Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS. Intertie Phase 1 6-14-1996 executive kectric = pee June 25, 1996 CHUGACH ELECTRIC 4 Bs ASSOCIATION, INC. Ce LN Alaska Industrial Development Alaska Industrial Development ~~ ‘gad Export Authority and Export Authority a 480 West Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6690 Attention: Mr. William R. Snell, Executive Director Subject: Southern Intertie Route Selection Studies - Phase I Final Reports from POWER Engineers/Dames & Moore Dear Mr. Snell: Please find enclosed, the following Southern Intertie Route Selection final reports as submitted by the project consultants POWER Engineers, Inc., and Dames & Moore: Executive Summary Report Studies Section Report, Volume I of III Studies Section Report, Load Flow Diagrams, Volume II of III Studies Section Report, Stability Analysis, Volume III of III Design Section Report Environmental Section Report Lands/Regulatory Section Report Economic Section Report The above listed reports are final versions submitted for Phase 1A of the project and are inclusive of all comments and revisions received by the Intertie Participant Group. If you have any questions, please contact myself or Dora Gropp, Project Manager, at (907) 762- 4626. Sincerely, ——S ( A { ‘ 7] - & ae (Seo seat 4 ff Eugene N. Bjornstad = General Manager ENB/DU/G:ahw Enclosures: Final reports as shown above. c: IPG Technical Committee Dennis McCrohan Lee Thibert Joe Griffith Mike Massin Dora Gropp Don Edwards John Cooley W.0.#E9590081, Sec., 2.1.2.1, 7.1.7 RF 5601 Minnesota Drive * P.O. Box 196300 * Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Phone 907-563-7494 * FAX 907-562-0027 PROJECT NO: 120293-01 ) am Xu, 3% DAMES & MOORE ISSUED TO: 8. ne | CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. CONTRACT NO. 95-208 SOUTHERN INTERTIE ROUTE SELECTION STUDY PHASE 1 JUNE 14, 1996 FINAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: =» TimR. Tetherow, ASLA ™ Randy Pollock, P.E. = Niklas O. Ranta > Tim Ostermeier, P.E. 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 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Study Organization of Study Documentation Acronyms Used in This Report II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND NEED Project Background and Need Route Selection Study Approach Project Location Project Description Other Alternatives Considered Alternative Corridor Locations Environmental Alternative Corridor Summary Technical Alternative Corridor Summary Ii. ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION A. Electrical Studies Section Report Summary Electrical System Alternatives Electrical System Summary and Conclusions Load Flow and Dynamic Stability Study Summary B. Preliminary Design Section Report Summary Summary of Preliminary Design Results Overhead Transmission Line Submarine Cable Land Underground Cable Substations Reactive Compensation HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Toc-1 C. Economic Section Report Summary Summary of Estimates Overhead Transmission Line Submarine and Underground Transmission Cable Substations Reactive Compensation Environmental Permitting Right-of-Way and Permit Application D. Land Rights/Regulatory-Analysis Section Report Summary Project Review Process Corridor-Specific Environmental Permits and Authorizations IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT / MACRO CORRIDOR ANALYSIS Environmental Study Environmental Study Approach Study Area Inventory Public Involvement and Agency Contact Program Siting Criteria HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Toc-2 I. INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Study In November 1995 Power Engineers, Inc., was awarded a contract by Chugach Electric Association, Inc., as Construction Manager for the Intertie Participants Group (IPG)', to perform route selection services for the Southern Intertie Project (Project). The Project would provide a transmission line interconnection between the Anchorage area and the _ Kenai Peninsula. j The purpose of this study was to: e Identify macro corridors and project alternatives to satisfy pre- NEPA EIS requirements Review land rights and regulatory constraints Obtain public input concerning the Project e Perform electrical system studies and recommend design criteria for required facilities e Prepare conceptual designs for the Project e Determine technical requirements and budgetary costs of the alternatives Organization of Study Documentation The results of the Route Selection Study are presented in a series of six documents, which describe in detail the studies conducted. Combined, these documents comprise the Route Selection Study Final Report. To provide opportunity for the IPG’s input into this final report, each document was prepared in draft form and submitted to the IPG for comment, through Chugach as Construction Manager. ' The IPG is comprised of Alaska Electric Generation & Transmission Cooperative, Inc., the Municipality of Anchorage d/b/a Municipal Light & Power, Chugach Electric Association, Inc., the Municipality of Fairbanks d/b/a Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System, Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc., the City of Seward d/b/a Seward Electric System, the Homer Electric Association, Inc., and the Matanuska Electric Association. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab I-1 The documents comprising the Route Selection Study Final Report are as follows: Report Title Executive Summary Electrical Studies Section Report Volumes I, II, & Ill Design Section Report Lands/Regulatory Section Report Economic Section Report Environmental Section Report Draft Report May 29, 1996 January 23, 1996 Final Report June 14, 1996 June 14, 1996 February 13, 1996 February 26, 1996 March 11, 1996 April 2, 1996 June 14, 1996 June 14, 1996 June 14, 1996 June 14, 1996 The Executive Summary is a compilation of the summary sections from each of the study documents. The reader is directed to the individual reports for additional detail. Acronyms Used in This Report ACMP Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources ADOT/PF Alaska Department of Transportation/Public Facilities ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act ANILCA Alaska National Interest Land Claims Act BLM Bureau of Land Management CEQ Council on Environmental Quality DGC Division of Governmental Coordination DOL : Division of Land EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FPC Federal Power Commission LWCF Land Water Conservation Fund MOA Municipality of Anchorage NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System RUS Rural Utilities Service SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SPCC Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure USAED U.S. Army Engineering District USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS US. Fish and Wildlife Service HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab 1-2 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND NEED Project Background and Need 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 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 Association. The IPG was created to improve the electrical distribution network throughout the Alaska Railbelt and to provide better service to customers through cooperative energy projects. An electrically “weak” link in the Railbelt electric system occurs between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The existing 115kV Quartz Creek transmission line between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula was built in 1960 to connect Chugach's Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project to Anchorage. The Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project near Homer was completed in 1990 and did not include additional transmission facilities to Anchorage. The locations of the existing generation plants and associated transmission lines are illustrated in Figure 2. The existing 115kV transmission line does not have the capacity to carry all of the power currently generated on the Kenai Peninsula and presents some system stability challenges. As a result, the IPG is proposing the Southern Intertie Project to improve the Railbelt system reliability and transfer of energy between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl are connected by the existing 115kV University to Quartz Creek transmission line owned and operated by Chugach. When the existing line is not in service, it reduces power availability to customers in Anchorage and on the Kenai. Additionally, the line is limited in its capacity to transfer available generation between the Kenai and Anchorage. During periods when it is desirable to transfer power over the existing 115kV line to economically use existing generation, customers on the Kenai Peninsula and in Anchorage are subject to power outages should the existing 115kV line experience an interruption. