The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutS Intertie Selection Study Phase 1 10-1996ORR DOWER G DAMES & MOORE PROJECT NO: 120293-01 NGINEERS "59 A DAMES & MOORE GROUP COMPANY ISSUED TO: Qa ° yg re Z ° CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. CONTRACT NO. 95-208 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT ROUTE SELECTION STUDY PHASE 1 OCTOBER 28, 1996 FINAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT REVISION 1 FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: -» Tim R. Tetherow, ASLA Randy Pollock, P.E. Niklas O. Ranta Mike Walbert, P.E. gus POWER ENGINEERS, INC. # P.O. BOX 1066 # HAILEY, IDAHO 83333 (208) 788-3456 # FAX (208) 788-2082 DAMES & MOORE + 5600 B STREET #¢ ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99518-1641 (907) 562-3366 # FAX (907) 562-1297 SOUTHERN INTERTIE ROUTE SELECTION STUDY PHASE 1 FINAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT REVISION 1 October 28, 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1-O-INTRODUCTION Gr aaa fone eee eee Esha eee ee ee ae same ae aes 1-1 1-I— BACK GROUND rear satgee sets see fe ees eae 1-1 1.2. PURPOSE OF THIS SUMMARY REPORT ............--2+--05- 1-3 2:0. PURPOSE: AND! NEED © aa. etc. se posse site ove eons ee 4 OLA og Os 2-1 2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND NEED .............. 2-1 2.2 PREVIOUS STUDIES ASSESSING THE NEED FOR THE PROJECT .... 2-4 3.0 PROPOSED ACTION & PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................... 3-1 3.1 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .............--.----- 3-1 3.2 PROJECT STUDY AREA. fcc0erist 6 te ne oe ee ee 3-2 3.3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......... 0.0.00 eee eee eee eee 3-4 3.4 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE LOCATIONS .................000005 3-6 4.0 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS .... 0.0.0.0. ec eee eee 4-1 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR SUMMARY ....... 4-1 4.2 TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR SUMMARY ............ 4-4 5.0 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION .............0 00 e eee eee eee eee 5-1 5.1 ELECTRICAL STUDIES SECTION REPORT SUMMARY ........... 5-1 5.1.1 Electrical System Alternatives .. 2.2... 2.0.0... 0... eee eee 5-2 5.1.2 Electrical System Summary and Conclusions ................ 5-3 5.1.3. Load Flow and Dynamic Stability Study Summary ............ 5-6 5.2 PRELIMINARY DESIGN SECTION REPORT SUMMARY .......... 5-12 5.2.1. Summary of Preliminary Design Results .................2. 5-14 5.2.1.1 Overhead Transmission Line .................0-. 5-14 5.2.1.2 Submarine and Underground Cable ................ 5-16 5.2.1.3 Substations 2... 2... eee 5-19 5.2.1.4 Reactive Compensation ...............0.00000- 5-20 5.3 ECONOMIC SECTION REPORT SUMMARY ............22.0005 5-21 5.3.1 Summary of Estimates... 2.0... 0... eee ee eee 5-22 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Title Page 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT / MACRO CORRIDOR ANALYSIS .......... 6-1 6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY APPROACH ............2.2000008 6-1 6.2 STUDY AREA INVENTORY .......... 00.020 ee eee ee ee eee 6-2 6.3. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY CONTACT PROGRAM ..... 6-5 6.4—_SITING CRITERIA aac eso teers es I ROS 6-5 7.0 LAND/REGULATORY SECTION REPORT SUMMARY ..............65- 7-1 7.1. CORRIDOR-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS . 2.0... 20... cee ee ee eee 7-1 7.2. PRIVATE LAND EASEMENT ACQUISITION ...........-222200- 7-8 8.0 EIS AND THE NEPA PROCESS .......... 0.02 ee eee eee ee eee 8-1 Soi _BISASSUES) <2 eee nage oon ome ee 8-1 8.2. KEY COMPONENTS -i5peece oi are ieee soe eee ae eae ers 8-1 8.3—- SCOPING rosea ow foes 9 eo ce oie eve aera ieee Sl SS aUSLaCS as 8-3 8.4 INVENTORY .......... 0 cece ee eee ee teens 8-3 8.5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION PLANNING........... 8-4 8.5.1 Impact Assessment ... 2... . 2... eee ee eee 8-5 85.2— M iligation eee ee ee ee ee 8-5 8.5.3 — Site-Specific Models ==. =a ie se ee 8-6 8.6 ALTERNATIVE SELECTION ......... 0.000. e cece eee eee 8-6 8.7 EVAL AND DRAFT EIS PREPARATION ............000000005 8-7 8.8 FINAL EIS PREPARATION AND RECORD OF DECISION ......... 8-7 8.9 PUBLIC/AGENCY INVOLVEMENT ........... 0.00. e eee eee 8-7 8:9-1— ID Team -Meetings —...... cet cau ws G Geb wew eww wae 8-8 8.9.2 Community Work Group Meetings ...............000000- 8-8 8.9.3 Scoping: Meetings i526 e 0 we Ge GES GREE wee wee 8-8 8.9.4 Open Houses (Optional)... 2... 0... eee eee 8-8 8.945 — Public Hearings 32442454 sa5. ace ae ee ea SDSS EOE SSeS 8-8 8.9.6 Newsletters... 2... ee ee eee 8-8 8.10 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ......... 20.0 e eee ee eee 8-8 il APPENDIX Appendix A Map Cross Reference Table LIST OF ACRONYMS (Fold-out at End of Document) TABLES Table 1 Design Characteristics of 138kV and 230kV Table 2 Summary Analysis of the Tesoro, Enstar, and Quartz Creek Alternatives Table 3 Summary Analysis of the Bird Point Alternative Table 4 Technical and Cost Analysis Summary Table 5 Electrical System Study Results Table 6 —_ Electrical System Study Results Table 7 Summary of Overhead Line Design Information Table 8 Submarine and Land-based Cable Systems Table 9 — Fiber Optic Capable Cost Estimation Table 10 Summary of Costs 138kV System - Submarine: 2-3 Phase Flat Cables Table 11 Summary of Costs 138kV System - Submarine: 4-1 Phase Cables Table 12 Summary of Costs 230kV System Table 13 Public/Agency Issues and Concerns Table 14 Corridor Specific Permits/Authorizations Table 15 Corridor Landowner Status FIGURES Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2. Generation and Transmission System Figure 3. Study Area and Alternative Substations Figure 4 Typical 138/230kV Configurations Figure 5 Alternative Corridors Figure 6 Anchorage Routing Photos Figure 7 Tesoro Route Photos Figure 8 __Enstar Route Photos Figure 9 Quartz Creek Route Photos Figure 10 Electrical System Study Alternatives Figure 11 HWVUG Cable Types Figure 12 Study Approach and NEPA Process ili 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND The Southern Intertie Transmission Line Project is being proposed to improve the Railbelt system reliability and transfer of energy capabilities between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The project would consist of constructing an additional electrical transmission line from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage. The Railbelt system is a power grid that electrically connects south-central Alaska from Homer to Fairbanks. The railbelt service area is illustrated in Figure 1. There are three distinct regions: interior area, centered around Fairbanks; Anchorage and Matanuska Valley area; and Kenai Peninsula. Electrical generation, transmission and distribution within the Alaska Railbelt are currently provided by seven utility companies which comprise the Intertie Participants Group (IPG), also referred to as the Railbelt Utilities. Members of the IPG include Fairbanks Municipal Utility System, Golden Valley Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, Chugach Electric Association, Anchorage Municipal Light and Power, Homer Electric Association, and Seward Electric System. The IPG was created to improve the electrical transmission network throughout the Alaska Railbelt and to provide better service to customers through cooperative energy projects. A series of engineering, economic and environmental studies have been conducted for the IPG’s proposed Southern Intertie Project. Southern Intertie-related studies include a corridor feasibility study in 1987 and the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Railbelt Feasibility Study in 1991. In November of 1995 POWER Engineers and Dames & Moore were retained by the IPG to conduct a Route Selection Study which includes an alternatives analysis, environmental, and macro corridor studies. These studies established the feasibility. for the project and included electrical system, cost-benefit, economic, and alternative corridor studies. The 1995 studies have been prepared as a part of the environmental review and permitting process through the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). These studies resulted in the following technical documents: ¢ Electrical Studies Report: Volumes I, II, & Ill * Design Report ¢ Lands/Regulatory Report 1-1 ALASKA RAILBELT SERVICE AREA -_ =, A aS —_®y— University Substation Substation F ire | RE Le x go ~s os Bernice Lake S{, ¢ “oe Substation ' a os > soldotna Southern Intertie Project VICINITY MAP Figure 1 * Economic Report ¢ Environmental Report e Executive Summary Report 1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS SUMMARY REPORT The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is the Federal Lead Agency who will be responsible for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Southern Intertie Project in conjunction with the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal, state, and local agencies. The Executive Summary Report provides the public and agencies with an overview of the studies to assist in the public scoping process required under NEPA. The Phase I Environmental Study uses a link numbering system which has been refined and incorporated into this report. For purposes of commenting on the alternative routes please use the Phase I link number listed in Appendix A, and used in the Phase I report. Supporting technical reports are available at IPG offices. The RUS will conduct three public scoping workshops as follows: November 12, 1996, 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Spenard Community Recreation Center 2020 West 48th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska (907) 343-4160 November 13, 1996, 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Cooper Landing Community Hall Bean Creek Road Cooper Landing, Alaska (907) 595-1257 November 14, 1996, 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Kenai Peninsula Borough Chambers 144 N. Binkley Street Soldotna, Alaska (907) 262-4441 1-3 These workshops will provide the public the opportunity to comment on the project need, alternatives, NEPA process, and social, environmental, and economic issues associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed Southern Intertie Transmission Line Project. In addition to a summary of the alternatives analysis, environmental, and macro corridor studies, this document provides an overview of the approach to the EIS and NEPA process for this project. The summary document includes: ¢ Purpose and need, * Proposed action and project description, ¢ Corridor analysis, ¢ Alternatives evaluation, ¢ Environmental report/macro corridor analysis, ¢ Land/regulatory section report summary, and ¢ EIS and the NEPA process. 1-4 2.1 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND NEED The Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl are connected by one transmission line. The line is the 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line known as the Quartz Creek Line. The Quartz Creek Line was constructed in 1960 to transmit power from Chugach Electric Associations’ Cooper Lake hydro-electric project to the Anchorage Bowl. The Quartz Creek Line has become an electrically “weak” link in the Railbelt electric transmission system, which extends from Homer to Fairbanks. The Quartz Creek Line has become the “weak” link due to load growth in the Anchorage bowl and the addition of hydro-electric generation on the Kenai Peninsula. This load growth, additional generation, and the physical characteristics of the Quartz Creek Line have combined to make the performance of the electric transmission system inadequate. In particular: The Quartz Creek Line is not capable of transmitting all of the excess power which is capable of being generated on the Kenai Peninsula (Figure 2). The Quartz Creek Line has a maximum secure transfer capacity of 75,000 kilowatts (kW) or 75 megawatts (MW). Approximately 245 MW of generation is available on the Kenai Peninsula. The Quartz Creek Line is not capable of transmitting power which can be generated at the Bradley Lake hydro-electric generation facility. The Bradley Lake Project was constructed in 1990 and has a nominal capacity of 120 MW. Additional transmission lines between Bradley lake and Anchorage were not included in the project. Bradley Lake represents a renewable resource for which operating costs are low compared to other available sources of power. The existing electrical system does not allow use of the full capacity of this plant. 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. The Quartz Creek Line is difficult to access for repairs, particularly in the case of avalanche damage, and is therefore at risk for extended outages. Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula depend upon the Quartz Creek Line as a backup source of power. The loss of the line for extended periods creates the possibility that one additional generation problem or line outage could create prolonged outages. 2-1 The Quartz Creek Line is the only transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl. Therefore, the loss of the line has a severe impact on the electrical systems on both the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl. In a typical situation, generation must be shut down on the Kenai peninsula, while load in the Anchorage area must be shed automatically, or supplied from other sources such as spinning reserves', and additional transfers on the transmission line from Fairbanks. Starting additional generation plants is usually not possible in time to avoid outages. The potential for outages to consumers on both the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl for loss of the Quartz Creek Line exists as a result. The electrical system as it exists today requires, under some circumstances, load shedding? to avoid a more massive outage on the transmission system during system disturbances. These disturbances are events such as loss of generation units, an outage on the transmission line to Fairbanks, or loss of the Quartz Creek Line. The existing electrical system, because of the conditions noted above, fails to meet many of the Alaska Coordinating Council (ASCC) Planning Criteria. These Planning Criteria are a system reliability standard developed by a consensus of the Railbelt utilities based upon the National Electric Reliability Council (NERC) standards modified for the Alaskan electric utility environment. While improvements to the existing line might allow for a long-term power transfer greater than 75MW,, increasing the transfer capability of the line would also significantly increase losses (from 6.9MW to 25MW). This would not be a practical alternative for continuous operation. Even with these improvements the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area would still be subject to power outages should the existing 115kV line experience an interruption. As a result of these deficiencies the IPG is proposing the Southern Intertie Transmission Line Project. The action proposed by the Southern Intertie Transmission Line Project is to construct a second transmission line, at either 138kV or 230kV, between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. Necessary substation additions and modifications would be included in the project. ' Spinning reserves - defined in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics terms as “that operating reserve connected to the bus and ready to take load.” ? Load shedding - the process of deliberately removing pre-selected loads from a power system in response to an abnormal condition in order avoid a regional or system wide black out. 2-2 @ COMMUNITIES m GENERATION PLANTS TOTAL EXISTING GENERATION CAPACITY SHOWN y IN MEGA WATTS (MW) BELUGA (CEA) 387MW 7 BERNICE LAKE (CEA) 70MW COOPER LAKE HYDRO (CEA) 16MW . EKLUTNA HYDRO (APA) 32MW ce peace cae SOLDOTNA (AEG&T) 38MW ; BRADLEY LAKE (AEA) 120MW PLANT 1 (AML&P) 92MW INTERNATIONAL (CEA) 46MW GIRDWOOD PLANT 2 (AML&P) 249MW TOTAL ANCHORAGE AREA GENERATION - 806MW TOTAL KENAI PENISULA AREA GENERATION - 244MW a SUBSTATIONS 15 WASILLA @ sutton @ D e PALMER CONAHEON A 1 ANCHOR POINT (HEA) : a 2 DAVES CREEK (CEA) D 3 DIAMOND RIDGE (HEA) one 4 DOUGLAS (MEA) 5 FRITZ CREEK (HEA) 6 GIRDWOOD ( CEA) 13 7 HOPE ( CEA) 8 INDIAN( CEA) 9 KASILOF (HEA) 10 _LAWING (SES) 11. PORTAGE ( CEA) KASILOF 12 QUARTZ CREEK (CEA) 13 SOLDOTNA (HEA) 14 TEELAND( CEA) Penninsula 15 O'NEILL (MEA) Ry ‘3 SUMMIT LAKE (CEA) S ve BRADLEY JUNCTION - TRANSMISSION LINES ¥ DESIGNED : ’ A 345KV yee D ° Gulf of B 230 KV : Alaska C 138 KV D115 KV E 69 KV Nl 0 15 30 60 wee eee GENERATION & TRANSMISSION SYSTEM CENTRAL ALASKA KENAI PENNINSULA & ANCHORAGE AREA Source: Chugach Electric Association, 1995 Figure 2 The proposed transmission line will solve the existing problems by providing a second line to increase: ¢ Electrical transfer capability of the transmission system between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage to more economically use existing generation resources, improve electrical system stability, and reduce load shedding requirements in case of system disturbances. ¢ Reliability of the power supply to customers on the Kenai Peninsula and in Anchorage by providing a second path for the power during an interruption of the existing Quartz Creek Line. The proposed project would provide better access to renewable energy resources (hydroelectric power at Bradley Lake) on the Kenai Peninsula and will result in more efficient distribution and transmission of electrical energy without restrictions due to limitations in the capacity of the existing line. 2.2 PREVIOUS STUDIES ASSESSING THE NEED FOR THE PROJECT The need for the Southern Intertie Project has been studied extensively, and many detailed engineering and economic studies have been completed, analyzing the merits of a second transmission line from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage. The studies include an assessment of the reliability of the Alaska interconnected system by the NERC*. To gain an understanding of the results of the NERC studies regarding the purpose and need for the Southern Intertie Project, the following are selected quotes from the study* as follows: "The Alaska Railbelt electric utility systems began interconnected operations in 1984 by linking together the Fairbanks area with the Anchorage Bowl. (The Anchorage Bowl had been previously interconnected with the Kenai Peninsula in the 1960s.) The unique geographic, economic, and electrical characteristics of the electrical systems in these three areas have resulted in an interconnection that is far less reliable than the four major electric 3 NERC was established in 1968 to increase the reliability and adequacy of bulk power supply in the electric utility systems of North America. It is comprised of nine regional reliability councils and covers all the power systems of the United States and some of the power systems in Canada. The Alaska Systems Coordinating Council (ASCC) is an affiliate member of NERC. 4 Reliability Assessment of the Railbelt Interconnected Electric Utility Systems, North American Reliability Council, 1990. 2-4 The proposed transmission line will solve the existing problems by providing a second line to increase: ¢ Electrical transfer capability of the transmission system between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage to more economically use existing generation resources, improve electrical system stability, and reduce load shedding requirements in case of system disturbances. ¢ Reliability of the power supply to customers on the Kenai Peninsula and in Anchorage by providing a second path for the power during an interruption of the existing Quartz Creek Line. The proposed project would provide better access to renewable energy resources (hydroelectric power at Bradley Lake) on the Kenai Peninsula and will result in more efficient distribution and transmission of electrical energy without restrictions due to limitations in the capacity of the existing line. 2.2 PREVIOUS STUDIES ASSESSING THE NEED FOR THE PROJECT The need for the Southern Intertie Project has been studied extensively, and many detailed engineering and economic studies have been completed, analyzing the merits of a second transmission line from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage. The studies include an assessment of the reliability of the Alaska interconnected system by the NERC®. To gain an understanding of the results of the NERC studies regarding the purpose and need for the Southern Intertie Project, the following are selected quotes from the study‘ as follows: "The Alaska Railbelt electric utility systems began interconnected operations in 1984 by linking together the Fairbanks area with the Anchorage Bowl. (The Anchorage Bowl had been previously interconnected with the Kenai Peninsula in the 1960s.) The unique geographic, economic, and electrical characteristics of the electrical systems in these three areas have resulted in an interconnection that is far less reliable than the four major electric 3 NERC was established in 1968 to increase the reliability and adequacy of bulk power supply in the electric utility systems of North America. It is comprised of nine regional reliability councils and covers all the power systems of the United States and some of the power systems in Canada. The Alaska Systems Coordinating Council (ASCC) is an affiliate member of NERC. * Reliability Assessment of the Railhelt Interconnected Electric Utility Systems, North American Reliability Council, 1990. 