Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
S Intertie report 2-1999
CHUGACH ELECTRIC ,~ ASSOCIATION, INC. Re CEIVE)) LMA teae - a 1999 Alaska Industrial Development ASSOCIATION, INC. February 24, 1999 Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority and Export Authority 480 West Tudor Road <=, vet Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6690 ae qu% Attention: Mr. Randy Simmons, Executive Director = Subject: Southern Intertie Monthly Report for February 1999 W.0.#E9590081 Dear Mr. Simmons: Please find enclosed 1 (one) copy of the Southern Intertie Report for the Month of February 1999. If there are any questions, please contact Dora Gropp, (907) 762-4626. The next monthly report will be issued in April, when we hope to be able to confirm the schedule for the release of the EVAL. Sincerely, ay ~ —) . Vee Eugene N. Bjornstad General Manager Ale] ENGIDAB ahw Enclosures: 1 (one) copy of Southern Intertie Monthly Report c: Lee Thibert Michael Massin Dora Gropp Jim Borden Mike Cunningham Don Edwards W.0.#E9590081, Sec., 2.1.3 RF 5601 Minnesota Drive ¢ P.O. Box 196300 ¢ Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Phone 907-563-7494 ¢ FAX 907-562-0027 CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Anchorage, Alaska SOUTHERN INTERTIE MONTHLY REPORT For the Month of February 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS F ic I. SUMMARY II. FINANCIAL 1. Total Project Expenditures as of December 31, 1998. 2. Chugach Statement for December 1999 Tl. SCHEDULE IV. ITEMS FOR APPROVAL None. V. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION None. VI. ITEMS FOR INFORMATION 1. Power Engineers’ Monthly Report Phase IB — Environmental Analysis, February 17,1999 _ 2. Letter to AIDEA of February 11, 1999 3. Letters from Dames and Moore to RUS and USFWS of February 18, 1999 ADNAAAA Nw & A WYNN I. SUMMARY The IPG approved a transfer of funds in the amount of $500,000 for the completion of the EVAL in its meeting on February 10, 1999. These funds were originally intended to be spent on support to RUS’s contractor during the EIS preparation. Once that effort gets under way we will reassess the needs for technical support. Without further reviews by USFWS we estimate submittal of the EVAL to the federal agencies in early July 1999. A draft EIS should then be available in mid 1999 with a Record of Decision following about a year later. A new schedule for the EIS development will be established after the EVAL has been submitted to the federal agencies and the USFWS has accepted the application for a project permit through the Kenai National Wildlife Range. The IPG also extended the MOU allowing Chugach Electric Association to manage the project through Phase I to June of 2001. Expenditures for Phase IB of the project stand as follows (February cost data not available at report time): DESCRIPTION POWER |USFS/USFW| CHUGACH TOTAL ENGINEERS| S/RUS ORIG. BUDGET $3,043,423 $100,000) $400,000| $3,543,423 ALLOCATED $0 $0 $0 $0 CONTINGENCY TOTAL $3,043,423 $100,000 $400,000) $3,543,423 AMENDMENTS $867,769 $4,277| _-$200,000| _ $672,046 TOTAL $3,911,192 $104,277 $200,000) $4,215,469 COMMITMENT SPENT TO DATE $3,418,388 $103,397 $167,854) $3,689,639 % OF TOTAL 87% 99% 84% 88% Total Project expenditures as of February 24, 1999 are $4,645,303, which includes a payment to RUS for the EIS preparation in the amount of $97,670. I. FINANCIAL 1. Total Project Expenditures as of December 31, 1998. 2: Chugach Statement for December 1999 Project Expenditures Direct Labor Indirect Labor Power Engineers Miscellaneous Total Grant Fund Expenditures Direct Charges that Chugach has been Reimbursed for Plus General, Administrative & Construction Overhead Total Amounts Paid to Chugach cc: Dora Gropp Alayne Switzer CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Southern Intertie Transactions Inception Through December 31, 1998 Year to Date Month Inception Through Ended Inception Through 12/31/97 11/30/98 12/31/1998 Through 12/31/1998 $108,471.09 $30,303.87 $1,188.93 $139,963.89 38,898.99 12,895.92 483.18 52,278.09 3,739, 166.41 379,780.44 61,928.83 4,180,875.68 108,961.39 159,646.93 0.00 268,608.32 $3,995,497.88 $582,627.16 $63,600.94 $4,641,725.98 Year to Date Month Inception Through Ended Inception Through 12/31/97 11/30/98 12/31/1998 Through 12/31/1998 $3,842,318.24 $755,568.11 $0.00 (1) $4,597, 886.35 19,211.59 3,642.05 $0.00 (1) 22,853.64 $3,861,529.83 $759,210.16 $0.00 (1) $4,620,739.99 319 Pr Gunalisg @ Chugach ee Finanaak smnfe yer Lee G§ wio retuvel Lae and tharifart Met ened. tw Hid pet 2/17/99 CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Anchorage, Alaska 02/17/99 TO: Dora Gropp - Manager, Transmission & Special Projects FROM: Kurt Parish, Plant Accountant SUBJECT: &9590081 - 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 December 1998. Direct Labor 1,188.93 Indirect Labor 483.18 Power Engineers - Invoice 56490 43,178.66 Power Engineers - Invoice 57523 18,750.17 Sub-Total $63,600.94 General, Administrative & Construction Overhead (0.5%) 318.00 Total Charges $63,918.94 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, | will keep the original in the work order file. Concur: Ave, A fisop) Lf Y09 Signatdre Date KP WOfiles/E9590081 Attachments 2/17/99 Ml. SCHEDULE CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION ANCHORAGE - KENAI INTERTIE Thu 2/18/99 PHASE IB 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 ID | Task Name % Comp. Act. Cost Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q1 1 | ENVIRONMENTAL & ENGINEER! 74% | $4,565,230.70 I a 2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT | 42%| $168,012.00 neem moe a 0, 3 ROUTE SELECTION STUDIE 4 EVAL & PREL.ENGINEERIN 85% | $3,422,171.70 PEE RL RN EE | 7 5 SCOPING 100% | ~ 2 09) 6 INVENTORY 100% $680,396.25 6/14 ‘canmanaRaatrd 912 paces - 7 9, | 7 7 IMPACT/MITIGATION it $607,560.00 1 a 3/1 — t $335,392.00 4n ae SH 12/18 7 7 1 0, 9 EVAL (DRAFT EIS) 66% $898,538.17 42/0 EE EE 715 ——— —t OTE 10 ANILCA (FINAL EIS) 37% $30,307.20 5/141 —s m8 ———— fs at a 100% $101,476.81 7” es 2127 | ~~—«*STUDIES — = = ~—-| a 12 ENG.FIELD WORK 100% $202,645.44 6/14 aE 816 ———— ia 13 PREL. ENGINEERING 100% $189,858.49 8M iE 9/16 14| AGENCIES 99%] $103,397.00 cpremineeanntshatnumenmtmmenamtee 6 rade _ $7794.00 1S I 3/3 1 ICEW — anny | ea ANN ON | i us USFWS 100%) 924,600.00 11 TT Hi ART i 1 — oo .. ORG 74 rrr 1 17 RUS 96% $71,003.00 ot a as 45 Task fer Summary quay Rolled Up Progress TT Project: ANCHORAGE - KENAI INTE ee | Date: Thu 2/18/99 Progress Rolled Up Task Milestone . Rolled Up Milestone © PH_IB.MPP Page 1 IV. ITEMS FOR APPROVAL None. V. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION None. Vi. ITEMS FOR INFORMATION 1; Power Engineers’ Monthly Report Phase IB — Environmental Analysis, February 17, 1999 a: Letter to AIDEA of February 11, 1999 3. Letters from Dames and Moore to RUS and USFWS of February 18, 1999 9 OME RECEIVER Fi EB 18 1999 February 17, 1999 TRANSMISSION & SPECIAL PROJECT Ms. Dora Gropp Chugach Electric Association 5601 Minnesota Drive, Building A Anchorage, AK 99518 Subject: POWER Project #120376 EIS & Preliminary Engineering Chugach Contract #820 Monthly Status Report No. 30 For Period January 10, - February 6, 1999 Dear Dora: During January, comments were finally received back from the KNWR regarding Dames & Moore’s map and Chapter 3 submittals from November and December. Responding to those comments in the Final EVAL will necessitate additional revisions to the EVAL, requiring additional funding. A detailed explanation of the changes to our scope of work and the justification for additional funding was drafted by Dames & Moore, and was submitted to you for consideration in my letter to you of February 8, 1999. As a result of Dames & Moore’s meeting with the KNWR on January 21 and discussion with Chugach on January 22, a revised approach was proposed that limits interaction with the FWS/KNWR, so that the EVAL can be completed on a more predictable schedule and budget. At the IPG meeting on February 10, additional funding for completion of the EVAL was approved and consistent with your direction, Dames & Moore is proceeding to complete the EVAL. The following activities took place during this past period: Key Issues: e Completion of the Final EVAL. e Preparation of the ANILCA application. e Approval for funding for additional work scope to complete the EVAL. HLY 23-042 POWER Engineers, Incorporated at ge tra nee et a SEE SST 8940 Glenbrook Dr * POL Box 1066 Pho ND USS UO Haley. Idaho 83333 Bas OOK) TNS 2082 Chugach Electric Association February 17, 1999 Page 2 Invoice Period Overview: e Received final comments on the base map from the KNWR staff. e Draft cumulative impact map discussed with FWS and KNWR. e Draft moose habitat map illustrating new FWS habitat data was reviewed with the KNWR staff. e Received comments on the vegetation and wildlife habitat mapping from the FWS and KNWR staff. e Wolfpack map displaying ten pack areas was submitted. e Impact criteria and levels have been established and the process for calculating cumulative impacts has been established. ¢ Received comments from Chapter 3 Biology from the KNWR. Work Planned for the Next Invoice Period: e Receive final comments on the cumulative impact map from FWS and KNWR. e Prepare new map of the ten wolf pack areas based on new data from the KNWR. e Work on the direct and cumulative impact maps for the moose and brown bear for review with the FWS. e Continue work on the land use and visual resource map revisions. ¢ Work on Chapter 3 land use, recreation, and visual sections. e Work on preparing the remainder of Chapter 4 for moose and brown bear impacts. e¢ Work on incorporating into Chapter 4 the additional research requested by FWS and RUS/Mangi regarding beluga whales, songbirds, edge impacts on general habitats, wolves in south central Alaska, and bird collision. Schedule: The overall estimated time frame to complete the EVAL, as outlined in Dames & Moore’s memorandum dated February 5, 1999, is 20 weeks from the additional work approval date. Based on this schedule, the EVAL and ANILCA application should be completed by about the week of July 5, 1999. Budget: We are not submitting an invoice this month because the current funding for Task 5 - EVAL Preparation was essentially exhausted as of the last invoice, and this reporting/invoicing period ended prior to IPG approval of the additional funding. With IPG approval of the additional funding, we will submit an invoice in March that covers this period as well as the February period. We will include an explanation of the period charges at that time, as well as HLY 23-042 ZOWER sem Chugach Electric Association February 17, 1999 Page 3 reporting on Dames & Moore’s progress to complete the EVAL and ANILCA application. The remaining budget indicated below is for the present remaining budget in Task 5 - EVAL Preparation and Task 6 - ANILCA Application. Monthly Status Report Issues: Please refer to the Activities Summary attached for work completed and planned for each Task. Activity summaries are only included for Tasks 5 and 6, since all other tasks are completed. Project Overview: Total Budget $3,445,979 Actual $ Invoiced (to date) $3,418,388 Actual Remaining Project Budget $27,591 The IPG has approved funding for the completion of the EVAL in the amount of $465,215 in its meeting on February 10, 1999. Chugach is preparing an amendment to the contract to reflect the additional work as described in POWER Engineers’ letter of February 8, 1999 and Dames & Moore’s memorandum dated February 5, 1999. Based on your letter of February 11, 1999 Amendment #10 to the contract in the amount of $678,069 will be cancelled effective immediately. Amendment #10 was originally executed to cover expenses associated with POWER and Dames & Moore’s assistance during the EIS process. A new amendment is contemplated to be prepared, when that process begins. 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. eo Randy Pollock, P.E. Project Manager RP/Ik Enclosures cc: PROJECT TEAM HLY 23-042 SOUTHERN INTERTIE ROUTE SELECTION STUDY - PHASE 1 - 120376 PROJECT FINANCIAL SUMMARY FEBRUARY, 1999 INVOICE Project Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Task 6 Task 7 Task 8 Task 9 Total Base Not to Exceed $351,050 $660,706 $584,010 $303,475 $402,570 $247,616 $101,480 $202,655 $189,861 $3,043,423 Budget CWG Contract $23,789 $18,885 $22,602 $32,866 $4,904 N/A N/A N/A N/A $103,046 Amendment No. 4 DFI Contract N/A N/A N/A N/A $45,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A $45,000 Amendment No. 5 DFI Contract N/A N/A N/A N/A $11,400 N/A N/A N/A N/A $11,400 Amendment No. 6 DFI Contract N/A N/A N/A N/A $3,502 N/A N/A N/A N/A $3,502 Amendment No. 7 DFI Contract N/A N/A N/A N/A $89,487 N/A N/A NN N/A $89,487 Amendment No. 8 Task 5 &6 N/A N/A N/A N/A $194,150 | ($194,150) N/A N/A N/A $0 Reallocation * Contract N/A N/A N/A N/A $31,926 N/A N/A N/A N/A $31,926 Amendment No. 9 Contract N/A N/A N/A N/A $118,193 N/A N/A N/A N/A $118,193 Amendment No. 11 Total Not to Exceed $374,839 $679,591 $606,612 $336,341 $901,134 $53,466 $101,480 $202,655 $189,861 $3,445,979 Budget Actual Budget $374,839 $679,583 $606,540 $336,315 $897,159 $30,014 $101,476 $202,610 $189,852 $3,418,388 Expended Through Previous Invoice Current Invoice $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Amount Actual Budget $374,839 $679,583 $606,540 $336,315 $897,159 $30,014 $101,476 $202,610 $189,852 $3,418,388 Expended Through Current Invoice Remaining $0 $8 $72 $26 $3,975 $23,452 $4 $45 $9 $27,591 Budget * Task 5 and 6 budget amounts reallocated per April 24, 1998 letter from Robert Martin to Randy Pollock. Task 5 budget amount reflects the addition of Contract Amendment #11 funds. HLY 23-042 FEBRUARY 1999 INVOICE ACTIVITIES SUMMARY TASK 5 - EVAL PREPARATION DESCRIPTION ACTIVITIES DURING CURRENT PERIOD AND PLANNED FOR NEXT 30 DAYS EVAL Preparation Received final comments on the base map from the KNWR staff. Draft cumulative impact map discussed with FWS and KNWR. Draft moose habitat map illustrating new FWS habitat data was reviewed with the KNWR staff. Received comments on the vegetation and wildlife habitat mapping from the FWS and KNWR staff. Wolf pack map displaying ten pack areas was submitted. Impact criteria and levels have been established and the process for calculating cumulative impacts has been established. Received comments from Chapter 3 Biology from the KNWR. Receive final comments on the cumulative impact map from FWS and KNWR. Prepare new map of the ten wolf pack areas based on new data from the KNWR. Work on the direct and cumulative impact maps for the moose and brown bear for review with the FWS. Continue work on the land use and visual resource map