Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Draft S Intertie Enviro Impact Vol 1 2001
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Southern Intertie Project Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage, Alaska September 2001 Lead Agency: Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Defense Written comments on this DEIS should be addressed to: Lawrence R. Wolfe USDA - Rural Utilities Service 1400 Independence Ave. SW — Stop 1571 Washington, DC 20250-1571 lwolfe @rus.usda.gov ABSTRACT The Southern Intertie Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) describes the affected environment and environmental consequences of constructing and operating a new 138kV transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The project is being proposed by the Intertie Participants Group (Applicant) in order to improve the overall Railbelt electrical system reliability and energy transfer capabilities between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The primary federal action entails whether to approve the necessary permits to construct and operate the proposed project across federal lands administered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Applicant has filed for a right-of-way across federal lands on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR), a Conservation System Unit designated under the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will determine whether to issue a permit for regulated activities in waters of the United States; decisions made by the Rural Utilities Service determine whether or not to provide federal funding for the project. Three alternatives were studied in detail: no action; the applicant’s proposal of constructing a new 73- mile-long transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage along the Enstar pipeline route, adjacent to the pipeline through the KNWR; and the alternative of constructing a new line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage along the Tesoro pipeline route. Non-transmission alternatives such as battery energy storage systems, demand side management, energy efficiency/conservation, wind generation, fuel cells, and increased spinning reserves were also evaluated. Alternatives developed in this DEIS address the 14 key issues raised during scoping. These issues include: = purpose and need = biology = urban and rural land use = cultural resources = aviation safety = right-of-way limitations = recreation and tourism = health and safety = management plans = avalanche hazards = watershed management and soil erosion = socioeconomics . . visual resources alternatives to the proposed action SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT VOLUME I Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture In cooperation with USS. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense September 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Table of Contents i List of Tables vi List of Figures viii List of Acronyms ix Conversion Table xii Issue Tracking Index Xili Summary ENtrOGUGTI ON PNNNENEse see erence een sncntanetrancansnsaserescnta ten senarsncarsnemtststetsttrs:sresranstesranesncttarares S-1 Purpose and Need ay | Op Alternatives Studied in Detail Including the Applicant’s Proposal .............:::ssseeeeee S-4 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study .....................cccsccssssssscssscsssccsececssecsesees S-8 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. . Sl Scoping, Consultation, and Coordimation ...........cccseseseseseseseseseneeeeeneneneeeeeneneeeeeeenenenes S-23 Chapter 1 — Purpose and Need MUP IntrOG UCU OM ate een ceateseseccessocscescnctacsctcncsbanecesscecscaancececcscsncsassesecetscscaceneccccarsecassasared 1-1 EDM PLOjeCt back PTOUNC mrestetenesetenrssensecetsensasteesenmeeseantne ans 1-1 1.2.1 How the Existing System is Operated. 1-8 ID DUPPreViOUS/ SUES tre eetesssnecrssrsess-nestcneass 1-10 1.2.3 System Planning and Operating Criteria 1d 1.3. Purpose and Need for the Project........:..:s00+ eee 3 PSAP Reliability cserscsctcecsscscezcsetes 1-14 1.3.2 Power Transfer Capability 1-22 1.3.3. Economic Generation..... 1-23 1.3.4 System Stability....... eof pl=25 IES PNB OPINMNIN GIRESELV ESlecrssesestsessecsarsnesesecetetetsesesesessesesrsesesversnsecacseansatencases 1-26 159.6) Pleine ossesjand'MaintenanCe frccsssersesscsccsnssencacersarsrancecesccucrenescssnenceasnsa 1-27 Sep Bradley lake hers crssscesteetess vw. 1-28 1.4 Project Benefits and Costs..............:.c-cecscscsasesacessesecsssesecsaceresscosnssecnssnssacncsnsncnesees 1-29 1:45) Construction andi [aife! Cycle Costs totcsscrscscssesessacstersesessesurscessctcncensesancesea 1-31 1.4.2 Construction Cost ee) Plo 1.5 Scoping and Public Involvement.............ssscscscscscscsnsnsceseneesesenensseeseenseseseseasseeness 1-32 [5:1 Process|SUMMALY <.2....2....:....c.scassesssesecsnsnesccacecencecocncscacessasaesussesutsasasacnsis® 1-32 1.5.2 Analysis of Issues. en l-33 Gi Decisions tobe Made mrersssssssssessstsesesssseseeesan SL -35 1.6.1 Rural Utilities Service .................00 1-35 1.6.2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ess) PL-35 1.6.