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab II-1 PAS AS! \e Southern Intertie Project VICINITY MAP Figure 1 e@ COMMUNITIES " “~ONwWNY= SN 13 16 17 18 19 20 23 24 27 28 31 35 37 39 CENTRAL ALASKA 37 WASILLA @ sutton @ D ® PALMER GENERATION PLANTS S BELUGA (CEA) BERNICE LAKE (CEA) COOPER LAKE HYDRO (CEA) x EKLUTNA HYDRO (APA) Cer neece ee SEWARD (SES) 1 SOLDOTNA (AEG&T) BRADLEY LAKE (AEA) SUBSTATIONS ANCHOR POINT (HEA) DAVES CREEK (CEA) DIAMOND RIDGE (HEA) DOUGLAS (MEA) FRITZ CREEK (HEA) GIRDWOOD ( CEA) HOPE ( CEA) INDIAN (_ CEA) KASILOF (HEA) LAWING (SES) PORTAGE ( CEA) QUARTZ CREEK (CEA) SOLDOTNA (HEA) TEELAND ( CEA) O'NEILL (MEA) SUMMIT LAKE TRANSMISSION LINES oO NIKISHKA Kenai SEWARD Penninsula 9 e DESIGNED ¥ 345 KV \ § BRADLEY JUNCTION 230 KV 138 KV e) 115 KV HOMER 69 KV mMmoQD,Y 0 15 30 38 Gulf of Alaska 60 as Kamishak Bay GENERATION & TRANSMISSION SYSTEM Source: Chugach Electric Association, 1995 KENAI PENNINSULA & ANCHORAGE AREA Figure 2 The proposed project will solve the existing problems by providing a second line to increase: e 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 e 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 In addition, the proposed project would provide better access to renewable energy resources (hydroelectric power at Bradley Lake) on the Kenai Peninsula. The Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project currently has excess power generation capacity which cannot be fully utilized with only the existing 115kV Quartz Creek Line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The proposed Southern Intertie Project will provide more efficient distribution and transmission of electrical energy between the Kenai Peninsula and the rest of the Alaska Railbelt allowing Bradley Lake generation capacity to be utilized throughout the Alaska Railbelt without restrictions. Project Location 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. 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. 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 an existing substation in the Anchorage area. A submarine cable system would be required to cross Turnagain Arm under most routing scenarios. Modifications will be required at the existing substations to accommodate termination facilities for the proposed line. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab II-4 Alternatives 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. 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. Characteristics of overhead, submarine and underground transmission line construction are further described in the design section of this document. Design features of substation . - ~additions_and reactive compensationrequirements are -also-discussed in-detail. in the design section of this report. Other Alternatives Considered Alternatives considered for the Southern Intertie Project included consideration of overhead, underground, and submarine transmission configurations and two different voltage levels, 138kV or 230kV. The following alternatives, except for the construction of a double circuit transmission line, will not meet the stated need for the project. 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 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. As a result, the only way to meet the purpose and need is to build a second transmission line between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Il-5 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. Double-Circuit Existing Quartz Creek Line: An alternative to paralleling the existing Quartz Creek transmission line would be to rebuild the line in a double circuit configuration. This would include combining the existing 115kV circuit (Quartz Creek) with a 138kV or 230kV circuit (Southern Intertie Project) on the same overhead structures. Construction of a double circuit transmission line would require that the new line (double circuit) be built adjacent to the existing structures while the existing line is in service. Once the double circuit line is completed and in service, the existing 115kV line would be removed. The existing right-of-way would require widening, at least temporarily and until the existing line is removed. From an operational and reliability standpoint this alternative would be less desirable than a new, geographically separated, corridor. This alternative was not included in the Phase 1 Route Selection Study but could be studied in equal detail with all other feasible alternatives during the NEPA process. Alternative Corridor 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. Four primary alternative corridors were identified for the Southern Intertie Project— Beluga, Tesoro, Enstar, and Quartz Creek (see Alternative Corridors map at the end of this section). Beluga was eliminated due to technical infeasibility. Please refer to the Systems Studies Section Report for details. The remaining three 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 HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab II-6 would occur along the Tesoro and Enstar alternatives. Both the Tesoro Route and Enstar Route will require a reactive compensation near Portage on the existing 115kV intertie. Transmission line routing opportunities within these corridors were identified as follows. e The Tesoro Route generally parallels the Tesoro Pipeline from the town of Nikiski on the Kenai Peninsula to Point Possession. Submarine crossings would occur between Point Possession and Fire Island, and between Fire Island and Point Woronzof. e .The.-Enstar Route. generally -parallels the Enstar-Pipeline-from - Soldotna to Anchorage, including a submarine crossing between Burnt Island Creek area and Potter. e The Quartz Creek Route generally parallels the existing Quartz Creek transmission line from Soldotna to Anchorage without a submarine crossing of Turnagain Arm. 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. This alternative, referred to as the Bird Point Alternative, would also require reactive compensation of the existing 115kV line, similar to Enstar and Teosoro. 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 (Local Anchorage Area Alternatives) and Soldotna (Local Alternatives to the Enstar and Quartz Creek Routes), the area surrounding Captain Cook 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. 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 HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Il-7 Table II-1 provides a summary analysis of the Tesoro, Enstar, and Quartz Creek Alternatives. Table II-2 provides a summary analysis of the Bird Point alternatives. Supporting data is included in the Environmental Section Report and Section IV of this report. Additionally, Tables II-1 and II-2 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. 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 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 II-1 and II-2. 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 HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab II-8 local agency input also suggests that the project is feasible provided the regulatory requirements are met and the environmental impacts are minimized. Technical Alternative Corridor Summary The analysis of alternative corridors relating to technical issues and economic considerations incorporates the following: - @ 138k¥ and 230kV options e System Studies relating to load flow, contingency analysis and dynamic system response. e Overhead transmission designs that have been successfully utilized in Alaska. e Submarine cable crossings of the Turnagain Arm considering various proven technologies. e Underground (land) cable used in certain areas. e Substation modifications required for terminating the proposed intertie transmission line. These generally range from in size from no yard extension up to 1.5 acres. e Reactive compensation additions required for steady state and dynamic electrical system operation. The area required ranges from 0.1 acres to 1.0 acres. e Associated equipment, construction, engineering and construction management costs for the various routes. Table II-3 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: e The level of armoring required for a submarine cable crossing of Turnagain Arm (single, double or rock type). e Additional investigation regarding submarine cable embedment requirements, if any. e 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. e All overhead transmission options traverse challenging terrain or have significant visual (aesthetic) concerns. e 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 and one in the Anchorage area. e Subsynchronous resonance (SSR) concerns utilizing high levels of series compensation. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab II-9 TABLE II-1 ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR SUMMARY ANALYSIS Route ] Tesoro Enstar Quartz Creek Links TE.A.10, TE.D.40, TE.E.50, TE.G-H.80, TE.G-H.90, Links EN.A.20, EN.A.50, EN.B.80, EN.C.90, EN.D.100, EN.E.110, 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, TEJ.100, TE.J-K.110, TE.J-K.120, Total Miles 55.1 QCM. 1.30, QC.M.1.70, QC.M.1.80 Total Miles 76.6 QC.K.110, QC.L.120, QCM.1.15, QCM.1.30, QCM.1.70, QCM.1.80 Total Miles 140.7 | Siting Opportunities Existing Tesoro Pipeline Existing Enstar Pipeline Existing Quartz Creek Transmission Line Key Siting Issues and | Biological Biological Biological ints* = Bald Eagle and Trumpeter Swan nests = Trumpeter Swan and Waterfowl nesting habitat = Bald Eagle and Trumpeter Swan Nesting habitat Constrain = Waterfowl nesting habitat = Black and Brown bear concentrations ® Coastal marsh and waterfowl concentration areas Jurisdiction ®™ Coastal marsh habitat (Chickaloon Bay) = Anadromous fish streams (Kenai River near Cooper Landing) = Adjacent to KNWR at Point Possession Jurisdiction = Dall sheep and mountain goat habitat = State, Native Corporation and Borough m= USFWS, Chugach State Park, Municipality of Anchorage and the Kenai = Moose fall and winter range Land Use/Socioeconomics Borough Geologic Hazards = Remote residential subdivisions north of Captain Cook SRA Land Use/Socioeconomics = Known avalanche areas = Adjacent lakes open to aircraft = Rural residential areas in Soldotna = Potential soil liquefaction (Portage) Recreation ™ Urban Anchorage area, Oceanview Subdivision Jurisdiction = Adjacent to KNWR wildemess area at Point Possession, = Adjacent airstrips, lakes open to aircraft = KNWR (including adjacent wilderness areas), Chugach National Forest, Chugach State Park, Municipality of recreation access into KNWR Recreation Anchorage, and Kenai Borough = Captain Cook SRA and associated use areas and trails = KNWR minimal (EN.D.100) and moderate (EN.D.110) management Land Use/Socioeconomics = Swanson River access areas = Primarily rural residential development along Seward highway corridor Visual Resources = Potter Marsh (EN.B.70, EN.B.80) = Seward Highway National Scenic Byway = Foreground views from remote residences and Captain @ Potter Section House in Chugach State Park = The Alaska Railroad Cook SRA Visual Resources Recreation : = Unique features include Point Possession, Stormy Lake, = KNWR area managed for preservation values = High density of recreational features along Seward Highway (viewpoints and trail access) views across Cook Inlet = Oceanview subdivision and park foreground views = Chugach State Park Natural Management Area Cultural Resources m Unique features include: Potter Marsh scenic and wildlife viewing, ™ Crosses Kenai Lake and River = Recorded sites at Swanson River and traditional use on Fire Potter Section House, views into Turnagain Arm = Adjacent to proposed Bird Point recreation site Island Cultural Resources Visual Resources = Sensitive coastal area ® Historic sites near Potter Marsh, sensitive coastal areas = 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 Tumagain Arm, prehistoric sites near confluence of Russian and Kenai rivers ® Parallels Historic Iditarod Trail = Known sites at Point Possession Selected Regulatory = Land Water Conservation Fund = Land Water Conservation Fund compliance along Kenai River Requirem ents** = Coastal Management Plan Municipality of Anchorage Chugach National Forest Special Use Permit = Federal Aviation Administration Section 404 Title 11, ANILCA @ Title 11, ANILCA Title 11, ANILCA Routing = Minimize separation from Tesoro Pipeline Minimize separation from Enstar Pipeline Match transmission structure types and spans when paralleling existing H-Frame transmission line Recommendations = Parallel east side of the Tesoro Pipeline from Captain Cook Minimize vegetation clearing Minimize vegetation clearing ee 5 SRA to the KNWR boundary, where the line would cross the Underground line in Potter Marsh area and near Chickaloon Bay and Utilize single pole structures within Anchorage (QC.A.10 along Tudor Road) and Soldotna (QCM. 1.80) Within Alternative Tesoro Pipeline and enter Cook Inlet, avoiding the KNWR transition facilities at Link EN.D.100 and Link EN.B.80 Corridors = Minimize vegetation clearing Evaluate visual impacts to Oceanview area and possible underground of = Underground line and transition facilities at Captain Cook EN.A.50 SRA, or reroute utilizing Link TE.I.130 to avoid Captain Cook SRA *Refer to the Environmental Section Report for a detailed listing of issues. **Refer to the Appendix for a comprehensive list of regulations and permits pertaining to the proposed project. Route Siting Opportunities Key Siting Issues And Constraints* TABLE II-2 BIRD POINT - QUARTZ CREEK ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR SUMMARY ANALYSIS Existing Quartz Creek Links QC.D.40, QC.E.50, QC.F.60, QC.G.70. QC.H.80, QC.1.90 Total Miles 38.8 Existing Quartz Creek Transmission Line Biological = Coastal Marsh Habitat m Bald Eagle Nests m= 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 recreational view point, trail heads, rest areas, access road to Portage Glazi Visual Resources = Foreground views from Seward Highway Scenic Byway and related view points Cultural Resources = Known sites along Seward Highway, Portage area = Parallels Historic Iditarod Trail Bird Point Aerial Crossing QC.DIA.10 QC.D.2.10 QC.D.2.10 Total Miles 12.6 (10,500 feet) Narrowest Crossing of Turnagain Arm 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 Bird Point Submarine Crossing QC.D1A.10 QC.D.2.10 QC.D1B.10 QC.D.2.10 13.7 Total Miles 13.7 (19,500 feet) Narrowest Crossing of Turnagain Arm 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 m= 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 Cultural Resources = Recorded sites in the vicinity of Sun Rise and Bird Point = Parallels a connecting trail to the Historic Iditarod Trail Selected = Chugach National Forest Special Use Permit Regulatory Requirements** Recommendations | ® Match spans and structure types of existing line *Refer to the Environmental Section Report for a detailed listing of issues. **Refer to the Appendix for a comprehensive list of regulations and permits pertaining to the proposed project. = Chugach National Forest Special Use Permit = Aerial crossing will create an FAA Hazard Determination = 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 TABLE II-3 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 rl structures on Kenai. 138kV or Tesoro pipeline 3-10 XLPE *** 138kV — New 5 Bkr ring bus 2-30 MVAR Base route 230kV single pole steel structures | 1391. Pt. Campbell to Pt 230kV — New 230kV line terminal, 200 MVA Reactors es ||| 2-30 SCFF Possession autotransformer, new 5 Bkr 138kV Ring Bus_| 230kV— 1-10 MVAR mani ea at saint or 1-40 MVAR 4-10 SCFF Captain Cook State Park Bernice Lake ; 1-75 MVAR Victor Road vicinity 138kV — New 3 Bkr 115kV ring bus, 200 ae 230kV MVA autotransformer, 138kV line terminal eee 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 3-10 XLPE *** 138kV — One bay addition to future breaker Reactors Base route or 230kV guyed "X" structures or | Island Creek area Potten Marchiaren and one half 230kV — 2-60 MVAR approximately 77 single pole steel structures on the 138kV | 230kV — Line terminal, 200 MVA ee 85.1 — 107.4 110.5 — 119.3 miles. anni 2-30 SCFF Feuer mR autotransformer plus 138kV additions or 4-10 SCFF Soldotna ; 230kV 138kV — One bay extension to 115kV, 200 4-10 SCFF MVA autotransformer 138kV line terminal 230kV — One bay extension to 115kV, 200 MVA autotransformer, 230kV line terminal Quartz Creek 138 or 230kV guyed "X" steel 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 miles. 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 qn Wa an 138 or 230kV single pole steel (HPGF), directional drill Soldotna Reactors 5.5947 74> itso . structures on Kenai near Soldotna 138kV — One bay extension to 115kV, 200 approximately 115 230kV MVA f : . 