Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS Intertie Envrioental Impact Scoping Report 1997 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING REPORT SEPTEMBER 1997 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING REPORT prepared for Rural Utilities Service U.S. Forest Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chugach Electric Association, Inc. prepared by Dames & Moore September 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Ti=| Scoping PROCESS se istetaey als iia elon Mee Tc Ee nT Te LATTE leae eT ad eli lal DT eee oreo ee ee ALE M a tL a Ee eH ALL eH ae etal eM te ltd dee Neen ee ee eee ee A eles Atl dl ta acl lt tf ll bt fle National Environmental Policy Act Process ...... 0.0.00. 00 0000 c cece eee eee Approach Notification of Public Scoping Meetings . ....... 0... cee cee neces snecceees Public and | Agency Meetings etal aly bal ti el Kelle este fl nee fee ele tl set Whitten Comments (aes lerdal ae oa faeclesc stele teal eels foelcled chatenel ae eae SE LT Se aH Other Applicable Laws, Authority and Related Statutes and Orders .................. Results of Scoping Process) Ho) tia tary tia) a 0) EVEUG ait) a as RS al lf se ll lta Chapter 2 - Issues Identified During the Scoping Process ...............000000 000 eee eue Issue l=) Need Tor the Projects al | tte t seal ale eleva are eles eral keel tl sate ft alee dtl a TSSUe 27-) 0 bana Rr ane ee eee ele lle el elt be Peleltelle ete! Salley EL ot tledet el Issue 3 =/Aviahonisalety Ci Ue MU TG a IR Ree eel alee ae el Baptism FR mreecceea/ Perea enh, MA ae a weet aoe eta or re ee ens ee ee we Keprmes 3 > WPantotae: Lomerard Planers, Pema seal ts Yili pei loa Issue 6 - Watershed Management/Soil Erosion ............ 00000000 e cence eee I rn ra eS a a Issue Si='Biology ane Leet rey cadet an care as ana ee ahd wD Le Tl TRpOIRAmn 7, A RMUCRAIRUe UNRMEIORE ad St K 1 oloaf saofon l al l e g og Issue 1O)= Avalanche Piazards. i!) js Ht eo aU a ae eke le ed ee et Iesue tl - Right-ol-way Laniteons |. os ce cbse sens seeeneweryveeveerereeweres Issue 12 - Marine and Coastal Environments ................ 00000 cee eee eee eee Geographic! CONTEXT Of [ss es de ee ee ERC Chapter 3 - Agency, Community, and Special Interest Group Participation ................ ‘ RIT! TC dy Le allt te fsa tes a FF ali la Chapter 4 - Alternative Corridor Screening ............. 00. c cece c eee eee ees Route Selection Study atayetsatacesey ol yale pe ele ecto stetaiel ested esa ted or eed eh ac ae at teach ache Screening Chapter 5 - Technical Studies in Response to Issues .............0000 000 e eee eee eee DUD OSe aC ee eee ee ee ee EL eS etree Alternatives Including the Proposed Action .............0.. 000 bec c eee e eee eee Land Use Recreation ResOUrCes eis eet] fe ee sie] ee Seded si eisieley ste alede @ ied] sls vais aisiels)t)el@ felalale IVASUal RESOURCES el fee eset eta et se eed eae ea et ey yee ea A eS Pe Cultural Resources and Native Issues ............. 000 cece cece eee eee eee ee eee Socioeconomics Ui Ty TT I ene Siahy neat ele Ue Wildlife A\SCP-REPT.WPD OmMMOAANINADA— — 0M 13 13 13 bi} 14 14 14 1S 15 16 16 16 19 19 23 23 25 33 33 34 36 aT 38 39 4) 42 Table of Contents (continued) Vegetation.and, Wetlands) sacs snaanarbandeesecistedsaressonaans aseaaapocrsra Eishery/ Resources see ae Aen erent eneenarennetyin, Saeeeet ee nestarerereretienettts: eurreuece rsa Avalanche)Hazardsipreeeenrer ns ene eee een ae tern cree mien rrr Tie I hii tad hme Ne eA te hn ll cel Appendices A Notice of Intent Documentation B Summaries of Comments C_ Environmental Permits and Authorizations D_ Materials Available E Comment Letters AASCP-REPT.WPD ul LIST OF TABLES 1) Applicability ofiissues to)Project Regions Perse se as ine ete eae Eyer ea 2 Summary of Letters Received from Agencies, Communities, fand!Specialiinterest Groups) Pacer aetian crises set iereatiae tects ena 3 Community Working Group Representation ..................02222222---0-- 4 Issues Raised by Community Working Group Members ......................- 5 Screening Process - Alternatives Recommended for Elimination ................ LIST OF FIGURES | || Pebemeier: PTR rire Arm ies delat bile | eld hla d bite eit ble ets 2 PELojectivicinityaMap Peer eee ee Ae Ee er ee eee tye Een eae eta tie 3. Generation and Transmission System Map .............---..0 2200000222000 4 Alternative RoutestStudied epee eee eee rete eee eee reece Si Regionall Settingspeee ee eee eee eee eee oer tee eee 6) |) Study, Area Propression) (0). EEE Sess Se Lve eee as § phy ria aia akc sebaaerd 7 Alternative Routes Recommended for Elimination ..........................- 8 Anchorage Area Alternative Routes Recommended for Elimination ............. 9 Anchorage Area Current Alternative Routes ................. 000 eee eee eee Eee | CR, Pe aide bled hte tell ee Reh ee let AASCP-REPT.WPD ll LIST OF ACRONYMS AEA ANILCA BLM CEA CEQ CWG DEIS EIS EVAL FAA FEIS Forest Service FWS GIS IPG kWh LWCFA MOU NEPA NOI NWR RUS SRA A\SCP-REPT.WPD Alaska Energy Authority Alaska National Interest Land Claims Act Bureau of Land Management Chugach Electric Association Council on Environmental Quality Community Working Group Draft EIS Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Analysis Federal Aviation Administration Final EIS U.S. Forest Service US. Fish & Wildlife Service geographic information system Intertie Participants Group kilowatt-hour Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Memorandum of Understanding National Environmental Policy Act Notice of Intent National Wildlife Refuge Rural Utilities Service State Recreation Area iv CHAPTER 1 - SCOPING PROCESS PROJECT BACKGROUND The Alaska Railbelt System is a power grid that electrically connects south-central Alaska from Homer to Fairbanks (Figure 1). Electrical generation, transmission, and distribution within the Railbelt System are provided by seven utility companies. These utility companies comprise the Intertie Participants Group (IPG). Members of the IPG, also referred to as the Railbelt Utilities, include Fairbanks Municipal Utility System, Golden Valley Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, Chugach Electric Association (CEA), Anchorage Municipal Light and Power, Homer Electric Association, and Seward Electric System. The Southern Intertie Transmission Line Project (Project) is proposed as a system improvement project to improve the overall Railbelt system reliability and transfer of energy capabilities between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The Project would consist of constructing a second electrical transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage in south-central Alaska (Figure 2). The Project as proposed would correct existing system deficiencies by providing a second line to increase the: = electrical transfer capability of the transmission system between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage to more economically use existing generation resources and reduce operating costs, reduce system requirements for spinning reserves, and improve electrical system stability = reliability of the overall Railbelt system and 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, and reduce load shedding requirements in case of system disturbances ™ reduce transmission line losses and reduce maintenance costs on the Quartz Creek line The proposed Project would also provide better access and distribution of the hydroelectric power from Bradley Lake on the Kenai Peninsula to the Railbelt Utilities, and result in more efficient transmission of electrical energy between the Kenai and Anchorage, by relieving the current restrictions due to limitations in the capacity of the existing Quartz Creek line (Figure 3). A previous series of engineering, economic, and environmental studies have been conducted for the Project, including a corridor feasibility study in 1987 and the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Railbelt Feasibility Study in 1991. In November of 1995, POWER Engineers and Dames & Moore initiated a Route Selection Study which included an alternatives analysis, and environmental and macro corridor studies. Three alternative corridors were identified (Figure 4). These studies resulted in the following technical documents: A\SCP-REPT.WPD 1 RAILBELT ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICE AREA (ANCHORAGE MUNICIPAL LIGHT & POWER IB Chucace ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION BBD FARSANKS MUNICIPAL UTILITIES SYSTEM IME GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION Homer ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION |) -MATANUSKA ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION ‘SUBSTATION a GENERATING PLANT = 115 KV 69 KV 230 KV 138 KV NOTE: LOCATION FOR ELECTRICAL IS APPROXIMATE "ad — 1 Ca Railbelt Utilities System Southern Intertie Project Proposed Anchorage To Kenai Peninsula Transmission Project Figure 1 PROJECT VICINITY MAP Southern intertio \ \wtew Study Area Ue S e Fairban! Anchorage - GULF OF ALASKA Juneau WS dy W Figure 2 e COMMUNITIES ma GENERATION PLANTS TOTAL EXISTING GENERATION CAPACITY SHOWN IN MEGAWATTS (MW) BELUGA (CEA) 387 MW BERNICE LAKE (CEA) 70 MW COOPER LAKE HYDRO (CEA) 16 MW EKLUTNA HYDRO (APA) 32 MW SOLDOTNA (AEG&T) 38 MW BRADLEY LAKE (AEA) 120 MW PLANT 1 (AML&P) 92 MW INTERNATIONAL (CEA) 46 MW PLANT 2 (AML&P) 249 MW CONAMSWNM= TOTAL ANCHORAGE AREA GENERATION - 806 MW TOTAL KENAI PENINSULA AREA GENERATION - 244 MW SUBSTATIONS ANCHOR POINT (HEA) DAVES CREEK (CEA) DIAMOND RIDGE (HEA) DOUGLAS (MEA) FRITZ CREEK (HEA) GIRDWOOD (CEA) HOPE (CEA) INDIAN (CEA) KASILOF (HEA) 10 LAWING (SES) 11 PORTAGE (CEA) 12 QUARTZ CREEK (CEA) 13 SOLDOTNA (HEA) 14 TEELAND (CEA) 15 O'NEILL (MEA) 16 SUMMIT LAKE (CEA) 17 SEWARD (SES) 18 PT. WORONZOF — TRANSMISSION LINES > C©ONONFON= DESIGNED A 345kV B 230kV Cc 138kV D 115kV E 69kV ==" QUARTZ CREEK LINE N CENTRAL ALASKA Source: Chugach Electric Association, 1995 15 @ SUTTON @ wittow WASILLA PALMER 4 HOPE ” 7, © ~~ WHITTIER =n NIKISKI Quartz Creek Line ———> od D Ae D SOLDOTNA a Peninsula x 2 BRADLEY JUNCTION ge 1 HOMER e 6 Gulf of 2 Alaska 0 15 30 60 (pear GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM KENAI PENINSULA AND ANCHORAGE AREA Figure 3 TRN TON T8N T6N T4N Nel NUL NOLL NeL NOL Net Alternative Routes Studied Southern Intertie Project Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Resource Legend State Park (£2) Kenai National Wildlife Refuge GEE Chugach National Forest (1) Private, Borough, or State Selected Lands Source Data / Description: Municipality of Anchorage (1994). Chugach National Forest (1995). Kenai Peninsula B: (1994). USGS 1:63,360 and 1:25,000 Quads. Reference /N/ Inventory Corridor Section Grid /V/_ Alternative Route RANGE Link Number Code Zalelwintg = * 16) 14) 19 a. wlslneaina '20|20|26|27|26|26| = /\/ Pipeline 21/32|20|34]28|26| /\/ Transmission Line . (As Study Area Boundary : Riven Steet A Oil Platform o. 3 6 Miles () Lakeafintet cece es Moore rms noon caer come wwe om te nike of the paralleled foxtare, Mealcon Veiplecopoept®-STckd-comr anal M0720300000207/17/9/ Figure 4 Electrical Studies Report: Volumes I, II, and II Design Report Lands/Regulatory Report Economic Report Environmental Report Executive Summary Report The Route Selection Study was prepared as a part of the environmental review and permitting process for the Southern Intertie Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Alternatives to be addressed in the EIS include no action, alternative technology, efficient energy usage, generation options, and the proposed action (Southern Intertie). These alternatives will be studied in more detail in the EIS according to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines. GOAL OF THE SCOPING PROCESS The goal of the scoping process is to determine the issues to be addressed in the EIS. It is an open process intended to incorporate the views and concerns of federal, state, and local agencies and the public regarding the Project. Other objectives of scoping include: = evaluating issues = determining the range of alternatives to be evaluated = identifying environmental review and consultation requirements = developing the environmental analysis process and technical studies to address scoping issues in the EIS NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT PROCESS NEPA is a national charter for protection of the environment and a procedural law which outlines a structured decision-making process for federal agencies. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) are the primary implementing regulations for NEPA. It applies to federal actions, actions supported by federal funds, or actions which require major federal approvals or permits. NEPA requires an evaluation of a proposed project to identify the potential environmental consequences of implementing the project. NEPA directs the evaluation of reasonable alternatives that are available to meet the needs of a proposed project and the identification of mitigation measures to minimize potential adverse impacts with the project. NEPA requires federal agencies to provide other agencies and the public with an objective understanding of the environmental consequences associated with a project. This information is used by agencies and the public to provide informed comments to decision makers. The NEPA process for the Southem Intertie Project began the with publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) (Appendix A) in the Federal Register by the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) in October 1996, announcing the anticipated preparation of an EIS for the Project. AASCP-REPT.WPD 6 The RUS identified issues of concern by holding public and agency scoping meetings. An analysis of issues has defined the scope of analysis necessary for the preparation of the EIS. Environmental studies are being conducted including review of previous studies and literature as well as field investigations to prepare an Environmental Analysis (EVAL). A Draft EIS (DEIS) will be prepared once the studies are completed. Public and agency review and comment will be provided for a minimum of 45 days following distribution of the DEIS. Public hearings will be held during this comment period. All comments made on the DEIS within the comment period, including written comments or comments made for the record at a public hearing, will be incorporated or responded to in the Final EIS (FEIS). The EIS will be prepared in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the federal lead agency RUS; the cooperating agencies of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service); and the Applicant, IPG. The MOU was signed in July 1997. APPROACH Identifying issues and concerns associated with the proposed Project began with the preparation of the Route Selection Study in November 1995. The range of issues summarized in this report incorporate the findings from the previous study, as well as results from the RUS scoping meetings, and an on-going public involvement program. The activities listed below have assisted in developing the issues and concerns related to the Project. = Route Selection Study agency and inter-agency meetings = Route Selection Study public meetings conducted in January and February of 1996 = formal public and agency scoping meeting for EIS in November of 1996 ™ meetings with local community councils, special interest groups, private and native landowners, and Community Working Groups (CWG) established to represent the interests of the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area = three newsletters announcing public meetings and project information were distributed to members of the project mailing list (Appendix A) = additional newsletters at project milestones Notification of Public Scoping Meetings A NOI was published in the Federal Register on October 9, 1996 announcing the anticipated preparation of an EIS for the proposed Project and the opportunity for public input at scoping meetings. A copy of the NOI and the advertisements and notices for posting are provided in Appendix A of this document. Newsletters were mailed to individuals and organizations on the project mailing list (Appendix A). In addition, approximately 66,500 utility bill inserts were mailed to all electric consumers within the Homer Electric Association and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power service areas. CEA customers were AASCP-REPT.WPD 7 notified twice through notifications placed in the Chugach Outlet included in their monthly billing statements. A copy of the newsletter and Chugach Outlets are provided in Appendix A. Advertisements were placed in newspapers throughout the state, including the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska Journal of Commerce, Alaska Star, Frontiersman, Homer News, Homer Tribune, Peninsula Clarion, and Seward Phoenix Log (Appendix A). Poster-sized notices were placed in libraries, post offices, and community halls of communities where public meetings were held. Public and Agency Meetings In November 1996, three public scoping meetings were held at the locations and dates listed below. = Anchorage - November 12 = Cooper Landing - November 13 = Soldotna - November 14 A total of 81 people attended the public scoping meetings. Transcripts of the meetings are available for review. A summary of comments from the scoping meetings is provided in Appendix B. In addition to the public scoping meetings held in various communities, an inter-agency scoping meeting was held on November 6, 1996 in Anchorage. The purpose of the meeting was to (1) invite co-lead and/or cooperating agencies, and (2) solicit comments and/or concems regarding issues that should be addressed in the EIS. Sixteen agency personnel attended the meeting, representing the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, FWS, Alaska Energy Authority, Municipality of Anchorage, Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, RUS, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Written Comments Written comments on the project have been solicited, received, and are summarized in Appendix B. Copies of all comments and public meeting transcripts are located in the project files at the RUS offices in Washington, D.C. and at the Dames & Moore office in Anchorage. As of January 1, 1997, 84 written responses were received, containing approximately 400 individual comments. Analysis All issues and concerns raised during the scoping process will be analyzed in the EIS. Special technical studies have been recommended where published information on a topic is inadequate or unavailable. Suggested mitigation measures will also be considered in the EIS. OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS, AUTHORITY AND RELATED STATUTES AND ORDERS As part of the scoping process, applicable laws, authorities and related statutes and orders were identified for the Project. The anticipated permitting requirements and authorizations are similar for all of the A\SCP-REPT.WPD 8 alternatives under consideration as summarized in Appendix C. Application for a transportation/utility system permit under Title XI of Alaska National Interest Land Claims Act (ANILCA) will likely be required for any of the alternatives currently identified, with the possible exception of the Tesoro Route. In addition, any alternative crossing Forest Service lands will require a special use permit. The applicable laws, orders, regulations, and standards (environmental permits and authorizations) necessary for the proposed Southern Intertie Project are listed in Appendix C and are summarized below. = Tesoro - The Tesoro alternative corridor may require a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This is primarily due to the location of aviation navigation equipment on Fire Island. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA) requires the approval of the National Park Service for construction of utilities within state park lands. This regulation also prohibits the construction of overhead transmission lines within state park lands funded through LWCFA appropriations. One alternative route has been identified which could avoid state park lands by routing through a small portion of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). The Bureau of Indian Affairs would oversee any permitting issues on native allotments potentially crossed near Point Possession. In addition, Title XI and Section 22g of ANCSA (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act) permitting and regulatory requirements will also need to be considered for lands within the Kenai NWR. = Enstar - The majority of the Enstar alternative is within the Kenai NWR and would require compliance with Titles XI and Section 22g and consultation with the FWS for final approval. Title XI regulates transportation and utility systems within the conservation system units in Alaska, including the Kenai NWR. Section 22g of ANCSA regulates uses on certain native-owned lands within the Kenai NWR, in that they remain subject to the laws and regulations governing use and development of the refuge. In addition, local permits would be required within the Soldotna and Municipality of Anchorage areas. This corridor also potentially affects three wildlife habitat areas—Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge, Potter Marsh, and Chickaloon Bay—at the marine crossing. This crossing would require consultation with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, FWS, and U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska. = Quartz Creek - The Quartz Creek corridor alternative maximizes the use of existing transmission line rights-of-way through federal, state, and local management areas. The Quartz Creek corridor would require a variety of federal, state, and local permits prior to construction and operation of the proposed project. This corridor also crosses Forest Service land and would be subject to applicable special use permits. Additional information regarding the Quartz Creek line is provided in Chapter 4. AASCP-REPT.WPD 2 RESULTS OF SCOPING PROCESS The following chapters provide a summary of the results of the scoping: Chapter 2 - Issues Identified During the Scoping Process Chapter 3 - Agency, Community, and Special Interest Group Participation Chapter 4 - Alternative Corridor Screening Chapter 5 - Technical Studies In Response to Issues AASCP-REPT.WPD 10 CHAPTER 2 - ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING THE SCOPING PROCESS This chapter provides a summary of the issues to be addressed in the EIS. Twelve issues were derived from an analysis of the Route Selection Study, federal scoping process, and the ongoing agency and public involvement program and environmental studies being conducted for the EVAL. These issues reflect the diversity of the Project settings associated within Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. The applicability of the issues varies between the regional settings of the project area: Anchorage Bowl, Chugach Mountains, Turnagain Arm, and Kenai Lowlands (Figure 5). In the following sections, the 12 Project issues are described, followed by an explanation of their geographic context. An overview of agency, community, and special interest group participation in the scoping process is provided in Chapter 3. ISSUE 1 - NEED FOR THE PROJECT The feasibility of construction and operation of a second transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage area has been studied for many years. The need for the line is to improve both the reliability and electric transfer requirements as follows. The reliability of the power supply to customers would be increased by providing a second path for electrical service to customers when the existing line is interrupted. Benefits would include the ability to use less expensive thermal generation, reduce the need for spinning reserves, allow more effective use of hydroelectric power, and improve the electrical stability throughout the Railbelt. The cost benefit analysis has shown that the Project would have a positive financial impact to customers in the region. By improving the electrical transfer capability of the transmission system with a new transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area, the existing generation resources could be used more economically. This would reduce the current instability in the electrical system, and reduce the need for load shedding when the existing system is disrupted. The need for the Southern Intertie Project in south-central Alaska has been questioned for a variety of reasons. Concerns generally focus on whether the project benefits warrant the impacts to the environment, and what the financial impacts of the project would be to customers. Many of those who question the need for the Project have commented that the current level of electrical reliability is acceptable and that outages are not a concern. Criticisms have included questionable economic justification, and inadequate consideration of alternatives to the Southern Intertie transmission line. The need for strengthening a connected electricity system in the area has also been questioned. Rigorous analysis of alternatives has been suggested including energy conservation, demand side management, battery energy storage systems, and other generation sources including new generation, wind generation and fuel cells. AASCP-REPT.WPD 11 Regional Settings " TOWNSHIP RANGE ololalal2|s 7/a|e|ro| 1/12 16| 17/ 16| 16| 14] 13 | 19]20] 21/22/23] 24] 20) 29| 28|27|26|25| Section Grid TEES sewer anocm ces coum Bi icipality of Anchorage (1994). ech Natonal Foros 1995). Kenai Peninsula Borov; Munic: Chu; wwe on the sido of (he paralleled feature. ° () Lekesstalet latches and mntbers on seferenee coaterline & DAMES & MOORE Southern Intertie Project Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Source Data / Description: Resource Legend USGS 1:63,360 and 1 ©) Kensi Lowlands TIN T12N TION TaN T6N T4N NUL NOL N8L NOL Nei Figure 5 ISSUE 2 - URBAN AND RURAL LAND USE While the study corridors are dominated by federal and state managed lands, there are concentrations of private lands occurring within the Municipality of Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula Borough, including Nikiski, Soldotna, Sterling, Cooper Landing, and Sunrise. Land uses found throughout the study corridors include residential, commercial, industrial, public/quasi-public, air facilities, utilities, and transportation routes. The following issues were expressed for impacts on land uses: displacement of homes and buildings, right-of-way restrictions and limitations to parcels of land, effects on the monetary value of private property as a result of visual impacts, and effects on the future development of vacant parcels of land. ISSUE 3 - AVIATION SAFETY Aircraft use is a significant issue in south-central Alaska and is estimated to be used 16 times per capita more than in the lower 48 states. Various types of aircraft are used extensively for both private and commercial interests including numerous float planes and small single and twin engine planes. Aviation facilities include airstrips, float plane lakes, airports, and navigation aids. Low altitude air traffic occurs through mountain passes and along the coastlines during periods of inclement weather. The proposed Project has raised questions about creating potential aviation hazards with navigable airspace and the proximity of the transmission line to aviation facilities. ISSUE 4 - RECREATION/TOURISM RESOURCES Recreation activities occur throughout the study area on a year-round basis. They range from passive activities such as wildlife viewing and photography to active recreation such as fishing, hunting, rock/ice climbing, hiking, mountain biking, rafting, kayaking, dog mushing, skiing, boating, etc. Commercial recreation plays a large part in this arena as well, with guides, outfitters, and air/water taxiing services catering to tourists and residents alike. These diverse opportunities attract visitors from around the world. The scenery of the region combined with easy access and proximity to Alaska’s major population center makes the study area one of the most visited in the state. The agencies and the public are concemed about the presence of a transmission line in or near recreational areas (e.g., trails, national scenic byways, special recreation management areas, parks) and the impacts on the quality of a recreation or wilderness experience and the effects on tourism. ISSUE 5 - PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT PLANS A broad range of public lands are within the study area. Federal, state, borough, and municipal lands dominate the area in comparison to the concentrations of private lands. Each of these entities has a management plan that directs administration of resources within each jurisdiction. This issue focuses on compliance with the existing management plans. A\SCP-REPT.WPD 13 The Forest Service has expressed concern about effects of the Project on the Seward Highway National Scenic Byway, candidate wild, scenic and recreational rivers, and roadless areas on the Chugach National Forest. The FWS has expressed concerns regarding the compatibility of the Project with the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Kenai NWR, effects on wildlife, and increased access to remote areas. The need to prepare an application for right-of-way across Kenai NWR lands under Title XI of ANILCA has been identified. A determination as to whether there are any economically feasible and prudent alternatives to routing within this conservation unit would need to be made prior to any approval for a right-of-way across. State agencies such as the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, and Department of Fish & Game have identified concerns about effects on the aesthetic values, recreation use, wildlife habitat, clearing of additional right-of-way, and conflicts with proposed developments on public lands. ISSUE 6 - WATERSHED MANAGEMENTISOIL EROSION The Kenai River and its tributaries drain a large portion of the northern Kenai Peninsula. Other major drainages in the study area include the Swanson River, Sixmile Creek, and Quartz Creek drainages. This issue focuses on water quality protection as it applies to construction activities of the Project. Types of potential construction-related impacts include vegetation clearing, potential soil erosion on slopes, and potential siltation of streams. ISSUE 7 - VISUAL RESOURCES This region of Alaska is nationally and internationally known for its significant aesthetic values. All of the public lands in the study area are administered to maintain some level of visual resources and aesthetics values. The various federal, state, and local agencies advocate protection and enhancement of visual resources as part of their management plans, and maintenance of visual resources in the study area. Comments emphasize preservation of the landscape character and panoramic view sheds from residences, travel routes, vistas, recreation sites, trails, rivers, lakes, and use areas found throughout the study area. Areas of particular concern include panoramic views within Anchorage, Chugach State Park, state recreation areas, Seward Highway across Turnagain Arm and the Cook Inlet, Sixmile Creek, Cooper Landing, recreation within the Chugach National Forest, the Kenai River, Kenai NWR recreation lands, and private lakes with residential use on the Kenai Peninsula. ISSUE 8 - BIOLOGY The region encompassing the Kenai Peninsula, Turnagain Arm, and Chugach Mountains is known nationally for its diversity and abundance of animal species. Public lands in the study area are mandated to manage for these fish and wildlife populations. This issue centers on the effects the Project would have on wildlife habitat, the presence of sensitive species, and vegetation clearing. Concern has been expressed by the public and agencies about constructing a transmission line through sensitive habitats and ground disturbing activities that could impact vegetation or habitat and disrupt wildlife behavior. Increased access AASCP-REPT.WPD 14 to remote areas and the resulting effect on wildlife populations (i.e., brown, grizzly bear) also has been questioned. This issue also identifies comments about construction and maintenance of the Project on wetland environments and aquatic habitats. Concern about additional vegetative clearing adjacent to or crossing through these areas has been expressed, along with maintaining compliance with coastal management plans for the region. Increased siltation of streams, anadramous fish streams in particular, is also a concern of the agencies and public. Comments about migratory birds and raptors (i.e.,trumpeter swans and bald eagles) focus on bird strikes, electrocution, impacts to nesting sites, impacts to estuary habitat of migratory shorebirds and waterfowl, and the proximity and effect of the Project to raptors. ISSUE 9 - CULTURAL RESOURCES The cultural resource inventory and analysis of prehistoric and historic sites, buildings, structures, districts, trails, and objects have been based on the previous surveys conducted in the study region as well as along the alternative routes. The probability of cultural resources occurring along the alternative routes is variable from high to low, based on predictive modeling. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires that the possible effects of federal undertakings on properties included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places be considered. The Kenai Natives Association has expressed concern for impacts on resources of Native interest and aesthetic value. ISSUE 10 - AVALANCHE HAZARDS The existing Quartz Creek 115kV transmission line is exposed to potential avalanche hazard in several locations between the University and Quartz Creek substations. Studies by the Alaska Mountain Safety Center (1991) show that 88 structures and 117 spans along the line are exposed to some degree of potential hazard from destructive avalanches. Historic records indicate that during an 18-year period from 1971 to 1988 the line was hit and severely damaged by avalanches on 11 occasions at six different areas, for an average of once every 1.6 years or more frequently. The largest period of time without interruption was eight years while the least was less than one year. From 1988-1989, CEA implemented mitigation to reduce the overall risk of exposure to avalanche damage; however, the remaining hazard is still rated as moderate. A moderate risk means that one to four large, potentially destructive avalanches may reach an individual structure or span during a 50-year period. As a result, the potential for avalanche damage to structures and the associated loss of service will be an ongoing issue regarding the reliability of the existing line between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. AASCP-REPT. WPD 15 ISSUE 11 - RIGHT-OF-WAY LIMITATIONS Engineering constraints, construction and maintenance activities, and transmission line siting criteria are elements of this issue. Comments have focused on siting feasibility in certain locations, and right-of-way requirements during construction and operation. ISSUE 12 - MARINE AND COASTAL ENVIRONMENTS The Turnagain Arm and Coastal Wetlands between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage present both technical and environmental constraints to the Project. Submarine cables will be required across the Turnagain Arm where extreme currents can create conditions that cause cable failure unless cables can be imbedded in the mud flats. Trenches, gravel, and boulders along the floor between Point Possession and Fire Island limit the potential to embed submarine cables, increasing the risk of failure. The Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Chickaloon Flats portion of the Kenai NWR managed by the FWS are both sensitive coastal wetlands with protective management plans. Submarine cables crossing these areas will be subject to the permitting requirements of both agencies. GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT OF ISSUES The applicability and importance of the issues identified varies by region within the project study area, as shown in Table 1. Issues related to purpose and need, and right-of-way limitations and restrictions are applicable to each project region. The following paragraphs highlight some of the key environmental issues within each region. In Anchorage, the key issues reflect the urban setting and the Municipality’s orientation towards recreation, tourism, and visual quality. Input from the Anchorage CWG and the Municipal Planning Department has emphasized the importance of visual quality to communities throughout the Municipality. The Chugach Mountain Region including Chugach State Park and Chugach National Forest is associated with a wide range of issues, including rural land use, recreation, tourism, public land management, watershed management, visual, biology, cultural resources, and avalanche hazard. For example, views from the Seward Highway, a National Scenic Byway, Forest recreation areas, and Cooper Landing have been identified by the agencies and the Kenai Peninsula CWG. Crossing Kenai Lake and the associated visual and possible watershed impacts have also been identified as key issues. The avalanche hazards associated with Chugach Mountains is a fundamental issue related to the purpose and need for the Project. Submarine cables crossing the Turnagain Arm encounter both environmental and engineering constraints within the marine environment. The environmental sensitivity of the coastal wetlands associated with the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge and Chickaloon Flats have been identified as a key issue. Engineering issues include risk of failure and potential for embedment due to ocean currents and boulders, gravel, and trenches on the ocean floor. AASCP-REPT.WPD 16 The key issues for the Kenai Lowlands are urban and rural land use, recreation and tourism, public land management, watershed management, visual resources, and biological resources. For example, existing and planned development in the Nikiski and Soldotna areas, recreation along the Kenai River, wildlife management in the Kenai NWR, and views of the Alaska Range across Cook Inlet represent the broad range of public concerns. The geographic context of the issues will provide a format for evaluating the affects of alternatives on a regional basis. AASCP-REPT.WPD 17 SyUIUTUOTAUT [2JSVOD pue suey spiezey oyoueyeay sadanosay [eBny[ND sadinosay [eIIs0jorg sad1nosay [ENstA quawaseuey] poysiaze A | quowaseueyy pue’y oqng UISLINO] /UO}RI.1I9Y woneAy asp puey [eany pue ueqin suons1ysay pue suoneyury Aem-jo-7YysRy pean pur asod.ing 5 S m es oD s & ° s Y & < ©9800 0000'0 @ Chugach Mountains Turnagain Arm © 00901000 0'8 0 Kenai Lowlands @ Key issue in region O Identi fied issue in region APPLICABILITY OF ISSUES TO PROJECT REGIONS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT EIS Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Table 1 Dames & Moore CHAPTER 3 - AGENCY, COMMUNITY, AND SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP PARTICIPATION An ongoing agency and public involvement program has been conducted in order to identify and respond to specific issues of concern by public agencies and communities in the project area. A summary of letters received from agencies, communities, and special interest groups provided in Table 2 illustrates the broad range of issues addressed during scoping. As a part of the public participation program two CWGs were assembled, one on the Kenai Peninsula and the other in Anchorage, to address project issues. The CWG provides an opportunity to incorporate local and community concerns into the EIS planning process. A summary of the issues raised by the CWG is provided in the following section. COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP The 24-member CWG consists of residents, property owners, realtors, municipal and borough government, special interest groups, representatives from community councils, area school districts, and Native American groups (Table 3). Throughout the planning process the CWG has reviewed information presented in group meetings. The CWG’s knowledge of localized issues and concerns has been critical in identifying alternatives to be evaluated for detailed environmental studies. To date the group has met four times and received detailed presentations on purpose and need, project description, siting criteria, baseline inventory studies, the planning approach for impact assessment process and mitigation measures, and the alternative route screening process. An overview of material and topics covered in the four meetings is provided below. Topics at the first CWG meeting in January 1997 included introductions; EIS approach and preparation tasks; federal agency roles and decision process; and purpose and need for the Project. Each CWG member was given a project notebook with background information and materials about the Project. A\SCP-REPT.WPD 19 Right-of-way Limitations and Restrictions Urban and Rural Land Use Aviation Recreation/Tourism Environmental Issues SCOPING ISSUES Public Land Management Watershed Management Visual Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources Avalanche Hazards Marine and Coastal Environments SUMMARY OF COMMENTS SN Avoid Ft. Richardson along Quartz Creek transmission line. Army strongly objects. Environmental Protection Agency Clearly defined purpose and need essential in developing a range of alternatives. Strongly recommend the use of existing transmission line and pipeline corridors. Federal Aviation Administration Fire Island - VORTAC facility interference concern. Coast Guard Department of Fish and Game No formal comments or recommendations. Use existing corridors - Pt. Campbell/Pt. Woronzof possibilities. Other landings would not be authorized across the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. DNR - Division of Parks Division of Parks would not support 2 conversion of use under Land Water Conservation Fund Act. Incompatible with purposes of the Chugach State Park. Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Awaiting revised comment. DNR - Division of Land ‘Concerned with scenic and recreation resources on state lands. Municipality of Anchorage ty (subject to local ordinances). Compliance/compatibility with Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan is required. Kenai Peninsula Borough Alaska Center for the Environment No formal comments. Consideration of other alternatives, economic, biological, recreation, scenic impacts. Oceanview/Old Seward Community Council Not convinced of purpose and need; concerned about safety, aesthetics, airplane interference, earthquakes, EMF, and effects on tourism. Kenai Watershed Forum Consideration of other alternatives; construction techniques, biological impacts. Friends of Cooper Landing Effects to scenic resources, avalanche hazards, Purpose and need requirements, land use conflicts. Cooper Landing Game and Fish Advisory Committee Effects of construction and right-of-way requirements on watersheds and biological resources in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Wilderness Society Impacts to wildlife, recreation, visual resources, purpose and need justification. a 3 2 £ ° Z 3 5 3 = 4 3 3 2 a Q 2 3 3 & & 38 o Pt. Possession, Inc. near allotment and corporate land. Flying Crown Homeowners Association Dames & Moore ‘Question purpose and need, airspace interference. SUMMARY OF LETTERS RECEIVED FROM AGENCIES, COMMUNITIES, AND SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT EIS Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Table 2 TABLE 3 CWG REPRESENTATION Kenai CWG Anchorage CWG Kenai Peninsula Borough Municipality of Anchorage, Community Planning & Development Kenai Natives Association Municipality of Anchorage, Division of Parks and Recreation Salamatof Native Association Anchorage area residents Kenaitze Indian Tribe Anchorage School District Kenai School District Abbott Loop Community Council Soldotna Chamber of Commerce Bayshore/Klatt Community Council Friends of Cooper Landing Girdwood Supervisory Board Alaska Association of Realtors Hillside Area Land Owners Old Seward/Oceanview Community Council Rabbit Creek Community Council Taku/Campbell Community Council Turnagain Community Council Alaska Center for the Environment Chugach State Park Advisory Board Alaska Association of Realtors Topics at the second meeting in March 1997 included additional descriptions of the purpose and need, Project facilities as well as the impact assessment process. CWG members were asked for input on transmission line siting criteria and to identify any specific land use or visual concerns with the alternative corridors. Sensitivity criteria as it dealt with resource values, protective status, present/future uses, and hazards were all discussed as part of the siting criteria. Topics at the third meeting in April 1997 included an update on baseline studies and issues to be addressed in the EIS and the impact assessment approach and findings. Types of impact and significance of impact were discussed and sensitivity criteria changes based on CWG comments were reviewed for land use, visual, and biological resources. A list of alternative routes for analysis was provided along with the opportunity to record comments about each route segment. A slide show briefly reviewed the alternative routes and Dames & Moore resource personnel and CWG members discussed the land use, visual, and biological concerns of each route. The fourth CWG meeting in July 1997 provided an update on Project status and identified that RUS, FWS, and Forest Service had signed the MOU. It was noted that Dames & Moore and POWER Engineers would be preparing the Applicant’s EVAL and that a third-party contractor would assist RUS in preparing the EIS. The alternative routes screening process and criteria were reviewed and a detailed description of routes to be eliminated from further analysis was covered. A presentation on the types of facilities for the Project was provided and included tower designs, necessary substation modifications, and transition station descriptions. The opportunity for commenting on routes to be eliminated was provided. Issues and concems raised during the four meetings have been recorded and will be addressed in the EIS. Table 4 lists the issues from each meeting. AASCP-REPT.WPD 21 TABLE 4 ISSUES RAISED BY CWG MEMBERS AASCP-REPT.WPD 22 Meeting Topics Kenai CWG Anchorage CWG Meeting #1 - Purpose and need, = effects on archaeological sites ™ ~~ questioned purpose and need project description = can existing line be utilized = influences on utility rates = needs in the future = reliability of lines = reliability questions ™ generation options = alternative technologies = costs and efficiency available = costs and efficiency Meeting #2 - Purpose and need, = cost of power to Railbelt = project description, facilities impact assessment process, consumers = impacts to wetlands sensitivity criteria = residential conflicts = impacts to waterfowl = right-of-way requirements = resource sensitivity = electric and magnetic field effects Meeting #3 - Assessment process, =~ watershed impacts = right-of-way requirements types and significance of impacts, = right-of-way requirements = impacts to scenic views alternative routes =~ effects on fire management = overhead vs. underground lines plans = erosion potential = property values =~ compatibility with management = impacts to fisheries plans = impacts to future land uses = cumulative impacts = engineering and reliability of line through avalanche zones = impacts to scenic highway = impacts to conveyed Native lands Meeting # 4 - Alternative route = public input for EIS = = qualifications of third-party screening process =~ qualifications of third-party contractor contractor = right-of-way requirements = access and mitigation = vegetation removal = right-of-way requirements =~ federal decision process CHAPTER 4 - ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR SCREENING The purpose of the scoping process is to ensure that issues are identified and that alternatives to be addressed in the EIS are responsive to both the purpose and need and scoping comments. Alternatives to be addressed in the EIS include no action, alternative technology, efficient energy usage, generation options, and the proposed action (Southern Intertie). Much of the focus on alternatives during scoping has been on reviewing project alternatives including transmission line corridor locations. This chapter presents the results of the alternative corridor screening process. The alternative screening process began by defining alternative routes within a regional study area, as shown on Figure 6. This process led to refinement of certain data, additional analysis, and identification of alternative routes. ROUTE SELECTION STUDY Existing linear corridors are often used as alternative locations for transmission lines, and as a result corridors of existing high-voltage transmission lines, pipelines, railroads, and roadways in the Southern Intertie Project study area were identified. In some locations new corridors were conceptually delineated to connect existing corridors or to avoid a potentially sensitive area. About 405 miles of alternative study corridors were identified during the regional study. The study relied heavily on information resulting from previous studies in the region. Federal land management plans supplemented the studies. For purposes of this study several environmental resource disciplines were evaluated—land use, recreation, visual, biology, soils, and cultural resources. Evaluation of these resources provided (1) critical information needs to identify opportunities and constraints to routing a transmission Jine and (2) parameters for more detailed studies at later stages of transmission line siting. Data gathered for the alternative study corridors were mapped and analyzed to determine resource sensitivity. The sensitivity of a resource is defined as a measure of the probable adverse response of each resource to direct and indirect impacts associated with construction, operation, and maintenance of a 230kV transmission line. Criteria considered in the sensitivity analysis included the value of the resource, protected status, and present and future use. The study resulted in the identification of feasible alternative study corridors for further consideration and indicated areas of potential environmental concern. The feasibility study provided a substantial knowledge of the environment of the region and of the issues that would arise during later environmental investigations. The results of the study were documented in the Southern Intertie Project Route Selection Study Phase 1- Environmental Section Report (June 1996). The results of the regional environmental feasibility study and scoping served as the basis to develop a work plan, which provides the approach and schedule to accomplish the environmental studies and prepare the EVAL/EIS. The progression from the initial study area to the EIS study area is shown on Figure 6. A\SCP-REPT.WPD 23 Initial ——= Regional 7. Beluga Route ie Selection / oF Study Area Kenai National Wildlife Refuge ##® Pipeline == Existing Transmission Line A Substations Note: Not to Seale Substations: 1-BemiceLake 2 - Soldotna 3-Point Woronzof 4 International _—_‘5 - University Regional Route Selection Study Area and Alternative Study Corridors Kenai National Wildlife Refuge see Alternative Transmission Line Corridors 1 Submarine Lines A Substations Note: Not 1 Scale Substations: 1-BerniceLake 2 - Soldotna 3-Point Woronzof 4- International _5 - University, APA, or Power Plant #2 EIS Study Area Kenai National Wildlife Refuge National Altemative “© Transmission Line Corridors Ut) Submarine Lines a Substations Note: Not to Scale Substations: 1-BemiceLake 2 - Soldotna 3 - Point Woronzof 4 - International Figure 6 SCREENING As aresult of agency review and comments received from scoping, several segments of alternative routes were eliminated and others added after each alternative had been reviewed for environmental issues, public acceptability, and/or engineering limitations. This section addresses the reasons that alternatives were eliminated or added as a result of scoping and agency review. Table 5 illustrates the issues that contributed to the screening of several alternative route segments. The locations of these alternative routes are shown in Figure 7. Alternative Route Segments Added as a Result of Scoping and Agency Review Anchorage Routes to International Substation Old Seward Highway Corridor - Links 12.4, 12.7, 12.8, 15.6, 15.7, 16.1,16.2 This alternative would parallel the Old Seward Highway from the Rabbit Creek Interchange to International Airport Road, with connector routes along 120th Avenue and Diamond Boulevard. This alternative was added because of siting constraints identified by Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for the New Seward Highway. Alternative Route Segments Eliminated as a Result of Scoping and Agency Review Tesoro Route Tesoro Pipeline to Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA) - Links T1.5, T1.6, T1.7, T1.8,TL9 This alternative route parallels the Tesoro Pipeline from Nikiski to Captain Cook SRA. This corridor contains approximately four underground pipelines, telephone, buried cable, and overhead distribution lines, which would mean potential construction and right-of-way conflicts. Potentially significant impacts on viewers from concentrated residential development, land values issues, and aviation safety, led to the CWG recommendation that this alternative be dropped from further consideration. New Route Around Captain Cook SRA - Links T2.2,T2.3 This alternative did not parallel any existing linear features as it bypassed the Captain Cook SRA by crossing into the Kenai NWR. The management policy of this part of the refuge is designated Moderate Management. This category manages areas easily accessible to the public and manipulates a significant amount of habitat to benefit populations of selected species. Although some natural processes are altered, habitat management is designed to maintain natural landscapes (Kenai NWR CCP, 1985). The FWS expressed concern about establishing a new corridor in this area and the potentially significant visual impacts it could have on the Stormy Lake Beach area. The combined effect of management policy, potential visual impacts, potential biological impacts to trumpeter swan nesting sites, and right-of-way limitations throughout the Kenai NWR, resulted in FWS’s recommendation for elimination of the alternative from further consideration. A\SCP-REPT.WPD 25 SCOPING ISSUES/SCREENING CRITERIA mmental Issu 9 Key Issue O Identified Issue ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED Tesoro Pipeline to Captain Cook SRA Public Land Management Right-of-way Limitations and Restrictions Recreation/Tourism Watershed Management Biological Resources Cultural Resources Avalanche Hazards Coastal Environments Visual Resources Rural Land Use Urban and Aviation Marine and Links T1.5, T1.6, T1.7, T1.8, T1.9 New Route around Captain Cook SRA Links T2.2, T2.3 Tesoro Route Tesoro Pipeline — Point Link T3.3 Possession Village | | ft a neeat a tiee Links Q1.1, Q2.1, Q2.2, Q3.1, Q4.1, Q5.1, Q6.1, Q7.1, Q8.1, Quartz Creek Route Q9.1, Q10.1, Q11.1, Q12.1, Q13.1, Q14.1, U1.1, APA1.1, AML&P1.1 Quartz Creek Links H1.1, M6.1, M6.2, M6.3, — i il i Six Mile Creek/Bird Point tied to Quartz Creek Route Crossing Potter to Rabbit Creek Links MS.2, 11.1, 11.5, 11.2, Interchange 11.3, 11.4 New Seward Highway Links 12.1, 12.2, 14.1, 14.2, (north of Rabbit Creek) S31, 15-2) Alaska Railroad — Links 12.3 - from Rabbit Creek Oceanview Bluff Interchange to Oceanview Park Anchorage Routes to g S 3 $ 2 a 3 a s a s 3 3 s he 2 & 4 SCREENING PROCESS - ALTERNATIVES RECOMMENDED FOR ELIMINATION SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT EIS Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Dames & Moore Table 5 TRN TION T8N T6N T4N Alternative Routes Recommended For Elimination Southern Intertie Project Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Resource Legend State Park [) Kenai National Wildlife Refuge GD Chugach National Forest (1 Private, Borough, or State Selected Lands -« Route Eliminated Q] 1isk Number of Route Htiminated Source Data / Description: ae of Anchorage (1994). Chu; National Forest (1995). Kenai Peninsula B: (1994). USGS 1:63,360 and 1:25,000 Quads. —_ (_] Lakes/iniet fe Flatchea an enters on cefercace ecaterne J owes « moore BE cams cx cay, we am the ake of the pareiinied fowture. (atconteiplecopoentt-SMckSrocercie seal £8203 000000/Fuy 21, 1997/ Figure 7 Tesoro Pipeline - Point Possession Village - Link T3.3 This alternative would diverge from paralleling the Tesoro Pipeline and transition to a submarine cable heading to Fire Island. This route would pass through an identified historical and cultural site of the Point Possession Group. As a result of potentially significant cultural resource impacts, this route was recommended to be eliminated from further study. Anchorage Routes to International Substation Routes that were eliminated in the Anchorage area are detailed on Figure 8, and routes that remain for analysis are detailed on Figure 9. Potter to Rabbit Creek Interchange - Links MS.2, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5 These alternatives would parallel the Old Seward Highway from the Potter Section House to Rabbit Creek Interchange or parallel the New Seward Highway and Alaska Railroad from the same end points. Potentially significant impacts on visual resources and biological resources were identified along this route in addition to right-of-way limitations. Potential visual impacts would result from extensive residential development in the Rabbit Creek/Hillside area. Biological concerns centered around Potter Marsh and its associated waterfowl nesting and staging areas. Right-of-way limitations are encountered when paralleling the roads or the railroad as a result of engineering constraints. New Seward Highway - Links 12.1, 12.2, 14.1,14.2 This alternative would parallel the New Seward Highway from Rabbit Creek Interchange to International Airport Road. Siting constraints were identified by Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, along with constraints for construction and maintenance activities. As a result of right-of-way limitations this alternative was recommended for elimination. Alaska Railroad/Ocean View Bluff - Link 12.3 This alternative would parallel the Alaska Railroad from Rabbit Creek Interchange to Ocean View Park. Representatives of the Alaska Railroad identified slope failure potential and erosion constraints of this area. In addition, right-of-way limitations as a result of adjacent residential development were identified. The combined effect of these constraints resulted in elimination of the alternative from further consideration. Quartz Creek Route The Quartz Creek Route alternative was identified and studied as a potential routing opportunity for the Project because it would follow an existing transmission line corridor. The Quartz Creek Route alternative would involve siting the proposed Project in a right-of-way adjacent to the existing 115kV transmission line right-of-way. The parallel right-of-way would extend from one of three endpoints in the Anchorage area—University Substation, APA Substation, or AML&P Plant No.2 Substation—to the Soldotna Substation on the Kenai Peninsula. AASCP-REPT.WPD 28 ~AML&P , Substation Legend = — Route Eliminated (a) Link Number of Route Eliminated General Reference Features /‘/ Pipeline Oil Platform Transmission Line Lakes/inlet Railroad Alternative Route Study Area Boundary Link Number | Anchorage Area Existing ( Alternative Routes Recommended For Elimination Figure 8 Southern Intertie Project : / Proposed Anchorage To Kenai Peninsula Transmission Project Rivers and Streams MalconVsip/scope-rpt6-97/old_an_cor_elim.am! International Substation | General Reference Features /\/ Pipeline Oil Platform // Transmission Line Lakes/Inlet AY Railroad Corridor Study Area Boundary Alternative Route Anchorage Area Current Alternative Siting Area Sabstanone Routes : ; Rivers and Streams Link Number Transition Facility Existin Figure 9 DAMES & MOORE Southern Intertie Project pater oairte ! Proposed Anchorage To Kenai August 14, 1997 a ciation Peninsula Transmission Project (| There have been numerous comments on the Quartz Creek Route alternative from federal, state, and local agencies and the public through the scoping process, extensive inventory studies, and legal review. At this time, the Quartz Creek Route alternative does not meet the purpose and need for the Project and is recommended for elimination from further study in the EIS. The following discussions highlight the key issues leading to the recommendation to eliminate the Quartz Creek Route alternative from further study, including reliability/purpose and need and land rights constraints. Reliability/Purpose and Need The primary reasons for constructing the Project is to increase the reliability and electric transfer capability of the Railbelt electrical system by establishing a second tie between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula which would be independent of the existing Quartz Creek transmission line. Reliability of the electric power supply to Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula is compromised because the Quartz Creek line is vulnerable to weather and avalanche-caused outages. Constructing a second, parallel line along the Quartz Creek line right-of-way would make both lines vulnerable to the same weather and avalanche-caused outages. The existing Quartz Creek 115kV transmission line is exposed to potential avalanche hazard in several locations between the University and Quartz Creek substations. Studies by the Alaska Mountain Safety Center (1991) show that 88 structures and 117 spans along the line are exposed to some degree of potential hazard from destructive avalanches. Extended outages to the existing line have occurred because of avalanches in the Bird Flats area, between Girdwood and Portage as well as in the Summit Lake area. Historic records indicate that during an 18-year period from 1971 to 1988 the line was hit and severely damaged by avalanches on 11 occasions at six different areas, for an average of once every 1.6 years or more frequently. The largest period of time without interruption was eight years while the least was less than one year. From 1988 to 1989, CEA implemented mitigation to reduce the overall risk of exposure to avalanche damage, including tower relocations and diversion structures; however, the remaining hazard is still rated as moderate. A moderate risk means that one to four large, potentially destructive avalanches may reach an individual structure or span during a 50-year period. Since the Quartz Creek line is the only transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl, the loss of the line has a severe impact on the electrical systems on both the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl, causing outages for consumers in both areas. A second parallel line would be subject to the same potential for outages as the existing line, and would only marginally increase the reliability of the system. Thus, the Project would not meet the purpose and need for the Project in terms of significantly increasing the reliability of the system. In terms of increased energy transfer, a second parallel line would increase the transfer capacity of the system between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. However, with the second line parallel to the existing line and subject to the same outage events as the existing line, an avalanche or similar event could remove both lines from service. Consequently, the new parallel line would be subject to the same single contingency outage events as the existing line, and would not reliably provide increased energy transfers during a significant outage event on the existing line. Conversion of Chugach State Park Lands A\SCP-REPT. WPD 31 The existing 115kV transmission line crosses 23.8 miles of Chugach State Park, traversing Powerline Pass to Indian, and then generally paralleling the Seward Highway National Scenic Byway to Girdwood. The Quartz Creek Route alternative would parallel this existing line. In 1973, Chugach State Park applied for funding assistance from the National Park Service under the LWCFA. The funds were to be used for certain acquisitions within the park to support outdoor recreation activities. Accompanying the federal funds assistance is legal protection which states that grant-assisted areas are to remain forever available for public outdoor recreation use or be replaced by lands of equal market value and recreation usefulness. Section 6(f)(3) protection states: No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the Secretary [of the Interior], be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses. The Secretary shall approve such conversion only if he finds it to be in accord with the then existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan and only upon such conditions as he deems necessary to assure the substitution of other recreation properties of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location. The entire park was placed under this legal protection, and Alaska Department of Natural Resources- Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation staff have indicated that they perceive an additional overhead transmission line as a conversion of use. The existing 115kV line predates the park and funds assistance. Division of Parks staff have indicated that they would not support a request for conversion to the National Park Service for conveyance of additional right-of-way for a second overhead line. Undergrounding the transmission line through Chugach State Park would require 18.8 miles of underground cable. The length of the route through the park is 23.8 miles, and approximately 5 miles of the line would be constructed as a double circuit on the existing steel lattice tower section west of Girdwood, which is the only practical alternative for that section. The additional cost of undergrounding (excess cost of underground minus overhead cost) would be on the order of $22 million. By using the alternative route along Sixmile Creek the distance through Chugach State Park is approximately 15.3 miles resulting in an additional $19 million for undergrounding and associated reactor/transition stations. A double circuit configuration of the existing facilities would be another alternative, which would not require additional right-of-way, but is viewed by the Division of Parks as a significant change in the visual aesthetics of the property. Division of Parks therefore would not support a request for conversion to the National Park Service for a double circuit line. Conversion of the existing line would require an amendment to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license, under which this line was originally constructed. With the known opposition of the underlying landowner (Division of Parks), it is very unlikely that such an amendment would be approved. It should be noted that any plans for double circuit construction of existing lines have generally been avoided for the Project, because of the need for increased reliability of the Railbelt System. If both circuits occupy the same transmission structure, the resulting line would not enhance the single contingency performance of the electrical system for a structure failure. AASCP-REPT.WPD 32 CHAPTER 5 - TECHNICAL STUDIES IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES Technical studies will be performed during the environmental analysis and documented in the EIS in response to the issues and concerns raised during the scoping process. This will include the following activities: ™ preparation of a 1:25,000 scale base map used for data collection and field verification ™ acquisition and interpretation of aerial photography (May 1996) flown at scales of 1" = 500 for Anchorage and Soldotna urban area routes, and 1" = 2083' (to align with 1:25,000 scale quads) for the rest of the study area = development of a digital geographic information system (GIS) database Materials referenced for development of the environmental baseline and analysis are included in Appendix D. The data include primary and secondary information available from federal, state, and local agencies; other studies; and previous studies conducted for the Southern Intertie Project. Acquisition of primary data is described in the technical studies section for each resource category. PURPOSE AND NEED The following purposes and needs must be met when identifying and evaluating the range of reasonable alternatives that will accomplish the project objectives. The proposed Southern Intertie Project will: = improve the electrical transfer capability of the transmission system between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area to more economically use existing generation resources, reduce electrical system instability, and reduce system load shedding requirements in case of system disturbance ™ increase reliability of the power supply to customers on the Kenai Peninsula and in the Anchorage area by providing a second path for the power during an interruption on the existing Quartz Creek Line The feasibility of construction and operation of a second transmission line intertie between the Anchorage area and the Kenai Peninsula has been studied for many years. These current and past studies have addressed both the reliability and electrical transfer requirements of the purpose and need for the Project, as well as other benefits that will accrue from the Project. The benefits of construction and operation of the Southern Intertie Project can be categorized into the following areas: Primary Benefits Increased Energy Transfer and Generation Coordination Increased System Reliability AASCP-REPT.WPD 33 Additional Benefits Capacity Sharing Operation and Maintenance Cost Reductions Operating Reserve Sharing (spinning reserves) Each alternative will be evaluated based on the ability of an alternative to meet the stated purpose and need for the Project, and to provide the benefits listed above. Current and past studies to be conducted, reviewed, and/or updated as appropriate include: benefit analysis to determine the benefits of the Project reliability analysis to evaluate the need for reliability enhancements in the railbelt electrical system electrical system studies to evaluate system performance cost estimates to determine the cost of permitting, right-of-way acquisition, design, construction, and operation of the facility ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION Alternativ: nsi In compliance with NEPA and as a result of the comments received during the scoping process, along with the results of the feasibility studies, the following alternatives have been identified and will be evaluated and reported upon in the EIS: No Action Proposed Action - a second transmission line (Figure 10) Other Technologies - battery energy storage systems Efficient Energy Usage - demand side management - energy conservation Generation Options - new generation - wind generation - fuel cells - increasing operating margins (spinning reserves) Each alternative will be described and an assessment will be made as to an alternatives’ ability to meet the stated purpose and need for the Project. AASCP-REPT.WPD 34 TaN Ten TaN. Peninsula Transmission Line Current Alternative Routes Southern Intertie Project Proposed Anchorage to Kenai | ‘Legend ‘State Pack Kenai National Wildlife Refuge ‘Chugach National Forest Private, Borough, or Stato Selected Lands New Routes eUEO0 Source Data / Description: Sa A ie of Anchorage (1994). ces National Forest Van USGS 1:63,360 and 1:25,000 Quads. /N/ inveatory Corridor Section Grid /\N/ Altemative Route @ Link Number Code sTelalelate A Eg | aaa AV Pipeline aaa” /’/ Transmission Line /\? Study Area Boundary ‘ OV Rivers and Streams A Oil Platform, oo , omm C3) Lakesalet Hatches and aumbers on reference ceaterline BB owes moon are on the side of the paralleled feature. MaicenLhiphcope qt6-97/caridccs.anil $203000002/Paly 21, 1997/ Figure 10 Description of the Project The project location and components will be described and illustrated to provide a detailed description of the Project and how it would be designed, constructed, and operated. Elements of this description will include: = adescription and illustrations of the transmission towers proposed in various project areas, along with descriptions of other facilities such as substations and overhead to submarine or underground cable transition stations ™ typical construction techniques and impacts for substations, overhead lines, underground lines, and submarine cables m the need for special design or construction techniques such as helicopter construction or for wetland or avalanche areas, and a description of those techniques = proposed right-of-way widths in urban and rural areas = land uses permitted within the right-of-way = access for construction and for ongoing operation and maintenance of the Project = electrical effects from the transmission line Financial Considerations The impacts to kilowatt-hour (kWh) rates will be assessed using the cost and benefit data resulting from the studies. The Project is being proposed by seven of the railbelt utilities (the IPG), all having differing rate structures. The cost of end use kWh rates for each of the utilities is based on many factors which vary from utility to utility, and to provide an overall project assessment of rate impacts the cost and benefit impacts of the Project on kWh rates will be calculated based on the overall system sales of kWh. As noted above, cost estimates will be prepared for the permitting, design, construction, and operation of the Project. In order to provide a financial perspective of the Project, these cost estimates will be used along with the analysis and valuation of benefits to evaluate the costs and benefits of the Project. LAND USE General The categories to be inventoried for existing and planned land use include residential, commercial, industrial, public/quasi-public, air facilities, military, agriculture, timber, utilities, communication facilities, and transportation routes. Planned land use categories include the same categories as existing land uses with the addition of two categories—proposed-final approval and proposed-concept stage. The land use inventory will be based primarily on secondary data from the Municipality of Anchorage, Kenai Peninsula A\SCP-REPT.WPD 36 Borough, and Chugach National Forest, in conjunction with field verification. Information for the data categories will be synthesized onto maps depicting jurisdiction and ownership, and existing and future land uses. Land uses will be inventoried and impacts will be assessed within a four-mile-wide study corridor with the exception of air space interference areas. Field Studi A corridor one-half-mile wide, one-quarter-mile either side of the assumed centerline, will be field verified to determine accurate recordings for rural areas. A corridor one-quarter-mile wide, one-eighth-mile either side of the assumed centerline will be field verified in urban areas. Field studies will include ground truthing in conjunction with overflights by helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft and data will be recorded on U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles for input into GIS. RECREATION RESOURCES General Inventory and assessment of the recreation resources and facilities will be confined to a four-mile-wide corridor (two miles either side). Aerial photo interpretation will occur for this width in addition to secondary data gathering. The categories to be inventoried for recreation resources include: = = municipal/city park = canoe trail/route = golf course/greenbelt ™ picnic area = interpretive site m rest area ™ scenic viewpoint = proposed facilities = campground = federal and state recreation management areas, = cabin including wilderness and roadless areas = trail head = eligible wild and scenic rivers = boat launch = scenic highways/byways = recreation trail The recreation inventory will be based primarily on secondary data in conjunction with field verification. Field Studies The inventory of recreation resources will be refined by conducting ground and aerial field reconnaissance in addition to aerial photo interpretation. A\SCP-REPT.WPD 37 VISUAL RESOURCES General The inventory and assessment will involve a comprehensive study of visual resource values and the influence of the proposed Southern Intertie Project along alternative corridors and the regional aesthetic landscape. The study will address the relevant regulatory policies and procedures on public lands, as well as concerns for landscape aesthetics and changes to scenery on native and private lands. This includes rural lands as well as the Municipality of Anchorage and local communities on the Kenai Peninsula. The inventory and assessment of visual resources for this Project will be based upon the Scenery Management System (USDA), Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook Number 701, August 1995). The Scenery Management System provides a systematic approach for determining the relative value and importance of scenery in any given landscape setting. The inventory and assessment will incorporate the following general factors: = data collection/issue identification/constituent analysis m landscape scenery/aesthetic values of the project setting (i.e., landscape character, scenic attractiveness, existing visual conditions, and Forest Service scenic integrity levels) = landscape visibility (i.e., viewsheds containing the proposed Project from travelways and use areas) ™ scenic classes (i.e., a measure of the relative value of discreet landscape units having similar characteristics of scenic attractiveness and landscape visibility) = visual contrast of the proposed project facilities (i.e., the degree to which the proposed Project will alter the existing visual conditions) = visual simulations (i.e., an accurate depiction of the project appearance) = visual impacts (i.e., the measure of probable adverse deviation from the desired condition) ™ mitigation (techniques applied to reduce visual contrast of the proposed Project) There are extensive current data for visual resources on the Chugach National Forest. These data will supplement the data gathered from the field reconnaissance to complete the inventory of visual resources within the alternative corridors on Forest Service lands. However, there are limited existing data for visual resources on all other public, private, and Native lands located within the alternative corridors. Therefore, we will rely largely on data gathered from field reconnaissance and supplement that with input from various agencies and the public to obtain a comprehensive inventory of visual resources on non Forest Service lands. Constituent analysis identifies the significance of visual resources in a particular landscape to various user groups. The significance can be expressed through attitudes, values, desires, and preferences. The user groups consist of people who are either residents or visiting the land. The significance of visual resources AASCP-REPT.WPD 38 and associated issues within the alternative study corridors will be determined by gathering data from public meetings, agency contacts, and field observation. Field Studies The initial inventory data will be refined by conducting ground and aerial field reconnaissance, aerial photography interpretation, and analysis of tourism information. Scenic attractiveness classifications will be established and mapped through field studies and aerial photo interpretation. In addition to this, field inventory forms will be prepared to document scenic attractiveness throughout the alternative corridors. CULTURAL RESOURCES AND NATIVE ISSUES General Cultural resources are protected by a variety of federal laws. Studies undertaken for the EIS will be coordinated with initiation of any procedures for complying with other applicable legislation, particularly the National Historic Preservation Act, Archaeological Resources Protection Act, American Religious Freedom Act, and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Regulations implementing the National Historic Preservation Act define the “area of potential effects” as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes, whether beneficial or adverse, to the character or use of historic properties” [36 CFR Part 800.2(c)]. For the proposed transmission line, the area of potential effects is likely to be confined to the right-of-way along most of the route, although visual intrusions to some types of resources may have to be considered at further distances. Some access roads and other ancillary facilities such as staging and work areas may require additional areas. For purposes of the EIS, existing information about special status archaeological and historical sites (such as National Historic Landmarks or properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and any traditional places identified will be compiled for four-mile-wide study corridors centered on the reference centerlines of each alternative route. Information about known non-special status archaeological and historical sites will be compiled for one-mile-wide study corridors. Many unrecorded cultural resources are also undoubtedly present within the study corridors. Because of expense and high potential for avoidance of mitigation of direct impacts, intensive on-the-ground inventory of all alternatives is not warranted. To comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, an intensive inventory will be conducted during post-EIS phases of project implementation within the specific areas of potential effect of the selected route. The scale of the Project is regional rather than just local. Therefore cumulative impacts will be assessed within the “region” defined by the outer perimeters of the alternative study corridors. 1. Complete inventory of known non-special status archaeological and historical sites within one- mile-wide study corridors centered on reference centerlines of the alternative routes by updating A\SCP-REPT.WPD 39 the inventory prepared for the regional study. Specifically identify sites that may be within the areas of potential effects (that is, within approximately 100 meters of the reference centerlines). 