2-4 interconnections of the NERC. For example, the relatively small electrical size of the Railbelt interconnection causes automatic shedding of customer load to take place following most generation and Railbelt interconnection transmission line contingencies>." "Two important reliability issues face the Alaska Railbelt interconnected systems. First is the need for additional transmission interconnection lines between the three major load centers and their generation facilities. The existing area interconnection lines are single, limited capacity lines prone to outage by weather and avalanche. Second, is the need to maintain a proper balance between economy and reliability. The cost of reliability is exceptionally high for the Railbelt systems resulting in compromises to the generally accepted electric utility reliability criteria in the lower 48 states and most of Canada." "The existing single line transmission interconnections between the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl and between the Anchorage Bowl and the Fairbanks area constrain the sharing of generation between and among load centers and pose a significantly higher than traditional reliability risk for system-wide blackouts due to single contingency outages’. In terms of traditional reliability criteria, the proposed (Southern Intertie Project) 138kV transmission line provides a second circuit between the Kenai peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl and is necessary to help improve the reliability of electric supply to the Kenai Peninsula, the Anchorage Bowl, and the Fairbanks area. This line will increase the electric transfer capability between the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage area, improve system stability’, and help to reduce the number of load shedding incidents in the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas and the black out or loss of electric supply to Kenai peninsula customers following certain system outages or contingencies. It will also help to reliably distribute the output of the Bradley Lake hydroelectric generation facility to the appropriate utility purchasers of the hydroelectric capacity. Without this line, reliability in the Kenai Peninsula will likely be reduced following the completion of the Bradley Lake project." (The Bradley Lake Project was completed in 1991.) > A contingency condition is when a system component (line, transformer, etc.) is not available to perform its intended function due to some event (either planned or unplanned). © A single contingency outage occurs with the loss of any one system component. A double contingency outage occurs with the loss of two system components during the same event. 7 System stability is broadly defined as that property of a power system that enables it to remain ina state of operating equilibrium under normal operating conditions and to regain an acceptable state of equilibrium after being subjected to a disturbance. 2-5 The study further states: "The addition of the proposed 138kV circuit between Soldotna Substation, requiring transformation from 115kV at that point, to the 138kV portion of University Substation (the proposed Southern Intertie Project) would not only provide a parallel path to the existing tie, but would also make the Kenai electric system more of a loop arrangement. It is in view of this that the following comments are offered as regard reliability aspects: The existing 115kV interconnection line has a poor reliability history and has a transmission transfer capacity limit under 75 MW. The chances of significantly improved performance is not great due to its physical/geographical location and system conditions that exist. The second (proposed Southern Intertie Project) Kenai interconnection line to the Anchorage Bowl area would improve reliability by preventing the shedding of customer load if the existing interconnection line trips (with the possible exception of those times when the Kenai Peninsula generation is operated in anticipation of loss of the existing tie*.) When Bradley Lake comes into service, reliability will suffer without a second interconnection tie. That is, the second Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage Bowl line is necessary to support Bradley Lake and to help reliably distribute the Bradley Lake capacity to the purchasing systems, to minimize blackouts in the Kenai Peninsula, and to minimize underfrequency load shedding in the Fairbanks area and the Anchorage Bowl." In 1991, the AEA prepared the Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study -- Final Report, March 1991. That report summarizes the benefits and costs of constructing an Anchorage-Kenai Intertie (Southern Intertie Project) along with a discussion of the Healy-Fairbanks Intertie (Northern Intertie). The 1991 AEA report summarized a number of factors regarding the two projects including engineering and design, capital cost estimates, operating cost estimates, environmental impacts, fuel price forecasts, electricity demand, and project benefits. The key benefits of the Southern 8 The existing 115kV Anchorage-Kenai interconnection is at times operated at zero electrical flow, in anticipation of possible storm outages. This is an inefficient way of operating the system because during the period the line is not transferring electrical power between the Kenai and Anchorage Bowl, higher cost alternate generation sources must be used. 2-6 We : wee Intertie Project as described in the report include reliability benefits, improving generation and dispatch efficiency, and generation réserve requirements. A \ The conclusions drawn by the ran after reviewing all of the studies and comments to the studies with respect to the Anchorage.Kenai Intertie (Southern Intertie Project) include the following: "The expected value of benefits previously developed for the Southern Intertie Project ranges from $63.9 million to $125.5 million in January 1991 dollars." "As discussed in Chapter 6, the ranges of these estimates are due in large part to the nature of the benefits that the studies attempt to quantify. The Authority (AEA) has not adopted or rejected any specific benefit estimate or numerical benefit-cost ratio. Overall, however, the Authority's conclusion is that the life-cycle benefits for each project will exceed project costs." "In addition, an overall perspective on transmission system adequacy must be factored in to the judgment on the merits of the proposed intertie. As reported in Chapter 6, the NERC has stated the following: “The existing single line transmission (interconnection) between the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl pose(s) a significantly higher than traditional reliability risk for system-wide blackouts due to single contingency outages. In terms of traditional reliability criteria, the proposed Soldotna (Anchorage) 138kV transmission line is necessary to help improve the reliability of the electric supply to the Kenai Peninsula, the Anchorage Bowl, and the Fairbanks area." Also reported in Chapter 6 are remarks prepared by Power Technologies, Inc. (PTI), technical consultant to the Authority on transmission issues: "At 75 MW export, the Kenai-Anchorage tie operation goes beyond the Railbelt practice of lean system design. Nowhere in the Railbelt is so much resource so critically dependent on stability aids and a single line. A new line from the Kenai area to Anchorage would provide Kenai-Anchorage interconnection reliability at least on a par with most of the remainder of the Railbelt system." Beyond the quantified benefit estimates, then, these observations make it clear that a second line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage is necessary to meet prevailing industry standards of transmission reliability. The economic studies summarized above combined with 2-7 these observations are the basis for the Authority's conclusion that life-cycle benefits of the proposed (Southern Intertie] Project will exceed project costs." 3.0 PROPOSED ACTION & PROJECT DESCRIPTION This section will provide a discussion of the other alternatives considered, a description of the proposed project including the types of facilities proposed, the project study area, and the alternative corridor locations identified. While the proposed southern intertie transmission line project is the only electrical alternative that meets the stated purpose and need, it is important to understand other electrical alternatives were also considered. 3.1 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The following are other alternatives that were considered for the project. They include: Do Nothing, Energy Conservation, Other Technologies, Alternative Transmission Systems, and Undergrounding the Entire Project. None of these alternatives will meet the purpose and need of the proposed project. Do Nothing: The Do Nothing alternative would not provide the necessary transfer capability, of power or reliable power, between the Anchorage and Kenai areas as discussed in Chapter 6 of the 1991 AEA report: “At 75 MW export, the Kenai-Anchorage tie operation goes beyond the Railbelt practice of lean system design. Nowhere in the Railbelt is so much resource so critically dependent on stability aids and a single line... A new line from the Kenai area to Anchorage would provide Kenai-Anchorage interconnection reliability at least on par with most of the remainder of the Railbelt system.“ Energy Conservation: Energy conservation is the more efficient use of electricity by customers. Chugach Electric, along with other IPG members, is implementing or studying various energy conservation programs. Though energy conservation can somewhat reduce energy consumption, it affects energy use on a local, rather than a regional, basis. Therefore, energy conservation plans alone cannot be considered an alternative action to meet the stated need for the project. New Generation Facilities: Another alternative to building a new transmission line would be to build new electric generation facilities. This alternative would only meet a portion of the purpose and need for the Southern Intertie Project because it does not address the need for energy transfer between the two areas. In addition, this alternative does not provide a reliable improvement for the existing Quartz Creek transmission line, which would remain as the only electrical connection 3-1 between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. As a result, the only way to meet the purpose and need is to build a second transmission line connecting the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage areas. Other Technology: Local reliability could be increased through the installation of Battery Energy Storage Systems or Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage units in Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. Although this would increase reliability by providing an electrical source during transmission system or generation disturbances, it would not increase energy transfer capability between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. Alternative Transmission Systems: This section investigated the possibility of finding new and alternative ways to upgrade the existing transmission systems instead of constructing the Southern Intertie Project. Measures have been taken to improve the reliability of the Quartz Creek Line against avalanche hazards. Although the structural reliability of the line has improved, the ability to increase electric capacity is not economically feasible when considering alternatives. Therefore, the only alternative to meet the purpose and need is to build a new transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. Underground Transmission Line: The possibility of constructing the entire transmission line underground was also considered. Due to electrical system operating conditions and parameters as well as prohibitive costs, this alternative could not be constructed. As a result, the only way to meet the purpose and need is to build a second overhead transmission line from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage. However, short portions of the overhead line, including the possible submarine cable crossing could be placed underground if warranted. 3.2 PROJECT STUDY AREA The Southern Intertie Project study area, located in south-central Alaska, initially included the alternatives identified in the preliminary feasibility study conducted in 1987. The initial study area encompassed the Anchorage Bowl, the northern third of the Kenai Peninsula, and the western side of Cook Inlet as shown in Figure 1. Due to the length of the Cook Inlet crossing (16 to 18 miles) and the hostile marine conditions, the construction of the line to Beluga was determined to be infeasible. The study area was modified to focus on alternative routes between the Soldotna and Bernice Lake substations on the Kenai Peninsula, and the Point Woronzof, International, and University substations in Anchorage as shown on Figure 3. It should be noted, however, that the final Anchorage area termination point of the proposed Intertie may be at other facilities than those mentioned here. 3-2 THN TIN TION TEN T6N T4N Legend State Park National Wildlife Area Chugach National Forest Private, Borough, or State Selected Lands ~ a General Reference Features Pipeline Transmission Line Rallroad * Study Area Boundary Rivers and Streams Oil Platform Lakes/Inlet RANGE sl«[al2 2/2 [10/0 17] 16[ 15) 14 [20l21/2a|za) 27/20) 22|29[94]30) dIKHSNMOL Study Area and Alternative Substations Southern Intertie Project | Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line | Corridor ' Alternative Route Link Number Code Existing Substations Figure 3 3.3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The IPG is proposing to construct a new transmission line from either the Soldotna or Bernice Lake substations on the Kenai Peninsula to one of the following existing substations in the Anchorage area Point Woronzof, International, University, APA, or Power Plant #2° as shown on Figure 3. A submarine cable system would be required to cross Turnagain Arm. Modifications may be required at the existing substations to accommodate termination facilities for the proposed line. Alternative voltages for the project include 138kV and 230kV transmission systems. The alternative 230kV overhead transmission line structures would typically be less than 90 feet in height, except for localized areas where additional ground clearance is required (i.e., steep topography). The proposed right-of-way for new routes is 150 feet. Where the alternative routes parallel the existing transmission line or pipelines, the right-of-way width would vary. The actual right-of-way width has yet to be determined. Table 1 provides a description of the design characteristics for both the 138kV and 230kV configuration utilizing either single poles, wood H- frame structures and guyed X-frame structures (refer to Figure 4 for illustrations of these structure types). TABLE 1 DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS OF 138kV AND 230kV Tangent 138kV 230kV Structures | Single Pole | H-Frame X-Frame | Single Pole | H-Frame X-Frame Approximate 65' to 70° 65° 80' to Kenai Flats 70° 70" 85" to Kenai Flats Structure 85' to Fire Island 90° to Fire Island Height 90" to Mountain 90" to Mountain Terrain Terrain Span Length 350' to 450' | 600° to 800° 100° to 1,000" 350' to 450' | 600° to 800' |. 700' to 1,000° Right-of-way ‘Variable 775" to 150' 150° ‘Variable | *75' to 150' 150° Average 14 8 6 14 8 6 Number of Structures per Mile . Reinforced Reinforced Direct . . . c | ive Pil Right-of-way width for single-pole structures would vary, particularly in urban street edge locations in Anchorage, or along existing transmission lines north of Soldotna. Additional right-of-way requirements for H-Frame structures parallel to existing H-Frame structures along the Quartz Creek line would be 75 feet. INSERT ° There are two alternatives to the University Substation location including the APA substation located south of Northern Lights Boulevard in between Bragaw Street and Boniface Parkway, and Municipal Light and Power’s substation located at Power Plant #2 on the Glenn Highway. 3-4 Typical 138/230kV Configurations Figure 4 3.4. ALTERNATIVE ROUTE LOCATIONS The first step in identifying alternatives was to locate alternative corridors based on the study area inventory and siting criteria. Route locations were then identified within alternative corridors. Three primary alternative corridors were identified for the Southern Intertie Project—Tesoro, Enstar, and Quartz Creek (Figure 5). (Appendix A contains a cross reference table which translates the alternative link numbers between the Phase I corridor studies and the current refined routes shown on Figure 5.) These corridors generally follow existing linear features on the Kenai Peninsula. Specific routing opportunities within the Anchorage Bowl and Soldotna areas primarily utilize existing and proposed utility corridors and road rights-of-way. Submarine crossings of the Turnagain Arm would occur along the each of the alternatives with the exception of the existing Quartz Dcreek line through the Portage area. Transmission line routing opportunities within these corridors were identified as follows. Figure 6 provides photographs showing selected areas within the Anchorage area. ¢ The Tesoro Route generally parallels the Tesoro Pipeline from the town of Nikiski on the Kenai Peninsula to Point Possession. Figure 7 provides selected photographs of the Tesoro Route. Submarine crossings would occur between Point Possession and Fire Island, and between Fire Island and Point Woronzof. In addition, the following facilities or modifications to existing facilities would be required: - Submarine transition stations at Point Woronzof, the north and south end of Fire Island, and at Point Possession requiring approximately one acre each; - Reactive compensation stations at Point Woronzof and Point Possession utilizing approximately one acre each; - Overhead to underground transition stations at the north and south end of Captain Cook State Recreation Area; - Guyed X-Frame structures for all overhead line construction; and - Modifications to the Point Woronzof and Bernice Lake substations to accommodate additional termination structures ranging in size from | to 1.5 acres. TUN TI2N TION TEN TON T4N | G8 Chugach National Forest Private, Borough, or State Selected Lands Ris Ww AY. - - Ril Legend [25] state Park | National Wildlife Area | ROW - on - oo RL RIE R3E Sop i, | General Reference Features 4 /\/ Pipeline /\/ Corridor | “1 Transmission Line /\! Alternative Route ese Railroad Link Number Code AA’ study Area Bounda A Existing jtudy Area Boundary ons /\/ Rivers and Streams A Oil Platform 4 S| 1 akes/intet { Section Grid “ . RANGE = @[s[elal2]a 7lelelilnlasl a ee se] re] s5[slta] 3 3 7 emus 19|20)21| 22/23/24) 5 aojze|2el27|zel25| = re 21|32|39|9¢]a6]¢ 3% Dames & Moore_ Noid NUL __| Alternative Corridors Southern Intertie Project Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Nod Figure 5 LINK NUMBER AN.10 Minnesota Drive in Anchorage LINK NUMBER EN.A.10 Seward Highway in Anchorage LINK NUMBER QC.A.D10 Tudor Road in Anchorage LINK NUMBER EN.B.80 Seward Highway along Potter Marsh ANCHORAGE ROUTING PHOTOS Figure 6 LINK NUMBER TE.J-K.T10 Kenai Spur Highway East of Nikiski LINK NUMBER TE.I.130 South of Daniels Lake LINK NUMBER TE.G-H.80 Tesoro Pipeline corridor west of Sandpipe Lake, photo taken from air LINK NUMBER TE.J-K.120 Tesoro Pipeline corridor northeast of Bernice Lake Substation, photo taken from air. TESORO PIPELINE ROUTE PHOTOS Figure 7 The Enstar Route generally parallels the Enstar Pipeline from Soldotna to Anchorage, including a submarine crossing between Burnt Island and Potter. Figure 8 contains representative photographs of the Enstar Route. The following additional facilities and modifications to facilities will also be required: Submarine transition stations near the Potter Section House and near Burnt Island utilizing approximately 0.1 acre; Reactive compensation stations near Rabbit Creek in Anchorage and near Big Indian Creek on the Kenai Peninsula requiring approximately one acre each; Underground submarine cable to underground cable transition stations; Guyed X-Frame structures for overhead lines in rural areas; single-pole structures could be utilized within Anchorage and Soldotna; and Modifications to the International and Soldotna substation to accommodate additional termination structures ranging in size form 0.25 to 0.5 acres. The Quartz Creek Route generally parallels the existing Quartz Creek transmission line from Soldotna to Anchorage without a submarine crossing. Refer to Figure 9 for characteristic photographs of the Quartz Creek Route. Additional facilities and modifications required along this route include: Reactive compensation station near Portage at the head of Turnagain Arm requiring approximately one acre; Wooden H-Frame structures adjacent to the existing line, in limited sections within Anchorage and Soldotna, single-pole structures would be used; and Modifications to the University and Soldotna substations to accommodate additional termination structures. 3-10 LINK NUMBER EN.E.T10 Enstar Pipeline corridor along Mystery Creek Road LINK NUMBER EN.E.T10 Enstar Pipeline corridor near east fork of Seven Lakes LINK NUMBER EN.E.T10 Enstar Pipeline corridor, photo taken from the air north of the Chickaloon River Crossing LINK NUMBER EN.D.100 Enstar Pipeline corridor, photo taken from the air near Chickaloon Bay ENSTAR ROUTE PHOTOS Figure 8 LINK NUMBER QC.D.40 Seward Hughway southeast of Girdwood LINK NUMBER QC.G.70 Seward Highway north of Turnagain Pass LINK NUMBER QC.J.100 Seward Highway near Summit Lake LINK NUMBER QC.M.130 Northwest of Sterling near Tree Lake QUARTZ CREEK ROUTE PHOTOS Figure 9 An alternative to the Quartz Creek Route described above would consist of crossing Turnagain Arm between Bird Point and Snipers Point with submarine or underground cable or a special overhead crossing. In addition to the primary Tesoro, Enstar, and Quartz Creek corridors, several local routing opportunities have been identified within the larger corridor areas at selective locations. These local alternatives were developed to provide a variety of transmission line placement options within or near sensitive areas (urban and rural areas, areas sensitive to visual intrusion, and recreation sites). Local alternatives were identified within the Anchorage Bowl and Soldotna, the area surrounding Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA) (Local Alternatives to the Tesoro Route), and Turnagain Arm crossing near Bird Point (Local Alternatives to the Quartz Creek Route). In addition, local alternative submarine crossings were identified at the points where the Tesoro and Enstar pipelines cross Turnagain Arm and are included as local alternatives to the respective routes. Figure 6 provides photographs showing selected areas within the Anchorage area. 3-13 4.0 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS This section provides overview of the environmental, technical, and economic evaluations of the alternative routes. 