3 iles 4-10 SCFF autotransformer, 138kV line terminal Nici 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 ae 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 ieee XLPE is cross-linked polyethylene as manufacture by various vendors. **** ~~ 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. HLY 55-0433 (06/96 120293-01 FINAL ab AA_I1X.doc THN TRN TION TON T6N T4N WC] Private, Borough or State Selected Lands Risw apw guw Row a7w Row — 7 xo a I 2 State Park National Wildlife Refuge |__| Chugach National Forest Riw RiE R3E iy > *51,[ General Reference Features po) OOS CAT Pipeline NN Corridor i —.\. | 4 Transmission Line “J Alternative Route | x 2 Railroad AN#0 Link Number Code ANCHORAGE | “Borat tour 1% \ /\/ Rivers and Streams & Existing Substations A Oil Platform () Lakes/inlet | Section Grid . ; RANGE _ ! e|5|/4/a)2)4 7 | 8 | @| 10] 1) 12). I 18 | 17| 19/16) 4/13 & ° 3 ‘ 12Maes 19] 20] 21| 22] 2a] 24| & Eras 30| 20 | 28 | 27 | 26| 26 | * 3% Dames & Moore_ 31/22 | 23| 24] a6 | 36 Date: June 3, 1996 Alternative Corridors | Southern Intertie Project Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Nol NGL NOL NGL Nol Ill. ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION This section summarizes the reports listed below. For your convenience, we have separated the sections with tabs. Electrical Studies Section Report Preliminary Design Section Report Economic Section Report Land Rights / Regulatory Analysis Section Report GOP A. 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; The dynamic system response for each alternative to selected disturbances; and This section summarizes the findings of the electrical system studies of: e The existing intertie; e The new intertie options; and e 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: e 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); e 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. 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 HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Il -1 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 State Park, 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. 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 State Park, 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 3 on the following page. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Ill -2 SP Lettty aChickaloon Ba, 5 Z, SUBSTATION A GENERATING PLANT a 116 KV 69 KV 230 KV = =——— ; ae : te w8kKv = ——— seo . SOLDOTNA (HEA) 14.4/24.8 KY —————_- os aor SOLD OTNA N 72/25 KY ————— ae NOTE: LOCATION FOR ELECTRICAL IS APPROXIMATE 5 0 5 10 a PROECT: poh eats ENG. /OESIGN.: RON FRAZER es. ¢ 1 20205-01 __ FIGURE 3 Pe a oo SELECTION 1710795 Bee open ELECTRICAL SYSTEM STUDY .0. Bo Anchorage, Alaska ALTERNATIVES 99519-6300 = —— 7 = | 2u Electrical System Summary and Conclusions Based on our analysis, we arrived at the following conclusions: 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. 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 HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab I -4 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. e 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-reconductering-of the 4-55-miles-of Brahma conductor and installation of either a static var system (SVS) or a thyristor controlled series capacitor (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 III-1 and III-2. Secure transfer limits consider both interties in service. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab I-5 Transfer Limit (MW) Post-Contingency Pre-Conti Sey Emergency Limits Table III-1: 115kV / 138kV Alternative Load Flow And Loss Summary Limited By Alternative Cases Year (a) = pe >etr tT. Existing Pe [ aren [oer [a [a Pe[ ome [ae [em [| Pe [ eon [er |e [a P [ewe [oe [= [| XT97138A 1997 Parallel Existing 115kV | 2 | xtertaea | 1997 | | mt | 2 | Pe [owns or fe fe fe | | me ss TO97138E 1997 18 190 (e) a TO15138J 2015 of 190 (e) 90/145 Pe [ere [em [om [= [= [= | me ane a ea a etiam [ae fe [| oe fm | one [ore Emergency Limit (b) Existing Tie New Tie (d) N/A 90 1115 . NIA N/A 90/115 3 N/A N/A NIA NIA Modified Existing 115KV Line N/A NIA N/A 190 (e) 90 1145 Parallel Existing 115kV Line Through Portage 190 (e) 90 / 145 0.933 (f) 190 (e) 90/145 90 1 145 90 1 145 190 90/145 190 0.905 (f) 90/145 0.918 (f) (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. 0433A.XLS, 5/29/96 III - 6 1/10/96 Table III - 2: 230kV Alternative Load Flow And Loss Summary Transfer Limit (MW) Alternative Cases Year Pre-Contingency Font Corerigeeey , Emergency Limits Secure | Limited By | Exist Tie i Emergency | Existing Tie 3 —— (b) : ee i STIE97D ' veamdecening [1] mero | seer | ro | 4 | wa | so | 190% 10% 0A \ Perel Existing 115kV 20 ee ee ee eed | aie ee XT97230A 1997 HY 26 90/145 | 190(e) 4 XT15230A 2015 28 | 90/145 | 190(e) OC aie se 1997 190 (e) 90/145 | 190(e) Route 2015 190 (e) 90/145 | 190(e) | 0903¢9 Tesoro Route 7015230C 2015 aan 190 (e) 90/145 190 (e) BA97230B 997 90 90/145 can fap ome fe fe fe | | | mo [ane| me | roe [s[ wee [oe | @ | 2 | | [we fone] mo | — | Parallel Existing 115kV Line with Bird P. Xing (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 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 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. 0433B.XLS, 5/29/96 I -7 1/10/96 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: e Maximum Transfer North in Summer = 190MW e Normal Winter Transfer North = 125MW e¢ Normal Summer Transfer South = 47™MW 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 III-1 and III-2. Do Nothing - The transfer limit (north or south) of the existing line is approximately 70MW, 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 the Kenai at transfer levels above 7O0MW. 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. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab I -8 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 (25MW 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. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab i-9 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 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. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Ill - 10 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 190MW. 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. 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. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab I-11 B. 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: e 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. e 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. e 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 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: e Overhead transmission lines at 230kV and 138kV for seven different design cases (combinations of terrain, route characteristics, and climatological loading). e Underground and submarine transmission lines at 230kV and 138kV. e 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. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Ill - 12 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. 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 III - 3. 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 HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Til - 13 TABLE III - 3: SUMMARY OF OVERHEAD LINE DESIGN INFORMATION 90 mph (c) Extreme Ice (57 Ib./cuft) NESC Extreme Wind 6 In. snow, 20 mph wind (c) 80 mph 6 in. snow, 20 mph wind (c) 100 mph (c 80 mph 6 in. snow, 20 mph wind (c) 40mph(c 90 mph Predominant Foundation Types Driven Pile Concrete Pier Driven Pile 6 in. snow, 20 mph 230kV Ground Clearance _| 30 ft 31 ft 30 ft NESC Load Zone Extreme Wind - Conductor Extreme Wind - Structure Extreme Snow (7 Ib./cuft) Hea | 100 mph (c) | 106 mph (c) | 6 in. snow, 20 mph wind (c) Line Design 1 2 3 | 4 5 | 6 7 Application Kenai Flats/ | Anchorage/ | East Cook | Mountains | Portage Bird Point | Bird Point Turnagain | Kenai Area | Inlet Flats/ Flats to Girdwood | Crossing Am Fire Island Structure Type Guyed X Single Pole | Guyed X Guyed X Guyed X 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 1000 ft up to up to 2,450 ft 11,360 ft 138kV Ground Clearance | 28 ft 29 ft 28 ft 30 ft Hea’ Hea 140 mph (c 3 in. 100 ft 6 in. snow, 20 mph snow/ice wind (c) (10 Ib./cuft), 20 mph Driven Pile or Rock 1.5 in..; Driven Pile Driven Pile, | Concrete Concrete Piers, or Rock (c) indicates a design load which controls all or a portion of the structure design. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab b_SIP020.doc Ill - 14 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. e Special double circuit steel towers using extra-strength conductor for the Bird Point to Girdwood section. e Special single circuit steel towers using extra-strength conductor for the overhead Bird Point crossing. e NESC Heavy loading conditions with extra heavy ice, snow, and wind depending upon location or as further defined by specific link. e 795 KCM ACSR conductor except for the Bird Point to Girdwood section and the Bird Point crossing. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Ill - 15 Table III-4 provides a description of the design characteristics for both the 138kV and 230kV configurations utilizing either single poles, wood H-frame structures and guyed X- frame structures (refer to Figures 4 and 5 on the following pages for illustrations of these structure types). Table III-4 Design Characteristics of 138kV and 230kV Overhead Line T 138kV Pole Pole Tangent Structures X-Frame Approximate | 65' to 70! 80' to Kenai 85' to Kenai Structure Flats Flats Height 85' to Fire 90' to Fire Island Island 90' to Mountain 90' to Terrain Mountain Terrain 450' oan 150' °75' to 150" ‘Variable | °75' to 150" 150' Average 6 14 8 Number of Structures per Mile Reinforced Direct Reinforced Direct Foundations Concrete _| Embedded Driven Pile Concrete _| Embedded '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. Drive Pile “Additional right-of-way requirements for H-Frame structures parallel to existing H-Frame structures along the Quartz Creek line would be 75 feet. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Ill - 16 Typical 138kV Single Pole Typical 230kV Single Pole Submarine and Underground Cable e The submarine and land based cable systems that were utilized for the route selection study were as follows: 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 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 6 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. e 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. e Charging current and associated reactive compensation was also calculated based on the link-specific cable manufacturing technique. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab I-19 HVUG CABLE TYPES SKIO WIRES. TwO HALF ROU STAINLESS ST INSULATION SHIELO MOLSTURE SEAL INSULATICN. PAPER SCREEN COMP2CT COPPER OR a ALUMINUM CONOUCTOR APPROX. 2.90 CROSS SECTION OF TYPICAL HPGF PIPE TYPE CA8LE ALLOY Si : LAYER OF ASPHSLT a0 THO jf ws CF OIL =[sPREGNSTED PsPER TwO LAYERS OF CCPPER TAPES TED BACNZE TAPE WIRE LT. PCL YPRS! ASPHALT. [MPREG: SELFACHESIVE PB: ASPHALT .POL YPRCP’ ANO ASPHALT GALVANIZED STE LENE YARN, €0 CREPE PAPER. ENE YARN WIRES ASPHALT. POLYPROPYLENE YARN, ASPHALT. POLYPROPYLENE YARN ASPHALT and CHAULK Z AC FLAT TYPE SUSMARINE CABLE CROSS SECTION OF TYPICAL SELF CONTAINED FLUIO FILLED CABLE CSUSMAR INE) Figure 6 HLY 55-0433 (05/96) 120293-01 ab coPPER CONOUCTOR XTARLOZD SEMI-CONDUCTOR EXTRUDED XLPE INSLLATICN SE CUTER JACKET WITH GRAPHITE COATING CROSS SECTION OF TYPICAL EXTRUDED A hi CASLE (LAND) III - 20 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 follow: 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’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 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 HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab I-21 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. Substations e 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. e 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. e The terminus of a new intertie on the Kenai would be at Bernice Lake or Soldotna substations. e 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. e 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. e No new substation sites are required for any of the Southern Intertie scenarios. Reactive Compensation e New sites will be required for all reactor sites at the submarine cable landfalls except for Point Woronzof. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Il - 22 e 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. e 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. e 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. e 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 75SMvar each for the longest submarine crossing for the Tesoro route. One bank is located on each end of the line or submarine cable landing. e 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. e 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. e 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 HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Il - 23 transmission line was necessary to provide the increased steady-state power transfer capacity desired. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Il - 24 C. 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 Qc Quartz Creek Route EN Enstar Route AN Anchorage Municipal Area 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 e Appendices A-D - Supporting detailed documentation for transmission, substation and reactive compensation estimates. 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. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab I - 25 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 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. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Il - 26 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 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. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Ill - 27 e 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 e 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: e Permit acquisition to secure Chugach’s transmission line rights to exist on local, state, and federally administered lands; and e 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. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Ill - 28 Application $ in 1,000’s Submarine Cable Underground (Land) Cable Overhead Transmission Substations Total F.O. costs, depending on route Cost Estimate Summary Tables The following tables 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) 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. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Ill - 29 SUMMARY OF COSTS 138KV SYSTEM - Submarine: 2-3 Phase Flat Cables ($ Millions) Southern Intertie Project - Phase 1 Route Selection ENV | ROW | PCS | Diff. From TESORO Submarine Cable Type: 2 - 3 Phase Flat SCFF Base Route 55 Miles Base Route 18.3 25{ 10] 12 92.3 | | ANC A! 12 93.5 | ANC B 4.4 96.7 a oa || 711111) we ea 66 | 98.9 | ~copca Coal? ee ana ee ENSTAR Submarine Cable Type: 2 - 3 Phase Flat SCFF Base Route 77 Miles Base Route 30.5 24.8 4.0 8.7 2:5 0.4 1:2 87.6 aa mae |—os __C eee | 2s | ANC Ce | | ANC D ee 09 | 8s | ANC E 1.0 88.6 mE ca eaeeoe ieee — [a SOL A’ pe ee | 877 | SOL B (2.5) 85.1 sae pees eee — [xs QUARTZ CREEK Base Route 140 Miles Base Route 808] 0.0] oo] 3.7] 60] 25 BIRD A (OH)! | | (10.0) BIRD B (SUB) | (5.1) 89.6 High-Pressure Gas-Filled SOL A oe | | (2.0) 92.7 SOL B | (2.3) 92.4 SOL C | | (0.1) 94.6 ' Local Alternatives: Anchorage Area ? Local Alternative: Captain Cook State Park 3 Local Alternatives: Soldotna Area * Local Alternatives: Bird Point Area HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Il - 30 SUMMARY OF COSTS 138KV SYSTEM / Submarine: 4-1 Phase Cables ($ Millions) Southern Intertie Project - Phase 1 Route Selection OH SUB UG Ss RC ENV PCS | Diff. From Base Route TESORO Submarine Cable Type: 4 - 1 Phase SCFF Base Route 55 Miles Base Route 183] 633 73 | 25] 10] 1.24 ANC A® Ei | Iw: 82a oo mee [acc ah laa iaMlieelaahoee| na _| eee es QUARTZ CREEK Base Route BIRD B (SUB) High Pressure Gas-Filled > Local Alternatives: Anchorage Area ® Local Alternative: Captain Cook State Park 7 Local Alternatives: Soldotna Area ® Local Alternatives: Bird Point Area HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab I-31 Route TESORO Pac? ag SUMMARY OF COSTS 230KV SYSTEM ($ Millions) Southern Intertie Project - Phase 1 Route Selection oH | suB | UG SS [*° [>| PCS Diff. From | Total $M Base Route Base Route 55 Miles 69.4] 11.7| 10.7 25| 10] 12) [| 1244] Mae oo oa [anc _(iitel ee gL a ecw [anc fess EPS connor ff ep PP Pa] a | ss] ENSTAR Base Route QUARTZ CREEK Base Route [00 [34a] Base Route 77 Miles (2.7) (1.2) ° _ in = v i 110.5 Base Route 140 Miles BIRD A (OH)”” SOL A SOL B SOL C sot ae 00} 61 Pe [emacs | | | | | S un i iv 102.3 91.2 (11.1) 1337, (2.2) (2.5) 99.8 (0.1) 102.2 ° Local Alternatives: 1° Local Alternative: Anchorage Area Captain Cook State Park "' Local Alternatives: Soldotna Area Local Alternatives: Bird Point Area HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Ei - 32 D. LAND/REGULATORY SECTION REPORT SUMMARY 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 (Section ID) 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. A table at the end of this section 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. 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 in Section II). 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. 