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineets................ccccscscssrsrssscssecsnsnssasencnsessncncnsecses 1-37 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Table of Contents i September 2001 Table of Contents (continued) Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal 2.1 Overview of Alternatives and Screening Process ........ 2-1 2.2 Alternatives Studied and Eliminated from Detailed Study . ey) | 2a) 225i VAlternativesito/a Transmission Option tcc cccrccsscscsescsecscteecceccnereseoseseerss 2-1 22 Qi Uransmission Options sercesecee cesta eee eee 2-7 2.3. Alternatives Evaluated in Detail .. 2-25 22351 No-Action Alternative 2-29 232 Transmission Line Alternative Routes .........cccseseseseeseseeseseeeeseeee 2-30 2.4 Alternative Route Facilities ....0.... eee . 2-32 2.4.1 Overhead Transmission Lines.. 2-32 2.4.2 Underground Transmission Lines 2-44 2.4.3 Submarine Cable 2-45 2.4.4 Transition Stations 2-45 2.4.5 Substations . 2-46 2.4.6 Communications for Relaying and Control ............:ccccseeseseeseseeeeeees 2-47 DED Mead CONS CUCH ONS PECL At OMSpersarsscsesessnrersetersnesrenevensesesenectten sectors srereuscessesccerststst 2-50 iS Construction Seasons . 2-50 2D, Right-of-Way /ACQUuiSItiON PLOCESS tests secasescectescecststsssercvecreacatceesecs 2-51 DES) Construction Access 2-52 2.5.4 Construction Activities 2-54 255 Operation, Maintenance, and Abandonment. 2-55 2G eee Alternative Route! ComparisOntcses-cssserctecs-srersrctersesrsrss . 2-59 2.6.1 Alternatives Comparison Process and Results .........ccccceseseseeeeeseees 2-59 2.6.2 Environmentally Preferred Alternative ...........cssscsscsssssesesssssseseeeees 2-59 2.6.3 Applicant} s}ProposedvAllternative semsrsrsctcsssteesressesess-nesnsessestonearenseres 2-60 Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.1 Introduction 3-1 ei Types of Impacts ..... 3-2 Sl? Significance of Impacts.. STS, BD | pClimate and Ain’ Quality sreccccccescccrcosceceustcssstecorteresecstetescetseserotces.tesectereesetsarenesnce 3-8 Ball Affected Environment <tcsscccecctarcctcsncnesnsevasnesossscee soesarststsascensscesasceseses 3-8 Be) Environmental Consequences .. eo es) BS ep Earth ang) Water ROSOULCES sect. ccccetesrotactstectatronatectccrossenctncs sectcercrateasescctnecorecesce 3-9 Bsa Barth tReSOUrCeStrcrcucecncerenscrrerststecncsestssccnsunssnceseatastonstaseenesnsecarsnsneet 3-9 BS 2 Water Resources... 3-12 3:35) Alternatives 3-14 3.3.4 Summary ee py Sale 3.4 Turnagain Arm/Submarine Environment ...........ccccsessseseseesesesesessesesseeeseseeeeseees 3-24 3.4.1 Physiographyand Bath ymethycoetacmscatuercssasscesccessecrstssesecerets teats 3-24 3.4.2 @urrents and) Tides) tot cecsctscscsrstectcssctsnscnsestsvsvcsscstsctensat secencecssssseccsstese 3-24 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Table of Contents ii September 2001 Table of Contents (continued) 3.4.3 SEPM ath on weseceessecssevesevsscpevgucevevevarsetavsussesveavsseasusasesveasevisssesesesssess 3-25 3.4.4 ed Ce ee csdesebesets tee sucdsetbuedds tet sedebuneueedesusceaeassteusiusedueseeceseuecasees 3-28 3.4.5 Marine Water Quality.. es) 3.4.6 VNC y(t pe AT A ALIAS EU MLA LEE ULAR SUS NU STU UA UNIO RBEIN 3-29 35, Biological Resources, |. 2 3-35 35:1 Terrestrial - Vegetation 3-35 3512 Alternatives .... 3-42 3.5.3 Terrestrial - Wildlife. . 3-48 3.5.4 ETN a ee ee stu 3-71 3.5.5 Freshwater Environment eee 3-97 3.5.6 Alternatives “ Baa) Drainage Basins scsccscicsesciccstesstestevstectesh ots iezetoedeestvstasdavstovatesttustsass 3-104 3.5.8 PATTCEM ACL VES reeset ec Ne Rete eeaeetees 3-107 3.5.9 Marine Environment 3-111 3.5.10 Alternatives .......... 3-115 3.5.11. Threatened and Endangered Species - oli 3.5.12 Impact Summary ........... cesses . 3-118 3.6 Land Use and Recreation. ............scessscssseeseeeeeees <2 Sel 20) 3.6.1 Land Jurisdiction and Management Plans.. .. 3-120 3.6.2 eA Se ee ces eeeeeateuesassesereneaevesescsaseeesuseaecusrenteresecsereusensseeresuerenseene 3.6.3 Ena ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eer 3.7. Socioeconomics and Tourism... 37.1 Affected Socioeconomic Environment 3.7.2 Socioeconomic Consequences of the Proposed Action ...........00 3-164 3.7.3 Rate Impacts from the Project... cseseeeseteeeteeeees . 3-189 3.7.4 Environmental Justice .... 3-192 3.8 SUDSIStCNCE.. oon cee eee saseceseee . 3-205 3.8.1 Affected Environment........ . 3-205 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences 3-209 3.8.3 SUMIMATY) oie.