2. Update the regional study inventory to compile a complete list of special status cultural resources within four-mile-wide study corridors. [The Holy Assumption Church in Kenai is a designated National Historic Landmark, and the Iditarod Trail is a national historic trail. Other properties have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. ] 3. Update regional study literature review by incorporating prior relevant surveys such as the 1975 and 1978 inventories for the Tesoro and Alaska Pipeline Company pipelines. 4. Model archaeological and historical sensitivity zones within study corridors. This will involve (a) projection of the Chugach National Forest sensitivity model for the southern end of Kenai Lake and Snow River Valley to relevant parts of the study corridors, (b) use of geomorphology and biology project data as relevant, (c) consultation with local archaeological experts with experience within the study corridors, and (d) consultation with cultural resource personnel of the State Historic Preservation Office, Chugach National Forest, and FWS. 5. Monitor public and agency meetings for expressions of any concems regarding traditional cultural concerns. Coordinate with any contacts that are made with Native Alaskans for the analysis of potential impacts on subsistence practices and follow up as warranted on any non-subsistence traditional concerns that may be expressed. 6. Develop and implement a strategy for assessing direct and indirect impacts to facilitate comparison of project alternatives from the perspective of cultural resource issues. 7. Identify relevant past and projected projects and compile information for assessing cumulative impacts of the Project on cultural resources within the study region. Field Studies No field studies are anticipated for cultural resources and native issues. AASCP-REPT.WPD 40 SOCIOECONOMICS General The study area in terms of socioeconomic resources and issues is defined as the Kenai Peninsula Borough and the Municipality of Anchorage. This delineation is driven by the level of aggregation of statistical information on demographic, economic, and fiscal characteristics, which generally is compiled at the county/borough level. Data on municipal and community characteristics are compiled by local jurisdictions, but economic activity is usually not available from secondary sources below the county/borough level. An additional factor in delineating the study area at the borough level is the mobility of workers whose earnings and consumption spending affect all parts of the region. 1. Evaluate employment and income effects. Construction activities will create temporary increases in employment and income, both directly (through direct hiring and procurement of construction materials and supplies from local vendors) and secondarily (through recirculation of worker and business pending in the local and regional economy). Estimates of hiring and procurements will be requested from the project’s designer, and the data will be incorporated into a regional economic input-output model (IMPLAN) to produce projections of changes in regional employment, income, and local business. Evaluate construction impacts on housing and public services. Temporary relocation of construction workers may occur, raising the demand for housing and public services. Local service providers will be contacted for estimates of the ability of local communities and jurisdictions to accommodate the changes in demand (e.g., the housing and public services elements from comprehensive general plans will be reviewed with agency officials to update estimates of adequacy). Evaluate fiscal impacts. Relocation of workers and induced changes in population and employment may increase (temporarily) requirements for public services, and the project’s real improvements will affect local jurisdictions’ tax bases after operation of the facility commences. The potential fiscal effects from construction and use of the transmission line will be evaluated for each jurisdiction crossed by alternative corridors. Sources of data will include state, borough, and municipal financial authorities. Evaluate impacts on tourism, recreation, and the quality of life. Impacts of the Project on social values will be assessed on the basis of information to be collected by the public planning component of the environmental study in conjunction with the socioeconomics impact research. Demographic information from the decennial census and from compilations will be studied to understand ethnic, welfare, and cultural characteristics of inhabitants in communities along the route corridors, as basis for identifying sensitivities that need to be accommodated in the project design and implementation. Potential impacts from increased visitation on tourism and recreational resources will be assessed. A\SCP-REPT.WPD 41 Field Studies No field studies are required to address socioeconomic issues. WILDLIFE General The study will focus on the habitats adjacent to the route segments within one-half mile of each side but consideration will be given to areas outside of this corridor for some wildlife species. Some of the more important areas within the overall project area for birds are the saltmarsh habitats along Turnagain Arm, bald eagle nest locations, and the nesting areas of the trumpeter swan. For terrestrial species, overall habitats will be the focus. Impact issues which will be addressed for wildlife species will include the following: = delineating wildlife habitat in areas adjacent to the centerline of each route segment according to parameters important to key wildlife species = disturbance to bald eagle nest locations and buffer areas around active nests ™ impacts to migratory waterfowl through collision with transmission lines ™ impacts to nesting trumpeter swans through disturbance during construction of the transmission line and potential collisions with the lines during operation = loss of habitat for moose, caribou, black bear, and brown bear ™ increased hunting and trapping pressure due to increased access to remote areas = = disruption of movement corridors of key wildlife species ™ impacts of constructions activities on Beluga whales and harbor seal using Turnagain Arm Additional data may need to be collected for the following resources. Avifauna—Description of all major species of birds by habitat type intersected by the proposed alternative routes (i.e., forest bird, waterbirds, marine birds) will be developed from existing data. A more detailed discussion of seasonal distribution and seasonal concentration areas will be added. Black Bears—Any additional data from the files of resource agencies on black bear population size or distribution will be incorporated into the section, but outstanding data are expected to be minimal. Brown Bears—Information from the Interagency Task Force on brown bear issues on the Kenai Peninsula will be added to this section. Movement corridors for brown bears between the foothills of the Kenai AASCP-REPT.WPD 42 Mountains and Kenai Lowlands will be researched and added to the figures. Interviews with brown bear experts for this area will be conducted and added to this section. Population figures also will researched and incorporated. Moose—This section is essentially complete with the possible exception of recent survey data on population levels with certain portions of the study area. A discussion of long-term trends in the population of moose on the Peninsula will be added with regards to regional habitat changes. Some additional research will be required to review resource agency files and incorporate data. Fire management strategies and controlled burns on the Kenai Lowlands for the purpose of enhancement of moose habitat will need to be researched and addressed as far as the potential effect on route selection. Caribou, Dall Sheep, and Mountain Goats—This section is essentially complete with the possible exception of recent population estimates. Small Mammals—Information on trapping of furbearers along the alternative routes will need to be researched in regards to potential increased trapping pressure due to right-of-way access in some areas. This information is available from Alaska Department of Fish and Game, FWS, and Kenai NWR. Marine Mammals—Additional marine mammal data will be compiled and addressed in more detail to address population numbers, distribution, seasonal concentrations, and what is known about the biology of these animals in Cook Inlet. Data will be gathered from resource agency files and incidental observations from field crews. Raptors—A separate section will be added to discuss important species of raptor within the study area. The latest information on bald eagle nests from the Kenai NWR and the location of osprey nests will be incorporated. Waterfowl—Description of major waterfowl use areas will be incorporated such as Chickaloon Flats, Potters Marsh, and Portage Flats. Additional trumpeter swan data will be assembled from the files of the Kenai NWR and will be analyzed and incorporated into the EIS sections. Fiel die: Observations on wildlife occurrence and high use areas will be collected in conjunction with the field reconnaissance survey. This survey will largely be a ground survey of major portions of the route segments. Observations will be recorded on waterfowl use of coastal wetlands near route segments, bird species present, high use areas such as moose winter areas, evidence of movement corridors, bear feeding areas on salmon streams, and any other incidental observations on wildlife presence. A\SCP-REPT.WPD 43 VEGETATION AND WETLANDS General Mapping Protocols—The vegetation units will be according to the Level IV of Viereck and Dryness’s Classification System for Alaskan Vegetation (1989). At this level, communities are delineated down to the level where the community is defined by the dominant species (e.g. western hemlock/Sitka spruce forest as opposed to level III category of closed needle-leaf forest). This level of detail is similar to that used to map vegetation in the Chugach National Forest portions of the project area. Minimum area for mapping units will be ten acres in rural areas. In urban areas, minimum areas will be smaller since there is less natural vegetation and will be near two acres. No additional mapping will be necessary for wetlands in the study areas since they have been mapped for all areas including the Chugach National Forest. = delineating affected vegetation communities along the right-of-way through clearing for transmission line and secondary effects of loss on the habitat value of areas along the corridor ™ transferring wetland delineations from existing National Wetland Inventory maps to base maps for the purpose of delineations of lost or damage to wetlands and aquatic habitats along the right-of- way as a result of clearing or construction of access roads Field Studies A reconnaissance field investigation is planned for each segment of the route to field check both vegetation, wetlands and to record notes on wildlife occurrence and habitat use. A field data form will be developed to be used for each segment checked. The survey will cover representative areas along each major segment and habitat types. Data collected will be incorporated into the affected environment sections and field data sheet will be included in an appendix section. Collection of existing data on the routes will be done by contacting resource agencies and obtaining applicable information from their files. These would include the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, FWS, Forest Service, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks, and the Municipality of Anchorage. FISHERY RESOURCES General The following task will be undertaken to address the issues listed above. =~ ~=mapping of anadromous fish streams and resident fish populations AASCP-REPT.WPD 44 The location of all anadromous fish streams and the upstream extent of the migrations will be plotted on the base maps of the various route segments throughout both the urban and rural route segments. A table of these streams will be developed listing all streams for each route segment and the type of crossing that will occur at each location such as power line crossing only or with access road crossing. Anadromous fish streams will be listed according to name. Resident fish species will also be listed for each stream system and lake system within the corridors of each segment, Alaska Department of Fish and Game stream catalog number, species present and relative numbers of spawners, and other pertinent information. Field Studies No field studies will be conducted for fishery resources. AVALANCHE HAZARDS General Known avalanche hazards exist within the Chugach Mountains in the eastern portion of the project study area. The existing Quartz Creek Transmission line crosses several avalanche paths along the Seward Highway. There has been a history of transmission line outages associated with these avalanche prone areas; while some mitigation efforts have been applied, the risk of avalanche induced failure still exists. Inventory of the avalanche prone areas within the study area and adjacent to the alternative routes will be based on previous studies and field investigations and documentation of the existing avalanche hazard to the proposed project alternatives. data collection and review of existing information develop assessment criteria to facilitate a comparison of alternatives assess impacts and consider mitigation efforts comparison of alternatives Field Studies Field investigations to determine areas prone to avalanche and requiring additional studies were conducted in the fall of 1996. A subsequent field trip may be required to observe avalanche conditions during the winter months. EARTH RESOURCES General For the purposes of the EIS, the study area for geologic and hydrologic conditions will include a distance of approximately one-quarter mile on either side of the centerline of each corridor, with the exception that if potential hazards are present outside of this width that may have an effect within the study area (for AASCP-REPT.WPD 45 example, an avalanche slope originating outside of the study area, with a toe inside of the study area), these will also be included in the inventory. The geologic and hydrologic aspects of the proposed routes, including both the onshore and offshore environments, are of interest primarily due to the potential impact of natural hazards and phenomena on the proposed Project. The effects of line/facility construction on water quality, and the potential for creating or increasing existing geologic hazards during construction, also may be of concern. Field Studies An aerial site reconnaissance will be conducted to verify soil types, slope stability problems, and areas of high erosion potential. A\SCP-REPT.WPD 46 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF INTENT DOCUMENTATION DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Notice of Intent to Conduct Public Mectings and Prepare an Environmental [mpact Statement AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of Intent to conduct public scoping workshops and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) intends to hold public scoping workshops and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in connection with a project in Alaska proposed by the seven electric utilities that are collectively knawn as the Intertie Participants Group (IPG). The IPG consists of Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (Chugach), Municipality of Anchorage - Municipal Light and Power, City of Seward - Seward Electric System, Matanuska Electric Association, Inc., and the Municipality of Fairbanks - Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System, Golden Valley Electric Assaciation, Inc. (GVEA), and Homer Electric Association, Inc. (HEA). GVEA and HEA intend to apply for RUS financing assistance for the proposed project. Chugach will act as the construction manager for the proposed project. The proposal, which is referred to as the Southern Intertie Project, consists of the construction and operation of a 230 kV transmission line to be operated initially at 138 kV between Anchorage and a location on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska. DATES: RUS will conduct three public scoping workshops as follows: November 12, 1996, $:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Spenard Community Recreation Center 2020 West 48th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska Tel: (907) 343-4160 November 13, 1996, 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Cooper Landing Community Hall Bean Creek Road Cooper Landing, Alaska Tel: (907) 595-1257 November 14, 1996, 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Kenai Peninsula Borough Chambers 144N. Binkley Street Soldotna, Alaska Tel: (907) 262-4441 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: =Nurw Islam, Environmental Protection Specialist, RUS, Engineering and Environmental Staff, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Stop 1571, Washington, DC 20250-1571, telephone (202) 720-1784, or Dora Gropp, Chugach Electric Association, Inc., 5601 Minnesota Drive, P.O, Box 196300, Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300, telephone, (800) 478-7494/ (907) 762-4626, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: GVEA and HEA, along with the other five IPG members, are proposing to construct a 230 kV transmission line between Anchorage and a location on the Kenai Peninsula. Alternatives to be considered by RUS include no action, energy conservation, local generation, system alternatives, transmission alternatives, and alternative routes. Comments regarding the proposed project may be submitted orally or in writing within 30 days after the November 14, 1996, workshop to RUS at the address provided in this notice. The IPG and their consultants have prepared a report entitled, “Southern Intertie Route Selection Study” (Study) for the project. The Environmental Section Report and the Executive Summary Section Report from that Study are available for public review at RUS or Chugach, at the addresses provided in this notice, These reports are also available at the other participants’ oftices and local libraries. Please consult local natices for locations. Based on the study mentioned above and input from interested local, state, and Federal agencies and the public, the IPG and their consultants will prepare an Environmental Analysis to be submitted to RUS for review. RUS will prepare a Draft EIS based on the Environmenta} Analysis and any other information available to RUS. The Dreft EIS will be available for public review for 45 days. The Final EJS will then be prepared considering all the comments received, and made available for public review and comment at least for 30 days, At the end of 30-day comment period a Record of Decision will be issued on the project. This proposal will require compliance with Title 11 of Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act if lands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are crossed. Any final action by RUS related to the proposed project will be subject to, and contingent upon, compliance with all relevant Federal environmental laws and regulations and completion of environmental review procedures as prescribed by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations and RUS Environmental Policies and Procedures. Dated: ADAM M. GOLODNER, Deputy Administrator, Program Operations. uCt -09° 96(WED) 04:07 52908 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 197 /.Wednesday, October 9, 1996 / Notices . P. 001 ei RAR A RR ER A a TE ERR ative | les posts, Hhicts fa use. The mber and other an acres in the “he changing ‘am under he persistent it Coats, and jional ta tha necd to \ve Ways [0 nber-related als, acheduled wr ‘ideas for and of the national th To ensure ested purities iberations, Invited duals will be linvitations of _ id Use meeting nent to the agency s meeting coonunator named in this notice. To facilitate (his process, a meeting summmnry will ba avaliable by November 20, 196, and may Le obtained by contacting the meeting coordinator. Datod: October 3, 1996. David G. Unger. Asaveiate Chiel. [FR Doc. 66-2694G Filad 10-8-96; 8:45 emi AULLING CODE $410-11-4 Rural Utilitiea Service Notice of intent To Conduct Public Meetings and Prepare an Environmental impact Ststemant AGENCY: Rural Uiilities Service, USDA. ACTION: Narice of Intent to conduct public scoping warksliops and prepare an Environmental (mpact Statement. SUMMARY: The Rural Utiittles Service (RUS) intends to hold public scoping workshops and prepare an Environmental [mpact Statemant (EIS) in connection with a project in Alaska proposed! by the seven electric utilides that are collectively known ag the Intertie Participants Group (IPC). The IPC consists of Chugach Electric Association, Ince. (Chugach). Municipality af Anchorige—Municipal Light and Power, City af Seward Seward Blecwic System, Matunuska Electric Association, Inc., and tha Municipality of Fairbanks—Fairbanks Municipal Uciites System, Golden Valley Electric Associatian, Inc. (CVEA), and Homer Electric Association, Inc, (HEA). GVEA and HEA Intend to apply for RUS Financing assisiance for the proposed project. Chugach will act ag the construction manager for the prapused project. The prapasal, which is referred to as the Southern Intartie Project, consists of the constructian and operation of a 230 KV uanuinission Ine ta be operated Initially al 198 kV hetween Anchorage and a localion on the Kanal Peninsula in Alnaka. OATES: RUS will canduct three public scnping workshops a8 follows: November 12, 1996, 5.00 p.m, ta 9:00 p.m., Spenard Community Recreetion Cancer, 2020 West 48th Avenue, Anchorage. Alaska, Tel: (007) 343- 4160 November 13, 1996, 5:00 o.m. ta 9:00 .m., Coaper Landing Community jal), Bean Creek Road, Cooper Landing, Alaska, Tcl: (907) 598-1257 November 14, 1996, 5:00 p.m. ta 0:00 p.m, Kenal Peninsula Borough Chambers, 144 N. Binkley Street, Soldatna, Alaska, Tel: (907) 262- 4441, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nurul islam, Environmental Protection Speelaiist, RUS, Engineering and Environmental Staff, 1400 Independenan Avenue, SW, Stop 1571, Washington, DC 20260-1571, telephone (202) 720-1784, or Dara Cropp, Chugach Electric Association, [ne., 5601 Minnesota Drive, P.O. Bax 196400, Anchorage, Alarka 99519-6300, telephone, (800) 478-7 494/(907) 762~ 4620. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: GVEA and HEA, along with the other five IPG members, are proposing to cansrruct & 230 kV tranarmission line between Anchorage and a location on the Kenai Peninsula. A)tecnatives wo be considered by RUS include no action, anergy conservation, local generadon, system alternatives, transmission alternatives, and alternative routes. Comments regarding the gan project may be submitted orally of In writing within 30 days after the Navember 14, 1996, workshop to RUS ac the address provided In thls notice, The IPG and thelr consultants have prepared a report untitled, “Southern Intertie Rowe Selection Study” (Study) for the project. The Bavironmantal Section Report and the Executive Summary Section Report fram chat Study are avallable for public review x1 RUS of Chugach, at the addresses provided in this notice, These reports are also available al tle other participants’ offices and lacal Ibrarias, Please consult lacal notices for locations, Rased on the study mentioned above and input from interested local, state, and Federal agencies and the public, the IPC and thelr consultants wlll prepare an Environmental Analysis to be submited to RUS for review, RUS will prepare a Draft EIS based on the Environmental Analyets and ony other information available to RUS. The Draft EIS will be available for public review for 45 days. The Final EIS will then be Prepared considering all the comments recelved, and made avallable for public teview and comment at least for 30 days, A( the ond of 30-day camment period a Record af Decision will be issued on the praject. This proposal will require compliance with Tile 12 of Alaska National Intersst Larids Conservation Act if lands under the jurisdiction of Lhe U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service arc crossed. Any final action by RUS related to the proposed project will be subject to, and contingent upon, compliance with all relevant Federal environmental laws and regulatlons and completion of énviranmental review procedures as prescribed by the Council on Environmantal Quality Regulations and RUS Environmental Policies and Procedures. Dated: etoler 4, 1996. Adam M, Golodner, Depuyy Adininistrator, Program Operations. IFR Doc, 96-2001 2 Fuled 10-8-B6; 8:45 um} BILLING CODE 5410-15-" — ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD Sunshine Act Meeting oaTE: October 15-16, 1996, PLACE: ARR, 600 E Street. NW., Washington, DC STATUS: Open (oom 2U6) and Closed. MATTERS TO BE CONSIOQERED: October 14, 9:00 a.ni.—Closed Meeting 1, Review and Accept Minutes af Closed Meeling 2. Review of Assassinadon Records 3. Other Buslivesy Qetaber 16, 9:00 a.ni.—Cundnuation of Closed Meeurig October 16, 2:00 p.n.—Open Meeting 1. Procadsirus far handing records whuse relevance tn (he assussiiacion carwiot be determined 2 Other (#euus CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION Eileen Sullivan, Assistant Press and Public Affairs Officer, 600 B Stract, NW., Second Floor, Washington, DC Ee eet #3219 3100-80. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION DAME00 10 $100.80 STATE OF ALASKA, ) THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT. ) being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that he/she is an advertising representative of the Anchorage Daily News, a daily newspaper. That said newspaper has been approved by the Third Judicial Court, Anchorage, Alaska, and it now and has been published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Anchorage, Alaska, and it is now and during all said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the annexed is a copy of an advertisement as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplemental form) of said newspaper on Oct. 30, 1996 and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is not in excess of the rate charged _ private individuals. the State of Alaska. Third Division. Anchorage, Alaska MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Ae (EO.8....... §A00O DEPARMEN]:0F ix sAGRICULTURECH. w Rural «Utilities Service 4 Notice” of.»intent ‘to: PublicaMeetings: and’ Prepare ‘Environmentaty tlmpoct:. ‘4 Service, SDA. lohan 9% ACTION. Notice “ofr¥ntentsto| ‘conduct. public scoping”: ¥#an workshops and: preparesans,\ ment. SUMMARY: <The’ ‘ties’ Service (RUSK' ‘| ‘hold public scoping workshops ‘and prepare an'Environmental; 1 mecctaStonementes Ets hie: { conection Farha vatvect sty ' ‘a >proposed, by:‘the seven electric ‘utilities sthot sare} collectively .-known?sas°- Intertie Participants. Gi (IPG). «The: Tec ieanaistenot Chugach Electric sAssociation, Inc. :.(Chugach); Municipality: of Anchorage.*~sxfunicipal Lightand Power:x{City tof Seward ~i Seward-uéJectric System,” jon, tnesieana sane Association, +1 ane “Municipality “of <4 Sgr been ere fig, Ines (HEATSOVEA ond ion, Inc. ft HEA‘ Intend To ueeiron US financing sassist jorice ferred, ‘ntertie Proi ‘Construction and of 230: kV. transmi ween “Anchora: tion of the ae Peninsula in DATES: ; RUS, thrée public ‘scoping . work>| shops as follows: November 12.- ee 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Spenard ‘Community, 55 Recreation, Center<"¢f ‘2020 West, 48th, Avenue. ‘Anchorage, ‘Alaska, November -13,. 1996, 5 5:00..p.m. to 9:00. Cooper “Landing Community Hall Bean Creek Road | Cooper Landing, Tel: (907) 595-1237, ‘November. 14, £19965 in 5:00 p.m. - 9:00 p,m.,, Kenai Peni insula . Borough Chamber j 144 N.. Binkley, Str Soldotna, Alaska -. . .4 Tel: (907) 262. 444) hs FOR Fur THER INFO! TION CONTACT::; Islam, Environmer te tion Specialist, RU: ing and Environmental, ~Shatt.| 1400 . Independence ;-Avenve; | SW, Stop 1571, Washington, 20250-1571, telephone -(202 720-1784, .o¢ Dora . Gropp, Chugach Electric Association, Inc., 5601, Minnesota Drive, P.0.. Box.’ 196300,- Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300, telephone’ (800) 478-7494/ (907) ,762- Pub.: Oct. 30,1996 - ATTN: KATRINA MOSS FUBLIC NOTICE PO# USDA 10# 96-1008 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Al DEPARTMENTOF | CATION HERE AGRICULTURE eect UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE STATE OF ALASKA , THIRD DISTRICT, BEFORE ME, THE UNDERSIGNED, A NOTARY PUBLIC THIS DAY PERSONALLY APPEARED JOAN RAY WHO, BEING FIRST DULY SWORN, ACCORDING TO LAW, SAYS THAT SHE ISTHE PUBLISHER “EF THE ALASKA JOURNAL OF COMMERCE -'UBLISHED AT 4220 B STREET., #210, IN SAID THIRD DISTRICT AND STATE OF ALASKA AND THAT THE ADVERTISEMENT, OF WHICH THE ANNEXED IS A TRUE COPY, WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN SAID PUBLICATION ON THE 4TH, DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996. web JOAN RAY, PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS Yh DAY OF fusvemlu stb Dapnnah & Shade NOTARY PUBLIC FOR STATE OF ALASKA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ___10-05-99__. Deborah L. Shade, Notary Public State of Alaska My Commission Expires 10/5/39 Notice of Intent to Conduct Public Meetings and Prepare an’ Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of Intent to conduct public scoping workshops and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) intends to hold public scoping workshops and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in connection with a project in Alaska Proposed by the seven electric utilities that are collectively known as the Intertie Participants Group (IPG). The IPG consists of Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (Chugach), > Municipality of Anchorage - Municipal Light and Power, City of Seward - Seward Electric System, Matanuska Electric Association, Inc., and the Municipality of Fairbanks - Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System, Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. (GVEA), and Homer Electric Association, Inc. (HEA). GVEA and HEA intend to apply for RUS financing | assistance for the proposed project. Chugach will act as the construction | manager for the proposed project. The | proposal, which is referred to as the | Southern Intertle Project, consists of the construction and operation of a 230 KV transmission line to be operated initially at 138 kV between Anchorage and a location on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska. DATES: RUS will conduct three public scoping workshops as follows: November 12, 1996, 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Spenard Community Recreation Center, 2020 West 48th Avenue, | Anchorage, Alaska Tel: (907) 343- 4160. : November 13, 1996, 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Cooper Landing Community Hall, Bean Creek Road, Cooper Landing, Alaska, Tel: (907) 595-1257. November 14, 1996, 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Kenai Peninsula Borough Chambers, 144 N. Binkley Street, | Soldotna, Alaska. Tel: (907) 262-4441. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nurul Islam, Environmental Protection Specialist, RUS, Engineering and Environmental Staff, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Stop 1571,-Washington, DC | 20250-1571, telephone (202) 720- | 1784, or Dora Gropp, Chugach Electric Association, Inc., 5601 Minnesota Drive, P.O. Box 196300, Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300, telephone, (800) 478-7494/ (907) 762-4626. Pub: 11/4, 1996 {O# 96-1008 PUBLISHER’S AFFIDAVIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STATE OF ALASKA \ SS: HWS. Uisiand Wel ele COWL Eanes being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and says: That I am and was at all times herein this affidavit mentions, Supervisor of Legals of the Peninsula Clarion, a newspaper of general circulation and published at *7enai, Alaska, following dates: November 1, 1996 a oe DEPARTMENT: OF AGRICULTURE ee Leora I. sy = RURADUTILITIES SERVICE?) JL NOTICE OF INTENT:T0. CONDUCT PUBLIC MEETI 1 AND: PREPARE’AN ENVIRONMENTAL. JMPACT “fost S2 1s 2 EeAPDOISTATEMENT | Mais aT aA J AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service; USDA= 34 XE p ACTION: Notice: of ‘Intent*to Conduct” public “Scoping: work 4 shops and prepare an. Impact Statement. &&% I SUMMARY: The’Rural Utilities Service (RUS) intends to:hold:l ‘weak gar teat oe I public” scoping“Workshops “and prepare “an ‘Environmental I I Impact Statement.(EIS) in connection with a project in Alaska I | proposed by ithe. seven ‘electric :utilities that are :collectively.| I known as the Intertie Participants Group (IPG): The IPG con-° I I sists of Chugach - Electric Association,’ Inc. «(Chugach), A sp Municipality-of Anchorage-#'Municipal Aightand PowersCity-of* 1 Seward -. Seward: Electric System,Matanuska Electric I Association,z:1nc:#:and the. Municipality “of Fairbanks I Fairbanks Minicipal Utilities ‘s Golden ‘Valley ‘Electric ifAssociation,: Incs#(GVEA) and: Homer Electric’ Associati Vee SHEA GVEA and Tondo oe Jor the proposed’ projéct. Chugach will act a5. th jaa Tanager for the proposed project.” The Popo 1 which is referred'to asthe Southem Intertie Projéct; Gonsist I of the construction and operation of a230kV transmission ‘ing I I to be operated ‘initially at'138 kV. between Anchorage and ‘ a " | location on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska. . I DATES: ae will conduct three public scoping workshops as : | ; | ” November: 12,1996, 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.° = * I | Spenard Community Recreation Center ail ..2020 West 48th Avenue teased : Anchorage, -Alaska 7 Tel: (907) 343-4160 F I November 13; 1996, 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. I Cooper Landing Community Hall 5 Bean Creek Road Cooper Landing, Alaska’ ™’ I Tel: (907) 595-1257 I November 14, 1996, 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. rea | I I I Kenai Peninsula Borough Chambers 144 N. Binkley Street Soldotna, Alaska Tel: (907) 262-4441 I FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nurul Islam, I! I Environmental Protection Specialist, RUS, Engineering* and 1 I Environmental Staff, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Stop I | 1571, Washington, DC 20250-1571; ‘telephone (202) 720- | 4 1784, ‘or Dora Gropp; Chugach Electric Association, Inc., 5601 I I Minnesota Drive. P.O, Box 196300, Anchorage, Alaska 99519- I hae telephone, (800): are: -7494/(907), 762-4626. 4 I PUBLISH: 11701, 1998 3706/1448 1 #3219 4 DAMEO010 “oo.” 6AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION |, .o {SDEPARMEN TOF i ie AGRICULTUREGT, § | ve Rural Utilities Service 1%) STATE OF ALASKA, ) THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT. ) being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that he/she is an advertising representative of the Anchorage Daily News, a daily newspaper. That said newspaper has been approved by the Third Judicial Court, Anchorage, Alaska, and it now and has been published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Anchorage, Alaska, and it is now and during all said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the annexed is a copy of an advertisement as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplemental form) of said newspaper on Oct. 30, 1996 and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing Publication is not in excess of the rate charged _ private individuals. a Carte signed Notary Public in and f the State of Alaska. Third Division. Anchorage, Alaska MY COMMISSION EXPIRES a FCQB co OOO |{mpact:, Statementia G4S)-I0 {Conhection swith <a prolect. slay { Tel: (907) .59: | Kenai Peninsula... | Borough Chambers, | 144 N. Binkley. Streei Notice’.of.rintent toC Cubes Moet ites and: Prepare vironmental !impact: «|| te bo F HAs gan 4 ai AGENCY: nRural Utilities.» 1! Service, USDA. .» ister y at ACTION. Notice “of antent: to conduct. public -scoping. e+, workshops and: preparevany, Environmental Impact : ‘State- ment. SUMMARY: “The R als Utilis: ‘ties’ Service MRUS) intends /4o' hold public scoping. workshops ‘and prepare an Environmental. ; Alaska :proposed by.\the: seven. jelectric cu iilessdhotiAare collectively. zenawing to = te s°Gri Inter Partic pants (IPG). «The. ARG i consists \:of | Chugach Electric -Association, Inc. ».(Chugach),. «Municipality of Anchorage:+~sxMunicipal Lightand Powers*/City xof Seward «-i SewardaEsectric. System; Matanuskay Electric ‘Associati ny + 1OCHE jaahe, ‘Municipality. of Fai ne Systems « “Golden Valley tees tric Associationssincs4GVEA) «4 and Homer: Electricr:Associa- tion, Inc. (HEA)xGVEA rand. HEA‘ Intend ‘to-applyit financing Sas: ‘proposed ‘pro act as ‘the construction manag: er. for, the. erapaseslapmniects Tenge aores sheet erced.,,! intertie Proiect, Const ee Sonsicuction cand, joceton on ‘the:;Kenai , ‘Perinsuta. in DATES: ; RUS... shops. as fol! ‘November 12, 5:00 p.m. 0 9:00 p.m. Spenard Communi ‘Community Half "y. Bean Creek Road, Cooper Landing,: Alas! 7.» ‘November. 14, 1996,. 