these nutrients are used up and removed from the system. Hoopes reported in 1977 that nearby Blue Lake Project was relatively productive for about 10 years following formation, but that production has now stabilized at a low level. Depending upon the method of collection and disposal of sewage wastes generated at the temporary project facilities used during the construction phase, nutrients and organic matter could be added to surface waters. Nutrients would stimulate algae growth. Unless solid waste or spoil disposal sites are properly designed and located, drainage from these sites could contribute sediments to surface waters in the project area. Without proper treatment or preventive measures, effluent from the aggregate and concrete batch plants, and drainage from power tunnel excavation could cause some degradation in water quality if allowed to enter Green Lake and Silver Bay (Appendix L). Spills resulting from accidents or improper disposal of oils, grease, and chemicals could have a severe impact on aquatic life and habitat should they reach water bodies in the project area. 4.4.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed Applicant proposes to schedule the depositing of con- struction spoil in Silver Bay to coincide with periods of high runoff, whenever possible, to lessen the impacts of increased turbidity. During high runoff periods, outward movement of the layer of freshwater on top of the salt water would carry out and disperse sediments more readily than during low runoff (Hoopes, 1977). Those lands disturbed during project construction that are not receptive to rapid natural revegetation would be re- seeded. Overburden would be stripped from the contractor's work area and stockpiled for later use. Upon completion of construction, the contractor's work area would be regraded, recovered with the stockpiled topsoil, and reseeded. Exposed- soil cut slopes would be reseeded as soon as possible to lessen erosion. 4-5 Project roads would be designed and constructed so that runoff and natural drainage patterns would not be adversely affected. Watershed-protection techniques such as contour ditching, water checks, and culverts would be used to minimize the quantity of inorganic sediments reaching surface water. Applicant proposes to dispose of the solid waste material generated during construction activities and to locate disposal sites in compliance with State and local standards. Temporary sanitation facilities used during construction will be furnished, located, and maintained by the construction contractor to the satisfaction of the Applicant and public health authorities. Removal of these facilities at completion of construction will be the responsibility of the contractor. 4.4.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The turbidity levels in surface waters associated with project construction activities would likely increase above those levels which now occur naturally. Short-term impacts to aquatic habitat and organisms could be significant, especially during low runoff periods. Those aquatic or- ganisms dependent upon light for photosynthesis, growth, and feeding would be adversely affected, and some decline in the numbers of these organisms would be expected. 4.5 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES-CONSTRUCTION 4.5.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts Construction and closure of the project dam would result in an increase in the surface area of Green Lake from the existing 173 acres to about 1,000 acres, and would provide an additional 830 acres of lake habitat. The six-fold increase in the size of Green Lake would cause the inundation of about 4.8 km (3 miles) of the Vodopad River, eliminating nearly all the accessible spawning habitat for brook trout. Some decline in the population of resident brook trout would occur. Those macrobenthic invertebrates adapted to stream habitat, such as caddisflies, stoneflies, and mayflies, would be eliminated or reduced in numbers in this section of the Vodopad River. Conversely, those macro- benthic invertebrates adapted to lake habitat, such as burrowing dipterans, would increase in number and biomass in the reservoir. 4-6 Access road construction across both forks of lower Bear Creek during the summer and into the fall or winter could interfere with successful spawning of chum, pink, and coho salmon. As indicated in Section 3.4.2.1, these species com- mence spawning in July and may continue to spawn until late October. Spawning, incubation, and hatching of eggs could be seriously affected in the immediate area of the road crossing and downstream to tidewater. Sediments reaching the stream from road construction activities May accumulate on potential spawning sites, rendering the sites less suitable for that purpose. High egg mortality could occur if sediments from any late fall or winter construction activities are deposited on existing redds utilized by spawning salmon prior to road con- struction; the sediments would restrict subsurface water move- ment and delivery of oxygen to the developing eggs. Wasting of construction debris into Silver Bay would alter the local littoral zone and associated organisms, but the extent of any alterations would depend upon the substrate type and organisms existing at disposal sites. Rock debris introduced on top of existing natural rock bottom would not alter substrate type to the extent that would occur from rock deposited on sandy or silt substrate. In L977), Hoopes estimated that about 3 kilometers of the littoral zone of Silver Bay has a soft substrate on which rock wastes would be deposited. Regardless of the natural substrate type, attached plants and animals and those animals with weak or limited mobility would be smothered by the wasted rock debris. Local populations of these organisms would be altered or reduced. Rock debris deposited on existing rock substrate would be recolonized by those aquatic organisms that existed there naturally. However, those organisms that inhabit and require a soft bottom substrate would not likely recolonize areas where rock wastes cover this habitat type. Instead, species of plants and animals adapted to rock substrate are expected to colonize these areas, thereby causing some permanent local changes in community structure; this change would be relatively insignificant to Silver Bay as a whole. 4.5.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed Applicant states that a reservoir stocking program for brook or rainbow trout conducted through the Alaska Department of Fish and Game would mitigate the loss of accessible brook trout spawning habitat. No formal cooperative agreement for a stocking program has been reached by the two parties, however. 4-7 Bridging the two channels of lower Bear Creek is proposed by the Applicant to prevent disruption or interference with the upstream migration of spawning salmonids. Requirements of ADFG for protecting Bear Creek during construction of the two crossings, which are included by Applicant in the contract for construction of the access road, are as follows: "(1) Only clean shotrock shall be used for road fill below the vegetative line of each stream channel. (2) All instream work (i.e., work between the vegetative lines of each channel) shall be completed during the period June l through July 31, inclusive. (3) Clean shotrock shall be used for road fill material on the upland area between the north and south forks of Bear Creek. (4) Any deviation from these requirements desired by the Contractor must be approved by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game prior to performing the work. (5) One time crossings by no more than two pieces of equipment of each fork of Bear Creek will be permitted provided the local Fish & Game office is contacted so that they can mark the crossing site which would cause the least disturbance. (6) The contractor shall contact either the Commercial Fish or Sport Fish Management Biologist at the Sitka Fish and Game Office, at least two days (not counting weekends or holidays) prior to the date of equipment crossing of either fork of Bear Creek. At that time a Department representative will mark, in the field, the crossing site that will have the least impact upon the fishery resources. (7) If riprap is placed in either stream channel anytime other than the period June 1 - July 31, it must be washed prior to placement. This is to remove organic debris which could cause sedimentation problems if allowed to wash into the stream channel while fish are actively spawning or eggs are incubating in the gravel." 4-8 No measures have been proposed by the Applicant to control the amount of spoil material that would enter the stream from construction of the road approaches to the bridge and the bridge abutment. No measures have been proposed by the Applicant to lessen the impact of wasting rock debris on the local lit- toral zone and associated organisms of Silver Bay. 4.5.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Approximately 4.8 km (3 miles) of the Vodopad River accessible to brook trout for spawning would be lost by inundation from the project reservoir. Some decline in the resident brook trout population would occur. Wasting of construction rock debris onto the soft bottom substrate of the littoral zone of Silver Bay would result in some local losses to those organisms that inhabit this type of substrate. Some change would occur in the local community structure as a result of the permanently altered composition of the substrate. 4.6 WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES-OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 4.6.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts The project reservoir is expected to develop a much stronger thermal stratification during the summer months than occurs at the present time in Green Lake. The strong thermal stratification would be caused, in part, by the increased water depth, which would restrict mixing by the wind. To what degree dissolved oxygen would decrease, if any, as a result of the strong thermal stratification, cannot be estimated at pre- sent; water quality data collected by McCoy, et al. in 1977 for nearby Blue Lake indicated a strong thermal stratification by late August and no significant dissolved oxygen deficiency at any depth. A section of the Vodopad River valley above Green Lake is susceptible to scouring during high runoff and contributes to elevated turbidity levels in Green Lake and Silver Bay. This area would be inundated by the project reservoir. As a result, this section would be eliminated as a source of sus- pended sediments. Some reduction in turbidity levels would be expected to occur. Further, those suspended materials originating from the Vodopad River valley above the new project reservoir would settle out to some degree after entering the enlarged Green Lake. This could also contribute to a reduction in turbidity in Silver Bay during high runoff periods. 4-9 As a result of the inundation of nearly all the spawn- ing area in the Vodopad River accessible to brook trout above Green Lake, suitable gravel areas along the shoreline of the project reservoir may be utilized. If such areas exist in the reservoir, the fluctuating water level caused by project opera- tion could disrupt spawning activities and could prevent success- ful incubation and hatching of eggs. Operation of the project is not expected to adversely affect the water quality and aquatic communities of Silver Bay. The project reservoir could provide breeding sites, especially in coves or bays, for mosquitoes and other nuis- ance insects. These insect pests could be potential carriers of disease-producing organisms. Implementation of measures to control these organisms recommended by the Alaska Depart- ment of Public Health, should a problem arise, would be the responsibility of the Applicant. 4.6.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed Since project operation is expected to have minimal adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem, no mitigative measures have been proposed by the Applicant. 4.6.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts With the exception that reservoir fluctuation might possibly interfere with the successful spawning of brook trout along the shoreline, no other unavoidable adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem caused by project operation are foreseen. 4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 4.7.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts A thick mat of forest humus and vegetal cover protects project area soils, even those on steeper slopes, from erosion by rainfall and surface runoff. Any project-related construc- tion activities which would even temporarily involve disturbance of soils, alteration of existing slopes, or removal of the protective vegetation cover would be expected to result in some unavoidable short-term erosion. Any excavated areas would be subject to erosion, and complete removal of the protective cover would expose erodable materials to direct rainfall. Cleared areas would be areas of potential erosion. The cutting of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation, while not immediately removing soil- 4-10 binding living root systems, would ultimately result in the death and deterioration of the root systems and the subsequent loss of their capacity to bind the soils, thereby increasing the erosion potential of the soils. Poor design and control of temporary and permanent spoil and fill would also be expected to result in erosion problems. Erosion problems could also occur during project operation. Erodable materials on the reservoir bottom and shoreline would be exposed to rainfall and surface runoff during periods of reservoir drawdown. Erosion could occur due to improperly designed drainage of the access road or parking, recreation, and other areas. Blocking of drainage by landslides or other soil mass movement along the access road could result in road erosion and washout of fill and other unconsolidated materials. Slopes in the project area, particularly along the access road route, and to a lesser extent along the shore- line of the proposed reservoir, are often very close to or steeper than the angle of natural stability for the soils on them. Slope materials are often restrained from moving downhill only by the binding effect of the protective vegeta- tion cover, particularly living root systems. An approximate minimum total of 2,200 feet of the proposed access road route crosses at least 19 landslides, accumulations of rock and soil debris (talus), and other areas of soil mass movement. This includes an approximate minimum total of 600 feet on at least five rock or snow avalanche chutes (Converse, Davis, Dixon Associates, Inc., 1978). Much of the existing talus on the southern shore of Green Lake would be covered by the proposed reservoir. However, these areas, and the remainder of the proposed reservoir area, would be cleared prior to filling of the reservoir. At least 1,000 feet of the reservoir shoreline would be on talus at normal elevation 390 feet, and at least 1,600 feet would be on talus at minimum active storage eleva- tion 280 feet. Project-related construction activities would accelerate existing landslides and other soil mass movement, reactivate old "stabilized" areas, and initiate new soil mass movement problems. Clearing of vegetation would allow rain to reach soils more quickly, causing critical areas to become unstable. Death and deterioration of supportive living root systems would follow the cutting of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation, causing slopes to become increasingly unstable and prone to sliding and other soil mass movement problems. 4-11 Construction-related excavation, particularly along the access road route on the steep slopes of the Silver Bay shoreline and other sufficiently steep areas within the reser- voir, borrow areas, construction roads, and other construction sites, would physically remove the often critical protection and support of vegetation and living root systems. Excavation would create new, oversteepened, unstable slopes in some areas and would undercut some of these slopes and others, thereby decreasing or removing the supporting effect of lower sloped materials and allowing upslope materials on previously "stable" slopes to move downhill. Slopes could also be undercut by poorly controlled drainage in construction areas. The placing on slopes of blasted rock and other uncon- solidated materials, such as fill for road construction and the disposal of excavated rock and other spoil, could overload some of the slopes, causing them to become unstable and to experience soil mass movement problems. Some sliding and other soil mass movement problems would be anticipated during project operation. Continuing slide and rock fall problems would be expected along the access roadway in steeper excavated areas and in areas where the road would cross active talus, landslides, avalanches, or other soil mass movement. Unconsolidated slope materials along the reservoir shore- line would become saturated, and some, on steeper slopes, would become unstable. The combined effects of the removal of trees and other vegetation during reservoir clearing, of natural erosion along the shoreline by rain, runoff, and wave action, and of the exposure of unprotected areas during operational water level fluctuations would reactivate old slope movement, accelerate any existing movement, and initiate new problems. Based on assessment of potential slide masses and on an apparent lack in the Green Lake basin and along Silver Bay of large landslides attributable to the major 1972 Sitka earthquake, the Applicant considers the probability for the occurrence of damaging slide-generated waves to be low. There are no potential soil or rock slide masses that would jeop- ardize the proposed dam or powerhouse. 4.7.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed The Applicant has located within the project area, and in the project vicinity, existing landslides, avalanche and rockfall chutes, and talus (Converse, Davis, Dixon Associates, Inc., 1974, 1977, 1978). Based in part on this information, the final access road alignment was chosen so that it would 4-12 avoid, where reasonable, areas of existing soil mass movement. In those areas of existing soil mass movement that could not be reasonably avoided, design of the roadway would be such as to minimize disturbances that would further reduce the stability of the slopes. Cut slopes in landslide and talus problem areas would generally be avoided if possible, and, where necessary, would generally have a maximum steepness ratio of 1-1/4 horizontal to 1 vertical. The design of fill placement and vegetation slash and other waste and soil dis- posal would also be such as to minimize or avoid reduction of slope stability. The Applicant proposes to take a number of measures to minimize erosion problems. Construction work on the access road would be conducted in accordance with the provi- sions of the U.S. Forest Service 1977 Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges, except as modified in the contract documents. The Applicant would design and construct project roads so that runoff and natural drainage would not be adversely affected. During the construction and operation of the project, contour ditching, water-check dams, culverts, and other water- shed protection techniques would be used along the access road route. To further control erosion, the Applicant would reseed lands disturbed during construction and not subject to rapid revegetation, would reseed exposed-soil cut slopes as soon as possible, would stockpile overburden from the contractor's work area, and, upon completion of construction, would regrade that area, recover it with the stockpiled soil, and reseed the area. In addition, the Applicant would require of the con- tractor a comprehensive plan of erosion control conforming to local standards. The Applicant proposes periodic maintenance to clear the completed road of any rock falls which would occur, but considers it unlikely that reservoir fluctuations could reactivate any old slope movements, and expects only minor soil or rock movement along the reservoir. 4.7.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts A certain amount of soil erosion and soil mass movement would be unavoidable because of the high rainfall and the rugged topography of much of the project area. Some unavoidable minor erosion would occur during construction, before protective measures such as reseeding could be implemented. Some minor erosion would be entirely unavoidable in areas where constant construction activity would preclude the effectiveness of miti- gative measures such as reseeding. 4-13 Landslides, avalanches, and other soil mass move- ment are already natural, ongoing processes on the steep slopes of the Silver Bay fjord along the access road route. Acceleration and reactivation of soil mass movement would be unavoidable, and some new problems would develop where excavation and fill would undercut or overload the steep but presently stable slopes, thereby rendering those slopes unstable. The clearing of slide, avalanche, and other soil mass movement debris from the access roadway would be a necessary maintenance activity both during and after construction, and would perpetuate some of those problems. Some minor wave erosion and slope movement along the reservoir shoreline would also be unavoidable during project operation. 4.8 VEGETAT ION-CONSTRUCTION 4.8.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts Construction of the 8-mile-long access road-transmis- sion line corridor, powerhouse, and contractor's work area would remove the timber from about 67 acres of mostly coastal, temperate rainforest, consisting for the most part of old- growth Sitka spruce and western hemlock along the steeper slopes. In areas where the access road lies in close proximity to the beach, significant quantities of understory shrub species, chiefly alders and willows, would be removed from the right-of-way. Increasing the level of Green Lake from elevation 230 feet msl to 390 feet msl would increase the surface acreage from 173 acres to about 1,000 surface-acres, thus inundating 827 acres of natural vegetation. The area to be flooded con- tains approximately 700 acres of Sitka spruce, which comprises 30 percent of the forest canopy. Other vegetation to be inun- dated would consist largely of deciduous trees such as black cottonwood and red alder and shrub species such as Sitka willow and various alders. 4.8.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed No measures have been proposed to mitigate the loss of the previously mentioned vegetative communities. 4.8.