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 units on refuge land. Title 22g regulates use on private in holdings within the refuge, 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. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Il -33 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. 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. 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 II-5 shows the lineal distance of private lands crossed by each corridor segment. Note that a corridor reference line is shown in the center 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. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Ill -34 University Substation International Substation Bernice Lake Substation Soldotna Substation Fire Island landfall Point Campbell landfall Point Woronzof landfall Point Possession landfall Potter Marsh landfall Kenai Peninsula landfall for the Enstar Route Bird Point Crossing - North side Bird Point Crossing - South side HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab An examination of the land ownership at substations and submarine cable landfall locations reveals the following: Large acreages immediately to the east of the substation are owned by the State of Alaska and the Municipality of Anchorage. These lands are owned by CEA. These lands are owned by Homer Electric Association, Inc. Adjacent lands appear to be owned by Homer Electric; however, this needs verification. Fire Island is owned by the Cook Inlet Regional Corporation (CERI), an Alaska Native Corporation. These lands are owned by the Municipality of Anchorage. These lands are owned by the Municipality of Anchorage and by the Anchorage International Airport. These lands are owned by the Point Possession Native Group, an Alaska Native Corporation. There are also certified native allotments in this area. 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. These lands are owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. These lands are owned by the Department of Natural Resources and the Alaska Railroad. There are also state mining claims in this area 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. II -35 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 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 II- 5 (next page) 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. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab Il -36 TABLE III-5 CORRIDOR LANDOWNER STATUS Tesoro Alternative Route Ownership Summa Link code Total length Ownership Private land Location mi. mi. TE.A.10 Se STATE - Submarine Pt. Woronzof - Fire Island TE.D.40 4.4 Native - Fire Island TE.E.50 9.1 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.1.115 3.9| Private, Borough, 1.0 | Tesoro Pipeline STATE TE.J.K.120 3.4] Private, STATE 1.8 | Tesoro Pipeline TE.J-K.130 1.2 1.2 | Private Total 55.1 13.8 Submarine Alternatives 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 Boil STATE - Submarine Pt. Campbell - Fire Island TE.F.60 9.4 STATE - Submarine Pt. Campbell - Possession Pt. TE.F.70 a STATE - Submarine Pt. Campbell - Possession Pt. Total 27.6 | Captain Cook Alternatives aj TE.G.H.90 Private, Borough 3.8 | Near Tesoro Pipeline TE.1.100 Captain Cook State Park TE.K.140 Native, Private Within Kenai N.W.R. TE.K.150 Native Within Kenai N.W.R. TE.K.160 Native Within Kenai N.W.R. TE.K.170 4.9| Private, STATE, New Corridor Native Total 25.5 HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab III - 37 Link code Total length (mi.) Enstar Alternative Route EN.A.20 | EN.A.50 | EN.A.60 EN.D.E.20 QC.M.1.20 3.8 3.2 Ownership Summary Ownership Private land Location (mi.) Private 3.8 | Alaska Railroad Private 3.2 | Alaska Railroad 0.4 38.5 Private Private, STATE STATE FEDERAL, Borough Private, Borough, STATE 0:4 ENSTAR Pipeline Alaska Railroad Alaska Railroad Submarine Potter - Burnt Island Pipeline QC.M.1.30 5.9 Private, Native 0.6 | Transmission Line QC.M.1.50 Private, Native 2.2 | Road, Transmission Line Total 19.1 Soldotna Area Alternatives QC.M.1.10 14.3 Priate, Native, | 6.2 ] Transmission Line Borough QC.M.1.40 5.0| Private, Native i 4.0 | Road mM Total 10.2 Anchorage Area Alternatives Private 5.3 | International & New Seward Highway Private 0.4 | O’Malley Private 2.6 | New Seward Highway Private 2.8 | Old Seward Highway | 11.1 HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab III - 38 Existing Quartz Creek Transmission Line Ownership Summary Link code Total length (mi.) Ownership Private land Location mi. QC.A-C10 24.4 Private, STATE 6.9 | Tudor/Existing QC.C.D-1.10 38.7 Private, STATE, | 2.5 | Quartz Creek FEDERAL Transmission Line QC.J-L.10 55.2 | Private, FEDERAL 9.0 | Quartz Creek QC.M.1.20 10.2} Private, Borough, Pipeline STATE QC.M.1.50 4.7 Private, Native 2.2 | Road, Transmission L_ Line Total 139.1 28.1 Bird Point Alternative Qc.D.1.A,B 4.2 | STATE, FEDERAL Aerial and Submarine Bird Pt. - Snipers Pt. QC.D.2.10 | 88 FEDERAL P| Distribution Line Total 13.8 HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab III - 39 2.9 Anchorage Area Ownership Summary Total length (mi.) Private land Location mi. 0.3 Private Private [ana AN.40 Section Line New Corridor New Seward Highway AN.50 1.0 Private AN.80 Total HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 120293-01 FINAL ab 11.3 29.6 STATE, FEDERAL 1.0 | O’Malley Rd. Old Seward Highway Submarine crossing to Pt. Possession 11.3 | Submarine crossing to ENSTAR Corridor 29.6 | Ill - 40 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS Estimated Permitting/ Action Requiring Permit Permit Approval or Authorization : Issue Approval or Review Agencies Review Relevant Legislation Corridor Affected Comment Time Period Contact Federal The ENSTAR Route initially appears to cross more wetlands than other routes Wetlands/ A Section 404 Permit is required when wetlands are | U.S. Army Engineer Section 404 Permit Clean Water Act, 33 All alternative corridors Waterways affected by the discharge of dredge or fill material, District, Alaska USC 1344, Section 404 | under consideration or transmission line construction activities. 90 - 120 days Georgina Akers, Unit Coordinator USAEDA Regulatory Branch PO Box 898 Anchorage, AK 99506-0899 907)753-2724 Wetlands/ A Section 10 Permit is required for the construction | U.S. Army Engineer Rivers and Harbor Act, Waterways or placement of any structures in or above navigable | District, Alaska 33 USC 403, Section waters of the United States. 10 All submarine crossings and the aerial crossing at Bird Point Georgina Akers, Unit Coordinator USAEDA Regulatory Branch PO Box 898 Anchorage, AK 99506-0899 907)753-2724 All alternative corridors under consideration Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 40 CFR 125 Submarine Permit required for discharge of wastewater from a Environmental National Pollutant Crossing & point source into federal- and state-owned waters. Protection Agency Discharge Elimination Substation The permit is also required for storm water runoff. (NPDES) Permit for Storm Facilities A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan is Water Discharges Alaska Operations Office required for construction activities in order to be 222 W 7th Ave #19 covered under the EPA’s General Permit for storm Anchorage, AK 99513-7588 water discharges. 907) 271-3541 Applies specifically to gency review of substation/ jeneral Permit switching stations applicability is 30 - Jackie Poston, Environmental Engineer U.S. Environ. Protection Agency Submarine Plans are required for oil storage facilities storing in | Environmental Spill Prevention Control Federal Water Pollution | All alternative corridors | Applies specifically to 30 - 90 days Matt Carr, Environmental Crossing & excess of 660 gallons in a single container above Protection Agency and Countermeasure Plans | Control Act, 40 CFR under consideration cooling fluid reservoirs for Protection Specialist Substation ground; in excess of 1,320 gallons in aggregate in 112 submarine cable crossing. U.S. Environ. Protection Agency Facilities tanks above ground; or in excess of 42,000 gallons This permit could Alaska Operations Office below ground. 222 W 7th Ave #19 Anchorage, AK 99513-7588 907) 271-3616 potentially be avoided by placing the storage tanks underground. All alternative corridors under consideration National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Cultural Resources The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation protects properties of historical, architectural, archaeological, and cultural significance at the national, state and local level by reviewing and commenting on Federal actions affecting National Register and eligible properties. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Concurrence that proposed actions do not adversely impact National Register and eligible properties Potential to identify sites is equal among all alternatives In conjunction with Section 404 or 10 Permitting - up to 120 days Judith Bittner, State Historic Preservation Officer DNR/SHPO 3601 C Street, Suite 1278 Anchorage, AK 99510-7001 907) 269-8715 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife Protection Act, Section 7 No threatened and endangered species have been identified within the study area. All alternative corridors under consideration Section 7 consultation (in conjunction with Section 404 or 10 Permitting) Sensitive Plant | A Section 7 consultation is required to assure and/or Wildlife | protection of endangered or threatened species and Species wildlife. In conjunction with Section 404 or 10 Permitting - up to 120 days Anne Rappaport, Field Supervisor USFWS Ecological Services 605 W 4th Ave, Rm 62 Anchorage, AK 99501 907) 271-2787 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS Estimated Permitting/ Action Requiring Permit Permit Approval or Authorization Issue Approval or Review Agencies Review Relevant Legislation Corridor Affected Comment Time Period Contact Aviation A notice to the FAA, for the review and approval, Federal Aviation Notice of Proposed FAR Part 77 Potentially the Tesoro A hazard determination will | 90 days minimum Jack Schommer, Air Space & will be required to address concerns and effects of Administration Construction or Alteration Route pending require public review of the Procedures the proposed project on the safe and efficient use of and a Hazard identification of exact proposed project Air Traffic Division AAL 532 navigable air space. Determination (Form transmission line | 222 W. 7th Ave, Box 14 7460-1) location Anchorage, AK 99513 907) 271-5903 Right-of-Way Right-of-Way Permit would be required for U.S. Fish and Right-of Way Permit 50 CFR 25, 26, 29, & All with the possible The Tesoro Route may Approximately two Lucy Blix, Realty Specialist obtaining right-of-way within a National Wildlife Wildlife Service 36 exception of the Tesoro | avoid USFWS lands if the years USFWS Div. of Realty Refuge. Route final route goes through the 1011 E Tudor Rd Captain Cook State Anchorage, AK 99503 Right-of-Way Right-of-Way Right-of-way permit would be required for obtaining right-of-way within a conservation unit. Special Use Permit would be required for obtaining right-of-way on National Forest land. Right-of-Way Right-of-Way Non-recreation use in a Land & Water Conservation Funded (LWCF) recreation area requires “Conversion of Use” approval. Nonprohibited conversions of use are approved by the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior. Right-of-Way Grant and temporary Use Permit would be required for obtaining right-of-way on BLM.-, BIA-, and ANCSA-selected lands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chugach National Forest National Park Service & DNR Parks & Outdoor Recreation (administers State side of LWCF for non-Federal land managed to acquire/develop public outdoor recreation areas Bureau of Land Management on behalf of Bureau of Indian Affairs Right-of-Way Permit Special Use Permit for use of Forest Lands “Conversion of Use” approval Grant Right-of-Way and Temporary Use Permit Title 11 of ANILCA 36 CFR 251 Land & Water Conservation Fund Act P.L. 88-578, Section 6(f)(3) Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-579) USC 1761-1771 and 43 CFR 2800 All with possible exception of Tesoro Route Existing Quartz Creek Transmission Line and Bird Point alternative Tesoro Route and potentially the existing Quartz Creek Route Tesoro Route Recreation Area Approximately 4 weeks following completion of NEPA analysis Applies to Captain Cook State Park. Regulations prohibit overhead power lines in LWCF areas; buried power lines are permitted. Approximately 6 - 8 weeks Grant Right-of-Way would require concurrence by ANCSA allottee Approximately 4 - 6 weeks 907) 786-3566 Sharon Janis Chief, Division of Realty USFWS 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, AK 99503 907) 786-3490 Leo Keeler, Realty Specialist USFS Chugach National Forest, Supervisor’s Office 3301 “C” Street, Suite 300 Anchorage, AK 99503-3998 907) 271-2547 Joy Bryan-Dolsby, Grant Administrator DNR/Parks & Outdoor Recreation 3601 “C” Street, Suite 1200 Anchorage, AK 99503-5921 (90) 269-8692 Robert Rinehart, Realty Specialist BLM Division of Lands Anchorage District Office (041) 6881 Abbott Loop Rd Anchorage, AK 99507 907) 267-1213 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS Estimated Permitting/ Action Requiring Permit Permit Approval or Authorization Issue Approval or Review Agencies Review Relevant Legislation Corridor Affected Comment Time Period Contact 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 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 Wetlands/ ADEC must issue a 401 Certificate to accompany Department of Certificate of Reasonable Clean Water Act, 13 All - It is assumed 401 Approximately 50 Tim Rumfelt, Environmental Waterways any Federal permit issued under the Federal Clean Environmental Assurance (401) USC 1344, 18 AAC 15 | certification would be days Specialist Water Act. For example, a U.S. Army Corps of Conservation Engineers Section 404 Permit would trigger the need for a State certificate. complete pending issuance of a Section 404 Permit DEC/Southcentral Regional Office 555 Cordova Street Anchorage, AK 99501 907) 269-7500 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 Section 106: Concurrence with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Cultural Resources 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 Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office Approximately 50 days Judith Bittner, State Historic Preservation Officer DNR/SHPO 3601 C Street, Suite 1278 Anchorage, AK 99510-7001 907) 269-8715 All alternative corridors under consideration State Parks A Special Use Permit is required for Park lands along the Right-of-Way. Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks Parks Special Use Permit Applies to Captain Cook, Chugach, Kenai River, and Potter’s Marsh State Parks. Approximately 50 days Chris Degernes, Kenai Area Superintendent DNR/Parks & Outdoor Quartz Creek Corridor Recreation would require review by the Frontier Building Chugach State Park Board 3601 “C” Street, Suite 1200 of Supervisors. Anchorage, AK 99503-5921 907) 269-8700 Right-of-Way A Land Use Permit is required for use of state lands | Department of Land Use Permit, Tideland | AS 38.05, 11 AAC 58, All alternative corridors 50 day consistency Alice Iliff, Natural Resource along the proposed right-of-way. A right-of-way Natural Resources, Use or Lease, Right-of- 62, 96 under consideration review and up to 6 Officer permit is required for construction of transmission Division of Lands Way to 9 months for Title | Regional Office, DNR/Land lines or other improvements that cross state lands. 38 review Frontier Building Southcentral District Office 3601 “C” Street, Suite 1080 Anchorage, AK 99503-5937 907) 269-8549 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS Estimated Permitting/ Action Requiring Permit Permit Approval or Authorization Issue Approval or Review Agencies Review Relevant Legislation Corridor Affected Comment Time Period Contact Existing Approval is required before construction on Department of Utility Permit on State AS 19.25, 17 AAC 15 ENSTAR and Quartz Potentially more 6 weeks Rick Pettit, Utility Permit Facilities ADOT/PF managed state lands or for structures Transportation and Right-of-Way Creek involvement along Quartz Officer crossing ADOT/PF right-of-ways. Public Facilities Creek Corridor DOT&PF Design & Construction 4111 Aviation Dr. Anchorage, AK 99502 Construction Construction ADEC must authorize plans and specifications for construction that would be undertaken and must assess emission standards and possible air contamination resulting from that construction. Road dust, wind-blown contaminants, emissions from generators could cause this permit to be required. Control of road dust. To control and legalize surface oiling in order to prevent water pollution. Construction A General Waterway/Waterbody Application must be submitted to ADF&G if heavy equipment usage or construction activities disturb the natural flow or bed of any stream, river, or lake. These permits also stipulate how stream water withdrawals may be conducted. Clean Air Act, 40 CFR 60, AS 46.03 and 18 AAC 50 All alternative corridors under consideration Department of Environmental Conservation Air