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR SUMMARY The analysis of alternative corridors relating to environmental concerns incorporates the following: ¢ Siting opportunities * Key Siting Issues and Constraints * Regulatory Requirements ¢ Routing Recommendations within Alternative Corridors Table 2 provides a summary analysis of the Tesoro, Enstar, and Quartz Creek Alternatives. Table 3 provides a summary analysis of the Bird Point alternatives. Supporting data is included in the Environmental Section Report and Section 5.0 of this report. Additionally, Tables 2 and 3 list selected regulatory requirements for each route. A comprehensive listing and supporting detail is included in the Lands/Regulatory Section Report. The following information provides a brief narrative and overview of the major opportunities, issues, and regulatory requirements. Siting opportunities identified within the study area include two underground pipelines (Enstar and Tesoro) and an existing overhead transmission line (Quartz Creek). In more developed areas, such as Soldotna and Anchorage, existing roads and railroads which initially appear to be compatible with the construction of an overhead transmission line were also identified. Significant environmental issues and constraints are associated with each alternative. It should be noted the Beluga route (crossing the Cook Inlet via submarine cable) was determined not to be technically feasible and was deleted from further analysis. Supporting detail can be found in the System Studies and Design Section Report. Route Siting Opportunities Key Siting Issues and Tesoro Links TE.A.10, TE.D.40, TE.E.50, TE.G-H.80, TE.G-H.90, TE.I.100, TE.J-K.110, TE.J-K.120, Total Miles 62.2 Existing Tesoro Pipeline 4 Biological Biological TABLE 2 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE ANALYSIS Enstar Links EN.A.20, EN.A.50, EN.B.80, EN.C.90, EN.D.100, EN.E.110, QCM. 1.30, QC.M.1.70, QC.M.1.80 Total Miles 76.6 Quartz Creek Links QC.A.10, QC.B.20, QC.C.30, QC.D.40, QC.E.50, QC.F.60, QC.G.70, QC.H.80, QC.1.90, QC.J.100, QC.K.110, QC.L.120, QCMi1.15, QCM. 1.30, QCM.1.70, QCM.1.80 Total Miles 140.7 Existing Enstar Pipeline = Minimize vegetation clearing: = Underground line and transition facilities at Captain Cook SRA, or reroute utilizing Link TE.I.130 to avoid Captain Cook SRA Constraints = Bald Eagle and Trumpeter Swan nests = Trumpeter Swan and Waterfowl nesting habitat = Waterfowl nesting habitat = Black and Brown bear concentrations Jurisdiction = Coastal marsh habitat (Chickaloon Bay) = Adjacent to KNWR at Point Possession Jurisdiction = State, Native Corporation and Borough = USFWS, Chugach State Park, Municipality of Anchorage and the Land Use/Socioeconomics Kenai Borough = Remote residential subdivisions north of Captain Cook | Land Use/Socioeconomics SRA = Rural residential areas in Soldotna = Adjacent lakes open to aircraft = Urban Anchorage area, Oceanview Subdivision Recreation = Adjacent airstrips, lakes open to aircraft = Adjacent to KNWR wilderness area at Point Possession, | Recreation recreation access into KNWR = KNWR minimal (EN.D.100) and moderate (EN.D.110) = Captain Cook SRA and associated use areas and management areas trails = Potter Marsh (EN.B.70, EN.B.80) = Swanson River access ™ Potter Section House in Chugach State Park Visual Resources Visual Resources = Foreground views from remote residences and Captain} " KNWR area managed for preservation values Cook SRA = Oceanview subdivision and park foreground views = Unique features include Point Possession, Stormy Lak:,| ™ Unique features include: Potter Marsh scenic and wildlife views across Cook Inlet viewing, Potter Section House, views into Turnagain Arm Cultural Resources Cultural Resources = Recorded sites at Swanson River and traditional use = Historic sites near Potter Marsh, sensitive coastal areas on Fire Island = Sensitive coastal area = Known sites at Point Possession Regulatory = Land Water Conservation Fund Requirements = Coastal Management Plan = Municipality of Anchorage = Federal Aviation Administration = Section 404 | Recommendations = Minimize separation from Tesoro Pipeline = Minimize separation from Enstar Pipeline = Parallel east side of the Tesoro Pipeline from Captain = Minimize vegetation clearing Cook SRA to the KNWR boundary, where the line = Underground line in Potter Marsh area and near Chickaloon Bay and would cross the Tesoro Pipeline and enter Cook Inlet, transition facilities at Link EN.D.100 and Link EN.B.80 avoiding the KNWR . Evaluate visual impacts to Oceanview area and possible underground of EN.A.50 are Quartz Creek Transmission Line Biological : Bald Eagle and Trumpeter Swan Nesting habitat Coastal marsh and waterfowl concentration areas Anadromous fish streams (Kenai River near Cooper Landing) Dall sheep and mountain goat habitat Moose fall and winter range Geologic Hazards = Known avalanche areas = Potential soil liquefaction (Portage) Jurisdiction = KNWR (including adjacent wilderness areas), Chugach National Forest, Chugach State Park, Municipality of Anchorage, and Kenai Borough Land Use/Socioeconomics = Primarily rural residential development along Seward highway corridor = Seward Highway National Scenic Byway = The Alaska Railroad Recreation = High density of recreational features along Seward Highway (viewpoints and trail access) = Chugach State Park Natural Management Area ™ Crosses Kenai Lake and River = Adjacent to proposed Bird Point recreation site Visual Resources ™ Scenic resources in Chugach State Park managed for preservation values = Retention and Partial Retention VQO in Chugach National Forest = Foreground views from scenic vistas, pullouts, recreation access point, and campgrounds . Unique features include Kenai River, Turnagain Pass, Portage area, Turnagain Arm, and Chugach Mountains. . Cultural Resources = Concentration of known sites along Turnagain Arm, prehistoric sites near confluence of Russian and Kenai rivers = Parallels Historic Iditarod Trail = Land Water Conservation Fund compliance along Kenai River = Chugach National Forest Special Use Permit = Match transmission structure types and spans when paralleling existing H-Frame transmission line = Minimize vegetation clearing = Utilize single pole structures within Anchorage (QC.A.10 along Tudor Road) and Soldotna (QCM. 1.80) TABLE 3 BIRD POINT - QUARTZ CREEK ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS Key Siting Issues Ae Biological = Coastal Marsh Habitat = Bald Eagle Nests = Waterfowl concentration and migration corridor Geological Hazards = Known avalanche areas = Potential soil liquefaction (Portage) Jurisdiction = Chugach State Park = Chugach National Forest Land Use/Socioeconomics ™ Mixed use development at Girdwood and Portage = The Alaska Railroad Recreation = Multiple adjacent recreation facilities including recreatio ial view point, trail heads, rest areas, access road to Portage Glacier Visual Resources = Foreground views from Seward Highway Scenic Byway related view points Cultural Resources = Known sites along Seward Highway, Portage area = Parallels Historic Iditarod Trail Biological = Bald Eagle nesting (Sixmile) = Anadromous fish stream = Moose fall/winter habitat Jurisdiction = Chugach State Park, Chugach National Forest = Crossing Conservation Easement along Sixmile Creek Land Use/Socioeconomics = Seward Highway Scenic Byway, rural residential residences along Sixmile Creek Recreation = Proposed Bird Point recreation area, Sixmile Creek = Recreational trails and facilities along Sixmile Creek Visual Resources = Foreground views from Bird Point across the Turnagain Arm = Unique features include Bird Point, Sixmile Creek Valley, Alpenglow Mountain = Aerial crossing (530 feet, the height of a 50-story building) will dominate the landscape within a two-mile distance and would overwhelm views from Bird Point, and from selected locations along the Hope Highway = Significant night lighting impacts Cultural Resources = Recorded sites in the vicinity of Sun Rise and Bird Point = Parallels a.connecting trail to the Historic Iditarod Trail and Route Existing Quartz Creek Bird Point Aerial Crossing Bird Point Submarine Crossing Links QC.D.40, QC.E.50, QC.F.60, QC.G.70. QC.H.80, QC.DIA.10 QC.D.2.10 QC.D.2.10 QC.DIA.10 QC.D.2.10 QC.D1IB.10 QC.D.2.10 13.7 QC.I.90 Total Miles 38.8 Total Miles 12.6 (10,500 feet) Total Miles 13.7 (19,500 feet) Siting Existing Quartz Creek Transmission Line Narrowest Crossing of Turnagain Arm : Narrbwest Crossing of Turnagain Arm Opportunities Biological = Bald Eagle nesting (Sixmile) = Waterfowl concentration.and migration corridor = Anadromous fish stream; = Moose fall/winter habitat Jurisdiction = Chugach State Park = Chugach National Forest Land Use/Socioeconomics = Seward Highway Scenic Byway, rural residential residences along Sixmile Creek Recreation . = Proposed Bird Point recreation arca, Sixmile Creek = Recreational trails and facilities along Sixmile Creek Visual Resources = Foreground views from Biré Point across the Turnagain Arm ™ Unique features include Bird Point, Sixmile Creek Valley, Alpenglow Mountain Cultural Resources = Recorded sites in the vicinity of Sun Rise and Bird Point = Parallels a connecting trail to the Historic Iditarod Trail = Chugach National Forest Special Use Permit = Aerial crossing will create an FAA Hazard Determination Regulatory = Chugach National Forest Special Use Permit Requirements Recommendations = Match spans and structure types of existing line = Chugach National Forest Special Use Permit = Not feasible due to FAA hazards and unacceptable visual impacts = Underground transition facilities at Bird Point and Sunrise for the submarine crossing The key siting issues identified throughout the study area are primarily associated with the biological, recreational and visual resources. Land use and cultural resources are also of concern in certain areas, most notably within Anchorage, Soldotna and adjacent to the Kenai River. The aerial crossing at Bird Point does not appear to be feasible due to visual impacts along the Seward Highway and to views from Bird Point. In addition, this alternative exceeds Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) hazards criteria due to the height of the transmission structure. Two photo simulations were conducted based on a preliminary design of the structures required and are included in the Environmental Section Report. Federal, state and local regulatory requirements were identified for all of the alternative corridors. The regulatory requirements are primarily associated with wetland preservation and land conservation units (Kenai National Wildlife Refuge) crossed by the alternative corridors. Additional regulatory requirements include water quality, rights-of-way on federal and state lands, and aviation. Initial routing recommendations within alternative corridors are provided in Tables 2 and 3. The recommendations are directed towards the preservation of existing scenic resources, minimized vegetation clearing and avoidance of existing land use features in rural and urban areas. All routes identified during this study with the exception of the aerial crossing at Bird Point and the Beluga route appear feasible and provide the foundation for an anticipated NEPA process under the direction of the Rural Utility Service (RUS). Federal, state and local agency input also suggests that the project is feasible provided the regulatory requirements are met and the environmental impacts are minimized. 4.2. TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR SUMMARY The analysis of alternative corridors relating to technical issues and economic considerations incorporates the following: ¢ 138kV and 230kV options. * System Studies relating to load flow, contingency analysis, and dynamic system response. ¢ Overhead transmission designs that have been successfully utilized in Alaska. e Submarine cable crossings of the Turnagain Arm considering various proven technologies. 4-4 * Underground (land) cable used in certain areas. * Substation modifications required for terminating the proposed intertie transmission line. These modifications generally range in size from no yard extension up to 1.5 acres. ¢ Reactive compensation additions required for steady state and dynamic electrical system operation. The area required ranges from 0.1 acres to 1.0 acres. * Associated equipment, construction, engineering and construction management costs for the various routes. Table 4 summarizes the technical and cost analysis performed under the initial project work scope. It identifies major design features and ranges of associated costs of the routes, dependent on the base route and related alternatives. Each alternative has technical challenges that will need to be addressed during the EIS/Preliminary Engineering portion of this project. A few of the key issues are as identified below: * The level of armoring required for a submarine cable crossing of Turnagain Arm (single, double, or rock type). ¢ Additional investigation regarding submarine cable embedment requirements, if any. ¢ The feasibility of performing a directional boring across the Turnagain Arm near Bird Point allowing for a different type of cable to be utilized than a traditional submarine cable installation. ¢ All overhead transmission options traverse challenging terrain or have significant visual (aesthetic) concerns. ¢ Refinement of the reactive compensation requirements both for steady state and dynamic stability concerns. e Determination of recommended terminals (substation) for the Southern Intertie, one on the Kenai Peninsula and one in the Anchorage area. e Subsynchronous resonance (SSR) concerns utilizing high levels of series compensation. 4-5 TABLE 4 TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC ROUTE SUMMARY | Route Overhead Transmission Submarine Cable** Underground (Land) Substation Modifications Reactive 138kV $ Range 230kV $ Range Cable Compensation* (millions, 1996) (Millions, 1996) Tesoro 138 or 230kV Guyed "X" steel Via Fire Island or parallel 138 or 230kV Pt. Woronzof 138kV — 1-10 MVAR structures on Kenai. 138kV or Tesoro pipeline 3-10 XLPE *** 138kV — New 5 Bkr ring bus 2-30 MVAR ——- v6 rapid — en ee — aay Pt. Campbell to Pt. 230kV — New 230kV line terminal, 200 MVA Reactors ee 2-30 SCFF Possession autotransformer, new 5 Bkr 138kV Ring Bus_ | 230kV- 1-10 MVAR m= 2es Mas aA he Captain Cook State Park Bernice Lake 1-40 MVAR a 138kV — New 3 Bkr 115kV ring bus, 200 a Victor Road vicinity g . 7 Reactors 230kV MVA autotransformer, 138kV line terminal 4-10 SCFE 230kV — New 3 Bkr 115kV ring bus, 200 MVA autotransformer, 230 line terminal Enstar 138kV or 230kV single pole steel | Potter or Point Campbell to | 138 or 230kV International 138kV — 2-22 MVAR structures in Anchorage area; 138 | Pt. Possession or Burnt 3-1@ XLPE *** 138kV — One bay addition to future breaker Reactors Base route or 230kV guyed "X" structures or | Island Creek area Potter Marsh area and one half 230kV — 2-60 MVAR approximately W single pole steel structures onthe | 13gkyv . 230KV — Line terminal, 200 MVA Reactors 85.1 — 107.4 110.5 — 119.3 miles. Kenai 2-30 SCFF = en eens autotransformer plus 138kV additions oF Indian Creek 4-10 SCFF Soldotna 138kV — One bay extension to 115kV, 200 230kV MVA autotransformer 138kV line terminal 4-18 SCFF é - 230kV — One bay extension to 115kV, 200 MVA autotransformer, 230kV line terminal Quartz Creek 138 or 230kV guyed "X" steel None None University None structures — Power Line Pass, 138kV — One bay addition Base route mountains. H-Frame wood 230kV — 4 breaker 230kV ring bus approximately 140 | structures paralleling existing line. Soldotna 92.4 — 94.7 99.8 — 102.3 omy 138 or 230kV with 115kV double 138kV — One bay extension to 115kV, 200 ckt lattice, Portage to Bird Point MVA autotransformer, 138kV line terminal vicinity 230kV — One bay extension to 115kV, 200 138 or 230kV single pole steel MVA autotransformer, 230kV line terminal structures on Kenai near Soldotna Quartz Creek — 138 or 230kV guyed "X" steel Bird Point to Snipers Point | None University 138kV — 2-10 MVAR Bird Point structures ~ Power Line Pass, 138kV 1-30 138kV — One bay addition ; Reactors Alternative mountains, Kenai High-Pressure-Gas-Filled 230kV — 4 breaker 230kV ring bus 230kV — 2-22 MVAR A —_ a 138 or 230kV single pole steel —_| (HPGF), directional drill Soldotna Reactors a6 = 982 99.8 - 116.0 tee route structures on Kenai near Soldotna 230kV 138kV — One bay extension to 115kV, 200 appiccitaaly = 4-10 SCFF MVA autotransformer, 138kV line terminal ualles. ; 230kV — One bay extension to 115kV, 200 MVA autotransformer, 230kV line terminal * All options utilizing Submarine Cable includes series and shunt compensation of the existing 115kV Intertie aK 3@ SCFF Cables are Self Compensating Fluid Filled type as manufactured by NKT (Denmark) 1@ SCFF Cables are Self Contained Fluid Filled type as manufactured by various vendors akR XLPE is cross-linked polyethylene as manufacture by various vendors. kkk HLY 55-0433 (10/96) 120293-01 FINAL Revision | rh AA_11X.doc The aerial crossing of Bird Point was estimated to be lower in cost, however, was not listed because it has been eliminated from consideration due to visual and regulatory concerns. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION This section summarizes the reports listed below. For your convenience, we have separated the sections with tabs. 5.1 Electrical Studies Section Report 5.2 Preliminary Design Section Report 5.3 Economic Section Report 5.1 ELECTRICAL STUDIES SECTION REPORT SUMMARY The objectives of the electrical system studies were to determine the following: * The Pre-Contingency Secure transfer rating of the intertie alternatives; ¢ The Pre-Contingency Emergency transfer rating of the intertie alternatives; ¢ The Post-Contingency Emergency transfer rating of the intertie alternatives; and ¢ The dynamic system response for each alternative to selected disturbances. This section summarizes the findings of the electrical system studies of: ¢ The existing intertie; ¢ The new intertie options; and ¢ The installation of Battery Energy Storage either on the Kenai Peninsula or in Anchorage or both locations. Areas covered by the electrical system studies include: ¢ Load flow cases to evaluate system voltages, transmission line flows, generation schedules, and equipment requirements for steady-state operation of the alternatives; e Single contingency outage cases (N-1) to determine the steady-state voltages and transmission line loadings for the system after a single portion of the system is removed from service (outaged); and * Dynamic stability cases to assess the dynamic response of the system to disturbances, such as faults or loss of generation, and to determine operating and equipment requirements to minimize the impacts to the system. 5-1 5.1.1 Electrical System Alternatives At the project initiation meeting, held at Chugach’s offices in Anchorage on November 30, 1995, the alternatives to be considered in the electrical system studies for this phase were finalized. These were: Alternative 1 - Do Nothing: Assess the capabilities of the existing intertie from Daves Creek Substation to the University Substation with the existing system and planned improvements. Sub-alternatives of the existing line were also analyzed to evaluate the possible upgrade options to the existing intertie to preclude the need for a second intertie. Alternative 2 - Parallel The Existing Line: The assumed electrical model for this alternative considered a new intertie line that roughly parallels the existing intertie line route through Portage. It includes an optional alternative line that is routed north from the Hope Substation with overhead construction to a crossing of Turnagain Arm from Snipers Point to Bird Point. The Turnagain Arm (Bird Point) crossing could be either overhead or submarine cable type construction. For this analysis, it was agreed that the new intertie would not have taps to the existing distribution substations along the route. This alternative was analyzed for both 138kV and 230kV operation. Alternative 3 - Enstar Route: This alternative considered a new intertie from the Soldotna Substation to the International Substation. The assumed electrical model for the alternative parallels the existing line from Soldotna with an overhead transmission line that would turn north near Sterling, traverse along the east side of the wildlife refuge, change to submarine cable across Turnagain Arm, and go back to overhead construction from the submarine landing site to the International Substation. This route would generally parallel the Enstar Pipeline and considered alternatives for 138kV and 230kV operation. Alternative 4 - Tesoro Route: This alternative considered a new intertie from the Bernice Lake Power Plant to Point Woronzof. It generally parallels the Tesoro pipeline. The assumed electrical model was an overhead transmission line that would run northeast from Bernice Lake along the Cook Inlet, include a four-mile section of underground cable through Captain Cook SRA, return to overhead construction to Point Possession, and change to submarine cable across to the Point Woronzof Substation. This alternative was analyzed for both for 138kV and 230kV operation. 