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 10-1999
CHU ACH ELECT ae || |||) |)7) ASSOCIATION, INC. EGEIVE|)) ach Cin ASSOCIATION, INC. October 28, 1999 NOV 3 1999 Alaska Industrial Development Alaska industrial Development and Export Authority and Export Authority 480 West Tudor Road Se Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6690 » ver be Jwala Attention: Mr. Randy Simmons, Executive Director 4) Shaone-fe Subject: Southern Intertie Monthly Report for October 1999 W.0.#E9590081 Dear Mr. Simmons: Please find enclosed | (one) copy of the Southern Intertie Report for the Month of October 1999. If there are any questions, please contact Dora Gropp, (907) 762-4626. Sincerely, Eugene al a General Manager “yn ENGL Csh Enclosures: 1 (one) copy of Southern Intertie Monthly Report ce 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 Phase IB — Environmental Analysis MONTHLY REPORT : for October 1999 5601 Minnesota Drive P.O. Box 196300 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 E = TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY FINANCIAL i. Bank Statement of September 1999 2 Chugach Statement for September 1999 3. Total Project Expenditures, Inception Through September 1999 4. Chugach Activity Summary for August 1999 SCHEDULE ITEMS FOR APPROVAL 1. Letter of October 21, 1999 to AIDEA requesting additional funding for ANILCA/NEPA Support ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1. POWER Engineer’s Proposal for ANILCA/NEPA Support ITEMS FOR INFORMATION 1. POWER Engineers’ Monthly Report Phase IB — Environmental Analysis, October 20, 1999 SUMMARY The application (“ANILCA” application) for a ROW permit through the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR) has been accepted by all three federal agencies. A new schedule and budget for the EIS development is being established. RUS is coordinating DEIS/EIS preparation through their consultant Mangi Environmental. If the federal agencies can maintain the schedule mandated in the ANILCA regulations, the entire EIS process should take no longer than 16 months. Due to anticipated lengthy review periods we should expect time extensions for the DEIS/FEIS preparation however. Power Engineers, the primary consultant for this project, have submitted a proposal for providing continued support of the EIS process. By subcontracting with the various firms now employing former project team members their support can be assured. Costs for PEI’s/ environmental consultants work through the ANILCA/EIS phase is now estimated at about $900,000. Together with additional funding anticipated for the federal agencies as well as the project management effort, costs for the next phase are estimated to amount to $1,400,000. An IPG meeting to discuss funding of this phase as well as a request to AIDEA for release of additional funding have been prepared (see Section IV.) Final expenditures for Phase IB (EVAL) of the project stand as follows: DESCRIPTION POWER’ |USFS/USFWS/ |CHUGACH| TOTAL _| ENGINEERS RUS af. |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 $35,383] -$200,000] $703,152 TOTAL $3,911,192 $135,383] $200,000} $4,246,575 [COMMITMENT SPENT TO DATE $3,896,764 $134,503} $192,740] $4,224,007 % OF TOTAL 100% 99% 96% 99% Total Project expenditures as of 10/20/99 are $5,201,970 which includes a payment to RUS for the EIS preparation in the amount of $97,670. il. FINANCIAL He Bank Statement of September 1999 2. Chugach Statement for September 1999 os Total Project Expenditures, Inception Through September 1999 4. Chugach Activity Summary for August 1999 Southern Intertie Grant Fund Bank Account Activity Summary September, 1999 August Ending Balance Forward $269,600.52 Total Deposits ($9,412.83) Total Withdrawals $0.00 Interest Earned $1,084.84 Balance Sept 30, 1999 $261,272.53 First National Bank OMA atid ASO o mas 000 01 00 DATE: WadsaaDeceaDecsel/DaDsonDbessl EoD sscTevsTavadDssstosdal CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION I PO BOX 196300 ANCHORAGE AK MAIN BRANCH PO BOX 100720 ANCHORAGE AK 99510-0720 99519-6300 09/30/99 PAGE: ACCOUNT: 1 41100033 oo DESCRIPTION BALANCE LAST STATEMENT INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST TRANSFER TO BUSINESS ACCOUNT 1106061 INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST BALANCE THIS STATEMENT x ek DEBITS 9,412.83 CREDITS 37.43 37.43 37.44 148.58 36.27 36.28 36.28 108.40 35.84 35.85 35.85 35.86 107.59 35.88 35.88 35.89 35.89 106.88 35.10 35.11 35.11 CONTINUED * * * DATE 08/31/99 09/01/99 09/02/99 09/03/99 09/07/99 09/08/99 09/09/99 09/10/99 09/13/99 09/14/99 09/15/99 09/16/99 09/17/99 09/20/99 09/21/99 09/22/99 09/23/99 09/24/99 09/27/99 09/27/99 09/28/99 09/29/99 09/30/99 03/30/99 BALANCE 269,600.52 269,637.95 269,675.38 269,712.82 269,861.40 269,897.67 269,933.95 269,970.23 270,078.63 270,114.47 270,150.32 270,186.17 270,222.03 270,329.62 270,365.50 270,401.38 270,437.27 270,473.16 261,060.33 261,167.21 261,202.31 261,237.42 261,272.53 261,272.53 a Dun nou LENDER 000 O01 OO PAGE: 2 DATE: 09/30/99 ACCOUNT: 41100033 First National Bank Goris Member FDIC CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION I TOTAL CREDITS (21) 1,084.84 TOTAL DEBITS (1) 9,412.83 INTEREST THIS STATEMENT 1,084.84 INTEREST PAID 1999 11,912.50 - END OF STATEMENT - formed LENDER CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Anchorage, Alaska 10/27/99 TO: Dora Gropp - Manager, Transmission & Special Projects FROM: Debra Williams, 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 September 1999. Direct Labor 1,421.88 Indirect Labor 628.48 Power Engineers - Invoice 65160 614.94 USDA-Rural Utilities Services (Contract DACW69-97-D-0013) 9,790.00 Sub-Total $12,455.30 General, Administrative & Construction Overhead (0.5%) 62.28 Total Charges $12,517.58 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: Qra ae VA ofe WES Signatu Date KP WOfiles/E9590081 Attachments 10/27/99 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 Kathy Harris-Kainer CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Southern Intertie Transactions Inception Through September 30, 1999 Year to Date Month Inception Through Ended Inception Through 12/31/98 8/31/99 9/30/1999 Through 9/30/1999 $139,963.89 $9,252.42 $1,421.88 $150,638.19 52,278.09 4,231.96 628.48 57,138.53 4,180,875.68 525,287.70 614.94 4,706,778.32 268,608.32 27,402.55 9,790.00 305,800.87 a $3,995,497.88 $566, 174.63 $12,455.30 $5,220,355.91 Year to Date Month Inception Through Ended Inception Through 12/31/98 8/31/99 9/30/1999 Through 9/30/1999 $4,570,726.42 $637,174.19 $12,455.30 $5,220,355.91 22,853.64 3,185.86 $62.28 26,101.78 $4,593,580.06 $640,360.05 $12,517.58 $5,246 457.69 10/27/99 Invoice Month Date Incurred Costs OH Total Dec-95 Jun-Oct 95 22,614.00 113.07 22,727.07 Jan-96 0.00 0.00 0.00 Feb-96 Nov-Dec 95 176,265.61 881.33 177,146.94 Mar-96 Jan-96 7,660.92 38.30 7,699.22 Apr-96 Feb-96 251,912.29 1,259.56 253,171.85 May-96 Mar-96 172,070.45 860.35 172,930.80 Jun-96 Apr-96 127,113.82 635.57 127,749.39 Jun-96 May-96 35,628.41 178.14 35,806.55 Aug-96 Jun-96 40,919.00 204.60 41,123.60 Sep-96 Jul-96 57,116.72 285.58 57,402.30 Oct-96 Aug-96 168,312.54 841.56 169,154.10 Oct-96 Sep-96 202,010.97 1,010.05 203,021.02 Dec-96 Oct-96 171,462.74 857.31 172,320.05 Life to Date 1,433,087.47 7,165.42 1,440,252.89 Jan-97 Nov-96 234,735.50 1,173.68 235,909.18 Feb-97 Dec-96 306,667.10 1,533.34 308,200.44 Mar-97 Jan-97 5,045.85 25.23 5,071.08 Apr-97 Feb-97 124,380.57 621.90 125,002.47 May-97 Mar-97 177,117.40 885.59 178,002.99 Jun-97 Apr-97 165,814.35 829.07 166,643.42 Jul-97 May-97 158,762.80 793.81 159,556.61 Aug-97 Jun-97 158,786.12 793.93 159,580.05 Aug-97 Jul-97 154,159.15 770.80 154,929.95 Sep-97 Aug-97 243,365.76 1,216.83 244,582.59 Oct-97 Sep-97 193,127.79 965.64 194,093.43 Nov-97 Oct-97 258,833.19 1,294.17 260,127.36 Dec-97 Nov-97 228,435.19 1,142.18 229,577.37 Year to Date 2,409,230.77 12,046.17 _-2,421,276.94 Life to Date 3,842,318.24 19,211.59 —_3,861,529.83 Jan-98 0.00 0.00 0.00 Feb-98 Dec-97 153,179.64 765.90 153,945.54 Mar-98 0.00 0.00 0.00 Apr-98 Jan-98 39,750.15 198.75 39,948.90 Apr-98 Feb-98 49,887.09 249.44 50,136.53 May-98 Mar-98 64,102.85 320.51 64,423.36 Jun-98 Apr-98 7,283.97 36.42 7,320.39 Jul-98 May-98 173,312.97 866.56 174,179.53 Aug-98 Jun-98 59,362.04 296.81 59,658.85 Sep-98 Jul-98 38,793.39 193.97 38,987.36 Oct-98 Aug-98 123,711.01 618.56 124,329.57 Nov-98 Sep-98 19,025.07 95.13 19,120.20 Dec-98 0.00 0.00 0.00 Year to Date 728,408.18 3,642.05 732,050.23 Life to Date 4,570,726.42 _ 22,853.64 —_4,593,580.06 Jan-99 0.00 0.00 0.00 Feb-99 Oct-98 4,729.98 23.65 4,753.63 Nov-98 2,668.64 13.34 2,681.98 Dec-98 63,600.94 318.00 63,918.94 a USFS Refund (27,159.93) 0.00 (27,159.93) Mar-99 Jan-99 55,203.86 276.02 55,479.88 Apr-99 Feb & Mar 99 133,963.88 669.82 134,633.70 May-99 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jun-99 Apr & May 99 175,367.11 876.83 176,243.94 Jul-99 Jun-99 129,717.72 648.59 130,366.31 Aug-99 Jul-99 62,556.06 312.78 62,868.84 Sep-99 Aug-99 9,366.00 46.83 9,412.83 Oct-99 Sep-99 12,455.30 62.28 12,517.58 Nov-99 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dec-99 0.00 0.00 0.00 Year to Date 622,469.56 3,248.14 625,717.70 Life to Date 5,193,195.98 26,101.78 —_5,219,297.76 SS ES EEE Inception-to-Date Charges 22,727.07 22,727.07 199,874.01 207,573.23 460,745.08 633,675.88 761,425.27 797,231.82 838,355.42 895,757.72 1,064,911.82 1,267,932.84 1,440,252.89 1,676,162.07 1,984,362.51 1,989,433.59 2,114,436.06 2,292,439.05 2,459,082.47 2,618,639.08 2,778,219.13 2,933,149.08 3,177,731.67 3,371,825.10 3,631 ,952.46 3,861 ,529.83 3,861 ,529.83 4,015,475.37 4,015,475.37 4,055,424.27 4,105,560.80 4,169,984.16 4,177,304.55 4,351 ,484.08 4,411,142.93 4,450,130.29 4,574,459.86 4,593,580.06 4,593,580.06 4,593,580.06 4,598 333.69 4,601,015.67 4,664,934.61 4,637,774.68 4,693,254.56 4,827,888.26 4,827 ,888.26 5,004,132.20 5,134,498.51 5,197,367.35 5,206,780.18 5,219,297.76 USFS Reimbursement is not included in total Grant Fund Expenditures portion of Transaction Spreadsheet. Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Southern Intertie Activity Summary August, 1999 Beginning Grant Chugach Ending Bank Funds Interest Invoices Bank Year Balance Received Earned Paid Balance 1996 0.00 2,771,277.00 40,361.59 (1,440,252.89) 1,371,385.70 1997 1,371,385.70 1,346,934.00 67,734.96 (2,421,276.94) 364,777.72 1998 364,777.72 525,214.00 19,424.02 (732,050.23) 177,365.51 1999* 177,365.51 688,194.64 11,912.50 (616,200.12) 261,272.53 Total 4,643,425.00 127,520.57 _ (4,593,580.06) * Through September, 1999 bank statement (does not include Chugach invoices for charges incurred in September 1999) Ml. SCHEDULE CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION ANCHORAGE - KENAI INTERTIE Thu 10/21/99 PHASE IB 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 ID | Task Name % Comp. | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4] Q1 Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 1 | ENVIRONMENTAL & ENGINEERING 91% pe 7 PROJECT MANAGEMENT ae z 3 ROUTE SELECTION STUDIES i 9 arc) a 220 4 “EVAL & PREL.ENGINEERING _ 100% | Qn ee ~ ¢S 0, 5 SCOPING 100% 6/11 eee 4125 S INVENTORY oe I _————, = i 1130 rf IMPACT/MITIGATION 100% 8/20 8/1 i 8 ALTERN.SELECTION 100% 4 (rarameamsmeent 1218 ° EVALADRAETIEIS) 100% | aaa iatalcteeiesi —___— Gi i 10 ANILCA (FINAL EIS) 100% 5/41 [name 718 fl : | 11 STUDIES 100% 7 Sse 2127 0% | a / 12 ENG. FIELD WORK 100% ena ania 13 PREL. ENGINEERING 100% 14] AGENCIES Si 100% ctememeniantattiaamniathontameneen 2 15 _ USFS 7 Mito | 16 | USFWS s—S~S 100% | 5/31 | 17 RUS 100% | Task old Up Task = I Project Summary Project: ANCHORAGE - KENAIINTE | Progress Rolled Up Milestone <> Split Date: Thu 10/21/99 Milestone ® Rolled Up Progress EE — Rolled Up Split Summary ny External Tasks PH_IB.MPP Page 1 IV. ITEMS FOR APPROVAL 1. Letter of October 21, 1999 to AIDEA requesting additional funding for ANILCA/NEPA Support 10.0-€ G5 960%! CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. October 21, 1999 Mr. Dennis McCrohan AIDEA Copy Sent Via Fax 269-3044 480 West Tudor Road Original Sent Via US Mail Anchorage, AK 99503-6690 Attention: Mr. Dennis McCrohan Deputy Director, Project Development & Operations Reference: Southern Intertie Project ANILCA Application EIS Process Funding Requirements Dear Mr. McCrohan: All three federal agencies (Rural Utility Services - RUS, Fish and Wildlife Service - USFWS, Army Corps of Engineers - COE) have accepted our application to the USFWS for a permit to construct a transmission line through the Kenai Wildlife Range without changes. Our application includes submittal of the Environmental Analysis (EVAL), which our consultants have prepared over the last three years. The analysis was made in close cooperation with RUS and USFWS/KNWR and encompasses all information needed to allow the agencies conversion of the document into an EIS with minimum effort and delay. At the request of USFWS/KNWR we expanded our consultants’ scope of work on the EVAL and its completion schedule to include the latest available information on several wildlife research topics. Filing and acceptance of the “ANILCA” application triggers the DEIS/FEIS time clock, beginning in early August of this year and could lead to the following: Draft EIS by May, 2000, Final EIS byAugust, 2000 "Record of Decision" by December, 2000 Adjustments to this schedule may be made by the agencies, but have to go through the Federal Register notifications. Project expenditures stand at approximately $5,200,000 and funding is authorized to $5,900,000. The effort required assisting the agencies in the NEPA process is estimated to cost $1,400,000. That leaves a shortfall of $700,000. A summary of expenditures to date and anticipated funding needs is attached. 5601 Minnesota Drive ¢ P.O. Box 196300 * Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Phone 907-563-7494 # FAX 907-562-0027 Mr. Dennis McCrohan Page 2 AIDEA Southern Intertie Project - ANILCA Application EIS Process Funding Requirements October 21, 1999 RUS is still the lead agency and has hired Mangi Environmental Consultants to convert our Environmental Analysis (EVAL) into a Draft EIS. We have paid RUS/Mangi for that already, but may see some changes based on having to deal with an additional agency (COE) and time delays already encountered. We need to make our consultants available for agency and Mangi's support as agreed in the original MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) between the federal agencies and the IPG as Applicant. Power Engineers (PEI) and Dames and Moore’s scope of work and funding ended with the acceptance of the ANILCA application. PEI is working on a proposal that keeps most members of the original project team together to assure continuity. Several key members of the original environmental team have left Dames and Moore after ownership of that company transferred to URS. The IPG has been asked to allow us to add up to $900,000 to PEI's contract, up to $80,000 to RUS’ expenditures, and $40,000 each for USFWS and COE. Pending the IPG’s concurrence we request that an additional $700,000 to be released to support the process. Your cooperation in gaining the necessary approvals is appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at either (907) 762-4626 or via e-mail, dora_gro chugachelectric.com. Sincerely, CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. an < Ay Dora L. Gropp, P.E. Manager, Transmission & Special Projects DLG/pna DLG99-aidea$1099.doc Enclosures ccs IPG Mike Massin Lee Thibert Mike Cunningham W.O. E9590081, Sec.1 Dora Gropp CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION SOUTHERN INTERTIE FUNDING REQUIREMENTS/CASH FLOW |. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS CONTRACT /JACTIVITY cost cost cost CONTINGENCY TOTAL ROUTE NEPATOEVAL NEPA-EISTO SELECTION (TO ers) ROD NEPA - E18 TO ROD (TO e706) (TO 08701) {TO 08701) PROJECT PHASE PH I-A PHL-B PHI-C PHI-C CONSULTANT $814,794 $3,801,368 $900,000 $100,000 $5,706,162 AGENCIES RUS/Mangi $0 $80,783 $150,000 $20,000 $250,793 USFWS $0 $45,016 $30,000 $10,000 $85,916 USFS $o ‘$7,854 $0 so $7,854 CEI $0 $0 $30,000 $10,000 $40,000 PROJECT MANAGEMENT $79,095 $189,475 $200,000 $20,000 $488,570 TOTAL $893,889 $4,215,408 = $1,310,000 $160,000 $8,579,295 Il. CASH FLOW CONTRACT /ACTIVITY TOTAL 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999" 2000 2001 PHASE! $5,100,000 $196,275 = $1,761,159 $2,007,375 $850,000 $285,191 AMENDMENT 6/98 $800,000 $450,000 $350,000 AMENDMENT 11/89 $700,000 $500,000 $200,000 TOTAL PROJECTED $6,600,000 $196,275 $1,761,159 $2,007,375 $850,000 $735,191 $850,000 $200,000 (CUMMULATIVE) $196,275 $1,057,434 $3,964,608 $4,814,809 $5,550,000 $6,400,000 $6,600,000 TOTAL ACTUAL $56,420 $1,774,604 $2,153,070 $650,980 $571,981 (CUMMULATIVE) $56,420 $1,831,024 $3,084,084 $4,635,074 $5,207,055 “actuals=to 8/99 St$sched.xisNEPA BUDGET Page 1 10/19/88 Broadcast Report Document Size P.O. Box 198300 ‘Arohorage, Mesa 90519-600 Fc (907) 717 Fax PG Members Cusgech Dre Amoraten, te. Date/Time Local 1D Local Name company Logo Letters Chugach Electric Assoc. Inc From: Aanaica Haynie Moors Kohler, AML AP (Dave Calvert. Chy of Seward Transmission & Special Projects (Michaet Kety, GVEA ‘Norm Story, HEA Wayne Carmory, MEA 28-524 (G07) 224-4085 (907) 481.5033 (007) 235-3823 (007) 745-9968 Preen: 270-7671 (G07 2249331 (07) 452-1151 (@On 235-8187 QO 745-3231 ‘Southem Intertie Project Detox October 25, 1999 Re Cee W.0.769590081, Sec. 1 CUrgent Si PerRetew CO PieaeGomment CPicacefepty 1 Please Resynie Comments: Please find attached, a joltor to Alaska Industriel Development and Export Authority referencing the ANILCA Application EIS Process Funding Requirements. This letter wil aso be lnckuded in the October 1989 Souther intertie Monthly Report. 10-25-99; 9:28AM 907 762 4617 Trans&Spcl.Prjcts. Chugach Electric Association No. |Doc}Remote Station Start Time Duration|Pages Mode Ccomments/|Resu!ts 1|046|92635204 10-25-99; 9:19AM 2°35" 47 4 G3 BC cP 9600 2|046|919072244085 9:22AM o” mf 4 BC os6D 3/046|919074515633 9:23AM s*i a" 47 4 EC BC cP 14400 4|/046|919072353323 9:24AM 247 47 4 EC BC cP 14400 5|046/919077459368 9:26AM ‘*2a* 4/ 4 EC BC cP 9600 x*x Notes ** EC: Error Correct RE: Resend PD: Polied by Remote MB: Receive to Mailbox BC: Broadcast Send MP: Multi-Poll PG: Polling a Remote Pi: Power tnterruption cP: Compieted RM: Receive to Memory DR: Document Removed TM: Terminated by user -S: Local Scan LP: Local Print FO: Forced Output WT: Waiting Transfer Transmission Report Date/Time Local 1D Local Name Company Logo This document was confirmed. (reduced sample and details below) Document Size | (Chugach Gare Association, tre. P.O. Bex 195000 Archemge, Aisi 90510-8900 Prone 7) 782-4028 Fac IT) FORO Fax (PG Members: ‘Moora Kobier, AMLEP Dave Cabvest, CRy of Seward Michel Koy, GVEA ‘Norm Story, HEA, ‘Wayne Carmony, MEA 23-520 G07 z24-4005 (807) 451-5833 (207) 236.3323 (907) 745-9968 Phones 279-7671 (On 724539) (B07) 452-1151 (907) 235-8187 207) 145-3231 Re: Soutiem intertie Projed Durgest Bi Fer Revere OP tcase Cormment Letter-S Chugach Electric Assoc. Inc Prom: Annaisa Haynie Adeministraave Secretary ‘Transmission & Special Proyects Date: October 25, 1998 Cor W.0.969590081, Sec. 0 Please Reply 1 Please Reeyate <Commente: Please find attached, 2 letter to Alaske Industriel Development and Export Authority referencing the ANILCA Appication EIS Process Funding Requirements. This leflor wil also be nctuded in the October 1999 Soutem interée Monthly Report 10-25-99; 2:29PM 907 762 4617 Trans&Spci.Prijcts. Cnugach Electric Association Total Pages Scanned : 4’ Total Pages Confirmed : 4’ No. |Doc|Remote Station Start Time Duration|Pages Mode |Comments|Resuits 1] 067|919072244085 10-25-99; 2:27PM 1°42” 47 4 Ec CP 9600 x* Notes ** EC: Error Correct RE: Resend PD: Polted by Remote MB: Receive to Mai !box BC: Broadcast Send MP: Multi-Poll PG: Polling a Remote Pil: Power interruption cP: Completed RM: Receive to Memory DR: Document Removed TM: Terminated by user LS: Local Scan LP: Local Print FO: Forced Output WT: Waiting Transfer V. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1. POWER Engineer’s Proposal for ANILCA/NEPA Support : WO. ©7081 , Sec. 7 #4) a - LUMA October 15, 1999 Dora L. Gropp, P.E. RRECEIrEy Manager, Transmission & Special Projects ocT 18 1999 Chugach Electric Association, Inc. SMISSION & i i TRAN I 5601 Minnesota Drive, Bldg. A SPECIAL PROJECT Anchorage, AK 99518 Subject: Souther Intertie Project - Chugach Contract #820 Power Project 120376 - Workscope and Budget Issues Dear Ms. Gropp: As you requested, we have prepared a proposed scope of work and budget for the DEIS/EIS support portion of the Project. This phase of the project has now begun with the completion of the Final EVAL and submittal to and acceptance of the ANILCA application by the agencies. The proposed scope of work is described in detail in the attached letter to me from Garlyn Bergdale of Environmental Planning Group (EPG). A summary of the proposed overall budget is also attached, which includes labor and expenses for Power Engineers as well for EPG and the other sub-consultants. Proposed DEIS/EIS Support Work Scope and Budget The proposed scope of work and budget is intended to provide the necessary engineering and environmental support to help fulfill the Applicants responsibilities as outlined in the MOU. In addition, the following tasks have also been included as we discussed in our telephone conference of October 5, 1999: e Assistance in updating the MOU with the agencies. This is needed because the Corp of Engineers is expected to become a cooperating agency and the Forest Service will be dropped. Also, the current MOU is due to expire in July of 2000. e- NEPA compliance consulting. The purpose of this task is to assist in the interpretation of the relevant regulations so that the Project can affirm that the agencies are correctly applying the regulations in compliance with NEPA. e Provide local (Alaska based) support to assist in responding to agency and public issues during the process. We have prepared this estimated scope of work and budget based on our experience with the Southern Intertie Project and other similar projects, and considering the Applicants responsibilities as outlined in the MOU for this Project. We have prepared the budget and work scope based on a duration of 21 months, beginning in August 1999 with submittal of the ANILCA application and extending through April 2001. However, it must be remembered that the actual work required during this period will to a large degree depend on agency requirements and public comments. As we have experienced, agency requirements have been difficult to predict. Accordingly, the scope of work and budget HLY 23-447 (10/15/99) POWER Engineers, Incorporated a 20D a LR BN 3940 Glenbrook Dr. « P.O. Box 1066 Phone (208) 788-3456 Chugach Electric Association, Inc. October 15, 1999 Page 2 may require revision as we complete the DEIS/EIS phase of the Project. We expect to work closely with you during this period to assist in the coordination and management of the process. New Project Sub-Contracting Structure As we have been discussing with you these past few weeks, in June of 1999 URS Corporation completed a buy out of Dames and Moore. An excerpt from the URS press release explains in more detail: SAN FRANCISCO, CA, June 24, 1999 - URS Corporation (NYSE: URS) today announced that it has completed its previously announced acquisition of Dames & Moore Group (NYSE: DM for $16 per share in cash, or approximately $300 million. URS also refinanced approximately $300 million in Dames & Moore debt. The combination, which was announced on May 5, 1999, creates a leading global engineering company with revenues of approximately $2 billion and over 15,000 employees in more than 30 countries around the world. As a result of the buyout, key Southern Intertie Project environmental team members from Dames and Moore that have worked on the Project since 1995, decided to leave employment with Dames and Moore. Many of these people are now with a new company, Environmental Planning Group (EPG) in Phoenix, AZ, which is headed by Garlyn Bergdale. As you are aware, Garlyn was formerly the head of the Dames and Moore section responsible for the preparation of the environmental documentation for the Southern Intertie Project, since we started in 1995. Tim Tetherow, who has been the environmental Project Manager for Dames and Moore for the Project has joined the JF Sato Company in Denver. As you and I have discussed, in order to keep the overall team together and retain the “project team memory” that has taken years to develop through all of the public meetings and production of the EVAL, we have entered into new contracts with our subcontractors. Power Engineers subcontracting structure is illustrated on the attached Project organization chart. Dames and Moore still has a role in the project, as noted on the chart. However, the primary responsibility for management and direction of the EIS support effort will be with Garlyn Bergdale of EPG. While Tim Tetherow will be contracted to Power through EPG, you, the agencies, and IPG will maintain direct access to Tim via telephone or meetings as needed. Contracts are in place between Power Engineers and EPG, and between EPG and Dames and Moore. EPG is in the process of contracting with JF Sato and Michael L. Foster and Associates. HLY 23-447 (10/15/99) +) OG DOWER Chugach Electric Association, Inc. October 15, 1999 Page 3 This subcontracting structure will make available the same individuals that have been working on the project to date, available to support the Project through the completion of the EIS and Record of Decision. Garlyn Bergdale will be sending you an information package about EPG, and Tim Tetherow will sending you information about JF Sato. Revision to Power Engineers Schedule of Charges As outlined in our 1996 proposal for consulting services and in our contract with Chugach, Power Engineers maintained it’s 1995 fee structure through 1996 and increased it’s fees by 5% at the beginning of 1997 and 1998. We have continued to work under the 1998 Schedule of Charges without an increase to date, through completion of the EVAL phase of the project. The schedule in our 1996 proposal contemplated completion of the project scope of work in 1998. Since the project time frame has extended beyond that, effective with the EIS support tasks, a fee schedule increase is necessary. This revised Schedule of Charges (copy attached) would remain effective through 2000 and represents a 7.6% increase over the current Schedule of Charges. At the end of 2000 we will review the Schedule of Charges. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. After you have had opportunity to review. these materials, I will call you to see if further clarification or discussion is needed. Sincerely, POWER Engineers, Inc. Ga ae Randy Pollock, P.E. Sr. Project Manager RP/k Enclosures Sent Via: FedEx cc: Mike Walbert (PEI) Garlyn Bergdale (EPG) File: 120376 HLY 23-447 (10/15/99) #) Ccreemneees POWER Engineers, Inc. Randy Pollock, P.E. Administration Land Use/Visual GIS/Graphics Document Production J.F. Sato Tim Tetherow ¢ Project Coordination HLY 23-447c * Regulatory Compliance ARE SE RE Rt a: Viena eS! Michael L. Foster & Associates ¢ Local Support * _GIS/Graphic Support eS RR DO DOMES ORGANIZATION CHART Southern Intertie Project October 15, 1999 Dames & Moore E. Linwood Smith Biology ¢ Cultural Task Task Description | Public Involvement Southern Intertie Project Proposed Budget for DEIS/EIS Support Power Engineers, Inc. and EPG, Inc. [Power Engines] Environmental Planning Group HLY 23-447a (10/15/99) Respond to DEIS Comments $15,740] $116,301 FEIS Support | $28,661) $9,276} $37,937 $759) 7 10 12 = ak. Notes: Mailing List Print & Distribute DEIS/EIS| Public Hearings ! Schedule Administration || $7,352| _$300| _$7,652|| $26,680| $4,254] $32,934 $659| $33,503]|_ $41,245 Update MOU $1,316| ___$60| $1,366, $10,537| $379 $10,916] $278 Brief Corp of Engineers j— Stat 2008) SUT S7et) _Siez2| Sse $187] _$9,526||_ $17,203] Py ae | of $27,239] $1,014] $28,253] $565] $28,818] $28,818 $18,580 ee $0 $0 $0 $0 $0}| $120,836 $432,343] $166,586} $598,929} $11,979] $610,908} $863,995 Total Budget |} $211,202] $41,885} $253,087] $13,704 $87,765 |_Labor_|Expenses| Subtotal || Labor_|Expenses| L&E | 2% | Subtotal | Pere $47,192 | $5500] $52,602 $105,935| $20,354 $126,288| | $2,526] $126,614] $181,506 $38,696 | $19,506[ $1,256] $20,761 $415] $21,176 | Totals $79,539]| $81,383 $118,627]] $151,422 $44,352 $21,176} $5,625] $22,569] $35,059] $15,396] $50,454 $17,735] $72,507 1. This budget is for the 21 month period from submittal of the ANILCA application in August 1999 to April 2001. 2. The Project Management budget includes 7 trips for quarterly Project review and coordination meetings. 3. Any trips for Power Engineers required under Work Item 2 - Public Involvement are budgeted be combined with one of the 7 Project Management review and coordination trips. 3. See Task descriptions in the letter attachment from EPG for an explanation of the work scope proposed. 