Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Southern Intertie report 11-2002
CHUGA2: Joe Griffith POWERING ALASKA’S FUTURE General Manager 1) y, bomen DECEIVE!) Seo hh } 3) Shevea November 25, 2002 NOV 21 2002 i: AIDEA/AEA Mr. James McMillan Acting Executive Director Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority 813 W. Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6690 Subject: Southern Intertie Monthly Report for November 2002 W.0.#E9590081 Dear Mr. McMillan: Enclosed is 1 (one) copy of the Southern Intertie Report for November 2002. If there are any questions, please contact Dora Gropp, (907) 762-4626. Sincerely, Aint re Evan J. Griffith General Manager Enclosures: 1 (one) copy of Southern Intertie Monthly Report CG Lee Thibert Michael Massin Dora Gropp Carol Johnson Mike Cunningham Don Edwards Alice Mullins W.O.#E9590081, Sec., 2.1.3 RF Chugach Electric Association, Inc A ° (9 63-7494 x 19 56 if . © inf IV. VI: TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY FINANCIAL 1: Summary 2. Activity Summary for October 2002 35 Transactions, Inception Through October 2002 4. Bank Statement for October 2002 S: Section II-A, Southern Intertie Transaction Allocations 6. AIDEA Grant Fund Report for September 30, 2002 SCHEDULE 1: Project Schedule ITEMS FOR APPROVAL None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION None. ITEMS FOR INFORMATION us POWER Engineers’ Monthly Report dated November 14, 2002 2: Army Corps of Engineers Record of Decision, Dated October 2002 1. SUMMARY The Corps of Engineer’s Record of Decision (ROD) in support of the TESORO route was released on November 12, 2002. Our consultants will combine the ROD’s of all three federal agencies and mail them to all recipients of the DEIS and FEIS. This concludes the Environmental Impact Statement process for the project. If the IPG accepts the decisions made, a “decision date” should be set to move the project into the design phase. Expenditures for Phase IC (EIS) of the project stand as follows: POWER DESCRIPTION ENGINEERS | COE/USFWS/RUS | CHUGACH TOTAL ORIG. BUDGET $389,547 $160,000 $100,000 $649,547 ALLOCATED CONTINGENCY SO $0 So $0 TOTAL $389,547 $160,000 $100,000 $649,547 AMENDMENTS $1,501,026 $50,000 $150,000 | $1,701,026 TOTAL COMMITMENT] $1,890,573 $210,000 $250,000 ‘| $2,350,573 SPENT TO DATE $1,732,335 $187,190 $186,248 | $2,105,774 % OF TOTAL 92% 89% 74% 90% Total Project expenditures as of 11/18/02 stand at $7,177,214. FINANCIAL le Zs Summary Activity Summary for October 2002 Transactions, Inception Through October 2002 Bank Statement for October 2002 Section Il-A, Southern Intertie Transaction Allocations AIDEA Grant Fund Report for September 30, 2002 CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Anchorage, Alaska 11/15/02 TO: Dora Gropp - Manager, Transmission & Special Projects FROM: Marina McCoy-Casey, Plant Accountant SUBJECT: E9590081 - Southern Intertie Route Selection Study You had previously requested establishment of this work order to study route selection for the Southern Intertie for the Intertie Participants Group. The Association will be reimbursed for charges to this work order. The following charges occurred during October 2002. Direct Labor 1,736.50 Indirect Labor 808.40 Power Engineers Invoice #97178 44,029.28 American Express Invoice 312.00 Sub-Total 46,886.18 General, Administrative & Construction Overhead (0.5%) $234.43 Total Charges $47,120.61 Costs are allocated as follows: Grant through AIDEA - 75% $35,340.46 Chugach Electric - 8.8075% $4,150.15 City of Seward - 0.4195% $197.67 GVEA - 5.8587% $2,760.66 HEA - 3.3795% $1,592.44 AML&P - 6.5348% $3,079.24 $47,120.61 Please review the attached backup and indicate your concurrence below if you are in agreement that these charges are correct for this work order and time period. As per your request, I will keep the original in the work order file. Concur: bhwven RO LLL ff g xr Signature“ Date © mmc Attachments October 2002 Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Southern Intertie Activity Summary Beginning Grant Chugach Ending Bank Funds Interest Invoices Bank Year Balance Received Earned Paid Balance 1996 0.00 2,771,277.00 40,361.59 (1,440,252.89) 1,371,385.70 1997 1,371,385.70 1,346,934.44 67,734.52 (2,421,276.94) 364,777.72 1998 364,777.72 525,214.00 19,424.02 (732,050.23) 177,365.51 1999 177,365.51 985,191.00 19,246.30 (643,398.53) 538,404.28 2000 538,404.28 271,383.56 31,904.14 (462,844.32) 378,847.66 2001 378,847.66 787,500.00 15,904.91 (664,381.33) 517,871.24 2002* 517,871.24 __ 600,000.00 9,241.08 (485,160.90) 641,951.42 Total 7,287,500.00 203,816.56 _(6,849,365.14) * Through October 2002 bank statement (does not include Chugach invoices for charges incurred in October 2002) Southern Intertie AIDEA mtg 11/15/2002 UGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. thern Intertie Transactions Allocations »ption Through October 31, 2002 Inception through Year to Date Month 12/31/2000 Through Total Through Ended Inception 5/1/2001 10/1/2002 10/31/2002 __ Through 10/31/02 ‘EA Grant 100% 5,747,986.66 70,768.97 5,900,000.00 - 5,900,000.00 ‘EA Grant 75% - 976,525.06 35,340.46 1,011,865.52 35,340.46 \ 8.8075% - 114,676.58 4,150.15 118,826.73 ‘ard 0.4195% - 5,462.04 197.67 5,659.71 BA 5.8587% - 76,282.24 2,760.66 79,042.90 A 3.3795% - 44,002.22 1,592.44 45,594.66 L&P 6.5348% 85,085.27 3,079.24 88,164.51 11,780.16 $ 5,747,986 .66 $ 7,202,033.41 $ 47,120.61 _$ 7,249,154.02 47,120.61 11/18/2002 01-02Sinterti CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Southern Intertie Transactions Inception Through October 2002 Project Expenditures Direct Labor Indirect Labor Power Engineers Miscellaneous Total Fund Expenditures | | | | | Direct Charges that Chugach has been Reimbursed for Plus eral, Administrative & Construction Overhead Total Amounts Paid to Chugach Year to Date Month Inception Through Ended Inception Through 12/31/00 10/1/2002 10/31/2002 Through 10/31/2002 $190,549.23 $37,290.71 $1,736.50 $229,576.44 75,871.61 18,784.61 808.40 95,464.62 5,060,117.80 1,304,717.77 44,029.28 6,408,864.85 392,851.08 86,019.57 312.00 479,182.65 $5,719,389.72 $1,446,812.66 $46,886.18 $7,213,088.55 Year to Date Month Inception Through Ended Inception Through 12/31/00 10/1/2002 10/31/2002 Through 10/31/2002 $ 5,719,389.71 $ 1,446,812.66 $ 46,886.18 $ 7,213,088.55 $ 28,596.95 _$ 7,234.07 _$ 234.43 $ 36,065.45 $ 5,747,986.66 $ 1,454,046.73__ $ 47,120.61 $ 7,249,154.02 a 11/15/2002 01-02Sinterti Invoice Month Date Incurred Costs OH Total Dec-95 Jun-Oct 95 22,614.00 113.07 22,727.07 Jan-96 0.00 0.00 0.00 Feb-96 Nov-Dec 95 176,265.61 881.33 177,146.94 Mar-96 Jan-96 7,660.92 38.30 7,699.22 Apr-96 Feb-96 251,912.29 1,259.56 253,171.85 May-96 Mar-96 172,070.45 860.35 172,930.80 Jun-96 Apr-96 127,113.82 635.57 127,749.39 Jun-96 May-96 35,628.41 178.14 35,806.55 Aug-96 Jun-96 40,919.00 204.60 41,123.60 Sep-96 Jul-96 57,116.72 285.58 57,402.30 Oct-96 Aug-96 168,312.54 841.56 169,154.10 Oct-96 Sep-96 202,010.97 1,010.05 203,021.02 Dec-96 Oct-96 173,462.74 857.31 172,320.05 Life to Date 1,433,087.47 7,165.42 1,440,252.89 Jan-97 Nov-96 234,735.50 1,173.68 235,909.18 Feb-97 Dec-96 306,667.10 1,533.34 308,200.44 Mar-97 Jan-97 5,045.85 25.23 5,071.08 Apr-97 Feb-97 124,380.57 621.90 125,002.47 May-97 Mar-97 177,117.40 885.59 178,002.99 Jun-97 Apr-97 165,814.35 829.07 166,643.42 Jul-97 May-97 158,762.80 793.81 159,556.61 Aug-97 Jun-97 158,786.12 793.93 159,580.05 Aug-97 Jul-97 154,159.15 770.80 154,929.95 Sep-97 Aug-97 243,365.76 1,216.83 244,582.59 Oct-97 Sep-97 193,127.79 965.64 194,093.43 Nov-97 Oct-97 258,833.19 1,294.17 260,127.36 Dec-97 Nov-97 228,435.19 1,142.18 229,577.37 Year to Date 2,409,230.77 12,046.17 2,421,276.94 Life to Date 3,842,318.24 19,211.59 3,861,529.83 Jan-98 0.00 0.00 0.00 Feb-98 Dec-97 153,179.64 765.90 153,945.54 Mar-98 0.00 0.00 0.00 Apr-98 Jan-98 39,750.15 198.75 39,948.90 Apr-98 Feb-98 49,887.09 249.44 50,136.53 May-98 Mar-98 64,102.85 320.51 64,423.36 Jun-98 Apr-98 7,283.97 36.42 7,320.39 Jul-98 May-98 173,312.97 866.56 174,179.53 Aug-98 Jun-98 59,362.04 296.81 59,658.85 Sep-98 Jul-98 38,793.39 193.97 38,987.36 Oct-98 Aug-98 123,711.01 618.56 124,329.57 Nov-98 Sep-98 19,025.07 95.13 19,120.20 Dec-98 0.00 0.00 0.00 Year to Date 728,408.18 3,642.05 732,050.23 Life to Date 4,570,726.42 22,853.64 4,593,580.06 Jan-99 0.00 0.00 0.00 Feb-99 Oct-98 4,729.98 23.65 4,753.63 Nov-98 2,668.64 13.34 2,681.98 Dec-98 63,600.94 318.00 63,918.94 = USFS Refund (27,159.93) 0.00 (27,159.93) Mar-99 Jan-99 55,203.86 276.02 55,479.88 Apr-99 Feb & Mar 99 133,963.88 669.82 134,633.70 May-99 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jun-99 Apr & May 99 175,367.11 876.83 176,243.94 Jul-99 Jun-99 129,717.72 648.59 130,366.31 Aug-99 Jul-99 62,556.06 312.78 62,868.84 Sep-99 Aug-99 9,366.00 46.83 9,412.83 Oct-99 Sep-99 12,455.30 62.28 12,517.58 Nov-99 Oct-99 9,854.56 49.27 9,903.83 Dec-99 Nov-99 7,738.31 38.69 7,777.00 Year to Date 640,062.43 3,336.10 643,398.53 Life to Date 5,210,788.85 26,189.74 5,236,978.59 Inception-to-Date Charges 22,727.07 22,727.07 199,874.01 207,573.23 460,745.08 633,675.88 761,425.27 797,231.82 838,355.42 895,757.72 1,064,911.82 1,267,932.84 1,440,252.89 1,676,162.07 1,984,362.51 1,989,433.59 2,114,436.06 2,292,439.05 2,459,082.47 2,618,639.08 2,778,219.13 2,933,149.08 3,177,731.67 3,371,825.10 3,631,952.46 3,861,529.83 3,861,529.83 4,015,475.37 4,015,475.37 4,055,424.27 4,105,560.80 4,169,984.16 4,177,304.55 4,351,484.08 4,411,142.93 4,450,130.29 4,574,459.86 4,593,580.06 4,593,580.06 4,593,580.06 4,598,333.69 4,601,015.67 4,664,934.61 4,637,774.68 4,693,254.56 4,827,888.26 4,827,888.26 $,004,132.20 5,134,498.51 5,197,367.35 5,206,780.18 5,219,297.76 5,229,201.59 5,236,978.59 01-02Sinterti Invoice Month Inception-to-Date Date Incurred Costs OH Total Charges Jan-00 Dec-99 13,496.23 67.48 13,563.71 5,250,542.30 Feb-00 Jan-00 3,892.65 19.46 3,912.11 5,254,454.41 Mar-00 Feb-00 9,362.97 46.81 9,409.78 5,263,864.19 Apr-00 Mar-00 41,813.83 209.07 42,022.90 5,305,887.09 May-00 Apr-00 20,419.98 102.10 20,522.08 5,326,409.17 Jun-00 May-00 58,113.81 290.57 58,404.38 5,384,813.55 Jul-00 Jun-00 22,827.27 114.14 22,941.41 5,407,754.96 Aug-00 Jul-00 147,084.41 735.42 147,819.83 5,555,574.79 Sep-00 Aug-00 114,403.32 572.02 114,975.34 5,670,550.13 Oct-00 Sep-00 17,513.29 87.57 17,600.86 5,688,150.99 Nov-00 Oct-00 7,908.09 39.54 7,947.63 5,696,098.62 Dec-00 Nov-00 3,705.76 18.53 3,724.29 5,699,822.91 Year to Date 460,541.61 2,302.71 462,844.32 Life to Date $,671,330.46 28,492.45 3,699,822.91 Invoice Month Inception-to-Date Date Incurred Costs OH Total Charges Jan-01 Dec-00 20,899.33 104.50 21,003.83 5,720,826.74 Feb-01 Jan-01 4,043.31 20.22 4,063.53 5,724,890.27 Mar-01 Feb-01 3,571.96 17.86 3,589.82 5,728,480.09 Apr-01 Mar-01 59,726.05 298.63 60,024.68 5,788,504.77 May-01 Apr-01 3,075.56 15.38 3,090.94 5,791,595.71 Jun-01 May-01 136,597.44 682.99 137,280.43 5,928,876.14 Jul-O1 Jun-01 114,465.30 $72.33 115,037.63 6,043,913.77 Aug-01 Jul-01 103,783.27 518.92 104,302.19 6, 148,215.96 Sep-01 Aug-01 125,054.23 625.27 125,679.50 6,273,895.46 Oct-01 Sep-01 58,546.92 292.73 58,839.65 6,332,735.11 Nov-01 Oct-01 139,311.39 696.56 140,007.95 6,472,743.06 Dec-01 Nov-01 54,974.35 274.87 55,249.22 6,527,992.28 Year to Date 824,049.11 4,120.26 828,169.37 Life to Date 6,495,379.57 32,612.71 6,527,992.28 ane: USFS Reimbursement is not included in total Grant Fund Expenditures portion of Transaction Spreadsheet. Invoice Month Inception-to-Date Date Incurred Costs OH Total Charges Jan-02 Dec-01 8,306.28 41.53 8,347.81 6,536,340.09 Feb-02 Jan-02 89,287.79 446.44 89,734.23 6,626,074.32 Mar-02 Feb-02 60,933.28 304.67 61,237.95 6,687,312.27 Apr-02 Mar-02 93,531.13 467.66 93,998.79 6,781,311.06 May-02 Apr-02 109,430.46 547.15 109,977.61 6,891,288.67 Jun-02 May-02 85,140.34 425.70 85,566.04 6,976,854.71 Jul-02 Jun-02 55,552.63 277.76 55,830.39 7,032,685.10 Aug-02 Jul-02 77,378.70 386.89 717,765.59 7,110,450.69 Sep-02 Aug-02 35,943.52 179.72 36,123.24 7,146,573.93 Oct-02 Sep-02 28,158.75 140.79 28,299.54 7,174,873.47 Nov-02 Oct-02 46,886.18 234.43 47,120.61 7,221,994.08 Dec-02 Nov-02 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,221,994.08 Year to Date 690,549.06 3,452.74 694,001.80 Life to Date 7,185,928.63 36,065.45 7,221,994.08 a eo — USFS Reimbursement is not included in total Grant Fund Expenditures portion of Transaction Spreadsheet. 