5-2 Alternative 5 - Beluga Route: This alternative considered a new intertie from Bernice Lake Power Plant Substation across Cook Inlet to the Beluga Power Plant Substation. The assumed electrical model was an overhead transmission line that would run northeast along the east side of Cook Inlet, include a four-mile section of underground cable through Captain Cook SRA, return to overhead construction to Gray Cliff, change to submarine cable across Cook Inlet to North Foreland, and return to overhead construction from North Foreland to Beluga Power Plant. This alternative was also analyzed at both 138kV and 230kV operation and also has been eliminated from further consideration. Alternative 6 - Battery Energy Storage (BES): Install BES on the Kenai Peninsula or in Anchorage or both locations to allow increased flows on the existing intertie. The analysis of these installations was limited to the system’s dynamic stability, since they do not affect the steady-state performance of the existing intertie. It was discussed whether the electrical system study alternatives selected for the electrical models would reasonably fit with possible routes selected in the environmental screening study. It was agreed that the alternatives selected for the electrical models should be able to accurately predict the requirements for system operation and equipment for almost any route that could reasonably be a candidate for permitting. Refinement and additional analysis will be required to make a final determination of system modifications necessary to support the proposed Southern Intertie. The alternatives considered for the electrical studies are illustrated in Figure 10 on the following page. 5.1.2 Electrical System Summary and Conclusions Based on our analysis, we arrived at the following conclusions: e The existing intertie is not a good candidate for improvements to allow a long-term power transfer greater than 70MW due to dynamic stability concerns. However, the existing intertie capacity can be increased up to 125MW with the addition of shunt capacitors to support the voltage and replacement of the 4.55 miles of Brahma conductor between Indian and Girdwood. It should be noted that the 4.55 miles of Brahma are scheduled to be changed out in the near future. Increasing the transfer from 70MW to 125MW increases losses on the intertie from 6.9MW to 25MW. Due to the high losses, this is not a practical alternative for continuous operation. Even with the modifications, the existing line could not meet the ASCC Pre-Contingency Secure criteria for the system to withstand an N-1 loss of the existing intertie without tripping load or exceeding the ASCC voltage range. VICINITY MAP SUBSTATION GENERATING PLANT 15 KV 69 KV 230 KV 4 “A : yy SOLDOTNA_ SS J mi EBz 138 KV Ue SOLDOTNA (HEA) “Qe 14.4/24.9 KV oY % SOLDOQTNA N ane 7225 KV RI, (AEGXT) NOTE: LOCATION FOR ELECTRICAL IS APPROXIMATE Gif, b - 10 Figure 10 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM STUDY * FASE Po. poe 190300 ALTERNATIVES SF Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 5601 Minnesota Drive Construction of a new 138kV intertie provides good performance for increasing the transfer capacity, with both interties in service, up to the maximum excess generation capacity on the Kenai of 190MW. All four of the 138kV alternatives studied exhibit similar operational characteristics; however, the Enstar and Tesoro Routes maintain higher voltages in the Anchorage area if the existing intertie is outaged under peak load. Additionally, the line reactors associated with the Enstar and Tesoro Routes can be switched off-line to allow the cable capacitance to further improve the voltage. Losses on the Enstar and Tesoro routes are slightly less than losses on the Parallel and Beluga routes. The Bird Point crossing on the parallel route is a viable option, from an electrical perspective. If the Bird Point Crossing is constructed with undersea cable, there would be similar advantages as with the Enstar and Tesoro routes for reactor switching, although the reactors will be smaller and the voltage support less than the other two alternatives. The stability studies indicate that the 138kV interties have a slight advantage over the 230kV interties, for the loss of the new intertie, because the pre-event current is more evenly split between the interties. With respect to selecting a preferred route alternative, electrical performance will not be the deciding factor. Accordingly, route selection can be based on cost and permitting issues and should not be limited by system operational concerns. Alternatives for the 230kV intertie options also perform well. The only advantages that the 230kV routes have over the 138kV construction are slightly reduced losses. The 230kV alternatives have the disadvantage of requiring more equipment in the form of reactors (Mvar) and power transformers than the 138kV construction. The analysis shows that 230kV intertie options will be under-utilized unless additional generation resources are developed on the Kenai. There is no significant difference in system operation between 230kV and 138kV interties. Battery Energy Storage in Anchorage and on the Kenai improves system stability, but due to the limits of the existing intertie, there is no real increase in the transfer capability. To increase the existing intertie capacity, the improvements listed in the following paragraph would need to be constructed. The losses would increase to 25MW for a transfer of 125MW. To improve the losses on the existing intertie for a 125MW or higher transfer, a majority of the line would need to be reconductored for a small improvement, or the line rebuilt at 230kV. All intertie options require reinforcement of the existing intertie to allow emergency transfer of up to 125MW and maintain system stability. The emergency transfers would need to be reduced to the existing line rating in a short period. Reinforcement would consist of the planned reconductoring of the 4.55 miles of Brahma conductor and installation of either a static var system (SVS) or a thyristor controlled series capacitor 5-5 (TCSC) to control the voltage drop. Both the SVS and the TCSC can activate within the time frames required to enhance system stability. Use of these systems would require additional study and refinement prior to detailed specification of a selected alternative. An alternative to reinforcing the existing intertie to maintain stability would be to transfer trip one or both Bradley Lake generators when the new intertie trips and allow frequency load shedding in the Anchorage/Fairbanks area. Without reinforcement of the existing intertie or transfer tripping of the Bradley Lake units, the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage areas will become out of step with each other and separate, resulting in system-wide outages. Electrical performance is summarized in Tables 5 and 6. Secure transfer limits consider both interties in service. 5.1.3. Load Flow and Dynamic Stability Study Summary Analysis of the system loading and available Kenai generation indicated that there are approximately 156MW available for transfer from the Kenai to Anchorage in the summer and 125MW in the winter, if spinning reserve is maintained on the Kenai Peninsula. If all capacity is used for generation, a maximum of 190MW is available for transfer from the Kenai Peninsula. If Anchorage generation is used to supply the Kenai Peninsula, the summer transfer south would be approximately 47MW with no Kenai generation. This study used the following load levels for the analysis: ¢ Maximum Transfer North in Summer = 190MW ¢ Normal Winter Transfer North = 125MW ¢ Normal Summer Transfer South = 47MW With these load levels, POWER performed load flow and dynamic stability analyses of the alternatives previously described. The results of the studies are summarized in the narrative below and in Tables 5 and 6. Do Nothing: The transfer limit (north or south) of the existing line is approximately 7O0MW, which is the stability limit of the existing Intertie. With sufficient Kenai and Anchorage generation on-line, the system steady-state voltages remain very close to the ASCC criteria during outages of most system components studied. Outage of the East-West 230kV submarine cable between Beluga and Anchorage results in significant low voltages in Anchorage, and the impedance of the existing tie limits the use of Kenai generation to help support the Anchorage area. The existing intertie shows poor stability for Anchorage and Kenai at transfer levels above 70MW. 5-6 Transfer Limit (MW) Lowest Voltage for N-1 Outage Pre-Contingency Table 5 230kV Altemative Load Flow And Loss Summary Post-Contingency Emergency Limits Limited By Emergency Alternative Cases Year [Existing Ti Tie (a) Limit(o) | ( |Newte(@ 7 Upgrade Eig wr [ m [+ [wa [so | wie [wa | wo [ mere [te] me | oats SS SS meee = = | me ore oe Line Towoh Pomege [2 | extszwa | zors [ras fe ft [ze | 19006 sor tes | t500) | ose Parallel Existing 115kV | 2 | xterza0n | 1997 | i | 2 | 1.4 2.6 190(e) “} 90/145 | 190 (e) _ neva eesP-2ino | a | rover | aos | tae fet | ze | soot) | aortas | soe) | - coe | | trwraoe | tor | ize | 2 | ios | 17 | se) if sorts | 0m | - SS a oe reno | 4 | tome [oor [oes [oz [ts [ts [ te0@ [eons | te0@ | - Rowe [eT rovene [cots tas Pe te | ts | too) sovtas | i901) | aoe ee a Beluga roe [a [xem | oe | om [2 | | | me fone | we | (a) - Alternative limit codes below: (d) - Assumes existing intertie out of ie limited by available generation, 1 = Limited by conductor thermal rating (ampacity) thermal loading limit for new intertie;is 290MW. 2 = Limited by available generation on the Kenai and transmission losses. (e) - Limited to 190MW by available generation / load on the Kenai Peninsula, 3=Limited by voltage drop, actual limit by voltage / loading criteria will be near 330MW. 4 = Limited by system stability concerns (f) - Low voltages occur in the HEA service area for an outage of the Bradley- (b) - Limit with both interties in service where applicable. Soldotna 115kV line, until power oufput from Bradley Lake is reduced to (c) - Assumes new intertie out of service, high limit with reactive compensation. approximately 60 MW. ’ Note - Conductor thermal limits are based on 75 Deg. C conductor temp, 25 Deg. C ambient with 1.4 mph crosswind, average tarnished surface. 1/10/96 lable 6 115kV/138kV Alternative Load Flow And Loss Summary Transfer Limit (MW) Post-Contingency Alternative Pre-Contingency Emergency Limits Limited By | Exist Tie i Emergency | Existing Tie (a) Loss Limit (b) (¢ ) STIE97 i Existing . 8.0 N/A 90 1115 N/A reoney vow |? | Boren | pa ee I ieee ee Doom [me | m= | 2 | fe [wm [eel | | [ewe ere [= [= [= | we [ee] | : [e [evsee ae [om fe [oe [ee [mee [ene [om [mea | Prema [er [me [= | I Pres [me [= [= | aaa a Pe [exes [oe [om fe [= fe [we [eel | | : . 4! BES At Bernice 80 90/145 90/145 90 ’ 90/145 96/145 New Tie (d) (a) - Alternative limit codes below: (d) - Assumes existing intertie out of service, limited by available generation, 1 = Limited by conductor thermal rating (ampacity) thermal loading limit for new intertie is 215MW. 2 = Limited by available generation on the Kenai and transmission losses. (e) - Limited to 190MW by available generation‘/ load on the Kenai Peninsula, 3 = Limited by voltage drop actual limit by voltage / loading criteria will be near 305MW. 4 = Limited by system stability concerns (f) - Low voltages occur in the HEA service area for an outage of the Bradley- (b) - Limit with both interties in service where applicable. Soldotna 115kV line, until power output from Bradley Lake is reduced to (c) - Assumes new intertie out of service, high limit with reactive compensation. approximately 60 MW. : Note - Conductor thermal limits are based on 75 Deg. C conductor temp, 25 Deg. C ambient with 1.4 mph crosswind, average tarnished surface. 1/10/96 The stability limit is based on having sufficient additional generator capacity on-line and ready to supply power in the Anchorage area, which is referred to as ‘spinning reserve,’ and transfer tripping at least one Bradley Lake generator within five cycles (0.0833 second) of the occurrence of a fault on the existing intertie. This alternative limits the ability of the IPG members to fully utilize the shared resource at Bradley Lake. The existing tie does not meet ASCC criteria for single contingencies outages. Modify the Existing 115kV Line Alternatives: Up to 125MW could be transferred on the existing 115kV tie with additional reactive compensation for voltage support (such as shunt capacitors to improve voltage or thyristor controlled series capacitors to reduce the apparent line impedance), realizing that if the line trips, there is a very high probability that the electrical system will become unstable. This would result in system-wide outages and load shedding. A major drawback to continuous loading at levels above 70MW is that the line losses between the Soldotna and University substations increase substantially. For the 125MW flows used in the study, the losses increased from 6.9MW to 25MW. Addition of approximately 60Mvar of shunt capacitors to the line near Hope or Portage significantly improves the voltage, such that the line would meet ASCC criteria. Load and stability studies indicate that the shunt capacitors could be split into two units, with 40Mvar at Portage and 24Mvar connected with the Daves Creek SVS to allow the existing SVS to support the voltage. Another option would be to install 60Mvar of shunt capacitors, switched in 20Mvar steps, at Portage to operate in conjunction with a 20Mvar thyristor controlled reactor to control the voltage to near 1.02 per unit. This alternative is not feasible as a stand-alone modification due to the high losses for increased power transfers (2SMW for 125MW transfer). Installation of 25 ohms (40Mvar) of series capacitors on the Daves Creek - Hope 115kV line would also allow increased power transfer while maintaining the ASCC criteria. There is a concern that mechanically switched series capacitors may initiate problems due to subsynchronous resonance (SSR) with the system combustion turbine generators. Industry literature indicates that the use of thyristor controlled series capacitors (TCSC) will mitigate the possibility of problems due to SSR. It must be understood that this is a new technology and there are only two operational TSCS banks in the United States. This option also suffers from high losses with increased power transfers because the conductor resistance is not affected by the series compensation. This option would require additional engineering studies to completely evaluate the SSR and subsynchronous oscillation possibilities. Upgrades of the existing line to 138kV would not significantly improve the line performance since the voltage is only raised 23kV. This alternative is not considered feasible, due to the extensive transformer replacements, and should not be considered further. Upgrade of the line to 230kV would solve the problems of capacity and system stability with the line in-service, but it would only aggravate the stability problems for the loss of the tie line. This alternative will be more expensive, compared to the new intertie alternatives, because of the need to change out substation transformers at Indian, Girdwood, Portage, Hope, Daves Creek, Summit Lake and Quartz Creek and addition of a 12MVA 230-115kV transformer at Daves Creek to serve Seward. This alternative should not be considered further. New 138kV Intertie Alternatives: Analysis of the four 138kV intertie alternatives indicates that each of the assumed routes studied performs in essentially the same manner. No electrical reason was apparent in the studies to prefer one route over another. Although there are subtle differences in the intertie operations, each shows good performance characteristics, and each has the capacity to transfer the projected power to and from the Kenai Peninsula. Thermal conductor capacity with 795kcmil Drake is 215MW at 138kV, which fits well with the maximum available generation capacity on the Kenai of 190MW in the summer (88% of capacity). For the winter transfer of 125MW, the conductors would be loaded to 58% of capacity. Each of the alternatives with submarine cable (Enstar, Tesoro and Beluga) require moderately- sized shunt reactors at the cable terminations to hold the voltage below 1.05 per unit with the line unloaded. With the cables loaded, reactors can be switched off-line, and the cable capacitance can be used to support the system’s reactive power needs. The route which parallels the existing line (overhead transmission only) does not require reactors. The proposed 138kV alternative also significantly improves stability on the Kenai. The most significant disturbances with the new intertie in place for stability were a fault and tripping of the Bradley-Soldotna line and a fault and trip of the new intertie. If the fault and trip of the Bradley- Soldotna line results in a trip of both Bradley Lake units, the 120MW energy deficit results in significant load shedding in Anchorage. If only one Bradley Lake unit is tripped, the system remains stable with the new intertie. For a trip of the new intertie, the impedance of the existing intertie presents significant problems for the transient power flow and results in an out-of-step condition on the existing intertie, which then trips. This results in significant underfrequency load shedding in Anchorage, and the Kenai experiences high frequencies. There are two methods to resolve this problem. One method is to 5-10 transfer trip one Bradley Lake unit with the new intertie to prevent the out-of-step condition. This method relies on sufficient spinning reserve in Anchorage to support the 60MW deficit. The other method is to switch in series compensation on the existing intertie to reduce the apparent impedance and allow a higher level of emergency power flow. Further analysis of the series compensation alternative will be required to determine the critical switching parameters and the amount of compensation to be switched versus continually on-line. However, for most scenarios, when the existing intertie trips and when the system is transferring at or near capacity, the new intertie can maintain system stability and there is no underfrequency load shedding or significant high frequencies on the Kenai. The stability studies indicate that adding 24Mvar to Daves Creek SVS and series compensating the line to 25% with an additional 20Mvar shunt capacitor for voltage support, significantly improves stability for loss of a second intertie. This modification would not be feasible for normal operation, again, due to the high losses. New 230kV Intertie Alternatives: Analysis of the four 230kV intertie alternatives indicates that each of the assumed routes studied performs essentially the same. The Enstar, Tesoro and Beluga alternatives each require large shunt reactors at each end of the submarine cable to counter the cable capacitance. The thermal limit for 795 Drake at 230kV is 358MW. Maximum summer loading of 190MW would use 53% of the line rating, while the winter transfer maximum of 125MW would only use 35% of the rating. This indicates that the 230kV alternatives would be under-utilized unless additional generation resources are developed on the Kenai Peninsula. The Enstar, Tesoro and Beluga routes all require large reactors to remain on-line with the lines loaded to the maximum available transfer of 19OMW. This indicates that the circuits are under- utilized. While the route paralleling the existing line does not require reactors on-line during heavy load transfers, reactors will be required when the circuit is unloaded or lightly loaded. Stability performance of the 230kV alternatives are similar to the 138kV intertie performance. All of the 230kV alternatives require significantly more equipment than the 138kV alternatives. Battery Energy Storage (BES): Studies of the BES alternatives were primarily dynamic stability studies. Installations were considered at both the Bernice Lake and International substations. BES units are able to produce and absorb real and reactive power quickly and remain on-line (up to 20 minutes) long enough to ramp down or start generation. 5-11 Installation of a 40MW BES at Bernice Lake improves the stability of the Kenai Peninsula and will allow a reduction of spinning reserve on the Kenai. It does not substantially improve the stability for Anchorage, especially if the intertie is opened. Installation of a 40MW BES in Anchorage improves the system stability, especially when the existing intertie is opened, as it provided a portion of the power deficit. Installation of the BES generally enhances system stability, but it will not substantially increase power transfer opportunities without improvements on the existing intertie to reduce losses and correct low voltages. 5.2. PRELIMINARY DESIGN SECTION REPORT SUMMARY The Design Section Report presents the results of engineering studies to determine preliminary design criteria and designs for electrical facilities required for the Southern Intertie Project. The preliminary designs were then used to develop cost estimates for and evaluate the feasibility of different routes and voltages for the Southern Intertie Project. The preliminary designs may be modified and/or optimized when detailed engineering is performed. This work was performed by POWER Engineers and its subcontractor, Dryden & LaRue. The objective of the Design Section Report is to determine: Preliminary Overhead, Underground, and Submarine Electric Transmission Line Designs: The preliminary designs will have the electrical characteristics as defined by the Studies Section Report and as directed by the IPG. Preliminary designs were prepared for the routing opportunities identified by Dames & Moore in its environmental analysis. Preliminary Substation Designs: The preliminary designs for substation facilities will perform the functions required by the electrical system studies. These designs will describe modifications and additions to existing substations at both termination points of the proposed new Southern Intertie. Preliminary Reactive Compensation Station Designs: Electrical system studies have determined the requirement for reactive compensation to control the voltage rise caused by the shunt capacitance of submarine cables and overhead transmission lines. Electrical system studies have also determined the need for reactive compensation installations to provide for dynamic system 5-12 stability and to control steady-state power transfer. The size and design of these compensation stations is interdependent with the specific route and voltage. The report presents the results of preliminary design and design criteria selection for: Overhead transmission lines at 230kV and 138kV for seven different design cases (combinations of terrain, route characteristics, and climatological loading). Underground and submarine transmission lines at 230kV and 138kV. Modifications for Bernice Lake, International, University, Soldotna, and Point Woronzof substations, for both 230kV and 138kV alternatives. These substations were selected as representative potential Intertie termination points to establish feasibility of the project. Only one substation in the Anchorage area and one substation on the Kenai will be required to terminate the proposed Southern Intertie. The substations will be determined after selection of the preferred route and further detailed study. Additional substations will be considered for line termination points in the EIS phase of the project. Reactive compensation installations associated with the existing overhead 115kV line and new 138kV or 230kV Southern Intertie facilities. The preliminary designs and design criteria include: Preliminary design criteria for overhead lines. Preliminary structure configurations and weights for overhead transmission lines, along with the number and type of structures, anchors, and foundations for a typical mile of line. The “links” where the preliminary overhead and underground transmission designs are applicable. Dames & Moore’s environmental analysis has defined routing opportunities into “links,” which are potential route segments with generally similar design requirements. The cost estimates will be organized by link in the Economic Section Report. Refer to the index and map located in the map pocket of the Design Section Report for link identification. Submarine cable crossing preliminary designs discussed by individual crossing. The submarine cable preliminary designs are site specific. 