4. The overall scope of work required to be completed by Power Engineers and EPG cannot be precisely known at this time. This proposed budget is based on the Applicant (IPG) responsibilities as outlined in the MOU, and the scope of work required from Power Engineers and EPG will depend on the demands of the agencies and IPG throughout the DEIS/EIS process. Accordingly, this proposed budget is only an estimate. More or less effort, and consequently adjustments to this budget and the associated scope of work may be appropriate as a result of changes in the Project schedule or work scope. Page 1 POWER ENGINEERS INC. SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT SCHEDULE OF CHARGES - 1999/2000 This standard Schedule of Charges is for professional services. Unless agreed otherwise, charges for work on continuing projects will be based on the then current Schedule of Charges. A new Schedule of Charges will be issued to be effective January 1 of each new year and as necessary on an intermediate basis to accommodate new items or revised charges. Invoices will be submitted monthly and/or upon completion of the work and will be due and payable when issued. All accounts not paid within thirty (30) days after Owner's receipt of the invoice will bear a SERVICE CHARGE OF 1.5% PER MONTH for each month the invoice is unpaid. PERSONNEL CLASSIFICATION ‘Senior, Project Managgen ......2.<:0c.<sisscssroravassatesessecessescsonesesssssscssonestsvscesasvssososssnasbeossoseresoosesesssesssccasocerceoess $122.00/hr. Principal Consultant BrOjOCt MGTIO ae cccss-20--2--ececsacsesececescnccoseoesoceconeasesea3s4naufioreSE0iSU FSNRERIOWICT sc esaus Lev ovRUsEs TSG PEN FEINGURSTO=scoseee stray $113.00/hr. Senior Consultant PYOJECt EVGINOON .....:000:-----+ossscssesosonsesnccnsssorasuesenetssseTcenesTsiaeETbsaes iOasoTest or vetsroseaDaUsUuUbauasssescaeesesoesseseseee $102.00/hr. Consultant Senior Project Administrator Supervisory R-O-W Agent Engineer IU)... cccsz.ccssccscececessecvccucsrcravsvuscasseeccariveccsesessasesesvsssuscsesesvcssesesnscecorecesvsereeceeeseseveseevecnseoreresessecnsese $94.00/hr. Designer IV Engineering Technician IV Environmental Specialist II! Senior R-O-W Agent Programmer IV ENGINGOH ID nicusessecsesvsescs---s0resessosnsesassesnsanscsse nenstnndiss5vsusevs¥susisstests bibs TISUTeSesonn sesesWasnossusssesissevaacoosesessseseseee $82.00/hr. Designer Ill Engineering Technician III Environmental Specialist I! Purchasing Agent Senior Administrator R-O-W Agent Programmer III EEMQWNGOH | ecccocsesceosesasesesesesecececaccece,ntoresssssecesess-<esen esasuasabranscnseseuvecrscsssarssovarcesenceresusesceseseesstsaszcacecocacweerere $72.00/hr. Designer II Engineering Technician II Environmental Specialist | Administrator Field Representative IV Senior Purchasing Specialist Programmer II DIOSHQION Vie svcceccccccscesovecescesasasvessecassustseaseontnai-sntsrarseveasspasrssetsswusssesevasesrasecessessatsedgetstessstucasecesaesssencccsesasveres $62.00/hr. Engineering Technician | Administrative Assistant Field Representative II! Purchasing Specialist Programmer | «---$48.00/hr. Staff Assistant Field Representative II Typist ----$38.00/hr. Data Entry Operator Field Representative | Utility No premium is charged for overtime work. Personnel with specialized experience are employed by or on retainer to POWER. Charges for these specialists are negotiated on an individual basis depending on the assignment. Professional time for depositions and testimony is charged at 1.5 times the rate for services; full-day minimums apply. HLY 23-447b(10/15/99) Page 2 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. SCHEDULE OF CHARGES - 1999 This standard Schedule of Charges is for the current year. Unless agreed otherwise, charges for work on continuing projects will be based on the then current Schedule of Charges. A new Schedule of Charges will be issued to be effective January 1 of each new year and as necessary on an intermediate basis to accommodate new items or revised charges. Invoices will be submitted monthly and/or upon completion of the work and will be due and payable when issued. All accounts not paid within thirty (30) days after Owner's receipt of the invoice will bear a SERVICE CHARGE OF 1.5% PER MONTH for each month the invoice is unpaid. SPECIAL APPLIC. IN SOFTWARE Level | Software * $10.00/hr. Level Il Software ** $20.00/hr. Level Ill Software *** $35.00/hr. Level IV Software **** $40.00/hr. * Level | Software includes, among others, CPM, Traverse PC, Structural Design, Foundation Design, HVAC Design, and Conveyor Design. ** Level Il Software includes, among others, SIMFLEXS, DPAG, Dapper, Captor, PTW, Harmflo, Cafec, Matlab, PLS- CADD, TL-CADD, Drafting Station w/software, and specialized estimating programs. ***Level Ill Software includes, among others, GIS Workstation, and Engineering Workstation. ****Level IV Software includes, among others, T-2000, CDEGS, PTI, PDS, and Animation. SURVEY EQUIPMENT Survey Equip. to support field crew $70.00/day GPS Equipment 2 Units $60.00/hour $350.00/day GPS Equipment 3 Units $80.00/hour $450.00/day PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORDING Portable Video Camera $35.00/day Video Tapes $10.00/ea. REPRODUCTION Drawings Blueline (C Size) $0.50/ea. Electrostatic (C Size) $1.00/ea. Blueline (D Size) $1.50/ea. Electrostatic (D Size) $3.00/ea. Blueline (E Size) $2.50/ea. Electrostatic (E Size) $5.00/ea. Mylar (C Size) $10.00/ea. Mylar (D Size) $12.00/ea. Mylar (E Size) $14.00/ea. Vellum (C Size) $2.00/ea. Vellum (D Size) $4.00/ea. Vellum (E Size) $6.00/ea. Scanning $5.00/ea. Documents Single-sided Copies 11x17 $0.15/ea. 8x11 $0.05/ea. Double-sided Copies 11x17 $0.30/ea. 8x 11 $0.10/ea. Single-Sided Color Copies 11x 17 $3.00/ea. 8x11 $1.50/ea. Spiral Comb $3.50/ea. 3 Ring Binder $10.00/ea. Transparencies $1.00/ea. Special Copy Center Projects (Labor) $30.00/hr. Other expenses such as subcontractors, rental equipment, photography, transportation, rental vehicles, shipping, outside computer services, lodging, meals, other reproduction, long distance telephone, telecopier, express mail, courier/delivery service, special supplies, are charged at cost plus a carrying and handling charge of 10%. HLY 23-447b(10/15/99) OCT-15+99 FRI 02:49 PM FAX: PAGE 2 | Pinsine Gan Inc. 4350 EAST CAMELBACK + SUITE G-200 « PHOENIX, ARIZONA, 85018 + TEL 602-956-4370 » FAX 602-9S6- 4374 October 15, 1999 Mr. Randy Pollock, P.E. Senior Vice President POWER Engineers, Inc. 3940 Glenbrook Drive P.O. Box 1066 Hailey, ID 83333 Dear Randy: Please find the attached work scope and estimated cost for DEIS/FEIS support services for the Southern Intertie Project. Our work scope is based on the original eight work items identified in May 1998. Per our discussion we have also included four more work items, as listed below, for your consideration. Work Item 9 — Update Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Work Item 10 — Corps of Engineers Work Item 11 ~ NEPA Compliance Work Item 12 ~ Local Coordination Should you have any questions or comments pleasc do not hesitate to call me or Tim. Sincerely, President EIS SUPPORT TASK DESCRIPTIONS The scope of work for EIS support is defined by the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) under Item III.4, Applicant Responsibilities. The following tasks are required by the Applicant to complete the EIS. 1. Provide engineering, construction, technical, environmental and financial information and analysis to the Lead Agency and Cooperating Agencies for the preparation of the EIS. Conduct supplemental public involvement activities. Assist in preparing responses to the DEIS comments. Assist in incorporating responses to the DEIS comments into the FEIS. Prepare and maintain project mailing list. Print and assist in the distribution of the EIS. Schedule and attend public hearings. Manage the schedule. E Update the MOU. 10. Assist the Corps of Engineers. THs Ensure NEPA compliance. 12: Provide local coordination. CRI AWRWH Costs to support the IPG’s responsibilities are based on these task requirements, as described in greater detail below. These tasks will be performed by POWER Engineers, as the primary contractor, and by EPG as POWER Engineers’ subcontractor and by J.F. Sato & Associates and Dames & Moore as subcontractors to EPG. The attached generalized preliminary schedule is based on a 16-month schedule. This is likely to change as we work through the process with the agencies. Task 1 — Provide Technical and Environmental Support The goal of the EVAL process has been to incorporate all required or requested data from the agencies and their representatives into a document that will serve as the basis for the EIS. The purpose of this task is to provide available resources on an as-needed basis to respond to further data requests and to studies that may surface from the agencies during the EIS preparation process, the ANILCA review, or as a result of comments on the Draft EIS. Another source of possible comments could be the private sectors on the Kenai Peninsula or in Anchorage. It is anticipated that the most likely areas of support will be technical input from POWER Engineers on purpose and need, project description, and mitigation. Environmental support is anticipated to most likely be in the areas of land use, biology, graphics and mapping. The work will be balanced between environmental management and coordination, technical, environmental, resource, graphic and mapping, and clerical support. The need and scope of technical or environmental data requests would be analyzed and confirmed prior to implementation. Task 2 — Public Involvement Public involvement support is planned to respond to such requirements as additional