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Each of the previously mentioned adverse environmental impacts will occur if the project is constructed. 4-14 4.9 WILDLIFE-CONSTRUCTION 4.9.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts Construction of the access road-transmission line corridor along the east shore of Silver Bay would encroach upon four bald eagle nest trees, of which two are presently active and contain eaglets. Excessive disturbances in the immediate vicinity of eagle nests may cause abandonment of the nests, although some eagles may become accustomed to man's presence and proceed with their normal nesting habits. Approximately 60 acres of Sitka blacktailed deer's winter range along the east shore of Silver Bay would be eliminated by the construction of the access road-transmis- sion line corridor. Deer populations in southeastern Alaska are limited by the quantity and quality of winter range, which, because of snow depths, is restricted to valley bottom and beach fringes. Since the Silver Bay shoreline is very precipitous, the winter range-beach fringe is limited. Bring- ing the access road-transmission line corridor through this strip would reduce the carrying capacity of the area to support Sitka deer. About 825 acres of Vodopad River bottom land, which contains wildlife habitat for Sitka blacktailed deer, brown bear, various furbearers, numerous small mammals, song birds, and terrestrial feeding birds, would be eliminated by the increased level of the Green Lake. Productive, shallow, lakeshore waterfowl habitat would be reduced by the increased depth and steep shorelines created by the elevated lake level. Vancouver Canada geese nesting sites would be inundated. 4.9.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service, through a cooperative agreement made in 1968, now protect eagle nest trees during the development of projects such as logging, road construction, and mining upon Forest Service lands. A survey is conducted to locate eagle nest trees, the trees are marked with signs clearly identifying them as nest trees, a buffer zone with a radius of 330 feet is established around the trees, and no land management activity is allowed in the designated area. This buffer zone can be infringed upon only if the two agencies agree that there is no reasonable alternative for the conduct of work that must be done. > 4-15 By letters of April 28, 1978, and May 8, 1978, Applicant requested that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approve the location of the access road in the vicinity of the eagle nest trees. By letter of May 19, 1978, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended to the Applicant measures to minimize impacts upon the eagle nests. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicated that it was regrettable that it was deemed necessary to build the access road along the coastline near the eagle nests. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated, however, that should the road be constructed, it would be preferable to place the road inland from eagle nest tree number 4, if feasible, providing a shoreward clearance of 190 feet, and a clearance of 133 feet from eagle tree number 3. (See Figure 3-4.) The Fish and Wildlife Service also indicated that the transmission line would provide the least interference to the eagle nests if it is placed inland from the nests, since an unobstructed view and flight path from the nest to the water is highly desirable. Applicant has indicated that construction of the access road would be timed to avoid any disturbance during the active nesting period of the year. Normally eagles commence building or readying their nest in early April. Usually two eggs are laid, which hatch by late May or early June. Young eagles are full feathered and ready to fly by mid-August. Construction of the road during periods when the mature eagles are not actively hatching or feeding the young would help to minimize adverse impacts to the bald eagle. A contract document, invitation for bids, prepared for the Applicant, includes supplementary conditions to be included in any contract let for the project that would require the imple- mentation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommendation relating to nesting eagles. Applicant has not proposed any measures to mitigate the loss of Sitka blacktailed deer and other wildlife habitat losses due to access road construction or inundation of the periphery of Green Lake. Creation of an opening in the predominantly coniferous forest along the access road-transmission line corridor would permit decidious shrub species and grasses to grow in the disturbed areas and to create some shrub browse and grazing for deer and other wildlife species. The Humpback whale is known to use the area of Silver Bay, usually for a brief period of time in the fall of the year. The Humpback is an endangered species and has received international 4-16 protection since 1966. In order to provide protection for this whale, the Applicant would require the contractor to delay any blasting operations if whales appear within 1 nautical mile of the blasting site. 4.9.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Encroachment upon the eagle nests inside the 330-foot buffer zone would cause disturbances to the eagle pair and any young eagle that might be present. Persistent disturbance May cause the abandonment of the nesting site. The loss of approximately 1,020 acres of wildlife habitat would result from the construction of the project as proposed. This same amount of land would be lost for future timber production as well, assuming all the land has the potential of producing marketable timber. 4.10 WILDLIFE-OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 4.10.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts Locating the 8-mile-long, 69-kV transmission line along the shoreline, within old-growth timber, which provides suitable habitat requirements for the bald eagle, and within close proximity to active eagle nest trees, would increase the risk of electrocuting any eagles which may perch on the transmission poles and contact the electrical conducting wire. Maintenance vehicles going to or from the project facilities may alarm the eagles whose nest trees are located close to the access road, although vehicles passing on an infrequent basis should not be a factor in causing the eagles to avoid or abandon their nest trees permanently. Such dis- turbances would be most troublesome to the eagle pair when nesting or when eaglets are present in the eyrie. Approximately 3 miles of the lower reaches of the Vodopad River and about 1.75 miles of tributary stream, with an adjacent wildlife riparian habitat of about 230 acres, would be lost from production. 4.10.2 Mitigation Measures Proposed Applicant proposes to space the insulators and conduc- tors on transmission poles so as to prevent the electrocution of eagles and other large birds that might be attracted to the poles for perching. 4-17 The Department of the Interior has recommended that any license issued should contain a provision to require that the transmission line be designed to prevent the electrocution of large birds. 4.10.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There will probably be some minor disturbances to nesting eagles whose nest trees are within close proximity to the project access road, 4.11 RECREATION-OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 4.11.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts Development of an anchor buoy in Silver Bay and develop- ment of access roads into the project area would open up the Green Lake area to hikers and fishermen. The lake is now access- ible only from Silver Bay and from an unimproved hiking trail to the lake from the head of the bay. Hunting for deer, brown bear, or mountain goat could be facilitated by the project's larger lake surface, which would permit hunters to travel by small boat or canoe up the inundated portion of the Vodopad River to reach game populations that are now isolated. This impact could also be viewed as detrimental to wildlife populations that may be affected by the increased hunter access. Public access would be improved for hikers into the project area by development of the access road. Enlargement of Green Lake would provide an increase in the surface acreage for water users. Improved access would make available National Forest lands for a variety of outdoor recreational activities, such as natural food gathering (berries), walking, and hiking. 4.11.2 Mitigation Measures Proposed Applicant proposes to maintain control of automobile traffic into the project area. Locked gates would be installed at the existing road terminus at Herring Bay. Locked gates would not necessarily eliminate all vehicular traffic into the project area, however. Off-road trail bikes and motorcycles could nego- tiate around the gates and gain access to the project area by the access road. Should such activities become a common occur- rence, additional restrictions or measures may be required. 4-18 4.11.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Presently, Green Lake receives very limited recreational use because of its inaccessibility. Increased use of the lake would increase the possibility of littering by recreationists. Soil compaction and erosion may occur in areas around the lake frequently used by fishermen and hikers. No provisions for litter removal or sanitary facilities have been proposed by Applicant. 4.12 MINERAL EXTRACTIONS-CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE 4.12.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts Construction and operation of the proposed Green Lake Project would be beneficial to existing and potential mineral exploration and extraction in the Silver Bay-Green Lake area. Construction of the project would include much bedrock excava- tion, particularly along the access road alignment and for the power tunnel. Any of the bedrock excavation could expose ore bodies that might produce gold, silver, tungsten, or other valuable minerals. The access road could provide easier access to existing mineral claims, make production of exist- ing marginal claims feasible, and stimulate future prospecting in the Silver Bay-Green Lake area. The location of the access road alignment could conflict with the Joseph Gangola tungsten claims, located along the north- ern shore of Silver Bay between Herring Cove and Bear Cove. Mill- able ore excavated during road excavation on those claims could be wasted into Silver Bay or incorporated as fill in the roadway Surface runoff water or the waters of Silver Bay could become contaminated by oxidized sulphides and other potential pollutants associated with the tungsten in the ore. 4.12.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed The Applicant would provide for periodic inspection of construction activities by a mining engineer, a mining geologist, and an environmental consultant (biologist) to locate and evalu- ate any potentially valuable or potentially toxic mineral deposits that might be encountered and to inform and consult with appropri- ate agencies to determine whatever mitigative measures would be necessary. Joseph Gangola granted to the applicant, on May 30, 1978, a right-of-way easement across his two claims on the access road alignment. Under the provisions of the covenant of agreement, 4-19 any and all ore bodies uncovered during road construction on the claims would belong to the claim owner and would be stockpiled by the Applicant on the claims. The Applicant would be respon- sible for defending any environmental claims arising from con- struction across the claims, would allow any minerals located under the right-of-way to be mined by the claim owner, would build an exit from the road and a parking area on the claim for use by the claim owners, would allow access to the claim along the road by the claim owner and by mining equipment to be used on the site, and would allow the claim owner passage on the road by one ore truck per week without prior approval by the Applicant. 4.12.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed action on mineral extraction are anticipated. 4.13 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS-CONSTRUCTION 4.13.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts The Green Lake Project's impacts on employment, population, housing, personal income, and local government expenditures and revenues would be concentrated within the City and Borough of Sitka during the project's 3-year con- struction period. At that time, between 50 and 150 workers would be employed at the construction site. Following com- pletion of construction, probably less than 10 people would be employed by the Applicant to operate and maintain the project. Few construction workers with the skills and experience required to build the proposed project currently reside in Sitka. The Applicant anticipates that most of the project's construc- tion workers would be hired from other cities in Alaska or the lower 48 states. Because of Sitka's dearth of housing available for sale or rent, relatively high living costs, and regular com- mercial airline service to Seattle and Juneau, very few workers who relocate are expected to bring their families. Daylight conditions in Alaska during much of the year permit extended (often 10- to 12-hour) workdays. Moreover, construction schedules generally are based on 15- to 20-day work periods rather than 5-day work weeks. Under this system, contruction workers are given one 4- or 5-day vacation period every 3 or 4 weeks. This arrangement would further encourage construction workers who relocate in Sitka to fly home period- ically to visit their families. 4-20 The increase in Sitka's population caused by construction of the Green Lake Project is projected to range from 175 to 200 persons. According to the Applicant, this total would include only 23 school-age children. As of July 1978, housing accommodations in Sitka were not available for as many as 150 construction workers. The proposed project would not require the displacement of any households or business establishments. Consequently, relocation plans and housing assistance would be unnecessary. Another positive aspect of the project is that it would increase the personal income of Sitka's permanent residents. This gain, however, would be relatively small because: (1) most machinery, equipment, and materials used in construction would be purchased outside of Sitka; (2) very few of the construction workers would be permanent residents of Sitka; and (3) few construction workers who relocate would bring their families with them. Based on the experience of other construction projects in Alaska, workers who relocate in Sitka would spend relatively modest amounts there. For this analysis, staff reasonably assumes that workers would spend an average of $380 per month, or 15 percent of their $2,525-per-month average basic earnings, in Sitka. Consequently, the project's 3,010 man-months of construction employment would generate sales of $1,143,800 for Sitka's business establishments. Restaurants, drinking places, drug stores, men's apparel stores, sporting goods stores, and personal service establishments would be the main beneficiaries of this spending. Sitka levies a 4 percent tax on retail sales. Assuming that 80 percent of all spending by project construction workers in Sitka is taxable, the proposed project would expand Sitka's revenues by $36,600. On the other hand, the influx of construc- tion workers would place some increased demands on Sitka's police and fire departments and other government agencies. About 23 school-age children would accompany the construction workers to the project, and could easily be accommodated by the area's exist- ing public schools. Assuming that the age distribution of these children is typical of the area, there should be no need to hire additional administrative, teaching, or maintenance personnel. Thus, the additional local government expenditures necessitated by construction of the proposed project should be relatively modest and, therefore, offset by the sales tax revenues generated by project employees. 4-21 4.13.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed There would not be sufficient available housing in Sitka to accommodate the expected influx of construction workers. Applicant has proposed two alternative solutions to remedy this deficiency. The least expensive and time-consuming one would be to lease rooms in Sitka's two older hotels - the Sitka and the Potlatch. Although these hotels have had low vacancy rates in the past, their transient business is anticipated to decline significantly because of competition from the newer 80-room Sheffield House Hotel and the 120-room Shee Atika Lodge, under construction. The latter facility was expected to open about October 1978. The second alternative involves the establishment of a construction camp at Herring Cove. This would require con- struction of special modular housing units, a water pipeline from Blue Lake to the campsite, and a self-contained sewage treatment plant. The modular housing units would include motel-style sleeping rooms and central bath, dining, and lounging areas. 4.13.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The proposed project would not generate any unavoidable adverse socioeconomic impacts. 4.14 VISUAL RESOURCES-CONSTRUCTION 4.14.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts During construction activity, landscape characteristics of the area immediately within the Green Lake reservoir site would change, and the area surrounding the proposed reservoir site would change to a lesser degree. Construction activity along the proposed access road-transmission corridor and at the powerhouse-substation sites would change drastically. In each case the degree of impact of the change would vary, depending on the visibility of the changes. Generally, this construction impact would be temporary for the duration of these activities. The presence in number and type of construction-related equipment would alter what is a beautiful, quiet, rugged, and austere landscape, to one of intensely noisy and dirty activity. What is presently unaccessible, undeveloped, steeply vegetated topography with a river, a natural lake, and waterfalls, would become a series of cluttered areas involving: clearing for con- struction staging, extensive access roads, and reservoir construc- tion; development of borrow, spoil, and burning areas; building of coffer dams; and batching of concrete to construct a double- curvature arch dam, surface powerhouse, power tunnel, substation, 4-22 and assorted power facilities and excavation activities. A minimum of 900 acres of land would be impacted during construc- tion. About 90 percent of the acreage would be in the reservoir basin and would be ultimately inundated. Construction activities in and around the proposed reservoir would generally be visible only from aircraft, which are used extensively in the project area, and in this case all construction activities would be readily visible, and therefore significant. Construction activities on the proposed access road, powerhouse, and substation, in addition to being visible from aircraft, would also be visible to boaters along Silver Bay. This impact would be significant because: (1) viewing distance would be less than a mile; (2) these construction areas would interrupt the integrity of a continuous, steep, forested topo- graphy in a previously undeveloped area; and (3) construction would require steep and extensive cut and fill slopes. Construction of the transmission line facilities would not add significantly to impacts caused by the proposed access road, in that the transmission line would parallel the road and would be generally within the clearing limit proposed for the road. 4.14.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed Plans for the preservation or mitigation of the visual resources during construction are presented in Applicant's Exhibit W, as Appendix W-8, and in Exhibit V. The Applicant's plan is a statement of the protection and enhancement of natural, historic, and scenic features in the design, location, construc- tion, and operation of project facilities. Generally, this plan tries to show that the development of the Green Lake Project includes facilities design and location considerations, balanced by engineering requirements and reliability for visual accept- ability. The Applicant states that its considerations can assure preservation of the natural features of the project area consist- ent with construction requirements. More specifically, the Applicant plans to dispose of debris and non-marketable slash material from reservoir, powerhouse, sub- station, and access roads clearing operations, primarily by con- trolled burning that conforms to current air pollution regulations. Floating debris in the reservoir would be removed from the water as it rises, and care would be taken to minimize erosion in all 4-23 cleared areas. Proposed borrow areas, cofferdams, and part of the general construction roads would be inundated upon filling. The powerhouse, substation, and access roads areas would be highly visible during construction activity. Limiting the areas cleared for these facilities and maintaining as much natural forest cover as possible to mask views of the construction are the only protec- tion measures proposed. The transmission line right-of-way would closely parallel the primary access road alignment. The Applicant has used Commission's "Guidelines for the Protection of Natural, Historic, Scenic, and Recreational Values in the Design and Location of Rights-of-Way and Transmission Facilities" where applicable. Dual use of the right-of-way for the access road and transmission line is in itself a preservation method to limit the amount of land needed for these two facilities. Transmission poles would be located on the downhill side of the right-of-way. Consequently, the need to remove "danger trees" (tall trees that would endanger the line's reliability) during construction would be limited. In the preparation of its plan, the Applicant met and consulted with representatives of Federal and State agencies and local civic and conservation groups to determine their concerns. 4.14.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Construction activities involving different types of equipment, materials, and operations would have varying visual impacts. These impacts would vary in relation to the size of the construction area involved, the number and type of equip- ment being used, and the area's relative accessibility to the viewing public. Viewing construction activities at the Green Lake Project would almost always entail a voluntary action such as flying or boating to the project area. The orderly scenic quality that now exists would be unavoidably affected during these construction activities, but these effects would generally be short-term. 4.15 VISUAL RESOURCES-OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 4.15.