01-02Sinterti 000 01 00 PAGE: 2 DATE: 10/31/02 ACCOUNT: 41100033 First National Bank ALASKA Da ata WadaadabecaDaDesssEDEaEeesdDvnseEbaDaoeDbasoblsoablassdudel CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOC INC <T> 30 PO BOX 196300 0 ANCHORAGE AK 99519-6300 0 (IN BRANCH TELEPHONE: 907-777-4362 BOX 100720 THORAGE| AK 99510-0720 FIRST NATIONAL BANK ALASKA [xox FEDERALLY INSURED REPURCHASE AGREEMENT ACCOUNT 41100033 LAST STATEMENT 09/30/02 587,242.80 24 CREDITS 75,933.28 1 DEBITS 21,224.66 THIS STATEMENT 10/31/02 641,951.42 - - - + - + - - OTHER CREDITS - - - - - - -- - s;CRIPTION DATE AMOUNT ‘EREST 10/01 29.32 \NSFER FROM BUSINESS ACCOUNT 1106061 10/01 75,000.00 ‘EREST 10/02 29.32 ‘EREST ; 10/03 29.32 ‘EREST 10/04 29.32 ‘EREST 10/07 88.87 ‘EREST 10/08 30.22 ‘EREST 10/09 30.22 ‘EREST 10/10 30.22 ‘EREST 10/11 30.22 ‘EREST 10/14 90.67 ‘EREST 10/15 31.03 ‘EREST 10/16 31.03 ‘EREST 10/17 31.03 ‘EREST 10/18 31.03 ‘EREST 10/22 92.76 ‘EREST 10/22 30.69 ‘EREST 10/23 30.70 ‘EREST 10/24 30.70 ‘EREST 10/25 30.70 *~* * CONTINUED *** (00m WOUSING LENDER ae ee Bets ALASKA £ 2SCRIPTION VIEREST NTEREST | YTEREST IIEREST Dai 000 01 00 DATE: CHUGACH ELECTRIC assoc INC iSCRIPTION *ANSFER TERAGE ] LEDGER BALANCE: TERAGE AVAILABLE BALANCE: ITEREST |PAID THIS PERIOD: ITEREST | PAID 2002: ITH. wcedecevce BALANCE 1/01 662,272.12 1/02 662,301.44 '/03 662,330.76 [04 662,360.08 {07 662,448.95 '/08 662,479.17 '(/09 662,509.39 /10 662,539.61 - - - OTHER DEBITS - - TO BUSINESS ACCOUNT 1106061 10/31/02 INTEREST EARNED: DAYS IN PERIOD: ANNUAL PERCENTAGE YIELD EARNED: 1.69 - INTEREST - - 655,150.81 655,150.81 933.28 9,241.08 - - DAILY BALANCE - - DATE... 22202 BALANCE 10/221 662,569.83 10/14 662,660.50 10/15 662,691.53 10/16 662,722.56 10/17 662,753.59 10/18 662,784.62 10/21 641,652.72 10/22 641,683.41 - END OF STATEMENT - PAGE: 2 ACCOUNT: 41100033 AMOUN' 21,224.6 S33)28 aa DATE........--- BALANCE 10/23 641,714.11 10/24 641,744.81 10725 641,775.51 10/28 641,865.53 10/29 641,894.16 10/30 641,922.79 10/31 641,951.42 count rout LENDEF SECTION II-A SOUTHERN INTERTIE TRANSACTIONS ALLOCATIONS CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Anchorage, Alaska 11/15/02 TO: Dora Gropp, Manager, Transmission & Special Projects FROM: Marina McCoy-Casey, Plant Accountant SUBJECT: Invoice for Your Review - Southern Intertie Attached is a draft invoice and and supporting documents for the billing of Homer a ap supporting documents for share of allocated costs for the Southern Intertie, Work Order E9590081. Work Order: £9590081 Amount of Current Invoice: $1,592.44 For Time Period: 10/01/02 to 10/31/02 Please review the entire invoice package and indicate your concurrence below, that these charges are correct for this work order and time period. If you want to delete or change the invoice in any manner, please provide appropriate documentation. Return the invoice package to me by : 11/22/02 Concur: Bye Le / (8, Oe Signature “ Date Attachments Chugach Draft Invoice HEA1002 Don Stead Date 11/15/02 Homer Electric Association 3977 Lake Street Invoice Draft Homer, Alaska 99603 Acct. No. 14300 000 00 2101 Past Due: 15-Dec-02 Folio To invoice you for HEA's share of allocated costs for the Southern Intertie, Work Order E9590081, for the period October 1, 2002 to October 31, 2002. | Direct Labor 1,736.50 Indirect Labor 808.40 Power Engineers Invoice #97178 44,029.28 Amenican Express Invoice 312.00 Sub-Total 46,886.18 General, Administrative & Construction Overhead (0.5%) $ 234.43 Total Charges $47,120.61 HEA's Share 3.3795 Y Amount Due From HEA $ 1,592.44 —— Attachments To ensure proper credit, please return a copy of this invoice with your payment. 18620 000 15 2101/ E9590081 (HEA) maint&svc.xls CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Anchorage, Alaska 11/15/02 TO: Dora Gropp, Manager, Transmission & Special Projects FROM: Marina McCoy-Casey, Plant Accountant SUBJECT: Invoice for Your Review - Southern Intertie Attached is a draft invoice and and supporting documents for the billing of Golden Valley Electric Association's supporting documents for share of allocated costs for the Southern Intertie, Work Order E9590081. Work Order: E9590081 Amount of Current Invoice: $2,760.66 For Time Period: 10/01/02 to 10/31/02 Please review the entire invoice package and indicate your concurrence below, that these charges are correct for this work order and time period. If you want to delete or change the invoice in any manner, please provide appropriate documentation. Return the invoice package to me by: 11/22/02 Cw CK a7) Signature Concur: Attachments Chugach Draft Invoice GVEA 1002 Steve Haagenster Date 11/15/02 Golden Valley Electric Association P. O. Box 71249 Invoice Draft Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 Acct. No. 14300 000 00 2101 Past Due: 15-Dec-02 Folio an EERE To invoice you for GVEA's share of allocated costs for the Southem Intertie, Work Order 9590081, for the period October 1, 2002 to October 31, 2002. Direct Labor 1,736.50 | Indirect Labor 808.40 | Power Engineers Invoice #97178 44,029.28 American Express Invoice 312.00 | Sub-Total 46,886.18 General, Administrative & Construction Overhead (0.5%) $ 234.43 | —anaiineaianasaa ainsi Total Charges $ 47,120.61 GVEA's Share 5.8587 % Amount Due From GVEA $ 2,760.66 ee — To ensure proper credit, please return a copy of this invoide with your payment. 18620 000 15 2101/ B9590081 (GVEA) mainté&svc.xls CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Anchorage, Alaska 11/15/02 TO: Dora Gropp, Manager, Transmission & Special Projects | FROM: Marina McCoy-Casey, Plant Accountant SUBJECT: Invoice for Your Review - Southern Intertie Attached is a draft invoice and and supporting documents for the billing of Anchorage Municipal Light and Power's supporting documents for share of allocated costs for the Southern Intertie, Work Order E9590081. Work Order: E9590081 Amount of Current Invoice: $3,079.24 For Time Period: 10/01/02 to 10/31/02 Please review the entire invoice package and indicate your concurrence below, that these charges are correct for this work order and time period. If you want to delete or change the invoice in any manner, please provide appropriate documentation. Return the invoice package to me by: 11/22/02 i Le ROY 1 Je Ler 2 Concur: Sv A x Yew Signature Date Attachments Chugach Draft Invoice AML&P 1002 R. Desmond Mayo Date 11/15/02 Anchorage Municipal Light & Power 1200 East First Avenue Invoice Draft Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1685 Acct. No. 14300 000 00 2101 Past Due: 15-Dec-02 Folio To aan you for AML&P's share of allocated costs for the Southern Intertie, Work Order E9590081, for the period October 1, 2002 to October 31, 2002. Direct Labor 1,736.50 Indirect Labor 808.40 Power Engineers Invoice #97178 44,029.28 American Express Invoice 312.00 Sub-Total 46,886.18 General, Administrative & Construction Overhead (0.5%) $ 234.43 Total Charges $ 47,120.61 ae AML&P's Share 6.5348 % Amount Due From AML&P $ 3,079.24 Se Attachments To ensure proper credit, please retum a copy of this invoice with your payment. 18620 000 15 2101/ E9590081 (AML&P) maint&svc.xls Chugach Draft Invoice SEWARD 1002 Dave Calvert Date 11/15/02 City of Seward P. O. Box 167 Invoice Draft Seward, Alaska 99664 Acct. No. 14300 000 00 2101 Past Due: 15-Dec-02 Folio To invoice you for City of Seward's share of allocated costs for the Southem Intertie, Work Order £9590081, for the period October 1, 2002 to October 31, 2002. Direct Labor 1,736.50 Indirect Labor 808.40 Power Engineers Invoice #97178 44,029.28 Amenican Express Invoice 312.00 Sub-Total 46,886.18 General, Administrative & Construction Overhead (0.5%) $ 234.43 Total Charges $ 47,120.61 City of Seward's Share 0.4195 % Amount Due From City of Seward $ 197.67 Attachments To ensure proper credit, please return a copy of this invoice with your payment. 18620 000 15 2101/ E9590081 (SWD) maint&svc.xls CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Anchorage, Alaska 11/15/02 TO: Dora Gropp, Manager, Transmission & Special Projects FROM: Marina McCoy-Casey, Plant Accountant SUBJECT: Invoice for Your Review - Southern Intertie Attached is a draft invoice and and supporting documents for the billing of City of Seward's supporting documents for share of allocated costs for the Southern Intertie, Work Order E9590081. Work Order: E9590081 Amount of Current Invoice: $197.67 For Time Period: 10/01/02 to 10/31/02 Please review the entire invoice package and indicate your concurrence below, that these charges are correct for this work order and time period. If you want to delete or change the invoice in any manner, please provide appropriate documentation. Return the invoice package to me by: 11/22/02 Concur: & a x Lx LA YES Signature ““ Daté Attachments INVOO IMENTS - ANUMURAGE-KENAT INTERTIE 30-Sep-02 PAR VALUE TYPE ISSUER COUPON YIELD PURCHASE MATURITY cost ACCRUED DATE DATE INTEREST - CASH ‘ 1,680,112 REPO SEI 30-Sep-02 1-Oct-02 1,680,112.15 1,900,000 NOTE FHLB 4.640% 4.818% 3-Dec-98 9-Oct-02 1,888,125.00 42,120.89 5,000,000 NOTE FHLB 5.905% 5.020% 27-Jan-99 23-Dec-02 _5,154,900.00 80,373.61 6,000,000 NOTE FHLMC 4.050% 4.210% 29-Jun-01 27-Dec-02 5,986,221.36 63,450.00 8,000,000 NOTE FNMA 5.750% 2.877% 27-Mar-02 15-Apr-03 8,235,920.00 212,111.14 2,000,000 NOTE FHLB 5.630% 5.551% 25-Feb-99 2-Sep-03 2,006,250.00 9,070.56 2,000,000 NOTE FHLB 5.125% 4.419% 22-Jun-01 15-Sep-03 2,029,531.24 4,555.56 3,000,000 NOTE FHLB 5.125% 4.352% 27-Jun-01 15-Sep-03 3,048,281.25 6,833.33 1,000,000 NOTE FHLB 2.060% 2.060% 20-Sep-02 10-Oct-03 — 1,000,000.00 629.44 5,000,000 NOTE FFCB 5.070% 5.143% 20-Jan-99 15-Dec-03 4,984,100.00 74,641.67 1,820,000 NOTE FNMA 5.125% 6.133% 25-Mar-99 13-Feb-04 1,743,439.84 11,918.47 1,000,000 NOTE FNMA 5.125% 6.955% 12-Jul-00 13-Feb-04 942,730.00 6,548.61 500,000 NOTE FNMA 5.125% 6.947% 28-Jul-00 13-Feb-04 471,804.00 3,274.31 2,000,000 NOTE FNMA 5.125% 4.646% 22-Jun-01 13-Feb-04 2,023,437.50 13,097.22 2,000,000 NOTE FNMA 3.750% 3.776% 10-May-02 12-May-04 1,999,000.00 29,375.00 2,000,000 NOTE FHLMC. 4.250% 3.950% 01-May-02 1-Nov-04 2,002,940.00 35,416.67 1,000,000 NOTE UST 5.875% 3.009% 07-Nov-01 15-Nov-04 1,082,187.50 22,190.90 3,000,000 NOTE FHLMC 4.125% 4.118% 01-May-02 4-Feb-05 3,000,000.00 19,593.75 2,000,000 NOTE FHLMC 3.150% 2.718% 21-Aug-02 7-Feb-05 2,008,125.00 9,450.00 1,500,000 NOTE FNMA 3.000% 2.402% 30-Sep-02 4-Mar-05 —1,503,765.00 3,375.00. 