5:00 p.m. - 9:00 p,m., Soldotna, Alaska _ Tel: (907) 262-444 FOR FURTHER “INFORMA. TION CONTACT:..Nurul Islam, Environmental, Protec. tion Specialist, RUS, Engineer ing and Environment Staff,’ 1400 . Independence ;Avenve, SW, Stop 1571, Washington, DC 20250-1571,.. telephone (202) 720-1784, _ of Dora’, Gropp, Chugach Electric Association, Inc., 5601 piiogesote Drivey) P.O... Box. 196300/-sAnchorage/| Alaska 99519-6300, telephone’ (800) 478-7494 4907).,762-. Pub.: Oct. 30, 1996" SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT TIMUR OE New Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line HUAN WATT I AY ALTERNATIVES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PREPARATION —-OCTOBER 1996 We are currently seeking public comments to assist in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. A corridor siting study was recently completed, resulting in the identification of four alternative corridors. A Intertie Participants Group (IPG) : proposed route has not been selected. The alternatives that have been identified are described below: Chugach Electric Association, Inc. T Beginning at Bernice Lake Substation, Alternative T follows several possible alignments before joining 2 the Tesoro Pipeline Route along the edge of the Cook Inlet. Alternative submarine routes across Homer ere Turnagain Arm would connect with routes to Point Woronzof Substation. Alternative T could also Pin : connect with the International Substation on Minnesota Drive by paralleling Minnesota Avenue. : Moniepeucy. of Optional landing points in Anchorage would be at Point Woronzof, Point Campbell, and the extension CORE SC ee of Victor Road and Klatt Road. Muni i Noueeee: spt : E Beginning at the Soldotna Substation, Alternative E would follow transmission lines and the Enstar . ty, Seer aed Pipeline across the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge to Turnagain Arm, where a submarine route would System : extend to south Anchorage. From the intersection of Old Seward and New Seward highways, . : alternative routes would follow major roadways and the Alaska Railroad to the International Substa- Me aaa eee tion. A second option would involve the landing at the Klatt Road area. Q Also beginning at the Soldotna Substation, Alternative Q would follow the existing Quartz Creek transmission line parallel to the Sterling Highway and Seward Highway. The route would cross portions of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Chugach National Forest, and Chugach State Park before connecting with the University Substation on Tudor Road or optional nearby substations. HAs a local option to Alternative Q, Alternative H would follow an existing transmission line route along Six Mile Creek and cross under Turnagain Arm to rejoin the Quartz Creek line west of Bird Point. Powere ox Plant Tyonek e Six Mile Creek Kenai National Transmission Wildlife Refuge : Line Alternative ««* Transmission Line Corridors te Submarine Lines A Substations Note: Not to Scale Soldotna Substations: 1- Bernice Lake 2 - Soldotna 3 - Point Woronzof 4 - International 5 - University, APA, or Power Plant #2 PUBLC SCOPING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) in conjunction ‘with the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service intends to hold public scoping workshops and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in connection with the Southem Intertie Project proposed by the IPG. The proposed project will provide an additional transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage to improve the reliability of service, and to create more efficient distribution of power between the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project and the rest of the Alaska Railbelt. A summary report of route selection studies conducted in 1995 and 1996 and the environmental report are available for review at your public library in Anchorage, Girdwood, Soldotna, and Kenai. Meetings will be held from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. af the following dates and locations: November 12, 1996 November 13, 1996 November 14, 1996 Spenard Community Recreation Center Cooper Landing Community Hall Kenai Peninsula Borough Chambers 2020 West 48th Avenue Bean Creek Road 144 N. Binkley Street Anchorage, Alaska Cooper Landing, Alaska Soldotna, Alaska Tel: (907) 343-4160 Tel: (907) 595-1257 Tel: (907) 262-4441 If you would like more information, please contact: Dora Gropp Niklas Ranta Nurul Islam Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Dames & Moore Rural Utilities Service 800-478-7494 5600 B Street 202-720-1414 907-762-4626 Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1641 800-315-4082 907-562-3366 Please attend the Public Scoping Meetings or provide your Written Comments to Dames & Moore postmarked by December 14, 1996. DAMES & MOORE 5600 B Street Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1641 INSIDE Page 2 Unfair taxes System improvements Page 3 Intertie meetings Board viewpoint Page 4 Board report News Notes ¢ Chugach may now estimate meters every other month. The tariff change was approved by the Alaska Public Utilities Commission in September. It provides Chugach another tool to use to try and bill customers at approximate 30-day intervals, despite bad weather which can slow meter reading. ¢ If you have rental property, you may want to have a “landlord- tenant agreement" on file with Chugach. It establishes a path for billing which keeps the power on between tenants — or in the event a tenant is due to be disconnected for non-payment. That can be important at any time, but especially during the winter months when properties without power can freeze and sustain damage to water pipes and heating systems. For more information, call Member Services at 563-7366. see News notes page 4 THE GHUGAGH OUT o=. Growth and system improvements in 1996 The majority of residential growth in the Chugach service area this past year has been in South Anchorage and on the Hillside. Chugach expects to complete 18 new subdivision line extensions by the end of year. Chugach has seen continued growth in its service area this year. The majority of residential growth has been in South Anchorage and on the Hillside. By mid- September Chugach had completed 714 new service orders, set 106 meters, and converted 254 temporary services to permanent. By year end, Chugach expects to complete a total of 18 new subdivision line extensions to serve 377 lots. Chugach also plans to complete six line extensions for multi-family dwellings that will serve 114 units. Additionally, Chugach plans to complete 25 commercial line extension projects this year. Chugach’s summer construction season is winding down. Here’s a recap of some of this year’s projects: * Underground cable replacements Chugach contractor Newbery Electric completed underground cable replacements and landscaping in the Century Village Subdivision by mid- September. Newbery installed approximately 4,800 feet of primary and 1,200 feet of secondary cable for that project. A cable replacement project that began in July {195763 Yo} in the Heather Meadows Subdivision should be completed by the end of October. By mid-September, Newbery had installed and energized approximately 850 feet of primary cable. The contractor also relocated underground transformers and eight service pedestals from front to rear lot lines, conforming to current design specifications. A total of 21 new services were installed as part of the project. Newbery used a directional boring machine to minimize trenching and paving cuts. * Beluga Unit No. 6 At mid-summer, Chugach maintenance crews began a major overhaul of Unit see Improvements page 2 two Fighting unfair taxes Chugach is currently fighting a tax battle that could unfairly cost ratepayers at least a million dollars for the 1993 tax year and a similar amount for 1994. This is money that will come directly out of our Railbelt economy. At issue are the severance taxes levied by the State of Alaska against Shell Western E & P and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. on 1993 natural gas sales to Chugach for the Beluga Power Plant. Under the terms of our contracts with these producers, the taxes are passed through as an expense to Chugach. Our dispute is not about having to pay taxes. It is over the assessed value of the fuel being taxed. Chugach pays Shell and Chevron a price for natural gas based upon contracts negotiated between the parties in the late 1980s. However, rather than basing its taxes upon the contract price for the period in question, the State’s auditor chose to base it upon an unjustified “market” price, which is several times higher than the actual price paid by Chugach for the fuel. It is this difference that we are contesting. Frankly, I’m proud of the job our negotiators did in arranging stable, fairly priced, long-term fuel supplies and I don’t think Chugach and its customers should be penalized by being taxed at a competitor’s higher price. That just doesn’t strike me as fair. Our position is simple. We think the fair price for taxing the fuel is the contract price negotiated at arms length between the buyer and seller. We do not agree that it should be some arbitrarily determined “prevailing value” that Chugach never paid. In my opinion, it’s a battle worth fighting not only on its own merits but for the precedent it could set. As you may recall, Chugach has contracts with four major fuel suppliers for natural gas for the Beluga plant. Other audits will follow, and Chugach consumers will potentially have more to lose. That’s why I think it is important to resolve the basic issue of fairness now. If you’re thinking that this sounds familiar, you're right. In 1992 Chugach successfully contested the State’s attempt to increase federal royalties paid by Chugach for Beluga gas between 1984 and 1987. We won that $5.5 million battle on behalf of our ratepayers. Then, as now, the State was interested in maximizing its revenues. While we can understand thar("~ we cannot agree to an unfair tax assessment that passes along a too-high tax to Chugach members. We have met with state officials, and will be asking Governor Knowles to look into this matter and support adopting the contract value as the value for tax Improvements, continued from page 2 No. 6, at the Beluga Power Plant. The 74-megawatt unit is one of the largest turbine-generators in Chugach’s system. In July, crews pulled the rotor from the unit’s gas-fired turbine and replaced it with a spare rotor, which was sprayed with special protective coatings on the compressor section. The coatings will help improve the efficiency of the unit by reducing buildup on — and erosion of — the blades. Chugach crews also performed a major alignment of the unit, and completed inspection of the unit’s components as scheduled. Crews began reassembling the unit in early September. It is scheduled to be back on-line by early November. * Beluga Substation Chugach contractor Alcan Electric installed a new 14-megavolt amperes transformer and an additional circuit breaker at the Beluga Power Plant for new Tyonek and Arco feeder circuits {1060168 Ja}. The Tyonek feeder upgrades will allow for improved system protection and reliability of the circuit feeding the village of Tyonek. The Arco feeder will provide service to two new 2,500-horsepower compressor motors. The new motors will be used for increased field pressure for Arco’s gas recovery efforts. Chugach also extended its lines to Arco’s new compressor facilities near the Beluga Power Plant. The Arco feeder is in operation and the Tyonek feeder will be completed by mid-October. Projects at the Anchorage International Airport ¢ With Chugach’s system improvements at the Anchorage International Airport, and a state relocation project, Chugach will be able to retire 7 miles of old underground cable. Chugach is nearing completion of improvements begun see Improvements page 3 Chugach and contractor Alcan Electrical and Engineering used a special carrier with 96 hydraulically-controlled wheels to move a new transformer Sept. 14 from the Anchorage port area to the University Substation located near Tudor Road and Bragaw Street. The 135-ton, 300 megavolt- amperes transformer will be used as a backup for an existing transformer at the transmission substation. - Improvements, continued from page 2 nearly two years ago to the West Airport system. The $640,000 project will provide a new loop feed to the sewage treatment plant, the new fuel tank farm and other airport facilities. Additionally, a number of new hangar facilities and building expansion projects are under construction at the airport. Chugach will provide line extensions, underground services and electrical facilities for the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Postal Service, Federal Express, United Parcel Service, the Alaska Dept. of Transportation, Peninsula Airways, Air Cargo Express, Alaska Airlines, and Signature Flight Support-Anchorage Fueling Services Company. RUS schedules intertie meetings The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) will be conducting public scoping meetings for the proposed Southern Intertie Project during the week of November 11, 1996. The following meeting dates and locations have been identified. November 12, 1996 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Spenard Community Recreation Center 2020 West 48th Ave. Anchorage, Alaska (907) 343-4160 November 13, 1996 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Cooper Landing Community Hall Bean Creek Road Cooper Landing, Alaska (907) 595-1257 November 14, 1996 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Kenai Peninsula Borough Chambers 144 N. Binkley Street Soldotna, Alaska (907) 262-4441 Please look for additional notices in this newsletter {1093160 Bu} and your local newspaper regarding the availability of scoping documents prior to the public meetings. For more information please contact: Dora Gropp Chugach Electric Association 907-762-4626 800-478-7494 or Niklas Ranta Dames & Moore 907-261-6732 800-315-4082 POT M Tis MCN A Cece eT CCTs One joke, seven questions After the past 10 “all business” columns, director Pat Jasper suggested a lighter note this month and some questions designed to give you a chance to give your board some feedback. Mary’s dog Max was extremely ill and she was terribly afraid that he might die. She took Max to the veterinarian and asked him if there was any hope at all. The vet looked the dog over, then brought in a fat, grey cat. The cat sniffed at Max and walked all over him, but Max did not move. The vet shook his head. Mary realized it was hopeless for her little dog and asked how much she owed. The vet said, “$500.” “What!” exclaimed Mary. “How can the bill be $500?” The vet answered, “$25 for the office call and $475 for the catscan.” We, as your board of directors, are interested in doing our job with your needs and desires in mind. To keep us on track, please answer the following questions and clip and send your response with your payment. LO MTTATALNMN TVA TMNT NNT NTMI Paseuenny Muruaeear NTT TIN 1. Iread most Outlet articles. in the Outlet. me with my electric bill. a in the“City of Lights” Program? Lower Rates. 2. I look for my winning number in the Outlet. 3. I would enjoy more human interest stories 4. I would prefer even more details on how Chugach plans to reduce or control rates. 5. I might be interested in Chugach installing a security system at my location and billing Did you know that Chugach Electric participates 7. 1am most interested in (prioritize, 1,2,3 with 1 as highest interest): Power Quality. YES NO a Fewer Outages ER Re a PD Pe a PED NR NN eg pe ES AS GSI a nea | Board approves bond issuance The board approved issuing a new bond to CoBank at its Sept. 25 meeting. The $23.5 million bond will convert short-term, line-of-credit borrowing to a long-term bond. The bond secures advances to Chugach made by CoBank to fund payback of high interest rate, long-term bonds sold in 1991. Chugach entered into an indenture in 1991 that allows for securing short-term debt or taking on long-term loans by issuing bonds. Chugach sold 176.5 million kilowatt-hours of electric service in July, about 17.9 million kwh more than projected by the budget. Wholesale power sales accounted for 73.5 million kwh, retail sales for 72.5 million kwh and economy energy sales for about 30.5 million kwh. Year-to- date sales stood at 1.3 billion kwh, about 6.9 million kwh more than projected by the budget. Chugach finished July with operating revenues of $10.2 million, about $447,000 more than anticipated by the budget. Year-to-date operating revenues stood at $76.6 million, about $217,000 more than projected by the budget. July expenses were $10.5 million, about $61,800 less than projected by the budget. Year-to-date expenses stood at $72 million, about $1.2 million less than projected by the budget. At July’s end, Chugach’s equity-to- total-capitalization ratio was 26.65 percent. By comparison, Chugach’s year-to- date July 1995 power sales totaled 1.2 billion kwh, while operating revenues were $75.9 million and expenses were $69.4 million. Chugach’s equity-to- total-capitalization ratio at the end of July 1995 was 25.30 percent. In other action at the September meeting, the board: ¢ Authorized the general manager to execute a $380,600 contract with Western States Electric for the 34.5- kilovolt switchgear for the Klatt Substation. * Approved a second three-month contract extension with Dan F. Kennedy, Financial Advisor to the . board. { * Voted to indemnify a Chugach employee. ¢ Approved director expenses. Residential Service Costs Customer charge $6.25/month Kilowatt-hour charges: Energy charge 7.727¢ Fuel adjustment 0.756¢ Regulatory cost charge 0.0322¢ Total per kwh 8.5152¢ News notes, continued from page 1 ¢ Finding your member number in the Outlet can be worth $50. Each month Chugach publishes three member numbers, contained in the copy in brackets like these {}. We also add the first two letters of a member's last name. If you find your member number (which is also printed on your bill) give us a call at 563-7366. You may claim for either the current month’s Outlet or the month just past. On average, at least one member has found their number and claimed their prize each month. — How to reach us Our service center at 5601 Minnesota Drive is open from 8 a.m. - 6 p.m., Monday-Friday. Switchboard hours are 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Frequently called numbers Main number?! hy.) leo) s/t sleet. « fee dete as) en (2 563-7494 Toll:free) | 5625/12 246s 3 (800) 478-7494 Gustomer Service’ «13 3.'s) slr ele fale Alo ci Sie 2 563-7366 Customer service fax .................. 762-4678 Credit | ity hast daa tale 2! Gis lay 563-5060 Power theft hotline 762-4731 Danger tree hotline 762-7227 On-line: 24h stele J http://www.chugachelectric.com Payment options You may pay your bill by mail, automatic debit from your checking account, in-person at our service center or by using our curbside drop box. You may be able to pay by phone if your bank or credit union offers this service. Current payments may also be made at any Anchorage branch of the First National Bank of Anchorage. To report a power outage Monday - Friday, 8a.m.-5p.m. ......... 563-7366 After hours . . 563-7494 Outside Anchorage (800) 478-7494 The Chugach Outlet A Publication of Chugach Electric Association, Inc. 5601 Minnesota Drive P.O. Box 196300, Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Chugach Electric Association, Inc. is a not-for-profit member- owned electric cooperative and Alaska’s largest electricity supplier. Chugach’s mission is to meet the energy needs of members and customers by providing competitively-priced, reliable, safe energy and services today and into the future through prudent and responsible planning, maintenance and management of the assets of the cooperative. Ray Kreig, President ...Turnagain Patricia Jasper, Vice President Jewel Lake Mary Minder, Secretary .... Sand Lake .-Midtown jorthwood -Oceanview Satellite Park Kathleen Weeks, Treasurer . Martin Bushue, Director Ed Granger, Director .. Pat Kennedy, Director. Gene Bjornstad, Genera! Printed in Alaska with vegetable inks on recycled paper (100% recycled, 20% post-consumer waste). 5 INSIDE Page 2 Service budget City of Lights Page 3 Benchmarking & best practices Page 4 Board report News Notes ¢ The scoping process for the southern intertie environmental impact statement is underway. ‘itten comments received by the aural Utilities Service by Jan. 1, 1997 will become part of the written record. For more information, contact either Dora Gropp, the Chugach project manager, at 762- 4626 or Nik Ranta, from environmental consultant Dames & Moore, at 261-6732. Both are in Anchorage. If you have a group interested in a presentation on the project, call 762-4626. *Customers with Internet access can get basic account information from the Chugach home page. You'll find it by clicking on “Customer service” then “Account status information” after getting to the home page at <www.chugachelectric.com>. This feature had more than 600 visitors in its first month. see News notes page 2 THE GHUGAGH UU a fo=-. Board approves capital credits retirements Capital credits checks are on the way to 41,291 Chugach members of record from 1983. In November the Chugach board of directors approved a special $1,868,785 capital credits retirement for retail members of record in 1983. This represents approximately one-half of the retail margins earned by the cooperative in 1983. Chugach generally doesn't send checks for less than $5. The largest check in this retirement is for more than $47,000. The Chugach board also approved a special capital credits retirement for wholesale customers in the amount of $392,136. It results from the settlement of a rate dispute, and will return a share of the 1992 margins. Matanuska Electric Association will get a check for $257,842, Homer Electric Association will receive $113,698 and Seward Electric System will get $20,596. Capital credits are one of the benefits of being a member of a cooperative like Chugach. Each member receives a share of the margins earned by the utility in a given year, in proportion to the amount they paid for electric service. Margins are what another business might call profits. Chugach uses margins to offset the cost of borrowing money to finance new construction and replace old facilities. This is done with the understanding that capital credits will be returned to the membership at a future time, when the board You may be getting a check: In December Chugach will {80177 Ro} mail capital credits checks to more than 41,000 members of record from 1983 authorizes a retirement for margins earned in a given year. Checks for 1983 members will be sent to their last address of record with Chugach. Members separating from the system should be sure to leave a forwarding address. If you know someone that was a member in 1983, and they've moved from the Chugach service area, have them call Customer Service at 563-7366 to provide us with a current mailing address Budgeting for services Both our 1997 budget and strategic plan formulate a number of customer service improvements for next year. Here's a look at some of what we propose for 1997. Better field communications In an effort to further reduce outage times and improve customer response, mobile telephones and facsimile machines have been installed in selected repair vehicles. The phones will allow field crews to directly contact contractors, support personnel {45538 Du} and customers. We've installed mobile fax machines to test the viability of electronically issuing switching and service orders. Tree clearing We'll continue our ongoing program to keep our rights of way clear of vegetation that could cause power outages. Add fault indicators We'll begin a 2-year effort to identify and install fault indicators on major distribution feeders, large subdivisions and business parks. These indicators will help us more quickly and accurately locate the source of problems and prevent or shorten outages. Credit scoring This program would allow us to make quick credit decisions by accessing an on-line, national data base. One consumer benefit would be that we wouldn't have to charge a deposit to someone signing up for service who has good credit — but no payment history with Chugach. Expanded IVR information You can now access basic account information around the clock using a telephone keypad. We plan to add our capital credits data base to the menu selection in 1997. Flexible due dates This program would allow customers to choose a due date for their monthly bill which is convenient for their circumstances. Consolidated billings Members with service at more than one location will be able to have multiple accounts billed on a single invoice once a month. Discounted pre-paid bills We're evaluating the idea of offering a discount for customers who choose to pay for a year in advance. Research We've budgeted to do both a general member attitude survey to help evaluate our performance, and market research to identify rate alternatives, products and services which can deliver value to members. Key account management We plan to work directly with large energy users to help them maximize the value received from Chugach services. Rate alternatives Chugach will work with iit a 7 to develop rate alternatives whi better meet their needs. The goal is to offer customers the option of choosing a price structure which gives them the most value for their specific circumstances. Energy analysis Chugach will provide expanded energy analysis to members, building on the successful energy audit program we've done for years. Offering the services you want and need is important to us. We think the things I've outlined here will enhance your Chugach electric service. I hope you agree. Bre MN. Oeste News notes, continued from page 1 ¢ Volunteers are currently being solicited for the Election Committee and Member Advisory Council. Call 762-4736 for more information. ¢ Several of Chugach’s communications efforts recently won awards from the Alaska Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America. Winning projects included Chugach’s 1996 Home Show booth, business photography, and the home page. ¢ The level at which Chugach starts billing commercial customers a demand charge was raised in November from 10 to 20 kilowatts. The change should result in savings for approximately 500 smaller commercial customers. ¢ Chugach will be estimating bills as often as every other month, especially through the the winter months. If so, you'll see the word “estimated” in the information line of the bill. If you think your account has been incorrectly estimated, call customer service at 563-7366. ¢ Finding your member number in the Outlet is worth $50. Each month Chugach inserts three member numbers into the text of articles in brackets like this {}. We've also included the first two letters of the customer’s last name. Call 563-7366 if you find your number. You may claim for either the current or immediate past issue of the newsletter. Board viewpoint Mt NA Ces a LL Benchmarking & best practices As you may recall, Chugach has been involved in projects to benchmark some of its key functions against other utilities. Our goal is to see how we measure up, and look for ways to improve. We’re looking throughout the industry at how other organizations do some of the same work we do. When we find someone doing a job better, we look to see if there’s a good idea or “best practice” we can adopt to improve our own operations. We've participated in different benchmarking projects in 1995 & 1996. Here’s an update. Line extensions We benchmarked this area a year ago. That project built upon our own surveys of targeted customers who had recently done a project to extend facilities to a property or development. Both studies indicated that the turn-around time between the initial application and the time power was being turned on was too long. A review of the best practices of our utility partners suggested that if we could cut the number of steps in the work process — as well as eliminate duplication of effort — the waiting time for a line extension could be significantly reduced. We analyzed our work process this year, and are now’ implementing recommendations from that study. We expect this to cut approximately two weeks from the average line extension process. Work teams Another best practice of our utility benchmarking partners now being adopted by Chugach is the concept of work teams. Traditionally we have moved a line extension project from department to department. Bottlenecks often resulted when a particular area’s staffing or other resources were limited. Chugach is now trying a different approach. Customers are being partnered with a line extension representative, who coordinates directly with the design and construction groups responsible for the customer's project. Chugach has also adopted “unit price” contracting, which should significantly shorten the time it takes to get a line extension project turned over to a contractor. Based upon its initial success, Chugach is looking for opportunities to expand the use of work teams to other areas. System Maintenance While last year’s study showed our circuit reliability was better than the industry average, we also found that our costs for line maintenance were high. Some of these high costs can be attributed to uncontrollable factors --- like harsh Alaskan winters which cut into crew productivity. Chugach also has a significant portion of its distribution system located underground in urban areas which complicates troubleshooting and subsequent repair. Chugach has accelerated its maintenance programs over the past years to improve its overall system reliability. Chugach will be developing a new five year operations and maintenance plan over the next year to incorporate industry best practices. With the help of benchmarking efforts and implementation of best practices, we can improve productivity which will lower costs while maintaining the current level of reliability we enjoy. This is a big topic. I'll have more to say about out benchmarking and best practices activities next month. It's City of Lights season. The program encourages folks to brighten Anchorage by decorating homes, trees and businesses with strings of miniature white lights from November to March. It costs about a dime for the electric service for a Chugach residential customer to light a tree 12 hours with 200 miniature white lights for Board appoints Birch to fill vacancy The board appointed Chris Birch to fill a vacancy on the board until the cooperative's 1997 election. Director Marty Bushue vacated the seat earlier in November. Birch is a registered professional engineer who works as a project manager for the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. He has also served on Chugach's Bylaws Committee and was the committee chair in 1996. Nine Chugach members applied for the vacancy after it was advertised in November. Chugach sold 168.6 million kilowatt-hours of electric service in September, about 8 million kwh more than projected by the budget. Wholesale power sales accounted for 69 million kwh, retail sales for 72.2 million kwh and economy energy sales for about 27.4 million kwh. Year-to-date sales stood at 1.6 billion kwh, about 36.3 million kwh more than projected by the budget. Chugach finished September with operating revenues of $10.3 million, about $130,000 less than anticipated by the budget. Year-to-date operating revenues stood at $97.5 How to reach us million, about $858,000 more than projected by the budget. September expenses were $10.4 million, about $268,000 less than projected by the budget. Year-to- date expenses stood at $92.9 million, about $1.4 million less than projected by the budget. At September's end, Chugach's equity-to-total-capitalization ratio was 25.26 percent. By comparison, Chugach's year-to- date September 1995 power sales totaled 1.58 billion kwh, while operating revenues were $96 million and expenses were $90.1 million. Chugach's equity-to-total- capitalization ratio at the end of September 1995 was 24.61 percent. In other action at November meetings, the board: * Approved a special $392,136 wholesale capital credit retirement. * Approved a special $1,868,785 retail capital credit retirement. ¢ Approved capital credit payments totaling $20,043.41 to 35 estates, bringing the 1996 estate payments total to $174,327.94. ¢ Authorized the general manager to execute two $525,000 contracts for line clearing and trimming services. One contract was awarded to Asplundh Tree Expert Co. and the other to Carlos Tree Service. * Authorized the general manager to execute a $425,000 contract with Redi Electric for locate services. * Agreed to the terms of a settlement agreement with wholesale customers Matanuska Electric Association, Homer Electric Association and Alaska Electric Generation & Transmission Cooperative resolving a number of outstanding issues on rates. * Requested staff prepare a list of definitions regarding director absences. * Excused a Nov. 6 meeting absence for Director Kennedy. * Approved directors' expenses. Residential Service Costs Customer charge $6.25/month Kilowatt-hour charges: Energy charge 7.727¢ Fuel adjustment 0.756¢ Regulatory cost charge 0.0322¢ Total per kwh 8.5152¢ Our service center at 5601 Minnesota Drive is open from 8 a.m. - 6 p.m., Monday-Friday. Switchboard hours are 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Frequently called numbers Main number warsseamswen sg uaeq amc 563-7494 Toll free .. eh ening tas (800) 478-7494 Customer service .........-..-..0-00--8 563-7366 Customer service fax ..............006- 762-4678 CleGit ars cic eaiint scrum mars asm ooslane aiens ene 563-5060 Power theft hotline .............. . -762-4731 Danger tree hotline .................-. 762-7227 On-line Payment options You may pay your bill by mail, automatic debit from your checking account, in-person at our service center or by using our curbside drop box. You may be able to pay by phone if your bank or credit union offers this service. Current payments may also be made at any Anchorage branch of the First National Bank of Anchorage. To report a power outage Monday - Friday, 8a.m.-5 p.m. ......... 563-7366 Afterhours cececysmswasmewmewe msec as 563-7494 Outside Anchorage ..............-. (800) 478-7494 Printed in Alaska with vegetable inks on recycled paper (100% recycled, 20% post-consumer waste). . . -http://www.chugachelectric.com The Chugach Outlet A Publication of Chugach Electric Association, Inc. 5601 Minnesota Drive P.O. Box 196300, Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Chugach Electric Association, Inc. is a not-for-profit member- owned electric cooperative and Alaska’s largest electricity supplier. Chugach’s mission is to meet the energy needs of members and customers by providing competitively-priced, reliable, safe energy and services today and into the future through prudent and responsible planning, maintenance and management of the assets of the cooperative. ..Turnagain Jewel Lake Sand Lake ..Hillside -Northwood -Oceanview -Satellite Park Ray Kreig, President Patricia Jasper, Vice President Mary Minder, Secretary .... Kathleen Weeks, Treasurer Chris Birch, Director ... Ed Granger, Director Pat Kennedy, Director.. Gene Bjornstad, General Manager f™, che rest of the Alaska Railbele. November 12, 1996 Spenard Community Recreation Center| 2020 West 48th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska Tel: (907) 343-4160 November 13, 1996 Bean Creek Road Cooper Landing, Alaska ‘Tel: (907) 595-1257 November 14, 1996 Kenai Peninsula Borough Chambers 144 N. Binkley Street Soldotna, Alaska Tel: (907) 262-4441 If you would like more information, please contact: Dora Gropp Niklas Ranca Chugach Eleceric Dames & Moore, Inc. 800-478-7494 °F 800-315-4082 907-762-4626 907 562-3366 Seward Phoenix Log - column width 3: = 5.75" w (Actual dimensions - 5.69" w x 3.65" h) Cooper Landing Community Hall YOU'RE INVITED The Rural Utilities Service, in conjunction with the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, invites you to accend public scoping meetings in connection with the Southern Incertie Project peoposed by the Intertie Participants Group. The proposed project will provide an additional transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage to improve the reliability of service, and to create more efficient distribution of power between the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project and Meetings will be held from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the following locations: RUS HANDOUT FOR THE SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), formerly known as the Rural Electrification Administration (REA), is a Federal agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The agency was established in 1935 by Executive Order as an emergency relief program. Statutory authority was provided by the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. The Act established REA as a lending agency with responsibility for developing a program for tural electrification. Presently its mission is to provide financing assistance in the form of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants to rural cooperatives, corporations, and public entities for the installation, expansion, and modernization of rural electric, telecommunication, and water and waste water systems throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. RUS does not construct, operate, or manage electric, telecommunications, or water and waste water systems. Nor does RUS get involved in obtaining right-of-way easements or property acquisitions. Seven electric utilities, known as the Intertie Participants Group (IPG), are proposing to construct a 230 kV transmission line that will be initially energized at 138 kV. Chugach Electric Association, Inc. is the construction manager for the proposed project. The project would provide a second transmission line interconnection between the Anchorage area and the Kenai Peninsula and will enable the IPG to fully utilize the electric power generated by the Bradley Lake Project. Golden Valley Electric Association, inc. and the Homer Electric Association, Inc., the two IPG members and RUS borrowers, intend to apply for RUS financing for their portion of the project. The purpose of these public meetings is to provide information regarding the proposed project, answer questions, and identify public concerns regarding the potential environmental impacts that may result from construction and operation of the proposed project. Information from the scoping meetings will be incorporated into RUS’s environmental reports for this project. These public meetings are intended to fulfill RUS’s public scoping requirements pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. Comments concerning the proposed alternatives and their potential environmental impacts are encouraged. Anyone wishing to provide oral comments at the scoping meetings is welcome to do so. Written comments will also be accepted at the meetings and should be left with the RUS representatives. The attached form should be used to mail the written comments to RUS at the address provided. Written comments must be received before January 1, 1997 to be part of the official record of these scoping meetings. i PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENT SHEET The Raral Utilities Service, in conjunction with the U.S. Forest Service and the US. Fish and Wildlife Service, invites you to comment on the Southern Intertie Project proposed by the Intertie Participants Group. The proposed project will provide an additional transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage to improve the reliability of service, and to create more efficient distribution of power hetween the Bradley Lake Hydroelec- tric Project and the rest of the Alaska Railbelt. Comments should be returned to Nurul Islam, Environmental Protection Specialist, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Stop 1571, Washington, DC 20250-1571, Tel: (202) 720-1784, FAX: (202) 720-0820 and received before January 1, 1997. Name: Organization: Address: Phone: Comment: SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line DH AACAYK ORCI SUD IYER NOAH AYU ba SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) in conjunction with the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service intends to hold public scoping workshops and prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) in connection with the Southern Intertie Project proposed by the IPG. The proposed project will provide an additional transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage to improve the reliability of service, and to create more efficient distribution of power between the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project and the rest of the Alaska Railbelt. A corridor siting study was recently completed, resulting in the identification of four alternative corridors. At this time a proposed route has not been selected. We are currently seeking public comments on alternative routes and issue identification to assist in the preparation of an EIS. Meetings will be held from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the following dates and locations: November 12, 1996 November 13, 1996 November 14, 1996 Spenard Community Recreation Center Cooper Landing Community Hall Kenai Peninsula Borough Chambers 2020 West 48th Avenue Bean Creek Road 144 N. Binkley Street Anchorage, Alaska Cooper Landing, Alaska Soldotna, Alaska Tel: (907) 343-4160 Tel: (907) 595-1257 Tel: (907) 262-4441 Ifyou would like more information, please contact: Dora Gropp Niklas Ranta Nurul Islam Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Dames & Moore Rural Utilities Service 800-478-7494 5600 B Street 202-720-1414 907-702-4620 Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1041 800-315-4082 907-562-3306 x e < = Tyonek Ty, ow 2 = . Seni Naga, ; Six Mile Creek | Kenai National Transmission Wildlife Refuge ‘ Line Alternative === Transmission Line Corridors i Submarine Lines As * a Substations Soldotna Landing Note: Not to Scale Substations: 1- Bernice Lake 2 - Soldotna 3 - Point Woronzof 4 - International 5 - University, APA, or Power Plant #2 Intertie Participants Group (IPC) Chugach Electric Association, Inc. * Homer Electric Association, Inc. * Municipality of Anchorage —Municipal Light & Power City of Seward - Seward Electric System * Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. ¢ Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. Municipality of Fairbanks - Fairbanks Municipal Utilities —, SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT INTER-AGENCY MEETING November 6, 1996 Name/Title Organization Address Telephone/Fax No. PO. Bo $79 LAD heen | 21 PD x nernee pnehoy ape 5 3- 272 | (88; Kbboll Pi Ie L “SLY, RT CTiTt Jeff Dentow | BLM ‘ 247- 1233, " Bear Anowaser Fw [on &. Tnoem Rl. Ar ener 9983] NF6-32379 wax NK -dG6 eV eee USES | 9400 Cot hic edh 300 99503 | 22-2547 Rae 2709982 | Mild YsT | us (342! Uenus 9FSIUS~ | _ BYS~ EEC — us a Y Ynielle Jer F lou ETudor Rd 1950 €o-333s- fax 1&o-3%0 222 W. FH Ave. #19 Heamee Dean eri AncH. 99512 271-2490 | 3424 onk cp ft y rue Phillie North | EPA 2#I-340)/ syey [dep SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT INTER-AGENCY MEETING November 6, 1996 Name/Title Organization Telephone/Fax No. 2Z24-337Y 227-326F FS Gary Wye | 4s. Pw NekeneRGge » AK 7456/ | 27/-2780 _fAk-A7/-2786 360| C Street, Suite 1130 269-3533 NANCy PEASE | Ak PNR Anchomge AK 99503 . 