Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSouthern Intertie Envriomental Analysis 1997 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS (EVAL) DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NOVEMBER 1997 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS (EVAL) REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prepared by Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Dames & Moore Power Engineers, Inc. November 1997 - TABLE OF CONTENTS INtrOGUCHOR ....ciases.:...0ccssescssiines oecersciassasssss sassatsccscasoascenssusescasessecesnaseussesesieseeceuasseesaesussesesenes S-1 Purpose:of the: Project scscscsssssssssssscosssnensusesssususssnssnonensescacnsvousntsvesssssssscesseconusnsessensncersesnenssensess S- 1 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action ..........:ssssssssssssssssesesssseseseesessseseseeneassesseeseseseeeses S- 5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Study..............ccccesesesesseeeestseseeesees S-5 Alternatives to a Second Transmission Line.............:.ssscsssssesesseseeseeeceeescescessesseaeenseneees S-5 Alternative Transmission Systems S- 6 Alternative Transmission Routes ............::scsscesseeeesseeeeeeeseseesceseeeseeeseesseeees S-7 Alternatives Studied in Detail ssississcssssccscscscscsasceresasssseswexsussecncassssesssatssessecsvanssessonsessanesseasezeTs S-8 No-action Alternative....... . 8-8 Proposed Action: A lermati ye icc cscqxcxsecececevesactcepeosesssscscecseosatenssseensenssscesesssseeusceseocsescnssnssuss S-8 Environmental :‘ ConsequentCes ssccssscccscsencusesswessvesoseusussussnsovesvoneseasssussisusstissisesestonsioewspssstsosssss S-12 Scoping Consultation and Coordination .............scseeesseesessesesseseseseesescseescsessescseescsseeceeeeeaees S-15 Publiciand A gency Meetin 8 casicscsisscsssssssassssscseasncessassssereassaanssesiessassascnserensessnssessssisststen S-16 Southern Intertie Project i Executive Summary Draft November 1997 LIST OF FIGURES S-1 Railbelt Utilities Systemic. cis c- ss scecescececsssesscesecenosencvossstvonsssccsssocecasosetscresssseevssesssu S-3 S-2 Generation and Transmission System Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage Area... S-4 S-3 Study Area and Alternatives Route Progression ...........:cscssesesesssssessesssssesesseeeeees S-10 S-4 PA ternative ROULCS mere eres reer ner a oeeenenceeerareeeeeacere eee eee S-13 S-5 Anchorage AteayA ternative ROutes 2. c.ccessocssecesnsnvecsnsctsessessvorenssasensrevesnseesecessenes S-14 Southern Intertie Project ii Executive Summary Draft November 1997 vw _ SCOMANDNHRWN PPP WWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNN SHRP Re Re Re NK TCOWMOANDNAWNRK TO WANADNMNAPWNRK TWO WOAADMNHRWNKH EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Six electric utilities that are collectively known as the Intertie Participants Group (IPG) are proposing to construct a new transmission line in Alaska. The IPG consists of Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (Chugach); Municipality of Anchorage - Municipal Light and Power; City of Seward - Seward Electric System; Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.; Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. (GVEA); and Homer Electric Association, Inc. (HEA). These six utilities are jointly identified as the Applicant. The proposal, which is referred to as the Southern Intertie Project (Project), consists of the construction and operation of a 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line and associated facilities to be operated initially at 138kV between Anchorage and a location on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska. Chugach is acting as the construction manager for the proposed Project. Whereas Federal lands and/or Federal financing assistance may be required, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is the Lead Agency; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and U.S.D.A. Forest Service (USFS) are Cooperating Agencies for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. An EIS will be prepared in compliance with NEPA, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 and RUS environmental policies and procedures (7 CFR Part 1794) plus the pertinent regulations of the USFWS and USFS as appropriate. One or more of the alternative routes being considered would cross the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, a designated conservation system unit under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (P.L. 96-487). Therefore regulations implementing Title XI of ANILCA would apply to the entire project (43 CFR Part 36), if one of these routes is selected. The Title XI Transportation/Utility Systems Permit Application would be prepared in conjunction with the EIS and would be filed with the USFWS and USFS 16 months prior to the issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD). The EIS will be prepared by a third-party contractor under the direction of the lead and cooperating agencies. To facilitate the environmental review process, the Applicant has prepared this environmental analysis (EVAL). The EIS will be prepared based on this EVAL. PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT The Project is proposed as a system improvement project to increase the overall Railbelt Electrical System reliability and transfer of energy capabilities between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The Railbelt service area is illustrated on Figure S-1. The Project would consist of constructing a second electrical transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. Southern Intertie Project S-1 Executive Summary Draft November 1997 EXECSUMMARY es SCOANINDMNARWNK PP BRWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNDN RRP RRR ee NK COMDAIDNAPWNKTDOAWAIADAMNUPWNRKTOUOWMWAIDAMNAHWNH The Project as proposed would correct