2,000,000 BOND FHLB 3.500% 3.509% 29-Jul-02 29-Jul-05 —1,999,500.00 12,055.56 2,000,000 NOTE FNMA 3.125% 2.567% 30-Sep-02 15-Aug-05 — 2,009,560.00 7,986.11 1,000,000 NOTE FNMA 3.250% 3.261% 26-Aug-02 26-Aug-05 999,687.50 3,159.72 2,000,000 NOTE usT 5.750% 3.345% 2-Nov-01 15-Nov-05 2,180,156.24 43,437.50 1,000,000 NOTE UST 5.750% 3.463% 5-Nov-01 15-Nov-05 1,085,273.44 21,718.75 2,000,000 NOTE FMCNT 4.500% 4.732% 24-Apr-02 27-Feb-06 1,983,740.00 8,500.00 2,000,000 NOTE usT 4.625% 3.489% 2-Nov-01 15-May-06 2,094,531.25 34,938.86 1,000,000 NOTE usT 4.625% 3.587% 5-Nov-01 15-May-06 1,043,007.81 17,469.43 1,000,000 BOND FHLB 3.790% 3.814% 26-Aug-02 26-May-06 999,218.75 3,684.72 66,400,112 67, 185,544.83 800,976.77 —_— = ee — — ORIGINAL GRANT 46,800,000.00 NET INTEREST RECEIVED THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 27,902,928.71 EXPENDITURES: EXPENDED THROUGH 06/30/02 (7,355,536.22) EXPENSES FOR 7/01/02 - 9/30/02 5/02 MGMT FEES (3,922.86) 6/02 MGMT FEES (3,945.66) 7/02 MGMT FEES (3,979.14) 7/3/02 INTERTIE REIMB (150,000.00) EXPENDED TO DATE (7,517;383.88) COST OF INVESTMENTS £67/185,544.83 MARKET VALUE OF INVESTMENTS (Excluding accrued Interest receivable) h:/all/rterry/monica/penny/invest/intertie/FY03.XLS 11/15/2002 12:44 PM 68,123,940:72 il SCHEDULE Le Project Schedule | CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION ANCHORAGE - KENAI INTERTIE Mon-<i7ianoe PHASE IC 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1D_| Task Name % Comp. [02 [a3 [a4 | at Taz fas fas far [a2 [as [as farya2 [as Tas | at [a2 fas [os [Oi [a2 [a3 [a4 [at [a2 [03 [a4 [at [a2 [as [as [Or [a2 [a3 [as far 1 | ENVIRONMENTAL & ENGINEERING 99% EAT ETE TEAS FN OS NS : 2 |) RROSEST MANAGEMENT ” EE ee ' 3 ROUTE SELECTION STUDIES 100% |45 eR! e130 ; 4 EVAL & PREL.ENGINEERING 100% aT) a 5 EIS PREPARATION 100% 6 DEIS. 100% : : ‘ 8/5 9128 7 FR NOTICE 100% ‘ : : hale : 8 COMMENT PERIOD 100% wos 4216 : 9 PUBLIC HEARING, WASHING 100% 10/30 | Ace : 10 PUBLIC HEARING, ANCHOR 100% 11/13 2 1 PUBLIC HEARING, KENAI 100% aaa has : 2 FEIS 100% ; 13 REVIEW PERIOD FEIS 100% 4 ‘ 14 |AGENCIES 100% : p 15 USFWS 100% 16 RUS 100% : 7 USFS 100% 18 COE 100% 19 ROD 100% Task Summary a let Progress EE Spit er erera Se aeeee ~KENAIINTER | progress WEEE Rolled Up Task External Tasks Rolled Up Split aateennteactine Milestone Sd Rolled Up Milestone <> Project Summary UN PH_IC Page 1 IV ITEMS FOR APPROVAL None. Vv ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION None. vi ITEMS FOR INFORMATION 1. POWER Engineers’ Monthly Report dated November 14, 2002 2. Army Corps of Engineers Record of Decision, dated October 2002 4) ¥ Le IENGINEERS November 14, 2002 Ms. Dora Gropp Chugach Electric Association 5601 Minnesota Drive, Building A Anchorage, AK 99518 Subject: POWER Project #120376-14 EIS & Preliminary Engineering Chugach Contract No. 10629, Monthly Status Report No. 3 For Period October 6 to November 9, 2002 Dear Dora: This report summarizes the Task 14 activities completed during the reporting period. Reporting Period Overview: e Project coordination activities included progress reporting and telephone conferences. e Prepared and coordinated publishing of newspaper notices for RUS ROD. e Prepared mailing list for mailing of document. Work Planned for Next Reporting Period: e Issue combined RODs | Current Schedule: Finish Date e RUS and USFWS issue RODs October 4 e RUS Publishes Federal Register Notice of ROD availability October 9 ¢ USACE issues final Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation November 12 e Distribute Agency RODs November 22 NOV 1 5 2002 TRA Savit My SPECIAL PROsEC’ BLY 23-737 POWER Engineers, Incorporated b SSS 3940 Glenbrook Dr. + P.O. Box 1066 Phone (208) 788-3456 Hailey, Idaho 83333 Fax (208) 788-2082 Chugach Electric Association November 14, 2002 Page 2 Budget: Task 14 Budget $153,509 Task 14 Billed Through Previous Invoice $ 70,221 Task 14 Billed This Invoice $ 9,522 Task 14 Billed Subtotal to Date $ 79,743 Task 14 Remaining Project Budget $ 73,766 Total Budget $5,801,767 Total Billed Through Previous Invoice $5,594,068 Total Billed This Invoice $ 9.522 Total Remaining Project Budget $ 198,177 The above cost summary includes charges for EPG and PEI through November 9, 2002. Dora, should you have any questions about this report or any of the backup, please do not hesitate to contact Mike Walbert or me. Sincerely, POWER Engineers, Inc. tot Sill Randy Pollock, P.E. Project Manager RP/mw Enclosures cc: Mike Walbert (POWER HLY) Dusty Liman (POWER HLY) RM/REF 120376-14-55-00-01 HLY 23-737 GR Dower SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT — 120376-14 PROJECT FINANCIAL SUMMARY — NOVEMBER, 2002 INVOICE BLY 23-737 Task 5 budget amount reflects the addition of Contract No. 820, Amendment No. | funds. Task 10 budget amount reflects the addition of Contract No. 820, Amendment No. 2 funds. Task 11 budget amount reflects the addition of Contract No. 7614 funds. Task 12 budget amount reflects the addition of Contract No. 7614, Amendment No. 1 funds. Task 13 budget amount reflects the addition of Contract 10629 funds. Task 14 budget amount reflects the addition of Contract 10629 , Amendment No. 1 funds. Tasks 1-10 | Task 11 | Task 12 | Task13 | Task 14 Total Base Not to Exceed | $3,043,423 | N/A N/A N/A N/A $3,043,423 Budget CWG Contract $103,046 N/A N/A N/A N/A $103,046 Amendment No. 4 _| DFI Contract $45,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A $45,000 Amendment No. 5 = DFI Contract $11,400 N/A N/A N/A N/A $11,400 Amendment No. 6 DFI Contract $3,502 N/A N/A N/A N/A $3,502 Amendment No. 7 | DFI Contract = $89,487 N/A N/A N/A N/A $89,487 Amendment No.8 | Task 5 & 6 $0 N/A N/A N/A N/A $0 Reallocation * Contract | $31,926 |N/A N/A N/A N/A $31,926 Amendment No. 9 Contract $118,193 N/A | N/A N/A N/A $118,193 Amendment No. 11 Contract 820, $465,215 N/A N/A N/A N/A $465,215 Amendment No. 1 Contract 820 $389,547 N/A N/A N/A N/A $389,547 Amendment No. 2 _| Contract No. 7614 | N/A $731,264 | N/A N/A N/A $731,264 Contract No. 7614 N/A N/A $129,673 | N/A N/A $129,673 Amendment No. 1 Contract No. 10629 | N/A N/A N/A $486,580 | N/A $486,580 Contract No. 10629 | N/A N/A N/A N/A $153,509 $153,509 Amendment No. 1 =| | Total Not to $4,300,741 | $731,264 | $129,673 | $486,580 | $153,509 $5,801,767 Exceed Budget L Actual Budget $4,249,250 | $715,413 | $104,832 | $454,352 | $70,221 $5,594,068 Expended Through Previous Invoice Current Invoice $0 $0 $0* $0 $9,522 $9,522 Amount Actual Budget $4,249,250 | $715,413 | $104,832 | $454,352 | $79,743 $5,603,590 Expended Through Current Invoice Remaining Budget $51,491 $15,851 $24,841 | $32,228 $73,766 $198,177 and Format Responses to FEIS Comments | 11/13/2002 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT THROUGH PERIOD ENDING: Page 1 of 2 PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT 11-09-02 | __ 3RD QUARTER 2002 4TH QUARTER 2002 AS MONTH} JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 4-0 [PM & Monthly Reporting _ | | | | Actual % Work Completed 0%! 0%! 20% 50%. 75% Planned % Complete $ (to date) 0% 0% 25% 50%) 75%, 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) | 0% 0% 20% 26%| 45% | Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 $2,044] $2,044| $2,044 $2,044 Actual $ Expended (this period) | $0 | $0 | $1,659 $435 $1,622 | | Planned $ (to date) $0 | $0| $2,044] $4,088 $6,132) $8,176 Actual $ Expended (to date) $0 | $0 $1,659 | $2,094 $3,716 | Contract No. 10629, Amend. 1 $8,176 $8,176 $8,176 | $8,176| $8,176! $8,176 Actual Remaining Task Budget $8,176 $8,176 | $6,517 $6,082 | $4,460 | Develo Actual % Work Completed 0%| 0%! 23%] 100% 100% Planned % Complete $ (to date) 0% 0% 33% 67% | 100% 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 0%. 0%, 20% 54%, 54% Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 | $24,700 | $24,700 | $24,702 $0 Aciual $ Expended (this period) $0 | $0 | $14,609 | $25,271 $0 | Planned $ (to date) $0 | $0 $24,700 | $49,400 | $74,102 | $74,102 Actual $ Expended (to date) $0 | $0 $14,609 | $39,880 $39,880 Contract No. 10629, Amend. 1 | $74,102 | $74,102 | $74,102 | $74,102 | $74,102 $74,102 Actual Remaining Task Budget | $74,102 $74,102 | $59,493 | $34,222 | $34,222 Assist in Development of the RUS ROD | | | Actual % Work Completed 0% 0% 42% 100% 100%) Planned % Complete $ (to date) 0%! 0% | 33% 67%, 100% 100% |_ Actual % Expended $ (to date) 0% 0%! 35% 101% 101%, Planned $ (this period) $0 | $0 $9,328] $9,328! $9,328 | $0 Actual $ Expended (this period) $0 | $0, $9,924 | $18,323 $0 | __ Planned $ (to date) $0 | $0 | $9,328 | $18,656 | $27,984 | $27,984 Actual $ Expended (to date) $0 | $0 $9,924 | $28,247 | $28,247 Contract No. 10629, Amend. 1 $27,984 $27,984 | $27,984 | $27,984 $27,984 | $27,984 Actual Remaining Task Budget August 2002, Contract 10629 Amendment No. 1 HLY 23-737a 14 $27,984 $27,984 | $18,060 ($263) | ($263) | 11/13/2002 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT THROUGH PERIOD ENDING: Fags 7.012 PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT 1120902 38RD QUARTER 2002 | 4TH QUARTER 2002 AS MONTH; JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC | 4-3 |Prepare and Distribute Composite ROD Document | | Actual % Work Completed 0% | 0%, 0% 0%, 20% Planned % Complete $ (to date) 0% 0% | 0% 0% 50% 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 0%} 0% oe} 0% 18%, Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 | $0 $0 | $21,624 | $21,624 Actual $ Expended (this period) $0 | $0 | $0 $0 _ $7,899 | Planned $ (to date) $0 | $0 | $0 $0 $21,624 | $43,248 Actual $ Expended (to date) $0 | $0 | $0 $0 $7,899 | | Contract No. 10629, Amend. 1 $43,248 | $43,248 | $43,248 | $43,248 | $43,248 | $43,248 Actual Remaining Task Budget $43,248 $43,248 | $43,248 | $43,248 | $35,349 | TASK 14 TOTAL | Actual % Work Completed 0% 0%, 20% 60% 80%! Planned % Complete $ (to date) 0% 0% 23% 47%. 85% 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 0% 0% | 17%| 46% 52%, Planned $ (this period) $0 | $0 $36,072 | $36,072 | $57,698 | $23,668 Actual $ Expended (this period) $0 $0 | $26,192 | $44,029 $9,521 |__ Planned $ (to date) $0. $0 | $36,072 | $72,144 | $129,842 | $153,510 Actual $ Expended (to date) $0 $0 | $26,192 | $70,221 | $79,742 | Cantract No. 10629, Amend. 1_| $153,510 ($153,510 $153,510 |$153,510 $153,510 | $153,510 Actual Remaining Task Budget {$153,510 $153,510 | $127,318 | $83,289 $73,768 ites: August 2002, Contract 10629 Amendment No. 1 HLY 23-737a 14 W.C, CUSOC§/ Jee, 7 2 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY R ECE! VE D U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA Elmendorf = FLAME SiG AAO NOV 1 3 2002 CERTIFIED TRANSMISSION SPECIAL PROJECT Regulatory Branch South Section 2-4999-1212 NOVEMBER : ° gp Ms. Dora Gropp Intertie Participants Group 5601 Minnesota Drive Post Office Box 196300 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Dear Ms. Gropp: This concerns your request, on behalf of the Intertie Participants Group (IPG), for a Department of the Army (DA) permit to construct a 74-mile, 138kV electrical transmission line. The proposed project, known as the Southern Intertie, originates at the Soldotna Substation, makes two aerial crossings of the Kenai River, and follows the Enstar natural gas pipeline through the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR). The line would continue across Turnagain Arm as a submarine cable, entering at Chickaloon Bay and landing at Oceanview Park, in south Anchorage. It would then follow the Alaska Railroad right-of-way north, terminating at the International Substation in Anchorage, Alaska. This proposed route, known as the Enstar Route, has been assigned file number 2-1999-1212, Turnagain Arm 45, which should be referred to in any future correspondence with this office. The Enstar Route proposal requires DA authorization because the project would involve work in, and the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into, waters of the U.S. under our regulatory jurisdiction. However, based upon the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), we have determined that the activities subject to our Sections 10 and 404 jurisdictions occur outside of the KNWR. Therefore, the Corps can issue a DA permit, for the aerial crossings of the Kenai River and submarine crossing of Turnagain Arm, without consideration of Title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in their Record