-secsesees sevecseseeees 3.9 Visual 3.9.1 fVistlal RESOUTCES OVELVIEW: csc ccct ccs octet cetec tere uetest cvcesetcstces cose 3-211 392 Alternatives bs Se Ob Cultural: RESOULCES iestictcocesecccussesseasenstucsaceucesenascesssesssusssssssSasucesesusseatccacenssuseoas secre S021 Cultural History eet setssscssrscsneesrsusutucesoneasesuesenneusousmescsueussssusacucnceae 3.10.2 Inventory Results.. 3.10.3. Sensitivity Model . 3.10.4 — Alternatives .......... 223 3.10.5 Impact SUMMATY ........eeeceeeseeteeeseteeeeteeeeeesenenseseneteeseteeseteneeneneneeeees Southern Intertie Project DEIS Table of Contents iii September 2001 Table of Contents (continued) 3.11 Electric and Magnetic Fields and Noise 3.11.1 Affected Environment 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences es 5 11S et SUTIN Al ye snenennenenseseneeseasneenstsee neeusarenstcanentaaesetttstts seeeneeeetet career tar aes 3:12 Cumulative Impacts Amal ysis ¢<..c.<c2ccoccscesscsecerseceestecsussecesevevssrseacecsacsestererseveseeres 3-280 Sole i DefNitONircecsccssrsscecenees 3.12.2 Cumulative Impact Process...........:.cseseseeees 3.12.3 Analysis Approach .............scsssecsessssssssessenes 3.13. Short-Term Uses Versus Long-Term Productivity.. SAZA = ROB visirscensssnarenmnann 3.13.1 Kenai Peninsula... ee eeeeeeee ss Sal 3 Dy Turmagain Arie ccccccc.ncseccssscssacscssessacccooceoesacsecsccserscevececcereecteeeeset sees Bul SS MPANICHOLa ge AT Ca serersssnsesnetecturs.cooreerenstrreasenstcstreceres corerersretenstrseeresteey 3.14 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources.. 3.15 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .........c.cccsesseseseeseescseeeesescseeeeseeeeeeees Chapter 4 — Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination 4.1 Introduction ae ' 4-1 4.2 Federal Scoping Process... 4-1 4.2.1 Notification 4-1 4.2.2 Public andvA gency MCetin gs oo ccceercsncssescsacscsescssscsosuscsnssecuesncnsceserssse 4-1 4.3. Applicant Initiated Activities . 42 4.3.1 Agency and Organization Contacts .........:csssceseessesseseeseesesseseeseeeeeees 4-4 4.3.2 Community; Participation ceccsrscsccccssocessesssceccsctcsctseccsecsctessareccoceessezees 4-4 4.3.3 Native American, Indigenous, and Tribal Involvement. es 4-4 4:4 “Accessito Information\..................ce.sscscsesssescecscsosesecessueasenscnssessees . 410 4.5 Issues and Concerns ........sceesceseseeseeseeeseeseseeseeeeeees . 4-10 4.5.1 Issue 1 — Purpose of and Need for the Project .........cceeeseseseeeeeee 4-11 4.5.2 Issues 2 — Urban and Rural Land Use ..............cscsscsscsseeesseeseeseeeseees 4-18 4.5.3 Issue 3 — Aviation Safety ................ . 4-18 4.5.4 Issue 4 — Recreation and Tourism ...........sccsessesseseeeeseeseeseeeseeeeeeeeees 4-19 4.5.5 Issue 5 — Management Plans ............esssssessesseseeesceeeessesseeseceeseeeseessens 4-19 4.5.6 Issue 6 — Watershed Management and Soil Erosion... « 4-19 4.5.7 Issue 7 = Visual RESOUICES cics-:.ccsscecsxcerseceacenessse=s . 419 45.8 Issue 8 — Biology............0000 « 4-20 4.5.9 Issue 9 — Cultural Resources ..... « 4-20 4.5.10 — Issue 10 — Right-of-Way Limitations.. 4-21 4.5.11 Issue 11 — Health and Safety......... . 421 ASS S12 mepissue yl 2 —s Avalanche Hazards pes wsessssssssessscecentess nitsrsseccsurecesctetteseres 4-21 ASSe13) eIssuesl'3}— SOCIOCCONOMICS feececsraseres-snsueasecsnssssncecsssesisvesesssscstesseteees 4-21 4.5.14 Issue 14 — Alternatives to the Proposed Project .........ccceseseesseeeeeeees 4-22 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Table of Contents iv September 2001 Table of Contents (continued) 4.6 Authorizations and Permitting Requirements ..........cceceseseseseseeeseseseeeseseeeeees 4-22 4.6.1 Resulatory, Backoround ccccccccccccnssccscesscccsevesesssasacessessscenezssssuessenecess 4-24 AIG TD OLMIS eetccecerereseteneeeetestenrereeeeeeaesa recent tretenstercarenceetreeenteeeeeetinces 4-25 Chapter 5 — Preparers and Contributors References Glossary Index VOLUME II APPENDICES, DRAWINGS, SIMULATIONS, AND MAPS Appendices A - Comparison of Other Routing Alternatives B - Construction Activities and Drawings C - Inventory Study and Impact Assessment Methods D - Mitigation E - Simulations F - Public Notice of Application for Permit Maps Figures MV-1 through MV-31 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Table of Contents Vv September 2001 LIST OF TABLES S-1 ASCG@ Planningiand Operating: Criteriavewer ee S-4 S-2. Summary Comparison of Alternatives................:..scscssssscscsssssscesecsssssesecsssesacecensosesees S-16 1-1 Purchasers’ Percentage Shares of Bradley Lake Capacity and of Annual Project: Costs ee eee 1-2 1-2. Reference Numbers for Studies Addressing Key Project Issues..........:ccsssesseeeeeee 1-10 1-3 Electrical Utility Planning Criteria eee vl 1-4 Applicable ASCC Planning and Operating Criteria... eeecseseeseeseeesseceeeseeee 1-15 1-5 Quartz Creek Transmission Line - Unscheduled Outages ............::ssssssssssseseseeeeeeeees 1-16 1-6 Quartz Creek Transmission Line — Causes of Unscheduled Outages . a le) 1-7 Railbelt Electrical Utility Customers ..................cccscsssssssssssssscsssoseses SLL, 1-8 | Comparison of Peak Demand Forecast for 2010 (M 1-21 1-9 | HEA Annual Outage Hours Per Consumer Five-Year Averages .... 