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts The proposed project would be operated as a conventional hydroelectric plant. During years of average runoff, the reser- voir would be at its lowest in the months of April and May. This would constitute a 45-foot drop from the maximum elevation of 390 feet msl. During years of high runoff, noticeable fluctuation of 4-24 the reservoir would be limited, or nonexistent, and during years of low runoff the maximum drawdown would never be more than 110 feet. Visual impacts of reservoir fluctuations during any year would be minimal due to limited views of the reservoir. While views are plentiful from an aircraft, those views are attenuated because of viewing angle and distance. Impacts of the proposed project dam and intake facility are also minimal because of limited views. The dam's low profile, when viewed from the reservoir side, and the difficult terrain and topography from the downstream side would generally attenuate viewing impacts. One significant impact associated with the pro- posed project dam is the elimination of the flow of water through the series of falls below Green Lake and into Silver Bay. Impacts of the surface powerhouse (at sea level) would be great because of its position on Silver Bay, about 350 feet north of the mouth of the Vodopad River. In addition to the powerhouse itself, extensive full bench cuts up to elevation 110-feet mean lower low water (mllw) would dominate the south and east side of the powerhouse. Subsequent to revised plans (letter filed January 3, 1978), the proposed substation would now be located immediately north of and adjacent to the proposed powerhouse at the same elevation (38 feet mllw). To accommodate this revised plan and still provide adequate parking and turnaround area, some additional excavation will be necessary, but not to the extent necessary in the previous proposed arrangement described in Section 4.15.1, paragraph three of Staff's DEIS. The material from these cut areas, and the additional material from the power tunnel, would be wasted into Silver Bay at its edge, This wasting area would extend north of the tailrace, along the shore, for a distance of over 300 feet. The amount of this waste material is such that it would build up below the water. This buildup would extend about 38 feet above elevation zero mllw and would create an additional, highly visible, and exten- sive fill slope. Together, the facilities and the impacted areas around them would create a substantial change in existing environment that is significant and long term. A primary access road would extend along the east shore of Silver Bay from Herring Cove to within close proximity of the proposed project facilities, where it would then divide forming two secondary access roads. One secondary road would continue to the reservoir and upper dam sites. The other secondary road would connect to the substation and powerhouse site. The primary access road would be constructed to minimum standards as close to the Silver Bay shore as possible, and all roads would require exten- sive cut and fill sections throughout. These roads would impact 4-25 visual resources by creating highly visible lines (breaks in the natural forest canopy) for their entire length. The two second- ary access roads would essentially create two lines (breaks in the natural forest canopy), each one higher up the slope than the lowest. In some areas, the road bed itself would be readily visible to boaters along Silver Bay. The cumulative impacts would be significant, in that there would, in fact, be roads in a previously roadless area dominated by mountains, forest, and water. The proposed transmission line (which would generally parallel the primary access road and secondary access road to the substation on the downhill side) would add to the impacts previously discussed in relation to the access roads by neces- sitating a wider right-of-way to accommodate both, and conse- quently would produce a more pronounced line through the forest canopy along Silver Bay. This impact is further reinforced by a direct contrast between the natural line created by the ava- lanche chutes and landslides, which are basically perpendicular to the roads. 4.15.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed Plans for the preservation or mitigation of the visual resources during project operation and maintenance are also presented in Applicant's Exhibit W, as Appendix W-8, in Exhibit V, and subsequent filings. The Applicant's plan is a state- ment of the protection and enhancement of natural, historic, and scenic features in the operation and maintenance of project features. Generally, in this plan, the Applicant seeks to show that the development of the Green Lake Project includes facili- ties design and location considerations, balanced by engineer- ing requirements and reliability for visual acceptability. The Applicant feels that its considerations can assure preservation of the natural features of the project area consistent with operation and maintenance requirements. More specifically, the Applicant plans to clear all trees and brush within the area of normal reservoir fluctuation. The dam structure would have a low profile and would, therefore, not create an adverse visual impact. The contractor's work area would be partially inundated. The remaining area that is not used for project operation, maintenance, and access would be regraded, contoured, and seeded. The power tunnel would be located underground and would not cause any visual impacts, with the exception of impacts from the material excavated from the tunnel that would be wasted in Silver Bay. 4-26 As a mitigative measure to the visual impacts discussed in Staff's DEIS, the Applicant would relocate the proposed switchyard to an area immediately north of and adjacent to the powerhouse. This revised arrangement would reduce the total amount of excava- tion required by 15,060 cubic yards by eliminating the switchyard access road and switchyard site that was previously selected. Relocation of the switchyard to this area would minimize its pro- file and reduce the visual impacts. The visual lines of the powerhouse structure would be clean and functional. The colors of the powerhouse and substa- tion facilities that are readily visible would be selected to blend with the local setting. Revegetation on topsoil and overburden previously stripped from construction sites would be utilized to soften the harsh appearance of the exposed rock cuts around the powerhouse and substation. The same process of revegetation would be used to soften the rock excavation waste area in front of the powerhouse and substation. Planting areas would be developed near these areas and along the face of the rock excavation spoil area. These areas would also be seeded with regional grasses and replanted with local shrubs and trees. The natural masking effect of the forest cover would be maintained as much as possible, and, where necessary and practical, reseeding of low-growth forest cover would be provided. Natural drainage would be maintained, and log stringer bridges would be utilized over anadromous streams. Both of these measures would help to maintain the natural scenic aspects along the road. Improvements to the access roads would be made for operation and maintenance purposes only, thereby limiting both the type of maintenance required and the number of vehicles on those roads. The 69-kV transmission-line poles would be single wood poles, using more readily mission line minimize the the poles on a wishbone crossarm configuration, so as to blend into the forest landscape. Location of the trans- and access road on the same right-of-way would amount of land that needs maintenance. Locating the downhill side of the right-of-way limits the number of tall trees that would be a danger to line reliability, and consequently lessens the number of trees needed to be removed during future maintenance. 4.15.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The visually pleasing and audibly refreshing water falls on the Vodopad River below Green Lake, which have been in exist- ence for hundreds of years, would be terminated by constructing the project dam as proposed. 4-27 The existence of a surface powerhouse on Silver Bay, with its adjacent switchyard, would intrude upon an established, forested, mountain landscape which has to date remained untouched by development. The unavoidable, exposed, cut slopes and unnatural fill excavations that dominate the two facilities would emphasize these proposed intrusions. The existence of roads (no matter the quality or degree of accessibility) in a previously roadless and consequently un- developed area would unavoidably intrude upon a rugged and austere landscape, and would encourage further development. The sustained existence of transmission facilities, as proposed, and the sporadic appearance of the maintenance vehicle expected, embodies only a beginning of that development. 4.16 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.16.1 Beneficial and/or Adverse Impacts Construction of the project would not affect any known, significant historic or archeological resources. According to the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer, the project would have no impact on properties listed on, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places. An archeological survey of the proposed project area revealed the existence of only three cabin areas and a temporary camp site. The sites noted in the survey appear to be historically recent, generally in poor condition, and lacking any qualities or materials which would add significantly to knowledge about the area. On the theory that today's trash may be part of the future's heritage, Applicant's consulting archeologist recommended that the four sites be avoided if at all possible. 4.16.2 Mitigative Measures Proposed Although the survey conducted in the project area found no evidence of significant archeological sites, and both the State Historic Preservation Officer and the consulting archeo- logist have expressed the view that the probability of encoun- tering such sites is limited, it is possible that significant sites could be discovered during construction of the project. The Applicant has indicated that in the event any previously unidentified archeological sites are encountered during con- struction, appropriate authorities would be notified and their guidance sought concerning the significance of the site and the removal of data. Contract documents for the construction of the proposed access road contain provisions stipulating that if any cultural resources or paleontological remains are encounter- ed during construction, work in the area would stop, an immediate 4-28 determination of significance would be made by the Forest Service archeologist, and mitigation measures, including possible reloca- tion of the road and power line, would be enacted. If it is determined that the cultural resources are located at optimum sites for project-related facilities, the cultural resources would be excavated. 4.16.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Based on the information gathered through field studies at the proposed project site, there would be no unavoidable adverse impacts on significant archeological or historic sites. The arch- eological survey concluded that several of the sites existing within the project area can be avoided by construction activities. Even if the sites were to be impacted by construction, however, the data recovered during the survey procedure would not justify further archeological work at the four sites identified. 5-1 5. DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS The standard FERC Form L-2 articles should be included in any license issued to the City and Borough of Sitka for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Green Lake Project. A copy of this form is attached as Appendix B. Certain special articles should also be included in any license issued, and a discussion of the environmental concerns that should be addressed in these articles follows. 5.1 AIR QUALITY The Applicant's requirement that a contractor must comply with EPA and OSHA criteria for protecting air quality, and the fortuitous event of persistent rainfall in the project area, do not relieve the Applicant of the need to comply with all applicable Federal, State and local air quality standards, or at least to reduce the frequency or duration of any air quality violations. To this end, the Applicant should institute an air quality monitoring program before the start of any con- struction activity. The Applicant should investigate all preventive measures available to it to protect the present ambient air quality and develop a plan for implementation of the appropriate measures. 5.2 FISHERIES The project reservoir would inundate nearly all the spawning habitat accessible to brook trout in the Vodopad River above the existing Green Lake. Some decline in the population of brook trout is consequently expected. Appli- cant has indicated that a stocking program for either brook or rainbow trout in cooperation with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game would mitigate the loss of spawning habitat, but no stocking program or fishery management plan for the reservoir has been formulated and agreed upon by these two entities. Applicant should consult with ADFG and appropriate Federal agencies to develop and implement mitigation and fish management plans for the project reservoir. Construction of the road approaches and abutments for the bridge that would cross both forks of lower Bear Creek could contribute quantities of sediment to the part of Bear Creek that runs from the crossing site downstream to tidewater. This section of Bear Creek provides some suitable spawning 5-2 habitat for anadromous salmonids. Depending upon the species, spawning may commence in July and continue until late October. Hatching of eggs may occur 50 to 75 days after spawning, how- ever, emergence of fry would not likely occur until the follow- ing spring. Bridge construction activities could contribute to reduced spawning success and survival of eggs. Prior to any excavation work for the bridge, Applicant should consult with Federal and State resource agencies to determine the construc- tion procedures and erosion control measures that should be implemented to minimize the quantity of sediment entering Bear Creek, 5-3 WILDLIFE Construction of the project transmission line would introduce large powerpoles and energizied electrical lines into an area inhabited by bald eagles. Depending upon the location of the powerpoles, eagles could conceivably adopt the new structure as a perching site. If a pole should be so placed as to provide a good overview of the surrounding terrain from which to look for prey, and if there are proper winds for landing and takeoff, eagles may find such a pole a preferable perch. Specific design of the transmission line and arrangement of the conductors can eliminate or mini- mize electrical shock or possible death to eagles or other large birds of prey that might perch on the poles or cross- arms. A great deal of research has been conducted by Federal and State agencies and private and public electrical utilities to solve the problem of electrical shock to large birds. Appli- cant should review this extensive research. Specifically, the Rural Electrification Administration has prepared REA Bulletin 61-10, which offers suggestions for the design and construction of transmission lines in areas likely to have contact between eagles and powerlines. Staff will recommend that any license issued should contain a condition requiring consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies to ensure that the transmission line is designed to minimize any adverse impacts to the local bald eagle population from the hazards of shock or electro- cution. Operation and maintenance personnel should be advised of the location of the eagle nest trees and should be required to drive cautiously when in the vicinity of the nest trees, particularly during the nesting and incubation period, and while the young eagles are in the nest. 5-3 The winter range of deer along the beach fringe would be somewhat reduced in the Upper Silver Bay area. To minimize losses to the winter range, the access road right-of-way should be placed as far inland as possible, and the minimum width of clearing that is possible should be maintained throughout con- struction and clearing procedures. 5.4 MINERAL EXTRACTION During project construction, the Applicant should monitor all rock excavation to determine the location and extent of potentially minable ore bodies that may be exposed by the excavation, and should take such measures as would be necessary to ensure access to those ore bodies for future mining purposes. The Applicant should control the surface drainage of any stockpiled ore to prevent leaching of sulphides and to reduce the possibility of sulphide-contaminated water enter- ing Silver Bay. 5.5 VISUAL RESOURCES Visual resources would be significantly impacted by the construction and the subsequent operation and maintenance of the proposed project dam, surface powerhouse, substation, and access roads. Staff will recommend to the Commission that the Licensee be required to utilize upland disposal of excavated material from the proposed powerhouse, switchyard, and power tunnel sites. It is not likely that the Applicant will be required to provided for the resumption of flows over the falls in the natural Vodopad River channel when the project is initially operational. The Applicant may, however, be required to provide a detailed analysis and design plan of facilities necessary to provide those flows in the event that any public-use data developed should war- rant such resumption to substantially reduce the magnitude of the visual impact resulting from the loss of the falls. 6-1 6. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 6.1 LAND FEATURES AND USES Increasing the size of Green Lake and constructing other project facilities, including the proposed access road, would make permanent changes to the existing land features and uses of the area. Project facilities could later be removed, but the removal of vegetation and the movement of earth and rock that would have accompanied the construction of these facilities would preclude restoration of the affected areas to that state to which the environment would have evolved, had the action not taken place. 6.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES Above Green Lake, a 3-mile section of the Vodopad River that provides nearly all of the accessible spawning area for brook trout would be lost by inundation from the project reservoir. This 3-mile section of free-flowing stream would be irreversibly and irretrievably committed for project pur- poses for at least the license term. Some decline in the resi- dent population of brook trout would be expected to occur. If project operation is not compatible with any shoreline spawn- ing that may occur in the project reservoir, brook trout could be further reduced in numbers or possibly eliminated in the Vodopad River drainage. Those stream aquatic macrobenthic invertebrates unable to adapt to a reservoir environment would be reduced in numbers or eliminated. 6.3 SPECIES AND ECOSYSTEMS The proposed project would commit approximately 823 acres of land around Green Lake to water storage purposes. Power facil- ities such as the dam, powerhouse, substation, and transmission line and access road would require an additional 200 acres. A substantial portion of this land is now vegetated with old-growth timber, and no apparent management practices are in progress. Any timber or wildlife production that would come from the inundated land and access road-transmission line corridor would be irretrievably lost during the life of the project. A portion of the project area's terrestrial system would be replaced by an aquatic system. Flooding of the alluvial plain of the Vodopad River and the upland coniferous forest would elimin- ate the wildlife habitat for several mammalian and avain species. The loss of this land, as well as the loss of that needed for other project purposes, would cause the loss of some individuals 6-2 of a species and the migration of others. Migration of animals to other areas may cause direct losses of animals if the new area is at its carrying capacity. Construction of the access road-transmission line corridor along the north shore of Silver Bay would encroach upon four bald eagle nest trees, of which two are presently active. Applicant should work closely with the Alaska Depart- ment of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to align the right-of-way so as to minimize any adverse effects to the eagle nest trees. Any disturbance should be avoided during the periods of egg laying, incubation, and early rear- ing of the eaglets. 6.4 VISUAL RESOURCES Alteration of approximately 1,025 acres of rugged topo- graphy to increase the capacity of Green Lake and to provide for the location and construction of the proposed dam, power- house, substation, and access roads would alter forever, and, in some cases, destroy the integrity of an undeveloped and visually austere landscape. These existing visual character- istics would, therefore, be irreversibly and irretrievably lost. 7-1 7. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE OF LONG-TERM PRODUC- TIVITY Short-term uses of the environment, as considered in this statement, are those which would occur during the develop- ment and operation of the project through a license period of up to 50 years, whereas long-term productivity includes all aspects of the environment that would be affected by the project throughout the life of the project structures and long after the initial 50-year period. 