of Decision, notified us that your proposal has been found incompatible with the purposes for which the KNWR was established. They have therefore, denied the grant of right-of- way to the IPG for the SIP to cross the Refuge. Without this permit, the Enstar Route is no longer a viable alternative. Unless this decision is appealed by you, and overturned after Presidential review, the Corps considers the Enstar Route proposal to be incomplete. As such, we are closing your permit application file, pursuant to DA regulation 33 CFR 320.4(j) (1), which reads in part: “..where the required Federal, state and/or local authorization and/or certification has been denied for activities which also require a Department of the Army permit before final action has been taken on the Army permit application, the district engineer will, after considering the likelihood of subsequent approval of the other authorization and/or certification and the time and effort remaining to complete processing the Army permit application, either immediately deny the Army permit without prejudice or continue processing the application to a conclusion.” The proposed project activities, subject to Corps Section 10 and Section 404 jurisdiction, generated limited interest during the NEPA review. Impacts associated with the aerial crossings of the Kenai River and submarine crossing of Turnagain Arm are not considered significant. There does not appear to be an appreciable difference to affected aquatic resources when comparing the Route alternatives. Based on information within the FEIS, the Corps could issue a DA permit for either the Enstar or Tesoro Route. Should you receive the necessary licenses and permits needed to pursue the Enstar Route alternative, the Corps would issue a DA permit for this option. We do agree with the NEPA conclusion that the Tesoro Route option is the environmentally preferred alternative. This decision is based on the project’s impacts to wildlife resources on the KNWR rather than the Enstar Route’s affects to Waters of the U.S. We have determined the Tesoro Route complies with the Section 404 (b) (1) guidelines and is not contrary to the Public Interest. By copy of this letter, we are informing the concerned resource agencies on the enclosed list of our decision. Thank you for your cooperation with the Corps of Engineer’s Regulatory Program. If you have any questions, please contact me at the letterhead address, at (907) 753-2712 or by FAX at (907) 753-5567. For additional information about our regulatory program, visit our web site at www.poa.usace.army.mil/reg. Sincerely, Section Chief Enclosures APPENDIX B RECEIVER) NOV 1 3 2002 TRANSMISSION & SPECIAL PROJECT Department of Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District Record of Decision Southern Intertie Project File No. 2-991212 Turnagain Arm 45 October 2002 Record of Decision and Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation Department of Army, Corps of Engineers Proposed Southern Intertie Project File number: 2-991212, Turnagain Arm 45 This document constitutes the Corps of Engineers, Alaska District's Record of Decision (ROD) for Department of the Army (DA) authorization to construct a 74-mile, 138kV electrical transmission line, identified as the Southern Intertie Project (SIP), as described in the Public Notice. The Corps decision is based upon review of the information within the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), published July 12, 2002, in accordance with Section 102 of the National Environmental Conservation Act (NEPA) of 1969, (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). The FEIS compares the applicant's proposed Enstar Route with the no-action and Tesoro Route alternatives. The FIES has identified the Tesoro Route to be the environmentally preferred alternative for construction of the transmission line. This route follows the Tesoro natural gas pipeline, (Route Option A), beginning at the Bernice Lake Substation near Nikiski, heading in a northeasterly direction to Pt. Possession, and then continuing across Turnagain Arm to the Pt. Woronzof Substation in Anchorage. This Route follows a dedicated transportation and utility corridor along the west side of the Kenai Peninsula, established in 1964 when this area was Congressionally withdrawn from the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR) for the purpose of promoting future development. The Corps agrees with the NEPA determination that the Tesoro Route is the environmentally preferred alternative. I. Introduction A. Project Description: The proposed project is to construct a 74-mile, 138kV electrical transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage, in southcentral Alaska. The route for which the applicant has applied would begin at the Soldotna Substation, within the NW 1/4, section 26, T. 5 N., R. 10 W., Seward Meridian (SM), east of Soldotna, and proceed as. an overhead line in a northeasterly direction across the Kenai Peninsula, following the Enstar natural gas pipeline corridor through the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR). The line would cross Turnagain Arm as a submarine cable, entering the arm at Chickaloon Bay, adjacent to Burnt Island, and landing at Oceanview Park in south Anchorage. It would then follow the Alaska Railroad right-of-way north, terminating at the International Substation in the SE1/4, section 36, T. 13.N.,R.4W., S.M., in Anchorage. This proposal, as submitted by the applicant, follows route options E-South, F, H and K, and is collectively referred to as the Enstar Route. Approximately 83% of the line would be attached to overhead tower structures, 16% would consist of submarine cabling and approximately 1% would be installed underground. The transmission line would make two aerial crossings of the Kenai River, a navigable water of the United States. At all stream crossings, tower structures would maintain a 200’ minimum setback. If possible, wetlands would be spanned. Any tower requiring siting in a wetland would be pile- supported. Submarine electric cable would be threaded under the vegetated intertidal estuaries of Turnagain Arm by use of horizontal directional drilling from adjacent upland areas. To cross Turnagain Arm, a water-jetting machine, towed behind the cable-laying barge, would cut a narrow trench in the basin substrate into which the marine cable would be laid. Tidal currents would redeposit the sediments, closing the trench and burying the cable. B. Purpose and Need: The Southern Intertie Transmission Line Project (SIP) is a system improvement project. The line would correct existing deficiencies by providing a second line to accomplish the following: * — Increase reliability of the Railbelt electrical system and power supply to consumers by providing a second path for electrical power during interruptions of the existing Quartz Creek line and by reducing load-shedding requirements in case of system disturbances. « Increase electrical transfer capability of the transmission system between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage from 70 megawatts (MW) to 125 MW, reduce operating costs by allowing for more economical usage of existing generation sources, decrease overall system requirements for spinning reserves, and improve electrical system stability. = Provide adequate access to power entitlements from the Bradley Lake hydroelectric generating station for the utilities north of the Kenai Peninsula, allow the Bradley Lake generation to be more fully utilized to reduce system-operating costs through increased hydrothermal coordination, and provide additional spinning reserves to the system north of the Kenai Peninsula. Additional information on the purpose and need of the SIP, including existing system operations, proposed project background, studies conducted, and the benefits and costs analysis can be found in Chapter 1 of the FEIS. C. Scope of Analysis: The purpose of this section is to outline the authorities governing the scope of the Corps’ decision. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, (33 U.S.C. 403) prohibits the unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable waterway of the U.S. The construction of any structure in, under, or over any navigable water of the U.S., the excavating from or deposition of material into such waters, or the accomplishment of any other work affecting the course, location, condition, or capacity of such waters is unlawful unless the work has been permitted by the Corps. The substantive evaluation criteria for this authority are the Corps’ Public Interest Review and NEPA. The proposed Enstar Route alternative is subject to Section 10 jurisdiction at the two aerial crossings of the Kenai River and the submarine crossing of Turnagain Arm. The Kenai River crossings are only associated with the Enstar Route — Southern Option. A submarine crossing of Turnagain Arm would occur along either the Enstar or Tesoro Route alternatives and require Section 10 authorization. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) applies to the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. The substantive evaluation requirements of this act are within the guidelines developed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in conjunction with the Secretary of the Army, published in 40 CFR, Part 230 and referred to as the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Activities proposed by the applicant subject to Section 404 jurisdiction are limited to the area below the high tide line of Turnagain Arm associated with the submarine crossing. There are no discharges of fill material being proposed into waters of the U.S. along either the Tesoro or Enstar Route alternatives outside of the Turnagain Arm crossings. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42U.S.C. 4321-4347) declares the national policy to encourage a productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment. Section 102 of that Act directs that “to the fullest extent possible: (1) The policies, regulations, and public laws of the U.S. shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in the Act, and (2) all agencies the Federal Government shall .....”insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision-making along with economic and technical considerations.....” (See Appendix B of 33 CFR Part 325.) Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), Title XI — Transportation and Utility Systems In and Across, and Access Into, Conservation System Units (43 CFR Part 36) allows authorizing federal agencies to review a proposal in accordance with the procedures set fourth in this title. The Corps received an application for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities on Federal Lands from the IPG, on August 5, 1999, to construct a 138kV electrical transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and the City of Anchorage in south-central Alaska. The transmission line, following the applicant's proposed Enstar Route, would cross the KNWR - a Conservation System Unit identified in ANILCA. The Enstar Route would require Section 10 authorization for two aerial crossings of the Kenai River and for the submarine crossing of Turnagain Arm. These crossings of navigable water are not located within the KNWR. Embedment of the submarine cable below the high tide line of Turnagain Arm would also be subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 404; again, this activity is not within the KNWR. The applicant’s proposed mitigation measures have eliminated all other discharges of dredged and/or fill material. There are no activities under Corps Section 10 or Section 404 jurisdiction being proposed on the KNWR. The applicant does not require Corps authorization to construct the portion of the SIP that crosses the Refuge and therefore, the project is not subject to Corps approval or disapproval under Title XI of ANILCA. D. Federal Agency Involvement: The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), of the US Department of Agriculture, is the Lead Federal Agency in the NEPA review for the SIP. The IPG intends to submit an application to RUS for financial assistance to partially fund construction of the transmission line. Pursuant to RUS Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 CFR Part 1794), providing funding for the project would constitute a major federal action for the agency. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW), as Federal Manager of the KNWR, has permitting authority over the applicants proposed route selection to cross Refuge Lands. The USFW is a cooperating agency in the NEPA review and is responsible for the decision to issue or deny a Right-of-Way permit for the line to cross the KNWR. The Corps of Engineers, a permitting agency based on the authorities listed above, is also a cooperating agency in the NEPA review of the SIP. Il. Alternatives A. Overview of Alternatives: All chapter and section references made in this ROD refer to the SIP DEIS. Chapter 2 contains discussion of the alternatives identified during the scoping process, including alternatives eliminated from detailed study for failing to meet the applicant's purpose and need, and alternatives determined to be impracticable when considering public interest factors. Alternatives carried forward for detailed evaluation include: 1) the Enstar Route alternative (the applicant's proposed project), 2) the Tesoro Route alternative, and 3) the no- action-alternative. Chapter 2 also provides details on construction, operation, maintenance and abandonment of the facilities associated with the alternatives route options. B. Alternatives Evaluated in Detail: 1) Enstar Route: This is the applicant's proposed route. It begins as an overhead transmission line at the existing Soldotna substation. There are two route options from this substation, both of which intersect the Enstar Pipeline corridor in section 1, T. 5N., R.8W., SM. Route Option E-North would run north from the Soldotna substation before turning east to intersect the Enstar Pipeline corridor. This 21.6-mile section of line would primarily run paralle! to an existing power line between the Soldotna substation and Enstar Pipeline. Route Option E-South would replace an existing 69kV transmission line. This route begins by heading south from the Soldotna substation, turning east and then to the north, before intersecting the Enstar Pipeline corridor. The aerial line would cross the Kenai River twice, at the same locations where the existing line crosses. Both of these locations are outside of the KNWR. Route Option E-South is 19.0 miles long and part of the IPG’s proposed route. From the point where Route Option E-South intersects the existing Enstar natural gas pipeline, the Enstar alternative parallels the pipeline corridor in a northeasterly direction through the KNWR. Along this 38.5-mile section of line, the existing gas line access trail would be utilized to construct the transmission line. The 50’ corridor would be widened to approximately 200’ in order accommodate the addition of the transmission line. The transmission line would meet Turnagain Arm on the east end of Chickaloon Bay near Burnt Island. A transition facility would convert the overhead line to marine cable where it would continue across the Arm along one of three route options. At each of the three Anchorage landing site options, a transition facility would convert the marine cable back to an underground or overhead line and continue to the International Substation, located at the Chugach Electric Headquarters building, near the intersection of Minnesota Drive and International Airport Road. The three route options across Turnagain Arm fan out from the transition facility located adjacent to Burnt Island. Route Option G would cross the Arm following a due north direction from Burnt Island, landing near Klatt Road in south Anchorage. From a transition facility here, this route would continue as Option J, an overhead line parallel to Minnesota Drive, terminating at the International Substation. This Enstar Alternative, following Route Options G and J, is 73.8 miles long and has an estimated construction cost of $90.1 million. Route Option | would cross Turnagain Arm from Burnt Island as a marine cable, landing near the confluence of Rabbit Creek in south Anchorage. From a transition facility there, an overhead line would continue as Route Option M, following the Old Seward Highway north to International Airport Road, and then turning west to the International substation. This Enstar Alternative, along Route Options | and M, is 75.4 miles long with an estimated construction cost of $90.1 million. Route Option H crosses Turnagain Arm from Burnt Island to a landing at Oceanview Park in south Anchorage. As Route Option K, the line would continue underground along the edge of Oceanview Park and an adjacent light airplane landing strip to the north. At this point the cable would transition to an overhead line and continue north, within the Alaska Railroad Corporation right-of-way, to the International substation. This route, selected by the IPG as their proposed route and submitted on the ANILCA and DA permit applications, consists of line segments E- South, F, H, and K. Collectively known as the Enstar Route, this proposal is 73.4 miles in length, with an estimated construction cost of $90.2 million. Additional information and detailed descriptions of the facilities associated with the Enstar Route alternative can be found in Chapter 2.3.2 and 2.4. 2) Tesoro Route: The Tesoro Route has been identified as the environmentally preferred alternative through the NEPA review process. This route (option A) begins at the existing Bernice Lake Substation near Nikiski and generally parallels the Tesoro natural gas pipeline along the west coast of the Kenai Peninsula to Pt. Possession. In 1964 Congress modified the west boundary of the KNWR, pulling it inland from the coast, to create a transportation and utility corridor for anticipated future development needs of the Kenai Peninsula Borough. A transmission line constructed along the Tesoro Route would be located within this transportation/utility corridor. Underground electric cable would be installed through Captain Cook SRA, satisfying requirements of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA). Crossing Native owned lands near Grey Cliff Lake would require a permit pursuant to Section 22(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). A transition facility at Pt. Possession would convert the overhead line to submarine cable before entering Turnagain Arm. From Pt. Possession, there are three route options being considered for crossing Turnagain Arm, with each option terminating at the existing Pt. Woronzof Substation. Route Option D would cross the Arm from Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell. From the Pt. Campbell landing, underground cable would continue through Kincaid Park and the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport before terminating at the Pt. Woronzof substation. The total length of the Tesoro route utilizing Route Option D is 62.0 miles with an estimated construction cost of $99.5 million. Route Option B crosses Turnagain Arm from Pt. Possession to Fire Island. The submarine cable would transition to an overhead line, traverse the length of Fire Island, and convert back to submarine cable to cross the mudflats to the Point Woronzof Substation. This option would require two transition facilities on Fire Island. The submarine cable between Pt. Possession and Fire Island would also encounter undesirable marine conditions that feature extreme tidal currents and rocky substrate. The cable would be exposed to tidal scouring elements that would likely result in more frequent cable failures and increased maintenance costs. The total length of the Tesoro route using Option B is 63.2 miles, with estimated construction costs of $99.4 million. Route Option C, crosses Turnagain Arm as a submarine cable from Pt. Possession directly to a landing at the Pt. Woronzof Substation. This crossing option, coupled with the Tesoro natural gas pipeline route, is the option identified as the environmentally preferred alternative in the FEIS. A concern identified with this option is the presence of a ‘cable field’ located just offshore of the proposed landing site. There are several submarine cables, which cross the Knik Arm between Pt. Mackenzie and Pt. Woronzof, already buried in this area. To avoid laying cables on top of existing cables, Route Option C would land cables south of the Anchorage Waste Water Treatment Facility and access the Pt. Woronzof substation from the east. The length of this route option is 61.3 miles with an estimated construction cost of $106.2 million. Additional information and detailed descriptions of the facilities associated with the Tesoro Route alternative can be found in Chapter 2.3.2 and 2.4. 3) No action: The no-action alternative would preclude realization of the benefits from construction of the SIP. Potential cost savings of the project would remain as costs embedded in the electricity rates paid by consumers. Cost savings would be unrealized in areas of capacity sharing, economic energy transfer, reliability, spinning reserve sharing, reduced line maintenance costs, avoidance of minimum generation on the Kenai Peninsula, and avoidance of the practice of not loading the Quartz Creek transmission line during bad weather and construction. The no- action alternative does not address the problems that the project has been designed to solve and does not meet the applicant’s purpose and need objectives. Further discussion of this alternative can be found in Chapter 2.3.1. Ill. Affected Environment A. Inventoried Environment: The resources identified as being important in the scoping process, inventoried during data collection and described in detail by Chapter 3 include: * Climate and Air Quality (Chapter 3.2) * Earth and Water Resources (Chapter 3.3) * Marine Environment (Chapter 3.4) = Biological (Chapter 3.5) «= Land Use and Recreation (Chapter 3.6) * Socioeconomics and Tourism (Chapter 3.7) * Subsistence (Chapter 3.8) » Visual (Chapter 3.9) * Cultural and Historical (Chapter 3.10) "Electric and Magnetic Fields and Noise (Chapter 3.11) The DEIS contains resource descriptions, explanations of the data gathering methods, and inventory results. Chapter 3 also describes anticipated project impacts to these resources, and the expected environmental consequences. Information regarding proposed project mitigation and residual resource damage is also summarized in Chapter 3. B. Types of impacts: Resource quantity and sensitivity were analyzed to determine potential impact levels for the identified resources. The quantity of a resource impacted is simply the summation of affected resource units. For example, known bald eagle nesting sites within .5 mile of the projects’ influence zone, can be compared between the alternatives by counting the number of active nesting trees along each route. Determining resource sensitivity requires a more subjective approach. Considerations can include resource values, endangered species listing, existing land use patterns, special area designations, management plan implementation, or other resource parameters. The combination of these two assessment variables determines the level of impact assigned to each resource category. Impacts are categorized into three primary types: 1) Direct impacts are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. 