1-21 1-10 Railbelt Systems Frequency Deviation and Load Shedding Events 1-25 1-11 Net Present Worth of Benefits for the Project... He SO 12 SUMIMALy OlsBenenits| and | COS(S cececscsccceseteccscsstsronscssscesererccasescecersiseaceesstorsesersnentenests 1-31 2-1 Alternative; SCLeeMiNn g{SUIMIMALY ferestssscensttetustsesscoescesesceasss scenes tocastsccceesectecsssesCeesesecass 2-2 2-2. Quartz Creek 115kV Transmission Line Avalanche Risk Exposure 1991 .............. 2-14 2-3 Avalanche! Damage) tothe Quartz Creeksine Mes rerct erste eee eee 2-14 2-4 Summit Lake Group Avalanches Involving 50 Percent or More of the Path E210 2-5))\\| Alternative Route Segments secs cssecsuseccesecseenten atacnsaes cae seinen ae aa teense taa rea 2-29) 2-6 Overview of Alternative Route Descriptions........... ea 2-33) 2-7 Transition Sites - Summary of Locations and Features.. 2-48 2-8 Substation Sites - Summary of Locations and Features .... 2-49 2-9 Typical Construction Equipment and Access Conditions... eal 2-52 2 1LO MU ndersround Construction tert settrcsteteseer seer etree ee eter 2-53 2-1 1))))| ‘Alternatives)Route Option| Comparison sere eee 2-62 3-1 ImpactiSignificance)| Criteria te nea SACU INIR USER ene 3-4 3-2. Impacts and Mitigations Common to Most Alternative Routes............sesseseeseeees 3-15 3-3 Major Vegetation Types and Characteristic Species Crossed by the SIP... oii 3-30 3-4 Impacts on Acres of Upland Vegetation for Alternative Routes......... . 3-40 3-5. Impacts on Acres of Wetland Vegetation for Alternative Routes . 3-42 3-6 Bird Species of the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage Area....... Se ES-50 3-7 Terrestrial Mammal Species................ 3-57 3-8 Fish Species of Freshwater Environments . 3-9 Fish Species of Marine Environments SOM MarinetlViammaltS pecies:srsstsessssetsrsncsesessssrectsersersetnsesesesesressestacesrerersescesrsesesesete sets 3-11 KPB and Communities within Project Area Racial Composition, 1990... 3-151 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Table of Contents vi September 2001 List of Tables (continued) 3-12. KPB and Communities within Project Area Income/Poverty Level, 1990............++. 3-151 3-13. KPB Communities Employment 1990 U.S. Census Data...........cccecesessesseseseeeeeeeeees 3-152 3-14 KPB Wage and Salary Employment ..................:scsssssssssssssssesscsseesessssessacsnsacsesseessees 3-153 3-15 Kenai Soldotna Area Employment: 1990-1995 ....... « 3-154 3-16 Historical Population Estimates Anchorage and KPB...... . 3-158 3-17. Anchorage Population by Planning Areas - 1990 to 1996............ . 3-158 3-18 Anchorage - Municipality of Anchorage Racial Composition, 1990... 3-159 3-19 Anchorage - Municipality of Anchorage Income/Poverty Level, 1990...........:00+ 3-159 3-20 Anchorage Employment by Industry 3-21 Annual Unemployment Rate in U.S., Alaska, and Anchorage 1980-1996...........+ 3-161 3-22. Anchorage Average Monthly Wage by Industry - 1990-1995... ceeeseseeeeeeeeeeetees 3-162 3-23 RV and Campground Facilities in the Kenai Flats Area............... 3-171 3-24 Alaska Surface Transportation Implementation Plan (SIP) for 1998-2000 .. 3-181 3-25 Railbelt Population and Income Data, 1996...........scsceseseeseeeeeeeees . 3-190 3-26 Environmental Justice Data, Kenai Peninsula, 1990............:cccscceseeeeeeeeeeeeeteeeeneeenees 3-194 3-27 Environmental Justice Census Data for Anchorage Tracts/ Block Groups with Transmission Lines ...........:.sccccsssseseseeseseseteeseeeeseneneeseeeeeeeeeeeeensees 3-200 3-28 Route Alternatives by Census Tract/Block Group for Anchorage Area...........:00+ 3-202 3.29 Recreation Areas and Travelways, Viewpoint and Viewing ATeas ...........:::::seseee 3-217 3-30 Cultural Resource Inventory 3-31 State Regulations that Limit Field Strengths on Transmission Line Rights-of-Way 3-275 3-32 IRPA General Public Exposure Guidelines ...................ssssccssscssssseesscsesscsecsceeceneeeaees 3-33 Electric Field Values for Assumed Right-of-Way ............::csscsssssssessesseeeeesseneeeeseesees 3-34. Magnetic Field Values for Assumed Right-of-Way .........ccssssscsessseseseeeeeeseseeeeenenees 3-35 Estimated Cumulative Project Area of Impact on the KNWR.. cr 5-3 OMe ULUTE) PLO] eCtSmectsecrsnsserscrsesssenesesersnesreresssssessususesnestcatarersnteess suscasessececustesnesnteccesecestec= 3-37 Cumulative Impact AnalySis ............:.sssscsssseseseesescesessnencessccecseseeeeeeeecnesecenseceeseeeessees 3-38 Short-Term Uses Versus Long-Term Productivity ...... 