existing system deficiencies by providing a second line to: increase electrical transfer capability of the transmission system between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage to use existing generation resources more economically and reduce operating costs, reduce system requirements for spinning reserves, and improve electrical system stability increase reliability of the overall Railbelt Electrical System and the power supply to consumers on the Kenai Peninsula and in Anchorage by providing a second path for the power during an interruption of the existing Quartz Creek 115 kilovolt (kV) Line, and reduce load shedding requirements in case of system disturbances reduce transmission line losses and reduce maintenance costs on the Quartz Creek Line The proposed Project also would provide better distribution of the hydroelectric power from Bradley Lake on the Kenai Peninsula to the Railbelt Utilities, and would result in more efficient transmission of electrical energy between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage by relieving the current restrictions due to limitations in the capacity of the existing Quartz Creek Line (Figure S- 2). Specifically, the proposed Project is needed to provide a second path for power to flow between the two areas which will: Increase the reliability of the interconnected Railbelt Electrical System from the Kenai Peninsula to Fairbanks, and reduce the requirement for load shedding during system disturbances. Increase the power transfer capacity between the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl. Provide the capability to utilize the most economic generation mix available to reduce costs to consumers and to allow generation capacity in one area to support the load in the other area. Improve Railbelt system stability. Reduce area requirements for spinning reserve generation, thereby reducing operating costs and increasing the life-span of generation plants. Reduce transmission line losses for power transfers and reduce maintenance costs. Southern Intertie Project S-2 Executive Summary Draft November 1997 EXECSUMMARY Bernice Lake Kasilof (HEAP (Soldotna (AEG/T) Coo] Lal Sy Re xc ov a jana / ane posed Intertie Between Healy and Fairbanks lealy (GVEA) antwell (AEA) son AFB (US Air Force) VICINITY MAP on Rd (GVEA) Delt Junction B Railbelt Utilities System Southem Intertie Project Proposed Anchorage To Kenai Peninsula Transmission Project Figure S-1 ODBNANEAWNHH > OBMVNOANSHON= 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 COMMUNITIES GENERATION PLANTS TOTAL EXISTING GENERATION CAPACITY SHOWN IN MEGAWATTS (MW) BELUGA (CEA) 387 MW BERNICE LAKE (CEA) 70 MW COOPER LAKE HYDRO (CEA) 16 MW EKLUTNA HYDRO (APA) 32 MW SOLDOTNA (AEG&T) 38 MW BRADLEY LAKE (AEA) 120 MW PLANT 1 (AML&P) 92 MW INTERNATIONAL (CEA) 46 MW PLANT 2(AML&P) 249 MW TOTAL ANCHORAGE AREA GENERATION - 806 MW TOTAL KENAI PENINSULA AREA GENERATION - 244 MW SUBSTATIONS ANCHOR POINT (HEA) DAVES CREEK (CEA) DIAMOND RIDGE (HEA) DOUGLAS (MEA) FRITZ CREEK (HEA) GIRDWOOD (GEA) HOPE (CEA) INDIAN (CEA) KASILOF (HEA) LAWING (SES) PORTAGE (CEA) QUARTZ GREEK (CEA) SOLDOTNA (HEA) TEELAND (CEA) O'NEILL (MEA) SUMMIT LAKE (CEA) SEWARD (SES) PT. WORONZOF TRANSMISSION LINES DESIGNED A VASKV B 230kV Cc 138kV D 115kV E 69kV *-== QUARTZ CREEK LINE N CENTRAL ALASKA Source: Chugach Electric Association. 1995 Vee @ wittow pAts WASILLA @ SUTTON PALMER 6 GIRDWOOD 4 ® Sofere. D a! 2 7 Dy , 0 WHITTIER t maf HOPE NIKISKI Quartz Creek Line ——» + 16 D SOLDOTNA KASILOF WARE Peninsula x N BRADLEY JUNCTION + HOMER S 6 Gulf of 2 Alaska 0 15 30 60 nn GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM KENAI PENINSULA AND ANCHORAGE AREA Figure S-2/ o— SOAANDNAWN KH PRR HPWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNDNDN SS Ree eR Re WN CTUOAANIADMNAPWNKTOAWAAIADMNRPWNK DUO WAIDUNAHRWN KE ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION The following discussion addresses alternatives considered but eliminated from further study and project alternatives studied in detail. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY ALTERNATIVES TO A SECOND TRANSMISSION LINE Battery Energy Storage Systems—A Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) consists of a very large bank of electric batteries and automatically controlled electronic equipment to convert the electric energy stored in the batteries from direct current (DC) to alternating current (AC) that can be supplied to the electrical transmission system. BESSs were examined in some detail in the electrical system study effort (Power Engineers 1997). The conclusion of the electrical studies is that the BESS mitigates power swings due to a sudden interruption of power over the existing line, but introduces some instability and increases the likelihood of tripping other existing lines. Potential gains in system performance and increased power transfer are not fully achievable and could result in violations of the Alaska Systems Coordinating Council criteria for system stability. Considering the results of the electrical studies, the BESS at best only partially meets the purpose and need for the Project. Consequently, the BESS was eliminated as an alternative to the proposed action. Demand Side Management and Energy Conservation—Demand-Side Management (DSM) consists of electric utilities’ planning, implementing, and monitoring of activities designed to encourage consumers to modify their levels and patterns of electricity consumption. Members of the IPG have implemented energy efficiency and load management programs to varying degrees. DSM will not increase system reliability or increase the power transfer capacity between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage, nor will it improve system stability during disturbances or allow the utilities to use the most economic mix of generating plants to reduce