2) Indirect impacts caused by the action occur later in time or are farther removed. 3) Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. These impacts may be individually minor but collectively significant. Resource impacts can be further categorized into these secondary types: 1) Short-term impacts are associated with the initial ground disturbance or construction phase of the project. 2) Long-term impacts affect the resource during the operation and maintenance phases, or over the project's lifetime. Resource impacts are also evaluated to determine their significance. As defined in NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality Regulation 1508.27, significance requires considerations of both context and intensity. The factors of context and intensity are discussed in Chapter 3.1.2. Definitions for significant impact, by resource, were established to provide a means of interpreting which issues are associated with each resource in the project area, which impacts are relevant to the resource, and how those impacts must affect the resource to be considered significant. These definitions are provided in Table 3-1. Impact significance is evaluated within three levels of context: local, regional, and national. The local context for the SIP is defined as the immediate vicinity of the alternative routes. The regional context depends on resource distribution and interactions. For example, the regional context for evaluation of impact significance on brown bear resources would be the Kenai Peninsula, because the population of brown bears on the Peninsula is believed to experience little, if any, immigration from or emigration to other brown bear populations. A national context considers resource status at the national level, and federal mandates for resource protection. For example, wildlife within the KNWR is considered a national resource due to the USFWS mandate to protect wildlife. Significant impacts on wildlife within the KNWR are considered nationally significant. Accumulative impact, as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.7), is the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federa!) or person undertakes other such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. These reasonably foreseeable future actions refer to future action projections, or estimates, of what is likely to take place when a proposed action is implemented. They are not part of the proposed action but are projections being made so that future impacts, cumulative and otherwise, can be estimated as required by NEPA. A complete discussion of the SIP cumulative impacts can be found in Chapter 3.12. Finally, as part of the project description, the IPG has proposed incorporating mitigation measures that minimize construction and maintenance activity impacts to the natural environment. These measures are referred to as ‘standard practice project mitigation’ and are summarized in Volume II, Table D-1. Where warranted, on a case-by-case basis, mitigation beyond these generic measures has been recommended to further reduce adverse impacts. The selective mitigation measures are identified in Volume II, Table D-2, with a detailed mitigation plan provided in Volume II of the FEIS. In discussing the environmental consequences of the proposed project below, descriptions of resource impacts take into consideration the mitigating affects of these measures. C. Environmental Consequences to Aquatic Resources Resulting from the Discharge of Fill or Dredged Material: The 404(b)(1) Evaluation is a document based on guidelines set forth in 40 CFR, Part 230. The purpose of these guidelines is to maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of waters of the U.S. by controlling the discharges of fill material. Fundamental to these guidelines is the precept that no discharge of fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences. Therefore, the following discussion will focus on aquatic resource characteristics that would be impacted by the proposed project, and the anticipated consequences. Marine Environment (Chapter 3.4): Waters of upper Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm are well mixed due to large tidal fluctuations and high current velocities. Salinity, temperature, and suspended sediment loads vary with season, water depth, and tidal cycle. Embedment of the transmission line across Turnagain Arm would result in a discharge of dredged material. Though important differences between the Enstar proposal and Tesoro alternative can be found in the basin substrates, shifting bathymetries, potential impacts from ice scour, and steep shore slopes, a discharge along either route is not expected to have more than a minimal effect on water quality in Turnagain Arm. A transmission line along IPG’s proposed Enstar Route would enter Turnagain Arm on the east side of Chickaloon Bay, near Burnt Island. The Route Options across the Arm (G, H, and 1) would fan out from this point and proceed to the three different landing sites. This area of Turnagain Arm is characterized by wide mud flats at low tide and deep glacial sediments across the entire width. Distribution of these sediments, ranging from silty fine sand to sandy silt, indicate about a 90 percent sand content near tidal channels and about 10 percent sand content near shorelines adjacent to Anchorage and Chickaloon Bay. The Turnagain Arm flood tide is stronger than the ebb tide, carrying more sediment into the Arm than is drained out. The geological conditions found in this area of the basin would allow the submarine cable to be embedded in the seafloor, resulting in enhanced reliability, reduced maintenance costs, and a longer cable life. The transmission line following the Tesoro Route alternative would enter Turnagain Arm at Pt. Possession and follow the eastern flank of Cook Inlet north. All three Route Options (B, C, and D) would cross the mouth of Turnagain Arm, with two options landing at Pt. Woronzof (B, and C), and route option D coming ashore at Pt. Campbell. The landing points on the north side of Turnagain Arm are characterized by wide mud flats, similar to those found with the Enstar proposal. The submarine cable could be embedded in the sediments here and offer the same reliability advantages listed above. The southern portion of the Tesoro Route’s marine crossing, offshore from Pt. Possession, offers less favorable geologic conditions for marine cable reliability. The Pt. Possession area exhibits easily eroded bluffs that consistently expose a large number of glacially deposited boulders. These boulders, moved by sea-ice rafting and shifted by strong tidal currents, have produced several boulder patches in the western portion of Turnagain Arm. Seafloor boulder patches have been recorded between Pt. Possession and Fire Island, and between Pt. Possession and Pt. Campbell, at water depths between 20 and 50 feet mean low low water (MLLW), and in the deep channels at depths of 60 to 90 feet MLLW. The boulders diminish in size and number to the east of Pt. Possession, near the Chickaloon Bay area. The submarine cable cannot be embedded in areas where scoured bottom conditions or boulder fields occur. Unburied cables are at an increased risk to cable failure from tidal currents, ice scouring and other hazards. Anticipated replacement of damaged submarine cables has been calculated into project maintenance cost estimates, summarized in Table 2-1 of the FEIS. Along both the Enstar proposal and Tesoro Route alternative, submarine cable would be subject to impacts and scouring from ice floes and pressure ridges. Sea ice forms in Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm in the autumn, remaining through the winter months and melting with warmer water temperatures in the spring. Much of the ice, formed on tidal flats and lifted during flood tides, is incorporated into large ice floes. Pressure ridges up to 20 feet can form on the floe peripheries from collisions with other floes. Areas most susceptible to ice scouring include the mudflats and adjacent seafloor slopes between Pt. Campbell, Pt. Woronzof, and Fire Island; the area from Pt. Campbell to Potter Marsh; and at Pt. Possession and Chickaloon Bay. Turbulent tides, throughout Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm, create changing conditions in the seafloor profile. Channels cut into the seafloor by the tide are constantly shifting and changing in size, with channel banks being particularly susceptible to erosion. Saltmarsh estuaries are found in low-lying coastal areas (e.g., below the coastal bluffs in the Anchorage area) and at the mouths of river systems (e.g., Chickaloon River at Chickaloon Bay, Kenai River in Cook Inlet, and Swanson River in Captain Cook SRA). These estuaries, considered to be extremely sensitive to disturbance, provide some of the most important habitat for wildlife in the study area. They are important feeding and resting areas for migrating waterfowl and shorebirds, especially at Chickaloon Bay. Bears feed on anadromous fish in estuaries at the mouths of streams during the summer and fall, and forage for grasses in these areas in the spring. Inter-tidal mudflats and estuarine open water areas function as habitat for low densities of epifaunal marine invertebrates, marine and anadromous fish, and feeding areas for beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) and harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). If impacted, it can take several years for saltmarsh vegetation to recover. Installation of the transmission line through intertidal transition areas, between terrestrial and marine environments, would utilize similar construction techniques along both routes. The IPG’s Enstar proposal would enter Turnagain Arm at the east end of Chickaloon Bay, near Burnt Island, and exit on the Anchorage side at Oceanview Park. On both sides of this Turnagain Arm crossing, submarine cable would be threaded under vegetated saltmarsh estuaries by horizontal directional drilling (HDD) from the adjacent upland bluffs. This construction technique can span distances up to 4000’ and allow the submarine cable to be installed under sensitive vegetated areas without mechanical trenching. On the waterward side of the saltmarshes, the HDD installed cable would transition into a mechanically excavated trench through the remaining intertidal mud flats. A trench, four feet wide by five feet deep, would be excavated with backhoes or bulldozers during low tide periods with spoilings being sidecast adjacent to the trench. The submarine cable would be laid into the trench and covered with the excavated material. No appreciable environmental consequences are anticipated as a result of trenching nonvegetated tidal mudflats along either the Enstar or Tesoro Routes. The acreages of saltmarsh habitat within the right-of-way of the proposed project alternatives are summarized in Table 3-5 below. A concern identified with the SIP crossing Turnagain Arm is the recent decline of beluga whales in Cook Inlet. The whales, which have been included on the state’s list of species of special concern, are commonly found in the intertidal and nearshore areas of Turnagain Arm and Cook inlet. The distribution of beluga whale habitat is shown in Volume II, Figure MV-17. Concentrations of fish occur primarily in the early spring to late fall (March through November), usually at the mouths of rivers, and the whales frequent these waters during this time to feed on smelt and adult salmon. Beluga calving areas in Cook Inlet have not been identified, but it is believed that calving