3-39 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .. 4-1 Summary of Letters Received from Agencies, Communities, and Special Interest Groups .........:.:cscseseseeseseseeeeseteseeeeeeeeenees ~ 43 4-2. Contacts with Agencies and Organizations. . 45 4-3 CWG Representation.................cccccccscsesssscscseccsscnsnssecnssscacecnnsasensasasnssrenssesssceesonessenees 4-8 4-4 Issues Raised by CWG Members ...............5.2c.cscescseonsvesesorsncnenssnsncassnsccensesencsasoceresenes 4-9 4-5 Issues Identified - 4-12 4-6 | Environmental Laws, Authority, and Related Statutes and Orders...........:.::0eee000+ 4-23 4-7 Permits and Approvals .....................ss.s-scsecserserssenssnsssssnsnansssnsensessassorencsssoossersersesencens 4-26 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Table of Contents Vii September 2001 n 1 Peete 1 AnhkwWNn = KE ODNAAMNSWNeE ed NWNYNNNN WV Oo LIST OF FIGURES Altematives!s tdiedtiniDetaill ase S-5 Alternatives Studied in) Detail ee eur esse rasta ccs eccssenacresteret sce caeneeracseecaresstsactanett Project Vicinity Map......... Railbel, Ualites| Syste ea en Generation and Transmission System, Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage Area. Anchorage to Kenai Power Transfer Example Hydro-Thermal Generation Coordination eee escscsscsorersectessontocecsctoseeenteeeeees - Railbelt' Generation! and) Woads masssscssesssenserescce ere ceeer reste eee ee 2-5 Study Area and Alternative Route Progression...............s.scsscsssscssssssscssssesessssesessesees 2-9 Altemative)RoutesjE laminated tvcetsscacssssacesrssesessserscesereeceeseatseseanerccsseessesestsneceatetswens 2-10 Avalanche Hazard Areas......... ae eS) Alternatives Studied in Detail ........... | 25-725) Anchorage Area Alternative Routes .... Eo 21, Alternative Routes and Substation Options ...................sssssssssssssssecsecsssessersecerensesess 2-28 DypicaliOverhead Tine Sauctyres eesrescssceesereescestesccetereseecater erecta cecaceesensersereasnereeces 2-41 Typical Substation sill P24 Representative Route Profiles! r-sceccecccessesscosssccsectsectscerecescercsscostetcenstreenenrersertserceses 2-43 GCooksInletsBath yme triyseecesssusssventietesesteteuscercesstescassceaseseattrcacasttecet tree scat toeeeaes 3-26 Southern Intertie Manpower Loading Comparison of Enstar vs. Tesoro Totals........ 3-166 Southern Intertie Manpower Loading Kenai Lowlands — Tesoro Route... .. 3-169 Southern Intertie Manpower Loading Kenai Lowlands — Enstar Route 3-170 Kenai Visitors & Convention Bureau Visitors, 1996, 1997... 3-172 Kenai Peninsula Traffic, 1997 (Placer River Station)..... Kenai Municipal Airport Emplanements, 1997 Kenai Peninsula State Parks and Recreation Areas Visitation, 1997..........ccccssee Southern Intertie Manpower Loading Combined Anchorage Bowl Segments......... Southern Intertie Manpower Loading Anchorage Area — Tesoro Route .............0 Southern Intertie Manpower Loading Anchorage Area — Enstar Route.................4. Rate Impacts of Southern Intertie Project (in ents/kWh) - Census Designated Places in the Kenai Peninsula Borough ............ccccssssseeeseseeeeeees Route Alternatives Overlaid by Anchorage Area Census Tract and Block: Group} Boundariestsnssscsrscensesssssccsastsorarst suetstseensecosnssrarsasesestsconcasecseesesracessseots 3-204 Influence of/Regional | Landscapes eee eB =2.13) Viewpoints and Viewing Locations Along Alternative Routes a) |p 3-220 Viewpoints and Viewing Locations Map............:s:sssssessessesseseeee pal 3=2935) Gumulativelimpact/Areas® a nmemcsssccstsececerscecsscecterseesseoneeces ee 3-280 Past, Present and Future Development in the Study Area..........cccssseeesesesesseseseeees 3-289 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Table of Contents viii September 2001 ACRONYMS AC ACMP ACWR ADEC ADF&G ADOL ADOT/PF AEA AEC AEIDC AGL AHFC AML&P ANCSA ANILCA ANSI APA APLIC APS ASCC ATV BESS BG c oe CDP CEA CEQ CFR CIRI cr CWG dBA DC DCRA DEIS DFI DLP DNR alternating current Anchorage Coastal Management Program Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Department of Labor Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Alaska Energy Authority Alaska Engineering Commission Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center above ground level Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Anchorage Municipal Light and Power Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act American National Standards Institute Alaska Power Authority Avian Power Line Interaction Committee Alaska Priority System Alaska Systems Coordinating Council all-terrain