revisions. Work on Chapter 3 land use, recreation, and visual sections. Work on preparing the remainder of Chapter 4 for moose and brown bear impacts. Work on incorporating into Chapter 4 the additional research requested by FWS and RUS/Mangi_ regarding beluga whales, songbirds, edge impacts on general habitats, wolves in south central Alaska, and bird collision. KEY ISSUES: Limited interaction with the FWS is anticipated to complete the EVAL. HLY 23-042a FEBRUARY 1999 INVOICE ACTIVITIES SUMMARY TASK 5 - EVAL PREPARATION (continued) SCHEDULE: — Schedule for completing of this Task has been delayed as a result of FWS comments and incorporation of additional data forwarded by the FWS. Completion is now projected for the week of July 5, 1999. BUDGET: Contract amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and the budget reallocation! for Tasks 5 and 6 are included in the budget ($402,570 + $4,904 + $45,000 + $11,400 + $3,502 + $89,487 + $194,150 + $31,926 + $118,193 = $901,134). $ Budgeted $ Expended $ Remaining $901,134 $897,159 $3,975 SCOPE: The changes in scope resulting from the September 8-10 USFWS meetings have resulted in Contract Amendment #11 which is included in the budget amount shown above. Additional changes in scope since the September meetings have been claimed by Dames & Moore. These changes were outlined in Dames & Moore’s memo included with Randy Pollock’s letter to Chugach on the subject. The approved additional budget amounts will be updated after receipt of a contract amendment from Chugach. ' Tasks 5 and 6 budget amounts reallocated per April 24, 1998 letter from Robert Martin to Randy Pollock. HLY 23-042a FEBRUARY 1999 INVOICE ACTIVITIES SUMMARY TASK 6 - ANILCA APPLICATION DESCRIPTION ACTIVITIES DURING CURRENT PERIOD AND PLANNED FOR NEXT 30 DAYS ANILCA Application ¢ continue preparation of the draft ANILCA application. KEY ISSUES: Completion of the ANILCA application. SCHEDULE: — Schedule for completing of this Task has been delayed as a result of USFWS comments on the EVAL document. Completion is now projected for the week of July 5, 1999. BUDGET: _ The budget reallocation’ for Tasks 5 and 6 is included in the budget ($247,616 - $194,150 = $53,466). $ Budgeted $ Expended $ Remaining 53,466 30,014 23,452 SCOPE: No outstanding issues. * Tasks 5 and 6 budget amounts reallocated per April 24, 1998 letter from Robert Martin to Randy Pollock. HLY 23-042a 2/17/99 Page 1 of 10 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT THROUGH PERIOD ENDING: 1ST QUARTER 1998 2ND QUARTER 1998 3RD QUARTER 1998 4TH QUARTER 1998 TAS MONTH| JAN | FEB | _-MAR APR MAY | JUN Jue ha sep oct Nov. | DEC | Ea SCOPING Actual % Work Completed 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base Planned % Complete $ (to date) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Rev. 1 Planned % Complete $(to date)} —-100%| ===: 100% 100%] 100% = 100%, = 100%| + = 100%| + ++—:100%, 100%] 100% 100% 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 100%| 100%. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%| 100%! —-—-:100% 100% 100% 100% Base Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | |___ Rev. 1 Planned $ (this period) $0 = $0) 0 80) 1$0 ___ $0) ‘$0 | __ go] 0 ___ $0 $0 | __ $0 Actual $ Expended (this period) $0 $0 $0 SO} $0 | $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Base Planned $ (to date) $351,050 | $351,050 | $351,050] $351,050 $351,050 $351,050| $351,050] $351,050 $351,050| $351,050| $351,050. $351,050 ___ Rev. 4 Planned $ (to date) _ $374,839 | $374,839 $374,839 | $374,839 | $374,839 | $374,839 | $374,839 | $374,839 | $374,839 | $374,839 | $374,839 $374,839 | Actual $ Expended (to date) $374,839 | $374,839 | $374,839| $374,839 | $374,839 $374,839] $374,839 | $374,839 $374,839| $374,839| $374,839 $374,839 | Base NTE Budget (Amend. #3) $351,050 | $351,050 $351,050] $351,050| $351,050 $351,050] $351,050] $351,050 $351,050 $351,050| $351,050, $351,050 _CWG Contract Amend. #4 Budget | $23,789 | $23,789 $23,789] $23,789 $23,789 | $23,789 $23,789 $23,789 | __ $23,789 | $23,789 _ $23,789 Total Task NTE Budget $374,839 | $374,839 $374,830| $374,839| $374,639 ~-$374.830 | $374,839 $374,839 | $374,839 $374,839 Actual Remaining Task Budget $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 2 INVENTORY | Actual % Work Completed 97% 98% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%| 100% Base Planned % Complete $ (to date) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%, 100% 100% 100%) 100% Rev. 1 Planned % Complete $ (to date)| 100% ~==—«100%,~=—==«100%| +=—=——«100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%] = 100%| += 100% =: 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 97%| 98% 99%] 100%) 100% ~=—==—«100%| ~~ 100%| ~—==—« 100% 100% 100%| 100% 100% Base Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | __ Rev. 1 Planned $ (this period) a = $0 | __ $0 $0 $0 - $0 | $0 $o| _—_— go === $0) |S s0 Actual $ Expended (this period) $3,406 $7,309 $7,453 | $d459:| S01 $0. $0 =soil $0 $0 $0 | $0 Base Planned $ (to date) $660,706 | $660,706 | $660,706 | $660,706 | $660,706 | $660,706 | $660,706 | $660,706 | $660,706| $660,706 | $660,706 | $660,706 | __ Rev. 1 Planned $ (to date) $679,591 | $679,591 $679,591 | $679,591 | $679,591 | $679,591 | $679,591 | $679,591 $679,591 | $679,591 | $679,591 | $679,591 Actual $ Expended (to date) $661,362 | $668,671 _$676,124| _$679,583| $679,583 $679,583| $679,583| $679,583 $679,583| $679583| $679,583 _ $679,583 | Base NTE Budget (Amend. #3) $660,706 | $660,706 $660,706 | $660,706 | $660,706 | $660,706| $660,706 | $660,706 $660,706] $660,706 | $660,706 $660,706 | CWG Contract Amend. #4 Budget | $18,885 | $18,885 —- $18,885 $18,885 $18,885 | $18,885 $18,885 $18,885 | $18,885| $18,885| $18,885 $18,885 Total Task NTE Budget $679,591 | $679,591 $679,591] $679,591 | $679,591 $679,591] $679,591| $679,591 | $679,591| $679,591| $679,591 $679,591 Actual Remaining Task Budget $18,229 $10,920 $3,467 $8 $8 | $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 | $8 3 _|IMPACT ASSESSMENT/MITIGATION F | | Actual % Work Completed 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%| 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base Planned % Complete $ (to date) 100% 100% | 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Rev. 1 Planned % Complete $ (to date) 100% 100% ==: 100% 100%| 100% 100% 100% 100%) 100%] 100%} ==: 100% 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 100%| 100% += 100% ~~ 100%| ~+~+~=~=«100%+~=~=~=~=~—«100%!l_~+~=SC*« 00% 100% 100% 100% 100%. 100% Base Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0. $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 —al Rev. 1 Planned $ (this period) 50 - $0 | $o}] $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 _ $0 $0 | $0 | _ $0 | Actual $ Expended (this period) _ $0 | $0 so} Sole $o| $0) === $0 = $0 | $0 $0 $0 | To Base Planned $ (to date) $584,010 | $584,010 $584,010 | $584,010 | $584,010, $584,010| $584,010| $584,010 $584,010] $584,010] $584,010 $584,010 ___Rev. 1 Planned $(todate) _|__- $606,612 | _ $606,612 $606,612 | $606,612 | $606,612 | $606,612| $606,612| $606,612 $606,612] $606,612 | $606,612 | $606,612 | Actual $ Expended (to date) $606,540 | $606,540 $606,540| $606,540 $606,540 $606,540 | $606,540 | $606,540 $606,540] $606,540| $606,540 $606,540 Base NTE Budget (Amend. #3) $584,010 | $584,010 $584,010 | $584,010 | $584,010 $584,010] $584,010| $584,010, $584,010] $584,010| $584,010| $584,010 | _CWG Contract Amend. #4 Budget | $22,602 $22,602 $22,602 $22,602 | $22,602 | $22,602 $22,602 $22,602 | $22,602| $22,602] $22,602 $22,602 Total Task NTE Budget $606,612 | $606,612 | $606,612| $606,612| $606,612 _$606,612| $606,612| $606,612 $606,612| $606,612| $606,612) $606,612 Actual Remaining Task Budget $72 $72 $72 $72 $72 | $72 $72 $72 | $72 $72 $72 $72 Rev 1 1/1/97 includes Contract Amend #4. 6/1/97 the DFI Contract Amend #5 in Task 5. 10/1/97 the DF| Contract Amend #6 #7 in Task 5. 11/17/97 the DFl Amend #8 in Task 5. 4/17/98 Tasks 5 6 Reall. 7/15/98 Amend. #9 Task 5 11/18/98 Amend. #11 Task 5 02-06-99 2/17/99 Page 2 of 10 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT THROUGH PERIOD ENDING: PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT 02-06-99 [ 1ST QUARTER 1998 2ND QUARTER 1998 J - 83RD QUARTER 1998 4TH QUARTER 1998 TASK MONTH| JAN FEB MAR APR MAY | _JUN Ju Adee sep oct NOV DEC 4 ALTERNATIVE SELECTION | _ | | Actual % Work Completed 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%| 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%| 100%| Base Planned % Complete $ (to date) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%| 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%) 100% Rev. 1 Planned % Complete $(to date)| —-100%| +=: 100%,~=S=«100%/ +=: 100%|_ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%| 100%| 100%| 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 100% 100% 100%|_ = 100% | 100% 100% 100%! ~~ 100% ~=—=—100%| ==: 100% | 100% 100% Base Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rev. 1 Planned $ (this period) $0] $0. $0 $0 $0. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 Actual $ Expended (this period) $0 $0 $0 __g$o/ $0 ~~~—0 $0 $0 | $0 __ $0 $0 | $0 Base Planned $ (to date) $303,475 | $303,475 | $303,475 | $303,475 | $303,475 | $303,475] $303,475| $303,475 $303,475] $303,475| $303,475 | $303,475 __Rev. 1 Planned $(todate) _|_ $336,341 | $336,341 | $336,341] $336,341 | $336,341 | $336,341| $336,341 | $336,341 $336,041] $336,341 | $336,341 $336,341 _ Actual $ Expended (to date) $336,315 | $336,315 | $336,315| $336,315 | $336,315 $336,315] $336,315| $336,315 $336,315] $336,315 | $336,315 $336,315 Base NTE Budget (Amend. #3) $303,475 | $303,475 $303,475 | $303,475 | $303,475 | $303,475| $303,475 | $303,475, $303,475| $303,475| $303,475 $303,475 __CWG Contract Amend. #4 Budget $32,866 | $32,866 | $32,866 $32,866 | $32,866 $32,866 $32,866 | $32,866 $32,866 $32,866 | $32,866 | $32,866 Total Task NTE Budget $336,341 | $336,341 | $336,341 | $336,341 | $336,341 $336,341] $336,341| $336,341 $336,341] $336,341 | $336,341 $336,341 Actual Remaining Task Budget $26 $26 $26 $26 $26 | $26 $26 $26 | $26 $26 $26 | $26 5 EVAL PREPARATION | Actual % Work Completed 88% 92% 92% 85%|_—=Ci«éB% 97% 97% 99% 97% 98% 92%| 94% Base Planned % Complete $ (to date) 66% 85%) 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%) 100% Rev. 1 Planned % Complete $ (to date) 85% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%) 100%| 100% 100%, -—: 100% Rev.1+DFl Planned % Cmp $ (to date) 85% 92% 100%} 100% 100% 100%] 100%; 100% 100%| 100% 100%) 100% Task 5&6 Reall Planned % Cmp $ (to dat N/A N/A N/A 85% 92% 96% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Amend. #9 Planned % Cmp $(todate)| N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 96% 98% | 100% 100% 100%, —: 100% Amend #11 Planned %Cmp $ (to date) N/A NA —sOWNVAA NAL N/A’ N/A] SONJA N/A N/A N/A 92%) 94% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 87% 92% 92% 85% 93%| 97% 96% 99% 100% 100% 92% 94% Base Planned $ (this period) $25,570 $74,570 | _ $42,570 | $18,742 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | _ $o. $80 Rev. 1 Planned $ (this period) $49,900 $28,000 $30,001] $1,904; — $0 golf $0 $0) ~—S $0 $0 $0 | $0 Rev. 1 + DFI Planned $ (this period) $62,900 $39,500 $40,502 $1,904 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 Task 586 Reall Planned $ (this period) N/A| N/A| N/A| $124,294 $50,000 | $32,128 $15,000 $15,000 | $0 $0 $0 | _ $0 | Amend. #9 Planned $ (this period) N/A N/A N/A N/A NA N/A| $21,502 | $15,000 $16,547 | $0 $0 | $0 Amend. #11 Planned $ (this period) N/A N/A| N/A N/A N/A| N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A| $43,179 | $25,033 Actual $ Expended (this period) $22,158 $26,430 $4,377 | $124,294 $59,329 | $31,676 $21,502 $22,684 $8,844 $0 $43,179 $18,750 Base Planned $ (to date) $266,688 | $341,258 | $383,828 | $402,570] $402,570 $402,570] $402,570| $402,570, $402,570] $402,570| $402,570 | $402,570 Rev. 1 Planned $ (to date) $347,569 | $375,569 $405,570 | $407,474 | $407,474 | $407,474] $407,474| $407,474 $407,474] $407,474| $407,474 $407,474 | Rev. 1 + DFI Planned $ (to date) $474,958 | $514,458 $554,960| $556,864 | $556,864 $556,864 | $556,864 | $556,864 $556,864] $556,864 | $556,864 | $556,864 | Tasks 5&6 Reall. Planned $ (to date) N/A N/A, N/A] $638,887 | $688,887 $721,015] $736,015 | $751,015 $751,015] _$751,015| $751,015 | _ $751,015 Amend. #9 Planned $ (to date) N/A N/A| N/A N/A N/A| N/A| $751,394 | $766,394 $782,941| $782,941 | $782,941 $782,941 Amend. #11 Planned $ (to date) N/A| N/A | N/A] NA ; N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A} ss N/A|_($826,101 | $851,134 Actual $ Expended (to date) $483,786 | $510,216 $514,593] $638,887 | $698,216 $729,892] $751,394 | $774,078 $782,922| $782,922 | $826,101 $844,851 Base NTE Budget (Amend. #3) $402,570 | __ $402,570 $402,570 | $402,570 | $402,570 | $402,570] $402,570| $402,570 $402,570| $402,570] $402,570 | $402,570 | _CWG Contract Amend. #4 Budget $4,904 $4,904 | $4,904] $4,904 $4,904 $4,904 $4,904 $4,904 $4,904 $4,904 $4,904 $4,904 DFI Contract Amend. #5 Budget $45,000 $45,000 | $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000| $45,000; $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 | _ $45,000 DFI Contract Amend. #6 Budget $11,400 $11,400 | _ $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 | $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 | $11,400 DFI Contract Amend. #7 Budget -$3,502| $3,502 ~~ $3,502| —«$3,502 $3,502 $3,502 $3,502 $3,502 $3,502 $3,502 $3,502 | $3,502 DFI Contract Amend. #8 Budget $89,487 $89,487 | $89,487 $89,487 | $89,487 $89,487] $89,487| $89,487. $89,487] $89,487 $89,487 | $89,487 Tasks 586 Reallocation Budget N/A N/A N/A] $194,152] $194,152) $194,152] $194,152| $194,152| $194,152] $194,152| $194,152) $194,152 | __ Contract Amend. #9 Budget NA NA N/A N/A N/A| N/A] $31,926 | $31,926 $31,926] $31,926 | | $31,926 $31,926 Contract Amend. #11 Budget N/A N/A. NAL ON/AL “WA NAl—sON/AL~~*«<“‘«é‘~“NA”S™*~*«SwNA*YSCOW~*~*~*~*«SNAX|__ $118,193) $118,193 Total Task NTE Budget $556,864 | $556,864 $556,864 | $751,015 | $751,015 | $751,015| $782,941 | $782,941 | $782,941] $782,941 | $901,134 | $901,134 ctual Remaining Task Budget $73,078 $46,648 $42,271 | $112,128 $52,799 | $21,123 $31,547 $8,863 $19 $19 $75,033 | _ $56,283 Rev 1 1/1/97 includes Ct 6/1/97 the DFI Contract Amend #5 in Task 5. 10/1/97 the DFI Contract Amend #6 #7 in Task 5. 11/17/97 the DFI Amend #8 in Task 5. 4/17/98 Tasks 5 6 Reall. 