may occur in estuaries, such as Chickaloon Bay, during May and June. Discussions have been held with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding construction activities and timing windows that would reduce contact with beluga whales. The secondary impacts resulting from cable laying operations are not expected to degrade habitat or result in whale mortality along this route. However, the cumulative impacts of installing a submarine cable along the Enstar Route are unknown. Wetlands (Chapter 3.5): As defined by the Corps, wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. The wetlands along each route were inventoried using aerial photographs, National Wetland Inventory maps, and by direct observation while flying each route in helicopters. Distribution of identified wetlands is summarized in the Vegetation Cover/Wetland Maps in Volume II, Figures MV-6 through MV-8. As a result of the mitigation measures incorporated into the proposed project, no discharge of fill material is anticipated into any wetland community along either route alternative. The IPG has prescribed utilizing existing pipeline access roads, without improvements, along both routes. in addition, construction activities would be confined to the winter season and only tracked or low- pressure tired equipment would be used within a confined right-of-way area. These restrictions are intended to prevent rutting and drainage pattern changes in areas with compressible soils. Placement of overhead towers for the transmission line would skirt wetlands where possible, and attempt to span wetlands that cannot be avoided. If a tower must be placed in an area with incompetent soils (i.e. peat soils), installation of the foundation will be pile-driven without a discharge. No direct wetland impacts are anticipated along the Tesoro or Enstar Routes from construction or maintenance activities within the scope of the Corps jurisdiction. Streams, Rivers and Floodplains (Chapter 3.3): The Enstar proposal would cross several streams on the Kenai Peninsula and within the Anchorage Bowl. Primary among these proposed stream crossings is the Kenai River, which the transmission line would span twice. The Kenai River is a navigable water of the U.S. and subject to Section 10 jurisdiction. The E-South route option, as proposed by the IPG, would replace an existing 69kV line and follow the same right-of- way. The upgraded 138kV transmission line would span the Kenai River at the same two locations, River Miles 28.0 and 39.3. Tower placement, adjacent to the Kenai River, would remain at the current locations; only the height of the structures would change, increasing approximately 20 feet. The river crossings are not expected to impact navigation, a primary consideration in the Section 10 review. Other Kenai Peninsula streams that would be crossed by the Enstar proposal include the Funny River, Chickaloon River, Mystery Creek, Big and Little Indian Creeks, Burnt Island Creek, and several unnamed tributary streams. Within the Anchorage Bowl area, Route Options H and K, would span Campbell Creek and Furrow Creek. These streams are not considered navigable by the Corps, and therefore not subject to Section 10 jurisdiction. 10 The Tesoro Route alternative would cross the Swanson River, Bishop Creek, Scaup Creek, Otter Creek, Seven Egg Creek, and Miller Creek, all located on the Kenai Peninsula. This route would not cross any streams in the Anchorage area. The Corps does not have Section 10 jurisdiction over these streams either. D. Navigable Waters: Any work in or over navigable waters of the U.S. requires authorization from the Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, (33 U.S.C. 403). Navigable waters affected by the proposed transmission line include the Kenai River and Turnagain Arm. The anticipated impacts of the proposed line to these water bodies is discussed in the DEIS, Chapter 3.4, and summarized here and in the previous section of this document. A transmission line constructed along the proposed Enstar Route would span the Kenai River in two locations. The proposed line would replace an existing 69 kV transmission line and cross the River at the same locations. Concerns, in regard to the existing line or the proposed SIP creating navigational impacts to the Kenai River, were not identified as an issue during the scoping and project review process. As discussed in detail within Section II Alternatives, Part B, there are three Turnagain Arm crossing options available for both the Enstar and Tesoro Routes. The Enstar Route alternative leads the transmission line corridor to tidewater at Chickaloon Bay where the three crossing options would begin. In the applicant proposed option (K), the overhead line would transition to marine cable near Burnt Island and be threaded under the intertidal estuary by directionally drilling from an upland position. The marine cable would be buried in sediments on the basin of Turnagain Arm utilizing a barge-towed water jet apparatus. The primary concern identified along the applicant’s proposed route is regarding potential impacts to Beluga whales. Discussions with the National Marine Fisheries Service culminated in a determination that potential impacts to Beluga whales from cable laying activities are not expected to be significant. Supplemental information on Beluga whales, included in the FEIS, Section 2.2.5, does not amend this determination. No comments were received during the SIP review process that identified potential navigational concerns from the proposed submarine cable crossing of Turnagain Arm pursuant to the Corps Section 10 jurisdiction. IV. Findings: A. Consideration of Comments: Publication of the DEIS, in October 2001, was followed by a 60-day public review period. Comments on the DIES were received from federal, state, and local agencies, special interest organizations, and individuals. The format of these comments included letters, emails, and oral testimony. As required by Title XI of ANILCA, three public hearings (in Arlington, Virginia, and Anchorage and Soldotna, Alaska) were also held during the 60-day comment period. In compliance with requirements of the CEQ Regulations implementing NEPA, all comments received were reviewed, considered, and a response provided. The public testimony and comment letters were reprinted in the FEIS, Volume 1, and Chapter 1. The responses to the comments are printed adjacent to each comment letter. B. Public Interest Review: Pursuant to 33 CFR, Par 325.3(c)(1): “The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefits, which may reasonably be expected to accrue from the proposal, must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general 11 environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership and in general, the needs and welfare of the people.” The specific weight of each factor is determined by its importance and relevance to the proposal. Accordingly, how important a factor is and the amount of consideration it deserves varies with each project. Scoping, which began the public review process for the SIP proposal, identified some of the factors listed above as being important. Those deemed important were addressed in the DEIS and are detailed below. The 60-day public comment period following the DEIS, further refined the important factors. These concerns were reprinted and addressed in the FEIS, Chapter 1, Public Comments and Responses. The economic costs/benefits of the SIP, and overall energy needs of the Railbelt System, were examined in detail and discussed in the DEIS, Chapter 1. Primary factors considered include current energy demands, projected energy needs, system deficiencies, spinning reserves, line maintenance, construction methods, and alternative routes. Supplemental information on project costs/benefits is included in the FEIS, Chapter 2. Effects on aesthetics from the proposed project were captured under visual resources and discussed in the DEIS, Chapter 3.9. Factors taken into consideration for review of visual resource impacts included landscape setting, urban or rural scenery, existing conditions, viewpoints, viewsheds, travel ways and viewers. An important consideration between alternatives is that the Tesoro Route would follow a dedicated utility and road right-of-way while the Enstar Route bisects the KNWR. An historic property and ‘cultural resources inventory was conducted and the results are summarized in the DEIS, Chapter 3, Table 3-30. High impacts to historic properties are not projected along either of the route alternatives and the differences are expected to be negligible. Property ownership and land use considerations are discussed in the DEIS, Chapter 3.6. Property jurisdiction and ownership is summarized in the DEIS, Vol. Il, Figure MV-18. Native Corporation lands, conveyed within the KNWR, are subject to Section 22(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The Kenai Peninsula Borough and Municipality of Anchorage would review either route alternative under their respective Alaska Coastal Management Plans. This review has not yet been completed. The Alaska Railroad Corporation considers installation of future transmission lines compatible with their long-term management plan within the railroad right-of-way. State of Alaska resource agencies have not completed their review of the proposal. The USFWS administers the KNWR and has permitting authority over the Enstar Route alternative pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act and ANILCA. The USFWS was required to conduct a compatibility determination before making a decision on whether to issue or deny a right-of-way permit for the SIP to cross the KNWR. Their compatibility study, included in the FEIS, Chapter 2, Appendix A, is that the SIP, found the Enstar Route to be incompatible with the Congressionally mandated purposes for which the Refuge was established and with the Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. This determination precludes the USFWS from issuing a right-of-way permit for the line to cross the Refuge. In accordance with ANILCA, Title XI, §1106. (a)(1) “... if, in compliance with §1104 (B) one or more Federal agencies decide to disapprove any authorization within its jurisdiction, with respect to that system, then the system shall be deemed to be disapproved and the applicant for the system may appeal the disapproval to the President.” Fish and wildlife values are addressed in the DEIS, Chapter 3.5, Biological Resources, and summarized in Table 3.37, Cumulative Impact Analysis. With Trumpeter Swans being the exception, more potential cumulative impacts are expected to occur if the SIP follows the Enstar Route through the KNWR. Some of the potential impacts along both route alternatives can be 12 avoided by implementing the mitigation measures proposed. Still other impacts would be mitigated to a level less than significant. However, cumulative impacts to moose and brown bear populations on the KNWR are expected to be significant even with implementing mitigation measures. Removal of vegetation from the Enstar right-of-way would provide improved human access, resulting in an increase of human/bear contacts. Moose populations would be impacted by right-of-way clearing through its effects on the fire management plan. Controlled burning is a tool used by KNWR managers to modify the age class and composition of vegetation to create a mosaic of wildlife habitat types. Lack of vegetation along the proposed route would create an unnatural firebreak and result in a linear break of habitat types. Furthermore, the presence of a transmission line would require fire crews to maintain a wider setback to prevent damaging the overhead cables from heat