Quality Permit Bill MacClarence DEC/Southcentral Regional Office 555 Cordova Street Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 269-7500 Approximately 50 days All alternative corridors under consideration Department of Surface Oiling Permit AS 46.03, 18 AAC 75 Environmental Conservation Applies to access roads 30 - 50 days DEC/Southcentral Regional Office 555 Cordova Street Anchorage, AK 99501 907) 269-7500 Don McKay ADF&G/Habitat and Restoration Division 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 9958-1599 (907) 267-2284 Fish Habitat Permit All alternative corridors under consideration Department of Fish & Game AS 16.05.840, AS 16.05.870, and 5 AAC 95 Construction access Approximately 50 days Sensitive Plant and/or Wildlife Species Construction A Special Areas Permit Application must be submitted for activities conducted in legislatively- designated State game refuges, critical habitat areas, and State game sanctuaries. ADNR must approve any plan to burn materials during fire season. The permit is issued by the State Forester or local rangers after review of bur plan. AS 16.20 and 5 AAC 95 Department of Fish & Game Special Areas Permit Potentially the Tesoro and ENSTAR Routes Applies to the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge Approximately 50 days Don McKay ADF&G/Habitat and Restoration Division 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 9958-1599 907) 267-2284 Department of Burn Permit AS 41.15, 11 AAC 92 All alternative corridors | Applies to potential burning Natural Resources, under consideration of slash in cleared right-of- Division of Forestry way Approximately 10 days John McClair, Fire Management Officer DNR/Forestry Kenai-Kodiak Area Office HC | Box 107 Soldotna AK 99669 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS Action Requiring Permit Permit Approval or Estimated Permitting/ Authorization Issue Approval or Review Agencies Review Relevant Legislation Corridor Affected Comment Time Period Contact Construction This permit is required if water withdrawals will Department of Water Rights or AS 46.15, 11 AAC 93 All alternative corridors | Applies during construction | Temporary Water © Kellie Litzen occur during construction. The permit lasts for the | Natural Resources, Temporary Water Use under consideration Use - 50 days, DNR/Water length of a temporary project. Division of Mining Water Rights - upto | 3601 “C” Street, Suite 822 and Water one year Anchorage, AK 99503 (907) 269-8642 Right-of-Way Approval would be required to locate a transmission | Alaska Railroad Leasing of ARRC lands, 45 USC Sec. 1201 et All alternative corridors Approximately 30 - Mike Fretwell, Land Use line within, cross, or parallel a railroad Right-of- Corporation Alaska Railroad Permit seq., AS 42.40 under consideration 60 days Coordinator Way and Construction 43 USC 975 Alaska Railroad Corporation 327 W. Ship Creek Ave Anchorage, AK 99501 907) 265-2465 Right-of-Way Approval would be required to locate a transmission | Cook Inlet Region, Leasing of Right-of-Way Not applicable Tesoro Corridor Approximately 60- | Mike Franger, Land Manager Right-of-Way line across Cook Inlet Region, Inc. lands The Municipality of Anchorage will require Conditional Use Permits, concurrence with Section 404 Permits and platting requirements for right-of- way easements. Inc. Planning Department Land Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Zoning Changes Municipality of Anchorage AS 29 All alternative corridors under consideration Specific permitting requirements will be determined once more specific routing alternatives have been identified 90 days Conditional Use Permit - 90 days maximum Land Use Permit - one month maximum Cook Inlet Region, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 500 Anchozage, AK 99509 907) 274-8638 Thede Tobish Municipality of Anchorage Department of Community Planning & Development PO Box 196650 Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 907) 343-4261 Right-of-Way The Kenai Peninsula Borough will require Conditional Use Permits, concurrence with Section 404 Permits and platting requirements for right-of- way easements. Planning Department Right-of-Way Platting Conditional Use Permit Kenai Peninsula Borough AS 29 All alternative corridors under consideration Specific permitting requirements will be determined once more specific routing alternatives have been identified Platting - 60 day minimum, 90 day maximum Permitting Right-of- Way - 30 day maximum Conditional Use Permit - 45 day maximum Harriet Wegner, Environmental Planner Kenai Peninsula Borough 144 N. Binkley Street Soldotna, AK 99669 (907) 262-4441 X298 Right-of-Way Right-of-Way Action Requiring Permit Approval or Review CORRIDOR SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS Approval would be required to locate a transmission line within, cross, or parallel a railroad Right-of- Way Alaska Railroad Corporation Permit Approval or Review Leasing of ARRC lands, Alaska Railroad Permit and Construction Approval would be required to locate a transmission line across Cook Inlet Region, Inc. lands Cook Inlet Region, Inc. Leasing of Right-of-Way Relevant Legislation Corridor Affected 45 USC Sec. 1201 et seq., AS 42.40 43 USC 975 All alternative corridors under consideration Not applicable Tesoro Corridor Estimated Permitting/ Authorization Time Period Approximately 10 days Approximately 60 - 90 days Contact Mike Fretwell, Land Use Coordinator 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 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT / MACRO CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 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 7 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. PSII tears] Pari Inventory betel iiTele) ey ed pam NEPA Pee rly pesca Analysis Ces La foleity Siting Criteria Pa 2 FIGURE 7 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY APPROACH HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 129293-01 FINAL ab IV-1 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.orest 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 II-1 and II-2 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 Enrironmental 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 HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 129293-01 FINAL ab IV-2 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: e 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: e jurisdiction/ownership (study area and Anchorage) e 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 recreational opportunities closely related to tourism both in the Anchorage Bowl and on the Kenai Peninsula. Data was compiled on the following: e recreation facilities e recreation management areas HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 129293-01 FINAL ab IV-3 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 visual management areas within the study area visual influence of recreation areas within alternative corridors 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 visual influence recreation facilities (Anchorage) 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. HLY 55-0433 (06/96) 129293-01 FINAL ab Iv-4 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 IV-1 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. HLY 55-0433 (05/96) 129293-01 ab IV-5 Table IV-1 Public/Agency Issues and Concerns 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 (K NWR) purpose e avalanche danger Geologic Hazards anadromous and marine fish habitat coastal wetlands Marine Environment Land Use/Jurisdiction 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 recreation and visual resource management in Chugach State Park and Management Areas and Chugach National Forest Facilities e wildemess 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 Turagain Arm park and open space in Anchorage area 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 HLY 55-0433 (05/96) 129293-01 ab IV-6 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. e Protective Status—A measure of the formal concern expressed for a resource either through legal protection or by assignment of special status designation. e 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: e 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. e¢ Moderate—Areas which could potentially conflict with the transmission line because of sensitive resource values; resources proposed or having potential for special status designation. e Low—Areas where resource conflicts identified through the regional environmental study are minimal or would have no measurable environmental impact. HLY 55-0433 (05/96) 129293-01 ab IV-7