5-13 5.2.1 Substation preliminary design discussion, with one-line diagrams, for each substation. A summary of reactive compensation station requirements. Typical reactive compensation station one-line diagrams. A discussion of reactive compensation options and compensation station descriptions. Summary of Preliminary Design Results The following is a narrative summary of the preliminary designs and associated conclusions recommended for use in preparing cost estimates and evaluating potential scenarios. Design information is also summarized in Table 7. 5.2.1.1 Overhead Transmission Line Single pole tubular steel structures with concrete drilled pier foundations in the Anchorage area. Guyed X structures with pile or rock-anchor foundations outside the Anchorage area, except for the Bird Point Crossing and the Bird Point to Girdwood section. Wood pole H- frame and guyed X structures were considered. The costs of these structure types are generally competitive. The design which is most suitable for a given line segment is dependent upon the construction techniques used along with the accessibility, soils, and terrain of the specific line segment involved. Guyed X structures were selected because they are a proven design and are suitable for use in a wide variety of situations, and the time constraints and scope of this project did not permit the detailed evaluation necessary to determine the optimum structure for the many line segments in each potential route. The use of guyed X structures will result in realistic cost and feasibility comparisons between routes regardless of the structure type selected in final design. Wood pole H-frame structures remain an alternative for the final design. Special double circuit steel towers using extra-strength conductor for the Bird Point to Girdwood section. Special single circuit steel towers using extra-strength conductor for the overhead Bird Point crossing. 5-14 an Le TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF OVERHEAD LINE DESIGN INFORMATION Line Design 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7] Application Kenai Flats/ Anchorage/ East Cook Mountains Portage Bird Point Bird Point Turnagain Kenai Area Inlet Flats/ Flats to Crossing Arm Fire Island Girdwood Structure Type Guyed X Single Pole Guyed X Guyed X Guyed X Tubular or Tubular or Steel Tube Steel Steel Steel Steel | Lattice Steel Lattice Steel Conductor 795 kCM 795 kCM 795 kCM 795 kCM 795 kCM Special Special ACSR ACSR ACSR ACSR ACSR Typical Span Length 1000 ft 400 ft 1000 ft 700 ft 1000 ft up to up to 2,450 ft 11,360 ft 138kV Ground Clearance 28 ft 29 ft 28 ft 35 ft 28 ft 30 ft 100 ft 230kV Ground Clearance 30 ft 31 ft 30 ft 37 ft 30 ft 30 ft 100 ft NESC Load Zone Heavy Heavy Heavy Heavy Heavy Hea Heavy Extreme Wind - Conductor 90 mph (c) 90 mph (c) 106 mph (c) 90 mph (c) 90 mph (c) Extreme Wind - Structure 100 mph (c) 100 mph (c) 125 mph (c) 100 mph (c) 140 mph (c) Extreme Snow (7 Ib./cuft) 6 In. snow, 6 in. snow, 6 in. snow, 6 in. snow, 6 in. snow, 6 in. snow, 3 in. snow/ice 20 mph 20 mph 20 mph 20 mph 20 mph 20 mph (10 Ib./cuft), wind © wind © wind © wind wind © wind © 20 mph wind © ee Extreme Ice (57 Ib./cuft) 1.5 in. 1.5 in. 2.0 in .; 3.0 in .; 1.5 in..; 1.5 in..; see above 40mph(c) 40mph(c) 40mph 40mph NESC Extreme Wind 80 mph 80 mph 90 mph 90 mph 80 mph 80 mph 80 mph Predominant Foundation Types Driven Pile Concrete Pier | Driven Pile Driven Pile Driven Pile Driven Pile, Concrete or Rock Concrete Piers, or | Rock (c) indicates a design load which controls all or a portion of the structure design. 5-15 * NESC Heavy loading conditions with extra heavy ice, snow, and wind depending upon location or as further defined by specific link. * 795 KCM ACSR conductor except for the Bird Point to Girdwood section and the Bird Point crossing. 5.2.1.2 Submarine and Underground Cable * The submarine and land based cable systems that were utilized for the route selection study are listed in Table 8. TABLE 8 SUBMARINE AND LAND-BASED CABLE SYSTEMS Voltage Application | Cable Type | 138kV - Submarine type | 2 - 3 phase flat Self-Compensating-Fluid-Filled cables, submarine type 138kV & 230kV - Submarine type 4 - 1 phase Self-Contained-Fluid-Filled cables, submarine type | 138kV - Bird Point Crossing 1 - 3 phase HPGF, pipe type | 138kV & 230kV Land (Underground)) 3 - 1 phase XLPE cables | A representative engineering sketch of each type of cable configuration is included in Figure 11 on the following page. As noted in the Design Section Report, each installation is link specific. The determination of cable type by link was made based on water depths, fluid pumping requirements, if any, size and type of installation equipment required, reliability and world-wide operating experience. ¢ For purposes of design and estimating we used 1-1000KCM CU per phase. This conductor size was utilized due to defined system load flows, dielectric losses, cable construction and ampacity calculations determined by assumed values of soil thermal conductivity, and probable subsurface geological features and profiles. Further geotechnical investigations will be required after a preferred route is selected to optimize the conductor size. This effort would be undertaken in the detailed design phase of the project. 5-16 HVUG CABLE TYPES POWSACRETE COSTING MLTACGEN GAs INSULATION SHIELO MOISTURE SEAL INSULATICH. PAPER SCREEN “COMPACT COPPER OR ALUMINUM CONOUC TOR APPROX. 2.90° CROSS SECTION OF TYPICAL HPGF PIPE TYPE CASLE _ CROSS SECTION OF TYPICAL SELF CONTAINEO FLUIO FILLEO CABLE (SUSMARINE) STEEL PIPE. -6.6257 0-0. 7.9317 1.0. SKLO WIRES. THO HALF RGUNOS STAINLESS STEEL STANOEO COPPER CCHOUCTCR (ZZ0 PAPER txsucaTion CARSCHIZEO PAPER ano SCREEN CF aleutsum FOIL LE29 ALLOY SHEATH CATER OF ASPHILT ato T CAveRS CF Olt =fseRcenstoo Pszca TaO LAYERS OF COPPER Tarts CORRSGATED BACNZE T2PE COPPER WIRE ASPMALT. POLYSROPYLENE aan. - ASPHALT. NERECHATED iS « TLEHE YARN ANO ASPHALT = GALWAMIZED STEEL WIRES ASPHALT. POLYPROPYLENE TaRN, . ASPHALT.POLYPROP LENE TARY ASPHALT at CHALLE = AC FLAT TYPE SUSMARINE CABLE coPeeR CONCUCTCR EXTALOED SEMI-CONDUCTCR EXTRUDED XLPE INSULATICN EXTAUCED LEsD SHEATH tire cureR JaCxET WITH CaaPHITE COATING CROSS SECTION OF TYPICAL EXTRUDED OLELECTRIC CASLE (LAND) Figure 11 * Charging current and associated reactive compensation was also calculated based on the link-specific cable manufacturing technique. * Grounding methodologies were also a prime consideration in determining cable parameters. Specific methodologies considered included single point, cross bonded or multi-point grounded systems. ¢ Installation of cable using a water jet assisted cable plow to embed the cables is preferred for all corridors except Bird Point. Our preliminary design effort has determined that all corridors present challenges for installation which in some cases may prevent the water jet assisted cable plow’s use, and that marine surveys will need to be performed to determine if a particular route is suitable for the water jet assisted cable plow. Comments on particular corridor descriptions and challenges are discussed in the following paragraphs. The Beluga corridor is recommended for elimination from further consideration due to difficulty and expense of installation and poor cable reliability caused by the fast currents, exposed rock bottom, and rolling boulders. Additionally, Chugach Electric’s Point MacKenzie to Point Woronzof undersea high-voltage cables have performed poorly under similar but less severe conditions. The Tesoro corridor is recommended for further consideration. This corridor is subject to some of the fastest currents in the area, making installation of the cable difficult. Marine surveys will need to be conducted to verify that laying cable in this corridor is practical and that the cable can be embedded and/or protected successfully. Preliminary cost estimates have been prepared for four double-armored single-phase self-contained fluid-filled (SCFF) cables and for two three-phase double-armored self-compensating cables. The Enstar corridor is recommended for further consideration. Analysis of the available data leads us to believe this route will allow adequate embedment to protect the cable. Preliminary cost estimates have been prepared for four double-armored single-phase SCFF cables and for two three-phase double-armored self-compensating-fluid-filled cables. Subalternatives to the Tesoro and Enstar routes include the Klatt routing. It has two potential routes. The first is from the Klatt Road in Anchorage to Point Possession. The character of the route is expected to be similar to the Tesoro corridor. Preliminary cost estimates were 5-18 prepared for four embedded double-armored single-phase SCFF cables and for two three-phase embedded double-armored self-compensating-fluid-filled cables. The second route is from the Klatt Road landfall to near Burnt Island Creek on the Kenai Peninsula. Based on available information, this second route is likely to be practical for cable installation and will allow adequate embedment of submarine cable in a similar fashion as the Enstar cable corridor. Preliminary cost estimates have been prepared for four double-armored single-phase self-compensating-fluid-filled cables and for two three-phase double-armored SCFF cables. The Bird Point corridor is recommended for further consideration. Analysis of available data for this short (less than three mile) crossing indicates that directional boring is a viable option. A directional bore will permit installation of a casing through which the cable can be pulled. In this type of installation the cable would be very well protected and highly reliable. Additional geotechnical evaluations are required to confirm that directional boring can be accomplished. A preliminary cost estimate has been prepared for a directional bore with high pressure gas filled (HPGF) cables. In addition, preliminary cost estimates have been prepared for four double- armored single-phase SCFF submarine cables and for two three-phase double-armored self- compensating-fluid-filled submarine cables. 5.2.1.3 Substations Substation modification and additions will be required at two existing substations, one in the Anchorage area and one on the Kenai, to terminate the new Southern Intertie. Terminus points were investigated at University, International and Point Woronzof substations in Anchorage. Other potential Anchorage terminus points include the APA Anchorage Substation and the ML&P Plant #2 Substation, which will be investigated in the EIS phase of the project. The terminus of a new intertie on the Kenai would be at Bernice Lake or Soldotna substations. No transformation would be required at the Anchorage area for the 138kV options investigated. All 138kV options required a 138/115kV autotransformer on the Kenai. For 230kV options, new 230/138kV autotransformers would be required for the Anchorage area options investigated, except at University where there is an existing 230kV bus. New 230/115kV transformers on the Kenai would be required for all scenarios for a 230kV Southern Intertie. No new substation sites are required for any of the Southern Intertie scenarios. 5-19 5.2.1.4 Reactive Compensation New sites will be required for all reactor sites at the submarine cable landfalls except for Point Woronzof. Shunt capacitors, static var compensation (SVC), thyristor-controlled series capacitors (TSCS), or battery energy storage (BES) compensation will require site additions to existing substations or new sites under all scenarios. Shunt capacitor banks totaling approximately 60Mvar will be needed to support the voltage on the existing 115kV line for increased power transfer capability. SVC control is expected to be used for 20Mvar of thyristor controlled reactors to work in conjunction with a total of three steps of 20Mvar shunt capacitors. Series compensation of the existing 115kV line could be used, rather than shunt compensation, to counteract the line inductive reactance to reduce voltage drop and increase power transfer. This can be accomplished with a single bank of series capacitors rated at 25 ohms (equivalent to 40Mvar) of either switched series capacitors or TCSC or a combination of switched capacitors and TCSC. Shunt reactors are required for all 230kV line route options to hold the voltage within operating limits when the line is at zero or low load levels. Reactive compensation requirements range from two banks of 22Mvar each for all overhead line alternatives to two banks of 75Mvar each for the longest submarine crossing for the Tesoro route. One bank is located on each end of the line or submarine cable landing. Shunt reactors are also required for all 138kV alternatives with a submarine cable crossing to hold the cable voltage within operating limits. Two 22Mvar banks are required for the Enstar route and two 40Mvar reactor banks are required for the Tesoro Route. One reactor bank at each cable landing site will be required. For the Tesoro Route, the Point Woronzof reactor bank is being specified in two steps to allow the cable capacitance to be used in the system to reduce generated reactive power requirements. The Tesoro Route reactive compensation also assumes that one of the existing 11Mvar reactors at Point Woronzof is available for compensating the new submarine cable. 5-20 ¢ For the Bird Point Crossing, approximately two 10Mvar reactor banks would be required to maintain acceptable operating voltages. No specific system studies in the draft studies report were performed to determine this level, only a linear approximation from the other routes. * Battery Energy Storage (BES) at Anchorage and Bernice Lake would provide a fast-acting source/sink for real and reactive power during system disturbances. BES systems generally improve system stability by allowing more time (20 minutes) for the system generators to respond to system events. The preliminary studies determined that BES units sized to +/- 40MVA, rated at 20 minutes will improve stability in both Anchorage and on the Kenai. Steady-state power transfer was not increased to desirable levels utilizing only the BES. The addition of a new transmission line was necessary to provide the increased steady-state power transfer capacity desired. 5.3. ECONOMIC SECTION REPORT SUMMARY The purpose of the Economic Section Report is to provide cost estimates for the Southern Intertie Project Alternatives. The alternatives are identified in the Design Section Report and Studies Section Report. The three primary alternatives are referred to as Tesoro Route, Enstar Route, and Quartz Creek Route. Based on the results of the preliminary design efforts and environmental evaluations, each corridor has a base route identified. These base routes are potential routes that have attributes that may allow the route to be ultimately permitted under an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) process. The cost estimates for the environmental permitting efforts are based on the preparation of an EIS. For purposes of this report, the base routes will be the baseline estimates. Multiple alternatives to each of the base routes are also provided. Refer to the Alternative Corridor Map (Section II) for the locations of the routes. We have used the following abbreviations in the map and route tables: TS Tesoro Route ec Quartz Creek Route EN Enstar Route AN Anchorage Municipal Area 5-21 The Economic Section Report provides an overview of the project cost estimates, a summary of the estimates, and a detailed breakdown of the various costs. The detail in the report is provided for as follows: * Overhead Transmission - Cost estimate breakdown by link; ¢ Underground Transmission - Cost estimate breakdown by link; ¢ Substations - Cost estimate breakdown by substation alternative; * Reactive Compensation - Cost estimate breakdown by device and application; ¢ Environmental Permitting - Cost estimate breakdown for EIS, associated studies, and pre- construction surveys; * Rights of Way - Cost estimate breakdown by right-of-way and related permitting; and ¢ Appendices A-D - Supporting detailed documentation for transmission, substation, and reactive compensation estimates. 5.3.1 Summary of Estimates The Southern Intertie has numerous technical challenges regardless of the route. The following discussions reflect some of the more economically significant assumptions applied to the cost estimates. Overhead Lines: The overhead transmission structure types are steel guyed-X and single pole steel structures as detailed in Appendix A of the Design Section Report and in the Economic Section Report. If wood pole H-frame structures were selected for portions of the route, costs would be similar. Submarine Cables: The submarine cable estimates were performed based on using double armor for the entire circuit length and embedding the cables. The decision to double armor and embed is based on the operating environment in the Turnagain Arm and discussions with Pirelli. Additional discussion on this information is presented in the Submarine and Underground Transmission Cable section and Appendix B of the Economic Section Report, and in the Design Section Report. The recommended cable system at 138kV, except for the Bird Point crossing, is two, three-phase flat type self-compensating-fluid-filled cables. Since this system provides for two completely independent three-phase circuits, embedment of the cables may not be as important, since if one circuit fails, the line could continue to operate on the other circuit. Since embedment is estimated to add significantly to the installation cost, site-specific geotechnical investigation is recommended 5-22 prior to finalizing a decision regarding embedment. At 230kV, four single-phase double-armored SCFF cables are estimated, with embedment. The recommendation to use the flat type three-phase cables at 138kV is based on our conversations and correspondence with the manufacturer, NKT of Denmark, and with two utility users of the cable. Because installation of this cable type has been primarily in Denmark, it is recommended that a visit to the manufacturer and users of the cable be completed during the next phase of the project to confirm our previous discussions in more detail. The alternative to the three-phase flat cable is four single-phase cables, and we have included an estimate of project costs using this type of cable at 138kV, in addition to the flat three-phase cable. The Bird Point Alternative was estimated using a different technology than the SCFF type submarine cable. We anticipate that it will be possible to set up in the Turnagain Arm and directionally drill towards either shore to place an HPGF cable system. Land Underground Cables: All anticipated underground high voltage cable installations are assumed to be XLPE type. This is reliable technology and has the lowest costs. Substation: The substation estimates are based on the Design Section Report and the general arrangement drawings located in the Economic Section Report. The termination points for the Southern Intertie were selected for estimating purposes. Actual final terminal (substation) locations may vary in the Anchorage area. Reactive Compensation: Reactive compensation will be required for all scenarios of the Southern Intertie to facilitate steady state power transfer, dynamic stability during system disturbances and to control capacitance of high voltage submarine/underground cables. Additionally, construction of the new transmission facility will require compensation of the existing 115kV intertie for the same reasons. Our cost estimates include appropriately sized devices for both new and existing facilities. The high voltage underground or submarine type of cables require shunt connected reactors. Generally speaking, the higher the voltage and the longer the cable run, the larger the reactor has to be to control the (higher) capacitance. Also, the existing 115kV intertie would require shunt connected capacitor banks augmented by a static var compensator (SVC) or a thyristor controlled series capacitor (TCSC) bank. Estimates are provided for both scenarios; however, the TCSC offers superior steady state and dynamic 5-23 capabilities and is the preferred choice. It should be noted that a significant capital cost savings of approximately $3M can be made by eliminating the TCSC, if it is determined that some underfrequency load shed can be tolerated. The extent of load shed is highly dependent on the generation mix at the time of a system disturbance and on the ability to be able to very quickly provide transfer trip of at least one Bradley Lake unit. The reactive compensation estimates are based on the System Studies and Design Section Report and information detailed in the Economic Section Report. Environmental Permitting: Each of the three major potential routes for the project presents significant challenges to successfully securing a permitted route based on meetings with the public, affected agencies and a review of previous study correspondence. It has not yet been determined whether an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be required to comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. Cost estimates included in this report are based on an EIS level of effort. Compared with the effort required for a typical EIS, the project will require additional studies or effort in the following areas: ¢ Anchorage Urban Study ¢ Data Collection ¢ Public and Agency Meetings to Facilitate the Decision Process * Mitigation Studies Pre-Construction Surveys: Prior to construction and potentially before agency approval on the selected alternative, a number of compliance studies are required. These include Section 106 (cultural) and Section 107 (biology). In addition, a construction, operation and maintenance (COM) plan would be prepared. The final element of environmental studies includes preparation of EAs (if needed) as well as other permits such as the Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit for construction activities in wetlands areas. Right-of-Way Acquisition: To secure the project right-of-way, two major acquisition processes will occur: * Permit acquisition to secure Chugach’s transmission line rights to exist on local, state, and federally administered lands; and 5-24 * Private land easement acquisition to secure Chugach’s rights to exist on private lands crossed by the transmission line. The variation of project right-of-way and permit acquisition costs among the three primary alternatives is a direct function of the agency lands crossed that require permitting, as well as the amount of private land crossed by the route. Direct costs are those associated with the market value of the lands encumbered by the right-of-way. Indirect costs are the cost of labor and expenses to acquire right-of-way, and are directly related to the number of permits and easement to be acquired. Fiber Optics: Consideration for the installation of a fiber optic cable as part of the project was not requested until after the preliminary design was complete. The preliminary design and design criteria as presented in the Design Section Report do not provide for fiber optics. However, based on our experience with similar projects, we have estimated the cost of adding a fiber over the various routes and have summarized those costs below. Costs for the addition of fiber optics to the Project are not included in the overall Project costs. If the addition of fiber optics is desired, it is recommended that it be included in the requirements for the final design see Table 9. TABLE 9 FIBER OPTIC CABLE COST ESTIMATION Application | $ in 1,000’s Submarine Cable 500 - 1,200 Underground (Land) Cable 50 - 90 | Overhead Transmission 1,800 - 4,000 Substations 20 - 40 Total F.O. costs, depending on route 2,400 - 5,300 Cost Estimate Summary Tables: The following tables (10 through 12) summarize the base routes and alternatives by overall corridor and voltage. Refer to the applicable section for detailed breakdowns of summarized costs. The following acronyms are used. *OH - High Voltage (138kV or 230kV) Overhead Transmission Line * SUB - Submarine Type Cable (138kV or 230kV) *UG - High Voltage (138kV or 230kV) Land Underground Type Cable *SS - Substation (138kV or 230kV) *RC - Reactive Compensation (115kV, 138kV, or 230kV) 5-25 ENV -_ Environmental Permitting (includes EIS) ROW -_ Right-of-Way and Permit Acquisition PCS - Environmental Pre-Construction Surveys * Inclusive of labor, material, engineering design and construction management. 