7.1 SHORT-TERM USES The primary use of the proposed project would be to provide a source of base-load electrical energy for the Appli- cant's electric generating system by utilizing the natural resources of the Vodopad River valley and its surrounding environment. The Applicant proposes to develop recreational facilities on, and close to, project lands for fishing, hunting, picnicking, and primitive camping. Approximately 885 acres of forest and wildlife habitat would be eliminated from existing land use within the project area, including the 8-mile access road/transmission line corridor, the powerhouse and substation site, and the project reservoir areas. Approximately 3 miles of stream habitat and a natural lake of 173 acres would be inundated by the 1,000- acre project reservoir. Communities of aquatic organisms in the Vodopad River and in Green Lake would be replaced by commu- nities similar to those found in the latter habitat type. Biotic production, characteristic of a free-flowing stream and of a natural lake, would shift to that found in a man-made impoundment used for electric power generation purpose. Employment and retail business in the area would temporarily increase during construc- tion. 7.2 LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Long-term adverse impacts would include the effects from the inundation of forest and wildlife, free-flowing stream, and natural lake habitats, and their replacement by the man-made impoundment, and the preempting of other land uses, such as forestry and habitation, by humans and terrestrial wildlife. The existing stream habitat and its biotic community within the impounded area would be eliminated; however, some aquatic organisms may be able to adapt to the reservoir's environment. 7-2 Removal of vegetation during construction and mainte- nance of the access road - transmission line rights-of-way would mean that forested areas within these areas could not mature to a marketable age. This would be a long-term impact if these rights-of-way were in existence for longer than the period in which one crop of trees would be harvested. Long-term benefits of the proposed project would include power generation and recreational use. Should the proposed project be built and then abandoned, the environment could return to a condition similar to what it would have become if the project had not been built. Disman- tling of the project works and draining the reservoir to the original lake would allow terrestrial ecological succession to begin anew, but would also expose the land to forces such as weathering and erosion. Beneficial results of such an action might not occur for years, and adverse effects would prevail in the interim. 8-1 8. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 8.1 ALTERNATIVES DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE ARRANGEMENTS 8.1.1 Dam Alternatives Two types of dams, a rockfill dam with a gated spillway, and a concrete-arch dam with an uncontrolled spillway, have been considered by the Applicant as potential alternatives at the Green Lake project site. Each type has a different construction technology. The rock material for the rockfill dam is available at the project site. The rockfill dam is less complicated, both to design and construct, but operation and maintenance, especially of the gated spillway, would require permanent attention, and the safety of dam may be endangered by overtopping of the dam crest, since the spillway would not pass the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). The cement and other construction material for the arch dam must be transported to the project site by ships. The arch dam requires more professional skill to design and construct, and it needs careful supervision during construction. Operation and mainte- nance, would be very simple, however, because the uncontrolled spillway would work automatically, and overtopping of the dam crest by the PMF would not endanger the safety of the dam. After evaluating the two alternatives, the Applicant recommended construction of the arch dam because it would cost less. The direct construction cost of the rockfill dam exceeds that of arch dam by approximately $1.1 million dollars of 1979 bid price. 8.1.2 Reservoir Elevations Four reservoir elevations were evaluated and their energy production compared in order to find the most reliable alterna- tive. Reservoir elevation 390 feet msl, with an installed capa- city of 16.5 MW, was found to be the most feasible and economically acceptable installation. 8.1.3 Powerhouse, Switchyard, and Disposal Alternatives Three possible locations for the powerhouse, dictated by the waterway alignment, were studied. In addition, a surface powerhouse and an underground powerhouse were compared economi- cally. The study showed that a surface powerhouse, located about 350 feet north of the Vodopad River outlet to Silver Bay, is the 8-2 most feasible and least expensive alternative. Operation and maintenance of each of these alternatives would be similar, and would not affect either the feasibility or economy of the project. Five possible locations for switchyards were studied in relation to the selected powerhouse location. Two alternatives locate the switchyard in direct contact with the powerhouse, one on its roof and the other on a platform over the tailrace. Two alternatives physically separated the facilities, one on a full bench cut southeast of the powerhouse and the other on a full bench cut directly behind and above the powerhouse. The last alternative, the selected arrangement (letter filed January 3, 1979), locates the switchyard immediately north of and adjacent to the powerhouse. Each alternative, except the selected arrange- ment, requires an access road to connect it with the powerhouse. The roof alternative requires a 600-foot road; the platform alter- native requires a 200-foot road; the southeast alternative requires a 1,000-foot road; and the behind-and-above alternative requires a 1,300-foot road (Table 8-1). Underwater and upland disposal of waste from the excava- tion of the powerhouse and switchyard (tunnel excavation material would be also included) were considered along with the analysis of switchyard locations. Disposal of excavated material in Silver Bay required critical consideration of its environmental effects, and therefore four schemes were studied: (1) dragline disposal; (2) 1-1/2 mile haul with side casting; (3) bottom dump barging; and (4) the selected scheme, side-casting into Silver Bay. The selected scheme would side-cast excavated material into Silver Bay, just north of the powerhouse, along a 285-foot section of shoreline. The excavated material would build up above the water level and would ultimately extend up to the powerhouse parking level at elevation 38 mllw. A small bench would be created imme- diately above the extreme high tide range. The Applicant is aware of the significant environmental impacts associated with each underwater scheme, and is currently considering upland disposal. To date, however, the investigations into the costs and feasibility of such a disposal plan have not yet been determined and are not available to the Commission. 8.1.4 Power Conduit Alternatives Three different alignments and two types of power conduits, to be located between the dam and the powerhouse, were studied and evaluated, The alternative located north of Vodopad River was recommended because it has the most favorable geological conditions. After comparing a surface conduit and a tunnel, the tunnel was Previous Selected | Selected | Arrangement Arrangement Alternative(1) Alternative (2) Alternative(3) (June 1978) (Jan. 1979) Sw. Yd. @ El 24 Sw. Yd. @ El 75 Sw Yd. @ El 225 Behind & Above On Platform On Roof Southeast Powerhouse (1) 34,300 34, 300 44,000 35,200 34,300 Switchyard(2) 27,200 12,140 2,100 16,300 23,900 Total 61,500 46,440 46,100 51,500 58,200 (1) Powerhouse quantities include adjacent parking and turn-around area. (2) Switchyard quantities include switchyard access road to intersection with powerhouse road. TABLE 8-1. ALTERNATIVE POWERHOUSE AND SWITCHYARD - EXCAVATION QUANTITIES SOURCE: APPLICANT £-8 8-4 selected. The surface conduit was ruled out because the rugged topography of the area would cause unacceptable construction and maintenance problems and difficulties during operation. It was recommended that sections of the tunnel with an adequate cover of sound rock be unlined. In geologically less favorable sections, a partially concrete-lined tunnel and a steel penstock, close to the powerhouse, were selected as the most feasible and economically acceptable waterways. 8.1.5 Access Road and Transmission Line Alternatives Two possible access roads to the powerhouse and dam were studied in conjunction with the overland transmission lines alter- natives. Both alternatives start at the end of the existing high- way at Herring Cove. However, from the Bear Cove to the dam and powerhouse, two alternatives were considered. The first alterna- tive follows the shoreline near the tidewater; the second one follows contour elevation 500-foot msl, and for the most part would be in full bench cut because of the steep side-hill topo- graphy. Because of the cost advantage, the tidewater alignment was selected as the most feasible and economically acceptable alternative. The most important function of the proposed road would be to provide access for maintenance of the major project features. Several basic alternatives were considered for the trans- mission line. Since the transmission line and access road are dependent upon each other in regard to cost, maintenance, and project reliability, the two were considered concurrently. The alternatives that were evaluated are as follows: access road with transmission line built along its right-of-way (selected arrangement); overland transmission line with no access road; and underwater transmission line with no access road. The Overland Transmission Line in Access Road Right-of-Way alternative would consist of an access road which would start at the end of the existing State highway at Herring Cove and would extend south, generally remaining as close to tidewater as possible to the Green Lake powerhouse site. A short branch would extend from the main alignment to the dam. The 69-kV transmission line would be located along the road alignment, closely paralleling the road as much as possible to reduce required clearing and to provide quick, direct access for repair and maintenance, and would terminate at the switchyard at the Blue Lake Project power- house. » The access road would be of minimum construction and would have a 14-foot width with no pavement and no guard rail. The most important function of the road would be to provide access for 8-5 maintenance of the major project features, including the trans- mission line. For safety and liability reasons, public vehicular access on the road would be prohibited for its entire length by a barricade installed at Herring Cove. This alternative would provide an overall system reliability, since access to the dam power plant, and transmission line would be by normal vehicular means, and would not be dependent on clear weather conditions. Outages at the power plant, caused by malfunction of equipment, and transmission line outages, which normally occur during severe inclement weather situations, would be held to a minimum because of the direct positive access for quick repair and maintenance provided by this alternative. The Overland Transmission Line With No Access Road alter- native would involve an alignment somewhat different. The align- ment followed would range from tidewater elevation to several hundred feet higher in areas where the land near tidewater is too precipitous. The right-of-way would be selectively cleared of trees and brush for a width of at least 80 feet to provide adequate clearance for sagging conductors and "danger trees" that could fall on the conductors. In addition, a small 20-foot width would be clearcut at the center of the right-of-way to facilitate stringing the conductors. All access for construction and mainte- nance would of necessity be by water and air. Elimination of the access road would have a very significant effect on construction of the major project features. All construc- tion access would have to be by water, and a port facility would have to be developed to facilitate the unloading of equipment, materials, and personnel. In addition, a construction camp would have to be provided at the project site to house construction workers and project personnel. The use of a construction camp at the site would be less expensive than ferrying in personnel daily by boat. Transport of materials and equipment to the site by water would also cause an increase in overall costs. In terms of access for maintenance, this would be the second best alternative, but normal access would be much less convenient, and emergency access would not be possible during stormy weather. The Applicant's total system reliability would be unacceptable from the Commission's point of view. The Underwater Transmission Line With No Access Road alternative would involve an underwater transmission line laid on the bottom of Silver Bay. The transmission line would become an overland line just north of Herring Cove in order to connect with the switchyard at the Blue Lake Project powerhouse. The alternative of continuing the underwater line on into Sitka was ruled out because it would cross the shipping lane to ALPC, which would expose it to the additional hazard of ship and barge anchors. 8-6 For reliability, it would be necessary for the underwater transmission line to have two separate circuits, each con- sisting of a three-conductor, armored copper cable, laid parallel on the bottom, an average distance of 250 feet apart, with a minimum of 50 feet apart where necessary. Elimination of the access road has the same effect on the cost of construction of the major project features as the previous alternative. In the event of an outage, this alter- native would have the same disadvantage for maintenance of the dam and power plant as does the previous alternative. In addition, this alternative has a greater disadvantage, in that maintenance of underwater transmission lines is very expensive and requires a long period to accomplish repair work. It is estimated that at the mid-1977 cost level, a single repair of one of the cables would cost $250,000, and would take approxi- mately 30 days to complete under the best conditions of avail- ability of equipment and labor. A specialized cable-laying boat and equipment would have to be brought in, and difficulties would likely be encountered in locating the cable on the bottom and hauling it to the surface for repair. As with the previous alternative, the Applicant's total system reliability would also be unacceptable. On a capital investment basis, the underwater alternative would be an estimated $8,900,000 more expensive than the proposed selected project arrangement. The overland alternative is esti- mated to be $4,851,000 more expensive than the selected arrange- ment. On the basis of the significantly lower first costs, the only acceptable system reliability, and the ease of operation and maintenance, the alternative involving an access road with the adjacent overland transmission line was selected. 8.2 ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC SITES AND LOCATIONS There are five existing hydroelectric developments: Blue Lake, Sonneburg, Bahovec, College, and Hidden Falls (under construction), and seven potential hydroelectric sites on Baranof Island. All the locations are shown on Figure 8-1. The potential hydroelectric developments are as follows: Gross Installed Avg. Annual Project Stream Head Capacit Generation Cft.) i) (MWh) Carbon Lake Cascade Bay 230 13,500 43,700 Takatz Lake Takatz Creek 1,023 27,200 93,000 Warm Spring Warm Springs Bay 126 200 Not Available Betty Lake Port Armstrong 300 200 Not Available Pulp Mill Medvetcha 184 900 6,500 Maksoutof Maksoutof River 630 28,000 124,000 Deer Unnamed 374 7,000 31,000 BARANOF ISLAND a ~) G HIDDEN FALLS a“ oU ARE TAKATZ LAKE PULP SITKAN@ 0 MILL COLLEGE SILVER BAY SONNENBURG BAHOVEC GREEN LAKE AREA LEGEND HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT: @ EXISTING QO POTENTIAL MAKSOUTOF €B RIVER MILES Og BETTY LAKE FIGURE 8-1. EXISTING AND POTENTIAL HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENTS. SOURCE: FERC STAFF 8-8 The Carbon Lake and Takatz Lake sites are considered to be the most favorable alternatives to the Green Lake Project. The tech- nical, economical, and environmental feasibility aspects were the major criteria during selection. 8.2.1 Carbon Lake The Carbon Lake alternative reservoir would occupy an old, glacier-scoured, bedrock basin in a steep-sided, U-shaped valley. The topography and relief of the dam site and reservoir are similar to the Green Lake area. Bedrock at Carbon Lake consists of massive granitic rocks belonging to the Kasnyku Lake pluton. Soils would be similar to those found at Green Lake. The site would be located about 4 miles west of the potentially active Chatham Strait fault. Geological hazards, problems, and impacts at the Carbon Lake alternative would be similar to those associ- ated with the Green Lake project. Geological conditions at the Carbon Lake site are adequate for construction of a rockfill or concrete arch dam. A powerhouse would be located at tidewater. The average gross head of 230 feet and the average annual stream flow of 333 cfs would permit the installation of 13,500 kW of capacity, which would produce an estimated 43,674,000 kWh of energy annually. Stream flow would be regulated by 53,000 acre-feet of usable storage. Development of this storage would require the construction of four dams, ranging in height from 10 to 65 feet, a 4,800-foot-long penstock, and about 31.4 miles of transmission lines. Landslide, avalanche, and other soil mass movement hazards and impacts for the Carbon Lake transmission line route are greater in existing and potential number and severity than for the Green Lake project route. The Carbon Lake route would also have to pass over a very steep, mountainous, landslide-and-avalanche-riddled, 2,855-foot-high drainage divide ridge that is often covered by lingering and sometimes perennial snow. The direct construction cost for the Carbon Lake alter- native would be $43 million, in comparison to $27.5 million at Green Lake. The cost per kilowatt of installed capacity at the Carbon Lake site would be $3,175, almost double the proposed Green Lake cost of $1,662 per kW. In addition, the available power capacity at the Carbon Lake site would not fulfill Applicant's needs. 8.2.2 Takatz Lake Takatz Lake occupies a glacier-scoured bedrock basin in a very steep-sided, U-shaped valley. Much of the shoreline of Takatz Lake consists of talus and debris from the numerous land- slides and avalanches that commonly terminate directly in the 8-9 lake. Bedrock consists of massive granitic rocks belonging to the Kasnyku Lake pluton. Soils are similar to those at the Green Lake site. The Takatz Lake alternative site is located about 6 or 7 miles west of the Chatham Strait fault. Although geological hazards, problems, and impacts at the Takatz Lake reservoir, dam, and powerplant sites would be generally similar to those at Green Lake, a much higher landslide and avalanche hazard exists, along with a higher potential for slide or avalanche-generated destructive waves in the reservoir. Despite these hazards, the geology at the Takatz Lake site is adequate for construction of a rockfill or concrete arch dam. A dam approximately 200 feet high would store about 82,400 acre-feet of water, which would be sufficient to practically con- trol and regulate all of the annual runoff. The average annual inflow into Takatz Lake is 166 cfs. It is estimated that an average gross head of 1,023 feet could be developed at the site. A powerhouse located at Takatz Bay would be connected to a 2,800- foot-long penstock, and with an installed capacity of 27,200 kW would produce an estimated 93,330,000 kWh of energy annually. The transmission line would be about 31.2 miles long, and would be generally the same as that proposed for the Carbon Lake alter- native. The geological hazards, problems, and impacts for the route are similar to those discussed in the Carbon Lake site. The direct construction cost would be $67.4 million, as compared to $27.5 million for the proposed Green Lake site. The estimated cost per kilowatt for Takatz Lake is $2,433, as compared to $1,662 for the Green Lake proposal. The Takatz Lake site has a great potential for hydroelectric development, but its construc- tion cannot be economically justified at this time. 8.3 ALTERNATIVE EQUIVALENT POWER The lack of existing transmission corridors, the high costs of constructing such facilities (due to the long distances and difficult terrain involved), and the isolation of the island, all rule out the purchase of power and energy requirements as an alternative. These limitations, coupled with the relatively small size of the electric system, also rule out the construction of large and efficient base-load steam-electric projects that would require the exporting of excess generation. Practical alternatives to the proposed action are thus limited to those that are technically feasible and that can be economically constructed and operated in the smaller capacity range. Three alternative forms of generation meet these criteria: a steam-electric plant with excess capacity that could be used to provide spinning reserve; an oil-fired or gas-fired combustion 8-10 turbine plant; and a diesel-electric plant. The first two of these alternatives do not have ideal characteristics from an economic point of view, particularly when supplying spinning- reserve capacity. 8.3.1 Small Steam-Electric Plants Steam-electric plants in the 15-MW capacity range are expensive to construct and have relatively high heat rates, which range from 12,000 to 13,000 BTU's per kilowatt-hour. Some of the required auxiliary components, such as sophisti- cated control and performance monitoring equipment, are also nearly as expensive for small plants as for large plants. Air-pollution control for steam-electric plants, when required, adds considerably to first costs and to operating and mainte- mance costs. 8.3.2 Combustion Turbine Plants Combustion turbines have low construction costs, present minimal siting problems, and require only 18 to 24 months of lead time to construct. In emergencies, combustion turbines can be brought from a cold start to full-load in about 5 minutes, Utility experience has shown, however, that they do not start reliably. At no-load, combustion turbines consume about 30 percent of their full-load fuel requirements. When operated at less than full-load, their heat rates increase rapidly. In addition, operating and maintenance costs, exclusive of fuel, are high. This is particularly true if they must be started frequently. When spinning reserve capacity is not avail- able from complementary generating resources, combustion turbines are not a practical alternative to hydro. 8.3.3 Diesel-Electric Plants Diesel-electric plants, with their low first cost, short lead time, minimal siting problems, and reasonable fuel rates at intermediate and light loads, are considered the best alternative to the proposed project. Diesel engines can be started and brought to full-load rapidly, and are regarded as having reliable starting characteristics and acceptable operating and maintenance costs. They are ideal for remote starting and control. An undesirable characteristic of diesel engines is their relatively high forced outage rate (typically 29 percent) compared to the rate for hydro engines (2 percent). Diesel engines also require considerably more routine maintenance than hydro turbines. A typical diesel engine must be dismantled for inspection and overhaul after 8,000 operating hours. 