newsletters, open houses or small group meetings that may be appropriate during the EIS process. Examples of supplemental public involvement could include meetings associated with South Anchorage alternative routes associated with the proposed Enstar EIS Support Task Descriptions October 15, 1999 Alternative or by the Kenai Peninsula Borough for the Soldotna area. Task 3 — Respond to Comments on the DEIS A major task is expected to be assisting the agencies and Mangi Environmental with analyses of comments on the DEIS and preparing comments. It is anticipated that a series of meetings will occur to review comments, establish a plan for responses, and review prepared responses. Some comments could trigger the need for additional studies as indicated in Task 1. Task 4 — Incorporation of Responses into the FEIS The extent of involvement in the preparation of the FEIS is expected to be in the formatting of comments and prepared responses. This task requires a layout of the formal written comments and corresponding responses in a format that can be readily incorporated into the FEIS. Task 5 — Prepare and Maintain Mailing List EPG will establish a mailing list to be used throughout the preparation of the EIS. The list will be developed initially using the address database we maintained during the preparation of the EVAL and will be supplemented as additional names and addresses are provided as a result of the public notification process. The list will include names and addresses of federal, tribal, state, county, and local agencies; relevant businesses; organizations and special interest groups; and interested individuals. Microsoft Access Database (Access) will be used for filing and storing the list. Access provides an easy data entry format, various report options, and record-management tools. Access is compatible with Excel to create spreadsheets and Microsoft Word to create merge letters and mailing labels. Using Access, we are able to segregate newsletter, meeting announcement, and EIS mailing files, if needed. Task 6 — Print and Distribute the EIS An estimate for printing 250 copies of the Draft EIS has been prepared on an estimate from a printer for $200 per copy. We also have estimated the costs for 250 copies of the Final EIS based on an assumption of $12 per copy. A 20% factor was added to the estimate for budgeting purposes. The proposal of 250 copies exceeds our initial proposal of 200 copies (April 1996) in order to provide 50 copies for Chugach Electric distribution, leaving 200 copies for public and agency distribution. If more that 200 copies are required for public distribution, the unit costs per copy would apply. Costs for this task includes the mailing of the Draft and Final EISs. Task 7 — Public Hearings ANILCA regulations require public hearings in Washington, D.C. and in Alaska. Estimated costs include planning, locations, announcements, meeting rooms and refreshments, a court recorder and transcripts, and attendance at each hearing. It is assumed that in Alaska, hearings will be held in Anchorage and Soldotna. Task 8 — Schedule Tracking the schedule will be an ongoing task, which will include maintaining communication on the status of the EIS production, agency interaction, internal planning meetings and schedule updates. EIS Support Task Descriptions October 15, 1999 Task 9 — Update Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) The MOU currently in effect for the preparation of an EIS is between the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) as the lead agency, the U.S Forest Service as a cooperating agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a cooperating agency, and Chugach Electric Association, Inc. as the applicant. It expires on July 25, 2000. Because the ANILCA application was filed with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), it is expected that the COE will become a cooperating agency, requiring a revised MOU to be executed. This will require coordination between the agencies. Considering the length of time and number of drafts required for the existing MOU, a considerable amount of time may be required to coordinate drafting a revised MOU that is acceptable to all parties. A second reason that a new MOU will be necessary is that the EIS process will extend beyond the July 25, 2000, expiration date of the current MOU. Task 10 — Corps of Engineers The ANILCA application and a Department of the Army Permit (Engineering Form 4336) have been filed with the COE. The COE is unfamiliar with the ANILCA form and ANILCA process, and has not determined how to incorporate its process and ANILCA process. It is anticipated that technical assistance will be required from POWER Engineers during evaluation of the Army permit. It is also anticipated that the COE will need assistance throughout the process in becoming familiar with ANILCA, the proposed project and the EVAL. Task 11 —- NEPA Compliance The purpose of this task is to ensure that the agencies interpret the relevant regulation consistently and correctly, and to ensure compliance with the NEPA process. Questions have arisen regarding ambiguities in and interpretations of the regulations. To the extent possible, the needs and questions of the agencies should be anticipated and researched. The process and agency review should be proactively monitored. Task 12 — Local Coordination Local staff in the Anchorage area will be available to field inquiries from agencies and the public and to support Chugach as necessary. Southern Intertie Project Generalized 16-Month ANILCA EIS Schedule Draft EIS (9 months: August 5, 1999 — May 5, 2000) Prepare Preliminary Draft EIS (PDEIS) Review and provide comments on PDEIS Comment review meeting Prepare DEIS Review and provide comments on DEIS Complete DEIS and transmit camera-ready copy to applicant Execute signatures on DEIS Print and distribute DEIS Publish Federal Register Notice of Availability Final ElS (3 months: May 5, 2000 — August 5, 2000) DEIS public review period (45 days) e Hold public meetings in Washington, D.C. and in Alaska Consolidate public comments and distribute for preparation of responses Comment review meeting Prepare comment responses Review assembled comments Prepare Preliminary Final EIS (PFEIS) Review and provide comments on PFEIS Review and complete FEIS and transmit camera-ready copy to applicant Execute signatures on FEIS Print and distribute FEIS Publish Federal Register Notice of Availability Record of Decision (4 months: August 5, 2000 - December 5, 2000) Prepare and issue ROD Cost Estlmate Summary Table for Chugach Electric Post ANILCA/EVAL DEIS/EIS Support October 15, 1999 Task 1 | Task2 | Task3 Task 4 Task6 | Taské Task7 Task 8 Task 9 TOTAL PG Labor $ 50,711.50 | $93,527.02 | $ 41,463.10 | $12,470.54 | $ 14,085.62 | $ 9,544.08 | $23,218.64 | $16,552.18 | $ 2,137.20 | $1,039.00 | $12,998.72] $217,727.60 Expenses $ 12,315.98 | $17,517.25| $ 8,374.25| § 6,103.68| $ 1,127.50] $72,160.00| $ 9,050.75] $ 1,456.50|$ 184.50 92.25|$ 578.75 | $128,860.00 iubtotal $ 63,026.88 | $51,044.27| § 49,837.35| §18,574.42| $ 15,193.12| $81,704.08| $32,269.39| $16,007.68| $ 2,321.70| $1,131.25| $13,577.47 | $346,887.60 ‘F, Sato Labor $ 28,352.00 | $15,808.00 | § 35,600.00 | $14,720.00] $ 6,440.00] $ 4,160.00 $ 8,400.00 Expenses S_6,401.13| $ 5,412.00] $§ 6,021.88] § 3,013.50/$ 126.13| $ 1,901.38] $ 6,114.13| § 2,798.25 194.75 | $1,358.13] $ 435.63| $ 33,778.88 ‘ubtotal $ 34,753.13 | $21,220.00 $ 41,621.88 | $17,733.50 6,061.38 | $16,674.13 | §14,926.25| $ 8,594.75 | $6,366.13| $14,675.63 | $168,194.88 | ames & Moore Labor $ 16,251.04} $ - $ 19,958.24 $ $ $ 36,208.28 Expenses $__796.94| $ -_|$ 928.65 $1,725.50 ubtotal | $ 17,047.98] § -_| $ 20,886.89 $ 37,934.87 lichael Foster Labor S 10,620.00] $ 5,310.00] S 3,540.00] $ 1,470.00 $ 23,980,00 Expenses S _840.50|$ 40488|S 415.13|$ 158.68 ‘ubtotal $_11,460.50| $ 5,714.68| $ 3,955.13| § 1,626.88 $26,111.75 ‘UBTOTAL LABOR $105,934.54 | $54,645.02 | $100,561.34 | $26,660.64 492,342.88 ‘UBTOTAL EXPNESES | $ 20,353.94 | $23,334.13 | $ 15,739.90 $74,061.38 | $16,996.60] $ 4,253.75] $ 379.25 | $1,622.13] $ 1,014.38 | $166,586.21 | .46 | $60,454.14] $92,993.93 | $10,016.45 | $9,399.13 | $28,263.10 | $608,020.09 | OTAL $126,268.48 | $77,979.15 | $116,301.24 | $37,938.79 | $ 20,761.26 Wd J4:S0 Idd 66-S1-L00- ‘XVd @ avd | _e = Gooup Inc. 4350 EAST CAMELBACK ¢ SUITE G-200 * PHOENIX, ARIZONA, 85018 © TEL 602-956-4370 © FAX 602-956-4374 ReEcenye October 15, 1999 if OCT 181999 TRANSMiSs SP’ IOW & Ms. Dora Gropp, Manager ECIAL PROJECT Transmission & Special Projects Chugach Electric Association, Inc. 5601 Minnesota Drive Anchorage, AK 99519 Dear Dora: We are pleased to submit a Statement of Qualifications for our new company, Environmental Planning Group, Inc. or EPG. We have more than 25 people located in Phoenix, Arizona with capabilities in environmental planning and assessment, public involvement, and information technologies. We have the ability to provide the full range of disciplines required to complete a comprehensive environmental analysis for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act as well as the multitude of state and local regulations. We greatly appreciate the working relationship we have had with you in the past and look forward to continuing those relationships in the future. Sincerely, ' au Garlyy Bergdale President STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS for TRANSMISSION LINE SITING and ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING SERVICES Submitted to | POWER Engineers Phoenix, Arizona Submitted by Environmental Planning Group, Inc. Phoenix, Arizona September 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING GROUP QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE Environmental Planning Group, Inc. (EPG) was founded to provide comprehensive environmental planning, compliance, and permitting services to businesses and industries, public utilities, and all levels of government. The firm also provides technical services in the areas of visual, socioeconomic, public involvement, geographic information system (GIS) applications, biology, cultural resources, land use, planning, and water resources. EPG’s five principals have a combined total of more than 90 years of experience in environmental, permitting, licensing, and compliance for a diversity of projects including: electrical transmission lines power plant facilities transportation infrastructure pipelines industrial facilities municipal infrastructure natural resources protection and development We have achieved an outstanding record of project approvals and a reputation for excellence in the energy and utility industry. These accomplishments reflect our understanding of regulatory requirements, the integrity of our environmental studies, and the competence of our project management and technical personnel. Our extensive experience includes conducting and preparing environmental analyses and other studies for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) including Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Environmental Assessment (EA), Categorical Exclusion (CE), and Plan Amendment (PA) documents as a third-party consultant for federal agencies. In addition, we routinely prepare applications for other required federal, state, and local permits and approvals. We have an understanding of the heightened public and agency concern associated with development projects and how this level of concern can affect the approval process. In response to these factors, our document format and content are designed to address complex legal and procedural guidelines. We also recognize the importance of understanding regulatory roles and the mandated requirement for public involvement in utility projects. We pay close attention to implementing the scoping, noticing, and public hearing and review processes to comply with and as required by NEPA, as well as the requirements of various states. TRANSMISSION AND SUBSTATION FACILITIES Key EPG personnel have provided siting and licensing services for more than 200 transmission lines in the United States and Canada. These projects have involved complex systems, some with more than 2,000 miles of alternative corridors, and have included siting and assessments of proposed Statement of Qualifications Environmental Planning Group 1 September 1999 \\DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROP\OSO\EPGSOQ doc single- and double-circuit lines ranging from 12 kilovolts (kV) to 765kV, both alternating current (AC) and direct current (DC). These projects also have included siting and evaluation of numerous substation and communication (fiber optic and microwave) facilities. Most of these projects have been licensed, and many have been constructed and are currently in operation. Through our extensive experience, we have developed a thorough command of data requirements and systematic, procedural impact evaluation techniques that are appropriate for many different types of projects. Working with a variety of agencies in numerous states, we have also gained in-depth knowledge of federal and state regulations and guidelines, and a broad understanding of environmental issues and problems associated with lands administered or overseen by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service), National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Indian A ffairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and facilities associated with Western Area Power Administration, Bureau of Reclamation, and Corps of Engineers in the western United States. MULTIDISCIPLINARY PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCE CAPABILITIES EPG is a team of professionals with unparalleled experience providing facilities siting and environmental planning and permitting services to utilities in the western United States. Our extensive experience is solidly based on performing multidisciplinary environmental studies and working with clients to find the ideal balance between human progress and the integrity of the natural environment. The use of a systematic planning process is a key component of our success, along with the comprehensive nature of our team. Within our group and in association with specialized consulting firms we provide all of the following services. Environmental Planning Services ® environmental permitting and licensing = visual simulations (photo and video) NEPA compliance = graphic design = facility siting and routing = GIS and computer-aided drafting and = land use analysis design (CADD) ™ recreation analysis and planning = landscape architecture @ visual resource analysis ® expert testimony ® wildlife and conservation area planning Natural Resources Services = = habitat/sensitivity analysis = biodiversity studies = wetlands analysis/404 permitting = reclamation planning ™ threatened and endangered species ® soil classification and mapping = plant and animal inventories ® ecological studies and monitoring = plant community analysis, classification, mapping surveys Statement of Qualifications Environmental Planning Group 2 September 1999 \\DM_PHX1\SYS\DATA\PROPWSO\EPGSOQ doc Community Relations and Economics Services development strategy and planning regulatory analysis public participation and information conflict resolution energy and resource economics Cultural Resource Services literature and site file reviews and overviews cultural resource inventory surveys significance evaluation archaeological test excavation and data recovery programs database development and GIS analyses transportation and infrastructure planning/analysis mitigation studies demographic and economic forecasting socioeconomic impact analyses ® assistance with Section 106 (National Historic Preservation Act) compliance ® historic research and land use documentation ® heritage preservation planning Through the years, we have enhanced our ability to manage projects of all scales and degrees of complexity, from simple feasibility studies to situations highly complicated by public interest, land ownership, military use, environmental issues, terrain, mitigation plans, and engineering design. Our management expertise and success are based on several fundamental capabilities developed during numerous projects and over an extended period of time: background in planning, environmental analysis, and public participation experience in interdisciplinary environmental project management specific experience with utility facilities siting past performance on similar projects with regard to timeliness, cost accounting, and quality Statement of Qualifications \\DM_PHX1\SYS\DATA\PROP\0SO\EPGSOQ doc Environmental Planning Group September 1999 EXPERT TESTIMONY EPG personnel have provided expert testimony on 44 transmission line projects and 3 power plant projects throughout the western United States and Canada. Mr. Bergdale has provided expert testimony for federal, state, and county hearings in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado. Other key personnel have provided expert testimony for utility projects in Arizona, Nebraska, and Colorado. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The preparation of a quality environmental analysis is the cornerstone of our reputation, and documented through project success. Communication is also an essential element of all successful projects. Because of our involvement in many sensitive, controversial projects, we know firsthand the importance of open and effective communication. Our staff has designed and conducted a full range of public participation programs for numerous projects including transmission lines and power plants. There are many public participation techniques that may be critical to a successful environmental planning process such as the following: ® including the public in the planning process for controversial projects = working with the client and agencies in developing a comprehensive public participation process = establishing appropriate mechanisms for public participation (public meetings, technical and public advisory groups, community work groups, landowner meetings, agency contacts, federal interdisciplinary teams, and technical review groups) = facilitating large and small meetings (e.g., scoping meetings, workshops, hearings) = keeping the public informed (e.g., periodic newsletters, media releases) ™ providing accurate and timely documentation (visual simulations, videos, web sites, and telephone lines) It is our experience and belief that public understanding and acceptance are the building blocks that should be in place before implementing technological, financial, and management decisions. Projects are often delayed or overturned because of citizen pressure. Some of our more pertinent services include process management and conflict resolution, public information and education, intergovernmental relations, meeting facilitation and design, public involvement training, and media relations management. Statement of Qualifications Environmental Planning Group 4 September 1999 \\DM_PHX1\SYS\DATA\PROP\OSO\EPGSOQ doc PERSONNEL EPG has the full capability required to plan and manage large multidisciplinary projects in an efficient and cost-effective manner and to maintain the project schedule and prepare high-quality required technical documents. These capabilities include project administration, client and agency interface, study team coordination, financial and