7/15/98 Amend. #9 Task 5 11/18/98 Amend. #11 Task 5 2/17/99 Page 3 of 10 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT THROUGH PERIOD ENDING: 02-06-99 1ST QUARTER 1998 | 2ND QUARTER 1998 3RD QUARTER 1998 4TH QUARTER 1998 TASK L MONTH| JAN FEB MAR APR MAY | JUN JUL AuG | SEP it OCT NOV. | Dec | 6 ANILCA APPLICATION E Actual % Work Completed 3% 3% 20% 0% 0%, 45% 45% 46% 55% 55% 55% 55%| Base Planned % Complete $ (to date) 0% 0% 0% 16% 26% 50% 60% 74% 84% 94% 100% 100% Rev. 1 Planned % Complete $ (to date)| 0%| 0% 17%| 40% = 58% 78%] = 8%] 90% 93% 96%| «98% ,~—=——« 100% Task 5&6 Reall Planned % Cmp $ (to dat “NAL CONAt~*~*~*«~SNAA 0%| 9% 47% 84% 100% = 100%} = 100%; 100% 100% Amend. #9 Planned % Cmp $ (to date) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 45% 63% 82% 100% 100% | 100% Amend#11 Planned % Cmp$(todate)| = «NAL SONA SCWNVA.S— SNACK N/A N/A N/A| N/A N/A 56% «68% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 4% 4% 21% 0% «CO 43%| 45%! (tis 56%) 56%|_ 56% 56%| Base Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 | $0 $39,100 $25,100 $59,600 | $25,100 $35,100 $24,600 $24,600 $14,416 | $0 ___Rev.1Planned$(thisperiod) | $0| ~~~$0 ~—~:$42,900 $55,563 | $33,700, $48,065 $33,804 $8,200 | $8,700] $6,660| $6,163 —_ $3,860 Task 5&6 Reall Planned $ (this period) N/A N/A N/A| ($51,535) $5,000| $20,000} $20,000 | $8,466 go] sé; $0 $0 Amend. #9 Planned $ (this period) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $926 $10,000 $10,000 $9,526 $0 | $0 | Amend. #11 Planned $ (this period) | = N/AI NA N/A|_ NAL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A|_ NAl—s«S0| «$3,452 Actual $ Expended (this period) $0 $0 $40,573 ($51,535)|_ ss $0)~— $23,014] ~~ $926/| ~—SS—C«S695 $5,379 $0 $0 $0 Base Planned $ (to date) $0 $0 | $0] $39,100 $64,200 | $123,800| $148,900] $184,000 $208,600] $233,200| $247,616 | $247,616 Rev. 1 Planned $(todate) |_| $o| $0, ~——- $42,900 |. $98,463 | $132,163 $180,229] $214,033 | $222,233 $230,933 | $237,593 | $243,756 | $247,616 | Tasks 5&6 Reall. Planned $ (to date) N/A N/A N/A $0 | $5,000 $25,000] $45,000| $53,466 $53,466 $53,466 $53,466 $53,466 Amend. #9 Planned § (to date) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A| $23,940 $33,940 $43,940 $53,466 $53,466 | _ $53,466 __Amend. #11 Planned$(todatey) | = N/A| ——s«N/A.SCWNAA N/A|_ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A —_NA| $30,014 $33,466 | Actual $ Expended (to date) $10,962 $10,962 $51,535 $0; _ $0 $23,014 $23,940| $24,635) $30,014] $30,014 $30,014 | $30,014 Base NTE Budget (Amend. #3) $247,616 | $247,616 $247,616 | $247,616 | $247,616 $247,616 | $247,616| $247,616 $247,616| $247,616| $247,616 $247,616 | CWG Contract Amend. #4 Budget N/A; N/A NAA N/A| N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NA N/A Tasks 5&6 Reallocation Budget N/A N/A N/A] _($194,150)| _($194,150)' ($194,150)| _($194,150)| ($194,150) ($194,150)} ($194,150)| ($194,150) ($194,150) Contract Amend. #9 Budget N/A N/A, N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A| N/A ___ Contract Amend. #11 Budget | N/A] NA CONAAT N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A — NAL ONAL N/A| Total Task NTE Budget $247,616 | $247,616 $247,616 $53,466 | $53,466 «$53,466 $53,466 $53,466 $53,466 | $53,466 $53,466 $53,466 Actual Remaining Task Budget $236,654 | $236,654 $196,081 $53,466 $53,466 $30,452 $29,526 $28,831 $23,452 $23,452 $23,452 $23,452 STUDIES | Actual % Work Completed 95% 100% 100% 100% 100%! 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base Planned % Complete $ (to date) 91% 91%) 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 100% 100% 100% 100% Rev. 1 Planned % Complete $ (to date)} 90% 90% 96% 96% 96% 96%| 96% 100% 100%| 100% = 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 96% 100% 100%| 100% 100% = 100%| 100% 100%] 100% 100%, 100% Base Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 | $5,400 $0 $0 | $0 $0. $4,000 $0 $0 | $0 __Rev.1 Planned$(thisperiod) | = $0] $0 __—- $5,900 $0 $0 | $0 tet $0 | $4,000 __ $0 $0 | ___ $0 Actual $ Expended (this period) _ $12,550 $3,887 $0 sols g0—~—‘“‘C~™SC‘SS J $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 | Base Planned $ (to date) $92,080 $92,080 $97,480 $97,480 $97,480 | _ $97,480 $97,480 $97,480 | $101,480| $101,480] $101,480 $101,480 Rev. 1 Planned $ (to date) $91,580 | $91,580 $97,480 | $97,480 $97,480 | _ $97,480 $97,480 $97,480 $101,480] $101,480 | $101,480 | $101,480 Actual $ Expended (to date) $97,589 | $101,476 $101,476 | $101,476 | $101,476 $101,476 | $101,476| $101,476 $101,476| $101,476 | $101,476 $101,476 Base NTE Budget (Amend. #3) $101,480 | $101,480 $101,480 | $101,480 | $101,480 | $101,480 | $101,480 | $101,480 $101,480] $101,480/ $101,480 $101,480 | _CWG Contract Amend. #4 Budget _ | UNA N/A| N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A| N/A| N/A| _ _N/A | Total Task NTE Budget $101,480 | $101,480] $101,480 | $101,480 $101,480| $101,480| $101,480 $101,480| $101,480| $101,480 $101,480 Actual Remaining Task Budget $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 Rev 1 1/1/97 includes Contract Amend #4. 6/1/97 the DFI Contract Amend #5 in Task 5. 10/1/97 the DFI Contract Amend #6 #7 in Task 5. 11/17/97 the DFI Amend #8 in Task 5. 4/17/98 Tasks 5 6 Reall. 7/15/98 Amend. #9 Task 5 11/18/98 Amend. #11 Task 5 2/17/99 Page 4 of 10 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT THROUGH PERIOD ENDING: PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT 1ST QUARTER 1998 2ND QUARTER 1998 3RD QUARTER 1998 iL 4TH QUARTER 1998 TASK MONTH| JAN FEB. | MAR APR | MAY |. JUN JUL | AUG SEP oct | Nov [bec 8 ENGINEERING FIELD WORK | Actual % Work Completed 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%| 100% Base Planned % Complete $ (to date) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% | 100% Rev. 1 Planned % Complete $ (to date)} —«100%| += 100% += 100%| += 100%| + + ~—:100% 100% 100%) = 100% -100%| 100%| 100% =: 100%| Actual % Expended $ (to date) 100% 100% -—-—- 100% 100%| 100% ~ 100%| —-—-: 100% 100% 100% | == 100%| + 100% 100% Base Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 | $0 $0 0) $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | __Rev. 1 Planned $ (this period) —__ ___ $0 ___ $0] — $0 ]- _ $0 |. ___ $0 7 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 _ $0| _—§0 Actual $ Expended (this period) $0 $0 $0 sol $0) $0 an - $0 | 4 $0 L_ Heo fet oe $0 | $0 | $0 Base Planned $ (to date) $202,655 | $202,655 | $202,655 | $202,655 | $202,655 $202,655] $202,655| $202,655. $202655| $202,655| $202,655 $202,685 | ____ Rev. 1 Planned $(todate) __|_—_ $202,655 | $202,655 $202,655 | $202,655 | $202,655 | $202,655| $202,655 | $202,655 $202,655] $202,655 | $202,655 $202,655 | Actual $ Expended (to date) $202,610 | $202,610 | $202,610 | $202,610 | $202,610 $202,610] $202,610| $202,610 $202,610| $202,.610| $202,610 $202,610 Base NTE Budget (Amend. #3) $202,655 | $202,655 $202,655 | $202,655 | $202,655 $202,655] $202,655) $202,655 $202,655] $202,655 | $202,655 $202,655 | CWG Contract Amend. #4 Budget | ss NAL CNA NAL ON/A N/A N/A N/A| N/A N/A NAL ONAN Total Task NTE Budget $202,655 | $202,655 $202,655| $202,655 | $202,655 $202,655] $202,655) $202,655 $202,655| $202,655| $202,655 $202,655 Actual Remaining Task Budget $45 $45 | $45 $45 $45 | $45 $45 $45 | $45 9 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING | | Actual % Work Completed 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%) 100% 100% 100% 100% Base Planned % Complete $ (to date) 98% 98% | 98%| 98% 98%. 98% 98% 98% 98% 100% 100%. 100%| Rev. 1 Planned % Complete $ (to date)| «98% 98% 98%| «98% 98%. 98% 98%| 98% 98% 100% 100%! 100%| Actual % Expended $ (to date) 99% 100% 100%} 100% |_ 100% --:100%| 100%! 100% = 100%} =: 100%) 100% 100% Base Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000 $0 $0 Rev. 1 Planned $ (this period) _ __ $0 $0 __ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000 _ $0 __ $0. Actual $ Expended (this period) $381 $987 $0 $0 | $0) $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Base Planned $ (to date) $185,861 | $185,861 $185,861 | $185,861 | $185,861 | $185,861 | $185,861 | $185,861 $185,861| $189,861 | $189,861 $189,861 1 Planned $ (to da $185,861 | $185,861 $185,861 | $185,861 | $185,861 $185,861 | $185,861 | $185,861 $185,861| $189,861 | $189,861 $189,861 Expended (to da $188,865 | $189,852 | $189,852 | $189,852 | $189,852 $189,852] $189,852 | $189,852 _$189,852| $189,852 | $189,852 $189,852 | Base NTE Budget (Amend. #3) $189,861 | $189,861 $189,861 | $189,861 | $189,861 $189,861 | $189,861 | $189,861, $189,861] $189,861| $189,861 $189,861 CWG Contract Amend. #4 Budget _ N/A. N/A| N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A| N/A rE N/A ‘Total Task NTE Budget $189,861 | $189,861 $189,861| $189,861| $189,861 $189,861| $189,861| $189,861 $189,861| $189,861| $189,861 $189,861 Actual Remaining Task Budget $996 $9 | $9 $9 $9 | $9 $9 $9 | $9 $9 $9 $9 Rev 1 1/1/97 includes Contract Amend #4. 6/1/97 the DFI Contract Amend #5 in Task 5. 10/1/97 the DFI Contract Amend #6 #7 in Task 5. 11/17/97 the DFl Amend #8 in Task 5. 4/17/98 Tasks 5 6 Reall. 7/15/98 Amend. #9 Task 5 11/18/98 Amend. #11 Task 5 02-06-99 2/17/99 Page 5 of 10 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT THROUGH PERIOD ENDING: 1ST QUARTER 1998 2ND QUARTER 1998 3RD QUARTER 1998 E 4TH QUARTER 1998 TASK MONTH] JAN | FEB MAR APR MAY | _JUN JUL AuG | SEP OcT NOV DEC TOTAL PROJECT 120376-01 Actual % Work Completed 90% 91% 93% 95% 97% 98% 98% 99% 99% 99% 99% | 99% Base Planned % Complete $ (to date) 87% 89% 91% 93% 94% 96% 96% 98% 99% 100% 100% 100%] Rev. 1 Planned % Complete $ (to date)| ———90%| 91% ,~=—S—(si83%] = EM «CCM 98% 99% 99% 99% 100% 100% ———-:100%| Rev.1+DFl Planned % Cmp $ (to date) 90% 91%. 93% 95%| 96% «98% | ~—Ss(iti9%—=——“(ié‘és!«COC*«‘(‘#iéQONG#A#O#*«*MCOO%~O~*«wAOO% 100% Task 5&6 Reall Planned % Cmp $ (to dat N/A N/A N/A 95% 97% 98% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% | 100% Amend. #9 Planned % Cmp $ (to date) NAL ON/A N/A NA NA N/A 98% 99% “100% 100% 100%| 100% [Amend #11 Planned % Cmp $ (to date) N/A N/A N/A NAL ONAAt~*é«SNA‘CY'COW*S NAL OUNA~™”CONAST- N/Al «97% 98% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 90% 91% 93% 95% 97% 98% 98% 99% 99% 99% 97% 98%| Base Planned $ (this period) $25,570 | $74,570, _—*$47,970| $57,842] $25,100 $59,600| $25,100, $35,100 $28,600 | $28,600] $14,416 ~ $0 | Rev. 1 Planned $ (this period) $49,900 $28,000 $78,801 $57,467 | $33,700 $48,065] $33,804 | $8,200. $12,700| $10,660 $6,163 | $3,860 Rev. 1 + DFI Planned $ (this period) $62,900 $39,500 $89,302 $57,467 $33,700 $48,065 $33,804 $8,200 $12,700 $10,660 $6,163 $3,860 Task 5&6 Reall. Planned $ (this period)| NAL NA N/A| $76,218 | $55,000 $52,128 $35,000 $23,466 | $0 $0 $0) $80 Amend. #9 Planned $ (this period) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A. N/A| $22,428 | $25,000 $26,547] $9,526 $0 $0 Amend. #11 Planned $ (this period) N/A N/A. N/A N/A N/A| N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A| $43,179: $28,485 Actual $ Expended (this period) $38,495 $38,613 $52,403 $76,218 $59,329 $54,690 $22,428 $23,379 | $14,223 $0 $43,179 | $18,750 Base Planned $ (to date) $2,646,525 | $2,721,095 | $2,769,065 | $2,826,907 | $2,852,007 | $2,911,607 | $2,936,707 | $2,971,807 | $3,000,407 | $3,029,007 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 Rev. 1 Planned $ (to date) $2,825,048 | $2,853,048 | $2,931,849 | $2,989,317 | $3,023,017 | $3,071,082] $3,104,886 | $3,113,086 | $3,125,786 | $3,136,446 | $3,142,609 | $3,146,469 __ Rev. 1 + DFI Planned $ (to date) $2,952,437 | $2,991,937 $3,081,239 | $3,138,707 | $3,172,407 | $3,220,472 | $3,254,276 | $3,262,476 | $3,275,176 | $3,285,836 | $3,291,999 $3,295,859 Tasks 586 Reall. Planned $ (to date) N/A| N/A NA $3,130,102 | $3,185,102 $3,237,230 | $3,272,230 | $3,295,860 | $3,295,860 | $3,295,860 | $3,295,860 | $3,295,860 Amend. #9 Planned $ (to date) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A] $3,266,549 | $3,291,549 | $3,318,096 | $3,327,786 | $3,327,786 $3,327,786 Amend. #11 Planned $ (to date) _| NAL ONA SONA N/A N/A| N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A] $3,347,330 | $3,375,979 Actual $ Expended (to date) $2,962,868 | $3,001,481 | $3,053,884 | $3,130,102 | $3,189,431 $3,244,121 | $3,266,549 | $3,289,928 | $3,304,151 | $3,304,151 | $3,347,330 | $3,366,080 Base NTE Budget (Amend. #3) $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 CWG Contract Amend. #4 Budget_| $103,047 | $103,047 | $103,047 | $103,047 | $103,047 $103,047] $103,047 | $103,047 | $103,047] $103,047 | $103,047 | $103,047 DFI Contract Amend. #5 Budget $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 | $45,000 —-$45,000| $45,000| $45,000. ‘$45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 DFI Contract Amend. #6 Budget $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 | $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 DF Contract Amend. #7 Budget | $3,502 | ‘$3,502 | $3,502 | $3,502 $3,502 | $3,502 $3,502 | $3,502 | $3,502 $3,502] $3,502 | $3,502 | DFI Contract Amend. #8 Budget $89,487 $89,487 $89,487 $89,487 | $89,487 —$89,487| $89,487| $89,487| $89,487] $89,487 $89,487 $89,487 Tasks 5&6 Reallocation Budget N/A N/A. N/A $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 Contract Amend. #9 Budget NAL ON N/A N/A N/A| N/A] $31,926 $31,926 $31,926 $31,926 $31,926 | $31,926 Contract Amend. #11 Budget N/A NA N/A| NAL ONAL NAL ONAL N/A| N/A N/A! $118,193 $118,193 Total Project NTE Budget $3,295,859 | $3,295,859 $3,295,859 | $3,295,860 | $3,295,860 | $3,295,860 | $3,327,786 | $3,327,786 | $3,327,786 | $3,327,786 | $3,445,979 | $3,445,979 Actual Remaining Project Budget $332,991 $294,378 $241,975 $165,758 $106,429 $51,739 $61,237 $37,858 $23,635 $23,635 $98,649 $79,899 | Rev 1 1/1/97 includes Contract Amend #4. 6/1/97 the DFl Contract Amend #5 in Task 5. 10/1/97 the DFI Contract Amend #6 #7 in Task 5. 11/17/97 the DFl Amend #8 in Task 5. 4/17/98 Tasks 5 6 Reall. 7/15/98 Amend. #9 Task 5 11/18/98 Amend. #11 Task 5 02-06-99 2/17/99 Page 6 of 10 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT THROUGH PERIOD ENDING: 02-06-99 PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT 1ST QUARTER 1999 ie 2ND QUARTER 1999 | 3RD QUARTER 1999 ae 4TH QUARTER 1999 TASK MONTH JAN | FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP oct | Nov DEC 1 SCOPING i | Actual % Work Completed 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base Planned % Complete $ (to date) 1009 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% _ 100% 100% | 100% Rev. 1 Planned % Complete $ (to date)} = ——- 1009 100%] 100%! = 100% = 100% 100%! 100% = 100%) = 100%) 100%, 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 100%. 400% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rev. 1 Planned $ (this period) $o} $0} ~——si$80 $0 — $0) = 0 _ $0], $0 | $0, $0 Actual $ Expended (this period) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 ~ $0 | $0 ~ $0 | $0 Base Planned $ (to date) $351,050 | $351,050] $351,050 $351,050] $351,050 | $351,050 $351,050| $351,050] $351,050 | $351,050 ____ Rev. 1 Planned $(todate) $374,839 | $374,839 | $374,839 $374,839 | $374,839 | $374,839 $374,839] $374,839 | $374,839 $374,839 Actual $ Expended (to date) $374,839 | $374,839 | $374,839 $374,839] $374,839| $374,839 $374,839| $374,839| $374,839 $374,839 Base NTE Budget (Amend. #3) $351,050| $351,050| $351,050 $351,050] $351,050] $351,050 $351 ,050 | $351,050 | $351,050 $351,050 | CWG Contract Amend. #4 Budget _ $23,789 | $23,789 | $23,789 «$23,789 $23,789 | _ $23,789 $23,789 | $23,789 | $23,789 $23,789. Total Task NTE Budget $374,839 | $374,839| $374,839 $374,839| $374,839] $374,839 $374,839| $374,839| $374,839 $374,839 Actual Remaining Task Budget $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 2 INVENTORY |] Actual % Work Completed 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%] 100% 100% | 100% Base Planned % Complete $ (to date) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Rev. 1 Planned % Complete $ (to date) 100%] 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% == 100%) == 100%, = 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 100%] ——- 100%| 100% -—-—- 100% 100% 100%. 100% 100% 100% 100% Base Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 Rev. 1 Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0, ss 80 _ $0 $0 | _$0 | Actual $ Expended (this period) $0 $0 $0. $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 Base Planned $ (to date) $660,70 $660,706 | $660,706 | $660,706 $660,706 | $660,706 | $660,706 $660,706| $660,706 | $660,706 $660,706 Rev. 1 Planned $ (to date) $679,591 $679,591 | $679,591 $679,591 | $679,591| $679,591 | $679,591 $679,591 | $679,591 | $679,591 | $679,591 Actual $ Expended (to date) $679,58: $679,583 | $679,583 | $679,583 $679,583| $679,583| $679,583 $679,583 | $679,583| $679,583 _ $679,583 Base NTE Budget (Amend. #3) $660,70 $660,706 | $660,706 | $660,706 $660,706] $660,706| $660,706 $660,706] $660,706 | $660,706 | $660,706 -| CWG Contract Amend. #4 Budget _ $18,885 $18,885 $18,885 $18,885 $18,885 $18,885 $18,885 | $18,885 | $18,885 | $18,885 $18,885. Total Task NTE Budget $679,591 | $679,591] $679,591 | $679,591 $679,591| $679,591| $679,591 $679,591| $679,591 | $679,591 | $679,591 Actual Remaining Task Budget $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 | $8 $8 $8 | $8 IMPACT ASSESSMENTIMITIGATION F 100% | Actual % Work Completed 1009 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%! 100% 100% 100% Base Planned % Complete $ (to date) 1009 100% 100% 100%| 100% 100% 100% | 100% 100% 100%| 100% Rev. 1 Planned % Complete $ (to date) 1009 100% 100% 100% | 100% 100%| ——-—: 100%| 00% ~100%| 100%) —-: 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 100 100% 100% 100% «100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% | 100% Base Planned $ (this period) $ $0 $0 $0. $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 Rev. 1 Planned $ (this period) __ $0 : $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | _ $0 $0 | _ $0, __ $0 | Actual $ Expended (this period) $0 $0 go; 0 | $0 $0) $0 $0 $0 | $0 Base Planned $ (to date) $584,01 $584,010] $584,010] $584,010 $584,010| $584,010] $584,010 $584,010] $584,010] $584,010 | $584,010 Rev. 1 Planned $ (to date) $606,61 $606,612 | $606,612 | $606,612) $606,612| $606,612 | $606,612 $606,612] $606,612| $606,612 $606,612 Actual $ Expended (to date) $606,54 $606,540 | $606,540 | $606,540 $606,540| $606,540 | $606,540 $606,540] $606,540 | $606,540 $606,540 Base NTE Budget (Amend. #3) $584,01 $584,010] $584,010 | $584,010 $584,010| $584,010 | $584,010/ $584,010| $584,010 | $584,010 | $584,010 _CWG Contract Amend. #4 Budget $22,60 $22,602| $22,602 | $22,602| $22,602 $22,602 | $22,602 —$22,602| $22,602| $22,602 $22,602 Total Task NTE Budget $606,61 _ $606,612 | $606,612 | $606 612 | $606,612 | $606,612 | $606,612 | $606,612 | $606,612 | $606,612 $606,612 Actual Remaining Task Budget $7: $72 $72 $72 | $72 $72 $72 | $72 $72 $72 | $72 Rev 1 1/1/97 includes Contract Amend #4. 6/1/97 the DFI Contract Amend #5 i 10/1/97 the DFI Contract Amend #6 11/17/97 the DFl Amend #8 in Task 4/17/98 Tasks 5 6 Reall. 7/15/98 Amend. #9 Task 5 11/18/98 Amend. #11 Task 5 in Task 5 #7 in Task 5. 5. 2/17/99 Page 7 of 10 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT THROUGH PERIOD ENDING: 02-06-99 1ST QUARTER 1999 2ND QUARTER 1999 . 3RD QUARTER 1999 4TH QUARTER 1999 a] TASK MONTH| JAN | _FEB [| MAR APR MAY | JUN JUL AUG SEP ~ OCT nov | __DEC 4 ALTERNATIVE SELECTION | | | Actual % Work Completed 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%| 100% Base Planned % Complete $ (to date) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Rev. 1 Planned % Complete $ (to date)| 100% 100%| —-100%| += 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%! «100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) | 100% 100%| 100% 100% 100%] 100%) 100% ~~~ +100%| 100%) + 100% 100% Base Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 _ Rev. 1 Planned $ (this period) _ $0 $0 __ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0. $0. Actual $ Expended (this period) i $0 sol $0, ~~ ~——s0 $0 $0. CLso $0 $0 | $0 Base Planned $ (to date) $303,47 $303,475 | $303,475 | $303,475 _$303,475| $303,475 | $303,475 $303,475| $303,475 | $303,475 | $303,475 Rev. 1 Planned $ (to date) $336,34 _ $336,341 | $336,341 | $336,341 -$336,341| $336,341 | $336,341 —$336,341| $336,341 | $336,341) $336,341 Actual $ Expended (to date) $336,31 $336,315 | $336,315 | $336,315 | $336,315| $336,315 | $336,315 | $336,315] $336,315 | $336,315 $336,315 Base NTE Budget (Amend. #3) $303,477: $303,475 | $303,475 | $303,475 | $303,475| $303,475 | $303,475 $303,475| $303,475| $303,475 $303,475 CWG Contract Amend. #4 Budget _ $32,86 $32,866 $32,866 $32,866 | $32,866 $32,866 $32,866 $32,866] $32,866 | $32,866 $32,866 Total Task NTE Budget $336,341 $336,341 | $336,341 | $336,341 | $336341| $336,341| $336,341 $336,341] $336,341| $336,341 | $336,341 Actual Remaining Task Budget $2 $26 $26 $26 | $26 $26 $26 $26 $26 $26 | $26 | 5 EVAL PREPARATION | Actual % Work Completed 99 | Base Planned % Complete $ (to date) 1009 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% | 100% 100% 100% 100% Rev. 1 Planned % Complete $ (to date)} =———-—:1009 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%, 100% Rev.1+DFI Planned % Cmp $ (to date) 1009 100%; -—«:100%| 100% + 100%| + 100% + 100% ++ 100% 100%| 100%. 100% Task 5&6 Reall Planned % Cmp $ (to dat 1009 100%| 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Amend. #9 Planned % Cmp $ (to date)| __—_-1009 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% | 100% 100% ~ 100% 100%| Amend #11 Planned %Cmp $ (to date) 979 100%| 100%; 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%] 100% 100% 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 1009 | | Base Planned $ (this period) oo $0 | _ $0]; 80} $0 fi $0 $0 $O| $0 SOF oe $0 | Rev. 1 Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 Rev. 1 + DFI Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 $0 $0. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 Task 5&6 Reall Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | __ $0) $0 Amend. #9 Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 a) $0. $00 $0 son $0 | $0 $0 $0 | Amend. #11 Planned $ (this period) $25,000 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0. $0 $0 $0 | $0 Actual $ Expended (this period) $52,308 | | Base Planned $ (to date) $402,570 $402,570 | $402,570| $402,570 $402,570| $402,570] $402,570 $402,570| $402,570| $402,570) $402,570 Rev. 1 Planned $ (to date) $407,474 $407,474 | $407,474 | $407,474 | $407,474 | $407,474 | $407,474 | $407,474 | $407,474 | $407,474 |__ $407,474 __ Rev. 1+DFi Planned $ (to date) | $556,864 _ $556,864 | $556,864 | $556,864 $556,864 | $556,864 | $556,864 $556,864| $556,864 | $556,864 $556,864 Tasks 5&6 Reall. Planned $ (to date) | $751,01 $751,015 | $751,015 | $751,015 | $751,015| _$751,015| $751,015. $751,015| $751,015 | $751,015 $751,015 | Amend. #9 Planned § (to date) $782,941 $782,941 | $782,941 | $782,941 | $782,941 | $782,941 | $782,941 $782,941] $782,941| $782,941 $782,941 | Amend. #11 Planned $ (to date) | $876,134 $901,134 | $901,134 | $901,134) $901,134] $901,134 | $901,134 | $901,134 | $901,134 | $901,134 $901,134 Actual $ Expended (to date) $897,159 i See af i na Be | Base NTE Budget (Amend. #3) $402,570 $402,570 | $402,570 | $402,570 $402,570| $402,570| $402,570 $402,570] $402,570| $402,570 $402,570 CWG Contract Amend. #4 Budget | —- $4,904 $4,904 | - $4,904 $4,904 | $4,904 $4,904 $4,904 | $4,904] $4,904| $4,904 $4,904 | DFI Contract Amend. #5 Budget $45,000 $45 ool $45,000 $45,000 $45,000] $45,000| $45,000 $45,000] $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 DFI Contract Amend. #6 Budget $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 | $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 | DF Contract Amend. #7 Budget _| $3,502 $3,502 $3,502 $3,502 | $3,502 $3,502, $3,502 $3,502 | $3,502 $3,502 | $3,502 | DFI Contract Amend. #8 Budget $89,487 $89,487 | $89,487| $89,487 $89,487| $89,487| $89,487| $89,487 i $89,487 $89,487 $89,487 Tasks 5&6 Reallocation Budget $194,152 $194,152] $194,152] $194,152 $194,152| $194,152] $194,152) $194,152| $194,152| $194,152 $194,152 Contract Amend. #9 Budget | ‘$31,926 $31,926 $31,926 $31,926 | $31,9 $31,926 $31,926 $31,926 | $31,926 $31,926 Contract Amend. #11 Budget ~ $118,193 $118,193} $118,193 | $118,193 i $118, $118,193 $118,193] $118,193| $118,193) $118,193 Total Task NTE Budget $901,135 $901,135] $901,134 | $901,134 | $901,134] $901,134 | $901,134 | $901,134] $901,134 | $901,134 | $901,134 nud aale7 incident ctual Remaining Task Budget $3,976 | 6/1/97 the DFI Contract Amend #5 in Task 5. 10/1/97 the DFI Contract Amend #6 #7 in Task 5. 11/17/97 the DFl Amend #8 in Task 5. 4/17/98 Tasks 5 6 Reall. 7/15/98 Amend. #9 Task 5 11/18/98 Amend. #11 Task 5 2/17/99 Page 8 of 10 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT THROUGH PERIOD ENDING: | 1ST QUARTER 1999 2ND QUARTER 1999 3RD QUARTER 1999 | 4TH QUARTER 1999 TASK wONTHL JAN | FEB. | MAR APR | MAY [JUN vu |_AuG [sep ocr Nov. | DEC | 6 ANILCA APPLICATION : | | | Actual % Work Completed | ; | | | | | Base Planned % Complete $ (to date) 100% 100% 100% 100%] 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Rev. 1 Planned % Complete $ (to date)}_ 10 100%] 100%) 100% 100% 100%! __——_—- 100% 100% 100% 100%) 100% Task 5&6 Reall Planned % Cmp $ (to dat 100 400% 100%| 100% 100%} -—-100%| ~=—-100% ~~: 100%| + +~+~+~—« 100% 100%| 100% Amend. #9 Planned % Cmp $ (to date) 1009 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%| 100% Amend#11 Planned % Cmp $ (to date) 819 100%] 100%] ___100%| 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) i i | LS | Base Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rev. 1 Planned $ (this period) __ $0 _ $0] $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 ___ $0 Task 5&6 Reall Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 ~ $0 $0 $0 Amend. #9 Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | Amend. #11 Planned $ (this period) _ SO} $0 | $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 | $0 | $0) ____ $0 Actual$ Expended(thisperiod) | $05 = =#$6 —_ an — | — | Base Planned $ (to date) $247,616 © $247,616 | $247,616 | $247,616 | $247,616 | $247,616 | $247,616 | $247,616| $247,616 | $247,616 | $247,616 ___ Rev. 1 Planned $ (to date) $247,6 $247,616 | __ $247,616 | $247,616 | $247,616 | $247,616 | $247,616 | $247,616| $247,616 | $247,616 | $247,616 Tasks 5&6 Reall. Planned $ (to date) $53,4 $53,466 $53,466 $53,466) $53,466 $53,466 $53,466 | $53,466 $53,466 $53,466 $53,466 Amend. #9 Planned $ (to date) $53,466 | $53,466 $53,466 $53,466 | $53,466 $53,466 $53,466 | $53,466 $53,466 $53,466 | $53,466 | Amend. #11 Planned $(todate) | $43,466 $53,466 $53,466 | $53,466 | $53,466 $53,466 $53,466 | $53,466 | $53,466| $53,466) — $53,466 Actual $ Expended (to date) $30,014 | — : 1 fo OL : | Base NTE Budget (Amend. #3) $247,616 $247,616 | $247,616 | $247,616 | $247,616 | $247,616 | $247,616 $247,616 | $247,616 | $247,616 | $247,616 CWG Contract Amend. #4 Budget NAL NAL ONAL N/A N/A N/A\ N/A N/A N/A | Tasks 5&6 Reallocation Budget ($194,150)| _($194,150)| _($194,150)' ($194,150)| _($194,150)| _($194,150)| _($194,150)| ($194,150) _($194,150)| ($194,150) Contract Amend. #9 Budget N/A N/A N/A. N/A N/A N/A, N/A N/A N/A. N/A Contract Amend. #11 Budget NAL ONAA NA N/A N/A N/A, N/A NAL NAA N/A Total Task NTE Budget $53,466 $53,466 $53,466 $53,466 | $53,466 $53,466 $53,466! $53,466] $53,466 $53,466 | $53,466 Actual Remaining Task Budget $23,452 | | | STUDIES | | | Actual % Work Completed 1009 100% 100% 100% | 100% 100% 100%| 100% 100% 100%| 100% Base Planned % Complete $ (to date) 100% 100% 100% 100%) 100% 100% 100%) 100% 100% 100% | 100% Rev. 1 Planned % Complete $ (to date)| ——_: 1009 100% 100% 100%) 100% 100% 100%! 100%] 100% 100% 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 1009 100%| | 100% 100%) —-—-: 100% 100% 100%. 100% 100% 100% 100% Base Planned $ (this period) | $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 | $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 ___Rev.1 Planned $(thisperiod) | $0 $0] $o| $0 $0 $0 | $0 | go] ss $0 $0 | $0 Actual $ Expended (this period) $0 go} ———s0 $0 | gol sti‘ SOOCYSC*;” $0 $0 | $0 $0 | $0 Base Planned $ (to date) $101,480 $101,480 | $101,480 | $101,480 | $101,480 $101,480] $101,480) $101,480] $101,480] $101,480 | $101,480 ____ Rev. 1 Planned $ (to date) ——|__- $101,480 __ $101,480 | $101,480 | $101,480 | $101,480] $101,480 | $101,480 $101,480] $101,480| $101,480) $101,480 Actual $ Expended (to date) $101,476 $101,476 | $101,476 | $101,476 | $101,476 | $101,476 | $101,476 $101,476 | $101,476 | $101,476 | $101,476 | _ Base NTE Budget (Amend. #3) $101,480 $101,480 | $101,480 | $101,480 | $101,480] $101,480] $101,480 $101,480] $101,480] $101,480 | $101,480 __CWG Contract Amend. #4 Budget | _N// NA — NAL ONA N/A N/A NA ONAL NAA NA N/A Total Task NTE Budget $101,480 $101,480 | $101,480 | $101,480 $101,480| $101,480| $101,480 $101,480] $101,480 | $101,480 | $101,480 Actual Remaining Task Budget $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 | $4 $4 $4 $4 Rev 1 1/1/97 includes Contract Amend #4. 6/1/97 the DFI Contract Amend #5 in Task 5 10/1/97 the DFI Contract Amend #6 #7 in Task 5. 11/17/97 the DFI Amend #8 in Task 5. 4/17/98 Tasks 5 6 Reall. 7/15/98 Amend. #9 Task 5 11/18/98 Amend. #11 Task 5 02-06-99 2/17/99 Page 9 of 10 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT THROUGH PERIOD ENDING: 02-06-99 1ST QUARTER 1999 2ND QUARTER 1999. 3RD QUARTER 1999. 