8-11 8.4 ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF GENERATION 8.4.1 Alternatives Considered The alternatives selected for detailed economic analysis were hydro, diesel, and combustion turbine generators. Coal- and oil-fired steam plants were not considered economically feasible because, in the capacity range under consideration, capital costs for steam plants are much higher than diesel generators, with no offsetting fuel cost savings. Preliminary cost estimates indicate that a 13,500-kW steam plant would cost approximately $1,000 per kilowatt and that fuel consumption per kilowatt-hour would be slightly greater than that of diesel units. The lead time necessary for design and construction of a steam- electric plant would give an in-service date of about 1983. Carbon Lake and Takatz Lake are alternative hydro sites located near Sitka; preliminary studies show, however, that the power potential at Carbon Lake would not be adequate to meet Sitka's needs and that Takatz Lake, although promising as a future development, would have a direct cost of $67,400,000, or $2,433 per kW, which is greater than the direct cost of Green Lake Project--$27,425,000, or $1,652 per kW. Since it is appar- ent that the hydro alternatives provide no economic advantage over the proposed Green Lake Preject, they are not included in Table 8-2. 8.4.2 Interest Rates And Economic Service Lives Applicable to Alternatives Annual charges for debt repayment were calculated, based upon the estimated capital cost, economic service life, and inter- est rate applicable to each alternative. Annual charge rates are summarized in Table 8-3. 8.4.3 Annual Cost Comparison The estimated annual cost for the proposed project and each alternative is shown in Table 8-2. Year by year costs were tabulated for the service life of each alternative, and present-worth calculations were used to derive equivalent uni- form annual costs to account for the different service lives. All alternatives except hydro were assumed to supply 64,900,000 kWh of energy at the load center annually. For each alternative, three types of costs were tabulated: (1) costs which were a function of capital investment only; (2) costs which were a function of labor (operation and maintenance expenses); and (3) fuel cost. The annual dollar costs associated with capital investment were assumed to be fixed because of the nature of Table 8-2. Hydro . Installed Capacity + Dependable Capacity Capital Cost, Total (1981 on-line) a. Generating Plant b. Substation c. Transmission Line . Fixed Charge Rates (percent of capital cost) a. Generating Plant b. Substation c. Transmission Line - Annual Cost Associated with Capital Investment e Total Levelized Annual O & M and A & G Costs a. Generating Plant b. Substation c. Transmission Line - Levelized Annual Fuel Costs Total Levelized Annual Cost (sum of lines 5, 6, &7) * Substation and Transmission costs neglected. Green Lake 16,500 kW (2-8,250 kW units) 13,500 kW $48,384,657 $40,679 ,442 4,921,923 2,783,292 $ 3,012,801 $ 1,819,474 $ 1,517,241 $ 254,488 $ 47,745 $ 4,832,275 Annual Cost Comparison of Alternatives Combustion Diesel Turbine 16,500 kW 18,000 kw (6-2,750 kW units) (6-3,000 kW units) 13,500 kW 13,500 kW $8,271,000 $5,839,000 $8,271,000 $5,839,000 wid endonne * --------- * wlio me's * Sonesencs ¥ 8.32 8.32 ° ---- * ---- * H -~--- * ---- * ae $ 688,147 $ 485,805 $1,039,665 $ 915,956 $1,039,665 ** $ 915,956 aSeeee * ------- * Seeceen * wonnsne ¥ $5,467,352 $7,703,225 $7,195,164 $9,104,986 Diesel and combustion turbines would be located at load center and would generate at distribution voltage. “* Based on Ketchikan Cost Report for Bailey Unit No. 1. Il. 8-13 Table 8-3. Annual Charge Rates Hydro Projects A. Hydro Generating Plant (50-year life) Cost of Money Depreciation (Sinking Fund) Insurance Interim Replacements Total Annual Charge Rate Percent 5.00 -48 -20 -40 6.08 B. Wood Pole Transmission Line (30-year life) Cost of Money Depreciation (Sinking Fund) Insurance Interim Replacements Total Annual Charge Rate C.. Substations (30-year life) Cost of Money Depreciation (Sinking Fund) Insurance Interim Replacements Total Annual Charge Rate Non- Hydro Projects A. Generating Plant (35-year life) Cost of Money Depreciation (Sinking Fund) Insurance Interim Replacements Total Annual Charge Rate Cost of money for Hydro is 5 percent assuming 5.00 1.51 -10 -20 6.81 5.00 1.51 225 -35 7.00 72 -25 230 8.32 special financing arranged through a State of Alaska Revolving Loan Fund for hydroelectric development. Cost of money for Non-Hydro plant is 7 percent because these projects would have to be financed by sale of municipal bonds. 8-14 debt contracts. Labor costs for operation and maintenance of combustion turbines are based upon utility experience. Labor costs were escalated at 7 percent through 1980 and at 5 percent for 1981 and beyond. Fuel costs were based upon the actual cost of #2 fuel oil to Sitka in 1978. Typical heat rates of diesel and combustion turbine generators were used. Fuel costs were escalated at 7 percent through 1980 and at 5 percent for 1981 and beyond. The capital costs for the hydro and diesel alternatives provided by applicant's consulting engineer were reviewed, and are considered to be reasonable. These estimates include costs for land, buildings, foundations, fuel reserve, fuel storage, switchgear, and interest during construction. Capital costs for the combustion-turbine alternative were based upon manu- facturer's quoted prices for combustion-turbine generator sets. All other costs associated with combustion turbines, such as land, buildings, and fuel storage, were assumed to be the same as those associated with diesel generators. Transmission line and substation costs were not considered to be a significant factor in the case of combustion turbines or diesel alternatives. These units would be installed at the load center and would generate at distribution voltage. The Green Lake Project would require approximately 8 miles of new 69-kV transmission line and the upgrading of approximately 4 miles of existing 34.5-kV line to 69 kV. The costs associated with transmission line works were included in the hydro cost estimate, The installed generating capacity selected for each alter- native was such that comparable reliability and dependable capacity would be supplied to the load center. Certain system modifications are needed to accommodate the added capacity of Green Lake, but are not part of the Green Lake application. Since these system improvements are a necessary adjunct to Green Lake, their costs were included in the economic analysis shown in Table 8-2. These modifications include: 1. Upgrading approximately 4 miles of the existing 34.5-kV, Blue Lake to Marine Street Substation transmission line to 69 kV. 2. Upgrading the Blue Lake Substation to 69 kV. 3. Construction of a new transmission stepdown and distribution substation at Marine Street. 8-15 Since the facilities involved are associated with the Blue Lake Project and are licensed as part of the project, these modifications would be accomplished through amendment to the Blue Lake Project license. 8.5 SUMMARY OF SELECTED ENGINEERING PARAMETERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AREAS ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE POWER SYSTEMS The FERC Staff has summarized available information on selected engineering parameters and areas of environmental impact associated with the proposed Green Lake Project. This information is presented, along with similar information reflected by alter- native power systems, in Table 8.4. The table compares four con- ventional hydroelectric generating systems of comparable size, including Green Lake, with each other and with small-steam elec- tric, diesel-electric, and combustion turbine systems of equal dependable capacity. The comparisons are not conclusive, as avail- able specific information is incomplete, and in some cases not compatible or applicable. The comparisons are therefore made more specifically for summarization purposes. 8.6 DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR LICENSE Denial of license for the Green Lake Project would force the City of Sitka to install alternative generating capacity in order to meet its expected demand for power. The most likely alternative generating capacity would be diesel generators. The city would thus become increasingly dependent upon oil as its primary energy source, and as its power load grows, the consump- tion of fuel oil would increase accordingly. The cost of pro- ducing power would also escalate in proportion to future increases in the cost of fuel oil and this would be passed on to consumers. TABLE 8-4. AREAS ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE POWER SYSTEMS. SUMMARY OF SELECTED ENGINEERING PARAMETERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Green Lake Carbon Lake Tokatz Lake Small-steam Combustion SOURCE: FERC STAFF Diesel-electric Project Alternative Alternative Electric Plants Turbine Plants Plants Miles of Stream 3 miles of 2.5 miles of 1.5 miles of NA NA NA Flooded sinuous stream braided stream braided stream Existing Lake 180 acres/230 403 acres/211 403 acres/905 Unknown NA NA Surface Area and feet feet. 50 acres/ feet Elevation 248 feet Proposed Reservoir 1,000 acres/390 1,036 acres/265 736 acres/1,040 Unknown NA NA Surface Area (max.) feet feet. 64 acres/ feet and Elevation 265 feet System Fuel Excellent Excellent Excellent Fair Poor Poor Efficiency Construction Time 4 years 4 years 4 years 2.5 years 2 years 1.5 years in Years Length of Transmission Line in Miles Air Quality Noise Levels Water Quality Existing Fishery Expected Fishery 8 miles of new line; 4 miles of upgraded existing line Increased dust, particulate matter, and hydro- carbons during construction. Increased mainly during construc~ tion (moderate intensity) Some increases in turbidity levels in water associated with project during construction; project operation not expected to have significant adverse impacts. Some decline in population of resident brook trout expected as a result of inundation of nearby, all-acces- sible, spawning habitat, Put-and-take trout fishery expected; main- tenance of the resident brook trout population without stocking could be prevented by project opera- tion. 31.4 miles of new line; 4 miles of upgraded exist- ing line Same as Green Lake Similar to Green Lake Similar to Green Lake Unknown Unknown 31.2 miles of new line; 4 miles of upgraded exist- ing line Same as Green Lake Similar to Green Lake Similar to Green Lake Unknown, Unknown Would depend on the location Particulate matter and pollutants emitted during operation (very dirty) Evident during construction and operation (high intensify) Would depend upon source of cooling water and method of cooling Would depend upon source of cooling water and method of cooling Would depend upon project location and operation Would depend on the location Particulate matter and pollutants emitted during operation (moder- ately dirty) Evident during construction and operation (high intensity) None None None Would depend on the location Particulate matter and pollutants emitted during operation (dirty) Evident during operation (moder- ate intensity) None None None I-8 SUMMARY OF SELECTED ENGINEERING PARAMETERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AREAS ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE POWER SYSTEMS. (Continued) Population and During 3-year con- Similar to Green During construc- NA NA NA Employment struction period, Lake tion period, project would project would employ 150 persons, employ about 250 most of whom would persons, most of relocate in Sitka whom would relo- without their cate without families. Popula- their families. tion increase Population in- resulting from crease result- project would be ing from project about 175-200 would be about persons. 300 persons. Housing Contractor Contractor Contractor NA NA NA selected for selected would selected would project either establish a establish a would lease construction construction rooms in Sitka's | camp near camp near two older hotels project site project site or establish a construction camp for 150 workers Income Relatively small Same as Green Same as Green NA NA NA and short-term Lake Lake increase in e project area _ income during a construction Visual Resources Land is rugged, Land is rugged, Same as Carbon Would depend on the Would depend on the Would depend on inaccessible, and very inacces- Lake Alternative location location the location undeveloped. Un- sible, and avoidable short- undeveloped. term construction Project -induced impacts. Lasting intrusions adverse visual associated with impacts caused by construction, access road, power- operation, and house, and sub= maintenance. station locations. Area not readily visible to public. Cultural Resources No impacts on Impact unknown; Impact unknown; Would depend on the | Would depend on the = Would depend on significant cultural cultural location location the location cultural resources resources resources survey needed . survey needed . SUMMARY OF SELECTED ENGINEERING PARAMETERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AREAS ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE POWER SYSTEMS. (Continued) Vegetation and Forestry Resource Agricultural Resources Wildlife Existing Recreation Proposed Recreation Existing Mineral Claims Possible Mineral Claims Approximately 700 acres of forest lost None 830 acres lost. Adverse effects on nesting eagles. Fringe of deer habitat would be lost. Some loss of bear habitat. Limited mostly to hikers or boat-in fisherman. Ice covered into early spring. Limited recrea- tional opportu- nities would be made available by development. Would provide road access to Joseph Gangola claims. Could provide partial road access to Edgecumbe Explora- tion Co., Inc., claims. Could provide road access to future claims along northeast shore of Silver Bay, Medvejie Lake valley, and Green Lake area. New, minable ore bodies could be uncovered during project- related rock excavation. Such discovery would stimulate mineral exploration throughout the Silver Bay-Green Lake area. Gentle slopes covered with Sitka spruce and western hemlock. Limited forestry losses. None Approximately 620 acres of additional land would be in- undated. Loss of some deer and bear habitat. Remote from any significant popula- tion centers. Ice covered into late spring. Remote location precludes any significant develop- ment. None None Likely Shrub species, chiefly alders and willows, growing on alluvial plain would be lost. Trees at this elevation not significant. None 330 acres inun- dated, the least amount of habitat to be disturbed. Mountain goats may use area as winter range. Remote from any significant popula- tion centers. Ice covered until mid- summer. Remote location precludes any significant develop- ment. None None Likely Would depend on the location NA Would depend on the location Would depend on the location No recreation would be available Would depend on the location Would depend on the location Would depend on the location NA Would depend on the location Would depend on the location No recreation would be available Would depend on the location Would depend on the location Would depend on the location NA Would depend on the location Would depend on the location No recreation would be available Would depend on the location Would depend on the location 8I-8 LIST OF REFERENCES Ackerman, Robert E. 1977. Archeological Survey of Proposed Access Road and Dam Impoundment Area: Silver Bay-Green Lake Region, Baranof Island, Alaska. Pulman, Washington: Washington State University. 26 pages and appendix. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1973. Alaska's Wildlife Habitat. 144 pages. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1976. Alaska Wildlife Management Plans, Draft Proposals, Southeast Alaska. 156 pages. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1972. Alaska Outdoor Recreation: Historic Preservation. 203 pages. Beck, R. W. 1977. The Green Lake Project, Evaluation Report. June 1977. Brew, D. A., L. J. P. Muffler, and R. A. Loney. 1969. Recon- naissance Geology of the Mount Edgecumb Volcanic Field, Kruzof Island, Southeastern Alaska, in Geological Survey Research 1969. U.S. Geological Survey. Professional Paper 650-D. Pages D1-D18 (1970). Comprehensive Development Plan. 1976. Planning Department, City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska. 67 pages. Converse, Davis, Dixon Associates, Inc. 1974, Preliminary Geologic Investigation, Proposed Green Lake Hydroelec- tric Project, Sitka, Alaska. CDDA Project No. W-74-315- AH. November 19, 1974. 38 numbered pages. 1977. Phase II Geotechnical Investigation, Green Lake Hydroelectric Project, Sitka, Alaska. CDDA Project No. W-76-328-AH. February 1, 1977. 32 numbered pages. 1978. Phase III Final Geotechnical Investigation, Green Lake Hydroelectric Project, Sitka, Alaska. CDDA Project No. 77-5149-63. April 21, 1978. Volume 1, 60 numbered pages; Volume II, appendices. Edison Electric Institute. 1975. Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Powerlines. Raptor Research Foundation, Inc. 15 pages. Federal Power Commission. 1975. Power System Statement from City and Borough of Sitka. Filed July 2, 1976. Schedule 14, page 25. Hard, John S. 1974, Forest Insects. The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska, Volume 2. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture. Forest Service. General Technical Report PNW-13. 32 pages. R-2 Harris, Arland S., et al. 1974. The Setting. The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska, Volume 1. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. General Technical Report PNW-12. 40 pages. Harris, Arland S., and Wilbur A. Farr. 1974, Forest Ecology and Timber Management. The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska, Volume 7, Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. General Technical Report PNW-25. 109 pages. Hutchinson, 0. Keith, and Vernon J. LaBau. 1975. Timber Inventory, Harvesting, Marketing, and Trends. The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska, Volume 9, Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Ceneral Technical Report PNW-34. 55 pages. Hoopes, D. T. 1977. An Investigation of the Biotic Communities in the Vicinity of Green Lake, Baranof Island, Alaska. Appendix W-10, Exhibit W, in the Environmental Report of the Application for License for the Green Lake Project, FERC Project No. 2818. 43 pages. Knopf, Adolf. 1912. The Sitka Mining District, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 504. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Pages 7-32. Laurent, Thomas H. 1974. Forest Diseases. The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska, Volume 6. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture. Forest Service. General Technical Report PNW-23. 30 pages. Loney, R. H., D. A. Brew, L. J. P. Muffler, and J. S. Pomeroy. 1975. Reconnaissance Geology of Chichagof, Baranof, and Kruzof Islands, Southeastern Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey. Professional Paper 792. 105 pages. McCoy, G. A., W. W. Wiggins, and A. E. Schmidt. 1977, Limno- logical Investigations of Six Lakes in Southeast Alaska. Juneau, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey. 1 page (maps). Meehan, William R. 1974. Wildlife Habitats. The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska, Volume 4. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. General Technical Report PNW-16. 33 pages. National Eutrophication Survey. 1974. The Relationship of Phosphorus and Nitrogen to the Trophic State of North- east and Northcentral Lakes and Reservoirs. Working Paper No. 23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 28 pages. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell, and Company. 1975. City and Borough of Sitka, Financial Statements and Schedules, June 30, 1975, and 1974, R-3 Price, Waterhouse, and Company. 1977. City and Borough of Sitka, Financial Statements and Supplementary Information. June 30, 1977, and 1976. 34 pages. Robards, Fred, and Allan Taylor. No date. Bald Eagles in Alaska. Joint publication, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 12 pages. Robbins, Chandler S. 1966. Birds of North America. New York, New York: Golden Press. 340 pages. Rural Electrification Administration. 1972. Protection of Bald and Golden Eagles from Powerlines. Bulletin No. 61- 10. 6 pages. Schmiege, D. C., A. E. Helmers, and D. M. Bishop. 1974. Water. The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska, Volume 8. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. General Technical Report PNW-28. 26 pages. Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Bulletin 184. 966 pages. Shelford, Victor E. 1963. The Ecology of North America. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press. 610 pages. Swanston, D. N. 1974. Soil Mass Movement. The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska, Volume 5. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture. Forest Service. General Technical Report PNW-17. 22 pages. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1978. Environmental Analysis Report, Access Road and Transmission Line, Green Lake Project, Baranof Island, Alaska. Forest Service, Region 10, Tongass National Forest. 11 pages. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1978. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Economics Information System. Unpublished data. U.S. Forest Service. 1977. Southeast Alaska Area Guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 380 pages. Viereck, Leslie, and Elbert L. Little, Jr. 1974. Guide to Alaska Trees. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service Agriculture Handbook No. 472. 98 pages. Yehle, L. A. 1974. Reconnaissance Engineering Geology of Sitka and Vicinity, Alaska, with Emphasis on Evaluation of Earth- quake and Other Geologic Hazards. U. S. Geological Survey. Open File Report 74-53. 