generated in a burn. Applying these constraints on the controlled burn program would inhibit the KNWR staff from maintaining habitat that would support the wildlife populations required to meet goals prescribed in the Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Failure to meet these KNWR goals would constitute a significant impact of national importance. Streamside vegetation removal within the KNWR would result in a long-term significant impact to an aquatic resource. Although this activity would be conducted without disturbance to mineral soil and is not typically captured under Corps jurisdiction, vegetative clearing is considered a nationally significant impact because the activity affects wildlife habitat and inhibits the prescribed burn program. Other indirect impacts of clearing activities include increased sediment loads in overland water run-off, elevated suspended particle levels in creeks and rivers, reduced forage habitat for out-migrating juvenile fish, and decreased cover for wildlife species which utilize the anadromous fish resource and stream corridors. Additional discussion of indirect project impacts is discussed in Chapter 3, and in the cumulative impact analysis summarized in Chapter 3.12.2. Impacts associated with the loss of wetland vegetation are addressed in the DEIS, Chapter 3.5 Biological Resources and catalogued in Table 3.3.7. Vegetation removal along the proposed Enstar Route, conducted by selective cutting and periodic mowing, is in a long-term direct impact to wetlands and uplands located within the proposed project corridor. Clearing would be conducted without disturbance to mineral soil (i.e. utilizing machetes and chainsaws, or hydro-axe machines), activities that are not subject to Corps jurisdiction. C. Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation: Evaluation of Compliance with 404(b)(1) Guidelines (restrictions on discharge, 40 CFR 230.10): (An * is marked above the answer that would indicate noncompliance with the guidelines. No * marked signifies the question does not relate to compliance or noncompliance with the guidelines. An “X” simply marks the answer to the question posed.) |. Alternatives test: i) Based on the discussion in FEIS, are there available, practicable alternatives having less adverse impact on the xX aquatic ecosystem and without other significant adverse Yes No environmental consequences that do not involve discharges into "waters of the United States" or at other locations within these waters? ii) Based on FEIS, if the project is in a special aquatic site and is not water dependent, has applicant clearly X demonstrated that there are no practicable alternative sites Yes No available? 13 b. Special restriction. Will the discharge: i) violate state water quality standards? (The State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has not yet reviewed the SIP for 401 water Yes No quality certification.) ii) violate toxic effluent standards (under Section 307 of the Act) _ xX Yes No iii) jeopardize endangered or threatened species or their 7 critical habitat? = xX Yes No iv) violate standards set by the Department of Commerce to protect marine sanctuaries? = X Yes No v) evaluation of the information in the FEIS indicates that 7 the proposed discharge material meets testing exclusion X criteria for the following reason(s): Yes No (X) based on the information contained in the FEIS, the material is not a carrier of contaminants. () the levels of contaminants are substantially similar at the extraction and disposal sites and the discharge is not likely to result in degradation of the disposal site and pollutants will not be transported to less contaminated areas. () acceptable constraints are available and will be implemented to reduce contamination to acceptable levels within the disposal site and prevent contaminants from being transported beyond the boundaries of the disposal site. c. Other restrictions. Will the discharge contribute to significant degradation of "waters of the United States" through adverse impacts to: i) human health or welfare, through pollution of municipal water supplies, fish, shellfish, wildlife and special aquatic a X sites? Yes No ii) life stages of aquatic life and other wildlife? a Xx Yes No iii) diversity, productivity and stability of the aquatic life and 7 other wildlife or wildlife habitat or loss of the capacity of a X wetland to assimilate nutrients, purify water or reduce wave Yes No energy? 14 iv) recreational, aesthetic and economic values? a X Yes No d. Actions to minimize potential adverse impacts (mitigation). 7 Will all appropriate and practicable steps (40 CFR 230.70-77) be Xx taken to minimize the potential adverse impacts of the discharge on Yes No the aquatic ecosystem? ll. Findings of Compliance or Non-compliance (40 CFR 230.12): (X) The discharge complies with the guidelines. (_) The discharge complies with the guidelines, with the inclusion of the appropriate and practicable conditions listed above (in III.B.2.b.iv) to minimize pollution or adverse effects to the affected ecosystem. (_) The discharge fails to comply with the requirements of these guidelines because: (_) There is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that would have less adverse effect on the aquatic ecosystem and that alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences. There are on-site uplands available which would minimize the placement of fill in wetlands. (_) The proposed discharge will result in significant degradation of the aquatic ecosystem under 40 CFR 230.10(b) or (c). (_) The discharge does not include all appropriate and practicable measures to minimize potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem, namely the use of upland alternatives. D. General Evaluation [33 CFR 320.4(a)]: The following general criteria will be considered in the evaluation of every application. i. The relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed work: The SIP is an improvement project designed to correct existing deficiencies and enhance the Railbelt electrical system. The project objectives are to maximize capacity sharing, economize energy transfer, increase reliability, enhance spinning reserve sharing, reduce line maintenance costs, avoid minimum combustion turbine generation on the Kenai Peninsula, and avert line loading during bad weather or construction. ii. The practicability of using reasonable alternative locations and methods to accomplish the objective of the proposed structure or work: Clearing activities in riparian zones and wetlands would be similar along both route options. Following the Tesoro alternative would result in fewer acres of aquatic vegetation being impacted and the cleared areas would not be located within the KNWR. Furthermore, the Tesoro Route was selected as the environmentally preferred alternative through the NEPA process in the FEIS. This option is considered to be a practicable alternative that would fulfill the purpose and accomplish the objectives of the proposed work. Our review indicates this alternative would pass the 404(b)(1) guidelines and public interest analysis. iii. The extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental effects that the proposed structures or work may have on the public and private uses to which the area is suited: The SIP lifespan is estimated to be 40 years. The likelihood of extending the project life beyond this time is unknown. If the transmission line is decommissioned and dismantled 15 40 years after construction, reclamation work could commence and the anticipated project impacts could then begin a recovery process. Vegetation would grow back within the cleared right-of-way corridor, prescribed burns could again be utilized as a management tool, human access would become more limited, and moose and brown bear populations would begin to rebound. It would likely take several years for this recovery process to reverse the adverse impacts imposed by project construction. F. Conclusion: We believe that increased reliability, reduced operating costs, and enhanced efficiency of the Railbelt electrical system are sufficient reasons to support the need for the SIP. The EIS has reviewed the resources identified as important and compared the direct and cumulative impacts of the project alternatives. Throughout the NEPA review, the issues and comments have dealt primarily with impacts to the KNWR. Based upon the information in the FEIS, the proposed activities subject to Corps jurisdiction occur outside of the KNWR. Therefore, our permitting decision is based solely on Section 10 and 404 considerations and not that of Title XI under ANILCA. In 1964 Congress adjusted the boundary of the KNWR to create a transportation and utility corridor along the western edge of the Kenai Peninsula for future development of the area. The Tesoro Route alternative follows this corridor. We concur with the NEPA determination that identifies the Tesoro Route as the environmentally preferred alternative because of the potential impacts that would occur on the KNWR if the project followed the Enstar Route. Based on the information within the FEIS, the Corps believes the Tesoro Route is a practicable alternative, without significant impacts. It is our determination that the Tesoro Route is not contrary to the public interest and meets the requirements of the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. Should the Corps receive an amended DA permit application, from the Intertie Participant Group for construction of the SIP along the Tesoro Route, we will issue a revised Public Notice. The USFWS has determined that the SIP proposal to cross the KNWR along the Enstar Route is not compatible with the uses for which the Refuge was established. They have therefore, denied the grant of right-of-way to the Intertie Participants Group for the Enstar Route. Pursuant to ANILCA, Title XI, Section 1106 (a)(1)(A) if a Federal agency disapproves any authorization within its jurisdiction with respect to that system then the system shall be deemed disapproved and the applicant for the system may appeal the decision to the President. Therefore, unless the applicant appeals and the President overturns the USFWS decision, the Enstar Route is not a viable alternative. As such, we are closing the SIP permit application file, pursuant to DA regulations at 33 CFR 320.4(j)(1), which reads in part: “...where the required Federal, state and/or local authorization and/or certification has been denied for activities which also require a Department of the Army permit before final action has been taken on the Army permit application, the district engineer will, after considering the likelihood of subsequent approval of the other authorization and/or certification and the time and effort remaining to complete processing the Army permit application, either immediately deny the Army permit without prejudice or continue processing the application to a conclusion.” Our determination is that no appreciable differences in impacts were identified between the Enstar and Tesoro Routes relative to the Kenai River and Turnagain Arm crossings. Therefore, the Corps would issue a DA permit for the Enstar Route alternative should the IPG obtain the necessary licenses and permits needed to cross the Refuge. 16 D. Public interest determination: | find that issuance of a DA permit to construct the SIP along the Enstar Route alternative, as prescribed by regulations published in 33 CFR Parts 320 to 330, and 40 CFR Part 230: X is not contrary to is contrary to the public interest public interest Prepared by: Date Co None OR Jdck J. Hewitt ~ 7 roject Manager South Section Approved by: Date. / N, JOR Section Chief South Section 17