5-26 SUMMARY OF COSTS 138KV SYSTEM - SUBMARINE: 2 - 3 PHASE FLAT CABLES TABLE 10 ($ Millions) | Southern Intertie Project - Phase 1 Route Selection | | Route OH | SUB | UG Ss RC | ENV | ROW | PCS Diff. Total From $M Base Route TESORO Submarine Cable Type: 2 - 3 Phase Flat SCFF Base Route 62 Mile Base Route 21.8 | 44.4 9:5 7.3 8.1 1.0 1.2 ANC A” ANC B ANC C ANC D 7 [ 102.4 Captain Cook" | 6.7) 89.1 ENSTAR Submarine Cable type: 2 - 3 Phase Flat SCFF Base Route 77 Miles Base Route | 30.5 | 24.8 | 15.5 | 4.0 | 8.7 | 25 | 04 | 1.2 | 87.6 ANC A | 1.5 89.1 ANC B | 90.5 ANC C 88.0 ANC D 88.5 ANC E 88.6 ANC F 88.1 SOL A? | 87.7 SOL B 85.1 SOL C 86.5 QUARTZ CREEK Base Route 140 Miles Base Route 80.8 0.0 0.0 Sol 6.0 25 0.5 1.2 94.7 BIRD A (OH)"* (10.0) 84.7 BIRD B (SUB) (5.1) 89.6 ‘Getied SOLA (2.0) 92.7 SOLB (2.3) 92.4 SOL C | | | Ton 94,6 '© Local Alternatives: Anchorage Area " Local Alternative: Captain Cook State Park '2 Local Alternatives: Soldotna Area ' Local Alternatives: Bird Point Area 5-27 TABLE 11 SUMMARY OF COSTS 138KV SYSTEM - SUBMARINE: 4 - 1 PHASE FLAT CABLES ($ Millions) Southern Intertie Project - Phase 1 Route Selection ANC A Route on | sup | uG | ss | Rc | ENV | ROW! PCS! Diff. Total From $M Base Route TESORO Submarine Cable Type: 4 - 1 Phase SCFF Base Route 62 Mile | Base Route | 21.8 | 63.3 | 9.5 | 7.3 1.2 | | ANC A‘ | 19 ANC B | 2.0 116.7 ANC C | | } 11.1 125.8 | ANC D | | 9.8 124.5 | Captain Cooks — | | 6.7) 108.0 | ENSTAR ao Cable Type: 4 1 Phase SCFF Base Route 77 Miles Base Route 98.4 99.1 BIRD A (OH)'” BIRD B (SUB) High-Pressure Gas-Filled SOLA ANC B 107.4 ANC C 98.4 ANC D 0.7 99.1 ANC E 0 98.4 ANC F 0 98.4 SOL A's 0.1 98.5 SOL B (2.5) 95.9 SOL C | a.) 98.3 QUARTZ CREEK Base Route 140 Miles Base Route SOL B SOLC * Local Alternatives: Anchorage Area 'S Local Alternative: Captain Cook State Park 'S Local Alternatives: Soldotna Area " Local Alternatives: Bird Point Area 5-28 TABLE 12 SUMMARY OF COSTS 230KV SYSTEM ($ Millions) | Southern Intertie Project - Phase 1 Route Selection Route on | sup | uc | ss | rc | env | Row] pcs! Diet. Total From $M Base Route TESORO Base Route 62 Mile Base Route 23.1 | 69.4 | 11.7] 10.7] 86 | 25 | 10 | 12 | 128.2 ANC A" 2.2 130.4 ANC B 2.2 130.4 ANC C | 10.0 138.2 | ANC D 11.2 139.4 | Captain Cook? —_| (8.5) 119.7 ENSTAR Base Route 77 Miles Base Route | 30.0 | 39.0 | 19.1 | 7.1 111.7 ANC A | | 17 ANC B | | 1.6 119.3 ANC C | 0.4 112.1 ANC D | 1.2 112.9 ANC E | Ll 112.8 ANC F | 0.5 112.2 | SOL A® 0.1 111.8 | SOL B (2.7) 109.0 SOL C | | | (1.2) 110.5 | QUARTZ CREEK Base Route 140 Miles Base Route 86.0 0.0 0.0 BIRD A (OH) BIRD B (SUB) SOL A | | SOL B | | L SOL | | | '8 Local Alternatives: Anchorage Area © Local Alternative: Captain Cook State Park 2° Local Alternatives: Soldotna Area 2! Local Alternatives: Bird Point Area 5-29 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT / MACRO CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY APPROACH This study was designed to establish a foundation for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the potential preparation of an environmental impact statement for the proposed Southern Intertie Project. Figure 13 illustrates the study approach and incorporates the anticipated NEPA study process required prior to the permitting and construction of the proposed project. The study process incorporates the draft system studies report, design report, lands/regulatory report, and economic report. A preferred alternative will not be identified until the NEPA study has been completed and a decision has been issued by the lead federal agency. Ground and aerial reconnaissance of the study area was initiated in early December 1995. Subsequently, existing data most pertinent to the identification of alternative corridors were compiled, mapped, and entered into a geographic information system. The mapped data were then analyzed to determine the sensitivity of the resources within the study area. Sensitivity is defined as a measure of probable adverse response of each resource to anticipated direct and indirect impacts associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission line. Criteria used in the sensitivity analysis include the value of the resource, protective status, and present and future use. Both opportunities and constraints were determined within the study area, and the results were used to identify alternative corridors feasible for further consideration and to indicate areas of potential environmental concern. Participants Re lat on Report Report sean? Report intertie System Studies Design Land Rights / | Economie Ee) f Inventory i Siting Criteria Cd fetal Te) icy uae TS leleg ll d Ec) sa2.¥ Process tnt EST) ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY APPROACH Figure 12 6-1 6.2 STUDY AREA INVENTORY This section provides a summary of the inventory of environmental resources within the project study area. Resource inventory information was compiled through the review of existing agency management plans, previous studies conducted within the region, available geographic information system (GIS) maps, limited field visits and aerial photo interpretation. Digital resource inventory data were obtained from the following agencies: « USFWS ¢ U.S. Forest Service « Alaska Department of Natural Resources ¢ Municipality of Anchorage ¢ Kenai Peninsula Borough A regional environmental inventory was created through a combination of these data and other available sources. These data are currently in an Arc/Info format. The resulting map products are listed under each resource study. Tables 2 and 3 provide a listing of the key siting issues and constraints identified along the alternative base routes. Biology: An inventory was conducted for the vegetative and associated wildlife species, as well as any special status species that potentially occur in the study area. Biotic communities in the study area range from coastal tidal estuaries to alpine tundra communities. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine areas which offered opportunities for siting the proposed transmission line and those areas which need to be avoided due to the presence of sensitive features. The following information was compiled and collated onto maps. These maps are provided in the Environmental Report. ¢ Vegetation cover types ¢ Area of major wetland concentrations ¢ Bear habitat ¢ Mountain goat and moose ¢ Dall sheep and caribou habitat ¢ Anadromous fish streams ¢ Beluga whales and eagle habitat ¢ Duck and goose concentration areas ¢ Comprehensive swan data Geologic Hazards and Features: An inventory of geologic hazards and features began with a review of the regional physiography and general geologic setting in the project area. This was followed by an investigation and evaluation of geologic features and phenomena which could adversely affect the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission line. These features were then analyzed to determine the potential effect on the proposed transmission line and whether their distribution was such that they could be avoided by appropriate corridor location or route alignment. The existing Quartz Creek Transmission Line has historically been subjected to frequent avalanches, continued maintenance due to frost heaving, and the potential for soil liquefaction. Data was compiled on the following: ¢ Identified avalanche hazard areas Marine Environment: A regional marine environment inventory was conducted to assess the potential sensitivity of marine communities to the construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed transmission line. The inventory information was collected to describe the tidal and ice flow characteristics within Turnagain Arm and to provide information related to the feasibility of installing a submarine cable. Land Use Resources: A regional land use inventory and analysis were conducted to assess the potential sensitivity of identified land uses to the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission line. Information regarding land jurisdiction and ownership, existing land uses, transportation, and existing utilities were collected and analyzed within the study area. The alternative corridors cross a variety of land uses ranging from highly urbanized areas (Anchorage) to limited development on the Kenai Peninsula. Land uses within the alternative corridors are primarily residential in nature with limited amounts of industry in Anchorage and near Nikiski on the Kenai Peninsula. Data was compiled on the following: ¢ — Jurisdiction/ownership (study area and Anchorage) ¢ Land use (study area and Anchorage) Recreation Management Areas and Facilities: The regional recreation inventory and analysis were conducted to assess the potential sensitivity of identified recreation uses to the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission line. Inventory information was collected for recreational facilities such as trails and campgrounds and special management areas including wilderness areas. Recreational opportunities within and adjacent to the alternative corridors vary from developed urban parks to federally designated wilderness areas. The study area incorporates 6-3 recreational opportunities closely related to tourism both in the Anchorage Bowl and on the Kenai Peninsula. Data was compiled on the following: ¢ Recreation facilities ¢ Recreation management areas Socioeconomics: An inventory of the social and economic characteristics of the study area was conducted to determine the sensitivity of the socioeconomic resource to the proposed project. Inventory information included demographic and economic data and a characterization of the communities in the study area. The nature of the communities within the study area varies significantly, depending on the access, density and nature of development, and the characteristics of the surroundings. The study area falls within the jurisdiction of two major municipal governments—Kenai Peninsula Borough and the Municipality of Anchorage. Visual Resources: The study area encompasses a region in south-central Alaska of nationally significant scenic resources primarily under state and federal management. Visual resources were identified as the primary issue for the project by the land management agencies contacted, including the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, and the Municipality of Anchorage. The management and maintenance of visual resources, including the natural scenic quality of the landscape and panoramic views in the region, are one of the primary objectives of these agencies. The visual resource inventory includes the following: * Overview of the landscape character of the region e Visual management areas within the study area ¢ Visual influence of recreation areas within alternative corridors e Visually sensitive residential and urban areas within alternative corridors The following data was compiled: ¢ Visual management areas ¢ Visual influence of recreation facilities * Visually sensitive residential and urban areas e Visual influence recreation facilities (Anchorage) 6-4 Cultural Resources: The cultural resource inventory and analysis investigated and evaluated prehistoric, ethnohistoric, and historic sites, buildings, structures, districts and objects. Major cultural resources that represent the most serious conflict with the alternative transmission line corridors were identified. The cultural resources inventory was used to develop an informal sensitivity analysis that could be used in future stages of project planning and implementation. This investigation provides a basis for identifying known sensitive locations, as well as some areas where other significant cultural resources can be expected. 6.3. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY CONTACT PROGRAM A public and agency scoping program was initiated to inform the general public and management agencies about the project and to solicit comments. Comments received during the public involvement phase of the project aided in the identification of issues and concerns related to the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission line. The issues and concerns were utilized to identify and evaluate siting criteria for the identification of alternative corridors. Table 13 provides a list of the issues and concerns identified relative to the proposed project. Newsletters and news releases were also distributed to local radio and television stations in the Anchorage and Kenai areas providing general information on the project and announcing the two public meetings which were held in Anchorage and Soldotna on January 31, 1996 and February 1, 1996, respectively. Approximately 32 individuals attended the Anchorage public meeting at the Loussac Library, and approximately 14 individuals attended the Soldotna public meeting at the Kenai Borough Chambers. 6.4 SITING CRITERIA This section describes the environmental criteria established for route selection. Resources and features inventoried within the study area were evaluated to identify opportunities and constraints for selecting alternative routes. Siting criteria include consideration of the following: e Resource Value - A measure of rarity, high intrinsic worth, singularity or diversity of a resource within the area. 6-5 TABLE 13 PUBLIC/AGENCY ISSUES AND CONCERNS Issue | Comment/Concern Biology Brown bear habitat Moose rutting winter range Spruce bark beetle infestations Anadromous and fresh water fish Preservation wetlands Known or suspected raptor nesting, roosting, staging, or feeding sites Chickaloon Flats migration area Caribou calving and wintering grounds Incompatible with Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR) purpose Geologic Hazards Avalanche danger Marine Environment | Land Use/Jurisdiction Anadromous and marine fish habitat Coastal wetlands Consistency with existing corridors/easements Right-of-way expansion within existing corridors Residential areas Existing right-of-way within Anchorage, particularly in residential areas Aviation safety, private airstrips Utility corridor at west edge of refuge Focus on existing infrastructure Potter state wildlife refuge Decrease in property values Use of existing right-of-way Limit public access to transmission line route Recreation Management Areas and Facilities Recreation and visual resource management in Chugach State Park and Chugach National Forest Wilderness management and visual resources in KNWR Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA) resources Recreational tourism resources along Seward Highway Recreational tourism resources in Hope/Sunrise Recreational tourism resources in Turnagain Arm Park and open space in Anchorage area Visual Visual resource management of scenery on public lands Recreation views Highway views Residential views Socioeconomics Tourism/recreation Project justification Local firms to provide engineering, construction, and project support Cost to rate payers in railbelt Costs for each installation type Installation cost of overhead line versus submarine 6-6 ¢ Protective Status - A measure of the formal concern expressed for a resource either through legal protection or by assignment of special status designation. * Present and Future Use - A measure of the level of conflict based in land management policies and/or use. With consideration of the above criteria, the data gathered in the inventory were evaluated and given a relative sensitivity level associated with the introduction of a 138kV or 230kV transmission line. Four levels were used for this analysis: ¢ Exclusion - Areas determined to be unsuitable because of unique, highly valued, complex or legally protected resources; potentially significant conflict with current or planned use; areas posing substantial hazards to construction and operation of the line. Only designated wilderness areas were identified for exclusion. « Major - Areas determined to be less suitable because of unique, valued, or legally protected resources and some potential conflict with use; or areas posing some hazards to construction and operation of the transmission line. * Moderate - Areas which could potentially conflict with the transmission line because of sensitive resource values; resources proposed or having potential for special status designation. * Low - Areas where resource conflicts identified through the regional environmental study are minimal or would have no measurable environmental impact. 6-7 7.0 LAND/REGULATORY SECTION REPORT SUMMARY 7.1. |©CORRIDOR-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS Three alternative corridors have been identified within the regional study area. The individual corridors have been divided into segments called links. The Alternative Corridor Map (Figure 7) illustrates the individual corridors and related links. The anticipated permitting requirements and authorizations are similar for all of the corridors under consideration. However, the extent and proximity of regulated areas vary among the identified potential routes. Table 14 summarizes the permits and authorizations necessary for the proposed Southern Intertie. In addition, for all submarine crossings a plat showing the location of the underground submarine cable must be submitted to the U.S. Coast Guard after installation. Application for a transportation/utility system permit under Title 11 of ANILCA will most likely be required for any of the alternatives currently identified with the possible exception of the Tesoro route. In addition, any alternative crossing Forest Service Lands will require a special use permit. Quartz Creek (QC): The QC corridor alternative maximizes the use of existing transmission line right-of-way through federal, state and local management areas. The QC corridor would require a variety of federal, state and local permits prior to construction and operation of the proposed project. This corridor is the only alternative under consideration that crosses National Forest land and would be subject to the applicable special use permits. There are three options in the vicinity of Turnagain Arm (refer to Alternative Corridor Map - Figure 7). They are Alternative Routes QC.D-I.10, QC.D.1.A, and QC.D.1.B. All three options would require similar permitting considerations; however, the potential for the placement of dredge and fill material is potentially higher with the two marine crossing options. This would require a COE Section 404 Permit relating to wetlands. In addition, a COE Section 10 Permit would be required for the placement of structures within Turnagain Arm. This route will also require coordination and review with the Chugach State Park Board of Directors, the National Park Service regarding Land Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) lands, and the ADOT/PF when crossing roads or potentially sharing right-of-way. 7-1 Table 14 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS Action Requiring Permit Permit Approval or Relevant Legislation Corridor Affected Comment Estimated Contact Approval or Review Review Permitting/ Authorization Time Period Federal A Section 404 Permit is required when wetlands are | U.S. Army Engineer Section 404 Permit Clean Water Act, 33 All alternative corridors | The ENSTAR Route initially | 90 - 120 days Georgina Akers, Unit Coordinator USAEDA Regulatory Branch PO Box 898 Anchorage, AK 99506-0899 (907)753-2724 Georgina Akers, Unit Coordinator USAEDA Regulatory Branch PO Box 898 Anchorage, AK 99506-0899 (907)753-2724 Jackie Poston, Environmental Waterways affected by the discharge of dredge or fill material, District, Alaska or transmission line construction activities. USC 1344, Section 404 | under consideration appears to cross more wetlands than other routes Section 10 Rivers and Harbor Act, 33 USC 403, Section 10 Wetlands/ A Section 10 Permit is required for the construction U.S. Army Engineer Waterways or placement of any structures in or above navigable | District, Alaska waters of the United States. All submarine crossings and the aerial crossing at Bird Point Submarine Permit required for discharge of wastewater from a Environmental National Pollutant Federal Water Pollution | All alternative corridors | Applies specifically to Agency review of Crossing point source into federal- and state-owned waters. Protection Agency Discharge Elimination Control Act, 40 CFR under consideration substation/ General Permit Engineer Facilities The permit is also required for storm water runoff. (NPDES) Permit for Storm | 125 switching stations applicability is 30 - U.S. Environmental Protection A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan is required Water Discharges 60 days Agency for construction activities in order to be covered Alaska Operations Office under the EPA’s General Permit for storm water 222 W 7th Ave #19 Anchorage, AK 99513-7588 (907) 271-3541 Matt Carr, Environmental Protection Specialist U.S. Environmental Protection discharges. Submarine Crossing Facilities Spill Prevention Control Federal Water Pollution and Countermeasure Plans | Control Act, 40 CFR 112 All alternative corridors | Applies specifically to under consideration cooling fluid reservoirs for submarine cable crossing. Plans are required for oil storage facilities storing in | Environmental excess of 660 gallons in a single container above Protection Agency ground; in excess of 1,320 gallons in aggregate in tanks above ground; or in excess of 42,000 gallons This permit could potentially Agency below ground. be avoided by placing the Alaska Operations Office storage tanks underground. 