vehicle Battery Energy Storage System block group celsius cycle combustion census designated place Chugach Electric Association Council on Environmental Quality Code of Federal Regulations Cook Inlet Region, Inc. census tract Community Working Group A-weighted decibels direct current Department of Community and Regional Affairs Draft Environmental Impact Statement Decision Focus, Inc. defense of life and property Department of Natural Resources Southern Intertie Project DEIS ix Table of Contents September 2001 DSM Demand-Side Management EA environmental assessment EIS environmental impact statement EMF electric and magnetic fields EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPRI Electric Power Research Institute ESA Endangered Species Act EVAL Environmental Analysis F Fahrenheit FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAAMR Federal Actions Associated with Management and Recovery FAR Federal Aviation Regulation FEIS Final EIS FWD four-wheel drive FY Fiscal Year GIS geographic information system GVEA Golden Valley Electric Association GWh gigawatt hour HDD horizontal directional drill HEA Homer Electric Association HLA Harding-Lawson Associates IBBST Interagency Brown Bear Study Team IPG Intertie Participants Group IRPA International Radiation Protection Association KLH Kenai Lowlands herd KMH Kenai Mountain herd KNWR Kenai National Wildlife Refuge KPB Kenai Peninsula Borough kV kilovolt kV/m kilovolts per meter kW kilowatt kWh kilowatt hour LWCFA Land and Water Conservation Fund Act mG milliGauss mg/L milligrams per liter MLLW mean lower low water Southern Intertie Project DEIS Table of Contents x September 2001 mLO,/L milliliters of oxygen per liter Mw Moment Magnitude MW megawatt MWh megawatt hour NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NERC North American Electric Reliability Council NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTAM Notice of Airmen NPS National Park Service NTSB National Transportation Safety Board NWI National Wetlands Inventory NWRSAA __ National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act OPGW optical groundwire PNL Pacific Northwest Laboratory Project Southern Intertie Transmission Line Project PVC polyvinyl chloride RUS Rural Utilities Service RV recreational vehicle SCFF self-contained fluid-filled SEIS Supplemental EIS SHS State Historic Site SMA Special Management Area SMS Scenery Management System SRA State Recreation Area SRS State Recreation Site STIP Surface Transportation Implementation Plan SVS static var system TCSC thyristor-controlled series capacitor USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey V/m volts per meter VORTAC VHF Omnidirectional Range Tacan Southern Intertie Project DEIS Table of Contents xi September 2001 CONVERSION TABLE Unit Metric Equivalent U.S. Equivalent Acre 0.4047 hectares 43,560 square feet Cable 219.46 meters 120 fathoms Cubic Foot (liquid) 28.32 liters 7.48 gallons Cubic Foot (dry) .028 cubic meters 1,728 cubic inches Cubic Inch 16.387 cubic centimeters -000578 cubic feet Cubic Inch (dry) 16.387 milliliters .029 pints, dry Cubic Inch (liquid) 16.387 milliliters -035 pints, liquid Cubic Meter 1,000 liters 1.308 cubic yards Cubic Yard -765 cubic meters 27 cubic feet Cubic Yard (liquid) 765 liters 201.974 gallons Fathom 1.83 meters 6 feet Foot 30.48 centimeters 12 inches Furlong 201.17 meters 220 yards Hectare 10,000 square meters 2.471 acres Inch 2.54 centimeters -083 feet Kilogram -001 tons, metric 2.204 pounds, avoir. Kilometer 1,000 meters -621 miles, statute Knot (1 nautical mile/hour) 1.852 kilometers per hour 1.151 statute miles per hour Liter 001 cubic meters 61.024 cubic inches Liter (dry) -1 dekaliter -098 quarts, dry Liter (liquid) 1,000 milliliters 1.057 quarts, liquid Meter 100 centimeters 1.094 yards Micron -000001 meter -000039 inches mile, nautical 1,852 kilometers 1.151 miles, statute mile, statute 1,609 kilometers 5,280 feet or 8 furlongs Section (U.S.) 2.590 square kilometers 1 square mile or 640 acres | Square foot 929.030 square centimeters 144 square inches | Square inch 6.452 square centimeters -006 square foot Square kilometer 100 hectares 247.105 acres Square meter 10,000 square centimeters 1.196 square yards Square mile, statute 258.998 hectares 640 acres Square yard .836 square meters 9 square feet Township (U.S.) 93.240 square kilometers 36 square miles, statute Yard -914 meters 3 feet Southern Intertie Project DEIS Table of Contents xii September 2001 ISSUE TRACKING INDEX An integral part of the environmental process has been a comprehensive effort to consult and coordinate with relevant agencies and the public. The intent throughout the process has been to communicate with the public and agencies, identify and refine their issues, interpret the issues into meaningful information