costs. Since energy efficiency and load management programs do not address the purpose and need for the Project, DSM was not considered further as an alternative to the proposed action. New Generation—As an alternative to constructing a second line from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage, adding generation capacity on the Kenai Peninsula and/or in Anchorage was considered. Adding generation capacity would increase the generation resources available to serve load on the system; however, the overall system currently has an excess of generating capacity over electrical load. Additional generation resources are not needed. What is needed is an enhanced ability to use the existing generation resources in the most economical manner. Southern Intertie Project S-5 Executive Summary Draft November 1997 EXECSUMMARY OIDMNRWN PP HBR WWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNDNDN SSR SRR Ree WNK TDOAWANAIADUMPWNK TDOAWAAIDMPWNKTDOAWANIADMNARWNK OW Wind Generation—Power can be generated from the wind through the use of large wind turbines, or windmills, that are sited in areas that exhibit high average wind speeds. In 1980, a study was completed for the Alaska Power Administration to evaluate the wind energy potential in the Cook Inlet area. The study examined wind data from the Pacific Northwest Laboratory wind energy database for the area. The study concluded that there was no conclusive evidence that large scale generation of electric energy by megawatt scale wind turbines would be a significant viable energy option in the Cook Inlet area. Therefore, wind generation is not a viable option for the Project. Fuel Cells—As an emerging technology, fuel cells were considered as an alternative to a second transmission line. The addition of fuel cell generation to the Railbelt system would be another way of adding new generation resources to the system. While fuel cell generation plants offer potential for the future, larger size units are not currently commercially available. Consequently, fuel cells are not a viable option for the Project. Increasing Spinning Reserves—Spinning reserve is a portion of the operating reserves maintained by utilities. One of the reasons the Project is being proposed as a system improvement is to reduce spinning reserve requirements. Consequently, increasing the amount of spinning reserves on the system was eliminated as an alternative. ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS Upgrade of the Existing Quartz Creek Line While an upgrade of the existing line could increase the power transfer capability, there would still be only one transmission line interconnection between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The existing problems associated with system reliability and stability would become worse. An upgrade to the line to achieve higher power transfer levels would aggravate the problems associated with these issues, and would make system-wide blackouts and load shedding more likely for an outage of the line. As a result, the alternative of upgrading the existing line was eliminated. Alternate Voltage Levels Operating voltages of 138kV and 230kV have been studied. The advantage of 230kV rather than 138kV as an operating voltage would be higher power transfer capability with reduced transmission line losses. The substantially higher cost of the 230kV facilities (Power Engineers 1996) makes the 230kV operating voltage alternative uneconomical, when compared to the 138kV. A 138kV transmission line will meet the need for the Project based on current projections of load growth Southern Intertie Project S-6 Executive Summary Draft November 1997 EXECSUMMARY _ SCOANADAUNARWNK WWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNN RRP RP Ree OMANDNMNPWNK TOAWAAADUNPWNKTUOWAADUNHWN and generation additions. Therefore, an operating voltage of 230kV was eliminated and 138kV is proposed for the Project. ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION ROUTES Quartz Creek Transmission Line The Quartz Creek Route Alternative was identified and studied as a potential routing opportunity for the Project because it would follow an existing transmission line corridor. The Quartz Creek Route Alternative would involve siting the proposed line in a right-of-way adjacent to the existing 115kV transmission line right-of-way. The primary reasons for constructing the Intertie are to increase the reliability and electric transfer capability of the Railbelt Electrical System by establishing a second tie between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula which would be independent of the existing Quartz Creek Line. Reliability of the electric power supply to Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula is compromised because the Quartz Creek Line is vulnerable to weather and avalanche-caused outages. Constructing a second, parallel line along the Quartz Creek Line right-of-way would make both lines vulnerable to the same weather and avalanche-caused outages. Since the Quartz Creek Line is the only transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl, the loss of the line has a severe impact on the electrical systems on both the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl, causing outages for consumers in both areas. A second parallel line would be subject to the same potential for outages as the existing line, and would only marginally increase the reliability of the system. Thus, the second line would not meet the purpose and need for the Project in terms of significantly increasing the reliability of the system. A recent outage, November 1997, of the Quartz Creek Line due to high winds and a tree falling on the conductors emphasizes this reliability issue. In terms of increased energy transfer, a second parallel line would increase the transfer capacity of the system