4TH QUARTER 1999 TASK | | MONTH] JAN. | MAR APR MAY =| JUN JUL AUG | __SEP oct | NOV: qT DEC | 8 ENGINEERING FIELD WORK | | | _| : Actual % Work Completed 100% 100% 100% 100%) 100% 100% 100%) 100% 100% 100%) 100% Base Planned % Complete $ (to date) 100% 100% 100% 100%| 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%) 100% Rev. 1 Planned % Complete $ (to date) 100% 100% 100% 100%) 100% 100% 100%) 100%] _ 100% 100% | 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 100% 100% 100% 100%) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 $0 $0. $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 Rev. 1 Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 Actual $ Expended (this period) $0 $0 $0 $0 | $O | $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 | Base Planned $ (to date) $202,655 $202,655 $202,655 $202,655 | $202,655 $202,655 $202,655 | $202,655 $202,655 $202,655 | $202,655 Rev. 1 Planned $ (to date) $202,655 $202,655 $202,655 $202,655 | $202,655 $202,655 $202,655 | $202,655 $202,655 $202,655 $202,655 Actual $ Expended (to date) $202,610 $202,610 | $202,610 $202,610 | $202,610 $202,610 $202,610 | $202,610 $202,610 $202,610 | $202,610 Base NTE Budget (Amend. #3) $202,655 $202,655 $202,655 $202,655 | $202,655 $202,655 $202,655 | $202,655 $202,655 $202,655 | $202,655 CWG Contract Amend. #4 Budget N/A N/A N/A N/A! N/A N/A N/A) N/A] N/A N/A) N/A Total Task NTE Budget $202,655 $202,655 $202,655 $202,655 | $202,655 $202,655 $202,655 | $202,655 $202,655 $202,655 | $202,655 Actual Remaining Task Budget $45 $45 $45 $45 | $45 $45 $45 | $45 $45 $45 | $45 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING | | | Rev 1 1/1/97 includes Contract Amend #4. 6/1/97 the DFi Contract Amend #5 in Task 5. 10/1/97 the DFI Contract Amend #6 #7 in Task 5. 11/17/97 the DFl Amend #8 in Task 5. 4/17/98 Tasks 5 6 Reall. 7/15/98 Amend. #9 Task 5 11/18/98 Amend. #11 Task 5 : Actual % Work Completed 100% 100% 100% 100%} 100% 100% 100%) 100% 100% 100%| 100% Base Planned % Complete $ (to date) 100% 100% 100% 100% | 100% 100% 100%) 100% 100% 1 00%| 100% |Rev. 1 Planned % Complete $ (to date) 100% 100% 100% 100%, 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% e Actual % Expended $ (to date) 100% 100% 100% 100%! 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%, 100% Base Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 Rev. 1 Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 | $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 $0 Actual $ Expended (this period) $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 Base Planned $ (to date) $189,861 $189,861 | $189,861 $189,861 | $189,861 $189,861 $189,861 | $189,861 $189,861 $189,861 | $189,861 Rev. 1 Planned $ (to date) $189,861 $189,861 $189,861 | $189,861 | $189,861 $189,861 $189,861 | $189,861 $189,861 $189,861 $189,861 Actual $ Expended (to date) $189,852 $189,852 $189,852 $189,852 | $189,852 $189,852 $189,852 | $189,852 $189,852 $189,852 $189,852 Base NTE Budget (Amend. #3) $189,861 $189,861 $189,861 $189,861 | $189,861 $189,861 $189,861 | $189,861 $189,861 $189,861 | $189,861 CWG Contract Amend. #4 Budget N/A N/A N/A N/A| N/A N/A N/A} N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Task NTE Budget $189,861 $189,861 $189,861 $189,861 | $189,861 $189,861 $189,861 | $189,861 $189,861 $189,861 | $189,861 Actual Remaining Task Budget $9 $9 $9 $9 | $9 $9 $9 | $9 $9 $9 $9 2/17/99 Page 10 of 10 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT THROUGH PERIOD ENDING: 02-06-99 | : 1ST QUARTER 1999 2ND QUARTER 1999 i 3RD QUARTER 1999 4TH QUARTER 1999: TASK MONTH JAN | | FEB | MAR APR | MAY. [ JUN JUL AUG | _ SEP oct NOV DEC TOTAL PROJECT 120376-01 — : : Eee : Ses Actual % Work Completed 99% | | jan | Base Planned % Complete $ (to date) 100% 100% 100% 100%) 100% 100% 100%} 100% 100% 100% | 100% Rev. 1 Planned % Complete $ (to date) __ 100% 100% 100% 100%) 100% 100% 100%) 100% 100% 100%) 100% Rev.1+DFl Planned % Cmp §$ (to date) 96% 96%, 100% 100%) 100% 100% 100%) 100% 100% 100% 100% Task 5&6 Reall Planned % Cmp $ (to dat N/A N/A 96% 96%) 96% 97% 97%) 97% 97% 100%} 100% : [Amend. #9 Planned % Cmp $ (to date) N/A N/A N/A N/A| N/A 97% 97%) 97% 97% 100%} 100% Amend #11 Planned % Cmp $ (to date) 99% 100% 100% 100% ~—«:100% 100% 100%) 100%| 100% 100% 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 99% | | | Base Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 Rev. 1 Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 Rev. 1 + DFI Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 _ [Task 586 Reall. Planned $ (this period) $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 Amend. #9 Planned $ (this period) | $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 $0 Amend. #11 Planned $ (this period) | $35,000 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 $0 Actual $ Expended (this period) $52,308 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 $0 Base Planned $ (to date) $3,043,423 $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 Rev. 1 Planned $ (to date) $3,146,469 $3,146,469 | $3,146,469 | $3,146,469 | $3,146,469 | $3,146,469 | $3,146,469 | $3,146,469 | $3,146,469 | $3,146,469 | $3,146,469 : Rev. 1 + DFI Planned $ (to date) $3,295,859 $3,295,859 | $3,295,859 | $3,295,859 | $3,295,859 | $3,295,859 | $3,295,859 | $3,295,859 | $3,295,859 | $3,295,859 | $3,295,859 | Tasks 586 Reall. Planned $ (to date) | $3,295,860 $3,295,860 | $3,295,860 | $3,295,860 $3,295,860 | $3,295,860 | $3,295,860 | $3,295,860 | $3,295,860 | $3,295,860 | $3,295,860 Amend. #9 Planned $ (to date) $3,327,786 $3,327,786 | $3,327,786 | $3,327,786 | $3,327,786 | $3,327,786 | $3,327,786 | $3,327,786 | $3,327,786 | $3,327,786 | $3,327,786 Amend. #11 Planned $ (to date) $3,410,979 $3,445,979 | $3,445,979 | $3,445,979 | $3,445,979 | $3,445,979 | $3,445,979 | $3,445,979 | $3,445,979 | $3,445,979 | $3,445,979 Actual $ Expended (to date) $3,418,388 | | Base NTE Budget (Amend. #3) $3,043,423 $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 | $3,043,423 CWG Contract Amend. #4 Budget $103,047 $103,047 $103,047 | $103,047 | $103,047 $103,047 $103,047 $103,047 $103,047 $103,047 | $103,047 DFI Contract Amend. #5 Budget $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 | $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 DFI Contract Amend. #6 Budget $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 | $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 | $11,400 DFI Contract Amend. #7 Budget $3,502 $3,502 $3,502 $3,502 | $3,502 $3,502 $3,502 $3,502 $3,502 $3,502 $3,502 DFI Contract Amend. #8 Budget $89,487 $89,487 $89,487 $89,487 | $89,487 $89,487 $89,487 | $89,487 $89,487 $89,487 $89,487 Tasks 5&6 Reallocation Budget $0 5 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contract Amend. #9 Budget $31,926 $31,926 $31,926 $31,926 | $31,926 $31,926 $31,926 | $31,926 $31,926 $31,926 $31,926 Contract Amend. #11 Budget $118,193 $118,193 $118,193 $118,193 | $118,193 $118,193 $118,193 | $118,193 $118,193 $118,193 $118,193 Total Project NTE Budget | $3,445,980 $3,445,980 | $3,445,979 | $3,445,979 | $3,445,979 | $3,445,979 | $3,445,979 | $3,445,979 | $3,445,979 | $3,445,979 | $3,445,979 Actual Remaining Project Budget $27,592 Rev 1 1/1/97 includes Contract Amend #4. 6/1/97 the DFI Contract Amend #5 in Task 5. 10/1/97 the DFI Contract Amend #6 #7 in Task 5. 11/17/97 the DFI Amend #8 in Task 5. 4/17/98 Tasks 5 6 Reall. 7/15/98 Amend. #9 Task 5 11/18/98 Amend. #11 Task 5 CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. ach Cun ASSOCIATION, INC. February 11, 1999 Via Fax Line: 269-3044 Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority 480 West Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Attention: Mr. Dennis V. McCrohan, P.E., Deputy Director, Energy Subject: Souther Intertie Project - Funding Dear Mr. McCrohan: The budget for Phase I of subject project was amended to a total of $5,900,000 at the June 16, 1998 meeting of AIDEA’s Board of Directors. The increase had been estimated to allow completion of the NEPA process. Continued changes in direction from one of the federal agencies goveming the process for the preparation of the Environmental Analysis (EVAL) have resulted in the need for additional funds for that task. An estimated $500,000 are needed to complete the EVAL. The work to be performed is explained in detail in Power Engineers’ letter of February 8,1999 (copy attached). The IPG has authonzed us in their meeting on February 10, 1999 to amend Power Engineers’ contract by $465,215 and utilize funding available at this time. Completion of the EVAL and submittal to RUS and the USFWS with a permit application is now estimated for July 1999. We have cancelled a previous amendment to Power Engineers’ contract in the amount of $678,069, which had been executed to pay for their assistance during the EIS/ROD preparation by RUS’ contractor. This leaves total commitments well within the authorized budget. Funding needs for the EIS/ROD process will be reassessed after the USFWS has accepted the application for a project permit in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. At that time we may request further adjustments to funding under Phase I of the project. We are presently preparing new cash flow estimates and will submit them for your use shortly and trust that funds can be advanced in agreement with the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by the IPG on 6/8/95 as last amended 02/10/99. If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at (907) 762-4626 by telephone or by fax to (907) 762-4617. My e-mail address is dora_gropp@chugachelectric.com. Sincerely, Dora L. Gropp, P.E. Manager, Transmission & Special Projects DLG/ah 7 Attachment: Power Engineers’ letter of February 8,1999 Cc: Lee Thibert Joe Griffith Mike Massin W.O.#4E9590081, Sec., 1 RF 5601 Minnesota Drive * P.O. Box 196300 » Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Phone 907-563-7494 * FAX 907-562-0027 _ February 8, 1999 Dora L. Gropp, PE. Manager, Transmission & Special Projects 5601 Minnesota Drive, Bldg. A Anchorage, AK 99518 Subject: 120376-05 Southem Intertie, Phase IB - Chugach Contract #820 POWER Project 120376 - Additional Work Scope to Complete the EVAL Dear Ms. Gropp: We appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and Chugach management on January 22 to discuss in detail the difficulties that have been encountered in attempting to finish the EVAL. As discussed, continued and unpredictable changes in direction and introduction of new data from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has substantially affected our scope of work, and the schedule and budget for completion of the EVAL. In order to complete the EVAL, additional funding m the amount of $465,215 is required at this time. . We have requested, and Dames & Moore has prepared a detailed memorandum explaining the changed conditions to the scope of work since the September 1998 meetings with FWS and the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR), and outlining the remaining work to be done to complete the EVAL. Our previous budget request of October 1998 for completion of the EVAL was based on agreements reached with the FWS during the September 1998 meetings. Based on the September meetings with FWS, it was expected that FWS comments received through September could be incorporated into the EVAL, and that the FWS would be available to review the revised maps and text between September and November. This was to result in a completed EVAL by last December. The KNWR staff was not available to review the text and many of the maps until January. As a result, the EVAL completion schedule has had to be extended. In addition, new comments have been continually received from the FWS and KNWR since September, resulting in the need for considerable additional changes to the biology text and maps. These changes should be addressed so that FWS input is reflected in the EVAL. The most recent FWS comments were received in writing on January 15, and from a meeting between Dames and Moore and the KNWR on January 21. Also, in attempting to work closely with the FWS to incorporate their comments and new data, Dames and Moore has experienced problems with the data provided by FWS, and addressing ongoing and often conflicting comments. The attached memorandum from Dames & Moore provides details on these issues and the tasks needed to complete the EVAL. HLY 23-036 (1/29/99) Ik POWER Engineers, incorporated 25 eS POA ete RS SS SS : 3940 Glenbrook Dr. « P.O. Box 1066 Phone (9N0) 700 24ee Chugach Electric Association, Inc. February 8, 1999 Page 2 The continual changes to the draft EVAL have resulted in an open-ended situation with respect to both the budget and schedule for completion of the EVAL. In order to gain control of the schedule and budget, it is proposed to complete the EVAL with limited additional FWS review. In addition, the impact assessment approach will be revised so that it is not dependent on qualitative judgements that would require concurrence from the federal agencies. Dames & Moore has discussed these approaches with FWS and RUS, and have received informal agreement. The only additional input will be through the Interagency Brown Bear Study Team, and from a FWS review of the biology impact section. Changes that result from this review that can be easily implemented will be incorporated into the EVAL. However, any changes in direction from this FWS review would not be included in the EVAL, but would be submitted to RUS for consideration during the EIS preparation. This will allow Dames & Moore to complete the EVAL under a more predictable schedule and budget. A revised budget for the additional scope of work is attached. The additional funding would allow the EVAL document to be completed in compliance with the MOU, as explained in Dames and Moore’s memo. Dames & Moore has proposed a 20-week schedule to complete the EVAL and the ANILCA Application. For example, if approval for this proposed budget is received by February 22, 1999, the EVAL and ANILCA Application would be completed by the week of July 5, 1999. Summary of attachments included with this letter: 1. Budget Summary 2. Memorandum from Tim Tetherow, Dames & Moore, to Randy Pollock, POWER Engineers dated January 26, 1999 describing in detail the justification for this additional budget request. After you have had opportunity to review these materials, I will call you to see if further clarification or discussion is needed. Sincerely, Randy Pollock, P.E. Sr. Project Manager RP/k Enclosures cc: Mike Walbert (PEI) 7 Tim Tetherow (D&M) File: 120376-05-55-00-30 HLY 23-036 (1/29/99) 7 2) : Southern Intertie Project Budget Summary Task 5 Scope Additions to Complete the EVAL ean [Tabor [Expenses | CRE [2% | Subtoml_| Bap Sici.ast | siirs4_| sivaa0s |_s306e_| sirea70 | $176,670 | op Sizes | sv7.e04 | sia9,re9 | 32.796 | siaases | $102.05 | IA 29304 | 325.000 | ss50m0 |_sisi2_| score | 56736 | al ; % : 4 | $38,123 | $3,460_] $41,583 _Y $357,370 | $57,955 | $415,325 | $8,307 | $423,632 [$465,215 | Notes: 1. The Dames and Moore proposed budget request and justification is described in detail in Tim Tetherow's memo to Randy Pollock dated January 26, 1999 (attached). 