schedule management, graphics, technical writing and editing, report production, and quality assurance/quality control. The following table presents the relevant qualifications of selected members of EPG. Statement of Qualifications Environmental Planning Group = September 1999 \\DM_PHX\SYS\DATA\PROP\OSO\EPGSOQ doc Environmental Planning Group, Inc. Years of Name Position Education Experience Technical Expertise Project Management Personnel |E Garlyn Bergdale President and Principal- | MS, Landscape 25 Environmental Planning, Visual in-Charge Architecture Analysis, Expert Testimony BS, Geography ee | Michael (Mickey) | Senior Environmental MCRP, City & Regional 20 Project Management, Urban and Siegel Planner and Project Planning Regional Planning, Environmental Manager BA, Psychology Planning, Land Use Analysis AICP, Certified Planner Randall Palmer Senior Environmental MLA, Landscape 16 Environmental Planning, Visual Planner Architecture Resource Assessment, Land Use BS, Landscape Planning Architecture Paul Trenter Senior Environmental BS, Landscape 12 Landscape Architecture, Visual Planner Architecture Resource Analysis, Environmental Planning, Land Use Analysis Lauren Weinstein | Senior Environmental BS, Resource Planning and 16 Environmental Planning Planner Management Project Team Personnel Victoria Komadina | Public Involvement BS, Management 9 Communications, Media Relations, Specialist Public Planning Richard Knox Landscape Architect BLA, Landscape 4 Ecosystem Management, Visual Architecture Analysis 7 Joseph Merkel Environmental Planner | BS, Landscape 12 Photo Simulations, Visual Studies Architecture = Harcourt Morgan Environmental Planner | BA, Environmental 8 Land Use Inventory and Analysis, Analysis and Design Urban and Regional Planning, NEPA Compliance Kurt Watzek Environmental Planner | MLA, Landscape 4 Clean Water Act Compliance, Architecture Visual Resources Assessment, BA, Biology Planning Scott Woods Geographic Information | BS, Geography 11 Arc Info GIS, Cartographic Design, Systems (GIS) Analyst Environmental Analysis 1 Jennifer Donahue Environmental Planner | NEP (candidate), 5 Land Use, Socioeconomics, Public Environmental Planning Involvement, NEPA Compliance BA, Politics David Lawrence Graphic Artist Studies in CAD and Multi- 14 Photosimulations, Graphics, Media CADD Design Statement of Qualifications \\DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROP\OSO\EPGSOQ doc Environmental Planning Group September 1999 Environmental Planning Group, Inc. Years of Name Position Education Experience Technical Expertise Brandie Powers Business Manager Business Administration 8 Business Manager, Project and Office Related Work Administrator, Human Resources Kristie James Document Production Complete working 19 Document Production, Word Manager knowledge in WordPerfect, Processing, Project Administration Word, Excel, Access, and others Shirley Wiley Technical Editor Business College 19 Document Production, Technical Editor Statement of Qualifications Environmental Planning Group 7 September 1999 \\DM_PHX1\SYS\DATA\PROP\OSO\EPGSOQ doc Eonvironmentat P lanning Group Inc. 4350 EAST CAMELBACK ¢ SUITE G-200 ¢ PHOENIX, ARIZONA, 85018 ¢ TEL 602-956-4370 © FAX 602-956-4374 October 12, 1999 Reserve Dora Gropp, Manager OCT 18 1999 Transmission & Special Projects TRANS: Chugach Electric Association, Inc. SPECIAL PRON & 5601 Minnesota Drive Anchorage, AK 99519 Dear Mayor: \pow We are pleased to announce our new company, Environmental Planning Group, Inc. or EPG. Our company is composed of a group of professionals that have worked together for many years providing environmental planning services throughout the West. We are more than 25 people located in Phoenix, Arizona and have capabilities in environmental planning and assessment, public involvement, and information technologies. We have the ability to provide the full range of disciplines required to complete a comprehensive environmental analysis for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act as well as the multitude of state and local regulations. Our goal is to continue to provide responsive and quality service that incorporates our unique approach to environmental and public planning and integrates our tools and capabilities in information technologies (GIS, database design and management, visual simulations and animation, graphics, and website development). We very much appreciate the working relationship we have had with our clients in the past and look forward to continuing those relationships in the future. Thank you for your support of our team. We hope for your success on future endeavors as much as we look forward to ours. Sincerely, DESCRIPTION OF THE FIRM J.F. Sato and Associates, Inc. (JFSA) is a professional consulting engineering firm providing design, planning and construction management for the wide range of infrastructure projects required to support the demands of today’s urban environment. Founded in 1978, the firm has established a solid track record of high quality services and performances in the areas of structural engineering for buildings, facilities and support structures, multi-model transportation engineering, civil engineering for site development and water resources, environmental planning, construction management and surveys. employees. Environmental Planning: Project development and environmental documentation Experience with NEPA and other environmental statutes, regulations and guidelines Scoping guidance Public/Agency involvement programs Preparation of FONSI, EVAL, EA and EIS documents Currently the firm has 66 Biological assessments 404 permit application Land use/recreation assessment Visual resource assessment Photo-realistic simulation production Geographic information system analysis Multi-Model Transportation Engineering: ¢ Highway bridge design and inventories e Urban and rural highways and roadway design ¢ Traffic study and analysis Building Engineering: ¢ Maintenance facilities ¢ Industrial process facilities ¢ Loading and unloading facilities ¢ Airport support facilities Railroad and lightrail bridge design Interchange design Water & wastewater treatment plants Municipal facilities Warehouse and storage facilities Fire rescue stations ¢ Elevated and underground tanks ¢ Recreational facilities ¢ Parking facilities e Institutional, commercial and residential facilities ¢ Historic building retrofit ¢ Building inventory assessment ¢ Public utilities support structures ¢ Multi-family/co-housing projects Civil Engineering: e Site grading and drainage ¢ Utility, infrastructure and water supply systems ¢ Master and Final Drainage Reports ¢ Utility studies ¢ Water quality and wetland investigations ¢ Pavement and street design ¢ Pipe hydraulics - open channel hydraulics ¢ Erosion control/stormwater management ¢ Horizontal geometry ¢ Hydrology and ground water modeling Under construction services, JFSA has provided construction management, field inspection and on-site engineering consultation for various clients including the City and County of Denver, National Park Service, DIA, NOAA, Denver Water Board and other local public and private agencies. The surveying division within JFSA has been developed to provide in-house support for specific surveying needs. This division is equipped with electronic total stations and data collection capabilities, precision levels and other hand tools. Also available through this division is our right-of-way and legal description support. This division is staffed with a multi-state Registered Land Surveyor and full-time crews. VI. ITEMS FOR INFORMATION 1. POWER Engineers’ Monthly Report Phase IB — Environmental Analysis, October 20, 1999 SOWER IENGINEERS PREC ECR October 19, 1999 Fr: . ober a oO g.. a ss OCT 21 1999 Ms. Dora Gropp Chugach Electric Association TRANSMISSION & 5601 Minnesota Drive, Building A SPECIAL PROJECT Anchorage, AK 99518 Subject: POWER Project #120376 EIS & Preliminary Engineering Chugach Contract No. 820, Monthly Status Report No. 9 For Period September 12 — October 9, 1999 Dear Dora: This report summarizes the activities completed during September 1999 for Tasks 5a — 5e and 6. During this period, a series of telephone conferences and agency contacts resulted in the ANILCA application being accepted by RUS, USFWS and the Corp of Engineers. This was an important milestone for the Project. The Project can now proceed through the NEPA and ANILCA processes as planned. With the acceptance of the ANILCA application, we have now completed all of the tasks in our approved scope of work. The work that will be required in the next few months is anticipated to be in response to the ongoing EIS preparation by RUS and related agency issues as outlined in the MOU and as we have discussed. As you requested, we prepared a work scope and estimated budget for these activities looking forward, and have submitted that to you under separate cover on October 15, 1999. No additional work is planned by our project team at this time, pending approval and notice to proceed with the EIS Support tasks. This report includes the following attachments: 1) Overall Financial Project Summary 2) Detailed Budget and Percent Complete Summary for Tasks 5a — Se and Task 6 Schedule: Work is completed for Tasks 5 and 6. HLY 23-457 POWER Engineers, Incorporated 90) oo a PE Sw SRY Me SG RN PRR OE Ee TT 3940 Glenbrook Dr. * P.O. Box 1066 Phone (208) 788-3456 Hailey, Idaho 83333 Fax (208) 788-2089 Chugach Electric Association October 19, 1999 Page 2 Budget: Total Budget $3,911,194 Actual $ Invoiced (to date) $3,896,764 Actual Remaining Project Budget $14,430 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, “(C4 Inc. Randy Pollock, P.E. Project Manager RP/Ik Enclosures