between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. However, with the second line parallel to the existing line and subject to the same outage events as the existing line, an avalanche or other event could remove both lines from service. Consequently, the new parallel line would be subject to the same single contingency outage events as the existing line, and would not reliably provide increased energy transfers during a significant outage event on the existing line. Southern Intertie Project S-7 Executive Summary Draft November 1997 EXECSUMMARY _ SOMA DUNPWN WWWWWWNHNNNNNNNNNDN YP RP Re eee APWNRKF TDOWAADUMUPWNKTDUOWADUNAHWN ALTERNATIVES STUDIED IN DETAIL Alternatives studied in detail are no action and the proposed action, including alternative transmission line routes. NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE If no action is taken, the right-of-way for the Project would not be acquired and the transmission line would not be built. Advantages of the no-action alternative would include saving of construction costs of the new facilities and the preclusion of associated impacts on the environment. If the Project is not constructed, the deficiencies would not be corrected and the system would continue to operate less reliably and at a higher cost than if the Project were constructed. Existing system deficiencies in the area of reliability, power transfer, economical utilization of existing generation, capacity sharing, system stability, spinning reserves, line losses, and maintenance would remain. If the project is not constructed, the benefits accruing from the Project, estimated at $143.5 million dollars (Decision Focus, Inc. 1977), would be lost and would continue as costs embedded in the rates for electricity. PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE The Project would consist of constructing a second electrical transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The range of cost is between $90.2 million and $112.5 million depending on which route and type of submarine cable are selected. ALTERNATIVE ROUTES A number of alternative routes for the proposed transmission line were identified, studied, and compared. The objective was to identify an environmentally preferred route. Substation sites and transition facilities were studied as well. The substation sites and transition facility sites selected would depend on the final route selected for the transmission line. Southern Intertie Project S-8 Executive Summary Draft November 1997 EXECSUMMARY PROCESS The process used to compare the routes included the following steps. The Route Selection Study - Phase I - Environmental Section Report (Dames & Moore 1996) was conducted to identify potential corridors feasible for constructing a transmission line. Most of these paralleled existing linear features (e.g., transmission lines, pipelines), which is preferable since the construction of a second line in an existing utility corridor is a compatible use of land, would be less intrusive, and minimize new disturbance (e.g., existing access roads can be used). The initial corridors were refined (Figure S-3), then reviewed by the public and relevant agencies through Scoping, which initiated the NEPA process. During scoping, issues and concerns were identified that could help focus the further evaluation of alternatives. A Resource Inventory was then conducted for each alternative route to establish the baseline of existing environmental resources. Through scoping and the inventory, a number of environmental issues were identified that influenced the direction of the analyses. Environmental issues included the following: effects on soils erosion and watersheds effects on vegetation, wildlife habitat, and wildlife species of concern effects on rural and urban land use aviation safety restricting uses within or adjacent to the proposed right-of-way effects on parks and recreation areas and tourism effects on scenic quality and views avalanche hazards compliance with public land management plans effects on cultural resources effects from construction activities Once data were compiled, the environmental resource data were assessed to determine the potential impacts that could result from implementing the project. During Impact Assessment and Mitigation Planning, initial impacts of the project on each resource were identified, measures to effectively mitigate the impacts were recommended, and residual impacts (those that remain after mitigation) were determined. Through a systematic analysis, all of the alternative routes were Screened and Compared, based on potential impacts and key issues, in order to narrow the number of alternative routes and select the environmentally preferred alternative route. Southern Intertie Project S-9 Executive Summary Draft November 1997 EXECSUMMARY Initial Regional Route Selection Study Area Kenai National Wildlife Refuge *#© Pipeline == Existing Transmission Line A Substations Note: Not to Scale Substations: 1-Bemice Lake 2 - Soldotna 3-Point Woronzof —_ 4 - International 5 - University Regional Route Selection Study Area and Alternative Study . Six Mile Creek Corridors Kenai National Distribution Wildlife Refuge =" Alternative Transmission Line Corridors ' Submarine Lines A Substations Note: Not to Seale Substations: 1 - Bernice Lake 2 - Soldotna 3 - Point Woronzof 4 - International 5 - University, APA, or Power Plant #2 EIS Study Area Tyonek Kenai National Wildlife Refuge =** Alternative Transmission Line Corridors == Existing Transmission Line 1 Submarine Lines A Substations Note: Not 1o Seale Substations: 1 -Bemice Lake 2 - Soldotna 3 - Point Woronzof 4 - International STUDY AREA AND ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PROGRESSION S-10 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Figure S-3 CNINNDMAARWNe NNNNP RR eB eee eee WNrFR COUOAWMANANIAUNRWNK OW 