104 pages. APPENDIX A. Letter to the Commission from the State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Dated March 15, 1978 STATE OF ALASKA /-—— Liu / DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES / 7¢"tY McWilliams, Director Division rks DIVISION OF PARKS 619 Warehouse Dr., Sint 210 March 15, 1978 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 BB 1130-13 oe Se =e Be BS So «oe at ems 2 > a= a: ee “Kenneth Plum, Secretary “FedSsal’ “Parergy Regulatory Commission wast@geton, D.C. 20426 Dear Mr. Plum: This office has reviewed your project #2818 (Green Lake Project) for impacts on historic and archaeological resources. The project will not affect any properties listed on or determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The liklihood of encountering such properties has been determined to be low. We are in full accord with the findings of your consultant. Sincerely, Will PN ie fbn William S. Hanable State Historic Preservation Officer DR/jan QE CEIVED ECEIVED MAR 23 1978 DIVISION OF LICENSED PROJECTS ic ORICE CFELTCIRY WER ReEGILANO APPENDIX B. Form L-2: Terms and Conditions of License for Unconstructed Major Project Affecting Lands of the United States Form L-2 (Revised October, 1975) FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF LICENSE FOR UNCONSTRUCTED MAJOR PROJECT AFFECTING LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES Article 1. The entire project, as described in this order of the Commission, shall be subject to all of the provisions, terms, and conditions of the license. Article 2. No substantial change shall be made in the maps, plans, specifications, and statements described and designated as exhibits and approved by the Commission in its order as a part of the license until such change shall have been approved by the Commission: Provided, however, That if the Licensee or the Commission deems it necessary or desirable that said approved exhibits, or any of them, be changed, there shall be submitted to the Commission for approval a revised, or additional exhibit or exhibits covering the proposed changes which, upon approval by the Commission, shall become a part of the license and shall supersede, in whole or in part, such exhibit or exhibits theretofore made a part of the license as may be specified by the Commission. Article 3. The project works shall be constructed in substantial conformity with the approved exhibits referred to in Article 2 herein or as changed in accord- ance with the provisions of said article. Except when emergency shall require for the protection of navigation, life, health, or property, there shall not be made without prior approval of the Commission any substantial alteration or addition not in conformity with the approved plans to any dam or other project works under the license or any sub- stantial use of project lands and waters not authorized herein; and any emergency alteration, addition, or use so made shall thereafter be subject to such modification and change as the Commission may direct. Minor changes in project works, or in uses of project lands and waters, or divergence from such approved exhibits may be made if such changes will not result in a decrease in efficiency, in a material increase in cost, in an adverse environmental impact, or in impairment of the general scheme of development; but any of such minor changes made without the prior approval of the Commission, which in its judgment have produced or will produce any of such results, shall be subject to such alteration as the Commission may direct. B-2 Upon the completion of the project, or at such other time as the Commission may direct, the Licensee shall submit to the Commission for approval revised exhibits insofar as necessary to show any divergence from or variations in the project area and project boundary as finally located or in the project works as actually constructed when compared with the area and boundary shown and the works described in the license or in the exhibits approved by the Commission, together with a statement in writing setting forth the reasons which in the opinion of the Licensee necessitated or justified variation in or divergence from the approved exhibits. Such revised exhibits shall, if and when approved by the Commission, be made a part of the license under the provisions of Article 2 hereof. Article 4, The construction, operation, and main- tenance of the project and any work incidental to additions or alterations shall be subject to the inspection and super- vision of the Regional Engineer, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in the region wherein the project is Idécated, or of such other officer or agent as the Commission may designate, who shall be the authorized representative of the Commission for such purposes. The Licensee shall cooperate fully with said representative and shall furnish him a detailed program of inspection by the Licensee that will provide for an adequate and qualified inspection force for construction of the project and for any subsequent alterations to the project. Construction of the project works or any feature:'or alteration thereof shall not be initiated until the program of inspection for the project works or any such feature thereof has been approved by said representative. The Licensee shall also furnish to said representative such further information as he may require concerning the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project, and of any alteration thereof, and shall notify him of the date upon which work will begin, as far in advance thereof as said representative May reasonably specify, and shall notify him promptly in writing of any suspension of work for a period of more than one week, and of its resumption and completion. The Licensee shall allow said representative and other officers or employees of the United States, showing proper credentials, free and unrestricted access to, through, and across the project lands and project works in the performance of their official duties. The Licensee shall comply with such rules and regulations of general or special applicability as the Commission may prescribe from time to time for the protection of life, health, or property. B-3 Article 5. The Licensee, within five years from the date of issuance of the license, shall acquire title in fee or the right to use in perpetuity all lands, other than lands of the United States, necessary or appropriate for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the project. The Licensee or its successors and assigns shall, during the period of the license, retain the possession of all project property covered by the license as issued or as later amended, including the project area, the project works, and all franchises, easements, water rights, and rights of occupancy and use; and none of such properties shall be voluntarily sold, leased, transferred, abandoned, or otherwise disposed of without the prior written approval of the Commission, except that the Licensee may lease or otherwise dispose of interests in project lands or property without specific written approval of the Commission pursuant to the then current regulations of the Commission. The provisions of this article are not intended to prevent the abandonment or the retirement from service of structures, equipment, or other project works in connection with replace- ments thereof when they become obsolete, inadequate, or inefficient for further service due to wear and tear; and mortgage or trust deeds or judicial sales made thereunder, or tax sales, shall not be deemed voluntary transfers within the meaning of this article. Article 6. In the event the project is taken over by the United States upon the termination of the license as provided in Section 14 of the Federal Power Act, or is transferred to a new licensee or to a non-power licensee under the provisions of Section 15 of said Act, the Licensee, its successors and assigns shall be responsible for, and shall make good any defect of title to, or of right of occupancy and use in, any of such project property that is necessary Or appropriate or valuable and serviceable in the maintenance and operation of the project, and shall pay and discharge, or shall assume responsibility for payment and discharge of, all liens or encumbrances upon the project or project property created by the Licensee or created or incurred after the issuance of the license: Provided, That the provisions of this article are not intended to require the Licensee, for the purpose of transferring the project to the United States or to a new licensee, to acquire any different title to, or right of occupancy and use in, any of such project property than was necessary to acquire for its own purposes as the Licensee. B-4 Article 7. The actual legitimate original cost of the project, and of any addition thereto or betterment thereof, shall be determined by the Commission in accordance with the Federal Power Act and the Commission's Rules and Regulations thereunder. Article 8. The Licensee shall install and thereafter maintain gages and stream-gaging stations for the purpose of determining the stage and flow of the stream or streams on which the project is located, the amount of water held in and withdrawn from storage, and the effective head on the turbines; shall provide for the required reading of such gages and for the adequate rating of such stations; and shall install and maintain standard meters adequate for the determination of the amount of electric energy generated by the project works. The number, character, and location of gages, meters, or other measuring devices, and the method of operation thereof, shall at all times be satis- factory to the Commission or its authorized representative. The Commission reserves the right, after notice and oppor- tunity for hearing, to require such alterations in the number, character, and location of gages, meters, or other measuring devices, and the method of operation thereof, as are necessary to secure adequate determinations. The installation of gages, the rating of said stream or streams, and the determination of the flow thereof, shall be under the supervision of, or in cooperation with, the District Engineer of the United States Geological Survey having charge of stream-gaging operations in the region of the project, and the Licensee shall advance to the United States Geological Survey the amount of funds estimated to be necessary for such supervision, or cooperation for such periods as may be mutually agreed upon. The Licensee shall keep accurate and sufficient records of the foregoing determinations to the satisfaction of the Commission, and shall make return of such records annually at such time and in such form as the Commission May prescribe. Article 9. The Licensee shall, after notice and opportunity for hearing, install additional capacity or make other changes in the project as directed by the Commission, to the extent that it is economically sound and in the public interest to do so. B-5 Article 10. The Licensee shall, after notice and opportunity for hearing, coordinate the operation of the project, electrically and hydraulically, with such other projects or power systems and in such manner as the Commission may direct in the interest of power and other beneficial public uses of water resources, and on such conditions concerning the equitable sharing of benefits by the Licensee as the Commission may order. Article 11. Whenever the Licensee is directly benefited by the construction work of another licensee, a permittee, or the United States on a storage reservoir or other headwater improvement, the Licensee shall reimburse the owner of the headwater improvement for such part of the annual charges for interest, maintenance, and depreciation thereof as the Commission shall determine to be equitable, and shall pay to the United States the cost of making such determination as fixed by the Commission. For benefits provided by a storage reservoir or other headwater improve- ment of the United States, the Licensee shall pay to the Commission the amounts for which it is billed from time to time for such headwater benefits and for the cost of making the determinations pursuant to the then current regulations of the Commission under the Federal Power Act. Article 12. The operations of the Licensee, so far as they affect the use, storage and discharge from storage of waters affected by the license, shall at all times be controlled by such reasonable rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe for the protection of life, health, and property, and in the interest of the fullest practicable conservation and utilization of such waters for power purposes and for other beneficial public uses, including recreational purposes, and the Licensee shall release water from the project reservoir at such rate in cubic feet per second, or such volume in acre-feet per specified period of time, as the Commission may prescribe for the purposes hereinbefore mentioned. Article 13. On the application of any person, association, corporation, Federal agency, State or municipality, the Licensee shall permit such reasonable use of its reservoir or other project properties, including works, lands and water rights, or parts thereof, as may be ordered by the Commission, after notice and opportunity B-6 for hearing, in the interests of comprehensive development of the waterway or waterways involved and the conservation and utilization of the water resources of the region for water supply or for the purposes of steam-electric, irrigation, industrial, municipal or similar uses. The Licensee shall receive reasonable compensation for use of its reservoir or other project properties or parts thereof for such Purposes, to include at least full reimbursement for any damages or expenses which the joint use causes the Licensee to incur. Any such compensation shall be fixed by the Commission either by approval of an agreement between the Licensee and the party or parties benefiting or after notice and opportunity for hearing. Applications shall contain information in sufficient detail to afford a full understanding of the proposed use, including satisfactory evidence that the applicant possesses necessary water rights pursuant to applicable State law, or a showing of cause why such evidence cannot concurrently be submitted, and a statement as to the relationship of the proposed use to any State or municipal plans or orders which may have been adopted with respect to the use of such waters. Article 14. In the construction or maintenance of the project works, the Licensee shall place and maintain suitable structures and devices to reduce to a reasonable degree the liability of contact between its transmission lines and telegraph, telephone and other signal wires or power trans- mission lines constructed prior to its transmission lines and not owned by the Licensee, and shall also Place and maintain suitable structures and devices to reduce to a reasonable degree the liability of any structures or wires falling or obstructing traffic or endangering life. None of the provisions of this article are intended to relieve the Licensee from any responsibility or requirement which may be imposed by any other lawful authority for avoiding or eliminating inductive interference. Article 15. The Licensee shall, for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources, construct, maintain, and operate, or arrange for the construction, maintenance, and operation of such reasonable facilities, and comply with such reasonable modifications of the project structures and operation, as may be ordered by the Commission upon its own motion or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior or the fish and wildlife agency or agencies of any State in which the project or a part thereof is located, after notice and opportunity for hearing. B-7 Article 16. Whenever the United States shall desire, in connection with the project, to construct fish and wildlife facilities or to improve the existing fish and wildlife facilities at its own expense, the Licensee shall permit the United States or its designated agency to use, free of cost, such of the Licensee's lands and interests in lands, reservoirs, waterways and project works as may be reasonably required to complete such facilities or such improvements thereof. In addition, after notice and opportunity for hearing, the Licensee shall modify the project operation as may be reasonably prescribed by the Commission in order to permit the maintenance and operation of the fish and wildlife facilities constructed or improved by the United States under the provisions of this article. This article shall not be interpreted to place any obligation on the United States to construct or improve fish and wild- life facilities or to relieve the Licensee of any obligation under this license. Article 17. The Licensee shall construct, maintain, and operate, Or shall arrange for the construction, main- tenance, and operation of such reasonable recreational facilities, including modifications thereto, such as access roads, wharves, launching ramps, beaches, picnic and camping areas, sanitary facilities, and utilities, giving consideration to the needs of the physically handicapped, and shall comply with such reasonable modi- fications of the project, as may be prescribed here- after by the Commission during the term of this license upon its own motion or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior or other interested Federal or State agencies, after notice and opportunity for hearing. Article 18. So far as is consistent with proper operation of the project, the Licensee shall allow the public free access, to a reasonable extent, to project waters and adjacent project lands owned by the Licensee for the purpose of full public utilization of such lands and waters for navigation and for outdoor recreational purposes, including fishing and hunting: Provided, That the Licensee may reserve from public access such portions of the project waters, adjacent lands, and project facilities as may be necessary for the protection of life, health, and property. B-8 Article 19. In the construction, maintenance, or operation of the project, the Licensee shall be responsible for, and shall take reasonable measures to prevent, soil erosion on lands adjacent to streams or other waters, stream sedimentation, and any form of water or air pollution. The Commission, upon request or upon its own motion, may order the Licensee to take such measures as the Commission finds to be necessary for these purposes, after notice and opportunity for hearing. Article 20. The Licensee shall consult with the appropriate State and Federal agencies and, within one year of the date of issuance of this license, shall sub- mit for Commission approval a plan for clearing the reser- voir area. Further, the Licensee shall clear and keep clear to an adequate width lands along open conduits and shall dispose of all temporary structures, unused timber, brush, refuse, or other material unnecessary for the purposes of the project which results from the clearing of lands or from the maintenance or alteration of the project works. In addition, all trees along the periphery of project reservoirs which may die during operations of the project shall be removed. Upon approval of the clearing plan all clearing of the lands and disposal of the unnecessary material shall be done with due diligence and to the satisfaction of the authorized represen- tative of the Commission and in accordance with appropriate Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations. Article 21. Timber on lands of the United States cut, used, or destroyed in the construction and maintenance of the project works, or in the clearing of said lands, shall be paid for, and the resulting slash and debris disposed of, in accordance with the requirements of the agency of the United States having jurisdiction over said lands. Payment for merchantable timber shall be at current stump- age rates, and payment for young growth timber below merchantable size shall be at current damage appraisal values. However, the agency of the United States having jurisdiction may sell or dispose of the merchantable timber to others than the Licensee: Provided, That timber so sold or disposed of shall be cut and removed from the area prior to, or without undue interference with, clearing operations of the Licensee and in coordination with the Licensee's project construction schedules. Such sale or disposal to others shall not relieve the Licensee of responsibility for the clearing and disposal of all slash and debris from project lands. Article 22. The Licensee shall do everything rea- sonably within its power, and shall require its employees, contractors, and employees of contractors to do every- thing reasonably within their power, both independently and upon the request of officers of the agency concerned, to prevent, to make advance preparations for suppression of, and to suppress fires on the lands to be occupied or used under the license. The Licensee shall be liable for and shall pay the costs incurred by the United States in suppressing fires caused from the construction, operation, or main- tenance of the project works or of the works appurtenant or accessory thereto under the license. Article 23. The Licensee shall interpose no ob- jection to, and shall in no way prevent, the use by the agency of the United States having jurisdiction over the lands of the United States affected, or by persons or corporations occupying lands of the United States under permit, of water for fire suppression from any stream, conduit, or body of water, natural or artificial, used by the Licensee in the operation of the project works covered by the license, or the use by said parties of water for sanitary and domestic purposes from any stream, conduit, or body of water, natural or artificial, used by the Licensee in the operation of the project works covered by the license. Article 24. The Licensee shall be liable for injury to, or destruction of, any buildings, bridges, roads, trails, lands, or other property of the United States, occasioned by the construction, maintenance, or operation of the project works or of the works appurtenant or accessory thereto under the license. Arrangements to meet such liability, either by compensation for such injury or destruction, or by reconstruction or repair of damaged property, or otherwise, shall be made with the appropriate department or agency of the United States. Article 25. The Licensee shall allow any agency of the United States, without charge, to construct or permit to be constructed on, through, and across those project lands which are lands of the United States such conduits, chutes, ditches, railroads, roads, trails, telephone and power lines, and other routes or means of transportation and communication as are not inconsistent with the enjoyment B-10 of said lands by the Licensee for the purposes of the license. This license shall not be construed as conferring upon the Licensee any right of use, occupancy, or enjoyment of the lands of the United States other than for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project as stated in the license. Article 26. In the construction and maintenance of the project, the location and standards of roads and trails on lands of the United States and other uses of lands of the United States, including