to incorporate into the planning and decision making, and address the issues in the EIS. This comprehensive effort of consultation and coordination has been accomplished through three primary means: (1) agency and public scoping of issues early in the EIS process, (2) contacting agencies during the process to obtain technical information, and (3) conducting community participation throughout the process. Overall, the goal of the scoping process was to determine the issues to be addressed in the EIS. Scoping is a process, early in a project and open to federal, state, and local agencies and the public, intended to incorporate their views and concerns regarding the Project. Other objectives of scoping included evaluating issues, determining the range of alternatives to be evaluated, identifying environmental review and consultation requirements, and developing the environmental analysis process and technical studies to address scoping issues in the EIS. Specifically, issues identified during scoping include the following: Purpose of and Need for the Project Urban and Rural Land Use Aviation Safety Recreation and Tourism Management Plans Watershed Management and Soil Erosion Visual Resources Biology Cultural Resources Right-of-Way Limitations Health and Safety Avalanche Hazards Socioeconomics Alternatives to the Proposed Project The table on the following pages has been provided to assist the reader in tracking generally where these issues are addressed in the document. The index includes a list of specific comments received that fall into the 14 categories listed above, as well as a general guide to sections in the document where the issues are addressed. For more specific information regarding the scoping process and issue identification, refer to Chapter 4 — Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Issue Tracking Index xiii September 2001 ISSUES TRACKING INDEX Anchorage? Issue Comments Received DEIS Index Underlying Need = Unable to determine the underlying need for the transmission line. = Need — Chapter 1, Section 1.3 — Purpose and Need for the Need should be clearly defined and a reasonable range of Project alternatives for the project should be evaluated, such as energy Alternatives — Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1 — Alternatives to a conservation, local generation, system, and transmission Transmission Option; Section 2.2.2 — Transmission Options; alternatives. Appendix A — Comparison of Other Routing Alternatives = The need for the project is not justified by the potential significant = Chapter I, Section 1.4 — Project Benefits and Costs; environmental impacts and questionable economic justification. Appendix D — Mitigation; Chapter 3, Section 3.7.3 — Rate Impacts from the Project Reliability = Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2 — Transmission Options, Quartz = The purpose and need would not be met by constructing a Creek Transmission Corridor, “Avalanche Hazards” transmission line parallel to the Quartz Creek line due to avalanche risks. = Chapter 1, Section 1.3 — Purposed and Need for the Project = Is reliability of power the main reason for the project? = Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1 — Reliability, “Improved Reliability” Purpose m= What increase in reliability would construction of the new and Need transmission line provide? = Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1 — Reliability for the = Current reliability of service from the existing transmission line Project system is acceptable in the Anchorage and Kenai areas. Residents = Chapter |, Section 1.3.1 — Reliability, “System Deficiency”; are willing to put up with occasional power outages instead of the Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2 — Transmission Options, Quartz potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the Creek Transmission Corridor, “Upgrade of the Existing proposed project. Quartz Creek Line” (page 2-8), “Avalanche Hazards” (page m What is the difference between historical outages and present risk of 2-13), “Avalanche Mitigation” (page 2-17) outages (especially related to avalanches) after modifications have = Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1 — Reliability, “System Deficiency” been included to the existing transmission line? m= What is the cost and extent of current unreliability? = Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2 — Transmission Options, Quartz = Reliability and efficiency would not be met by routing the Creek Transmission Corridor, “Avalanche Hazards” and transmission line through avalanche areas. “Avalanche Mitigation” (pgs. 2-13 through 2-19) Energy Transfer What is the status of existing energy transfer between Kenai and = Chapter |, Section 1.2.1 — How the Existing System is Operated Southern Intertie Project DEIS xiv Issue Tracking Index September 2001 ISSUES TRACKING INDEX Issue Comments Received DEIS Index Benefits Purpose . a proposed Project would only benefit Anchorage (or only = Chapter 1, Section 1.4 — Project Benefits and Costs enai). aie a = The Kenai and Anchorage areas independently have enough = Chapter 1, Section 1.3.3 — Economic Generation, “System Project generation capacity. 