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 RESULTS For ease of comparison and presenting the results, the project area was divided into the Kenai Lowlands, Turnagain Arm, and Anchorage Bowl regions. The alternative routes are listed below and shown on Figures 4 and 5 and in Appendices A and B. Kenai Lowlands Alternative Route A - Links T1.1, T1.2, T1.3, T1.4, T2.1, T3.1, T32, T5.1, T5.2 Alternative Route B - Links $1.1, $1.2, $1.3, E.1.1, E1.3, E2.1, M5.1 Alternative Route C - Links $2.1, $1.5, E1.2, E1.3, E2.1, M5.1 Turnagain Arm Alternative Route D - Links M2.1., M2.2 Alternative Route E - Links M1.1, T4.1, T4.2, T4.3, M2.3 Alternative Route F - Links M1.1, T4.1, T4.2, T4.3, M1.3 Alternative Route G - Links M2.4 Alternative Route H - Links M2.1, M3.1 Alternative Route I - Links M4.1 Alternative Route J - Links M5.4 Alternative Route K - Links M5.3 Alternative Route L - Links MS5.5 Anchorage Bowl Alternative Route M - Links PW1.1 Alternative Route N - Links M3.2, 13.1, 13.2, 15.5 Alternative Route O - Links M3.2, I3.1, 13.3, 14.4, 15.5 Alternative Route P - Links M3.2, I3.1, 13.3, 14.3, 15.8, 15.9, 16.3 Alternative Route Q - Links I2.5, 12.6, I5.8, 15.9, 16.3 Alternative Route R - Links 12.5, 12.6, 14.3, 14.4, 15.5 Alternative Route S - Links 12.5, 12.8, 12.7, 15.6, 15.7, 15.3 Alternative Route T - Links 12.5, 12.6, 14.2, 15.6, 15.7, 15.3 Alternative Route U - Links 12.4, 12.7, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, 15.5 Alternative Route V - Links 12.4, 12.7, 14.2, 15.8, 15.9, 16.3 Alternative Route W - Links 12.4, 12.7, 15.6, 16.1, 15.9, 16.3 Alternative Route X - Links 12.4, 12.7, 15.6, 15.7, 15.3 Alternative Route Y - Links 12.4, 12.8, 12.6, 15.8, 15.9, 16.3 Alternative Route Z - Links 12.4, 12.8, 12.6, 14.3, 14.4, 15.5 These alternatives were compared and ranked based on potential impacts and key issues. In most locations, the issues and adverse impacts could be mitigated and the impacts remaining overall would be predominantly low (indiscernible-to-slight change to the environment) and some moderate (slight-to-substantial change). Only in some areas did high impacts (substantial-to- Southern Intertie Project S-11 Executive Summary Draft November 1997 EXECSUMMARY _ SOMAIANDNAWNHE RHP WWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNND SRR Re eRe WN TOMA ADMNAPWNK TUOWMAIADAMNRWNRK DOMAIN AAUNARWN KH significant change) remain that could not be wholly resolved at this stage of the project. Results of the comparison indicate that the environmentally preferred route would be a combination of Alternative Routes A, D, and M. The IPG will identify a proposed action in the Final EVAL. DECISIONS TO BE MADE The final route for the transmission line has not been selected. Comments received on the draft EVAL from the agencies will be reviewed, analyzed, and incorporated as appropriate into the Final EVAL. The Final EVAL will be used as a basis to create the DEIS by an independent third- party contractor hired by the RUS. The DEIS will be distributed to the public and agencies for review, and comments will be incorporated as appropriate into the Final EIS. The FEIS will be distributed to the public with a Record of Decision by the Rural Utilities Service, USFWS, and USFS. The Record of Decision will (1) state what the decision is, (2) identify all alternatives considered in reaching the decision, and (3) state whether all practical means to avoid or minimize harm from the alternative selected have been adopted, and if not, why they were not. The agencies will ensure that the decision is consistent with sound practices and that the decision is executed as stipulated. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The following resources were studied and analyzed for the alternative routes. earth resources biological resources land use recreation resources socioeconomics visual resources subsistence cultural resources ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES No Action - If no action is taken, the right-of-way for the Project would not be granted and the transmission line would not be constructed. Funds for the new facilities would not be expended and the environment would remain as it presently exists. However, the need for the Project would not be met. Constraints on the transmission of electricity between Anchorage and Kenai Peninsula would not be relieved; operational flexibility and reliability would not be improved; Railbelt Electrical System stability would not be improved and transmission line losses for power transfers and maintenance costs would not be reduced. Also, considering cultural resources, this Southern Intertie Project S-12 Executive Summary Draft November 1997 EXECSUMMARY = Ten TaN TT | CHICKALOON BAY | ws Ih ee’ { i ed ee see Alternative Routes SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Legend [77] State Park Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (223) Chugach National Forest a __| Private, Borough, or State Selected Lands General Reference Features Inventory Corridor Altemative Route Link Number Code Existing Substations Proposed Transition Facility Siting Area Pipeline Transmission Line Quartz Creck Transmission Line Railroad Study Area Boundary Rivers and Streams Oil Platform j Ocean/Lakes/Inlet ire Figure S-4 ————— >2rzzzz2rer€2z2z Source Data: Municipality of Anchorage (1994). Clnngeck Notional Forest 589) Kenai Peninsula (1994). i» USGS 1:63,360 and 1:25,000 Quads. ect Proj Anchorage Area Alternative Routes Proposed Anchorage To Kenai ission Figure S-5 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Peninsula Transm deneapencnmeploncemnnee mth ewer ee nnn ad. | | a a5 a 23 Route ive | Platform |] Ocean/Lakes/Inlet IV — Corridor A, Alternat Link Number o FA K b Facility ion Area nd Streams ipeline ti i ES & MOORE Transmission Line Study Area Boundary Rivers ai Transi iting P S Koi A VEOP BOF 6 General Reference Features