2. The Power Engineers proposed budget provides for engineering support for completion of the EVAL for the 20 week completion schedeule outlined in the Dames and Moore memo. The budget includes one trip to Anchorage and one trip to Phoenix (Dames&Moore) for Randy Pollock. 3. Given that there are no more changes in our scope of work to complete the EVAL, this budget will provide for completion of the EVAL by the week of July 5, given approval of this budget by February 22, 1999 (a 20 week completion schedule). The budget for Task 6 - ANILCA Application already provides for completion and submission of the ANILCA Application, and Dames and Moore anticipates that application would be ready to be filed at the same time the EVAL is completed. HLY 23 -___ (1/29/99) 120376-05 DAMES & MOORE A DAMES & MOORE GROUP COMPANY 7500 North Dreamy Draw Drive Suite 145 Phoenix, Arizona 85020 602 371 1110 Tel 602 861 7431 Fax Action Info File Randy Pollock, POWER Garlyn Bergdale 09203-009-050 Engineers, Inc. From Tim Tetherow (FE \ Date 5 February1999 Southern Intertie Project - Budget Request to Complete the Environmental Analysis Subject Report (EVAL) The purpose of this memo is to outline the budget requirements to complete the EVAL for the Southern Intertie Project, as a result of changes in conditions since September 1998. In the Budget Request for Additional Mapping and Required Supporting Analysis (October 13, 1998) we outlined the background of the Project, and our efforts to gain agency direction for and acceptance of the environmental studies for the Project since November 1996. Since the September 1998 meetings with FWS, we have encountered several unforeseen setbacks that have lead us to the recommended changes in this memo to regain control of the schedule and budget for the EVAL completion. The over all permitting process for the Project falls into three stages: preparation of the EVAL, preparation of the EIS, and the Record of Decision and appeal process. The urgency of the current situation is that after having initiated Project scoping 26 months ago, and completing two drafts of the EVAL and portions of the final report, we have reached a stalemate in the first stage of the overall permitting process. Our efforts to conform to the agreements on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) have not produced a final EVAL to submit to the Rural Utilities Service. Because of the duration of the work to date, and the complexity, this memo has been organized into four parts: recommendations, background, activities and issues, tasks to complete the EVAL, and schedule and cost. RECOMMENDATIONS While we have made every effort to address FWS’s issues and respond to their comments, there continue to be changes in direction from FWS. After over a year of continued effort to finalize the EVAL, we are now concerned that it has become an open-ended process with no way to manage the schedule and costs. To gain control of the schedule and costs to finalize the EVAL, we are proposing to complete the EVAL with limited additional input and review from FWS, and to streamline the impact assessment approach. H.\DATA\DOCUMENT\SOUTHTIE\POWER\TIM'SB~! .DOC any 5 February 1999 (Gag Page 2 Technical input will be for resolution of the brown bear mapping and impact assessment criteria from the Interagency Brown Bear Study Team (IBBST). FWS review will consist of a two-week review of the biology impact section. Any additional FWS comments will be included in EVAL for consideration for the EIS. We will respond to minor comments as appropriate in the Final EVAL. This approach will provide assurance to RUS that the FWS, as the cooperating agency for the EIS, has reviewed the pertinent sections of the EVAL prior to beginning the preparation of the EIS. This recommendation has been prepared in coordination with FWS. They agree that we have been provided adequate direction with which to complete the EVAL, however they have made the request to review all of the biology sections of the EVAL before it is submitted to RUS. Brian Anderson contacted both Dora and myself (February 4, 1999) to request that FWS be given the opportunity to review the biology section of Chapter 4 the document. This approach will allow the project to advance to the EIS preparation phase, comply with the MOU, and gain control of the schedule and budget. We are also recommending that the impact assessment be modified so that quantification and descriptions of impacts will replace the qualitative approach of characterizing high, moderate, and low impacts. This will enable us to incorporate diverse sources of data provided by the FWS, and prepare an assessment that will be flexible for refinement by the agencies in the EIS. This approach was received favorably in initial discussions with FWS Reality Division, Anchorage (January 25, 1999); and RUS (January 26, 1999). BACKGROUND The Lead and Cooperating Federal agencies — RUS is the Lead Federal agency that is responsible for preparing the Southern Intertie EIS, with the assistance of the Cooperating agency, FWS. RUS has retained Mangi Environmental Group to prepare the EIS for the agencies, and as a result, Mangi has been assisting RUS in the reviews of the EVAL. The MOU requires that the EVAL will provide the basis for the content of the EIS, and that the EVAL will be prepared under the direction of the Lead and Cooperating Agencies. The Alaska Department of Transportation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB), and Municipality of Anchorage have also reviewed drafts of the EVAL. MOU - In order to comply with the MOU, Dames & Moore and POWER Engineers have responded to all of the RUS and FWS comments on two drafts of the EVAL. To manage the preparation of the EVAL, we have been going through a systematic process, including: (1) meeting with the Agencies to discuss issues and approaches to complete the EVAL; (2) preparing meeting notes and comment tracking tables to document the approach for responding to each comment; and (3) submitting our notes for review by the agencies to ensure that we are in agreement on the specific direction of each comment. In this manner, we expected that there would be clear communication and agreement on the scope of each comment, and the approach for addressing comments in the EVAL. H:\DATA\DOCUMENT\SOUTHTIE\POWER\TIM'SB-1.DOC N 5 February 1999 Goal of the EVAL — Our goal has been to complete the EVAL in conformance with the Southern Intertie MOU, and to submit a product that is generally ready for use in the preparation of the EIS. To date, our approach has been to submit drafts of the report to the FWS for review, upon which we are provided comments for incorporation into the document. This process has been recurring for the over a year without completion, as the FWS continues to change direction on the content of the EVAL and the scope of our work. As a result we have recommended limiting continued FWS review, and assuming that while the EVAL will have been reviewed by the agencies, all comments may not be incorporated prior to submitting the EVAL to RUS. EVAL Review - RUS and Mangi dominated comments on the Ist Draft of the EVAL. They focused on the purpose and need for the project and the formatting of the EVAL. Following the submission of the first draft of the EVAL in November 1997, we met with RUS, FWS and KPB in March 1998 to discuss their comments, issues and appropriate responses. At that time, the majority of the comments that we received were from RUS and Mangi (46 pages). After the IPG proposed to cross the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR) by paralleling the Enstar pipeline, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) began refining the approach and data to assess impacts on wildlife, recreation, and scenery. Their comments dominated the review of the 2! Draft of the EVAL. FWS submitted nine pages of comments on the first draft of the EVAL in February 1998. They stated in their cover letter to RUS that “the document adequately identifies the range of issues, and that ample opportunity was provided for agency and community input.” They also stated that, “in the event that the IPG were to file a right-of- application with the FWS, the additional public process required under Title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) may lead to the identification of additional issues.” On February 25, 1998, the IPG notified the FWS and RUS that they would be filing an ANILCA Application for the Enstar route through the KNWR. The IPG will need to submit an ANILCA Application to FWS in order to initiate the preparation of the EIS. We responded to the RUS and FWS comments on the first draft of the EVAL, and prepared a second draft of the EVAL that was submitted in May 1998. We met with the FWS and RUS on June 23 through 25 to discuss their comments on the second draft. The FWS had not completed preparing their comments for these meeting. On July 24 we received 40 pages of comments from FWS, which covered new areas of concern and identified new requirements for the EVAL to address. Due to the nature of their written comments a second meeting was held with them on September 8 through 10. These meetings resulted in substantial additional changes in direction from FWS. We agreed that Dames & Moore and POWER Engineers would finalize the EVAL based on the combination of the written comments and direction from the June and September meetings. The only additional review would be of the biology sections for Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences by FWS. Meeting notes and all of the comments from FWS and RUS were compiled and submitted for review on October 7. We received responses from FWS on November 5, stating the following: We appreciate you including the comment-tracking sheet, which provides Dames & Moore’s response to our July EVAL comments. We found this useful since some of these items were not discussed during the September meeting. H:\DATA\DOCUMENT\SOUTHTIE\POWER\TIM'SB~1.DOC Barty 5 February 1999 Gu Page 4 In general, the minutes reflected the discussions that occurred. However, we have identified a number of minor corrections in our review of the minutes, Map Revision Summary, and Comment Tracking Sheet. Since September 1998, we have been processing additional FWS wildlife data in our efforts to finalize the EVAL. Our efforts have centered on revising the project base map to meet FWS requirements; processing their electronic data for new wolf, lynx, moose, brown bear, caribou, bald eagle, waterfowl, and swan habitat maps; assembling the cumulative impact assessment; and revising the biology section of Chapter 3. We submitted these products for FWS review on November 24, 1998, and received additional 35 pages of comments on January 15, 1999. Their comments include changes in direction from our September meetings. January 21 Meeting/FWS Focus - We met with FWS on January 21 to discuss their comments. The focus of FWS’s concerms is for cumulative impacts of the Enstar route on wildlife habitat, particularly for brown bears. The basis of their concerns is the continued development on the Kenai Peninsula and within the KNWR, and the ability to sustain adequate brown bear habitat. They have stated that because of the concerns for the brown bear on the Kenai Peninsula, the FWS’s credibility is on the line. The EIS will be viewed as their statement on the brown bear and the associated effects of the Project. At the meeting on January 21, 1999, FWS indicated that the brown bear might become a candidate for listing as a threatened or endangered species on the Kenai Peninsula if their numbers continue to decline. The KNWR staff indicated that the proposal to build the Project along the Enstar pipeline increases FWS concerns for the future of the brown bear habitat. They are concerned that the Project could trigger a decision to list the brown bear as a protected species on the Kenai Peninsula. The ADF&G want to avoid any listing of brown bears in Alaska. As a result, the KNWR stated that the public and other agencies would give the assessment of brown bear impacts in the Southern Intertie EVAL and EIS close attention. January 21 Meeting/Mapping - At the meeting we informed the FWS/KNWR that their recent written request (January 15) for separating the inventory and impact maps was in total conflict with our previous discussions and direction. At the September 1998 meetings we had been directed to combine the inventory and impact mapping to facilitate public review. We proposed a change in the impact assessment approach to the FWS at the meeting, which would streamline the assessment process. Rather than mapping low, moderate and high impacts along alternative routes, we proposed to: quantify relevant environmental features (i.e., distance and area of wildlife habitat distribution types and numbers of stream crossings); describe the types of impacts that could occur; and assess the significance of the impacts based on NEPA and FWS criteria. This approach will allow us to integrate all of the input that we have received from FWS and other agencies (i.e, ADF&G) focus on impact significance, minimize potential controversy over impact levels. It would also eliminate the need for impact maps. We discussed this change in impact assessment approach with Larry Wolfe, RUS (January 26, 1999), and he was very supportive of a simpler and less qualitative approach for comparing alternative routes on the Kenai Peninsula. In discussions with Brian Anderson, FWS (January 25,1999), he agreed that the emphasis of the impact assessment should be on impact significance, rather than qualitative levels of impact. He requested an example of our proposed H:\DATA\DOCUMENT\SOUTHTIE\POWER\TIM'SB-~1.DOC Janey 5 February 1999 Cn Page 5 approach. We also discussed the request for a black bear map. This was another case where there is a change in direction from last September. No agreement was reached at the meeting regarding the scope or content of a black bear map. Brian Anderson has indicated that a black bear map would be desirable because it is one of the selected species for analysis (January 25). A decision has not been made on the content of a black bear map, or whether to produce a map (please see Tasks to Complete the EVAL). We also reviewed their comments on all on the wildlife