cc: PROJECT TEAM HLY 23-457 #) ORR DOWER IENGINEEAS Ra SOUTHERN INTERTIE ROUTE SELECTION STUDY - PHASE 1 - 120376 PROJECT FINANCIAL SUMMARY OCTOBER, 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 N/A 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 Contract 820, N/A N/A N/A N/A $465,215 N/A N/A N/A N/A $465,215 Amendment No. 1 | Total Not to Exceed $374,839 $679,591 $606,612 $336,341 | $1,366,349 $53,466 $101,480 $202,655 $189,861 $3,911,194 Budget : Actual Budget $374,839 $679,583 $606,540 $336,315 | $1,348,518 $52,250 $101,476 $202,610 $189,852 $3,891,983 Expended Through Previous Invoice | | Current Invoice $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,781 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,781 Amount Actual Budget $374,839 $679,583 $606,540 $336,315 | $1,353,299 $52,250 $101,476 $202,610 $189,852 $3,896,764 Expended Through Current Invoice Remaining $0 $8 $72 $26 $13,050 $1,216 $4 $45 $9 $14,430 Budget * Task 5 budget amount reflects the addition of Contract No. 820, Amendment No. | funds. HLY 23-457 C—O OO :_ OO Oo 10/20/99 Page 1 of 2 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT THROUGH PERIOD ENDING: 10-09-99 2ND QUARTER 1999 3RD QUARTER 1999 4TH QUARTER 1999 TAS! MONTH| _ MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP oct NOV DEC 5a_|COMMENT ORGANIZATION (Dames & Moore) f Actual % Work Completed 60% 100% 100% 100% 100%) 100%, 100% 100% 100% 100% Planned % Complete $ (to date) 60% 100%, 100% 100%| 100%, 100% | 100% 100%) 100%) 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 60% 100% 100%| 100% 100% 100% | 100% 100%| 100% 100% Planned $ (this period) $28,349 | $19,292 | $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 | $0 $0 Actual $ Expended (this period) | _ $28,349 | _$19,292 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 “Planned $ (to date) $28,349 | $47,641) $47,641 $47,641 | $47,641 | $47,641 | $47,641 | $47,641 $47,641 $47,641 Actual $ Expended (to date) ae $28,349 $47,641 $47,641 $47,641 $47,641 | $47,641 $47,641 $47,641 $47,641 $47,641 Contract No. 820, Amend. No. 1 $47,641 $47,641 $47,641 $47,641 $47,641 $47,641 $47,641 $47,641 $47,641 $47,641 Actual Remaining Task Budget | $19,292 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $o | $0 $0 | $0 | $0 5b_|EVAL REVISIONS (Dames & Moore) | | | | Actual % Work Completed 27% 45% 76%) 100%] 100%) 100% 100% 100% 100% | 100% Planned % Complete $ (to date) 27% 51%, 77% | 100% 100%| 100% | 100% 100% 100% | 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 27% 45% | 76%, 100% 100% 100% | 100% 100% | 100% 100% Planned $ (this period) | $48,540 | $41,696 | $45,329| $41,105 $0 so; $0 $0 | $0 | $O Actual $ Expended (this period) | $48,540 | $30,727 | $55,393 | $41,922 $0 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 | $0 __ Planned $ (to date) $48,540 | $90,236 | $135,565 | $176,670 | $176,670 | $176,670 $176,670 | $176,670 | $176,670 | $176,670 Actual $ Expended (to date) $48,540 $79,267 | $134,661 $176,583 | $176,583 | $176,583 $176,583 | $176,583 $176,583 | $176,583 | Contract No. 820, Amend. No. 1 | $176,670 | $176,670 $176,670 | $176,670 | $176,670 | $176,670 | $176,670 | $176,670 $176,670 | $176,670 Actual Remaining Task Budget $128,130 $97,403 $42,009 | $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 $87 5c_|MAP REVISIONS (Dames & Moore) | | | | Actual % Work Completed 27% 35% 55%| 100% 100% 100%] 100% 100% | 100%, 100% Planned % Complete $ (to date) 27% 38% | 71% | 100% 100%} 100% 100% 100% 100% | 100%: Actual % Expended $ (to date) 27% 35% | 56%, 100% 100%| 100% 100% 100% 100%! 100% Planned $ (this period) $38,744 | $15,357 | $47,693 | $40,791 $0 So, $0 $0 | $0 | $o Actual $ Expended (this period) | __ $38,744 | $11,605 $28,942 | $63,220 $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 Planned $ (to date) $38,744 $54,101 | $101,794 $142,585 | $142,585 | $142,585 | $142,585 | $142,585 $142,585 $142,585 Actual $ Expended (to date) $38,744 $50,349 | $79,291 | $142,510 | $142,510 $142,510 $142,510 | $142,510 | $142,510 | $142,510 | Contract No. 820, Amend. No. 1 | $142,585 | $142,585 | $142,585 | $142,585 | $142,585 | $142,585 $142,585 | $142,585 | $142,585 | $142,585 Actual Remaining Task Budget_| $103,841 $92,236 | $63,294 | $75 $75 | $75 | $75 $75 | $75 | $75 5d_|FINALIZE EVAL (Dames & Moore) Actual % Work Completed 0% 0%! 0%! 28% 100%| 100% ——- 100% 100% 100% 100% Planned % Complete $ (to date) 0% 0%| 0% 14% 100% | 100%, 100% 100% 100%, 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 0% 0%! 0% 28% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%, [Planned § (this period) $0 $0 $0| $7,956 | $48,780 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Actual $ Expended (this period) $0 $0 $0 | $16,129 $40,607 | $0 $0 $0 | $0 | $0 Planned § (to date) $0 $0 | $0] $7,956 | $56,736 | $56,736 | $56,736| $56,736 | $56,736 $56,736 Actual $ Expended (to date) $0 $0 $o|$16,129| $56,736 | $56,736 | $56,736 | $56,736 | $56,736 | $56,736 Contract No. 820, Amend. No. 1 $56,736 $56,736 | $56,736 $56,736 $56,736 $56,736 | $56,736 $56,736 $56,736 | $56,736 Actual Remaining Task Budget $56,736 $56,736 $56,736 | $40,607 '$0)) $0) ‘$0. $0) ($0) ($0) 03/18/99 Contract 820 Amendment No. 1 HLY 23-457 torzorse SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT THROUGH PERIOD ENDING: Page 2 0f2 PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT tees 4 2ND QUARTER 1999 3RD QUARTER 1999 TH QUARTER 1999 TASK MONTH} _ MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Se_|ENGINEERING SUPPORT & PROJECT COORDINATION (POWER a | | | __ Actual % Work Completed 8% 18% 40% 39%| 85% 95% 95%| 95% 95%! 99% Planned % Complete $ (to date) 8% 27% | 52% | 78%| 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% | 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 8% 17%| 22% | 39% 51% 56%, 58% 69% 69% 69% Planned $ (this period) $3,280 $8,000 | $10,500 | $10,500 $9,303 | $0 | $0 $0 SO) $0 Actual $ Expended (this period) $3,280 | $3,893 $2,102 | __ $6,929 $4,902 $2,194 | $615 $4,781 | $0 | $0 Planned $ (to date) $3,280 | $11,280 / $21,780 | $32,280 | $41,583 $41,583 $41,583 | $41,583 | $41,583 $41,583 Actual $ Expended (to date) $3,280 | $7,173 | $9,275 | $16,204] $21,106 | $23,300 $23,915] $28,696 | $28,696 $28,696 Contract No. 820, Amend. No. 1 $41,583 $41,583 $41,583 $41,583 $41,583 | $41,583 $41,583 $41,583 $41,583 $41,583 Actual Remaining Task Budget $38,303 $34,410 $32,308 $25,379 $20,477 $18,283 $17,668 $12,887 | $12,887 | _ $12,887 TASK 5 TOTAL L Actual % Work Completed 26% 40%| 60% 86% 99% | 99% 99% 99% 99%| 99%! Planned % Complete $ (to date) 26% 44% «66% 88% 100% | 100% 100%| 100%, 100% += 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 26% 40% 58%, 86% 96% | 96% 96% 97% 97% 97% __ Planned $ (this period) $118,913 | $84,345 | $103,522 | $100,352 | $58,083 | $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Actual $ Expended (this period) | $118,913 | $65,517, $86,437 | $128,200] $45,509| $2,194 —$615| $4,781 $0 | $0 Planned $ (to date) $118,913 | $203,258 | $306,780 | $407,132 | $465,215 | $465,215 | $465,215 | $465,215 | $465,215 | $465,215 Actual $ Expended (to date) _| $118,913] $184,430 | $270,867 | $399,067 | $444,576 | $446,770 $447,385 | $452,166 $452,166 | $452,166 Contract No. 820, Amend. No. 1 | $465,215 | $465,215 | $465,215 | $465,215 | $465,215 | $465,215 $465,215 | $465,215 | $465,215 $465,215 Actual Remaining Project Budget | $346,302 | $280,785 $194,348 | $66,148 | $20,639 $18,445 $17,830 | $13,049 $13,049 $13,049 ANILCA APPLICATION | | Actual % Work Completed 55% 55% 55% 55% 85% 99% 100% 100% 100%! 100% Planned % Complete $ (to date) 56% _ 56% 67% 78%| 100%, 100% 100% 100% 100% | 100% | Actual % Expended $ (to date) 56% 56% 56% 56% 87% | 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% Planned $ (this period) $0 $0, $5,866 $5,866 | $11,720 so. $0 $0 | $0 $0 Actual $ Expended (this period) $0 $0 | $0, $0 | $16,239 $5,997 | $0 $0, $0 $0 Planned $ (to date) $30,014 | $30,014 | $35,880 $41,746 | $53,466 $53,466 $53,466 | $53,466 $53,466 | $53,466 | Actual $ Expended (to date) $30,014 | $30,014 $30,014 | $30,014 | $46,253 $52,250 $52,250| $52,250 $52,250 $52,250 Total Task 6 NTE Budget $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 | $23,452 | $23,452 | $23,452 | $7,213 $1,216 | $1,216 | $1,216 | $1,216 | _—~$1,216 TASKS 5 and 6 TOTAL | | Actual % Work Completed 29% 41% 60% | 83% 95% 99% 99% 99% 99% | 99% | Planned % Complete $ (to date) 29%| 45%, 66% | 87% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%, 100% Actual % Expended $ (to date) 29% 41% 58% 83% 95% 96% 96% 97% | 97% 97% | __ Planned $ (this period) $118,913 | $84,345 $109,388 | $106,218 | $69,803, —-$0_. $0 sol = $0) Ss. Actual $ Expended (this period) | $118,913 | $65,517 | $86,437 $128,200| $61,748 $8,191 $615| $4,781. $0, «$0 Planned $ (to date) $148,927 | $233,272 | $342,660 $448,878 | $518,681 $518,681 | $518,681 | $518,681 $518,681 $518,681 Actual $ Expended (todate) | $148,927 | $214,444 | $300,881 $429,081 | $490,829 | $499,020 | $499,635 | $504,416 | $504,416 $504,416 | Tasks 5 and 6 Total $518,681 | $518,681 | $518,681 $518,681 | $518,681 | $518,681 | $518,681 | $518,681 | $518,681 | $518,681 Remaining Tasks 5 & 6 Budget | $369,754 | $304,237 | $217,800 | $89,600| $27,852 _$19,661| $19,046 | $14,265 $14,265 | $14,265 Notes: | | __|1) $30,014 had previously been expended in Task 6. | fies _ | |2) The March 1999 invoice is $122,887 of which $3,973 was applied to the previous remaining budget in Task 5. _ | | 13) The dollar amounts in tasks 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d include the two percent (2%) mark-up on D&M's budget and expenditures. | _L t 03/18/99 Contract 820 Amendment No. 1 HLY 23-4572