J // N i om = _ SOMAANIDUNARWN— WWWWWWWNNNNNNNNND SRR eRe ee NDNPWNK TOAAIADAMNPWNK TDOAAIDMNARWN an Www on kh DW Nr ow; , > Ww alternative would forego the opportunity to develop detailed inventories and recovery of data that might be undertaken to mitigate impacts of the proposed Project. Proposed Action - Potential environmental consequences, or impacts, that could result from the proposed project are summarized below. Earth Resources - Impacts to surface water and soil erosion generally would be low. Impacts from hazards would range from moderate to high for submarine conditions due to risk of submarine cable failure. Biological Resources - The primary concerns regarding biological resources are the effects on vegetation, general wildlife habitat, and selected wildlife species. Impacts would range from low to moderate to high along the alternative routes. Potential cumulative impacts to brown bears is the greatest issue. Land Use and Recreation - The greatest potential for land use impacts appeared to be severance of occupied parcels and residences within the right-of-way, but these were mitigable. Generally, impacts would be low to moderate. Impacts to future land uses would be low based on known future plans along the alternative routes and use of existing utility corridors. Impacts on recreation uses generally would be low. Cumulative impacts would potentially occur on the Enstar Route as it passes through the Kenai NWR. A compatibility review will need to be conducted by the Kenai NWR manager and USFWS regional director. Socioeconomics - Employment and local purchases during construction of the Project would result in positive direct and indirect socioeconomic effects. Visual Resources - Impacts to visual resources would range from low to high, particularly for views from residences. Views from recreation areas and travelways would also range from low to high. Subsistence - Impacts to subsistence would be from negligible to low. There would be no change to access availability and there is little use of subsistence resources in the study area. Cultural Resources - Impacts on archaeological and historic sites generally are low to moderate throughout the Project alternatives. This is primarily a result of the ability to mitigate these impacts through detailed cultural surveys of the selected route and data recovery, where appropriate. SCOPING CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Scoping, a process open to the public and conducted early in the Project, served to identify the range or scope of issues to be addressed during the environmental studies and in the EIS. Southern Intertie Project S-15 Executive Summary Draft November 1997 EXECSUMMARY _ SCODADNARWN RPP HP WWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNDND SRR Re eee WN TUOAAIDNNAPWNK TDOWAADUNUAPWNK TDOWADNHWNH Activities associated with scoping included (1) agency contacts and coordination with cooperating agencies; (2) public meetings; and (3) letter and newsletter mailings, media releases. The NOI was published in the Federal Register in October 1996 announcing the anticipated preparation of an EIS for the proposed project and the opportunity for the public to comment at scoping meetings. Newsletters were mailed to individuals and organizations on the Project mailing list. In addition, approximately 66,500 utility bill inserts were mailed to all electric consumers within the Homer Electric Association and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power service areas. CEA customers were notified twice through notifications placed in the Chugach Outlet included in their monthly billing statements. Advertisements were placed in newspapers throughout the state. Poster-sized notices were placed in libraries, post offices, and community halls of communities where public meetings were held. PUBLIC AND AGENCY MEETINGS In November 1996, three public scoping meetings were conducted—in Anchorage, Cooper Landing and Soldotna. A total of 81 people attended the meetings. Written comments on the Project were solicited, and as of January 1, 1997, 84 written comments were received conuining approx mately 400 individual comments. In addition to the public scoping meetings held in various communities, an interagency scoping meeting was held on November 1996 in Anchorage. The purpose of the meeting was to (1) invite co-lead and/or cooperating agencies, and (2) solicit comments and/or concerns regarding issues that should be addressed in the EIS. Sixteen agency personnel attended the meeting, representing the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, USFWS, Alaska Energy Authority, Municipality of Anchorage, Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, RUS, BLM, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The scoping activities described above are just part of the comprehensive program for agency coordination and public participation that was developed as an integral part of the environmental process. Community participation has been conducted throughout the Project in order to identify and respond to specific issues of concern expressed by the agencies, public, and communities in the Project area. As part of the community participation, two community working groups (CWGs) were assembled, one on the Kenai Peninsula and the other in Anchorage, to address the issues. The CWGs provide an opportunity to incorporate local and community concerns into the EIS process. The CWGs consist of residents, property owners, realtors, municipal and borough government, special-interest groups, representatives from community councils, area school districts, and Native American groups. Throughout the planning process the CWGs have reviewed information Southern Intertie Project S-16 Executive Summary Draft November 1997 EXECSUMMARY CADMNARWN RWWWWWWHKWKWWWNNNNNNNNNNE EEE Pee eee COIDNEBWNHKEDOBDADAUVHRWNK