222 W 7th Ave #19 Anchorage, AK 99513-7588 (907) 271-3616 Judith Bittner, State Historic Preservation Officer DNR/SHPO 3601 C Street, Suite 1278 Anchorage, AK 99510-7001 (907) 269-8715 Anne Rappaport, Field Supervisor USFWS Ecological Services 605 W 4th Ave, Rm 62 Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 271-2787 All alternative corridors | Potential to identify sites is under consideration equal among all alternatives Concurrence that proposed | National Historic actions do not adversely Preservation Act, impact National Register Section 106 and eligible properties In conjunction with Section 404 or 10 Permitting - up to 120 days Cultural Resources The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Advisory Council on protects properties of historical, architectural, Historic Preservation archaeological, and cultural significance at the national, state and local level by reviewing and commenting on Federal actions affecting National Register and eligible properties. A Section 7 consultation is required to assure U.S. Fish and Wildlife protection of endangered or threatened species and Service wildlife. All alternative corridors | No threatened and under consideration endangered species have been identified within the study area. Section 7 consultation (in Fish and Wiidlife conjunction with Section Protection Act, Section 7 404 or 10 Permitting) Sensitive Plant and/or Wildlife Species Ia conjunction with Section 404 or 10 Permitting - up to 120 days A notice to the FAA, for the review and approval, will be required to address concerns and effects of the proposed project on the safe and efficient use of navigable air space. Table 14 (Continued) CORRIDOR SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS Federal Aviation FAR Part 77 Administration Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration and a Hazard Determination (Form 7460- 1) Potentially the Tesoro Route pending identification of exact transmission line location Right-of-Way Right-of-Way Right-of-Way Permit would be required for obtaining right-of-way within a National Wildlife Refuge. Special Use Permit would be required for obtaining right-of-way on National Forest land. A hazard determination will require public review of the proposed project 90 days minimum Jack Schommer, Air Space & Procedures Air Traffic Division AAL 532 222 W. 7th Ave, Box 14 Anchorage, AK 99513 (907) 271-5903 U.S. Fish and Wildlife | Right-of Way Permit 50 CFR 25, 26, 29, & All with the possible Service 36 exception of the Tesoro Route The Tesoro Route may avoid USFWS lands if the final route goes through the Captain Cook State Recreation Area Approximately one year Chugach National Forest Special Use Permit for use | 36 CFR 251 of Forest Lands Existing Quartz Creek Transmission Line and Bird Point alternative Approximately 4 weeks following completion of NEPA analysis Lucy Blix, Realty Specialist USFWS Div. of Realty 1011 E Tudor Rd Anchorage, AK 99503 (907) 786-3566 Leo Keeler, Realty Specialist USFS Chugach National Forest, Supervisor’s Office 3301 “C” Street, Suite 300 Anchorage, AK 99503-3998 (907) 271-2547 Right-of-Way Non-recreation use in a Land & Water Conservation | National Park Service | “Conversion of Use” Land & Water Tesoro Route and Applies to Captain Cook Approximately 6 - 8 Joy Bryan-Dolsby, Grant Funded (LWCF) recreation area requires & DNR Parks & approval Conservation Fund Act potentially the existing State Park. Regulations weeks Administrator “Conversion of Use” approval. Nonprohibited Outdoor Recreation P.L. 88-578, Section Quartz Creek Route prohibit overhead power lines DNR/Parks & Outdoor conversions of use are approved by the National (administers State side 6(f)(3) in LWCF areas; buried Recreation Park Service and the Department of the Interior. of LWCF for non- power lines are permitted. 3601 “C” Street, Suite 1200 Federal land managed Anchorage, AK 99503-5921 to acquire/develop (90) 269-8692 public outdoor recreation areas) | Right-of-Way Right-of-Way Grant and temporary Use Permit Bureau of Land Grant Right-of-Way and Federal Land Policy and | Tesoro Route Grant Right-of-Way would Approximately 4 - 6 Robert Rinehart, Realty Specialist would be required for obtaining right-of-way on Management on behalf | Temporary Use Permit Management Act of 1976 require concurrence by weeks BLM Division of Lands BLM.-, BIA-, and ANCSA-selected lands. of Bureau of Indian (P.L. 94-579) ANCSA allottee Anchorage District Office (041) Affairs USC 1761-1771 and 6881 Abbott Loop Rd 43 CFR 2800 Anchorage, AK 99507 | (907) 267-1213 State of Alaska Wetlands/ Permitting of projects requiring more than one State Division of Coastal Consistency Alaska Coastal Zone All alternative corridors Approximately 50 Faye Heitz, Project Review Waterways agency permit or Federal permit (requiring State Governmental Review/Determination Management Act: AS under consideration days Coordinator concurrence) must be coordinated by DGC for the Coordination 46, 6 AAC 50 Office of Management and State’s review. Budget Division of Governmental Coordination 3601 “C” Street, Suite 370 Anchorage, AK 99503-5930 (907) 269-7470 Table 14 (Continued) CORRIDOR SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS Wetlands/ Waterways ADEC must issue a 401 Certificate to accompany any Federal permit issued under the Federal Clean Water Act. For example, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit would trigger the need for a State certificate. In accordance with information provided by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, SHPO will provide a determination regarding a project's potential impacts on known cultural resources. Department of Environmental Conservation Department of Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office State Parks A Special Use Permit is required for Park lands along the Right-of-Way. Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks Certificate of Reasonable Assurance (401) Section 106: Concurrence with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Parks Special Use Permit All - It is assumed 401 certification would be complete pending issuance of a Section 404 Permit Clean Water Act, 13 USC 1344, 18 AAC 15 Tim Rumfelt, Environmental Specialist DEC/Southcentral Regional Office 555 Cordova Street Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 269-7500 Approximately 50 days All alternative corridors under consideration National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106; Alaska Historic Preservation Act, AS 41.35.010-240 AS 41.20, 11 AAC 12 All alternative corridors under consideration Applies to Captain Cook, Chugach, Kenai River, and Potter’s Marsh State Parks. Quartz Creek Corridor would Tequire review by the Chugach State Park Board of Supervisors. Right-of-Way A Land Use Permit is required for use of state lands along the proposed right-of-way. A right-of-way permit is required for construction of transmission lines or other improvements that cross state lands. Department of Natural Resources, Division of Lands Land Use Permit, Tideland Use or Lease, Right-of- Way Judith Bittner, State Historic Preservation Officer DNR/SHPO 3601 C Street, Suite 1278 Anchorage, AK 99510-7001 (907) 269-8715 Chris Degernes, Kenai Area Superintendent DNR/Parks & Outdoor Recreation Frontier Building 3601 “C” Street, Suite 1200 Anchorage, AK 99503-5921 (907) 269-8700 Approximately 50 days Approximately 50 days All alternative corridors under consideration AS 38.05, 11 AAC 58, 62, 96 Alice Iliff, Natural Resource Officer Regional Office, DNR/Land Frontier Building Southcentral District Office 3601 “C” Street, Suite 1080 Anchorage, AK 99503-5937 (907) 269-8549 50 day consistency review and up to 6 to 9 months for Title 38 review Conservation Existing Approval is required before construction on Department of Utility Permit on State AS 19.25, 17 AAC 15 ENSTAR and Quartz Potentially more involvement | 6 weeks Rick Pettit, Utility Permit Officer Facilities ADOT/PF managed state lands or for structures Transportation and Right-of-Way Creek along Quartz Creek Corridor DOT&PF Design & Construction crossing ADOT/PF right-of-ways. Public Facilities 4111 Aviation Dr. Anchorage, AK 99502 (907) 266-1541 Construction ADEC must authorize plans and specifications for Department of Air Quality Permit Clean Air Act, 40 CFR All alternative corridors Approximately 50 Bill MacClarence construction that would be undertaken and must Environmental 60, AS 46.03 and 18 under consideration days DEC/Southcentral Regional assess emission standards and possible air Conservation AAC 50 Office contamination resulting from that construction. Road 555 Cordova Street dust, wind-blown contaminants, emissions from Anchorage, AK 99501 generators could cause this permit to be required. (907) 269-7500 Construction Control of road dust. To control and legalize surface | Department of Surface Oiling Permit AS 46.03, 18 AAC 75 All alternative corridors | Applies to access roads 30 - 50 days DEC/Southcentral Regional oiling in order to prevent water pollution. Environmental under consideration Office 555 Cordova Street Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 269-7500 Table 14 (Continued) CORRIDOR SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS Construction A General Waterway/Waterbody Application must be | Department of Fish & | Fish Habitat Permit AS 16.05.840, AS All alternative corridors | Construction access Approximately 50 Don McKay submitted to ADF&G if heavy equipment usage or Game 16.05.870, and 5 AAC 95 | under consideration days ADF&G/Habitat and Restoration construction activities disturb the natural flow or bed Division of any stream, river, or lake. These permits also 333 Raspberry Road stipulate how stream water withdrawals may be Anchorage, AK 9958-1599 conducted. (907) 267-2284 Sensitive Plant | A Special Areas Permit Application must be submitted] Department of Fish & | Special Areas Permit AS 16.20 and 5AAC 95 | Potentially the Tesoro Applies to the Anchorage Approximately 50 Don McKay and/or Wildlife | for activities conducted in legislatively-designated Game and ENSTAR Routes Coastal Wildlife Refuge days ADF&G/Habitat and Restoration Species State game refuges, critical habitat areas, and State Division game sanctuaries. 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 9958-1599 (907) 267-2284 Construction ADNR must approve any plan to burn materials Department of Natural | Burm Permit AS 41.15, 11 AAC 92 All alternative corridors | Applies to potential burning Approximately 10 John McClair, Fire Management during fire season. The permit is issued by the State | Resources, Division of under consideration of slash in cleared right-of- days Officer Forester or local rangers after review of burn plan. Forestry way DNRForestry Kenai-Kodiak Area Office HC | Box 107 Soldotna AK 99669 (907) 262-7559 Construction This permit is required if water withdrawals will Department of Natural | Water Rights or Temporary | AS 46.15, 11 AAC 93 All alternative corridors | Applies during construction | Temporary Water Kellie Litzen occur during construction. The permit lasts for the Resources, Division of | Water Use under consideration Use - 50 days, Water | DNR/Water length of a temporary project. Mining and Water Rights - up to one 3601 “C” Street, Suite 822 year Anchorage, AK 99503 (907) 269-8642 Municipality of Anchorage Right-of-Way The Municipality of Anchorage will require Planning Department Land Use Permit AS 29 All alternative corridors | Specific permitting Conditional Use Thede Tobish Conditional Use Permits, concurrence with Section Conditional Use Permit under consideration requirements will be Permit - 90 days Municipality of Anchorage 404 Permits and platting requirements for right-of- Zoning Changes determined once more maximum Department of Community way easements. specific routing alternatives Planning & Development have been identified Land Use Permit - PO Box 196650 one month maximum | Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 (907) 343-4261 Kenai Peninsula Borough Right-of-Way The Kenai Peninsula Borough will require Conditional] Planning Department Right-of-Way All alternative corridors | Specific permitting Platting - 60 day Harriet Wegner, Environmental Use Permits, concurrence with Section 404 Permits Platting under consideration requirements will be minimum, 90 day Planner and platting requirements for right-of-way easements. Conditional Use Permit determined once more maximum Kenai Peninsula Borough specific routing alternatives have been identified Permitting Right-of- Way - 30 day maximum Conditional Use Permit - 45 day maximum 144 N. Binkley Street Soldotna, AK 99669 (907) 262-4441 X298 Table 14 (Continued) CORRIDOR SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS Other | i Right-of-Way Approval would be required to locate atransmission | Alaska Railroad Leasing of ARRC lands, 45 USC Sec. 1201 et All alternative corridors Approximately 10 Mike Fretwell, Land Use line within, cross, or parallel a railroad Right-of-Way | Corporation Alaska Railroad Permit and | seq., AS 42.40 under consideration days Coordinator Construction 43 USC 975 Alaska Railroad Corporation 327 W. Ship Creek Ave Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 265-2465 Mike Franger, Land Manager Cook Inlet Region, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 500 Anchorage, AK 99509 (907) 274-8638 Right-of-Way _| Approval would be required to locate a transmission | Cook Inlet Region, Inc. | Leasing of Right-of-Way Not applicable Tesoro Corridor Approximately 60 -90 days line across Cook Inlet Region, Inc. lands Enstar (EN): The majority of the land portion of the EN alternative corridor is within the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge and would require compliance with Titles 11 and 22g of ANILCA and considerable consultation with the USFWS for final approval. Title 11 regulates the management and uses within conservation system units within the National Wildlife Refuge system. Title 22g regulates use on private or conveyed holdings within the conservation system units, specifically regarding the reallocation of lands for specific uses (e.g., transmission line corridors vs. wildlife habitat). In addition, local permits would be required within the Soldotna and MOA areas. This corridor also potentially affects three important wildlife habitat areas (Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge, Potter Marsh and Chickaloon Bay) at the marine crossing. This crossing would require considerable consultation with the ADF&G, USFWS and USAED. The National Park Service would administer the LWCF process if state park lands along the Kenai River would be crossed. Tesoro (TE): The Tesoro alternative corridor would specifically require a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration to the FAA. This is primarily due to the location of aviation navigation equipment on Fire Island and its relative close proximity to the Anchorage International Airport. In addition, the LWCF requires the approval of the National Park Service for the construction of utilities within state park lands. This regulation also prohibits the construction of overhead transmission lines within state park lands funded through LWCF appropriations. The BLM would oversee any permitting issues that would occur on native allotments potentially crossed near Point Possession. In addition, Title 11 and Title 22g permitting and regulatory requirements will also need to be considered. A subalternative to Tesoro and Enstar is referred to as the Klatt Route. This route is identified in the Design Section Report and presents two alternatives. Both would make a landfall near Klatt Road in Anchorage. On the Alternative Corridor Map, the Klatt alternatives are designated as AN.70 and AN.80. The Klatt alternatives were identified after the start of this study and were added due to potential permitting advantages. No additional permitting would be required beyond that identified for the other three corridors. 7.2 PRIVATE LAND EASEMENT ACQUISITION All proposed corridors contain private lands from which transmission line easements and/or access easements would be required. The Land Jurisdiction/Ownership map is included as Figure 3-12 in the Environmental Section Report. In addition, Table 15 shows the lineal distance of private lands crossed by each corridor segment. Note that a corridor reference line is shown in the center 7-8 Table 15 CORRIDOR LANDOWNER STATUS Linkcode | Total length Private land Location (mi.) (mi.) TE.A.10 5.1 STATE - Submarine Pt. Woronzof - Fire Island TE.D.40 4.4 Native - Fire Island STATE - Submarine Fire Island - Pt. Possession TE.G.H.80 19.8 | Private, NATIVE, 5.2 | Tesoro Pipeline Borough, STATE TE.G.H.100 4.2| Private, Borough 3.8 | Tesoro Pipeline TE.G.H.110 4.0} Private, Borough, 0.8 | Tesoro Pipeline STATE - TE.L115 3.9| Private, Borough, 10 Tesoro Pipeline STATE TE.J.K.120 10.4] Private, STATE 8.8 | Tesoro Pipeline TE.J-K.130 Private 1.2 | Private Submarin TE.A.20 5.6 STATE - Submarine Pt. Woronzof - Fire Island TE.B.15 3.9 | Private, Municipal | not established | Anchorage/ Kincaid Park TE.C.30 ak STATE - Submarine Pt. Campbell - Fire | Island TE.F.60 9.4 STATE - Submarine Pt. Campbell - Possession Pt. TE.F.70 555) STATE - Submarine Pt. Campbell - _ : : Possession Pt. Captain Coo Alternatives TE.G.H.90 4.1 Private, Borough 3.8 | Near Tesoro Pipeline TE.I.100 4.6 STATE Captain Cook State Park TE.K.140 3.0 Native, Private 0.3 | Within Kenai N.W.R. TE.K.150 4.6 Native Within Kenai N.W.R. 43 Native 4.9| Private, STATE, Native Within Kenai N.W.R. 2.2 | New Corridor 255 Link code Total length (mi.) Private land Location mi. EN.A.20 3.8 Private Alaska Railroad EN.A.50 3.2 Private Alaska Railroad EN.A.60 0.4 Private Alaska Railroad EN.B.20 2.3 Private, STATE Alaska Railroad EN.C.10 78 STATE Submarine Potter - Burt Island EN.D.E.20 38.5 | FEDERAL, Borough - ENSTAR Pipeline QC.M.1.20 10.2} Private, Borough, 6.9 | Pipeline ‘STATE QC.M.1.30 ° 59 Private, Native 0:6 | Transmission Line QC.M.1.50 4.7 Private, Native 2.2 | Road, Transmission Line Soldotna Area Alternatives QC.M.1.10 14.3 Priate, Native, 6.2 | Transmission Line Borough QC.M.1.40 5.0 Private, Native 4.0 | Road 193, 10.2 Anchorage Area Alternatives EN.A.10 5.3 | International & New Seward Highway EN.A.30 0.4 | O'Malley EN.A.40 2.6 | New Seward Highway EN.B.10 2.8 | Old Seward Highway 11.1 Link code Total length (mi.) Private land (mi.) Ownership QC.A-C10 Private, STATE 6.9 QC.C.D-1.10 Private, STATE, FEDERAL QC.J-L.10 Private, FEDERAL QC.M.1.20 Private, Borough, STATE QC.M.1.30 Private, Native QC.M.1.50 Private, Native Bird Point Alternative QC.D.2.10 QC.D.1.A,B 4.2| STATE, FEDERAL Aerial and 7 Submarine Bird Pt. - Snipers Pt. Total Nic Ownership ii mi. AN.20 0.8 Section Line AN.30 0.9 New Corridor AN.40 New Seward Highway AN.50 AN.60 Old Seward Highway AN.70 11.1 | Submarine crossing to Pt. Possession AN.80 11.3 | STATE, FEDERAL 11.3 | Submarine crossing to ENSTAR Corridor of each corridor. For purposes of this report, the reference line has been used to quantify the amount of private land crossed by that corridor or corridor sub-link. Upon further study and impact analysis, a final route may be chosen within the corridor that differs greatly from the present reference line. Therefore, the right-of-way acquisition requirements could vary greatly from one side of the corridor to the other. Many distribution lines exist by permit or easement rights that would not provide for the addition of transmission facilities, without getting further permission from the affected property owners or agencies. Additional property would have to be acquired to allow for expansion of the University Substation. Lands would also have to be acquired to accommodate submarine cable terminal facilities. It is recommended that a detailed examination of ownership be conducted for lands surrounding International Substation, Bernice Lake Substation, and Soldotna Substation. However, it appears from discussions with respective utility personnel that these facilities have sufficient utility-owned land for expansion purposes. An examination of the land ownership at substations and submarine cable landfall locations reveals the following: University Substation: Large acreages immediately to the east of the substation are owned by the State of Alaska and the Municipality of Anchorage. International Substation: These lands are owned by CEA. Bernice Lake Substation: These lands are owned by Homer Electric Association, Inc. Soldotna Substation: Adjacent lands appear to be owned by Homer Electric; however, this needs verification. Fire Island Landfall: Fire Island is owned by the Cook Inlet Regional Corporation (CIRI), an Alaska Native Corporation. Point Campbell Landfall: These lands are owned by the Municipality of Anchorage. Point Woronzof Landfall: These lands are owned by the Municipality of Anchorage and by the Anchorage International Airport. 