the location and condition of quarries, borrow pits, and spoil dis- posal areas, shall be subject to the approval of the department or agency of the United States having supervision over the lands involved. Article 27. The Licensee shall make provision, or shall bear the reasonable cost, as determined by the agency of the United States affected, of making provision for avoiding inductive interference between any project transmission line or other project facility constructed, operated, or maintained under the license, and any radio installation, telephone line, or other communication facility installed or constructed before or after con- struction of such project transmission line or other project facility and owned, operated, or used by such agency of the United States in administering the lands under its jurisdiction. Article 28. The Licensee shall make use of the Commission's guidelines and other recognized guidelines for treatment of transmission line rights-of-way, and shall clear such portions of transmission line rights-of-way across lands of the United States as are designated by the officer of the United States in charge of the lands; shall keep the areas so designated clear of new growth, all refuse, and inflammable material to the satisfaction of such officer; shall trim all branches of trees in contact with or liable to contact the trans- mission lines; shall cut and remove all dead or leaning trees which might fall in contact with the transmission lines; and shall take such other precautions against fire as may be required by such officer. No fires for the burning of waste material shall be set except with the prior written consent of the officer of the United States in charge of the lands as to time and place. B-11 Article 29. The Licensee shall cooperate with the United States in the disposal by the United States, under the Act of July 31, 1947, 61 Stat. 681, as amended (30 U.S.C. sec. 601, et seg.), of mineral and vegetative materials from lands of the United States occupied by the project or any part thereof: Provided, That such disposal has been authorized by the Commission and that it does not unreasonably interfere with the occupancy of such lands by the Licensee for the purposes of the license: Provided further, That in the event of disagreement, any question of unreasonable interference shall be determined by the Commission after notice and opportunity for hearing. Article 30. If the Licensee shall cause or suffer essential project property to be removed or destroyed or to become unfit for use, without adequate replacement, or shall abandon or discontinue good faith operation of the project or refuse or neglect to comply with the terms of the license and the lawful orders of the Commission mailed to the record address of the Licensee or its agent, the Commission will deem it to be the intent of the Licensee to surrender the license. The Commission, after notice and opportunity for hearing, May require the Licensee to remove any or all structures, equipment and power lines within the project boundary and to take any such other action necessary to restore the project waters, lands, and facilities remaining within the project boundary to a condition satisfactory to the United States agency having jurisdiction over its lands or the Commission's authorized representative, as appropriate, or to provide for the continued operation and maintenance of nonpower facilities and fulfill such other obligations under the license as the Commission May prescribe. In addition, the Commission in its discretion, after notice and opportunity for hearing, may also agree to the surrender of the license when the Commission, for the reasons recited herein, deems it to be the intent of the Licensee to surrender the license. Article 31. The right of the Licensee and of its successors and assigns to use or occupy waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, or lands of the United States under the license, for the purpose of maintaining the project works or otherwise, shall absolutely cease at the end of the license period, unless the Licensee has obtained a new license pursuant to the then existing laws and regulations, or an annual license under the terms and conditions of this license. APPENDIX C. Federal Permit Requirements for Various Wastewater Discharges as Defined by the Environmental Protection Agency in a Letter Dated November 17, 1978 M/S 521 iS arn PS NOV 17 1978 ” paoaweg Mr. Dennis J. Brunelle NOV 20 97 R. W. Beck and Associates EN wa 200 Tower Bldg. Wane etuatiow Seattle, Washington 98101 Re: Green Lake Project Dear Mr. Brunelle: Qu October 17, 1978 you met with members of my staff concerning wastewater permit discharge requirements for the above referenced project. At that meeting you described the potential sources of discharge into receiving waters resulting fran the following activities: 1. Discharge of excess excavation from the powerhouse-switchyard area to Silver Bay. 2. Discharge of wash water to Green Lake from the washing and classifying of the sand and gravel on the eastern shore of Green Lake. 3. Discharges of wash water, used in rewashing the aggregate prior to use in the concrete, to Grean Lake. 4. Discharges of water used to clean and prepare the concrete surface for the next pour. 5. Placement of excavated material from the diversion tumnel in the dry areas near the dam site. 6. Drainage water from excavation of power tamnel. Excavation will be uphill and therefore only a limited amount of drainage. 7. Washdown water used in the batching operation near the drain site. Your primary concerns at this meeting were to determine what pemnits would be required and the limitations and/or conditions for each discharge. For potential discharges mmbers 1 and 5, if the primary purpose is to place C-2 the excavated material to create a fill, a Department of the Amy, Corps of Engineer's pemit, under the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CHA), will be required. If the primary purpose is to dispose of the material, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pemnit, under the provisions of Section 402 of the CWA, will be required. For potential discharges mmbers 2 and 3, an NPDES permit will be required. The limitations on the discharges are as specified in the July 12, 1977 Federal 7 Subpart C - Construction Sand and Gravel. Note that in the preamble 35846) of this Federal Register “Treatment for the con- struction sand and gravel subcategory", it states that any “wastewater in excess of that amount of water which is recycled for process water purposes may be treated and discharged”. The wastewater that is treated and dis- charge shall not exceed the limitations as specified in §436.32(a) (1). The other potential discharges (mmbers 4, 6 and 7) also require an NPDES pemit. However, presently there are no national effluent guidelines in effect for regulating these discharges. At this time it is anticipated that we will require that there be no discharge of these wastewaters to any receiving waters. Enclosed are two NPDES permit application forms and instructions. Regulations state that an application must be submitted 180 days prior to discharge. We recammend that you submit your application as early as possible. Questions on this matter may be directed to Sylvia Kawabata at (206) 442- 1213. Sincerely, Harold E. Geren, Chief Pemnits Branch oc: Alaska Operations Office, EPA Enviromental Evaluation Branch, EPA GrnWseurse” APPENDIX D. Graphs Drawn by Applicant Showing Peak Loads and Energy Requirements at Load Center kW 1000 CAPACITY, PEAK D-1 30 28 Diesels 8,600 kW 7 7 26 T px Peak Load plus Reserves Y 22 x 7 7 20 Green Lake 18 13,500 kW 16 7 14 New Diesels 5,500 kW 4 + Peak Load 10 8 Existing Diesels 3,100 kW 6 4 Blue Lake 6,500 kW 2 —— j_— PERS SRR ERE ERE Se Ses RES EES BSSBEBSLE KR EKKLRL SSS SSIRERE POWER YEAR PEAK LOADS AT LOAD CENTER NOTES: 1. Hydroelectric plont energy is average annual delivered at load center. 2. Plont capacities are dependable delivered. 3. Power years extend from July | through June 30. 4 e@ indicates actual value. 5. Growth rate 6% for projected peak loads and energy requirements. ENERGY, 10° kWh ANNUAL 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 D-2 Green Lake 64,900,000 kWh Blue Lake 44,000, + 66-67 oO: -l|n!m O]OIR/@OIHRIO — ml st ]o &/ 2,19 FoR eee fe pS Se SSB so , & 2 Oo — m oon aoanoOLA +TO OR DOD SorFrkFKFtCKLR SR SscSRSSRLSEBB POWER YEAR ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AT LOAD CENTER NOTES: |. Hydroelectric plant energy is average annual delivered at load center. 2. Plant capacities are dependable delivered. 3. Power years extend from July | through June 30. 4. © indicates actual volue. 5. Growth rate 6% for projected peak loads ond energy requirements. APPENDIX E. Letters of Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement E-2 Appendix E Agency Comments Comments on the Staff DEIS were requested from 16 Federal and State agencies. Seven of these responded with letters of comment. The summary section of the FEIS contains a listing of the agencies that received the DEIS and responded with letters of comment. All letters received by the Commission on the DEIS were reviewed by Staff, and the comments were evaluated. Suggestions for correcting text or data and requests for further discussion of a subject have been given consideration by the FERC Staff. Those editorial changes and suggestions which were practicable, reasonable, and which improved the quality of the FEIS are incorporated herein. Constructive criticism presenting a major environmental point of view or one in opposition to Staff, when persuasively supported, is treated by making revisions in the appropriate part of the FEIS. When the major point of view is not persua- sive, reasons are given why Staff did not change its point of view in the margin of the letter. The sections or pages of the FEIS that have been modified as a result of comments received are listed in the margins of the letters of comments, adjacent to the pertinent comment. Other FERC staff responses contained in the margins of the letters of comment are self explanatory. A "no comment required" response is given to comments which are statements that raise no questions concerning treat- ment of subject matter in the environmental impact statement. United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C, 202. Dec 15 9 sy AM'T8 PEP ER 78/1042 RAL tae REGULA 78 COMMISSION pec 13 8 Honorable Kenneth F. Plumb Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20426 Dear Mr. Plumb: We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for Green Lake Project, Sitka, Alaska, and conclude that several areas of discussion merit reexamination. Further- more, we believe the statement omits information essential for a clear understanding of impacts and does not adequately respond to comments made in our letter dated May 19, 1978. General Comments The fundamental purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act process is to improve decision making regarding proposed projects by assuring that environmental information is avail- able before decisions are made and before actions are taken. Major decisions concerning the Green Lake Project have al- ready been made to the extent of letting the contract and marshalling equipment to construct the acce road to the project site (ref. Contract No. 1 -- Green e Project Access Road, City and Borough of Sitka, signed August 31, 1978). We recommend that FERC notify the Applicant to cease this action and conform to CEQ guidelines. The DEIS does not present an adequate plan for mitigation of unavoidable losses of resources. Although the Applicant h proposed several standard measures to minimize adverse impacts such as preventing electrocution of bald eagles, no meaningful mitigation for habitat losses or recreation has been proposed. We note that, although a reservoir stocking program for trout is listed as a proposed mitigative measure, the Applicant has not made a commitment to stock or to bear the cost of stocking the reservoir with fish to mitigate the loss of spawning habitat. No comment required. Although the Applicant has let contracts and marshalled equip- ment to build an access road, that action is entirely at its own risk. Even if the Commis- sion, an independent regulatory agency, were bound by the CEQ guidelines, there is no in- dication that the Applicant has contravened those guide- lines in letting contracts and marshalling equipment at its own risk. The Fish and Wildlife Coordi- nation Act states in part in Section 2(b): "Recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior shall be as specific as is practicable with respect to features recommended for wild- life conservation and develop- ment... [T]he Federal agencies shall give full consideration to the report and recommenda- tions of the Secretary of the Interior and to any report of the State agency on wildlife aspects of such projects..." Interior was consulted at the time the application was being prepared by Applicant's con- sultant and again on two other occasions when the application and the draft EIS were circu- lated for agency review. To date, no specific recommenda- tions have been provided to FERC by Interior or by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. E-4 2 The Exhibit R of the permit application, submitted early this The existing recreational use year by the Applicant, was reviewed and found to be inadequate of Green Lake cannot be by this Department because it "...underestimates the current quantified with any degree of use and the potential of the project for future recreational accuracy, because the area is use." In spite of this objection, the DEIS we have just re- not actively managed for recrea- viewed reiterates that the existing lake has "limited public tional purposes and no record use" -- a phrase which we feel fails to adequately address the of visitations has been made. issue. Specific Comments Green Lake is mentioned as being accessible by trail in Section 2.3.5, Recreation Facilities and Section 3.6.2, Recre- Section 3.6.2 of the DEIS. ational Resources - These sections provide very general dis- However, the lake is not cussions of recreational opportunities in and around Sitka and emphasized because it has not make no mention at all of the Green Lake area, or of recre been developed nor is it an tional boating in Silver Bay, the shoreline of which will be easily accessible recreational severely impacted both visually and environmentally. resource. Section 3.8 describes ghe visual resources of both Despite the lack of public use data, several things can be reen Lake an ver Bay and assumed: the population of Sitka is going to increase, partic-| Section 4.15 describes the ularly if projects such as the Green Lake project are imple- environmental impacts that would mented; demands for recreation will increase with the popula- occur from the project develop- ment. Recreational boating use of Silver Bay would not be hindered by the project develop- ment. tion; the access road to Green Lake, whether it is open to private cars or not, will inevitably increase use of the Green Lake area by providing better access, either by foot, trail bike or snow machine. Thus, projections of future use based on present use (which is unknown anyway) are not very meaning- ful. The EIS states that “limited recreational facilities are proposed for development at the Green Lake Project (due to) its inaccessibility (and) the limited public use of the existing lake." But these very conditions will change if the project is implemented. Staff recognizes that the demand for recreation would increase simultaneously with population and that more recreational use of Green Lake would occur due to the improved accessibility. Furthermore, special articles can be included in any license issued for the project to require studies of recreational use, or to make other allowances for increased recreational use of project area and to require recreational facilities to accommodate such demand. We therefore recommend that the Applicant submit a revised Exhibit R, for review and approval, as a condition for issuance of any licenses. We feel that the present Proposal to upgrade an existing hiking trail and provide a mooring buoy falls far short of adequately meeting the Applicant's responsibility for Providing for recreational needs. A revised Exhibit R might address the feasibility of developing a campground on Silver Bay or at Green Lake and should include discussion of a trout restocking program. The discussion of visual resources was generally adequate. How-No evidence has been made avail- ever, we agree that "the Applicant should prepare a plan that able to Staff to indicate that additional camping is needed in the Sitka area. Staff believes that until a need has been established for additional recreational facilities, it is not in the public interest of the citizens of Sitka, as elec- trical rate payers of the city- owned utility, to provide for facilities that are not needed. Answered on next page. develops ways to redesign or alter project facilities to per- mit the resumption, after project construction, of the flows over the falls in the natural Vodopad River channel, below the proposed dam." (page 5-3) We recommend that a license not be issued in the absence of such a plan. Our Heritage Conservation and Recreation Serivce will provide assistance and advice during all stages of project planning upon request. For assistance, contact the Regional Director, 915 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98174. Section 3.6.4, Mineral Resources - In our comments on the permit application, (letter dated May 19, 1978) we noted that the project area lies in a belt of known mineral occurrences but that no detailed mineral assessment of the reservoir area had been made. Although the draft statement discusses some of the known mineral occurrences, we do not believe that the impacts of the-project on mineral resources can be adequately determined without a site specific assessment as recommended earlier. Section 3.5.3, Geological Hazards and Problems - In view of the fact that peak ground acceleration due to earthquakes is ex- pected to be as great as 0.5g to 1.0g during a 100-year period (p. 2-13, par. 4), and that unstable slopes are common in the project area (p. 3-17, 3-18, 4-10), it would be advisable to evaluate the potential impact from overtopping the dam as a result of earthquake-induced landslides into the reservoir. The statement should indicate whether appreciable quantities of ground water are available from the fractured rocks in the vi- cinity and, if so, should assess the impacts of the project on ground water, particularly on ground-water levels affected by the reservoir. If the resultant rises in ground-water levels will be sufficient to affect rock stability in the steep walled valley, this potential impact should be assessed. We recommend that streamgaging be made a requirement of the permit in accordance with Article 8 (p. B-4) to enable the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to evaluate use of the water re- sources. Section 4.5.2, Mitigative Measures Proposed - The DEIS states that, as a mitigative measure to protect fishery resources, Bear Creek will be bridged. The Applicant has applied for a U. S. Staff would recommend that such a plan be required by an article to be included in any license issued by FERC. The plan could be in conjunction with any article requiring the development of public-use data related to the Applicant's Exhibit R. No comment required. See revised Section 4.12.2. See revised Section 4.7.1. See revised Section 3.3, page Staff would recommend that stream gaging be required by an article to be included in any license issued by FERC. Construction of bridges across both forks of Bear Creek, discussed in Section 4.5.2,is the Applicant's most recent proposal (June 1978), which has the approval of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. E-6 Army Corps of Engineers permit to place culverts in Bear Creek (ref. Department of the Army Public Notice No. 071-0YD-4-780083 dated 4/19/78). This apparent discrepancy and the potential adverse impacts to fishery resources should be addressed in the EIS. Section 4.5.3, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts - The DEIS implies See last paragraph in Section that sidecasting of construction rock debris into the littoral 4.5.1. zone of Silver Bay will only change the biological community structure. Unless the rock is disposed in the subtidal areas, the resulting fills will result in a quantifiable permanent loss of intertidal habitat for marine biota. Deep water or upland disposal would minimize this habitat loss. Section 8.1.5-6, Transmission Lines and Access Roads - The DEIS See revised Section 8.1.5. does not adequately discuss and evaluate all possible alterna- tives and indicates that the most environmentally acceptable Staff's analysis indicates that alternative was chosen. Elimination of the access road from — there would be only minor impacts Herring Cove to the proposed powerhouse as a project feature to fish and wildlife values due would reduce adverse impacts to fish and wildlife values. The to construction of the access waters of Silver Bay are navigable to the proposed powerhouse road, site. In all probability, much of the equipment and materials will be barged directly to the site regardless of the presence Staff agrees, but states that of an access road. Other existing and proposed hydroelectric transmission reliability is a projects in southeast Alaska do not necessarily have roads design contraint. See revised paralleling the transmission lines. Therefore, we believe the Section 8.1.5. access road is not a design constraint and should not be un- questionably accepted for purely economic justifications. See revised Section 8.1.5. According to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661 et. seq.), fish and wildlife values should receive equal con- sideration in planning water development projects licensed by Federal agencies. The EIS should fully address the justifica- tion for not selecting the most environmentally acceptable al- ternative. We hope these comments will be of assistance to you. eo a , Larry E. Meierotto Deputy Assistant SECRETARY U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION X 1200 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 mf aT aL ENERGY EGULATORY COMMISSION DEC ¢ 1478 Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Department of Energy Washington, D. C. 20426 Dear Mr. Plumb: We have completed our review of your agency's draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) on the Green Lake Hydroelectric Project in Alaska. A few of the issues, which we raised in our letter of May 5, 1978, were not directly addressed in the DEIS. Additionally, there are a few areas where additional information is needed so that the reader can get a complete and accurate picture of the proposed project and its probable environmental effects. The first significant omission from the DEIS is that the description of the proposed action makes no mention of the proposed fill in Silver Bay in front of the proposed powerhouse site. We understand that this fill was originally designed as a simple means of disposing of spoil material excavated from the powerhouse and switchyard sites. At the time of initial project design, the available information indicated that there were no usable on-land disposal sites for this material. We discovered, in recent conversations with R. W. Beck & Associates, that their on-the-ground inspections have found some usable upland disposal sites at which a major portion, if not all, of the spoil material could be placed. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) should describe the proposed disposal plan and any planned fill in the project description. Additionally, its environmental impacts section should discuss the environmental impacts of the disposal plan. The statement should also examine alternative powerhouse/switchyard site plans which minimize the amount of excavation required and the size of the resulting fill in Silver Bay. No comment required. The proposed fill in Silver Bay is an impact of construction at the project which is discussed in Sections 4,15,1 and 8.1.3. See revised Section 8.1.3. E-8 The second omission we found was in the DEIS's discussion of the Proposed access road. This discussion failed to note that construc- tion started on October 1, 1978 and that it would be completed during Spring, 1979. It also implied that a good deal of spoil material excavated from the access road would be sidecast into Silver Bay. The final design and contract specifications for the access road called for upland disposal of the spoil material and eliminated the need for disposal of this material in Silver Bay. The third major omission was the statement's failure to analyze the reliability of the proposed electricity transmission system for the Green Lake Project. As we noted in our letter of May 5, 1978, the proposed plan involves having a single circuit to connect the entire Sitka load with most of its baseload generating capacity. Thus a single forced transmission line outage between the Blue Lake Project and the City would force the utility to drop most of its firm loads. The FEIS should evaluate alternative transmission systems which would meet higher reliability criteria. Additionally it should evaluate the adequacy of the utility's load curtailment plans in the event of such forced outages. Finally, the discussion of air quality impacts and possible mitigation measures which might be required of the applicant is somewhat in- complete. The statement should note that some of the sources of air pollutants associated with project construction, such as the concrete batching plant, would be required to obtain a new source review permit from the State of Alaska's Department of Environmental Conservation. Additionally, if potential emissions of any criteria pollutant will be greater than 250 tons per year a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit will be required from EPA. Assuming that the applicant can demonstrate that the construction activity is a temporary source under the PSD program, it would have to show that the best available air pollution control technology would be used on the source(s) in order to receive a PSD permit. A temporary source would not be required to submit an ambient air quality impact analysis in order to receive such a permit. We have attached more detailed comments on the EIS as well as a copy of a recent letter, which we sent to R. W. Beck & Associates, that outlines the permit requirements for this Project, under the Clean Water Act. Based upon these comments we have rated this draft environmental impact statement LO-2 (LO: lack of objections, 2: inadequate information). This rating and the date of our comments will be See revised Section 2.3.3 and reply to paragraph number two of Interior's letter of comment. Staff did not intend to give this impression. No excavation material would be wasted into Silver Bay intentionally. Sidecasting, in relation to access road construc- tion, is that small portion of material that escapes upland dis- posal. Furthermore, only a small part of the loose material would reach Silver Bay. Applicant's consulting engineers indicate that experience has shown the existing Blue Lake-to-Sitka transmission line to be reliable. Staff considers that this short 4- mile transmission line will con- tinue to provide adequate reli- ability, especially after it is rebuilt and upgraded. See revised Sections 4.1.1 and 5.1 and Appendix C. Otherwise staff feels that its analysis is ade- quate. Letter to R. W. Beck & Associates, Applicants consultant, has been included as Appendix C in this FEIS. E-9 published in the Federal Register in accordance with our responsi- No comment required. bility to inform the public of our views on proposed Federal actions, pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, as amended. We appreciated the opportunity to review this environmental impact No statement and would be glad to answer any questions which your staff may have about our concerns. They may address their questions to Daniel Steinborn, Manager of our EIS Review Team, at (FTS) 399-1285. Sincerely, fork. B. Smith, ci os \ © Environmental Evaluation Branch on Gar . Attachments Bei 5 oa C2 s 2, ~- & comment required. Attachment Detailed Comments 2 age wv Green Lake Hydroelectric Project ve | =wERGY Draft Environmental Impact Statement Fevceal Spy RES I. Need for Project Power COMMISSION 1.2 Load growth projections should be given at five year intervals —— See Load Projection Graphs, Appendix for peak and average demand through the year 2000. D. 1.3. The discussion of the effects of conservation on demand is overly —Staff disagrees. Residential rates negative and not particularly quantitative. The following have increased 50 percent from 1975 questions should be addressed in the final environmental state- to 1977, and this is discussed in the ment: DEIS. In staff's opinion, a 50-per- cent rate hike in 2 years is certainly a. What steps have been taken by the utility and its ample incentive for utility customers customers to reduce peak and average demands? to conserve energy. b. What have been the effects of these steps? c. What additional steps appear economically and technically feasible? 1.4 How do the current electricity rates compare to marginal power ——-The Sitka Town Council periodically costs to the utility for capacity and energy? Does the utility reviews utility revenue requirements plan a rate adjustment to reflect these marginal costs? needed to support electric system operations. Several rate revisions 1.7. What is the current system's load factor? What would be its are pending. load factor in 1981, after project completion? —~ see Load Projection Graphs, Appen- dix D. 2.5 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act does not require a permit per se. It requires that the State certify that the project will S "permit" changed to "Certificates" comply with applicable water quality standards prior to the in the FEIS, issuance of any Federal license or permit. IV. Environmental Impacts Some low-level noises would eminate from the powerhouse and substation 4.2/4.3 The impacts of noise from the project upon wildlife should during operation of the project and be discussed briefly. Will changes in noise levels be sufficient would be audible in the immediate to cause long term detrimental changes in wildlife habitat use? vicinity of such structures. The noise attributable to the project 4.5.1 The Bear Creek impact analysis should be revised to reflect the works should not, however, be of actual timing of the construction (winter). The analysis such intensity as to have any signi- should discuss potential measures, which FERC could require in ficant or long-term impact on wild- license conditions, to reduce or eliminate the possibility life species. Wildlife species may that spoil material could enter Bear Creek. avoid the areas around the project powerhouse and substation, but such 4.6 The construction and operation of the project will apparently, avoidance would most likely be eliminate all of the brook trout spawning habitat on the attributable to the open clearing and the change in slope and vege- tative cover created by the project construction, rather than to noises from the project works. This point has been addressed in the FEIS. The FERC could require the filing of an erosion control plan in any license issued. Answered on next page. 4.9 4.13 E-11 Vodopad River. The Final Environmental Impact Statement should assess the current and likely future recreational use of that resource without the project in order to determine whether FERC should impose a license condition which requires the applicant to develop and operate a reservoir stocking project as a mitigation measure. This discussion should indicate whether the wildlife habitat losses would be significant. If they are or approach being so then the statement should evaluate possible mitigation measures which might be required in license conditions. The location of housing for the construction crew needs evaluation in the EIS. The impacts on the physical environment of locating them at an on-site construction camp should be discussed. Additionally, the impacts on the community of Sitka of locating them in town should be discussed. The state could then make a recommendation with regard to which location is preferable from an environmental perspective. See revised Sections 4.5.2 and 5.2. Section 4.9 describes wildlife habitat that would be affected by project construction. Specific measures to mitigate all wildlife losses have not been formulated. The proposed construction site, which is owned by the Applicant, is a flat, undeveloped piece of land that has been utilized for unauthorized dumping. The develop- ment of a construction camp there would improve the area's overall appearance. E-12 FEE GUUATORY co M/s 521 rl! he SGC2IVER NOV 17 1978 R2CzvED Mr. Dennis J. Brunelle R. W. Beck and Associates NVI HTP mre, 200 ‘Tower Bldg. OM" = LGiOW Seattle, Washington 98101 Re: Green Lake Project Dear Mr. Brunelle: Qn October 17, 1978 you met with menbers of my staff concerning wastewater Pemit discharge requirements for the above referenced project: At that meeting you described the potential sources of discharge into receiving waters resulting from the following activities: 1 Discharge of excess excavation from the powerhouse-switchyard area to Silver Bay. 2. Discharge of wash water to Green Lake from the washing and classifying 3. Discharges of wash water, used in rewashing the aggregate prior to use in the concrete, to Grean Lake. 4. Discharges of water used to clean and prepare the concrete surface for the next pour. 5. Placement of excavated material from the diversion tunnel in the dry areas near the dam site. 6. Drainage water from excavation of power tunnel. Excavation will be uphill and therefore only a limited amount of drainage. 7. Washdown water used in the batching operation near the drain site. Your primary concerns at this meeting were to determine what pemits would be required and the limitations and/or conditions for each discharge. For potential discharges mmbers 1 and 5, if the primary purpose is to place This letter is included as Appendix C to the FEIS. of the material, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, under the provisions of Section 402 of the CHA, will be required. For potential discharges mmbers 2 and 3, an NPDES permit will The limitations on the discharges are as specified in the July Federal Subpart C - Construction Sand and Gravel. Note that in 35846) of this Federal Register “Treatment for the con- struction sand and gravel subcategory", it states that any “wastewater in excess of that amount of water which is recycled for process water purposes may be treated and discharged". The wastewater that is treated and dis- charge shall not exceed the limitations as specified in §436.32(a) (1). The other potential discharges (mmbers 4, 6 and 7) also require an NPDES pemit., However, presently there are no national effluent guidelines in effect for regulating these discharges. At this time it is anticipated that we will require that there be no discharge of these wastewaters to any receiving waters. Enclosed are two NPDES permit application forms and instructions. Regulations state that an application must be submitted 180 days prior to discharge. We recamend that you submit your application as early as possible. Questions on this matter may be directed to Sylvia Kawabata at (206) 442- 1213, Sincerely, Harold E. Geren, Chief Pemnits Branch cc: Alaska Operations Office, EPA Enviromental Evaluation Branch, EPA See previous page. r L E-14 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE Chatham Area, Tongass National Forest Post Office Box 1980 Sitka, Alaska 99835 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Electric Power Regulations Washington, D.C. 20426 In reference to the Draft Environmental Statement for Green Lake, Sitka, Alaska, Project No. 2818, we have reviewed the DEIS, and have the following comments: 1. The Forest Service has issued a special use permit to the City and Borough of Sitka to cross National Forest land for the purpose of constructing part of the access road. The only National Forest land involved in this project is that land claimed by Joseph Gangola - approximately 40 acres. The remainder of the project lands were recently in National Forest ownership, but were transferred to the State of Alaska pursuant to the Statehood ae i may wish to list the Forest Service permit on page 2.15, section 2.5. 2. On page 2.6, you state that "The project lies entirely within lands selected from the Tongass National Forest." This is true of all but the 40 acres retained by the Forest Service to protect the rights of Mr. Gangola's unpatented mining claims. 3. On page 2-18, section 2.7.2, Maintenance, "The 69 kV transmission line route would be initially cleaned of vegetation by hand methods during construction, and then maintained chemically." While chemicals are used on the Tongass National Forest for vege- taive control, permission is conditional on the completion of an environmental analysis. Each project area and each chemical must be evaluated. The applicant will need to apply annually for per- mission to chemically maintain the ROW across National Forest land. 4. On page 4-14, section 4.9.2, first paragraph. It is true that the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have an agreement to identify and protect eagle nest trees. This agreement is only applicable on National Forest lands. This is a technicality, but since the project lands are almost entirely owned by the City and Borough of Sitka, the protection of eagle trees would be between those two parties. No comment required. See revised Section 2.5. See revised Section two. 2.2, paragraph No comment required. The 8-mile-long access road and trans- mission line right-of-way, averaging 200 feet in width, would cross Forest Service lands along the north shore of Silver Bay leading to the project site. The alignment of the right-of- way would avoid eagle nest trees where possible. Since some of these nest trees may be located on national forest lands in close proximity to the right-of-way, we believe that the referenced paragraph is appropriate. E-15 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Page Two December 7, 1978 5. We appreciate the concern shown for the visual value of the Vadopod River Falls at tide level. Section 5.6 reflects your concern and we support this concern. The falls are very attractive and if it is possible to direct the outfall of the powerhouse back into the stream channel, then the falls can be retained. In general we support the concept of hydro-electric projects in S.E. Alaska. It is a natural system for this area, but we continually are confronted with the problem of evaluating the alternatives of transmitting electricity. Overland route alternatives are usually selected over underwater options based on cost and technology. We feel that further engineering research is needed to develop more dependable and cheaper underwater transmission systems. Overland transmission lines can cause rather severe long lasting impacts to the environment. Thank-you for the opportunity to review this statement. Sincerely, ptt farts Norman Howse Planning Program Manager No comment required. See U.S. Department of the Interior com- ments, Page 3 of letter. No comment required. See revised Section 8.1.5. E-16 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30333 TELEPHONE: (404) 633-3311 RECEIVED Oke 4 1978 November 30, 1978 Mr. William W. Lindsay Director, Office of Electric Power Regulation Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20426 Dear Mr. Lindsay: We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement on the Green No comment required. Lake Project No. 2818 - Alaska, City and Borough of Sitka. We are respond- ing on behalt or the Public Health Service. The Alaska Department of Health The Alaska Department of Health and Social Services is not shown on the — and Social Services was given an list of reviewers as having been offered the opportunity to provide comment. opportunity to comment on the Prior to preparation of the final EIS, that agency should be requested to DEIS through the State's Federal provide con ts. Coordinator in the Governor's office, who received several The need for provisions for litter removal or other sanitary facilities copies of the DEIS. See revised (Page 4-17, 4.11.3) should be determined by the State of Alaska Health service list (Page 2). Department or other appropriate environmental health agency. Provision of such facilities should meet established State regulations regarding recrea- Commission regulations require tional areas. the Licensee of any licensed project to assume the responsi- Mosquito breeding in the reservoir area of the project was not mentioned as bility to comply with Federal, a possible impact upon human health. This potential problem, as well as State, and local regulations for the mechanism for control measures if needed, should be addressed in the health, sanitation, and public final EIS. safety, and to cooperate with law-enforcement authorities in We concur with the requirements suggested in Section 51 and believe these the development of additional recommendations should be addressed in the final EIS. necessary regulations for such purposes (Section 2.7(f)(1)). Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this document. We would appre- ciate receiving a copy of the final statement when it is issued. See revised Section 4.6.1, Page 4-9. Sincerely yours, ort 3 fbb Frank S. Lisella, Ph.D. Chief, Environmental Affairs Group Environmental Health Services Division Bureau of State Services No comment required. STATE OF ALASKA / “—-— DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME 210 Ferry Way Juneau, Alaska 99801 December 15, 1978 Office of Electric Power Regulation Federal Power Regulatory Commission Washington D.C., 20426 RE: Green Lake Hydroelectric Project No. 2818-DEIS Gentlemen: Due to an apparent oversight the Department of Fish and Game never received a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Green Lake Hydro- electric project. We were recently supplied a copy by Mr. Madden of the State Clearinghouse who also advised us that you had agreed to extend the deadline for our comments. We appreciate your cooperation and the opportunity to comment. Although we were unable to conduct a detailed technical review due to the extremely limited review time in general we found the document to be well written and quite comprehensive. The major environmental impacts that we foresee from the project were adequately addressed and reasonable mitigative measures were presented. This Department has worked closely with the applicant on this project and we will continue this close cooperation in the future as the project develops. We have no specific comments nor recommended alterations to the document. Again, we appreciate your cooperation in extending the deadline. Sincerely, ‘> - a ere Rie a Richard Reed Regional Habitat Protection Supervisor cc: J. Madden, Clearinghouse D. Logan, ADF&G The Department of Fish and Game was sent a copy of Staff's DEIS. The oversight occurred within the State agency. No comment required. No comment required. No comment required. E-18 WEST 4th AVENUE - SUITE 31 - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 December 13, 1978 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Electric Power Regulation 555 Battery: Street San Francisco, California -94111 Subject: Project No: 2818 - Alaska ~-€fty*and Borough of Sitka Dear Sir: The ‘DrattEnvirenmental, Impact:.Statement. for the Green Cake -Profectwas well prepared and: adequately addresses soctel., .economfc,seand environmental impacts.of the project. “Te comments.on the draft EIS as prepared and commend ther staffwon. thefs work. § ‘The Green take Preject*appears torbe an excellent on - “ey generation problems facing the City fof . S#tkar..Enyironmental impacts of the project EeY7ewt No comment required. No comment required. E-19 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314 REPLY TO. ATTENTION OF: DAEN-CWE-HY Honorable Charles B. Curtis, Chairman Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20426 Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in reply to the Commission's letter dated 24 October 1978, requesting comments on the draft environmental impact statement prepared by the Commission's staff in connection with license application filed by the City and Borough of Sitka for the proposed Green Lake Project No. 2818. The project is located on Vodopad River in Alaska. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers comments on the above draft EIS are as follows: a. Suggest the EIS address the applicable portions of the See Appendix C of FEIS. 404(b) guidelines (40 CFR, part 230) as required for the issuance of a Department of the Army permit. b. Page 2.3.1.1, Paragraph 2. Suggest the severe erosion See revised Section 2.3.1.1, paragraph problems that may be associated with the use of plunge pools be two. evaluated. c. Page 2.3.1.1, Paragraph 3. The use of a selective No impacts to downstream water quality withdrawal system should be discussed in reference to downstream are anticipated. water quality. Sincerely, regan MMS zr in yl Loon ee F. paidiaae LTC, Corps of Engineers Assistant Director of Civil Works, Environmental Programs FEDERAL EMER ET