2us /Us RUS, A- South Bicig-Step (SF ( Nureue LSLam | yo Be Washwtan, Pc L2o2SG~ ISF| — THAW NDR DME ON ny | Tuesday, November 12, 1996 7 Spenard Community Recreation Center Anchorage, Alaska Phone Provide Oral Name Organization Address (Optional) Comment? (Y/N) ee ee tact WI 27/-2syd A) S14 W.8 Wve de 0] v Dey Stonse A \eska Conkec x We Erirorment Fue Ale 94.55 | DTY- E> | qd Sb Tea che hugads 500 Pra br. 39S-/0 NV Maney Ditixa Dame Stror 00 6 St rhe stz-3g Pi<_ STWR 0. BOR F2l_—_ Coofee Lyle IK VEE. SEIS Dkk Trepain JERS Chased’ Clrel, Ak Pre stone WwW CIE Eames Aklenter Ferihe Ewir S14 WE Hei P95o1 ary n3eap Gill Quin | Po BOX 1F 2007 Aneh F2S1¥ N — : xt ) \X0 en Ve sth ASO\ 269-545 SS NYOWTUTTSA AVOSUOO ONTO CONSKO WNC Tuesday, November 12, 1996 _ Spenard Community Recreation Center Anchorage, Alaska Phone Provide Oral Name Organization Address (Optional) Comment? (Y/N) Led ease (§[20 Elmory Rd 995Ip 379-1225 Q WrenUere L43¢ inker Dy. AS BY3-B 98 Barae Arowmsoy) = usFws ae 9563 | [ema Jurrarain CC. 4A Beadle Ciy_ges77__AYT-O4¢Y2 lb Bloat == Lt ANG, ALLEN ShITY THE Wicneatlless Sengcty {GoW Abie, ae y 272-9455 Dan Frau ticer Bue RY [232 wAsHinGo We Anck oven AIC PAS1S 566-1514 (Tqucony fo Menthe WWE tomeovrtatT _ 8 BAe _ 9950 suf Ueo — —. NYIUAVTLNA VOT BLK Tuesday, November 12, 1996 _ Spenard Community Recreation Center Anchorage, Alaska Phone Provide Oral LATEL “fob I335| Keer PL Ane AK 9951S 345 5553 Beltre, chepa olBlapeo< _ 962) Wrimnesota — Aveh HK 77577 Chuck Fbey a fob Stir e_ (323) ROEF PL AC HOMes RK Ges7s— BES-LEP Pane Billman (self) 13740 MDscell Rd And At VIS X) vieyterdenfrall sel P 600 Rabht Crk Rd, Are TPTIG SYS WZ Aas tense Clo HEED 70% war 4220) MS S9SSB ie) Mve wong [YiZo SPAR OR qa : Son 2 DP? 200-79G8 Luke VSS) 29/7 Chikthry DR save 98 cama NYTUUTTTN NSO a ORTHO CORSA OO SDOTOLUN Tuesday, November 12, 1996 _ Spenard Community Recreation Center Anchorage, Alaska Phone Provide Oral Name Organization Address (Optional) Comment? (Y/N) Ed Gvinge/ CEA/B 2D Lhogke Ela, —_———— N/ fle — ngpandinee Fee Sw (202) 720 1794 Nueve. LAM , us /tlsoA as vata 2 be 20250-1571 __ FAK Q02)720 -0820 V /3 02) Venues Way CGN FUE EYE FILLA re YesT usf/esaA ANCK. ALC OS ¢S— EF A noalisa. Lili ama, CE \ 1c. oF 2-UG@0 AL Jim dobnrton ——_HALD 600 Reblt Creex pd : (901) 546-15/4 Abcrorsce Ae PISS SOA Segovd (Fo 2 anvies Dr. (901) 34S-@S7T Julle OQWVer OUMAWVION Camm Comeil Anonrerage AC HINT SO Coors MaSz (134 Cody Brcko FOLg SYP Bree Crepe R {38/0 _ _JARV. ALA S4IS-[3S50O — —_ SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT PUBLIC SCOPING Ne Thursday, November 14, 1996 Kenai Peninsula Borough Chamber 4 Soldotna; Alaska Coopae innviilg Phone Provide Oral Name Organization Address (Optional) Comment? (Y/N) Fort. FoR 315 Go 2 29502 = cebytinl FOC FO B1S Ce0Fe® Lastprees 2FS22 KEW , « Lutter, EU. ACHOW ASS Box SU SeaALD 4K TG \ MW \ \ WEr YY v lLLOa Drelependena Ave, Su) (anja Al Vv o> bn RUS/uspa Stap-(5 F1, Washington;De 2oasa UVSFUIS Po. Bot T5Q J PARK CHASE XEN NWR SOLEOINA BY Wi WOR WU FOU N fe bella 20 ¥ Bob Roo Wilson Lancs g 49872 907-5S9SACF7 — oo _ are Rm 7) slow layne t OGL yeti T5511 IO} SSS-L5FE \ y | Kenai Vrincesd 5y¥ Cte 4 Se Jos . r S9G5-1%33 cece \ (éa Lae Oc. Box TA Cooper Cel: qas7a / HOMER 7 a ows lLeL&eCTRIC OME 6 cn | Po bof ay CoogLendvn, k. Gare — —, SOUTHERN IVTERTIE PROJECT PUBLIC SCOPING MERTING I Thursday, November 14, 1996 Kenai Peninsula Borough Chamber Soldotna, Alaska cooper. LiWorlly Phone Provide Oral Name Organization Address (Optional) Comment? (Y/N) BN 74G COOPER LANDING ALASKA 99972 y PALIOD AHOOE / JeXLE €, OLSEN : P.O-BOK797 COCPER LANDING AK F957 2. Lables all Cy” 00% 2368 $d 96061 22.7 SR . K ook tice mo Zr eles Onerypen (Torubrn'y TIS 7 S) Lf Mowe Olnomes Bo 75U_ Qooger Laval, 99S72_ a ‘ “oo™ AUTH AVA AIIM LOS) MULTAN DONC RISD | : Thursday, November 14, 1996 Kenai Peninsula Borough Chamber Soldotna, Alaska Phone Provide Oral Name Organization Address (Optional) Comment? (Y/N) lac Lan dstrom Box [254 Solemn FVAF . N\ 4 Z2U2-44 Glenda Lance TBE nen. INH NS Binkley ,Setdlotnn AAlA at 337 N 4 YOr Box 2326 ; SACK HeZHteeZod AEA piecemad SOLS! AK ITGCEY 2 62-48F I a “ Kick _Eensr HEA cvsmMER (0 Box 1324 Kena AK 77Gll = loz Cae ead Box [22 Seldetua 24645 Wy Y% NATTA AYUDA RCORSO NRE) Thursday, November 14, 1996 Kenai Peninsula Borough Chamber Soldotna, Alaska Phone Provide Oral Name Organization Address (Optional) Comment? (Y/N) TEL Doan, Rey Bikinis? — BO Box dae Br 2 KS Kx Y a bs Ets Sterl. 4, Ake GFIOS7L = PO fox ¢ 2 ey A e612 Axe Ktecd frit herr Due Vober 4256 Sbdra Ale F666 Z-} ito jb Meas Dox Ses Shpbae LE CS anlorse lt Voleoe_ PO.3a9 Ste\iny Ale 262 SU04 Ea nour “Rey Tug Neth hi. “aa NTT ANS INTO OSM U CURED ACCRUING Thursday, November 14, 1996 Kenai Peninsula Borough Chamber Soldotna, Alaska Pian Ril Name Organization Address (Optional) Comment? (Y/N) ‘ean u Mulien eee Linger bern 262-9125 Nv Nur Dobro £us [Uso Bsn eee Sc 202 OH /F2 (202) 720- (794 NZ Alde Yost Ruslusza “aaesl Bie. 9 8b ne Mike KeNAD BOX 946 STE = 907 262° 3K 34 p/ 7 en SStdl Box 438 slot $26 v eee _ S fa h) J C \ N SOK Soldstn GO - @ I~ SOUTHERN LVTERTIE PROJECT PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS Thursday, November 14, 1996 Kenai Peninsula Borough Chamber Soldotna, Alaska Phone Provide Oral Name Organization Address geo (Optional Comment? (Y/N) FPO. BOX 218% ,Sorponug Mpex Gare KEN) Anat WILDUFE ZEFUGE FAWLEA ZO2- FOr wv JE DMtLey 08 Ko Steeung Me Woz 267 S/n Project Mailing List: FEDERAL AGENCY CONTACTS U.S. Army: Brigadier General Sigurd Murphy Colonel William Brown, Director of Public Works U.S. Army Engineer District - Alaska: Jack Hewitt, Regulatory Specialist U.S. Forest Service: Bill Angelus, EIS Coordinator John Dorio, District Ranger Elaine Fitzmaurice Chuck Frey, Planning Duane Harp Steve Hennig Larry Hudson, Supervisor Leo Keeler Gary H Lehnhausen, Team Leader Fred Prange Ken Rice, Planning Don Rivers Ray Thompson Bruce Williams Rural Utilities Service: Nurul Islam Larry Wolfe National Marine Fisheries Service: Ron Morris Brad Smith Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Land Management: Lorri Denton Jeff Denton Bob Lloyd, Assistant District Manager-Lands U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Brian Anderson Mark Chase Jim Fratis Sharon Janis, Chief Danielle Jerry Rick Johnston Ann Rappaport Robin West, Refuge Manager Gary Wheeler National Park Service U.S. Coast Guard: Capt. Ed Thompson Federal Aviation Administration: Cathy Benediktsson, Supervisor Env Engrg Robert Durand Jack Schommer Daniel Truesdell Environmental Protection Agency: Rick Albright, Director Heather Dean Phillip North Bill Ryan STATE AGENCY CONTACTS Chugach State Park: Ken Morton Al Meiners, Superintendent Alaska Development & Export Authority: Tommy Heinrich Riley Snell Dennis McCrohan Anchorage International Airport: E.A. "Corky" Caldwell Department of Community and Regional Affairs: Mike Irwin, Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation: Len Verrelli, Director Department of Fish and Game: Al Carson Ron Crenshaw Chris Degernes, Kenai Area Superintendent Richard LeFebvre Don MacKay Linda Medeiros, Natural Resource Officer Nancy Pease, Natural Resource Manager Gary Prokosch Jack Sinclair Rick Sinnott Tim Smith Dave Stephens Bruce Talbot, Natural Resource Manager Lance Trasky, Southcentral Regional Supervisor Department of Transportation and Public Facilities: Sandra Anderson, Coordinator, Scenic Highways Patrick Beckley Peggy McNees, Development Planner Diana Rigg John Tolley, Chief Energy Assistance: Stan Sceczkowski Office of the Governor: Marilyn Hyman Maureen McCrae Public Utilities Commission: Robert A Lohr LOCAL AGENCY CONTACTS City of Kenai: Kerry Graves, City Manager City of Soldotna: Sharon Baldwin Tom Bodeker, City Manager Kenai Peninsual Borough: Glenda Landua, Planner Lisa Parker, Director Harriet Wegner, Coordinator Margaret Sphan Municipality of Anchorage: David Gardner, Director of Parks and Recreation Kathy Hammond Caren Mathis, Physical Planning Manager Tom Nelson Sheila Selkregg, Director of Community Planning and Development Thede Tobish Lance Wilber, Transportation Planning Manager SPECIAL INTERST GROUPS Abbott Loop Community Council Alaska Airmen's Association, Inc. Alaska Asssociation of Realtors Alaska Center for the Environment Alaska Citizens for Responsible Energy Development Alaska Conservation Foundation Alaska Federal Credit Union Alaska Marine Pilots Association Alaska Railroad Corporation Alaska Railroad Corporation Alaska Rainforest Campaign Alaska Rural Electric Co-Op Association Alaska Sportfishing Association Alaska TREES Inc. Alaska Visitors Association Alaska Wildland Adventures Alaska Wildlife Alliance Alaskan Aviation Safety Foundation Alcan Electrical & Engineering American Legion Post 20 Amvets Post No. 4 Anchorage Audubon Society Anchorage Chamber of Commerce Anchorage Economic Development Corporation Anchorage Municipal Light & Power Anchorage School District ARCO Alaska Inc. Arktos Associates Associated General Contractors of Alaska Attorney at Law Bayshore/Klatt Community Council BP Exploration c/o ARECA Capital Resource Associates Carr-Gotstein Properties Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Chugach State Park Advisory Board City Electric, Inc City of Soldotna Civil Air Patrol Commercial Fisherman Association Cook Inlet Keeper Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Council Cooper Landing Community Council Cooper Landing Fish & Game Advisory Committee Cooper Landing Land Advisory Committee Cultural Resource Consultants D'Ewart Representatives David Rhode Photography Dynamic Properties Eagle River Community Council Eastern Kenai Peninsula Eastern Kenai Peninsula Environmental Action Assn Empire North Inc. ERA - North Kenai Era Aviation, Inc. Federation of Community Councils First National Bank of Anchorage Flying Crown Homeowners Association Fraternal Order of the Eagles Friends of Cooper Landing Girdwood Board of Supervisors Girdwood Board of Supervisors Greenpeace HEREU, Local 878 Hillside Area Land Owners Homer Chamber of Commerce Homer Electric Association Huffman/O'Malley Community Council Institute for Policy Research John P Bagoy & Associates, Inc. Kachemak Bay Conservation Society Kachemak Resource Institute Kenai Chamber of Commerce Kenai Elks Lodge No. 2425 Kenai Merit Inn Kenai Peninsula Builders Association Kenai Peninsula Fisherman's Association Kenai Peninsula Outdoor Coalition Kenai Peninsula Tourism Marketing Council Kenai Princess Lodge Kenai River Sportfishing, Inc. Kenai School District Kenai Senior Citizens Center Kenai Visitors & Convention Bureau, Inc. King Salmon Fund Knik Canoers & Kayakers, Inc. Lang Consulting League of Women Voters Legislative Research Agency Marathon Oil Company Moose Lodge Peninsula National Audubon Society National Bank of Alaska National Electrical Contractors Association National Parks & Conservation Association National Wildlife Federation Nikiski Senior Center Norcon, Inc. North Peninsula Chamber of Commerce North Peninsula Recreation Department Old Seward/Oceanview Community Council Peninsula Clarion Phillips Petroleum Company R.A. Kreig & Associates Rabbit Creek Community Council Redi Electric, Inc. Regional Citizens Advisory Council REMAX of the Peninsula Ron's AK Lodge Seward Animal Clinic Seward Chamber of Commerce Shell Western E & P Inc. Sierra Club Soldotna Chamber of Commerce Soldotna Elks Lodge No. 2706 Soldotna Senior Citizens Center Southpark Homeowners Association Southpark Terrace Homeowners Association Southwest Pilots Association Sterling Senior Citizens Center Taku/Campbell Community Council Tesoro Alaska Refiner The Nature Conservancy The Wilderness Society Trailside Discovery Camp Trout Unlimited CIPSA Trustees for Alaska Turnagain Arm Board of Supervisors Turnagain Community Council United Cook Inlet Drift Association University Area Community Council UNOCAL Oil & Gas Operations US Department of Agriculture VFW Post No. 10046 Wildlife Federation of Alaska NATIVE GROUPS Alexander Creek, Inc. Caswell Native Association Chickaloon-Moose Creek Native Assn, Inc Chugachmiut Cook Inlet Region, Inc Eklutna, Incorporated Endi'ina Ya Ida'ina Committee Kenai Natives Association, Inc. Kenaitze Indian Tribe, IRA Knikatnu, Incorporated Native Village of Tyonek Ninilchik Native Association, Inc. Point Possession Inc. Salamatof Native Association, Inc. Seldovia Native Association, Inc. Tyonek Native Corporation INDIVIDUAL CONTACTS Assemblymember Pat Abney Bunny Ackerly Ron Akaamit Christy Anderson Elaine Anderson Mike Arnold Assemblymember Dale Bagley Bonnie Bailey Representative Ramona Barnes Nancy & Steve Beardsley Assemblymember Mark Begich Assemblymember Bob Bell Charles Benson Anne Billman Charles Birch Dorothy Bishop Assemblymember Tom Boedeker Lee Bowman Fred Braun Gerald Brookman Assemblymember Jack Brown Representative Kay Brown Representative Con Bunde Effie Caldarola Judy Call Assemblymember Ted Carlson Catherine Cassidy Chris Chazasse Assemblymember Cheryl Clementson Mrs. Joseph Cloud Maureen Cochrell Dennis Comeau Craig Cook Tom Coolidge Glenn Cravez Gerry Cronquist J.R. Dailey Representative Gary L Davis Lloyd Davis Representative Bettye Davis Richard Day John Dean Jack Dean Senator Dave Donley Assemblymember Ronald Drathman Harriet Drummond Seth Earnes Senator Johnny Ellis Rick Ernst Betty Farrally Don Faulkenburry Representative Dave Finkelstein Ruth D Fitzpatrick Dan Flemming Jim Forbes Keith Freeman Tom Freeman Pat Fullerton Sherry Furlong Jim Garrigues Matz George Michail A Gephardt Mayor Don Gilman Gordon Glaser Assemblymember Betty J Glick Bill Granger Representative Joe Green Senator Lyda Green Lisa & Guy Greer Frank Gwartney Senator Rick Halford Representative Mark Hanley Mike Hein Julia Hildreth Rebecca Holloway Cindy Hora Assemblymember Debra Horne Jimmy Jackson Ron Jacobs Jon James Paul Jenryk Elmer Jesko Allan Johnson Tom Keffer Senator Tim Kelly Ike Kelly Assemblymember Dan Kendall R. Kipling Tom Kizzia Bill Knauer Governor Tony Knowles Peggy Koecher Representative Vic Kohring Larry Korn Representative Pete Kott Mayor Ken Lancaster Lori Landstrom Catherine Leaders Senator Loren Leman Ed Lightwood John Makinen Regina Manfeufel Sheila Mansfield Ken Marlow Shirley Marpa Representative Terry Martin Mike Massin George Matz Rod McCoy George McCoy Brian McIntosh Peter McKay Vivian Mendenhall Assemblymember Grace Merkes Dennis & Terry Mestas Assemblymember Kevin Meyer Bill Miernyk Tom Miller Sharon Minach Gary or Jan Mitchell Kenneth or Frances Moore Jim Morton Representative Eldon Mulder Peggy Mullen Assemblymember Joe Murdy Honorable Frank Murkowski Mr & Mrs SE Murphy Michael Murphy Mayor Rick Mystrom Assemblymember Timothy Navarre Representative Mike Navarre Bruce Neilson Gordon Nelson Julie Niederhauser Rod Nielsen Tim O'Brien Charlene & Robert Oakes Representative Scott Ogan Joyce Olsen John Oologgi Dan Osborne Representative Sean Parnell Senator Drue Pearce Nancy Pease Ted or Claire Pease David Pease Representative Gail Phillips Senator Randy Phillips John Pletcher, III Kathleen Plunkett Representative Brian Porter Tami Powell Bill Quirk Leonardo Rabino John Randall Rowe Redick James Richardson Mary E Rider Senator Steve Rieger Representative Norman Rokeberg Christopher Sabin Senator Judy Salo Bob Sancher Representative Jerry Sanders Assemblymember Drew Scalzi, President Mary Scanelli Glen and Jean Schrader Russell Sell Barbara Shine George Sidadal Rich Silver Robin Slater Rick Smeriglio Raymond and Patricia Smith Randy Smith Larry Smith Kelly Smith Paul Snowden Don Sparrow Claire Steffens John Steiner Honorable Ted Stevens Willard E. Stockwell Patty Swenson Maria Sweppy Rachel Thomas Ralph Tolman Representative Cynthia Toohey Senator John Torgerson Sandy Train] Larry Traw Dick Tremaine Assemblymember Gaye J Vaughan, CMC/AAE Assemblymember Fay Von Gemmingen Robert Wall Bruce Weiler Bobbi Wells Bill Welmar Sue White Assemblymember Mike Wiley Gary Williams Representative Ed Willis Calvin Wilson Bob & Bee Wilson Assemblymember Charles Wohlforth Assemblymember George Wuerch Jim Young Honorable Don Young Mike Zoske POSTER DISPLAY CONTACTS Libraries: Chugiak/Eagle River Library, Eagle River Scott & Wesley Gerrish Library, Girdwood Samson/Dimond Library, Anchorage Muldoon Library, Anchorage Mt. View Library, Anchorage Hope Community Library, Hope Cooper Landing Community Library, Cooper Landing Soldotna Public Library, Soldotna Z J Loussac Public Library, Anchorage Kenai Community Library, Kenai US. Post Offices: Nikiski Soldotna Sterling Cooper Landing Hope Tyonek Kenai Chugiak Eagle River APPENDIX B SUMMARIES OF COMMENTS Federal Agency Comments Received During Formal Scoping Period Comment Date: First Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: First Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: First Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: First Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: 11/8/96 Capt. Ed Thompson US Department of Transportation, Coast Guard Reviewed executive summary report and have no adverse comments or recommendations. Their understanding that any submarine cable areas will be adjacent to existing submarine pipelines or in areas not frequented by vessel traffic. The as build route for any submarine cables need to be documented on navigational charts through NOAA. 11/15/96 Daniel Truesdell US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration Requested information on project. 11/22/96 Colonel William Brown, Director of Public Works US Army, Attn: APVR-RPW Amny strongly objects to any proposed routing of t-line onto Army lands as they do not have sufficient areas which could accommodate a new utility corridor. 12/6/96 Bill Ryan US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 Requested copy of scoping meeting handouts and sign-in sheets. Page 1 of 1 State Agency Comments Received During Formal Scoping Period Comment Date: Name: #Error Organization: #Error Summary of Comment: Page 1 of 1 Local Agency Comments Received During Formal Scoping Period Comment Date: 11/27/96 Name: Glenda Landua, Planner Organization: Kenai Peninsula Borough, Planning Department Summary of Comment: KPB has no formal comments to submit on the Route Selection Study, Phase |. Additional project information, along with transcripts from recent meetings have been requested from Dames & Moore. Page 1 of 1 Individual Written Comments Received During Formal Scoping Period Comment Date: 11/5/96 Name: Kenneth or Frances Moore Organization: Summary of Comment: Recommend Alt. T as 1st choice, E - 2nd, H - 3rd, and Q - 4th. Comment Date: 11/6/96 Name: Joseph L. Kashi Organization: Attomey at Law Summary of Comment: New line should follow Q plus H. It would have least environmental impact and would least severely impact residential neighborhoods. T and E would result in more litigation than current line. OQWould E follow the exising line along the boundaries of KNWR (most acceptable route that would not impact many areas) or follow the pipeline corridor between Robinson Loop Road and the Sterling Highway? Probable lawsuits from diminishment of property values if construct intertie here. ONot clear if whether intertie would follow gas pipeline route between Robinson Loop Road and the Sterling Highway, or the existing electrical utility corridor which lies approximately one mile north of the east-west section of Robinson Loop Road. Running the line along existing northerly electrical corridor approx. one mile north of Robinson Loop Road would not be particulary damaging. Comment Date: 11/6/96 Name: Lee Bowman Organization: Summary of Comment: Property owners on Robinson Loop Road in Sterling. Opposed to project as there is no need to spend the money on this project. Least offensive route would be the existing line. Second choice would be Inlet crossing. Page 1 of 15 Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: 11/7/96 Robert Gill, Secretary Treasur HEREU, Local 878 Representative of Local 878 - Restaurant and Hotel Employees Union. Supportive of the Project 11/7/96 Tom Keffer Discourage both routes Q and H as proposed - same natural menaces would be doubled. Alt. T not preferred because Bemice Lake substation is aged out and crossing Tumagain Arm not pratical from cost/engineering standpoint. Prefers Alt. E to University substation - less environmental problems than construction problems. 11/7/96 Rich Silver Request to be added to mailing list. 11/7/96 Mike Zoske Concemed about Quartz Creek Route alignments - has cabin in the area. 11/7/96 Sheila Mansfield Prefers route to follow T route to Pt. Possession then follow along north shore of Kenai Peninsula around Turnagain Arm. Believes overhead and underground lines to be safer and more accessible. Page 2 of 15 Comment Date: 11/8/96 Name: Bonnie Bailey Organization: Summary of Comment: Request to be added to mailing list and newsletter sent. Comment Date: 11/8/96 Name: Tim O'Brien Organization: Summary of Comment: Property owner near Moose Point. T route would go through property or near it. If T route chosen would access be improved and will residents be able to get power from the line? Comment Date: 11/10/96 Name: Bruce Neilson Organization: Summary of Comment: Owns property at Clam Gulch. Opposes Alt. T because too much proposed development in that area including oil development, logging, etc. Wildlife are disappearing. Comment Date: 11/11/96 Name: Mike Hein Organization: Summary of Comment: Will route Q go south of Kenai River and will there be a gasline with it? Comment Date: 11/11/96 Name: Tom Kizzia Organization: Summary of Comment: Anchorage Daily News reporter requested all newsletter except last 2 be faxed and name added to mailing list. Page 3 of 15 Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: 11/12/96 Charlene & Robert Oakes Concemed with route E crossing Moose River along Enstar line. Understands that it is impossible to place transmission lines near gas lines without danger of explosion or fire. Home located downstream of Enstar line on Moose River. Line would ruins views, dangerous to flight patterns. Opposes placing power lines in and along residential areas. Other areas may be burden to home owners. New line should parallel old line mile further up river and would not obstruct views or flight traffic patterns. Once out of residential areas could cut across Moose range towards Anchorage. Not pleases with responses to questions at Soldotna Public Meetings. 11/12/96 Vivian Mendenhall Prefers T route with second choice of Route E with landfall on north shore of Turnagain Arm northwest of Chickaloon Bay - not at Potter Marsh. Both sides of Potter Marsh are heavily used for recreation and it is vulnerable to silt input from construction in or nearby. Problems with Route Q: visual, recreation. Owns property near Quartz Creek 11/13/96 Henry P Lang Lang Consulting Favors Enstar route. Suggest Dames & Moore coordinate with US Army Corps of Engineers proposal to build utility causeway across Turnagain Arm to accomodate future land development and acces in Kenai Area. 11/14/96 Assemblymember Grace Mer Kenai Peninsula Borough Opposes Alt. E. Alt. E would cross 7 lots subdivided from original homestead, and reduce value. Would want lines undergrounded. Prefers Alt. T over Alt. Q. Page 4 of 15 Comment Date: 11/14/96 Name: Sherry Furlong Organization: Summary of Comment: Favors alternative E. Comment Date: 11/14/96 Name: Mrs. Joseph Cloud Organization: Summary of Comment: Concemed with Gray Cliff area. How many additional customers would be served if line placed in Gray Cliffs area? Could pipeline corridor be utilized for the new intertie to lessen impact on environment? Comment Date: 11/14/96 Name: Lori Landstrom Organization: Summary of Comment: Requested an executive summary. Comment Date: 11/14/96 Name: Brian Mcintosh Organization: Summary of Comment: Prefers T route as it minimizes environmental impact. Comment Date: 11/14/96 Name: Keith Freeman Organization: Summary of Comment: Prefers existing line corridor from Soldotna through Cooper Landing. Suggests building new 138-230kV and tie into existing substations. Retire present 115 and 69 kV lines as they are old. Remove poles and conductors thus improving the esthetic value of area with one line rather than three. Page 5 of 15 Comment Date: 11/16/96 Name: Rachel Thomas Organization: Summary of Comment: System selected for final approval should be most efficient, easy and cost efficient to operate and maintain. Decisions should be made by people who live with the consequences of the decisions, not the federal government. Only mitigation required, if any, by the utilities should be funds for reclamation of the land at end of the project. First requirement should be involvement of state and local governments, and every utility user. Comment Date: 11/17/96 Name: Maria Sweppy Organization: Summary of Comment: Southem Intertie should follow existing lines and not create new lines. It should not cross the KNWR. Comment Date: 11/19/96 Name: Ron Jacobs Organization: Summary of Comment: Requested all past mailers, information, etc. mailed. Will any of the routes go through Potter Marsh, and which one? Will any routes go through the utilidor the railroad easement uses? Comment Date: 11/19/96 Name: Nancy & Steve Beardsley Organization: Summary of Comment: Heard about the project through Oceanview Community Council meeting. One proposed line would run behind their house. Noted that there is an airstrip there. Would line be overhead and what would it look like. Page 6 of 15 Comment Date: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: 11/20/96 Raymond and Patricia Smith Opposes routing line along the railroad tracks in Anchorage. Property owner in Oceanview on Reef Place. 11/20/96 Peter McKay Favors Altemative T. Commenter is Nikiski resident who owns property in Moose Point Subdivision. Would like to see provisions for substations and distribution equipment be provided at Capt. Cook St. Park, Gray Cliffs Subdivision, and/or Moose Pt. Subdivision during should route along shore be selected. Nikiski route is only option which can secure new customers and keep connection to Chugach constant. 11/22/96 Peggy Mullen Kenai River Watershed Forum Request for SIP presentation on Dec. 5th, 6:15 - 7:00 p.m. at Cook Inlet Aquaculture Assoc. Bldg. 11/22/96 John Makinen Property owner in Gray Cliffs area. Concerned with access to property and possibility of electrical supply. Wants improved access and electricity. Page 7 of 15 Comment Date: 11/22/96 Name: Kelly Smith Organization: Turnagain Community Council Summary of Comment: Turnagain Community Council requested presentation at January 1997 meeting. Comment Date: 11/25/96 Name: James Richardson Organization: Summary of Comment: Favors route T because less adverse environmental impact. If cost higher, users should pay to avoid excessive damage along other routes. If cost too high, project not viable. Opposed to routes Q and H due to scenic value and avalanche dangers. Opposes route E because it crosses KNWR. Comment Date: 11/26/96 Name: Robert Wall Organization: Summary of Comment: Supports route T only because passes through Gray Cliffs and Moose Point Subdivisions. Power and accessible road are needed to develop this large private land base. No other route will have this added revenue and direct community benefit. (Sterling resident) Comment Date: 12/3/96 Name: Larry Kom Organization: Summary of Comment: Requested last newsletter and comment form. When would next public meeting be. Page 8 of 15 Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Cc omment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Cc omment Date: Name: Organization: 12/3/96 James Cofske Property owner in Sterling, near end of Deville Rd., where Enstar line passes through. Opposes construction of route E. Proposed line will be eyesore, create potentially hazardous environment for residents, and may decrease property values in the future. Project should not pass through middle of KNWR disrupting natural scenery. 12/5/96 Ken Marlow Marlows on the Kenai "What would be the objection to public access to the power line? How much of the Quartz Creek line would be suitable to use as a snow machine corridor connecting Anchorage & the Kenai Peninsula?" 12/7/96 Leonardo Rabino Unable to attend Anchorage public meeting. Would like to leam more about project. 12/8/96 Michael Murphy Summary of Comment: “Status Quo" option at 11/12/96 public meeting not given fair consideration. Presenters were not sufficiently informative about the impact of construction costs on utility rates. Owns home along Alaska Railroad ROW. If route E constructed would obstruct view and low property value. No individuals should carry burden for all rate payers. Route E should be placed underground if constructed along Railroad ROW. Costs should be equally shared by all rate payers. Page 9 of 15 Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: 12/9/96 Robert Baldwin, President Friends of Cooper Landing Accepted invitation to participate as KCWG member. 12/9/96 Bill Stockwell, Chair Cooper Landing Fish & Game Advisory Commit Route Q would pass through areas in Cooper Landing very valuable as fish and wildlife habitat. New construction and wider cleared ROW would greatly increase effect of existing line degredation to fish and wildlife habitat. Request that project weigh consequences of building an additional transmission line along ROW known for avalanche problems agains the damaging effects construction will have on fish and wildlife habitat. 12/11/96 Joseph L. Kashi Attomey at Law Objects to proposed segment of route E that crosses Robinson Lp Rd and. runs through residential neighborhoods. Could result in “actionable diminution" of all the property values. Potential danger in coincidence of natural gas and electrical transmission line if route E chosen. Should modify route E to run from Soldotna substation north through Mackey Lake area until interception with existing line north of Robinson Lp Rd, then follow lines east of KNWR boundary until intercept with pipeline in uninhabited areas, then follow proposed route E. Page 10 of 15 Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: 12/12/96 Bill Stockwell, Chair Cooper Landing Fish & Game Advisory Commit Not opposed to project but objects to all selected routes. If excess power developed on Kenai Peninsula should Cooper Lake Dam be retained? The restoration of Cooper Creek spawning habitat may mitigate damage done elsewhere to fish and wildlife habitat by the SIP. Alt. H & Q should not be considered if purpose is to increase reliability and efficiency due to avalanche areas, viewshed, fish and wildlife habitat, and quality of life. Alt. E may solve reliability problems but would have adverse impact on wildlife in KNWR. Alt. T would impact viewshed and wildlife such as shore birds. If SIP can't be build without severe impacts on residents and fish and wildlife habitat then project not viable. 12/13/96 Dennis Comeau Objects to routing line aboveground along Alaska railroad ROW. Does Alaska railroad and CEA have right to route electrical lines along this corridor? Line is not needed. ARR ROW is not universal and has legal limits on usages. No right to destroy view and utility of property. EMF from lines near residences negatively effect occupants and systems in homes. 12/16/96 Larry Korn Member of Oceanview Homeowner's Association concemed with impacts to viewshed and property values. Are concerns valid? Does not want to face 2-3 year legal battle. Page 11 of 15 Comment Date: 12/18/96 Name: George Lyle, Chair Organization: University Area Community Council Summary of Comment: University Area Community Council has no representative on the Anchorage Community Working Group. Discussed council newsletter content regarding the project and who wrote it. Chair will advance idea of offering CEA space to rebut comments in the newsletter and get back us on it. Chair considering serving on ACWG since no other offers from two previous meetings. Comment Date: 12/20/96 Name: Dan Eck Organization: Southpark Terrace Homeowners Association Summary of Comment: Strongly opposes Quartz Creek Route for visual, quality of life, socioeconomics, and tourism reasons. Additional line on Quartz Creek route will be prone to avalanche hazards. Comment Date: 12/20/96 Name: Nancy & Steve Beardsley Organization: Summary of Comment: Concemed with visual impacts and property values to Oceanview homeowners. Would like undergrounding to be considered. Prefers existing corridor with undergrounding where avalanche danger occurs. Poor public notice of meetings. No need for project. Comment Date: 12/20/96 Name: Nancy & Steve Beardsley Organization: Summary of Comment: Homeowner in Oceanview on Reef PI. Concemed with property values and visual impacts. Community not notified about public hearing. No need for project. Page 12 of 15 Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: 12/23/96 Julie Olsen, Chair Old Seward/Oceanview Community Council Oceanview/Old Seward Comm. Council opposes locating transmission line in Oceanview. No need for project. Concems include: safety issues, aestheticc, airspace interference, earthquake zone, EMF, health safety considerations, negative effects on tourism industry, and lack of public notice. 12/24/96 Nancy & Steve Beardsley Concemed with cost comparisons of options. Stated the following: Oceanview area densley populated; airstrip is close by; public notification was poor; railroad may be sold. Requested newsletter outlining current status w/better map and asked when next public meeting would be. 12/29/96 Bruce Weiler Oceanview resident and member of Oceanview/Old Seward Comm. Council. Opposes Alt. E which would impair aesthetics of the neighborhood, reduce property values, and introduce an unnecessary health risk to children. 12/30/96 Catherine Cassidy Requested copies of executive and full reports on preliminary studies. Concems of Kenai Watershed Forum include: more information needed on which energy conservation measures were considered and why rejected; what could be done instead of building the intertie; what are economic benefits for Kenai Peninsula; when will precise routing be available; what options have been considered for various environmentally sensitive areas and avalanche zones; what methods and equipment will be used to construct and maintain line; would public access be allowed the ROW. Page 13 of 15 Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: 12/30/96 Raymond and Patricia Smith Oceanview resident and member of Oceanview Homeowners Association opposes SIP along the Alaska Railroad ROW. Route not recommended by MOA. Would cause decrease in property values and end use of Flying Crown Airstrip. Use existing ROW along Seward Hwy with existing line. Not experiencing problems with electrical service, so no reason for project as stated by CEA. 12/30/96 Allen E Smith, Alaska Region The Wildemess Society Wildemess Society strongly opposes Alt. E which for most of its length enters or borders lands founds to qualify for Congressional Wilderness designation. This area provides important moose, swan, brown bear, black bear, and wolf habitat on the Kenai... Project would irretrievably alter the landscape, eliminating the wildemess value, reduce wildlife habitat, and require amendment to KNWR's Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Opposes Alt. H which would have negative impact on the viewshed of those utilizing the river. Similar problems with Alt. Q with extremely negative impacts on wilderness qualities of Chugach State Park. Alt. T is the least damaging option presented. Project must demonstrate need and support of Alaska citizens. ) 12/31/96 Doug Perkins, Chair Bayshore/Klatt Community Council Bayshore/Klatt Comm. Council held meeting on 12/5/96. The Comm. Council has passed a resolution against the route proposed through Victor Road/Shore Drive. Victor/Shore route would adversely impact residential area and the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge, route would be one of the more expensive routes, requests that route be removed from further. consideration. Page 14 of 15 Comment Date: 12/31/96 Name: Bruce Weiler Organization: Summary of Comment: Oceanview resident wants no overhead lines in neighborhood. Thought size of line would be 200'+ in height; X-frame structure used in neighborhoods, and that route had been selected. Has written letter. Comment Date: 12/31/96 Name: Dan Perry Organization: Flying Crown Homeowners Association Summary of Comment: rie Crown Homeowners Association is strongly opposed to locating transmission line through Oceanview. Concurs with all the reasons Oceanview Community Council objects to project. Project need has not been established to warrant proceeding with proposed route as an option. Believes 65' towers on railroad ROW would eliminate dedicated airspace designation and remove status as an airport. Request participation in community involvement process or committee. Page 15 of 15 Oral Comments Received During Public Meetings Comment Date: 11/12/96 Name: Willard E. Stockwell Organization: Summary of Comment: Cost benefit analysis showed benefits exceeding costs for the 138kV line, does this hold true for the 230kV line? Is the main difference in costs between routes associated with submarine cable? Comment Date: 11/12/96 Name: Michael Murphy Organization: Summary of Comment: Will an ElS be conducted on the final route or will the EIS be performed on several routes to help choose? When will the benefits kick in? There is an upfront cost and benefits over the entire life? Are my utility rates going to go up? Comment Date: 11/12/96 Name: Jay Stange Organization: Alaska Center for the Environment Summary of Comment: How is the reliability issue mitigated by building a second line in the same avalanche route path? | don't feel other alternatives are being addressed adequately. How will Chugach NF incorporatet this project into its update of the National Forest Plan? Will a plan amendment for this project be considered under the current plan or the future plan? Page 1 of 9 Comment Date: 11/12/96 Name: Allen E Smith, Alaska Regional Director Organization: The Wildemess Society Summary of Comment: Are USFWS and USFS cooperating in the preparation of the EIS or are they commenting on it only? Have you discussed agency preferences with any of them? What has the USFWS told you is required to use the Mystery Creek route in terms of what they must do for the CCP for the refuge? The ROW along the Mystery Creek route would be incompatible with the decisions in the CCP. The FEIS, ROD, and CCP would have to be modified to go for a wider corridor. Comment Date: 11/12/96 Name: Bob Sanchez Organization: Summary of Comment: Will the ROW be 150' in residential areas? How will that affect property owners? Will you have an easement or a ROW on adjoining properties? Will EMF be addressed in the EIS? Comment Date: 11/12/96 Name: Julie Olsen, Chair Organization: Old Seward/Oceanview Community Council Summary of Comment: Will there be a public meeting pursuant to the DEIS or will it just be noticed and sent out to those requested. Please notify us ahead of time. Comment Date: 11/13/96 Name: Sam Matthews Organization: Homer Electric Association Summary of Comment: Would this line be able to serve individual cabins? Page 2 of 9 Comment Date: 11/13/96 Name: Joyce Olsen Organization: Summary of Comment: Aesthetic impacts are critical to Cooper Landing. Cooper Landing has always been known as one of the prettiest places and | would hate to see anything done that would interfere with that. Comment Date: 11/13/96 Name: Gary or Jan Mitchell Organization: Summary of Comment: What are the reliability percentages for these utility companies on their availability versus what this project is going to add as a percent availability to enhance? Comment Date: 11/13/96 Name: Matthew Hall Organization: Seward Animal Clinic Summary of Comment: If you choose the coastal route would you put in a permanent road that would be maintained by the Borough? Would the electricity be available to landowners along the coast? How prone to storms is the coastal route? What happened to the transmission line between Healy and Fairbanks? Comment Date: 11/13/96 Name: David Rhode Organization: David Rhode Photography Summary of Comment: The biggest hurdle is to explain the need. Viewshed is one of the biggest ones as well. Scenic values along Sixmile Creek, Tumagain Pass, Summit Lake, Seward-Sterling Highways, are very important. Wilderness values are important. Applicant should be cautious in dealing with state monies to come up with a justification that the public can understand and agree on. Have to consider the cost-benefit analysis heavily. Consider the 1992 Community Recommendations on land use plan for Borough. These plans state that we want to maintain scenic quality and the unique and rural setting of Cooper Landing. What are the benefits of doing the Sixmile crossing? Page 3 of 9 Comment Date: 11/13/96 Name: Rick Smeriglio Organization: Summary of Comment: How much taxpayer money is going into this project? Who are the owners of the generating capacity or the powerline? Is it private (for profit) entity or non-profit entity? Are they private utility companies? Would some of the funding come from the state Legislature, the projects that this money had been previously allowed, and would the rest of it come then from the USDA, the RUS, federal financing? My electricity now is very reliable. I'm willing to put up with random outages if that means saving a new road across the refuge. Consider the cumulative effects of a transmission line through the refuge. | would rather have the dollars spent on the project in my pocket. Comment Date: 11/13/96 Name: Dan Michels Organization: Kenai Princess Lodge Summary of Comment: What is the projected cost of electricity and what's going to happen to the cost of electricity? . Comment Date: 11/13/96 Name: Mark Luttrell Organization: Eastern Kenai Peninsula Environmental Action Assn Summary of Comment: What sort of costs are incurred by unreliability? What is the extent of the unreliability? What impact will this have on compliance officers? Comment Date: 11/13/96 Name: Gary or Jan Mitchell Organization: Summary of Comment: Kenai has enough generation capability. Page 4 of 9 Comment Date: 11/13/96 Name: Jon James Organization: Friends of Cooper Landing Summary of Comment: What will the operating costs of the Cooper Landing route be? Confused about the cost/benefit analysis. Where are the benefits coming from? Comment Date: 11/13/96 Name: Mayme Ohnemus Organization: Cooper Landing Community Council Summary of Comment: What impact will the coastal route have on people? How many will it affect versus Quartz Creek? Would Bernice Lake be tied into the existing generation that we have now? If you follow the existing line you'll still have avalanche problems. Comment Date: 11/13/96 Name: Robert Baldwin, President Organization: Friends of Cooper Landing Summary of Comment: Would Cooper Landing be served by the new line through the substation? The line wouldn't bypass Cooper Landing would it? Comment Date: 11/14/96 Name: Charlene & Robert Oakes Organization: Summary of Comment: Is there a hazard of putting a gasline along the transmission line? Page 5 of 9 Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: 11/14/96 Jack Dean High density of brown bears on the Chickaloon River. Opposed to the Enstar route. KNWR gave up a corridor on the coast specifically for transmission lines. Two salmon streams are missing from your anadromous fish map. 11/14/96 Will additional meetings be held? Has Cooper Lake been shut down? Will Cooper Lake tie into the project? What is the life cycle of a 138kV line? What would be the life projection of a 250kV (230kV) line? How much more of a life cyle would the 250kV have over the 138kV? How about the feasibility of the existing structure holding that many years? If the Quartz Creek line is paralleled would a second line make the ROW wider? Can it be done with sky-hooks? Would the existing line have to stay in operation? How do you get power back and forth? 