SGOMNIADANVRWNK OLY presented in group meetings. The CWGs’ knowledge of localized issues and concerns were important in identifying alternatives to be evaluated for detailed environmental studies. The CWGs have met five times at key milestones during the process and received detailed presentations on the purpose and need for the Project, description of the Project, siting criteria, baseline inventory studies, the planning approach for the impact assessment process and mitigation measures, and the process for screening alternative routes. Each of the five meetings were held in both Anchorage and on the Kenai Peninsula. Based on agency, CWG members, and public input and concerns 12 issues were developed to be addressed in the alternative comparison and environmental consequences sections. The issues include: Need for the Project Urban and rural land use Aviation safety Recreation/tourism resources Public land management plans Watershed management/soil erosion Visual resources Biology Cultural resources Avalanche hazards Right-of-way limitations Marine and coastal environments Another related element of the environmental process is “environmental justice,” which is mandated in the form of Executive Order 12898. The executive order requires that federal actions avoid disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low income communities. Based on the results of the draft EVAL, no such impacts are anticipated. In order to encourage public partnerships and communication with low income and minority populations in the Project area, the public involvement program, integrated with the environmental planning process, was designed to be comprehensive and to respect and incorporate the different socio-cultural perspectives into the environmental analysis criteria. The process provided opportunities for public participation in and access to information on health and the environment as it related to the Project. Serious attention to all public comments enhanced the outcome of the process. Southern Intertie Project S-17 Executive Summary Draft November 1997 EXECSUMMARY APPENDIX A ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PHOTOGRAPHS Photo location: Link T1.3, North Kenai Road View direction: South Applicable routes: Route A Description: Link T1.3 would be located on left (east) side of road right-of-way. Photo location: Link T2.1, Captain Cook SRA View direction: North Applicable routes: Route A Description: Link T2.1 would be buried under- ground on right (east) shoulder of roadway. Photo location: Link T1.3, North Kenai Road View direction: South (aerial photo) Applicable routes: Route A Description: Link T1.3 would be located on left (east) side of road right-of-way. Photo location: Link T2.1, North of Captain Cook SRA View direction: North Applicable routes: Route A Description: Link T2.1 parallels right (east) side of Tesoro Pipeline north of Captain Cook SRA. TESORO ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Photo location: Link T3.2, South of Pt. Possession View direction: South (aerial photo) Applicable routes: Route A Description: Link T3.2 parallels left (east) side of Tesoro Pipeline. Tesoro Pipeline Photo location: Link T5.2, Pt. Possession View direction: East (aerial photo) Applicable routes: Route A Description: Link T5.2 would cross conveyed native lands with underground cable parallel to the Tesoro Pipeline. TESORO ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Photo location: Link $1.1, North of Soldotna Substation View direction: North Applicable routes: Route B Description: Link S1.1 would be located to the left (west) of the existing 115kV and 69kV lines. Photo location: Link $1.3, Swanson River Road View direction: East Applicable routes: Route B Description: Link $1.3 would be located parallel to the existing 115kV line on the left (north) side. Photo location: Link $2.1, Funny River Road View direction: West Applicable routes: Route C Description: Link $2.1 would replace the existing 69kV line. Photo location: Link $2.1, Kenai River crossing in Funny River area View direction: East Applicable routes: Route C Description: Link S2.1 would replace the existing 69kV line. SOLDOTNA NORTH AND SOUTH ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Photo location: Link E1.3, Enstar Pipeline corridor View direction: North Applicable routes: Routes B, C Description: Link E1.3 would parallel the Enstar Pipeline on the right (east) side. Photo location: Link E1.3, Enstar Pipeline corridor north of Chickaloon River crossing View direction: South (aerial photo) Applicable routes: Routes B, C Description: Link E1.3 would parallel the Enstar Pipeline on the left (east) side. Photo location: Link E1.3, Enstar Pipeline corridor near east fork of Seven Lakes View direction: Northeast Applicable routes: Routes B, C Description: Link E1.3 would parallel the Enstar Pipeline on the right (east) side. Photo location: Link E2.1, M5.1 Enstar Pipeline corridor near Chickaloon Flats View direction: North (aerial photo) Applicable routes: Routes B, C Description: View towards Burnt Island and Turnagain Arm. Links E2.1 and MS5.1 would parallel the Enstar Pipeline on the right (east) side. ENSTAR ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Photo location: Link PW1.1, Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof View direction: North (aerial photo) Applicable routes: Route M Description: View of Kincaid Park, International Airport and Knik Arm. Link PW1.1 would parallel the Tesoro Pipeline. 