habitat maps that we had prepared since last September. After having spent the last three months preparing new maps with data provided by FWS, the KNWR staff requested changes in the mapping, which will involve incorporating additional data. These changes will be made and affect the preparation of ten maps. ACTIVITIES AND ISSUES SINCE SEPTEMBER 1998 The following provides a general chronology of work activities since the September 1998 meetings; the status of work accomplished, and associated issues. As a result of the September 1998 meetings, it was agreed that we would be working closely with the FWS to complete the EVAL by December 1998. The plan was to submit new maps and text that were based on FWS data for their review. The following is a summary of our activities and other pertinent events since the meeting with the FWS in September 1998. e We have organized all comments and developed strategies to respond to the new direction for the EVAL - We summarized meeting notes and prepared tracking tables for all text and map comments from RUS/Mangi and FWS. These notes were submitted to reviewers for their concurrence. (October) - We conducted an analysis of the comments from the meetings and developed approaches for responding to each of the separate issues that were discussed at the September meetings. (September and October) e We have experienced significant delays during September and October - We have experienced difficulties in utilizing GIS data provided by FWS either because it was incomplete, or due to formatting problems that made it incompatible with Dames & Moore’s ArcInfo GIS system. This delayed the revisions requested for creating new lynx, eagle, swan, wolf, and moose habitat maps. We had expected to complete the maps during September and October 1998 by utilizing FWS electronic data in a cost efficient manner. Instead, we experienced considerable difficulties in utilizing FWS data, delays in obtaining the data, and continued updates to the data as the maps were being produced. We H:A\DATA\DOCUMENT\SOUTHTIE\POWER\TIM'SB~1.DOC Page 6 The following MY 5 February 1999 were unable to complete these maps until December. The combination of the extended time, multiple changes in maps resulted in additional costs of approximately $25,000 that were not anticipated when the October 1998 budget increase was granted. We had been informed by FWS that the brown bear map had been updated by the IBBST. We then leamed that the Forest Service had not revised the IBBST brown bear map for Indian Creek and Little Indian Creek. As a result, there were delays in getting direction from the Forest Service so that we could finalize the map. (October 1998). The costs incurred in preparing this map of approximately $12,000 were not anticipated. We received extensive comments on the base map after the September meeting. We were provided with new data from F WS for surface water, roads, pipelines for use in revising the base map (October and November 1998). Costs to change the base map, estimated at $16-18,000, were not expected. In October 1998 we learned that the KNWR staff would not be available to review maps and text until mid-November, due to fieldwork. As a result, we had to delay our reviews with FWS, and the EVAL completion date was extended to February 1999. When we received comments from Brian Anderson and Vicki Davis on the notes and tracking tables, revised base map and draft inventory maps, we found disagreements between their comments, as well as with NEPA compliance (October and November 1998). For example, we pointed out to Brian (November 13, 1998) that Vicki was asking for a “worst case analysis” where there is a lack of data, and told him that NEPA no longer requires this. Brian provided a Clarification Memo (November 25, 1998) stating those NEPA requirements for a “worst case” analysis had been rescinded in 1986. The NEPA direction is to do a “most probable analysis.”). There was also disagreement between FWS comments (and still is) on the map titles. The estimated costs of $35,000 in management time for project delays, handling unexpected comments, preparing responses, and coordinating ongoing changes with the Dames & Moore staff were not anticipated in our budgeting. are a summary of the problems that have led to conflicting directions and scope changes in preparing the final EVAL: - Lack of clear direction from FWS — the regional office and KNWR staffs are not coordinated, and there is no “effective” single point of contact. In addition, the KNWR is not certain about the products that they have requested, resulting in continued changes to 11 maps and text. - No clear avenue for conflict resolution — both the regional office and KNWR are claiming leadership and “the last word” on issues and interpretation of data requirements for the EVAL (text and 11 maps). H:\DATA\DOCUMENT\SOUTHTIE\WPOWER\TIM'SB~1._DOC Barty 5 February 1999 Gx Page 7 We have been informed (Anderson, February 4, 1999) that FWS is working on resolving these issues. e Status of Mapping Base map — completed; all comments from FWS have been addressed. Cumulative Impact Map - A draft map has been prepared and discussed with Brian (December 28, 1998), and the KNWR staff (January 21, 1999). We do not have their final comments from KNWR. We plan to complete the map with comments received from Brian Anderson (December 28, 1998). Moose Habitat — A draft of the completed map has been produced, illustrating FWS habitat data that was provided in October 1998, and cumulative impacts within both the study area and KNWR. We also illustrated direct impacts along the route on this example, however, we are now proposing to limit the mapping to inventory data with the quantitative table of habitat area disturbance. Brian Anderson reviewed this product on December 28, 1998 and with the KNWR staff on January 21. We have sufficient input from FWS to complete the mapping. Vegetation and wildlife habitat mapping — Bald eagle, waterfowl, swan, wolf, lynx, brown bear, anadromous fish, and caribou maps have been completed and submitted to FWS for comments (November 25, 1998). Comments that were expected from FWS by January 8, 1999 were finally received on January 15, 1999. We received further comments on these maps from the KNWR staff on January 21, 1999, which included requirements for additional revisions based on new data and direction from FWS. Each of the wildlife maps requires additional data and/or editing due to new data and titles requirements by the FWS. Wolf pack map displaying ten pack areas — A wolf pack map has been completed and was submitted January 8, 1999. Upon their review, KNWR staff determined that they had sent us incorrect data from which to prepare the wolf pack map. Based on our meeting on January 21, they will be sending us new data so that we can prepare a new map of the ten wolf packs. We were notified on February 3 that FWS could not complete the wolf pack map for all of the data from 1982 to 1998. We suggested that the 5 years of data that they do have mapped for wolf pack territories would sufficient to display the patterning of wolf packs in the study area. FWS will decide by 02/10/99 whether to use 5 year data or omit the wolf pack information. Land use and visual resource map revisions — These maps need to be revised due to recently released new data. Recent Kenai Peninsula Borough land status mapping (July 1998) needs to be incorporated in the land use and land jurisdiction mapping. e Status of EVAL Text Chapter 1 — This Chapter is complete and camera ready (RUS/Billington, Philpott and Morgan comments addressed). H:\DATA\DOCUMENT\SOUTHTIE\POWER\TIM'SB~1.DOC Naat 5 February 1999 a Page 8 Chapter 2 — This chapter is complete, with the exception of the comparison of alternatives (RUS/Billington, Philpott, Morgan, and Sargent and Lundy comments addressed). The comparison of alternatives cannot be completed until the biology impact assessment has been completed. Chapter 3 - Biology - All FWS comments on the 2™ draft EVAL have been addressed, and a revised biology section was submitted to FWS for review (24 November 1998). We received comments from Brian Anderson (December 28, 1998), and from KNWR on January 15, 1999. At our meeting with the KNWR staff on January 21, we were informed that if Dames & Moore makes all of the map and changes requested that the biology section of Chapter 3 will be satisfactory. Brian Anderson is currently reviewing KNWR comments to determine if they are reasonable. Other sections — land use, recreation, and visual — need to be finalized. Chapter 4 — We are recommending a change to the impact assessment approach. Rather than summarizing direct and indirect impacts by high, moderate and low levels, they will be documented by quantifying the types of resources effected, and describing the types of impacts and differences between alternatives in text and table formats. The description of impacts will need to be edited for all resource sections. Biology — The methodology for impacts has been revised and submitted to FWS for review (December 20, 1998). Informal comments from Brian Anderson (December 28, 1998) indicate that the cumulative impact assessment should be for the entire study area. Previous direction at the September meeting was for the KNWR only. At this time we have established a program that allows us to quantify cumulative impacts for the study area and the KNWR. The model has been run for moose habitat. We have established the direct impact assumptions for all other wildlife and vegetation impacts. We have also prepared a draft impact assessment approach and conducted most of the additional research requested by FWS and RUS/Mangi regarding beluga whales, songbirds, edge impacts on general habitats, wolves in south central Alaska, and bird collision. This will be incorporated into the Chapter 4 section. The biology section for Chapter 4 is approximately 15-20 % complete. Environmental Justice — The updated analysis has been completed. Construction Worker impacts — The updated analysis has been completed. Cumulative Rate Impacts on the Railbelt — This analysis has been completed. Subsistence — This section has been revised. Land Use and Visual Impacts — Responses to comments need to be completed. TASKS TO COMPLETE THE EVAL The previous discussions have outlined and summarized the background and issues regarding the status of the EVAL. This section is directed toward looking forward to the completion of the HADATA\DOCUMENT\SOUTHTIE\POWER\TIM'’SB-1.DOC oC (Gu 5 February 1999 EVAL. While progress has been made, there is considerable work to be done in order to complete the EVAL. Much of the work that was done for biology over the past three months to respond to the FWS now requires revisions and completion. In addition, the impact assessment for all resources will need to be edited, and the comparative analysis of alternatives will be redone. We have re-scoped the effort to complete the EVAL within the following tasks 5a — d: - Task 5a Comment Organization We will update the comment tracking tables for maps and text to incorporate all comments that we have received since October 1998. This will include the most recent comments (January 15,1999) and direction from the January 21 meeting with the KNWR staff. As a part of the comment organization, we will document the proposed change in direction regarding completing the EVAL with limited review from FWS, and modifying the assessment approach. This new direction has been reviewed with Brian Anderson, FWS Reality Division (January 25, 1999), and Larry Wolfe, RUS (January 26, 1999). Both were in agreement with the proposals. - Task 5b — Revise the EVAL Chapter 2 - The comparative analysis of alternatives needs to be revised and incorporated into Chapter 2. The FWS requested that we expand the comparison of alternative routes to include the 11 individual wildlife species, incorporate cumulative impacts, and to provide more detail in the description of alternative route comparisons. This will require re-formatting of the data from the impact assessments of all resource topics in three comparison tables (Tables 2 —22, 2 —23, and 2 —24). The comparison of impacts for alternatives has been organized into three areas: Kenai Peninsula, Turnagain Arm and Anchorage. Chapter 3 - The focus of the effort for Chapter 3 will be in the response to the most recent comments received from FWS, January 15, 1999 on the text and maps for biology. General editing and completing responses to comments from RUS/Mangi and FWS are required to complete this chapter. There are updates that will be necessary to the land use data to incorporate the Municipality of Anchorage and Kenai Borough new general plans and new development plans; the Cook Inlet Oil lease sales; and new land use data from the Kenai Peninsula Borough. In addition we will need to update the visual inventory to address FWS comments. Chapter 4 - Changes to the assessment of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts for biology, land use and visual impacts are the main emphasis of this chapter. Direct and indirect impacts — With the change in the impact assessment approach, we will be dropping reference to qualitative levels of low, moderate and high impacts. Instead, there will be an emphasis qualitative data, types of impacts and mitigation. The reason for this change is to establish a product that will not be subject to debate over the qualitative issues of impact levels during the EIS preparation. The biology H:\DATA\DOCUMENT\SOUTHTIE\POWER\TIM'SB~! DOC ante 5 February 1999 x Page 10 section must address the 11 different analysis species (bald eagles, waterfowl, trumpeter swans, anadromous fish, beluga whales, brown bears, black bears, wolves, lynx, caribou, and moose) with respect to new FWS data. The impact summary tables (Tables 4 — 6 in the EVAL) will require re-formatting and expanding to respond to FWS requirements for the assessment of individual wildlife species. All resource impacts will need editing to conform to the revised descriptive impact assessment approach. Cumulative impacts - The assessment of cumulative impacts will be conducted by utilizing the model that we developed for the Kenai Peninsula. Through an overlay process, we will document and quantify the area of disturbance from past, present and future development activities within the study area and the KNWR. This will be done for each of the 11 wildlife analysis species, as well as for recreation management activities. A summary discussion on cumulative impacts will be prepared for earth resources, biology, land use, visual, and cultural resources. Task 5 c - Maps and Graphics Completing the analysis and display of wildlife habitat and impacts will be based on responding to comments