11/14/96 EIS should take into consideration the fact that we live in one of the most beautiful places on earth. | don't want you to leave an ugly or terrible looking thing for my grandchildren to look at. | would like to see you underground where it's necessary. | would like to see a deep and abiding concem with keeping Alaska a favorable place to live. It appears that the coastal route is the most expensive of the three but considering the moose range and other problems it could be the cheapest. Page 6 of9 Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: 11/14/96 Rich Silver Landowner on the Tesoro route, following dedicated roadway will put me underneath the line. 11/14/96 Mike Armold Currently live beneath the hum of a powerline. If you take and additional 175 more feet you're going to be right at my house. What about EMF? Could potentially lose my outbuilding, still have to pay taxes on my property with the line on it. 11/14/96 Jack Hetherton, Director Homer Electric Association Does the 30-year lifespan of the project consider all of the routes? Will going through federal land add a significant amount of time to the actual startup versus following the existing lines? 11/14/96 How much more percentage-wise would it cost to put it underground? Page 7 of 9 Comment Date: 11/14/96 Name: Christy Anderson Organization: Summary of Comment: Will the new line reduce the cost of our power anywhere down the road? | think using the existing corridor would be better but | still want reliable power. Comment Date: 11/14/96 Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: What impact will this project have on rates? Comment Date: 11/14/96 Name: Rick Ernst Organization: Summary of Comment: Does anybody know what the power transfer is currently or what it's been over the past year? How many times has the power on the current line gone from Anchorage to Kenai and vice versa? We have reliable power now. And you're telling me now if we don't do anything we won't have reliable power. Sounds like the project is for the benefit of Anchorage. Anchorage will always need more power than Kenai. Comment Date: 11/14/96 Name: J.R. Dailey Organization: Summary of Comment: Would ROW over private lands adjacent to Enstar pipeline be acquired? And how and when would they be acquired? How will applicant deal with private land owners? Page 8 of 9 Comment Date: 11/14/96 Name: Ruth D Fitzpatrick Organization: Summary of Comment: Is one of the main reasons for the intertie for the reliability of power? Page 9 of 9 Federal Agency Comments Received After Formal Scoping Period Comment Date: 2/14/97 First Name: Bill Ryan Organization: US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 Summary of Comment: 1. Purpose/Need: Unable to determine the underlying NEED for project. There is a need to determine nature of analysis. 2. Strongly recommend use of existing transmission line and pipeline corridors, because use of existing corridors would minimize the impacts to presently undisturbed areas with high resource and aesthetic values. 3. Range of Alternatives: Evaluate energy conservation, local generation, system, and transmission alternatives and corridor routes in EIS. Rigorously evaluate alternative means of providing the power needed by end-users. 4. Stormwater: A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be submitted to the EPA in order to gain coverage under the NPDES Storm Water General Permit (GP), at least two days prior to the beginning of the construction activity. Each construction activity covered by the GP must develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. 5. Wetlands: Draft EIS should include an identification of wetland types, acreage, and location, and an assessment of wetland functions and values. All construction activities should avoid high resource wetlands-A and B in Anchorage, and wetlands in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge- to the maximum extent practicable. Unavoidable wetlands should be minimized by strict implementation of BMPs. EIS should provide a discussion of the proposed BMPs to be implemented and monitoring proposed to demonstrate their effectiveness. 6. Aesthetics: Strongly recommend that project alternatives include design elements that would eliminate or minimize the adverse effects to the aesthetic qualities of those areas. One way of minimizing such impacts would be underground placement of transmission lines for intertie alignment alternatives through aesthetically sensitive areas. Potential aesthetic impacts should be evaluated in the EIS. 7. Relationship to the Northern Intertie Project: The EIS should provide a discussion of the interrelationship between the two projects, the anticipated operation of the completed network, and any impacts associated with operation of the electrical network. Page 1 of 7 State Agency Comments Received After Formal Scoping Period Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: 1/29/97 Ken Morton Chugach State Park, Concerned about Bird Point route, primarily the landing. Suggested we call Steve Ryan, DOT, 266-1525. 5/1/97 Diana Rigg State of Alaska, Department of Transport'n & Public Facilities The utility may request a permit for use of ADOT/PF right-of-way, this would require a separate permit request and have a separate permit fee. No constraints would be allowed on highway use or the highway system by the proposed use of the right-of-way. No guaranteed, exclusive use would be authorized. If another utility requested use of the same area and did not affect the overhead line ADOT/PF could permit that additional use. Project must meet NESC clearances. The Department has stood firm that no utilities would be allowed on the west side of New Seward Highway. ADOT/PF suggested upgrading the existing line along the Old Seward Highway. Overhead lines along the east side of Minnesota south of Raspberry would visually impact neighborhoods that do not currently have overhead lines. The west side of Minnesota Drive was much more constrained due to wetlands conflicts, etc. Suggested using the Alaska Railroad right-of-way. Old Seward Highway right-of-way would be a last resort. Both New Seward Highway and Minnesota Drive are controlled access facilities and no maintenance would be allowed from the roads. Check with the Municipality on their plans for a south coastal trail connection. Consider environmental justice for the trailer parl at Minnesota Drive and Dimond. Page 1 of 3 Comment Date: 6/25/97 Name: Al Meiners, Superintendent Organization: State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources Summary of Comment: The Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation would not support a “conversion of use" under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act to allow an additional overhead power transmission line in a second right-of-way through the park. A new powerline would be grossly incompatible with the purposes of the park. In addition, the Park would not agree to an amendment of the existing 115kV transmission line right-of-way by BLM to allow a second overhead transmission line adjacent to the existing Quartz Creek line. Page 2 of 3 Comment Date: 8/8/97 Name: Lance Trasky, Southcentral Regional Supervisor Organization: State of Alaska, Department of Fish & Game Summary of Comment: "Under State statute, construction of a transmission line and associated facilities within Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge requires a Special Area Permit from ADF&G. Alaska Statute Title 16, Alaska Administrative Code 5 ACC 95.400-.990, and the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge Management Plan, provide direction to the depratment regarding issuance of required permits for a tranmsssion line and any associated facilities which might be proposed for the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. ... A new utility will only be allowed where there is no feasible off-refuge alternative. Utilities will be sited, designed, constructed and maintained to avoid impacts to refuge values to the maximum extent feasible. All unavoidable (impacts) will be fully mitigated. Existing corridors will be used wherever appropriate...".Department staff feel that links M1.3, M2.2, M2.3, and M2.4 with landfalls and Point Campbell and Point Woronzof, could probobly be permitted, subject to the submission and approval of full plans and specifications. Any transmission line would have to be burried across the refuge to avoid impacts to waterfowl and to protect human safety. Aerial transmission lines would not be authorized within the refuge. No fills or associated buildings or other facilities would be authorized on the refuge, and do not appear to be necessary. The Department could not authorize links M3.1, M4.1, M5.3, and M5.4 because of impacts to sensitive wildlife species from disturbance, likely hydraulic alterations, creation of new access for unauthorized vehicular use, and impacts to wildlife habitat and traditional public use. The alternative proposed between Rabbit Creek and the Rifle Range would not be viewed favorably. Link M5.3 bisects the firing line for the Range. ADF&G would require additional information on the magnitude of the electrical hazard to humans and wildlife from failure of the 240,000 [230,000] volt line on the refuge, or spill of the insulating oil. ADF&G recommends boring from the uplands outside the refuge boundary, underneath the vegetated portion of the refuge and out to the unvegetated mudflats. The Department wants to be fully involved in the NEPA process for this project and expects that the comments will be the primary factor in selection of any alternatives considered that affect the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. Page 3 of 3 Local Agency Comments Received After Formal Scoping Period Comment Date: 6/5/97 Name: Sheila Selkregg, Director Organization: Municipality of Anchorage, Community Plannin Summary of Comment: Has been briefed on the process to date by Thede Tobish who sits on the Anchorage Community Working Group for the Intertie Project. Anchorage Municipal Code (@21.90) articulates current Municipal policy concerning overhead transmission lines and outlines target areas for undergrounding, this policy may change as a result of the forthcomming revision to the Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan. The Department of Community Planning and Development is in the revision process for this Plan and Shiela is currently anticpating policy and land use changes that may directly relate to this new transmission line. Anticpated changes include overlay zoning districts, zoning district changes, transit corridors and/or new greenbelts, all of which might directly impact the locations and design of future transmission lines. The recent year-long community visioning process identified the setting, scenic beauty and the natural environment as most desireable attributes of Anchorage. The Department states that "...it is clear that any overhead transmission line for the Southern Intertie Project would be an incompatible land use in the Municipality. The Department recomends that the preferred alternative alignment for this proposed line not include overhead sections through the viewshed of the city or through the urban setting. Page 1 of 1 Individual Written Comments Received After Formal Scoping Period Comment Date: 1/2/97 Name: Lisa & Guy Greer Organization: Summary of Comment: Opposes prison in South Anchorage Comment Date: 1/10/97 Name: John Spalding Organization: Alaska Airmen's Association, Inc. Summary of Comment: Alaska Airmen's Association concerned with potential flight safety issues associated with elevated electric transmission lines. Any proposal to erect new elevated transmission lines along the Alaska Railroad ROW adjacent to the the Flying Crown Airport would create a flight hazard. The association recommends that this proposed routing be abandoned in favor of other alternatives with less impact on established land and airspace use. Comment Date: 1/13/97 Name: Michael Huhndorf Organization: Endi'ina Ya Ida'ina Committee Summary of Comment: Endi'Ya Ida'ina Committee concerns regarding North Kenai, Captain Cook Park area & Pt. Possession include: documentation of archeological resources and any conclusive evidence that may reveal what is missing in the archeological record. Comment Date: 1/13/97 Name: Sasha Lindgren Organization: Kenaitze Indian Tribe, IRA Summary of Comment: Endi'ina Ya Ida'ina Committee concerns regarding Kenai Peninsula, especially Cooper Landing and North Kenai. Issues of concern are: cultural/archaeological impacts, visual impacts, opening of remote sites to increased public contact by builing 45' -wide road (cleared area). Would like to involve tribal members in archaeological survey work - especially elders and youth. Page 1 of 3 Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: 1/21/97 David Rhode David Rhode Photography Areas of concern are south Anchorage/Turnagain Arm, Cook Inlet and entire Kenai Peninsula. Concerns include justification of project need; environmental and community impacts of routing; economic savings versus losses to peninsula communities; concern with preservation of KNWR wilderness values. 1/23/97 John Pletcher, III Pletcher, Weinig, Moser & Moerriner Oceanview Resident concerned with insufficient notice regarding public meetings. Attended 1/22/97 Scoping Meeting. Concerned over project need and cost to utility payers. Major areas of concern: Safety, aesthetic, and financial, concerns, derailment of railway equipment, falling of lines, EMF, possible decrease in property values, project's cost effectiveness. 2/3/97 Feodoria Pennington, Preside Point Possession, Inc. Pt. Possession native group is "against the construction of the proposed electrical transmission line across or near [the] native allotment." The project would greatly hamper traditional usage of the land and may also impose a safety hazard to small aircraft that frequently land and depart from the beach area and numerous lakes. Specific concerns include impacts to burial grounds, beauty and serenity. It [the proposed project] would increase the chances of trespassers because the one-hundred fifty foot right-of-way would absolutely invite usage. A Resolution was passed by the Board of Directors of Pt. Possession Inc. which states that the proposed project would "...substantially diminish its value as a private wilderness park thereby resulting in a substantial financial loss to the Corporation." and goes on to state that the Corporation adamantly opposes the construction of the electrical transmission line across of near corporate lands. Page 2 of 3 Comment Date: 2/3/97 Name: Feodoria Pennington, Organization: Point Possession, Inc. Summary of Comment: Owner of Native land against transmission line on or near her land. Imposes safety hazard for small aircraft which use beach and lakes nearby. Would disturb burial grounds, disrupt beauty and serenity and be an eyesore. Would increase trespassers. Comment Date: 2/5/97 Name: Rob Gamel Organization: Carr-Gotstein Properties Summary of Comment: Concerned with impacts to proposed development in Bayshore/Klatt area. Page 3 of 3 Federal Agency Comments Received Prior to Formal Scoping Period Comment Date: First Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: First Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: First Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: First Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: 2/9/96 Leo Keeler US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service How will benefits of the project compare with the costs of use of Forest lands. 2/16/96 Brian Anderson US Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service Do not forget to consider Title 11 of ANILCA during planning for the project. 8/26/96 Mark Chase US Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service Issues the KNWR would have include: aesthetics, willow vegetation, trespass possibilities, brown bear habitat, and cumulative impacts to the refuge. Chickaloon Flats is a state critical habitat area. 8/29/96 Jack Schommer US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration FAA recommends marker balls as a proactive mitigation measure. Western edge of Kenai Peninsula is heavily used by private aircraft and commercial operators. Recommend checking VORTAC interference with EMF and electrical disruption. Contact FAA when final route is chosen. Page 1 of 1 State Agency Comments Received Prior to Formal Scoping Period Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: 2/16/96 Nancy Pease, Natural Resource Manager State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources Concerns include submerged lands in Cook Inlet, lands near Capt. Cook SRA, Pt. Possession, inland areas along Seward Hwy, Hope and Sunrise and Turnagain Arm. 3/26/96 Jack Sinclair State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources Due to LWCF properties and facilities any utilities must be located underground. Any lines with a view of Stormy Lake overlook will greatly diminish the impression that has been imparted to visitors. Additional clearings will cause impacts on already compromised wetlands. Clearing will potentially aid illegal off-road access and increase winter recreation in newly created corridors. There will be a need to increase patrols with no funding available. Additional clearings will detract from the park's wild character. 8/26/96 Jack Sinclair State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources Capt. State Rec. Area is sensitive from scenic and recreational resources. Land Water and Conservation Fund monies have been used to develop the park and provide limitations as to additional development within the boundaries. Page 1 of 2 Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: E.A. "Corky" Caldwell Organization: State of Alaska, Anchorage International Airport Summary of Comment: Supports infrastructure development. Need to evaluate all lakes for impacts to float plane activity. Concerned about impacts to future development of International Airport - NO Conflicts. Current location of transmission line at north end of runway is acceptable, but it could become a problem when runway is extended. Page 2 of 2 Local Agency Comments Received Prior to Formal Scoping Period Comment Date: 1/31/96 Name: Thede Tobish Organization: Municipality of Anchorage, Community Planning & Development Summary of Comment: Follow Utility Corridor Plan. Avoid preservation "A" wetlands. Use winter construction in wetland areas to the maximum extent. Alignments should completely avoid any known or suspected raptor nests. Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Kerry Graves, City Manager Organization: City of Kenai, Summary of Comment: No concerns - outside city limits. Transmission lines should be planned in advance of residential and commercial development. Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Caren Mathis, Physical Planning Manager Organization: Municipality of Anchorage, Community Planning & Development Summary of Comment: Cooperative effort with current update of MOA Comprehensive Plan. Interested in approach - well thought out program. Cautioned to include as much public involvement as possible. Will the EA/EIS incorporate needs for all the agencies which require this type of study? Does not like transmission lines due to impacts to scenery. Public can become annoyed if not given enough information and opportunity to comment. EMF is always a concern. What would happen if the submarine lines were damaged - fish impacts? Are there any substations going to be built along the way? Page 1 of 3 Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: 9/27/96 Lance Wilber, Transportation Planning Manager Municipality of Anchorage, Community Planning & Development Concemed about visual and land use impacts to Oceanview and Bayshore areas. Possible conflict with New Seward Highway improvements. Concerned with compliance with Coastal Management Plan - impacts to wetland areas. There is overlap of issues with MOA planning. MOA Utility Corridor Plan is not designed for this type of project. Proposed prison at C Street and O'Malley. Must adhere to planning regarding road ROW and incorporated existing easements. Pt. Woronzof seems the best landfall. Environmental process and permitting process should be conducted together - good idea to incorporate needs for 404 permitting and FAA requirements. 9/27/96 David Gardner, Director Municipality of Anchorage, Division of Parks and Recreation Does this project produce any power for Whittier? Nobody wants a power line in their back yard. No lines through parks - current policy is to underground all transmission lines thorugh parks. Conflict with proposed Tony Knowles Coastal Trail. Visual pollution, conflict with trail system. What did Chugach State Park have to say? Enstar pipeline seems to minimize disturbance and visual issues on the Peninsula. 9/27/96 Tom Bodeker, City Manager City of Soldotna, No major concerns - since outside of Soldotna City limits. Enstar pipeline route seems least obtrusive. Tesoro route submarne crossing is risky. Page 2 of 3 Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Lisa Parker, Director Organization: Kenai Peninsula Borough, Planning Department Summary of Comment: Borough has already approved a road easement along the Tesoro pipeline. Some of the remote residences along Tesoro pipeline will want it, others will not. Compliance with the Coastal Management Plan and the Kenai River Special Management Plan will need to occur. Cooper Landing is sensitive - currently re-writing the community plan. Conflicts and cumulative impacts associated with the road improvements in Cooper Landing. Page 3 of 3 Individual Written Comments Received Prior to Formal Scoping Period Comment Date: 1/22/96 Name: Nina Faust Organization: Kachemak Bay Conservation Society Summary of Comment: What is the feasibility of the old tie. Any new route would be destructive. Can old intertie be removed if this is installed? Comment Date: 1/26/96 Name: Representative Norman Roke Organization: Alaska State Legislature Summary of Comment: Can the existing ROW be used? Comment Date: 1/31/96 Name: Nancy Pease Organization: Summary of Comment: Concerned about Turnagain Arm shoreline including Potter State Wildlife Refuge. The submarine cable should be buried when it leaves the tidal area and transition to towers out of view of Seward Highway. How will this project affect utility rates. Comment Date: 1/31/96 Name: Kevin Degler Organization: Alcan Electrical & Engineering Summary of Comment: Concerned about need for project. Page 1 of 17 Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: Comment Date: Name: Organization: Summary of Comment: 1/31/96 Henry P Lang Lang Consulting | support the project. Are submarine alternatives economically feasible? 1/31/96 Barbara A Weinig Rabbit Creek Community Council Keep line from residential areas. Follow industrial areas, underground where necessary, and make as unobtrusive as possible. 1/31/96 Ed Lightwood Avoid routing through residential areas. EMF must be considered. 2/1/96 John Mangameli Trailside Discovery Camp Question need and impacts of the proposed alternatives. 2/1/96 Mayor Ken Lancaster City of Soldotna Routing should be different than current line and should have substation capability to supply power to residents in the area. Page 2 of 11 Comment Date: 2/4/96 Name: Ruth D Fitzpatrick Organization: Summary of Comment: Should be clarified that lines are not underground. Comment Date: 2/5/96 Name: Patrick Lavin Organization: Trustees for Alaska Summary of Comment: Question need. Possibility of spruce bark beetle increase. Tourism and recreation impacts. Comment Date: 2/5/96 Name: Jimmy Jackson Organization: Summary of Comment: Concerned about routes within Anchorage. Opposed to lines on the lower hillside. This could impact views of many homes. Comment Date: 2/6/96 Name: Frank Gwartney Organization: Summary of Comment: Stay within existing ROW. Favor local firms doing the work. Comment Date: 2/7/96 Name: Organization: Knik Canoers & Kayakers, Inc. Summary of Comment: Concerned about the aesthetics and impacts on recreation. Page 3 of 11 Comment Date: 2/13/96 Name: Willard E. Stockwell Organization: Summary of Comment: Where possible use existing ROW even if it must be widened. Consider impacts on fish and wildlife habitat. Comment Date: 2/13/96 Name: Rick Smeriglio Organization: Summary of Comment: Avoid KNWR and viewshed of Swan Lake. Possibility of increase of motorized access. Comment Date: 2/15/96 Name: Cliff Eames Organization: Alaska Center for the Environment Summary of Comment: Possibility of rebuilding the existing line should be considered. Should contact Alaskans for Responsible Energy Development. Comment Date: 2/19/96 Name: Christopher Sabin Organization: Summary of Comment: The 1964 refuge boundary change was done to provide a utility corridor. Upgrade and reinforce the existing highway route. Intertie would pass through refuge units totalling 826,600 acres of land all of which qualifies as wilderness. Enstar route would disrupt critical brown bear habitat. This is unacceptable. Mystery Creek route crosses no less than 17 streams. Construction allows the risk of siltation and fuel spills which can impact fish. Chickaloon estuary is a migration staging area for thousands of shorebirds and waterfowl. The proposed project would have a negative effect on populations. The Mystery Creek route would bisect calving and wintering grounds of a small population of caribou. Mystery Creek route is extremely important to the wholeness of the Kenai Peninsula. Page 4 of 117 Comment Date: 3/18/96 Name: Organization: Southpark Homeowners Association Summary of Comment: Opposed to routes along the Hillside or Old Seward Highway. Assume this line will be underground through residential areas. Comment Date: 3/26/96 Name: Peg Tileston Organization: Alaska Center for the Environment Summary of Comment: Kenai Refuge impacts. Comment Date: 9/27/96 .Name: Laura Measles Organization: Soldotna Chamber of Commerce Summary of Comment: Positive about idea, unlcear on need. Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: David Pease Organization: Burr Pease & Kurtz Attys Summary of Comment: Concerned with disruption to Potter Marsh waterfowl. Who is the transmission line going to effect - land use. Will any other alternatives be considered - may be additional options. Railroad corridor seems acceptable through town but will be difficult to get to from the south (Potter Marsh). Page 5 of 11 Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: William Tai, Senior Land Man Organization: Cook Inlet Region, Inc. Summary of Comment: Fire Island is CIRI land. Would like a substation on the island. Must consider all alternatives to get public approval, nobody wants it in their back yard. No major concerns specific to CIRI lands - but Native groups may have their own. Should contact Native Groups on the Peninsula. Should get a hold of the ADOT mailing list for the recent studies they completed. Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Paula Easley Organization: Anchorage Chamber of Commerce Summary of Comment: Concerned with EMF, impacts to scenery, and noise from power lines. Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Tom Meacham Organization: Chugach State Park Advisory Board Summary of Comment: Questioned need for project. Impacts to Chugach State Park should be avoided. Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Bill Stockwell, Chair Organization: Cooper Landing Fish & Game Advisory Commit Summary of Comment: Anything that effects the fishery is going to be a problem. Most residents like the rural lifestyle. If it does go through the area can the other line be taken down? Page 6 of 11 Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: David Rhode Organization: David Rhode Photography Summary of Comment: Visual impacts a major concern in Cooper Landing. Sixmile Creek drainage is also sensitive - lots of recreation and fishing, residents will not like it. Avoid the conservation easement along the south of Sixmile Creek. Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Robert Baldwin, President Organization: Friends of Cooper Landing Summary of Comment: Just completed 1 1/2 year planning effort in Cooper Landing. Preservation of aesthetics is a major concern. Incorporated this into the plan. Amount of land for an easement is a concern, ROW width should be minimized. Fact that the proposed transmission line is not in the plan does not mean that the line cannot be built. Transmission lines are always perceived as being very large - what is the size of this one? Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: John Dalgren, Associate Supe Organization: Kenai School District Summary of Comment: Not popular to harm schools - EMF could be a problem. Visual impacts are always a concern - what about burying the line through the refuge. North ; Kenai schools could be in close proximity - this will not be acceptable. Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Dave Feeken Organization: REMAX of the Peninsula Summary of Comment: Impacts to Resurrection Trail could be a problem. Can ROW be used for mountain biking? - This could be a benefit. Western coast of Kenai is desirable for development - transmission line could be a conflict. Page 7 of 11 Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Joe Arness, General Manager Organization: Kenai Merit Inn Summary of Comment: Will this project benefit the Kenai or just Anchorage? Enstar route appears to be best option. The least amount of development would be impacted. Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Ron Johnson Organization: ERA - North Kenai Summary of Comment: Support anything that will let Kenai area grow. Lots of property availabe for development. Does this project benefit Kenai at all, or just Anchorage? - Is so this won't be popular. Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Jim Segura, President Organization: Salamatof Native Association, Inc. Summary of Comment: Concerned about native lands - do not have a lot and do not want what they have disturbed. Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Dea Tumer, Executive Vice P Organization: Alaska Asssociation of Realtors Summary of Comment: Likes idea of Community Councils being contacted. Environmental groups will be “after” any project like this. Concerned about health effect - EMF. Power lines will disrupt neighborhoods. Visual impacts - can they be buried? Will the submarine routes effect fishing in the Inlet? Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Gary Williams Organization: Summary of Comment: Public planning process is the key. Public approach is excellent. Page 8 of 17 Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Bob Crystal Organization: Anchorage School District Summary of Comment: Transmission lines and schools are not compatible - health effects. Should contact facility planning to discuss locations. Public will not allow transmissionlines to have any chance of harming children. Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Allen E Smith, Alaska Region Organization: The Wilderness Society Summary of Comment: If Enstar route is selected - Wilderness Society and affiliates will attack it with everything they have. Enstar corridor is untouched wilderness. Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Cliff Eames Organization: Alaska Center for the Environment Summary of Comment: Public will want input, CWG is critical. Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Paul Snowden Organization: Summary of Comment: Project is too far from area. Is it really needed? Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Judy Calt Organization: Huffman/O'Malley Community Council Summary of Comment: Transmission line should be put in industrial corridors. Page 9 of 11 Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: James Johnston Organization: Hillside Area Land Owners Summary of Comment: Potential impacts to wildlife, especially birds. Visual pollution is a major concern both in Anchorage and in Cooper Landing - owns a house there. Potter Marsh provides very important wildlife habitat. Questioned need for project - are there any other alternatives? Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Julie Olsen, Chair Organization: Old Seward/Oceanview Community Council Summary of Comment: Will this directly effect the Oceanview area? Public concern over EMF. Suggest consolidating ROW with other projects - comprehensive planning should be considered instead of piece by piece. Very supportive of process. Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Barbara A Weinig Organization: Rabbit Creek Community Council Summary of Comment: Has stopped Chugach before on projects. Legislation should be put into effect that will requrie all new power lines to be built underground. Anything that happens to the Hillside will bring everyone out in force. Does not understand need - appears that Chugach and utilities are just trying to make more money. Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Dave Wilson Organization: Girdwood Board of Supervisors Summary of Comment: Will this project directly help Girdwood? - need better power for resort and economy. Concerned about visual impact along highway. Very supportive of project and need. The Tesoro route could have lots of ice problems due to the proximity of the Inlet and cold air. Will it enter town at all? Sixmile - Bird Point crossing seems best submarine alternative and worst visually. Page 10 of 11 Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Al Tamagni, Sr, FCC Delegat Organization: Abbott Loop Community Council Summary of Comment: Visual pollution - stopped development of a subdivision recently because of that. School located at Dowling - what impact could this project have on that? What will it cost and who will pay for it? Is the CWG a requirement under NEPA? Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Doug Perkins, Chair Organization: Bayshore/Klatt Community Council Summary of Comment: New road alignment for both Klatt and Victor Rds. - your alternative is not going to work. Where would the submarine connection point be? It should be screened and buried if possible. Coastal trail is already an issue - this will be bigger than that - this will be a direct conflict. Like the Quart Creek and Tesoro alternatiave the best. Some neighbors are environmentalists - will not approve of anything effecting wetlands. Important to minimize change to Bluffs. Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Jim Misko Organization: Empire North Inc. Summary of Comment: Anything that will promote growth is OK - but don't harm the wildlife. Anchorage will continue to grow - need power to do that. Should put line through refuge, nobody is there, the wildlife need habitat improvement anyway. Comment Date: 9/27/96 Name: Organization: Point Possession, Inc. Summary of Comment: Native allotment is located at Point Possession - this cannot be condemned and the group will not like it going through there. Will require congressional approval. Could also impact the section within the refuge - it is for sale and this may cause price to go down. NEPA study must consider all alternatives equally. To be cost effective, incorporate all federal, state and local requirements into the ROD. Page 11 of 11 APPENDIX C ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, AUTHORITY, AND RELATED STATUTES AND ORDERS ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, AUTHORITY, AND RELATED STATUTES AND ORDERS The DEIS and FEIS shall comply with all applicable environmental laws, authority, and related statutes and orders. The following list is not exhaustive: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 43 CFR Part 36, Transportation and Utility Systems in, Across, and Access into, Conservation System Units in Alaska (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA]) 40 CFR 1500 et seq., Council on Environmental Quality, Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA 40 CFR Part 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regulations for Implementing NEPA 49 CFR 1.48(b), DOT Delegations of Authority to the Federal Highway Administration 23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C., Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 23 U.S.C. 109(h), (i), and (j) standards 23 U.S.C. 128, Public Hearings 23 U.S.C. 315, Rules, Regulations, and Recommendations 23 CFR, Part 771, Environmental Impact and Related Procedures DOT Order 5610.1c, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts 16 U.S.C. 461 et seq., Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act; and 23 U.S.C. 305 16 U.S.C. 470f, Sections 106, 110(d) and 110(f) of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 16 U.S.C. 662, Section 2 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 16 U.S.C. 1241 et seq., National Trails System Act 16 U.S.C. 1452, 1456, Sections 303 and 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq., Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 16 U.S.C. 1536, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 25 U.S.C. 3002, Section 3(c) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., Clean Water Act of 1977 33 U.S.C. 1241 et seq., Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 42 U.S.C. 300(f) et seq., Safe Drinking Water Act 42 U.S.C. 1996 et seq., American Indian Religious Freedom Act 42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq., Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970 42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq., Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq., Noise Control Act of 1972 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. 2000d-d4, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. 4332 ANILCA (Section 810) Subsistence Evaluation 43 U.S.C. Coastal barriers Resources Act of 1982 Executive order 11514, Protection and Environment of Environmental Quality, as amended by Executive Order 11991, dated May 24, 1977 Executive Order 11593, Protection and Environment of the Cultural Environment, dated May 13, 1971 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, dated May 24, 1977 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, dated May 24, 1977 APPENDIX D MATERIALS AVAILABLE MATERIALS AVAILABLE The following materials represent the extent of available secondary data gathered for the Southern Intertie Project EIS. These materials will be used to prepare the environmental baseline and to conduct the impact assessment and evaluation of alternatives. Information for the following resources is included: Land Use Recreation Visual Socioeconomics Subsistence Biology: Vegetation, Fishery Resources, and Terrestrial Wildlife Avalanche Hazard Earth Resources Cultural Resources LAND USE, RECREATION, VISUAL RESOURCES Federal Department of Agriculture Chugach National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1984 Land and Resource Management Plan, ROD, July 1984 Land and Resource Management Plan, Summary, 1984 Resource Information Data Dictionary, March 1995 Sixmile Salvage Sales Environmental Assessment, June 1996 Seward Highway Scenic Byway Interpretative Plan, November 1993 Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Kenai National Wildlife Refuge FEIS, 1985 Land Protection Plan, October 1994 Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Alaska Supplement, 15 Aug 1996 - 10 Oct 1996 State Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Chugach State Park Master Plan, February 1980 Chugach State Park Trail Plan, January 1986 1 Turnagain Arm Management Plan, 1994 Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan, 1986 Recreation data for Captain Cook SRA and Bing’s Landing SRS, 1993-1996 Division of Lands Kenai Area Plan, Volume | - Public review Draft, 1994 Kenai Area Plan, Volume 2 - Background Information, 1994 Kenai Area Plan, Volume 3 - Fish and Wildlife Habitat Information, ADF&G 1994 Kenai Easement Atlas, December 1993 Public Interest Land in the Kenai Peninsula Borough, Parcel by Parcel Descriptions, August 1980, updated 1993 Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Bird Point Scenic Overlook & Pedestrian Facilities, 1994 Sterling Highway MP 37-60 Draft EIS, 1994 Seward Highway MP 50 to MP 65.5, Final EA, 1989 Seward Highway MP 53 to MP 59.3, Section 4(f), March 1996 Airport Layout Plan for Anchorage International Airport, revised 1995 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge Management Plan, February 1991 Local Municipality of Anchorage Department of Planning and Community Development Girdwood Community Impact Study, August 1993 Girdwood Area Plan, February 1995 Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Development Plan, 1982 Area Wide Trails Plan, Draft, January 1996 Utility Corridor Plan, February 1990 Anchorage Bowl Long Range Transportation Plan, November 1991 Transportation Improvement Program FY 1996-1998, May 1996 Tudor Road Public Lands and Institutions Plan (PLI), April 1986 Kenai Peninsula Borough Resource Planning Department Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program, June 1990 Cooper Landing Advisory Planning Commission Community Recommendations on a Land Use Plan for Borough Lands, 1992 Land Use Classification Recommendations for Borough Selected Lands, Draft, May 1996 Hope/Sunrise Advisory Planning Commission Community Recommendations on a Land Use Plan for Borough Lands, 1992 Community Recommendations on a Land Use Plan for Borough Lands in Sunrise, 1988 City of Soldotna Soldotna Comprehensive Plan, 1995 = Previous Reports - Economic Feasibility of the Proposed 138kV Transmission Lines in the Railbelt, Alaska Energy Authority, April 1990 - Alaska Power Authority, 1987. Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study, Volumes 1 & 2 = Macro Corridor Studies - Southern Intertie Route Selection Study - Phase 1, Draft Economic Section Report, Chugach Electric Association, March 1996 - Southern Intertie Route Selection Study - Phase 1, Draft Environmental Summary Report, Chugach Electric Association, May 1996 = Maps - USGS, Topographic maps: Tyonek, Anchorage, Seward, Kenai. Scale 1:250,000 - USGS, Topographic maps: 1:25,000 and 1:63,360 scale for areas covered by 1:250,000 maps - Cook Inlet Region, Inc.: Regional and Village Lands, March 1982 - FAA: Aeronautical maps of South Central Region and Anchorage SOCIOECONOMICS There is abundant secondary demographic and economic information at the borough level from federal repositories, including the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of the Census and Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, all of whose databases are accessible through the Internet. State and local agencies compile annual reports on economic and social characteristics that are available electronically or in hard copy; the principal research task is identifying the appropriate documents and either obtaining them by computer access or purchase, or reviewing reference copies in the agencies. An overview inventory of study area demographic and economic characteristics was made in mid-1996 to support the Phase I route selection study, and its data references will be utilized to expand the study area socioeconomic database. This database includes comprehensive and overall development plans, borough statistical compendia, economic base analyses, and community profiles. SUBSISTENCE ADF&G, Division of subsistence data and reports; FWS customary and traditional use determination reports; USDOC Bureau of Census reports and various historical, socioeconomic and sociocultural reports on the Kenai Peninsula. w BIOLOGY Vegetation Mapping is complete for the Chugach National Forest portions of the study area and is available in digital format. The remainder of the study area has only limited vegetation mapping and will delineated at a similar scale and to a similar detail as the Forest Service mapping. Wetland maps are available for the entire study area at a scale of 1:63,360 through the NWI mapping service. In addition to these maps, the Anchorage area has been mapped at a scale of 1:24,000 and should be available for use on this project but may still be in draft form. New 1996 true-color aerial photos of all of the route segments are available and will be used to map vegetation and wildlife habitat. Fishery The locations of all anadromous fish streams within the overall projects are available from the fish stream catalog which has been developed by the Habitat Division, ADG&F in Anchorage. These data are available in digital format and a copy of the data files has been obtained. Presence of resident species will be obtained from Fish Habitat Maps published by the ADF&G in Anchorage. Terrestrial Wildlife Wildlife distribution maps have been developed for most species in the regions. Bald eagle nest locations area available from the FWS, Kenai NWR, and Forest Service. Waterfowl survey data are limited but some is available from the FWS, Waterfowl Management. Swan nest locations have been collected from aerial surveys conducted every five years through the FWS in Juneau and more detailed raw data are available from the files of the Kenai NWR in Soldotna. Information on the distribution of furbearers and trapping effort is available from the ADF&G and Kenai NWR. AVALANCHE HAZARD Materials available for the avalanche study include the Comprehensive Avalanche Atlas prepared by the Alaska Mountain Safety Center, October 1991. EARTH RESOURCES = CEA reports concerning avalanches and geotechnical conditions along the existing University- Quartz Creek transmission line, and CEA boring logs for 1959 Bird Point crossing. ADOT/PF or Alaska Department of Highway studies concerning avalanches, existing geologic conditions, flooding, and tidal hazards along roads and highways that lie within the proposed corridors. Alaska Railroad (ARR) studies concerning avalanches or other geohazards along the portion of the Anchorage-Seward railroad that lies within the proposed corridors. Existing USGS geologic, topographic, and slope stability maps of the Anchorage area and the Kenai Peninsula; USGS historical seismic activity databases; and USGS water resources data. Current aerial photos that have been flown of the proposed corridors. Existing Tesoro geotechnical studies on the onshore and offshore portions of their pipeline route. Existing Enstar geotechnical studies on the onshore and offshore portions of their gas pipeline route. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and MMS studies and nautical charts pertinent to marine portions of corridors. Other studies from existing literature sources, such as local libraries and computerized library search databases. Summer 1995 hydrographic surveys, including bottom profiles, side-scan sonar data, and subbottom profiles of the marine corridors conducted by Golder Associates for this project. CULTURAL RESOURCES Information about known archaeological and historical sites and special status cultural resources documented in the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey maintained by the State Office of History and Archaeology. Cultural resources information in the Chugach National Forest GIS database. 1966 map of the Sqilantnu Archaeological District at the confluence of the Kenai and Russian rivers (more than 3,000 features have been defined within the several hundred sites recorded within the district). Cultural resource reports and other literature on file at the State Office of History and Archaeology. Geomorphology and biology information in the GIS database developed for this project. APPENDIX E COMMENT LETTERS ACTHU) 23:57 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HEADQUARTERS. U.S. ARMY ALASKA 600 RICHARDSON DRIVE # S000 FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA 99506-5000 ATTENTION OF: Mr. Nurul Islam NOV 2 2 1996 Engineering and Environmental Staff Rural Utilities Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Stop 1571 Washington, D.C. 20250-1571 Dear Mr. Islam: The U.S. Army Alaska has reviewed the proposed Southern Intertie, Kenai to Ancharage 230 Kv Transmission Line Final Executiva Summary Report dated October 28, 1996. We have also attended the public scoping meeting held at the Spenard Community Recreation Center in south Anchorage on November 12, 1996. - The Executive Summary Report identified the right-of-way authorizations of land holders for the three alternative transmission line routes (Table 14, Corridor Specific Environmental Permits and Authorizations). The Report did not identify Army lands on Fart Richardson in any of the altemative routes. However, an altemative has been identified by the Intertie Participants Group Contractor (Dames and Moore and Power Engineers) that alternative Q (Quartz Creek Route) would traverse Army withdrawn lands on Fort Richardson. The Army strongly objects to any proposed routing of the transmission line onto Army lands as we do not have sufficient areas which could accammodate a new utility corridor. Thank you for affording us the opportunity to review the proposed — Southem Intertie Transmission Line Project. if you have further questions ar concerns on this subject, please contact Bill Quirk, Environmental Resources Department at (907)384-3010. a |sltedaa ert ce — Célonel, U.S, Army Director, Public Works CF: BLM A ahh re 9 ; Larch hollok. V8 REL | en en iklistarbee- 54 -aGy (Sz! ' UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 February 14, 1997 Reply To | Atm Of: ECO-088 Ref: 96-076-RUS Mr. Nunul Islam Rural Utilities Service : 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 1571 Washington, DC 20250-1571 DearMr.Islam: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Notice of Intent (NOD to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Southern Intertie Project in accordance with our responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. We appreciate the opportunity for early involvement in this project. Based on the information presented in the NOI and at the meeting we attended in November, we would like to take this opportunity to highlight the topic areas that EPA believes _ Warrant explicit treatment and discussion in the EIS. 1. Purpose and Need - It is essential that a clear statement of the purpose and need be defined for the proposed project, as it provides the foundation for the analyses to be conducted. We believe that to make early input into the project truly meaningful, the purpose and need is best included in the NOL Information provided.to us indicates that the Intertie Participants Group (IPG) is proposing to construct and operate a 230 kV transmission line between Anchorage and a location on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska, yet we have been unable to determine the underlying need for the transmission line. Is the intertie needed to alleviate existing power shortages? Is the intertie needed to meet projected power shortfalls in the near or distant future? A clearly defined need for the” project is essential in developing a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate, as well as determining the nature of the analyses to be conducted. The EIS should include a clearly stated purpose and need for the project, along with sufficient information to support it. We would appreciate information related to the purpose and underlying need for the project prior to issuance of the draft EIS to allow us the opportunity to provide meaningful input as the analyses for the proposed project are developed. 2. Existing Transmission Line/Pipeline Corridors - For those project altematives that 0 - consider potential intertic routes, we strongly recommend the use of existing transmission Y line and pipeline corridors. The use of existing corridors would minimize the impacts to (d presently undisturbed areas with high resource and aesthetic values. OD printed on Recycled Paper Range of Alternatives - We are pleased to see that RUS is intending to evaluate energy conservation, local generation, system, and transmission alternatives, in addition to intertie corridor routes, in the EIS. Assuming that the intertie proposal is based on present and/or projected power shortfalls within the areas serviced by the members of the IPG, we believe that the EIS should rigorously evaluate alternative means of providing the power needed by end-users. Stormwater - Please be advised that under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the EPA is required to establish National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for storm water discharges associated with all construction activities _involving five (5) or more acres of exposed soil. Construction activities include, but are not limited to, land clearing, grading, and excavation, The proposed intertie corridor would exceed this five acre threshold. Therefore, a Notice of Intent (NOX) must be submitted ta the EPA in order to gain coverage under the NPDES Storm Water General . Permit (GP). A NOI should be submitted at least two (2) days prior to the beginning of the construction activity. In addition, cach construction activity covered by the GP must develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, tailored to the site specific conditions, and designed with the goal of preventing or minimizing the amount of pollutants in storm water discharges from the project. Enclosure 1 contains a Storm Water Program Package, which includes a NOI for Storm Water Discharges associated with Industrial Activity under the NPDES GP. Wetlands - In order for decision-maker and the public to understand potentially significant impacts to waters of the United States, including wetlands, from construction of the project, the draft EIS should include an identification of wetland types, acreage, and location, and an assessment of wetland fiinctions and values. This information should be provided for impacts associated with intertie right of way altematives. All construction activities should avoid high resource wetlands (particularly A and B wetlands in Anchorage, and wetlands in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge) to the maximum extent practicable. All unavoidable wetland impacts should be minimized by strict implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The EIS should provide a discussion of the proposed BMPs to be a and monitoring mipeaeen to demonstrate their effectiveness. |aeettdses Because preliminary investigations have identified potential intertie routes through near-wilderness settings, we strongly recommend that project altematives include design elements that would eliminate or minimize the adverse effects to the aesthetic qualities of those areas. We believe that one way of minimizing such impacts would be underground placement of transmission lines for.intertie alignment altematives through aesthetically sensitive areas. Evaluation of potential aesthetic impacts should be’ included in the EIS. mee uve Tal Relationship to the Northern Jutertie Project - Because the completion of both the Southern and Northern Intertie Projects would result in an electrical network extending from,Fairbanks to the Kenai Peninsula, we believe that the EIS should provide a discussion of the interrelationship between the two projects, the anticipated operation of the completed network, and any impacts associated with operation of the electrical network, c Thank you for providing this opportunity for-early involvement in this project. Should you have any questions about our comments, please feel free to contact me at (206) 553-8561 or Phil North in our Anchorage office at (907) 271-3401. Se ie William M. Ryan Environmental Review Team Enclosure cc: Dora Gropp, Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Att) 23:56 P. 003 ye U.S, Department Alaskan Region 222 W. 7th Avenue #14 of Transportation Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 Federal Aviation Administration Mr. Nurul Islam Rural Utilities Service Engineering and Environmental Staff 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Stop 1571 Lb Washington, DC 20250-1571 Dear Mr. Islam: Enclosed are the formal comments of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Alaska Region, on the Final Executive Summary Report derived fram the “Southern Intertie Route Selection Study” as requested in the letter received from Lawrence Wolfe, Senior Environmental Protection Specialist at the United State Department of Agriculture (USDA). Airway Facilities Division AAL 471: Of the three routes addressed in the study, only the Tesoro Route is of concern to the FAA, because it utilizes Fire Island. The other routes will not impact FAA operations. ii The study has already identified concerns regarding Air Space Hazard Determination once the exact transmission line location is decided. Fire _ Island Is one of the many major approaches into Anchorage International. This concem is handled through the Air Traffic Division of the FAA. Once exact transmission line routes are identified, they will have to be cleared with the Airway Facilities Division, so as not to obstruct the normal operations of the Navigational Alds that are currently installed and operating on Fire Island. The major facility of concem is the VORTAC. This facility requires a clear zone of 1000’ in radius the facility in which nothing can extend above the 280' elevation. The second zone from the 1000° to 2000' radii cannot have any obstructions that subtend a vertical angle more than 2 degrees from the antenna site. AES eT & J(THU) 13:57 P. 004 2 The FAA currently has prime power generation on the Island to support the navigational aids. Ifthe Tesaro Route is utilized across Fire Island, there may be the opportunity to “piggy-back" a project and get a power feed to: replace the prime power generator system. There may also be the opportunity to utilize same of FAA facilities and utilities if this route is chosen. Coordination will have to be made through the proper levels if this option is exercised. If you have any questions or concems, please contact myself at (907) 271-5373 or Eric Helms, Mechanical Engineer, AAL-471W at (907) 271-5911. Sincerely, Brad Wes Catharine Benediktsson Supervisor, Environmental Engineering Section, AAL-471 f; / ye 7(THU) 23:56 A 25:56 | a Leen . ere eee eee P. 002 . U.S, Department U. S. Coast Guerd 610 L St, Ste 100 of Transportation Captain of the Port Anchorage, AK 99501-1946 Western Alaska Phone: (907)271-6700 United States Coast Guard $720 November 8, 1996 Mr. Nurul Islam Rural Utilities Service Engineering and Environmental Staff 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Stop 1571 Washington, DC 20250-1571 Dear Mr. Islam: Based on our review of the final executive summary report for Chugach Electric Association's Southern Intertie Project, we have no adverse comments or recommendations. It is our understanding that any submarine cable areas will be adjacent to existing submarine pipelines or in areas not frequented by vessel traffic. It is important the as built route for any submarine cables be documented on navigational charts. This can be accomplished through the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. If you have any questions or require more information, please feel free to contact us. My Point of Contact is BMCS Dan Shipman at (907) 271-6730. Sincerely, Le BLUME Lieutenant, U. S. Coast Guard By direction of the Captain of the Port, Western Alaska 11-K107LH n ‘ Ft Fe a0 iy TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR PHONE: (907) 344-0541 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME / 333 RASPBERRY ROAD ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99518-1599 HABITAT AND RESTORATION DIVISION P. grROPP. CC. PB. Fetwoc4~, tT. TeETH zw. mM: PEYLE August 8, 1997 eS Mr. Niklas O. Ranta Dames and Moore 5600 B Street Anchorage, AK 99518-1641 Dear Mr. Ranta: Re: Evaluation of Alternatives for Siting Portions of the Southern Intertie and Associated Facilities within Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge Thank you for briefing Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) staff on July 31, and August 7, 1997, regarding the proposed alternative routes for the Southern Intertie Project. The ADF&G, has not previously been provided with any specific information regarding alternatives which would cross the refuge. It is our understanding that Dames and Moore is soliciting comments from the ADF&G, ona proposal to construct a 240,000 volt transmission line, and associated facilities within the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. You provided a map (enclosed), depicting eight potential routes and five land falls within the refuge. An additional alternative through the southern portion of the refuge between Rabbit Creek and the Rifle Range was provided and discussed on August 7. Under State statute, construction of a traismission line and associated facilities within Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge requires a Special Area Permit from the ADF&G. Alaska Statute Title 16, Alaska Administrative Code 5 AAC 95.400 -.990, and the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge Management Plan (enclosed), provide direction to the department regarding issuance of required ‘permits for a transmission line and any associated facilities which might be proposed for the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. The direction provided to the department by the management plan is: "A new utility will only be allowed where there is no feasible off-refuge alternative. Utilities will be sited, designed, constructed and maintained to avoid impacts to refuge values to the maximum extent feasible. All unavoidable (impacts) will be fully mitigated. Existing corridors will be used wherever appropriate....”. Mr. Niklas O. Ranta -2- August 8, 1997 To protect refuge habitats, fish and wildlife populations, and public uses, the department may allow by permit only, those activities compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established, terms and standards of 5 AAC 95, and the goals and policies of the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge Plan. Any activity which is not compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was established, terms and standards of 5 AAC 95 and the goals and policies of this plan will not be permitted. Based on the information you provided regarding the size of the line, depth of burial, type of construction, width of the right of way, requirements for replacement and the large substation which would be required, department staff feel that transmission line routes M1.3, M2.2, M2.3, and M2.4, with landfalls at Point Campbell and Point Woronzof, could probably be permitted, subject to the submission and approval of full plans and specifications. Any transmission line would have to be fully buried across the refuge to avoid impacts to waterfowl and to protect human safety. Aerial transmission lines would not be authorized within the refuge. No fills or associated buildings or other facilities would be authorized on the refuge, and do not appear to be necessary to your project. The department could not authorize the M3.1, M4.1, MS.3 and MS.4 alignments or landfalls because of impacts to sensitive wildlife species from disturbance, likely hydraulic alterations, creation of new access for unauthorized vehicular use, and, impacts to wildlife habitat and traditional public use. Likewise, the alternative proposed to cross the southern refuge between Rabbit Creek and the Rifle Range would not be viewed favorably. Route M 5.3 bisects the firing line for the Rabbit Creek Rifle Range and would involve the construction of a very large building/ substation on the rifle range. These conflicts do not appear to be fully mitigatable. It also appears that feasible alternative routes exist following existing transmission and gas line right of ways outside the refuge boundaries, and at Point Campbell and Point Woronzof. ADF&G staff also require additional information on the magnitude of the electrical hazard to humans and wildlife from a failure of the 240,000 volt line on the refuge, or a spill of the insulating oil in the cable. if the southern transmission line routes across the refuge are important to your project, we recommend that you consider the feasibility of boring from the uplands outside the refuge boundary, underneath the vegetated portion of the refuge and out to the unvegetated mudflats. This technique is being regularly used in southcentral Alaska to get gas lines, waterlines, sewer lines, and optical cables under rivers, roads and residential neighborhoods. Enstar successfully bored their 30 inch high pressure gas line over 2000 feet across the Susitna River, on the Susitna Flats State Game Refuge, through the same type of material found in the ACWR. The department wants to be fully involved in the NEPA process for this project and expects that our comments will be the primary factor in the selection of any alternatives considered that affect the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. Ms. Gay Muhlberg, will be the department’s contact for this project. Please send all correspondence to her Hil Mr. Niklas O. Ranta Ege August 8, 1997 at this address. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me in the Anchorage Regional Office at 267-2335. Sincerely ( Lance L. ky Regional Supervisor Habitat and Restoration Division Enclosures cc: F. Rue, ADF&G Kowalski, ADF&G . Reglin, ADF&G Hughes, ADF&G . McKay, ADF&G Muhlberg, ADF&G Sinnott, ADF&G Westlund, ADF&G aPQygM Say TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES , MAILING ADDRESS: DIVISION OF PARKS & OUTDOOR RECREATION - CHUGACH i HC 52 BOX 8999 INDIAN, ALASKA 99540 PHONE: (907) 345-5014 FAX: (907) 345-6982 Email: chugstpk@alaska.net June 25, 1997 Via FAX 562-1297 JUN 8 0 1997 Niklas Ranta D 1997 Dames and Moore AMES & MOORE 5600 B Street, Suite 100 ANC Anchorage, AK 99518 Ref: Southern lntertie Project Dear Niklas: This letter is in response to your FAX of June 20, 1997 posing several questions regarding the Southern Intertie Project and Chugach State Park. In response to your first question, the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation would not support a “conversion of use” under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act to allow an additional overhead power transmission line in a second right-of-way through the park. Chugach State Park was established in 1970 , in part, to protect areas of unique and exceptional scenic value. The existing powerline, which is in conflict with this purpose, existed at the time of the park’s establishment and was allowed to continue as a “valid entry” under AS 41.21.121. Anew powerline would be grossly incompatible with the purposes of the park. Our agency could not support a conversion of use petition under the LWCF Program. Likewise, we would not agree to an amendment of the existing 115kv transmission line right-of-way by BLM to allow a second overhead transmission line adjacent to the existing Quartz Creek line. The placement of a second line in the same right-of-way does not lessen the significant and adverse impact to the park’s scenic resources. If you have any questions regarding our position on this matter, please give me a call. Al Meiners Park Superintendent cc: Jim Stratton Jim Price y aA SD MEMORANDUM STATE OF AVASKA Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Central Region to: File DATE: May 1, 1997 RECEIVED FAXNO: 269-0521 MAY 5 997 DAMcs & MOUURE ME PHONENO.: 269-0515 Wade FRom: Diana Rigg i - suBJeEcT: Chugach Electric Assoc., Inc. Area Planner Southern Intertie Planning Meeting Summary Representatives for Chugach Electric Association, Inc., requested a meeting with the department to review route alternatives in Anchorage for April 29, 1997 at 2:00 pm. The meeting was held in the Planning Conference Room at the department on 4111 Aviation Drive. Those in attendance were: Pat Beckley, Kenai Area Planner Bill Strickler, Chief, Traffic, Safety and Utilities Section Diana Rigg, Anchorage Area Planner Hank Wilson, P.E., Chief, Highway Design Chris Kepler, Manager, M&O Niklas Ranta, Project Manager, Dames & Moore Mike Doyle, Environmental Planner, Dames & Moore Randy Pollock, P.E., Project Engineer, Power Engineers Tin Tetherow, Project Manager, Dames & Moore Tim explained that they were preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed intertie project. The desire is to get the line tied to a substation in Anchorage, preferably the one off Minnesota Drive and International Airport Road. Alternatives are in the University area and at Point Woronzof. They understand there are big concerns and constraints around this intertie and want to discuss acceptable locations and to understand the department’s needs for using tight-of-way. In particular, the Rabbit Creek Interchange area is a concern. Tim asked if it were permittable to put structures in the department ROW. Bill stated that, by law, the utility may request a permit for use of the ROW. Each route Co lao File == May 1, 1997 desired would require a separate permit request and have a separate permit fee. There could be no constraints placed on highway use or the highway system by the proposed use of the ROW. In order to get a more definitive answer, a proposal would have to be made to the department for our review. It appeared to Bill that they may require a 20 to 40-foot area in the ROW for the overhead line. He explained that we do not give a guaranteed, exclusive use for that area. If another utility requested use of the area and did not affect the overhead line we could permit that additional use. Tim and Randy explained that, in the above ground situation, there would be a , single shaft steel pole used possibly in the New Seward Highway and along Minnesota Drive. The area needed would be 8-12 feet in diameter. Bill confirmed that other, competing uses would have to meet NESC clearances to use the same space. The department was asked if the median could be used either for the above ground or buried sections of line. The answer was no, that the utility must stay as far away from the road as possible, up against the ROW boundary. Bill discussed that we identified the east side of the New Seward Highway as the proper location for all utilities. The department has stood fairly firm on no utilities on the west. Bill suggested that they upgrade the existing CEA line along the Old Seward Highway. Tim and Randy explained that this particular type of line should really be separated from other types of facilities and that constraints along Old Seward — Highway would require additional 30 feet clearance from the pole, should it be retrofit to accommodate the new line. This would severely impact many properties along that route. We discussed overhead versus underground lines along Minnesota Drive. The desire is to overhead as much as possible, noting that overhead lines along the east side of Minnesota south of Raspberry would visually impact neighborhoods that do not currently have overhead lines. We discussed that the west side of Minnesota Drive was much more constrained due to wetlands conflicts, etc. and that the east side of the facility was a better location. Also, there needs to be some consideration to environmental justice for an overhead line along Minnesota south of Dimond at the Trailer Court. File a: May 1, 1997 Pat suggested using the Alaska Railroad ROW. That option has been explored, although the railroad has said that any use must not conflict with their operations. There is a concern about proposing an above ground facility through the Ocean view area along the railroad. Once past that neighborhood, the railroad goes through industrial areas and would provide access to the station at Minnesota Drive and International Airport Road. The consultants have concluded that the intertie connection proposed between Potter Section House and Rabbit Creek must go in the Old Seward Highway ROW. They desire to place it in the road bed. Bill suggested that would only be allowed as a last resort. Hank suggested that the line be off the road and paved as a pathway. That would provide maximum protection to the line. There was some discussion about the desire to use the west side of the New Seward Highway instead of the east side. They would have to pass by an elementary school with these new overhead lines if on the east side of the highway. This is not considered desirable by the consultants due to the controversy over magnetic fields generated by these lines. All health studies to date have been inconclusive. The ones which indicate health effects from the lines cannot be replicated. We discussed access for maintenance as well as construction along New Seward Highway and Minnesota Drive. These are controlled access facilities and no maintenance would be allowed from the roads. Access for both maintenance and construction will have to be from behind the controlled access line: It was suggested that the consultants check with the Municipality on their plans for a south coastal trail connection. It was presented as a possible solution and “win\win” situation for getting the route to Minnesota Drive. It would involve having the majority of the line underground and possibly in the bluff. I indicated that the Municipality had not yet begun preliminary engineering and that we anticipate the location and construction of the south coastal trail to be somewhat controversial, having already had contacts from the public. These concerns are about location, neighborhood connections, hunting seasons, etc. One alternative access for getting to Anchorage from the Kenai Peninsula is via Victor Road/Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive. This appears to be the least constrained option from the view of direct connections and the considerations we presented concerning our rights-of-way (Rabbit Creek Interchange, and the need for utilities to be on the east side of the New Seward Highway). File -4- May 1, 1997 The consultants do not anticipate design until 1999 and no assurances were given regarding use of any ROW except that the corridors identified were “permittable”, No conclusions were reached on exact locations or configurations for the line. This must be resolved through the EIS process before design of the facility can continue. [ recommend that the consultant keep the department informed periodically throughout the EIS development so we can analyze the access alternatives as they are either rejected or recommended for design. In this way, we can offer constructive information about what can and cannot be permitted prior to a commitment to any alternative in the Record of Decision for the EIS. I further ! recommend that Bill Strickler be a main point of contact for the department as his section does the permitting for utilities. ce: All Attendees Dave Eberle, Director, Highway Design John Horn, P.E., Regional Director Gene Kulawik, P.E., Director, M&O Keith Morberg, P.E., Regional Preconstruction Engineer John S. Tolley, Chief, Planning and Admin. Services. FEB-Lb-1L YS LO+40 Hanwer es a NM DU6 COD-AILY 1 PLOWWO IIIS (YU Pi. wo TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR & a RESOURCE ASSESSMENT DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 9601 © STREET SUSE ON ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503-5947 a PHONE: ‘ DIVISION OF LAND . FAX: pl mae February 16, 1995 Mr. Niklas Ranta Dames & Moore 5600 B Street Anchorage, Alaska 99518 Regarding: Comments on Southem Intertie Project Dear Mr. Ranta: The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Division of Land submits the following information and preliminary comments on the proposed Southern Intertie Project. These comments are limited to the relative impacts of the Intertie to state lands located along the various alternative routes. We have met with Tim Tetherow for a project overview, but we have not received specific information on the physical structures, nor economic, social or environmental aspects of the alternative routes. As your project progresses, the Division of Land will need further information on the project to assess the Intertie’s benefits to the public and to recommend a preferred alternative. + attueteaalanere + The purpose of these preliminary comments is to: 1) provide your evaluation team with information on the resources and uses of state ~ land along the alternative routes, and to 2) identify potential issues or concerns to the Division of Land based on the limited information currently available about the project. The issues identified here primarily concem scenic or recreation resources. We have provided summary information an other resources, such as forestry, materials, habitat and settlement; but there are no identifiable issues at this early stage. All of the alternative routes cross state-owned uplands, tidelands, or submerged lands that are managed by the Division of Land. The Division of Land has adopted (or is currently preparing) land use designations and guidelines for these lands. These comments are derived primarily from resource information and policies stated in the Division of Land’s land use plans (Tumagain Arm Management Plan (1994) and the forthcoming Kenai Area Plan ). Submerged lands in Cook Inlet ; Submerged transmission lines between Point Possession and Point Woronzof would have little to no impact on visual or recreation resources. The alternative for submarine lines between Chickaloon Bay and Potter would also have minimal impacts to the submerged lands managed by the Division of Land. (Issues regarding the transition station on the Anchorage shore near Potter are best identified by the Chugach State Park staff within DNR and by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.) : ee eee are ww DLAWWOIII4 (1 Gas Niklas Ranta February 16, 1996 Lands near Captain Cook State Recreation Area The Division of Land manages several tracts in the vicinity of Captain Cook State Recreation Area that have high public use values, such as access to the coast and to Stormy Lake, scenic values, and opportunities for hiking, boating, and camping. These priority use for these lands is likely to be recreation. The Division of Land may recommend that some of the parcels be added to the existing State Recreation Area. The easement for the Nikiski pipeline crosses several of these parcels. If transmission lines were proposed for this area, the Division of Land would advocate that the lines be designed and located so as to protect the scenic and recreation values of the state lands. Point Possession There are two state parcels at Point Possession. The Division of Land has not identified a priority use for one of these parcels, The other parcel lies partly within the boundary of Kenai National Wildlife Refuge and has high potential public recreation values: however, these parcels are currently inaccessible by road and public use is currently low relative to the other state parcels evaluated here. The transmission line could have relatively ow impact to state scenic and recreation values if the visibility of the transmission line were minimized. Inland areas along the Seward Highway: Ingram Creek, Hope Y, Manitoba Mountain, Summit Lake The state-owned lands along the Seward Highway at Ingram Creek, Hope Y, Manitoba Mountain, and Summit Lake have high scenic and recreation values. Scenic viewing, photography, and hiking are popular along the Seward Highway Scenic Byway. Skiing and hiking take place at all three locations, with the heaviest use at Manitoba Mountain. There is a rest area at the Hope Y. The Hope Y also serves as a boat put-in and take-out for Sixmile Creek. Summit Lake is a popular site for camping, fishing, wildlife viewing, boating, snowmobiling, and recreation cabins. The Division of Land may consider commercial recreation leasing in the Summit Lake area. Settlement is the proposed land use for a parcel south of Summit Lake. Much of the scenic and recreation value of these areas derives from the relative lack of human disturbance to the landscape, Transmission lines, if visible, could have a negative impact on scenic and recreation values. Careful location and design of lines to minimize impacts would be essential. The following information may also be useful. The steep slopes near Summit Lake are prone to avalanches. There are two materials sources near Summit Lake. It is also a moose winter concentration area. There is mixed spruce and mountain hemlock at all three locations. Spruce beetle infestation is beginning to thin the forest cover in some areas, Ingram Creek and Summit Lake contain fish, Hope and Sunrise The Division of Land manages several parcels along the Hope Highway near Sunrise. One of the parcels is used by commercial and recreational boaters on Sixmile Creek as a put-in and take-out site. Sixmile Creek is one of the most challenging whitewater rivers in the southcentral region. The Division of Land intends to manage this site for continued use by boaters. Other priority uses have not as yet been identified. The parcels are currently recommended for multiple use designation. If the transmission line were built in this area, it should be located to minimize impacts to scenic qualities along Sixmile Creek. pt Ia METIS 3, YibrAvID «1D ae PRUEE WN ew Gur cOD-O71¥ tw Dawu ver ee ¢ ema Niklas Ranta February 16, 1996 Other values include anadromous and fresh water fish in Sixmile Creek, and moose rutting and winter concentration areas. Turnagain Arm The state-owned tidelands and submerged lands of most of Tumagain Arm‘ are mostly designated for public recreation (including tourism); and wildlife habitat. These lands comprise the viewshed for the Seward Highway, which has been designated a Scenic Byway by the U.S. Forest Service and the State of Alaska. The state is preparing to nominate the Seward Highway as an All-American Road, a prestigious national designation conferred by the federal Secretary of Transportation. These state and national designations underscore the outstanding scenic and recreation values of Turnagain Arm. The primary view from the Seward Highway between Anchorage and Ingram Creek features the waters of Tumagain Arm with a back drop of steep, forested peaks. The relative lack of human disturbance to this landscape is a valued scenic quality. Other