17 Photo location: Link 14.3, O’Malley Road View direction: East Applicable routes: Routes P, R, T, U, V, Z Description: Link 14.3 would be located on right (south) side of road right-of-way. Photo location: Link 15.5, Minnesota Drive View direction: South Applicable routes: Routes N, O, R, T, U, V, Z Description: Link 15.5 would be located on right (west) side of highway right-of-way. Photo location: Link 12.5, Alaska Railroad, Oceanview area View direction: North Applicable routes: Routes Q, R, S, T Description: Link 12.5 would be buried along right (east) side of railroad right-of-way. Flying Crown airstrip is on the left. ANCHORAGE ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Photo location: Link 12.4, Old Seward Highway View direction: Northeast Applicable routes: Routes U, V, W, X, Y, Z Description: Link [2.4 would transition from underground cable to overhead on the right (east) side of the roadway. Photo location: Link 15.6, Old Seward Highway south of Dimond Road View direction: North Applicable routes: Routes S, T, W, X Description: Link I5.6 would rebuild the existing line. Photo location: Link 15.3, International Airport Road View direction: West Applicable routes: Routes S, T, X Description: Link 15.3 would parallel the road on the right (north) side. Photo location: Link 13.1, Klatt Road View direction: East Applicable routes: Routes N, O, P Description: Link 13.1 would be buried along the left (north) side of the roadway. ANCHORAGE ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Photo location: Link PW1.1, Pt. Campbell View direction: South Applicable routes: Route M Description: Link PW1.1 would parallel the Tesoro Pipeline through the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge and Kincaid Park. Photo location: Link M4.1, Submarine Landing at Victor Road View direction: South Applicable routes: Route I Description: View of Turnagain Arm and Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. Submarine cable would be directionally drilled to cross the refuge. Photo location: Link I2.5, Alaska Railroad, Oceanview area View direction: South Applicable routes: Routes Q, R, S, T Description: Link M5.4 would be directionally drilled to cross the Coastal Wildlife Refuge. Link 12.5 would be submarine cable buried next to the tracks. Photo location: Rabbit Creek Interchange, New Seward Highway View direction: South Applicable routes: Routes U, V, W, X. Y, Z Description: View of Rabbit Creek Rifle Range and Potter Marsh. Link 12.4 would be buried parallel to the railroad tracks. ANCHORAGE SUBMARINE LANDINGS ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Map SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Legend =I] (J State Park Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (EBB Chugach National Forest Private, Borough, or State Selected Lands | @ General Photograph Location TION THN Wildlife 2) | bono Pt 0 ; H | : | i | } i General Reference Features N Inventory Corridor Alternative Route @ Link Number Code 4 Existing Substations Ten @® Proposed Transition Facility Siting Area “Pipeline /V Transmission Line “Y Quartz Creek Transmission Line “Vs Railroad “* Study Area Boundary /V Rivers and Streams A Oil Platform i [J Ocean/Lakes/Inlet b | —— i o 1 3 6 Miles iorpeli if Anchorage (199: o 4). ney of Forest (1995). ” DAMES & MOORE Kenai Peninsula (1994). vaeaeencaanaaee USGS 1:63,360 and 1: General Reference Features | Platform oO A line ipe Transm P (__] Ocean/Lakes/Inlet / Corr ine Li ission if idor lroad fw Ra Route ive Alternati Study Area Boundary Anchorage Area Photograph Reference k Number Linl Substations Ex © A Rivers and Streams Transi si lity Facil ition iting Area iles 3Mi © (General Photograph Location SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT | Project . Proposed Anchorage To Kenai ission Peninsula Transm APPENDIX B SCHEMATIC ROUTE DIAGRAMS Bernice Lake to Pt. Woronzof/International Kenai Peninsula LINKS: T1.1,T1.2, T1.3, T1.4, T2.1, T3.1, 13.2, T5.1, T5.2 Soldotna to Pt. Woronzof/International Kenai Peninsula LINKS: $1.1, $1.2, $1.3, El.1, E1.3, E2.1, M5.1 Soldotna to Pt. Woronzof/International Kenai Peninsula LINKS: S2.1, $1.5, E1.2, E1.3, E2.1,M5.1 * SUBSTATIONS: 1 Bernice Lake 2 Soldotna KENAI LOWLANDS 3 Pt. Woronzof 4 International Bernice Lake to Pt. Woronzof Bernice Lake to Pt. Woronzof Bernice Lake to Pt. Woronzof Kenai Peninsula Kenai Peninsula Kenai Peninsula LINKS: M2.1, M2.2 LINKS: M1.1, 74.1, 74.2, T4.3, M2.3 LINKS: M1.1, 74.1, 14.2, 74.3, M1.3 Bernice Lake to Pt. Woronzof Bernice Lake to International Soldotna to International Kenai Peninsula Kenai Peninsula Kenai Peninsula LINKS: M2.4 LINKS: M2.1, M3.1 LINKS: M4.1 Soldotna to International Soldotna to International Soldotna to Pt. Woronzof Kenai Peninsula Kenai Peninsula Kenai Peninsula LINKS: MS.4 LINKS: MS.3 LINKS: MS.5 TURNAGAIN ARM * SUBSTATIONS: 1 Bernice Lake 2 Soldotna 3 Pt. Woronzof 4 International Klatt to International Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof Anchorage 4-— LINKS: PW1.1 LINKS: M3.2, 13.1, 13.2, 15.5 Alaska Railroad/ Alaska Railroad/ Oceanview to International Oceanview to International Anchorage LINKS: 12.5, 12.6, 15.8, 15.9, 16.3 LINKS: 12.5, 12.6, 14.3, 14.4, 15.5 * SUBSTATIONS: 1 Bernice Lake 2 Soldotna 3 Pt. Woronzof 4 International Klatt to International LINKS: M3.2, 13.1, 13.3, 14.4, 15.5 Alaska Railroad/ Oceanview to International LINKS: 12.5, 12.8, 12.7, 15.6, 15.7, 15.3 Klatt to International LINKS: M3.2, 13.1, 13.3, 14.3, 15.8, 15.9, 16.3 Alaska Railroad/ Oceanview to International LINKS: 12.5, 12.6, 14.2, 15.6, 15.7, 15.3 ANCHORAGE BOWL Alaska Railroad/ Alaska Railroad/ Alaska Railroad/ Alaska Railroad/ Rabbit Creek to International Rabbit Creek to International Rabbit Creek to International Rabbit Creek to International Anchorage LINKS: 12.4, 12.7, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, 15.5 LINKS: 12.4, 12.7, 14.2, 15.8, 15.9, 16.3 LINKS: 12.4, 12.7, 15.6, 16.1, 15.9, 16.3 LINKS: 12.4, 12.7, 15.6, 15.7, 15.3 Alaska Railroad/ Alaska Railroad/ Rabbit Creek to International Rabbit Creek to International LINKS: 12.4, 12.8, 12.6, 15.8, 15.9, 16.3 LINKS: 12.4, 12.8, 12.6, 14.3, 14.4, 15.5 PSUBSTATIONS: Pe Woroncot 4 Imeraona ANCHORAGE BOWL (Continued)