from FWS. At the January 21, 1999 FWS meetings we were also directed to prepare a black bear map, and make additional changes the bald eagle, trumpeter swan, waterfowl, brown bear, wolf, lynx, moose, caribou, and anadromous fish maps with new FWS and ADF&G data. Revisions may also be required as a result of the direction of the IBBST. Costs to make these changes are. expected to generally fall with in the $3-6,000/map cost range, with the exception of the anadromous fish map labeling, which will require data transfer. No agreements were reached on the scope or content of the black bear map at the meeting. If the FWS can provide meaningful habitat mapping for black bears in an ArcInfo compatible electronic format, we will prepare the map. The typical cost of this type of map production ranges from $2-3,000 with data that is easily transferable. Otherwise, we have found that if there are difficulties in transferring FWS data or if there is interpretation involved, costs for this map could range from $6-12,000. A decision on this map is expected to be made at the IBBST meeting on 02/10/99. Other biology mapping efforts that are required include the incorporation of new ADF&G bald eagle, brown bear and moose habitat mapping in the Anchorage area. The quantification of the cumulative impacts for the 11 biology maps and recreation resources maps will be incorporated on to each map, and will be utilized in the description of impacts and EVAL tables 2 —22 to 24, and 4 — 6. Additional required mapping efforts include updating land jurisdiction mapping with the 1998 Kenai Peninsula Borough data, and revision to the recreation visibility map to respond to FWS comments for views with the KNWR. H:\DATA\DOCUMENT\SOUTHTIE\POWER\TIM'SB~1.DOC N 5 February 1999 Page 11 Task 5 d — Finalize EVAL The EVAL will be reviewed along with the ANILCA application (Task 6) by Chugach Electric Association and FWS. We will review the FWS comments and respond to those that are minor and easily incorporated. Other FWS comments will be included in the EVAL for later consideration during the EIS preparation stage. We will we will finalize the document based on final comments, and print 50 copies. SCHEDULE AND COSTS Schedule - The following tasks are required to complete the EVAL. The overall assumed time frame to complete the following tasks is 20 weeks from an approval date. For example, from an assumed approval and start date of February 22, the EVAL and ANILCA Application would be ready to file the week of July 5. 5a — Comment organization — timeframe: three weeks - Analyze recent FWS comments and requested changes to maps 5b — EVAL Revisions — Timeframe: twelve weeks - Finalize Chapter 2 comparison of alternatives, and complete Chapters 3 and 4. 5c — Map Revisions - Timeframe: twelve weeks - Finalize biology habitat maps, update land use maps, and conduct cumulative assessment 5d — Finalize EVAL — Timeframe: five weeks - Respond to Chugach Electric review, incorporate comments, and print EVAL Costs - Dames & Moore has expended $154,000 since last September, and as a result we are $53,000 over budget. As indicated above, an estimated $88-90,000 was spent on activities that were not planned for. The following are total estimated costs Tasks Sa — Sd. Included are out — of — scope costs that were not included in the November and December 1998 billings ($53,018), and costs to complete the EVAL ($362,307). Detailed cost estimates are attached. - Estimated costs to complete the EVAL are provided below by task. Included are unbilled costs that were incurred in October and November. Task 5a 46,707 Task 5 b 173,205 (26,750 unbilled in Nov. and Dec. 1998 invoices) Task 5c 139,789 (26,268 unbilled in Nov. and Dec. 1998 invoices) Task 5 d 55,624 Total costs $415,325 (including total unbilled - $53,018) H:\DATA\DOCUMENT\SOUTHTIE\POWER\TIM 'SB~1.DOC MY 5 February 1999 Page 12 We have included costs for three trips to Alaska in this budget. These trips are in anticipation of meeting with the IPG, FWS (Division of Reality), KPB, and Chugach for updating information. H:\DATA\DOCUMENT\SOUTHTIE\POWER\TIM 'SB~1 .DOC aa (ie DAMES & MOORE (eel =A DAMES & MOORE GROUP COMPANY Pointe Corporate Centre 7500 North Dreamy Draw Drive February 18, 1999 Suite 145 . dl E Cc Ee q ¥ E Phoenix, Arizona 85020) Mr. Brian Anderson S 602 371 1110 Tel US. Fish and Wildlife Service 602 861 7431 Fax Division of Reality FEB 19 1999 1011 E. Tudor Rd. Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6199 TRANSMISSION SPECIAL PROJECT RE: — Southern Intertie Project EVAL Review Process Dear Brian, This letter is a follow-up to our recent conversations and meetings regarding the Southern Intertie Project. As background, I want to recognize the purpose of the EVAL, which is to provide the basis for the Southern Intertie Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). As directed by the Memorandum of Understanding, we have been preparing the EVAL under the formal direction of the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) since June 1997. We submitted the first draft of the EVAL in November 1997, and prepared a second draft for review in May 1998. We received comments on the second draft between June and September of 1998, and have been in the process of finalizing the EVAL since that time. We received comments from FWS on the base map and biology inventory maps in November, and most recently on the biology text of Chapter 3, Affected Environment in January 1999. Through this review process, we have experienced schedule delays and changes in direction from FWS. At a recent meeting with the KNWR staff (January 21, 1999) we discussed the comments that were developed by the KNWR biologists on the most recent biology section of the EVAL. We began by pointing out areas in their comments where they had changed direction from last September, particularly in the area of impact assessment. The meeting focused on map comments, the impact assessment process, and the approach to completing the EVAL. We also discussed some of the concerns those Dames & Moore has had on the Interagency Brown Bear Study Team (IBBST) map relative to inconsistencies and apparent modeling problems. Rick Ernst suggested that these comments be discussed at the next IBBST meeting on February 10. The IBBST meeting on February 10 was very helpful in resolving the brown bear map issue. Dames & Moore will prepare a new brown bear habitat map as a result of the direction from the IBBST and FWS. This issue regarding the brown bear habitat map is covered in more detail in a separate memo. In order to move the completion of the EVAL ahead, additional FWS review of the EVAL will be limited to the biology section of Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. As we discussed, the review period is scheduled for two weeks during May. In addition, we are proposing to modify the assessment approach for direct and indirect impacts by eliminating the qualitative characterization of low, moderate and high impacts. The proposed assessment approach will involve quantifying environment impacts where possible, describing types of impacts, identifying mitigation, and determining the significance of the impacts associated with alternative routes. Offices Worldwide DAMES & MOORE ej XeTeTE =A DAMES & MOORE GROUP COMPANY Brian Anderson February 18, 1999 Page 2 This is the approach that I have been discussing with you and Larry Wolfe since January 25. I understand that you and Larry Wolfe have also discussed this approach and are in general agreement. We will provide an example of how the assessment will be formatted for the comparison of routes for your review and comments. The reason that we are recommending this approach is to establish a consistent level of assessment that is compatible with all resource issues, and that can be combined with the assessment of cumulative impacts. The formatting of the assessment results will be adaptable for FWS and RUS use in the preparation of the EIS. For example, the impact assessment needs to address the broad range of biological data that we have received from the FWS for the 11 wildlife analysis species in a consistent manner. The types of data range from eagle and trumpeter swan nest sites and anadromous fish streams to broad characterizations of habitat distribution and concentration areas for waterfowl, beluga whales, brown and black bears, moose, lynx, wolves, and caribou. For the brown bear, the assessment will require incorporating habitat data, telemetry data, and local fishery data in order to describe the potential impacts and comparisons between alternatives. The proposed assessment approach will provide a quantification of the amounts or area of habitat disturbance (both direct and cumulative) to these species; a description of the types of impacts that could occur during project construction, operation and maintenance; mitigation measures; and impact significance. Chugach Electric will initiate the preparation of the EIS by filing the EVAL with RUS, and an ANILCA Application with FWS. As RUS prepares the preliminary Draft EIS, Dames & Moore will be available for technical assistance as required, on an as-needed basis. We appreciate all of the time and effort that the FWS has spent with Dames & Moore during the preparation of the EVAL and for the data you have provided and your review comments. We recognize the importance of your input to the EVAL. We are making every effort to incorporate your data and comments into the document, so it can provide the foundation for the EIS. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments regarding the approaches to finalizing the EVAL and assessing impacts. Sincerely, DAMES & MOORE Thw THe Tim Tetherow Project Manager cc Larry Wolfe — RUS Dora Gropp — Chugach Electric Association Randy Pollock - POWER Engineers P:\09203W0WNietteranderson2-2-99.doc Offices Worldwide D aa DAMES & MOORE A DAMES & MOORE GROUP COMPANY Pointe Corporate Centre 7500 North Dreamy Draw Drive February 18, 1999 Suite 145 Phoenix, Arizona 85020 Mr Larry Wolfe 602 371 1110 Tel 602 861 7431 Fax Senior Environmental Protection Specialist Rural Utilities Service R E c E I Vv E 1400 Independence Ave. si Stop 157 FEB 1 Washington, DC 20250-1571 9 1999 : . TRANSMISSION & RE: Southern Intertie Project SPECIAL PROJECT EVAL Review Process Dear Larry, The purpose of this letter is to present a revised approach to completing the Southern Intertie Environmental Analysis (EVAL) report. As you know, the purpose of the EVAL is to provide the basis for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In compliance with the direction of the Memorandum of Understanding, we have been preparing the EVAL under the formal direction of RUS and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) since June 1997. We submitted the first draft of the EVAL in November 1997, and prepared a second draft for review in May 1998. We received comments of the second draft between June and September of 1998, and have been in the process of finalizing the EVAL since that time. At our meetings last September, we agreed that the EVAL would be finalized based on all of the comments that had been received on the second draft with no additional review, with the exception of FWS review of the biology sections. We received comments from FWS on the base map and biology inventory maps in November, and most recently on the biology text of Chapter 3, Affected Environment in January 1999. We have also received recent direction from the Interagency Brown Bear Study Team (IBBST) on the brown bear habitat map (February 10), which requires Dames & Moore to prepare a separate map. This is because the IBBST map is not in a form that is appropriate for inclusion in the EVAL. We are now proposing to finalize the EVAL by responding to the comments we have received from FWS, including the most recent comments on the Chapter 3-biology section. In addition, FWS will review the biology section for Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. This will allow Dames & Moore to complete the EVAL within a predictable schedule and budget; and for Chugach Electric to initiate the preparation of the EIS by submitting the EVAL to RUS, and filing an ANILCA Application with FWS. This approach assumes that as the agencies prepare the preliminary Draft EIS, Dames & Moore will provide technical assistance as required. In addition, we are proposing to modify the assessment of direct and indirect impacts by eliminating the qualitative characterization of low, moderate, and high impacts. The proposed assessment approach will involve quantifying environment impacts where possible, describing Offices Worldwide DAMES & MOORE melelUig =A DAMES & MOORE GROUP COMPANY Larry Wolfe February 18, 1999 Page 2 types of impacts, identifying mitigation, and determining the significance of the impacts associated with alternative routes. This is the approach that I have been discussing with you and Brian Anderson since January 25. I understand that you are in general agreement with the approach. We will provide example of how the assessment will be formatted for the comparison of routes for your review and comment. The reason that we are recommending this approach is to establish a consistent level of assessment that is compatible with all resource issues, and that can be combined with the assessment of cumulative impacts. The formatting of the assessment results will be adaptable for the FWS and RUS use when preparing the EIS. For example, the impact assessment needs to address the broad range of biological data that we have received from the FWS for the 11 wildlife analysis species in a consistent manner. The types of data range from eagle and trumpeter swan nest sites and anadromous fish streams to broad characterizations of habitat distribution and concentration areas for waterfowl, beluga whales, brown and black bears, moose, lynx, wolves, and caribou. For the brown bear, the assessment will require incorporating habitat data, telemetry data, and local fishery data in order to describe the potential impacts and comparisons between alternatives. The proposed assessment approach will provide a quantification of the amounts or area of habitat disturbance (both direct and cumulative) to these species; a description of the types of impacts that could occur during project construction, operation and maintenance; mitigation measures; and impact significance. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments regarding the approaches to finalizing the EVAL and assessing impacts. Sincerely, Tw tae Tim Tetherow Project Manager ce Brian Anderson — FWS Reality Division Dora Gropp — Chugach Electric Association Randy Pollock - POWER Enginers P:\09203W0ANletterwolfe2-1.doc Offices Worldwide