viewing attractions include the dramatic fluctuations in the tides and the weather, ice floes, and beluga and killer whales. Turagain Arm is also a major flyway for migrating birds. Motorists stop in all seasons to enjoy the view and take photographs. The scenery is also actively enjoyed by bicyclists, hikers, campers, picnickers, climbers, fishermen, sailboarders, and other recreationists who frequent Tumagain Arm. The Seward Highway carries a very high traffic volume of tourists and recreationists. Anchorage residents make over 700,000 round trips to the Kenai Peninsula per year, as do over 160,000 out-of-state visitors.2 Several hundred thousand people per year visit Portage Glacier and Girdwood by car and bus. The Turnagain Arm Management Plan promotes development of Girdwood as a world-class resort, which will further increase recreation and tourist travel along Turnagain Arm. Likewise, 4 project to provide vehicle access to Whittier will boost recreation travel. For recreation travellers, an important part of the trip is the experience of getting there. Protecting the viewshed from the Seward Highway is important to preserving the overall quality of many recreation experiences in southcentral Alaska. During recent DNR planning efforts involving Turnagain Arm, the public has strongly advocated protection and enhancement of scenic and natural values, and development of recreation _ facilities. Atleast 12 recreation enhancements and scenic waysides are planned or under ‘Some of the tidelands and submerged lands along the northern half of Turnagain Arm are covered by DNR's Turnagain Arm Management Plan (October 1994), which designates public recreation and wildlife habitat as the priority uses. The Division of Land manages two state upland parcels which may be developed as materials sources, with appropriate screening from the highway. Tidelands directly adjoining the northern shoreline are within Chugach State Park: see the ach State Park Master Plan, The tidelands and submerged tands along the southern side of Turnagain Arm lie within the Kenai Area Plan, which ts currently being developed. Scenic resources and wildlife habitat are the highest values identified. Survey by Kenai Peninusula Tourism and Marketing Council. Anchorage resident count was extrapolated from a 13-month-count in 1990-91, and the out-of-state visitor count is for the three summer months in 1993. Both resident and out-of-state-visitar travel from Anchorage to the Kenai Peninsula is increasing. prLo-41770 «40740 PRUM AN wenn DUE cOD-OF4y ww pe se —.0>D:7; Niklas Ranta: - February 16, 1996 construction along Tumagain Arm and the Seward Highway * to showcase the natural setting and serve the rapidly growing user demand. With high public interest, public participation, and capital investment in recreation and tourism along Tumagain Arm, there is likely to be commensurately high concern about the design and location of an intertie. Transmission lines and relay stations, if visible, could detract significantly from the natural scenery of Turnagain Arm. Of the proposed routes for the intertie, the aerial span across Turnagain Arm between Sunrise and Bird Point appears to have the highest impact to scenic values, as the lines and towers would be openly visible from numerous vantage points. Another proposed route, which would follow the existing transmission line on the shore of east Turnagain Arm, could also adversely impact the scenery. Minimizing the visibility of new lines from the Scenic Byway and the numerous recreation sites along the Arm will be a very high priority. Comments from other state agencies Other state agencies that manage land and resources along the potential transmission routes may have additional comments. These agencies include: the ONR Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, regarding Chugach State Park; the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Habitat and Restoration, regarding habitat; and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, regarding the Seward Scenic Byway, and the attempt to achieve All-American Road designation. The DNR Division of Land appreciates this opportunity to provide information and preliminary comments. Sincerely , Maney Fears Nancy Pease, Kenai Area Plan DNR Division of Land $Potter Marsh interpretive center, Potter trailhead, Potter -to- Indian trail study, McHugh Creek recreation site improvements, Windy Point sheep viewing site, Indian scenic overlook, Bird Ridge traithead and overlook, Bird to Girdwood trail construction, highway underpass at Bird, Bird Point visitor facilities, Girdwood trailhead and Iditarod Trail Twenty-mile wayside, Portage Valley recreation facilities improvements, and Turnagain Pass lodge concession. i 4 P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 Telephone: (907) 343-4309 Municipality of Anchorage Rick Mystrom, Mayor DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT June 5, 1997 Mr. Niklas O. Ranta Project Coordinator Dames and Moore 5600 B Street, Suite 100 Anchorage, AK 99518-1641 Subject: Southern Intertie Project Alternatives Analysis Dear Mr. Ranta: Now that your review team, including the Community Working Groups and the Resource Agencies, is evaluating various alignment and design alternatives for the proposed Southern Intertie Project, I wanted to pass on my initial reactions and comments on this project. I have been briefed on the process to date by Thede Tobish of my staff, who sits on the Anchorage Community Working Group for the Intertie Project. From all that I have heard, the entire process has been positive and productive and I commend you and the project team for your attention to details, for the inclusion of the potentially affected public and community groups and for your sensitivity to a fair process and to the contributions from the working group members. I understand that both the March 3 and April 30, 1997 Community Working Group meetings included an evaluation and discussion of the various Anchorage Bowl alignments and potential environmental and land use/social impacts. Apparently these discussions were productive and annotated by community council representatives, most notably concerning location of transmission lines and whether they will be overhead or buried. At this time I would like to supplement these findings with my own, about the proposed alignments and transmission line design. Although the Anchorage Municipal Code (@21.90) articulates current Municipal policy concerning overhead transmission lines and outlines target areas for undergrounding, this policy may change as a result of the forthcoming revision to the Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan. As you know, the Department of Community Planning and Development is in the revision process for this Plan and I am anticipating policy and land use changes that may directly relate to this new transmission line. For instance, there is a strong possibility that the new Plan will identify overlay zoning districts, zoning district changes, transit corridors and/or new greenbelts, all of which might directly impact the locations and design of future transmission lines. Niklas Ranta June 5, 1997 Page 2 In addition, as a result of an intensive year-long community visioning process coordinated by this department, the overwhelming number one response from the public when asked “what do you like most about Anchorage” was the setting, scenic beauty and the natural environment. Based on this community vision, the Working Group’s March meeting discussion of your Sensitivity Criteria Tables and the anticipated zoning district and land use changes anticipated in Comprehensive Plan revision, it is clear that any overhead transmission line for the Souther Intertie Project would be an incompatible land use in the Municipality. The Department of Community Planning and Development will of course continue to work within the Community Working Group to evaluate alternatives, review methods and pursue the most viable, and least impacting alignment and design. In light of my comments, I encourage you and your staff to pursue an alignment that reflects the community’s vision and strong attachment to our sense of place. I recommend that the preferred alternative alignment for this proposed line not include overhead sections through the viewshed of the city or through the urban setting. Thank you for the opportunity to work within the very well organized process you have established for the review of this significant utility project. I look forward to working with you and the Utility to finalize a minimal impact alignment. Please distribute my comments to the Working Group. Sincerely, Sheila Ann Selkregg, Ph.D. Director ec: Randy Pollock, Power Engineers Dora Gropp, Chugach Electric Assn. ~ JAN. 302° 97(THU) 23:43 P. 029 fe KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH 144 N. BINKLEY + SOLDOTNA, ALASKA - 99669-7599 BUSINESS (907) 262-4441 FAX (907)262-1892 MIKE NAVARRE MAYOR November 27, 1996 Mr. Nurul Islam Rural Utilities Service Engineering & Environmental Staff 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Stop 1571 Washington, DC 20250-1571 Dear Mr. Islam: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Souther Intertie Project Route Selection Study, Phase |. At present, the Kenai Peninsula Borough has no formal comments to submit. Additional project information, along with transcripts from the recent interagency and public meetings have been requested fram Dames and Moore. We would appreciate being included In the interagency working group = this project and look forward to working with you. Sincerely, Whinda Handua Glenda Landua Planner He JAN. -02' 97 (THU) 25:39 TT ALASKA CENTER for' the ENVIRONMENT 919. West 8th: ‘Avenue,. Suite 201 - s Anchotege Alaska, 1 89501 ‘a *. ~ GON 274-3621: Ls cae ees miei , Nurul dali eee ae ete deal ae at a , Bnviroomestl Protodtion Specialist mit <I: a ea - .- uel "Rural Utilities Servide 2-2 Js Sail it sa .1400 Independence. Ave. sw mpl Pee Stop 1857} a: scam Washingt, D.C. mpaso-is7: eee | Bear, Ilan: pectin? Scien an Ripe oo The Alaska | Center ‘for the ey (ACE) cepiresents 4, ‘000 houschilds; mostof -. whom live in Southcentral Alaska. Tlie mission of ACB is to. represent the environniental - momae . »,interests of our members, , The purpose of this letteris.to comtment‘on the Southern “°° wt .... Intettie Project,,a 230KV t transmissioti ling from Soldotna to Anchorage that is beng > . proposed by seven utilities who serve ‘Southcentral and Interior Alaska. ela * ace pled Appareiity, thie Rural Utilities Secvice. (RUS) i is thé lead federal agency forthe aaa os we _ Tatertie’ ‘Project. . Corisequently, the RUS-will be responsible for pms ad this eeopatel aes sdsquaiaty and ees ar ae With, NEPA." at i = ’ P Based on ‘the Tihited. fnformation’ that has ‘beer presénted to the public; the Sduthern _t' 4 + Infeitie- Project appears-to tuive significant environriental impacts and Questionable... ca ce Y + economic justification: Also, adequate consideration hag not béen given to other... Slims altematives that might have less envirdimmental i impact and/or better. economic feasibility. in _.. Given the. shortcomings of the inforniation presented, the. only alternative ‘we have is to. io y .-, Oppose.construction. of this’ proposed project. We urge the’ RUS to consider other’ options .° _. that might not only pro Vide-more cost-effective and reliable Glectrical gnergy tothe - * a Railbel, but could bi ave less i — on valuable, Publicly —— natural resources. | . The is rouites being Sruieied will all i impact fist, wildlife, Sexipec! fecreation, and: ood ++, "scenic resources, Most of this impact will occur, on publicly‘owned land. Tliese publicly” ee owned resources are ‘of national significartce and of considerable economic valué to." «. . , Alaskans. Theré‘are numerous studies docunienting the value of fish, wildlife, otitdoor ce . recreation, and scenic vistas-on thé Kenai Peninsula. Despite these studies; the Southem i “Intertie Project Route Selection Study makes no effort to determirie the actual i impact that" . the-intertie, might have oni these resources or the écononilc significance of such impact. - Merely nating thé presence of thése resources ona map with somé-kind.of-crude’ ranking -order, dogs not demonstrate the level of awareness that is needed to adequately mitigate |” environmental. impacts. Tt is common practice now to determine the Sconomtic impact that |e: ara project might hav¢ on important amenities suc as ting, wildlife eiaatee and’ ‘tourism, ee ON witinonl anAAt ance anes nacscianrs dient att aati “JAN. -0.2'97 (THU) 23:39 fins and to incorporate this data in the economic analysis. We request that this type of data be obtained on any alternative that is given serious consideration. The Southem Intertie Project Route Sclection Study makes no attempt to demonstrate economic feasibility. There is a brief description of benefits expected from the project, but no data quantifying these benefits or their economic value. The study seems to assume that the project will be built and the only economic concer is selecting the most cost- effective route. We do not believe this will comply with NEPA requirements. Given the size of the project and its expense, RUS should require a rigorous benefit-to-cost analysis of each alternative. This analysis should include environmental costs. Perhaps the most glaring deficiency of the study is its quick write-off of alternatives. The study states that energy conservation “affects energy use on a local, rather than regional basis. Therefore, energy conservation plans alone cannot be considered an alternative action to meet the stated need for the project.” This baffling statement cannot be considered a serious attempt at evaluating whether or not energy conservation is more cost-effective than building the proposed intertie. Obviously, any reduction of energy at the local level will reduce regiotial demand. Perhaps the project sponsors are apprehensive that an effective energy conservation program might also reduce the benefits that could be expected from an intertie. The dismissal of battery energy storage systems includes another contradicting statement. The study states, “Although (battery energy storage) would increase reliability....it would not increase energy transfer capability between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula.” If would seem that improving reliability at the local level serves the purpose of the project and may, in fact, reduce the need for regional transfer capability. What the study seems to be saying is that it favors transfer capability (i.c., building an intertie) over reliability. While this may be in the interest of the project sponsors, it can be seriously questioned kK whether this attitude is in the overall best interest of the ratepayer. We request that energy conservation and battery storage systems be given serious consideration as alternatives. We suggest that fuel cells and wind generators also be considered. The Anchorage area has a rich supply of natural gas, which is needed for fuel cells, and the wind regime in the Portage area should be attractive for wind generation. We further request that all feasible alternatives, including demand-side management, be evaluated within the context of Integrated Resource Planning (which is also referred to as Least Cost Planning) as described by the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 1992. As described by the Act: INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNING.-Each electric utility shall employ integrated resource planning. All plans or filings before a State regulatory authority to meet the requirements of this paragraph must be updated on a regular basis, must pravide the opportunity for public participation and comment, and contain a requirement that the plan be implemented. "JAN. -@2' 97 (THU) 23:40 P02 INVESTMENTS IN CONSERVATION AND DEMAND MANAGEMENT.-The rates allowed to be charged by a State regulated electric utility shall be such that the utility's investment in and expenditures for energy conservation, energy efficiency resources, and other demand side management measures are at least as profitable, giving appropriate consideration to income lost from reduced sales due to investments in and expenditures for conservation and efficiency, as its investments in and expenditures for the construction of new generation, transmission, and distribution equipment. Such energy conservation, energy efficiency resources and other demand side management measures shall be appropriately monitored and evaluated. The term ‘integrated resource planning’ means, in the case of an electric utility, a planning and selection process for new energy resources that evaluates the full range of alternatives, ‘ including new generating capacity, power purchases, energy conservation and efficiency, cogeneration and district heating and cooling applications, and renewable energy resources, in order to provide adequate and reliable service to its electric customers at the lowest system cost. The process shall take into account necessary features for system operation, such as diversity, reliability, dispatchability, and other factors of risk; shall take into account the ability to verify energy savings achieved through energy conservation and efficiency and the projected durability of such savings measured over time; and shall treat demand and supply resources on a consistent and integrated basis. The term ‘system cost' means all direct and quantifiable net costs for an energy resource over its available life, including the cost of production, distribution, transportation, utilization, waste management, and environmental compliance. We strongly suggest that the RUS follow the planning procedures specified in the Energy Policy Act. We thank you for the opportunity to comment and trust that you will make every effort to have the planning of the Southem Intertie Project comply with NEPA and be consistent with the Energy Policy Act. Sincerely Cliff Eames Issues Director “TAN, -02° 97(THU) 23:35 P. 009 SENT BY: ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 3122-31-96 + 9:12; XEROX ALASKA- 742/79 Oceanview/Old Seward Community Council P.O. Box 110045 Anchorage, AK 99511 Decernber 23, 1996 Nurul Islam Environmental Protection Specialist Rural Utilities Services 1400 Independence Avenue SW Stop 1571 Washington, DC 20250-1571 Re: Southern Intertie Project Anchorage to Kanal Peninsula Transmission Line Dear Mr. Islam, Thank you for giving us an opportunity to comment on the proposed project The Oceanview/Old Seward Community Council is strongly opposed to locating this transmission line in Oceanview. Residents of this area are unconvinced that there is actually a need for this project. The reliability of current power service in Anchorage is batter than most people would be : willing to seltle for and is batter than in many cities across the U.S. th addition, the financial analysis presented does not appear to include all the costs of the project (i.e. casts to homeowners far lass of usa af property). Consumers will be asked to pay increased rates to cover the unfunded portion of costs for decades. Project managers have not bean able to giva a payback period more spacltic than referring to “economic benelits which outweigh costs aver the life of the project.” A payback periad af 30 years is a strong argument against this project. The follawing Is a brief listing af some af the concems af the residents of this area: + Safely issues -- Because of the fall zone, a line with 65 to 70 foot poles can anty be approximately 30 feet from the centerline of the track. Oue to the clase proximity af the line to the rallroad tracks, train derailment could occur with dangerous and perhaps fatal results. « Aesthetics — Property awners invested in this area In part because of the unimpaired views. Transmission lines will result in decreased property values which should be taken into consideration in any econamic analysis and for which property owners should be compensated. « Airspace interference -- Overhead transmission lines will interfere with the approach ta the Flying Crown airstrip runway. This airstrip is jointly owned by 65 residences. Interferance with this FAA designated airspace could result in losing of: airspace JAN, -02'97(THU) 23:36 O10 SENT BY: ANCHORAGE, ALASKA i12-31-96 «| B512 : XEROX ALASKA- 7# 3/3 rights, potentially ultimately closing the airstrip. Flying Crown currently holds a lease west of the rallroad int (he right of way. * Earthquake zone -- This is a highly active selsmic area. The potential for earthquakes should be taken Into consideration. « Electromagnetic interference with electrical equipment + Health safety considerations -- Studies have not proven that there are no negative effects from exposure to electromagnetic fields. Residents Ilving close to the proposed line are unwilling ta be exposed to such a potential hazard. * Negative effects on tourism industry — This unsightly Industrial project would be viewad by thousands of tourists traveling via the Alaska railroad, users of the southern extension of the coastal trail, and visitors to the Coastal Wildlife Refuge and the Potter Marsh Nature Center. Finally, our Community Council is very cancemed about the lack af public notice on this project. The Public Scaping meeting In November was publicized with a small newspaper advertisement worded such that the public, unless they knew what they were looking for, were unlikely to ascertain the true subject af the meeting, In addition, advertising a four haur meeting with no agenda is likely to discourage attendance - not encaurage it. This meeting was held the same night the Anchorage Assembly was deciding on a very conlroversial issue. The rasult was as to be expected; very law members of the public appeared. Our hope Is that the concems and input of the Community Working Group will be taken far more seriously than what we have seen to date. Sincerely, Qlaern_ te Olsen ‘esident Oceanview/Old Seward Community Council cc: Ray Kreig, President Chugach Electric Board af Directors JAN. -02'97(THU) 23:55 — JAN- 1-97 WED 1:07 PM KWF FAX NO, 907 262 6189 Pp. 2 December 30, 1996 Catherine Caasidy Kenai Watershed Forun P.O. Box 2937 Soldotna, AK 99669 907.262.6189 Nurul Islam Environmental Protection Specialist Rural Utilities Service 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Stop [571 Washington, DC 20250 202.720.0820 ( Dear Mr. Islam: The Kenai Watershed Forum isa citizen's group whose mission includes protecting the health of the Kenai River watershed. Niklas Ranta and Dan Stead gave a presentation on the proposed Souther Intertic Project ata meeting we sponsored for our members and the general public. At this time our members have the following concems regarding the project: « We would like more information on which energy conservation measures were considered and why they were rejected. * What else could be done instead of building the intertic? ‘The question still atiges as to the significant anced for this tine, « What specific econamic benefits will the intertie bring to the Kenai Peninsula? * Are the routes that are under consideration exact routes that will not be altered during construction? If not, when will you know the precise routing? \ « What options of using different construction techniques have been considered for the various environmentally sensitive areas and avalanche zone areas (¢.g. subterranean lines) * What methods and equipment will be used to construct and maintain the line. * Concern has also been expressed about the brown bear population around the Chickaloon River area. What impact would the intertic have in this area? «Would public access be allowed along the intertie right-of-way? We have requested copies of the executive and full reports of the preliminary studies from Niklas Ranta. We strongly recommend you address any of these issucs Which may not have already been considered, especially with rogard to alternative construction techniques. We believe that if this project is worthwhile, then itis definitely _ worth implementing With as litle impact as possible on the local environment, wildlife and viewsheds, even icit means spending more money in the short term. Thank you for your attention to ourconcems. Sincerely, Mian TAN -O2 97 (THU) 23:33 ae FOCL | Friends of Cooper Landing Post Office Box &15 Cooper Landing, Alaska 99572 December 20, 1996 Nuri Islam, Environmental Protection Specialist Rural Utilities Service 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Stop 1571 Washington, DC 20250-1571 Subject: Southern Intertie Project, Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage, Alaska Dear Mr. Islam: The Friends of Cooper Landing Board of Directors has carefully reviewed the alternative routes proposed for the Southern Intertie transmission line. Comments submitted in this letter pertain only to the Quartz Creek route. Positions taken on the relative merit of the Project, or other routes may be provided at a later date. The Quartz Creek route is strongly opposed, for the following reasons, He The Quartz Creek route passes through world class scenery in the Cooper Landing, Hope and Turnagain Arm areas. Scenery around Cooper Landing is the basis for the quality of life of residents and the economic well-being of local businesses from tourism. Additional right-of-way clearing and transmission line eyesore will heavily impact the viewshed. Recent Cooper Landing land use planning emphasizes the retention of natural values in the area. Beyond short-term gains for local businesses during the construction phase, the Quartz Creek route will heavily impact Cooper Landing over the long term. The highly-valued natural setting will be substantially diminished. 2. The Seward Highway, along Tumagain Arm, is now designated as a National Scenic Highway. We have learned that the Seward Highway and the Sterling Highway passing through Cooper Landing are soon to be elevated to the status of All American Highways. Additional transmission line eyesore is neither consistent with these prime désignations, nor acceptable. 3. Chugach State Park will also be negatively impacted by additional clearing and transmission line eyesore along Turnagain Arm. 4, Eyesore existing in some areas, such as Quartz Creek, is already severe. Increased visibility of the 10 to 20 foot higher towers to be utilized is a major concem. \y oh -- Our focal point is Coaver Landina -- “JAN. 02 97(THU) 23:34 P. 004 Le FRIENDS OF COOPER LANDING } Ss The existing Chugach Electric Association transmission linc, running from the Quartz | Creek Substation to Anchorage along Tumagain Arm, is subject to well documented avalanche hazards. We are told that it is common operational practice to reduce this transmission line to zero load under frequent avalanche conditions, thereby avoiding outages otherwise imposed on the overall power grid in railbelt Alaska, Designing an additional transmission line through an extended avalanche zone is illogical, when better alternatives are available. Risk to the power grid would be increased and net reliability reduced. Designing an additional transmission line to be operated at zero load under avalanche conditions is not cost-effective and does not represent good public policy, 6. Considering reliability, Cooper Landing does not receive a significant benefit from the project, as it is planned to electrically bypass the community. While it can be reasonably said that adding Kenai Peninsula power generation sources at Bernice and Bradley Lakes will upgrade general reliability of the railbelt power grid, the benefits realized at Cooper Landing will be marginal. If the requirement to operate both existing and new transmission lines at zero load during avalanche conditions is considered, it is difficult to quantify a benefit for Cooper Landing, let alone for the remainder of the grid. Ts The Quartz Creek route passes through or adjacent to existing and future neighborhoods. The Quartz Creek Homeowners’ Association in very concerned about negative impact on quality of life, as well as the high property values now enjoyed. Loss of property value related to an additional transmission line may be deemed actionable. 8. Some Quartz Creek Homeowners’ Association members are further concerned about loss of property to expanded right-of-way requirements. 9 Quartz Creek Homeowners’ Association members question the long-term negative impact on their families, from exposure to the hazard of transmission line EMF fields. 10. Developable land in Cooper Landing is very limited due to the high percentage of vertical terrain and poar soils. The Quartz Creek route passes through lands now classified for residential and recreational development. Loss of scarce residential land will be caused by the need for additional right-of-way. Robert L, Baldwin President call: 595.1433, 562.2482; fax: 561.2482; e-mail: akscitec@alaska.net P.O. BOX 721 COOPER LANDING FISH AND GAME COOPER LANDING, AK 99572 ADVISORY COMMITTEE / PHONE: (907) 595-1540 FAX: — (907) 595-1540 December 10, 1996 Nurul Islam Environmental Protection Specialist Rural Utilities Service 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Stop 1571 Washington, DC 20250-1571 Dear Mr. Islam, 5 As the local forum for fish and wildlife habitat and conservation, the Cooper Landing Fish and Game Advisory Committee would like to take this opportunity to comment on the Southern Intertie Project during the public scoping period. Proposal Q, the Quartz Creek Alternative, would pass through areas in Cooper Landing that are very valuable as fish and wildlife habitat. While the present transmission does degrade fish, wildlife and their habitat, new construction and a wider cleared right-of-way would greatly increase this effect. . The Kenai River supports large runs of pacific salmon that are important to commercial, sport, and personal use fishers alike. The return of these salmon support vast and varied varieties of resident fish, birds and wildlife within the drainage. The Russian River, a major tributary, supports a large brown bear population and is world renowned for its sockeye salmon and rainbow trout sport fishery. Quartz Creek, for which this alternate was named, Supports moose wintering and calving as well as other wildlife and is an important spawning stream for chinook, coho and sockeye salmon as well as Dolly Varden char. At present salmon and char runs in the Quartz Creek drainage are below normal, a major concern to this. Committee. When you consider the Southern Intertie Alternatives for reliability and efficiency, we ask that you weigh the consequences of building an additional transmission line along a right-of-way known for avalanche problems against the damaging effects this construction will have on fish and wildlife and their habitat. Sincerely, o ~ = ; Bill Stockwell, Chair cc: Dames and Moore Serving the Alaska Board of Fisheries and Alaska Board of Game Boards Support Section, P.O. Box 25526, Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526 REC RtVer jAR US i995; DAMES & MOORE ANC lids WIDE RINESS SOCLEIY Nurul Islam December 30, 1996 Environmental Protection Specialist Rural Utilities Service 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Stop 1571 Washington, DC 20250-1571 Submitted Via Facsimile RE: Comments on Public Scoping Document, Southern Intertie Project, Anchorage to Kenai Transmission Line. Dear Mr. Islam: The Wilderness Society submits the following comments on the proposed Southern Intertie Project. : The Wildermess Society, founded in 1935, is a non-profit membership organization devoted to preserving wilderness and wildlife, protecting America’s prime forests, parks, rivers, deserts, and shorelands, and fostering an American land ethic. The Society has approximately 315,000 members nation-wide, and 1,200 in Alaska, many of whom use the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge and the Chugach National Forest and have expressed deep concern for their resources. The Wilderness Society strongly opposes Alternative E, known as the Enstar or Mystery Creek route, which would run through the Northeastern quadrant of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. For most of its length this route would enter or border lands found by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to qualify for Congressional Wildemess designation under the Section 1317 Wilderness Review included in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan of 1985. Specifically, USFWS identified the Two Indians Area, 132,000 acres located East of the proposed line, the Trumpeter Lake area, 23,000 acres directly South of the proposed line, and 104,000 acres bordering the western edge of the proposed line, as meeting the criteria for Wilderness. The Two Indians area was in fact proposed for wilderness designation in the d-2 legislation, and was included in the House version of the bill, HR39. Today, these three areas comprise a de facto wilderness that covers the entire Northeastern quadrant of the Kenai Refuge, a place where evidence of human development is ALASKA REGION 430 WEST 7TH AVENUE, ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 TEL. (907) 272-9453 FAX (907) 274-4145 scarce and habitat values are high. “The area meets the criteria for a wilderness designation,” wrote the USFWS, “It provides important moose, swan, brown bear, black bear, and wolf habitat on the Kenai. The Chickaloon area is of particular importance for wilderness wildlife.” Construction of a major transmission line, and its attendant roads, camps, and clearings, through the heart of this de facto wilderness would irretrievably alter the landscape, marring what is currently a relatively undeveloped area, eliminating the wilderness value with a line of transmission towers, and significantly reducing the wildlife habitat. We believe such an action would require amendment of the Kenai Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The Wilderness Society also opposes Alternative H, which proposes construction of a transmission line down the Six Mile river valley. The Six Mile watershed is of tremendous recreational and biological value, and the Six Mile river provides excellent whitewater recreation opportunities. The Six Mile is eligible for National Scenic river designation and construction of new transmission towers will have a negative impact on the viewshed of those utilizing the river. Similar problems exist for Alternative Q, which would parallel the most heavily touristed road in Alaska, and have an extremely negative impact on the wilderness qualities of Chugach State Park. If a transmission line is to be built, The Wilderness Society believes that Alternative T, which runs through State and private land along the western boundary of the Kenai Refuge, is the least damaging option of those presented. These lands were specifically withdrawn from the Refuge for this purpose, and the State should follow through on its intention to focus development along this corridor. Prior to proceeding with such a development, however, we believe the sponsors of this project must demonstrate a need for the proposal and the support of Alaskan citizens, who are footing the bill through a $90 million state subsidy and future increases in electric rates. Good public policy necessitates a full examination of the costs of the project, demand for greater reliability or wattage, the resources that would be endangered or lost for each route, and the impact on visual, wildemess, and habitat qualities. a Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Sincerely yours. , A sK LAS > Matthew S. Siegel Allen E. Smith A , Alaska Regional Director Alaska Regional Associate CC: Robin West, Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Dave Allen, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Larry Hudson, Chugach National Forest Niklas Ranta, Dames & Moore Dora Gropp, Chugach Electric Association at RESOLUTION No. 7 7-0 / PT. POSSESSION INC. WHEREAS, Pt. Possedsion, ‘Tnc,, is a native corporation created pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and isithe owner of 4,481 acres of ANCSA land situated at Prt. Possession, Alaska, adjacent to the Koasi’ Natloaal Wildlife Refuge, and; WHEREAS, this parcel is he’ largest. aod most desirable noa-governmeat owned wildemess parcel near Anchorage, Alaska, and; - 4 WHEREAS, becauso- of the: arcel’s 4.5 miles of ocean coastline, 36 lakes and ponds, and aan wildlifo, sininic ULAANNN property for ownership as a private wildemess park, rig he para St ect and; WHERBAS, a proposal unde ooasideoration by Chugach Electric Association, and other electrical producers, to construct hig voltage electrical transmission line near or actoss the subject parcel would substantially diminidt‘its value as a private wildemess park thereby resulting in a substantial financial loss to te;Comoration, and; WHEREAS, the recent decisigti by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Venetic case makes it clear that land owned by ANCSA corporations is “Indian Country” with attached rights of sovereignty that may extingulit the rghit of eminent domain against such property. NOW, THEREFORE'BE f the Corporation is adamantly opposed to construction of the proposed electrical transmission line across of near corporate land, and; BE IT FURTHER RESO! D that the President shall write « letter to Chugach Electric Association and other approptiste entities, accompanied with a copy of this Resolution, expressing the Corporation’s strong objecting to the proposal to route the a line across or near corporate land, and; > BE IT FURTHER’ RESOLVED: that te Corporation’s Land Manager and real estate broker, in representing the Corporation et:contact with Chugacti Electric Association and affiliated electrical entities, and/or their constilearts, shalklikewise advise them of the Corporation's strong opposition to routing the ling near or acréts-Pt. Possession land, and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that should Chugach Electric Association ignore the Corporation's wishes in this , the Corporation through its legal counsel shall seek alliances with other native ascociation contest the right of eminent domain for acquisition of any right of way across the Corporation’s ‘laud. I hereby certify that the fi ig Kiibolution was unanimously adopted at a legally coavened Board of Directors mooting held Yamuary <9 7 1997. i , ATTEST: sebasess Comin _ President Ws UUL DOYG cyt. Sake ye February 3, 1997 of way would absolutely invite usage. This land is where my mothers People were born and raised as was myself. [ intend to Pass it to my children in the Same quality that I have known it. CONSUMER SERVICES P. 001 iii Ye(MEU) Vols = ee s x P.O. Box 112896 Anchorage, AK 99511 December 31, 1996 Nurul Islam | OPTIONAL FORM 99 (7-50) Environmental Protection Specialist FAX T [retcuee 5 Rural Utilities Services te ed Wiceaviled ilies our 1400 Independence Avenue SW Nikhs Lanta. Naval Lan, Stop 1571 , Peed Zleoore. 12.720 - Huh Washington, DC 20250-1571 “(OVS EC2- (297 [Fy 2726-0820 NBN 7640-014517-7308 S068-101 SSNEMAL SERVICES ADMMNUSTRATION Re: — Southern Intertie Project Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Dear Mr. Islam, P. 002 yj" Q7(WEU) Vd:L8 We also share the concem of the Oceanview Community Council concerning a good and appropriate comment forum concerning this controversial issue. Because of the sever impact this route would have on our airport we feel the need to be continually brought into the communication loop on all planning levels. As long as this route is considered a option by your organization. If you have a community involvement process or committee, we request to participate. : Thank you for considering our comments, Sincerely, Dan Perry a President Flying Crown Homeowner Association ce: Ray Kreig, President Chugach Electric Board of Directors ce: John Spaulding, President Alaska Airman's Association ce Tom Wardliegh, Alaska Safety Foundation =o BAYSHORE/KLATT COMMUNITY COUNCIL Douglas C. Perkins, President 2130 Shore Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99515 (907) 276-1592 daytime (907) 349-6835 evenings (907) 277-4352 facsimile December 31, 1996 Mr. Niklas Ranta Dames & Moore 5600 B. Street Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1641 Re: Southern Intertie Project Dear Mr. Ranta, On December 5, 1996, the Bayshore/Klatt Community Council held a public meeting at which your organization and Chugach Electric Assocation presented plans for the proposed intertie routes. One of the deadlines for public comment is January 1, 1997. This is to advise you that Bayshore/Klatt Community Council has passed a resolution against the route proposed through Victor Road/Shore Drive, as follows: Whereas, Point Woronzof and Potter Station have existing utility corridors; Whereas, Point Woronzof and Potter Station are in more rural locations; and Whereas, the Victor/Shore proposed route would both adversely impact this more residential area as well as the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge; Whereas, the Victor/Shore proposed route would be one of the more expensive routes; Therefore, be it resolved, that Bayshore/Klatt Community Council opposes the Victor/Shore proposed route, and respectfully requests that this route be removed from further consideration. Gouncil President co: Dora Gropp, Chugach Electric Association Y Don Faulkenburry