7-10 Point Possession landfall: These lands are owned by the Point Possession Native Group, an Alaska Native Corporation. There are also certified native allotments in this area. Potter Marsh Landfall: These lands are owned by the State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation. Also, very close to landfall are lands owned by the Alaska Railroad Corporation. Kenai Peninsula Landfall for the Enstar Route: These lands are owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Bird Point Crossing - North Side: These lands are owned by the Department of Natural Resources and the Alaska Railroad. There are also state mining claims in this area Bird Point Crossing - South Side: Lands on the east side of Six Mile Creek are owned by the U.S. Forest Service, Chugach National Forest. Lands in the area are also in the Sunrise Subdivision. Note that a cemetery is also in the area. Lands on the southwest side of Six Mile Creek are owned by Chugach National Forest and by the Alaska Department of Transportation. Subsequent to earlier efforts to identify private lands within the base routes and their alternatives, additional research has been conducted to better understand the extent of unpatented mining claims within the study corridors. Within the Tesoro and Enstar base routes and their alternatives there are no mineral claims, except on the north side of the Bird Point landfall, where there are state mining claims. Unpatented claims are interspersed throughout the Quartz Creek Base Route. It is estimated that 1-2% of the lands along this route may contain unpatented mining claims. It is estimated that the impact upon the right of way budget to appropriately deal with these mineral interests would range from $10,000 - $20,000. Refinements of private land ownership information, such as developing ownership lists and determining mineral rights holders, would be conducted in a subsequent project phase. Note, however, that significant portions of the study corridors have mineral rights holders that are different than the surface owner; therefore, doubling the necessary right-of-way acquisition on those lands. Easement acquisition would not commence until a route has been authorized and the appropriate centerline surveys completed. Specific procedures for right-of-way easement acquisition would be developed prior to beginning acquisition activities. However, to serve as a suggested approach, a sample right-of-way procedures manual is included as an appendix to the Lands/Regulatory 7-11 Section Report. Project-specific procedures will be developed at the appropriate time. Also, legal documents to be used for project easement acquisition will have to be developed. For the purpose of this study, it has been assumed that Chugach will take the easements and maintain the associated records. Table 15 summarizes the land ownership status of each corridor link and shows total miles of private land within each of the three primary corridors: Tesoro, Enstar and Quartz Creek. Note that miles of private land are totaled for the core route only within each corridor. Numerous alternative sub-routes are possible in the vicinity of Anchorage, Captain Cook State Park, Soldotna, and for the submarine cable crossings and Bird Point area. This data has been obtained via an examination of federal, state, borough, and municipality land status mapping to determine the gross land ownership status of the project study area. In some cases, the data is incomplete. However, there is reason to believe the lands are privately owned. In those instances, a title search would have to be conducted to verify ownership. Upon final route approval, a detailed title search will be conducted to determine parcel-by-parcel ownership of the project centerline. The time periods included in this report are based on estimates provided by federal, state, and local agency representatives contacted during the preparation of the report. The time frames are intended to provide the reader with an estimate of the time required to complete the various permits, provided all the requested information is included in the permit applications. 7-12 8.0 EIS AND THE NEPA PROCESS The Southern Intertie Route Selection Study has identified potentially feasible alternative routes between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The combined results of the system, design, land and regulatory, economic and environmental studies provide the basis to initiate the NEPA process. The project alternatives will be analyzed in greater detail through an EIS with the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) as the lead federal agency. RUS will be referred to as the “lead agency” in this document. 8.1 EIS ISSUES The approach and scope of work for the EIS must account for several issues, including the following: « Significant environmental issues and constraints that were identified through the route selection study. * The diversity of federal, state, borough, and private land jurisdictions, and potential land management conflicts ¢ Lack of uniform environmental data across the study area ¢ Feasibility of the submarine cable crossings of the Turnagain Arm ¢ Sensitive locations for submarine transition facilities (i.e., Point Possession Chickaloon Bay, Potter, Bird Point, and Six Mile Creek) ¢ Nationally and internationally significant scenery, tourism, and recreation use 8.2 KEY COMPONENTS The purpose of this section is to describe the approach to preparing the Southern Intertie EIS. Key components of the approach include: e Integrating engineering, environmental, and public involvement activities as well as project costs 8-1 ¢ Providing a range of public involvement opportunities public scoping meetings (NEPA requirement) public open houses (optional) community working group (CWG) in the Anchorage urban area CWG in selected Kenai Peninsula areas (optional), the need for CWG to be determined through an interview process public hearings (NEPA requirement) newsletters ¢ Conducting local siting studies that focus on urban Anchorage alternatives submarine crossings of Turnagain Arm transition facilities for submarine cable crossings alternative routes on the Kenai Peninsula and in Chugach State Park ¢ Perform hydrographic surveys to determine a more definitive assessment of cable embedment options, installation techniques and armoring requirements ¢ Refining the environmental resource inventory from the route selection study to assist in local facility siting and impact assessment ¢ Assessing environmental impacts ¢ Establishing effective mitigation measures Comparing alternatives to select an environmentally preferred alternative The initial step in the EIS process is public scoping. The results of the route selection study will provide the basis to begin formal scoping activities through RUS as the lead federal agency, in conjunction with the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other Federal, State, and local agencies. In order to focus the studies on local issues, community working groups (CWG) will be established to assist in the siting and assessment of routes. An interdisciplinary (ID) team will assist in the assessment of alternatives. The following sections describe the general approach for the Southern Intertie EIS study tasks. 8-2 8.3 SCOPING The first step of the NEPA environmental process is “scoping,” which is a process, open to the public, conducted early in the project to identify the range, or scope, of issues to be addressed during the environmental studies and in the EIS (40 CFR 1501.7). Scoping is the initial activity of the public participation program for NEPA and is required for an EIS. In scoping, comments will be solicited from relevant agencies and the public, organized and analyzed, and identified and summarized as the issues and concerns. A scoping report will be prepared to document the results of the scoping process. The NEPA environmental process for the Southern Intertie EIS formally began with the publication in the Federal Register of a Notice of Intent (NOI) on October 9, 1996 to prepare an EIS and conduct public scoping meetings. A series of three public scoping meetings will be conducted at various locations within the project area including Anchorage, Cooper Landing, and Soldotna. At each meeting, a presentation of project information will be given and then the meeting will be opened for comments and questions from the audience. All comments and questions will be recorded and summarized for each meeting. Alternatives may be added or eliminated as a result of comments received from scoping and agency review. Each alternative will be examined for environmental issues, public acceptability, and engineering limitations. The issues identified during scoping will be addressed in the EIS. Following public scoping, an Environmental analysis (EVAL) will be prepared by the IPG and their consultant. The EVAL will include an inventory, impact assessment and mitigation planning, and alternative route selection, as described in the following sections. 8.4 INVENTORY The objective of the resource inventories is to develop a database of environmental resources within the alternative routes in sufficient detail to assess the potential impacts that may result from the construction, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of the proposed transmission line. The Route Selection Environmental Study provides the basis for an overview of corridor-level mapping. Information gathered during the route selection study will be incorporated into the inventory and refined through field verification (as appropriate), additional research and agency contact. The major natural, human, and cultural resource areas to be studied are listed below and include all resources considered in the route selection study. ¢ Natural Environment - climate - biology - marine environment - geologic hazards ¢ Human Environment - land use - recreation management areas and facilities - visual resources - socioeconomics - subsistence ¢ Cultural Environment - history - archaeology - Native American The results of the inventory of resources studied within the alternative study corridors will be documented in the affected environment section of the EVAL. The EIS sections and inventory maps will be distributed to the ID team for review and comment prior to proceeding with impact assessment and mitigation planning. 8.5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION PLANNING The objective of the impact assessment and mitigation planning process is to conduct a systematic analysis to determine the potential impacts of the project on the environment, and how the impacts could be mitigated most effectively. 8-4 8.5.1 Impact Assessment Impacts can be beneficial (positive) or adverse (negative), and can result from the project action directly or indirectly. Impacts can be permanent, long lasting (long term) or temporary (short term). Long-term impacts are defined as those that would substantially remain for the life of the project or beyond. Short-term impacts are defined as those changes to the environment during construction that generally would revert to pre-construction condition at or within a few years of the end of construction. Impacts can vary in significance from no change or only slightly discernible change, to a full modification of the environment. Impact assessment and mitigation planning will require a complete understanding of the proposed action to determine the types of disturbance that could occur; that is, the design and typical specifications of the project facilities, construction techniques and equipment used, extent of construction, requirements for operation of the transmission line, activities associated with routine maintenance, and activities associated with abandonment if or when the facilities are no longer needed. Qualitative and quantitative variables of resource sensitivity, resource quantity, and estimated ground disturbance will be considered in predicting the magnitude of impacts, which are described in three levels: low, moderate, and high. A low impact results when the proposed action is expected to cause slight or insignificant adverse change to the resource. A moderate impact results when the proposed project action is expected to cause some adverse change that may be substantial and selective mitigation may be warranted. A high impact results when the proposed action is expected to result in substantial or significant change to the resources and selective mitigation is warranted in most cases. 8.5.2 Mitigation Once these “initial” impacts are identified for each resource along the reference centerline of the alternative study corridors, specific (or selective) measures to mitigate moderate or high impacts to the extent practicable will be recommended where warranted. The impacts remaining after assigning mitigation are referred to as “residual” impacts. Two types of mitigation are used - generic and selective. Generic mitigation includes those measures that the project proponent commits to undertake on a “generic” or nonspecific basis as part of the project plan. The effectiveness of these measures will be incorporated into the initial impact levels. Selective mitigation, following generic mitigation, includes those measures or 8-5 techniques to which the project proponent commits on a case-by-case, or “selective” basis after impacts are identified and assessed. 8.5.3 Site-Specific Models Impact assessment and mitigation planning, site-specific models will be developed to (1) estimate the level of disturbance that could result from construction activities and (2) assess the impacts of construction on resources. The results will be reported through impact maps that specifically illustrate the locations and magnitudes of potential resource impacts, and tables identifying specific location and magnitude of the potential impacts along the reference centerline. The results of the impact assessment and mitigation planning will be summarized by resource for each alternative route. 8.6 ALTERNATIVE SELECTION In response to NEPA, the environmental impacts of the alternatives will be presented in a comparative format that defines the issues and provides a clear basis for choice among options. The comparison of alternatives is centered around a screening approach designed to assist in narrowing options and making choices. Screening establishes a systematic approach for the ranking of alternative routes. Results of the screening process will establish the basis for (1) characterizing the impacts of alternative routes, (2) comparing and ranking alternative routes, and (3) identifying the environmentally preferred alternative route(s). In addition, alternatives considered less preferable will be eliminated. The concept of characterizing impacts is central to the comparison of alternatives. Simply stated, the purpose is to assign general impact levels to segments or routes to distinguish the magnitude of potential impacts. The basis for characterizing impacts will include a combination of (1) baseline data, (2) levels of residual impacts (after mitigation) assigned to each separate resource theme, and (3) key issues identified through scoping, agency comments, and the environmental studies. The combination of this data will be synthesized into general levels of potential impact (low to high), and used to characterize one overall impact level for the entire route segment for each screening area. Impact characterization for each resource is an integral part of the comparison of alternative routes. The comparison process will be implemented through meetings that are conducted with the team of resource specialists representing the natural, human, and cultural resource studies under investigation for the potential Southern Intertie Project, the CWG, and the agencies on the ID Team. Through the screening and comparison process, the alternative routes will be ranked for preference by the study team. As a result of the comparison of alternatives, the environmentally preferred alternative will be identified. 8.7, EVAL AND DRAFT EIS PREPARATION An EVAL will be prepared by the IPG and their consultants for review and approval by RUS, and cooperating agencies before preparation of the DEIS. The environmental analysis and the DEIS, will be organized in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations 40 CFR 1502.10. Public hearings in Anchorage, Cooper Landing, and Soldotna will be conducted to solicit comments on the DEIS during the public review period. 8.8 FINAL EIS PREPARATION AND RECORD OF DECISION Following the public review period, the comments received from and questions generated by the agency review and public hearings will be reviewed and responsibility for developing responses will be appropriately assigned. Following development of the responses, both comments and responses will be incorporated into the preliminary final EIS (FEIS). Based on the comments on the preliminary FEIS, the FEIS will be finalized and filed with EPA, followed by public review and comment. Following FEIS preparation, the RUS and the cooperating agencies will analyze FEIS information and various decision factors in order to make recommendations for the Record of Decision (ROD). 8.9 PUBLIC/AGENCY INVOLVEMENT Public involvement will be an integral part of all the activities described above. The following is a list of meetings planned for the interdisciplinary team, community working group, and the public: 8-7 8.9.1 ID Team Meetings ¢ Scoping « Inventory Results ¢ Initial Issues Results and Impact/Mitigation Results ¢ Environmental Preferred Route and Agency/Proponent Preference Route * PDEIS Review/Approval ¢ DEIS Review/Approval ¢ Pre-hearing * Review Comments and Assign Responses * Review PFEIS 8.9.2 Community Work Group Meetings * Scoping/Siting Criteria * Inventory/Assessment Criteria * Impact Assessment * Comparison of Alternatives 8.9.3 Scoping Meetings ¢ Three meetings: Anchorage, Cooper Landing, Soldotna 8.9.4 Open Houses (Optional) ¢ Three meetings: Anchorage, Cooper Landing, Soldotna 8.9.5 Public Hearings ¢ Three meetings: Anchorage, Cooper Landing, Soldotna 8.9.6 Newsletters 8.10 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING The preliminary engineering effort is required to support the EIS preparation and public/agency presentations, to define the project technically, and to prepare realistic cost estimates. The 8-8 preliminary engineering task for this project builds upon the preliminary engineering work completed in the Route Selection Study. It focuses upon activities specifically supporting the EIS, along with additional data collection and analysis necessary to confirm and/or refine the conclusions and cost estimates in the Route Selection Study. Similarly, technical information needed for the project description and mitigation sections of the EIS, along with technical review of the sections, will be provided as part of preliminary engineering. 8-9 APPENDIX A Southern Intertie Project 640 QC.A.10 & QC.B.20 640 QC.A.10 & QC.B.20 0 New (TiMileposts 101 | paases | pwasez a pt oN 88 2 940 AN.40 0 0.4 0.4 3 950 | EN.A.20 0 4.0 | 4.0 4 900 | AN.50 0 5 EN.A.10 0 6 EN.A.30 0 7 AN.20 0 8 AN.60 0 EN.A.40.A 0 EN.B.70.A 0 p20 EN ACOCC“‘L;SCSCOCé EN.A.50 0 3.3 EN.B.70.B 0 27 EN.B.80 0 2.3 | AN.30 0 0.4 | TE.B.15 0 4.1 | EN.E.110 | 0 0.7 E12 | 350 New | 0 E13 | 400 EN.E.110 | 0 E2.1 | 420 EN.D.100 | 0 H1.1 | 550 QC.D.2.10 0 | 141 TE.E.50 0 | TE.A.20 0 TE.A.10 0 TE.F.70 0 TE.F.60 0 TE.C.30 0 AN.70 0 AN.30 0 AN.80 0 | EN.D.100 0 460 | EN.C.90 0 M53 | 465 | EN.C.90 0 M6.1 | 550 | QC.D.2.10 0 M62 | 570 | QC.D.1.B.10 0 M63 | 575 | QC.D.1.B.10 | 0 ait | 470 | QC.L.120 | 0 | 600 | QC.E.50 | 0 Qc.D.40 | 0 QC.C.30 | 0 -QC.A.10 & QC.B.20 0 0 0 0 Southern Intertie Project Page 1 Dames & Moore, 10/25/96 Southern Intertie Project Milepost New | 02.2 | Qi7.1 0 Q2.1 480 | 510 520 QC.K.110 QC.K.110 QC.K.110 QCc.J.100 QC.1.90 From 0 | From [To | MILES | 3.8 To MILES 19.1 19.1 a9 aIN ° N QC.H.80 » : x QC.G.70 QC.F.60 QC.M.1.80 QC.M.1.80 tet) a] TE.J-K.120 QC.M.1.70 & QC.M.1.30 QC.M.1.15 QC.M.1.15 QC.M.2.10 TE.J-K.120 Tia.2 20 T1.3 60 Pp ti4 [80 TE.J-K.120 & TE.J-K.120 SJOJOJ/CIO/O/C|O S1°o iN} TE.J-K.110 New New TE.1.130 TE.1.130 New TE.1.100 & TE.G-H.90 New TE.1.130 TE.1.100 & TE.G-H.90 TE.G-H.80 TE.E.50 Southern Intertie Project Page 2 SILSOLOLOJLOLOJSOJLOSOSOSOISOSOIOSOJOJO/OI|O Dames & Moore, 10/25/96 ACMP ACSR ADEC ADF&G ADNR ADOT/PF ANCSA ANILCA AML&P ASCC BES BLM CEA CEQ DGC DOL EA EIS EPA EVAL FAA FEMA FERC FMUS FPC GIS GVEA HEA HPGF IPG kV LWCE LIST OF ACRONYMS Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program aluminum conductor steel reinforced Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Department of Natural Resources Alaska Department of Transportation/ Public Facilities Alaska Energy Authority Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Alaska National Interest Land Claims Act Anchorage Municipal Light and Power Alaska Systems Coordinating Council battery energy storage Bureau of Land Management Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Council on Environmental Quality Division of Governmental Coordination Division of Land Environmental Assessment Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Analyses Federal Aviation Administration Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System Federal Power Commission Geographic Information System Golden Valley Electric Association Homer Electric Association high pressure gas filled Intertie Participants Group kilovolt Land and Water Conservation Fund MEA MCA Mvar MW NEPA NE2C NESC NPDES PT! ROD RUS SC#F SE5 SH?O SPCC SRA SSP. svc SVs TCSC USAED USFS USFWS XLPE Matanuska Electric Association Municipality of Anchorage megavar megawatt National Environmental Policy Act North American Reliability Council National Electrical Safety Code National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Power Technologies, Inc. Record of Decision Rural Utilities Service self-contained fluid filled Seward Electric System State Historic Preservation Office Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure state recreation area subsynchronous resonance Static var compensator Static VAR System thyristor controlled series capacitor U.S. Army Engineer District U.S. Forest Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cross-linked polyethylene