1 Deficiency” (eontinued) = Would expanded power service from the route be available for local residents to utilize? (Principally Moose Point, Gray Cliffs, and Fire = Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1 — Reliability; Section 1.4 — Project Island.) Benefits and Costs ® Quartz Creek would have the least amount of environmental = Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2 — Transmission Options, Quartz impacts and minimize impacts on residential neighborhoods. Creek Transmission Corridor = The possibility of lawsuits from diminished property values is = Chapter 3, Section 3.6 — Land Use and Recreation associated with Enstar. = Chapter 3, Section 3.6 — Land Use and Recreation = The transmission line crossing residential lots would result in = Chapter 2, Section 2.5.2 — Right-of-Way Acquisition Process diminished property value. m= Appendix C — Inventory Study and Impact Assessment = Does Alaska Railroad and Chugach Electric have the right to route a Methods; Chapter 3, Section 3.6 — Land Use and Recreation line along the railroad right-of-way? m= Appendix C - Inventory Study and Impact Assessment = Avoid highly developed residential areas. Methods; Chapter 3, Section 3.6 — Land Use and Recreation = Do not construct overhead transmission lines in residential areas. m= Appendix C — Inventory Study and Impact Assessment = How would the proposed Project affect property owners? Methods; Chapter 3, Section 3.6 — Land Use and Recreation = Proposed Project routing should consider potential zoning conflicts = Chapter 3, Section 3.6.1 — Land Jurisdiction and and land use changes as a result of the revision to the Anchorage Management Plans, Municipality of Anchorage Management Urban and Comprehensive Plan. Plan 2 Rural = Transmission lines should be planned in advance of residential and = Chapter 3, Section 3.6 — Land Use and Recreation Land Use commercial development. = Chapter 2, Section 2.5.2 — Right-of-Way Acquisition Process = Right-of-way encroachment is a possibility with New Seward = Chapter 3, Section 3.6 — Land Use and Recreation Highway and North Kenai Road. = Chapter 3, Section 3.6 — Land Use and Recreation = Route lines through industrial areas (more compatible land use). = Chapter 3, Section 3.6.1 — Land Jurisdiction and = The western coast of the Kenai Peninsula is desirable for Management Plans, Kenai Peninsula Borough Management development; the transmission line could be a conflict. Plan = North Kenai schools could be in close proximity; this would not be = Chapter 3, Section 3.6 — Land Use and Recreation acceptable. Southern Intertie Project DEIS XV Issue Tracking Index September 2001 ISSUES TRACKING INDEX Issue Comments Received DEIS Index Compliance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA Regulations = The FAA would need to conduct a hazard determination, which = Chapter 3, Section 3.6.2 — Land Use, Wire Marking would identify potential problems (flight hazards, electrical Requirements, — CEA’s Policies Regarding Aviation interference) and any necessary mitigation measures (marker balls, Demarcation Requirements lighting). = Project must comply with FAA navigation facilities standards. = Chapter 3, Section 3.6.2 — Land Use, Aviation 3 Aviation Safety Potential Conflicts with Aircraft Use = Chapter 3, Section 3.6.3 — Alternatives, “Tesoro Route = The Tesoro Route presents a particular hazard for low flying aircraft Alternatives” (Land Use) that frequent the area during inclement weather. = Underground transmission lines would mitigate flight hazards near = Chapter 3, Section 3.6.2 — Land Use, Aviation airports, float plane lakes, or beach strips, and avoid conflicts with planned expansion at Anchorage International Airport. = Chapter 3, Section 3.6.2 — Land Use, Aviation; Section 3.6.3 = Flying Crown Airstrip in Oceanview would be shut down; — Alternatives Oceanview to International Substation via transmission line would create flying hazard. Alaska railroad — Route Option K (Enstar Route) (Aviation) = Potter Marsh and Quartz Creek are heavily used for recreation. = Chapter 3, Section 3.6.1 — Land Jurisdiction and = Project would alter the landscape and eliminate the wilderness Management Plans, Alaska Department of Natural Resources values. Plan; Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2 — Transmission Options, = Potential conflict with proposed Tony Knowles Coastal Trail. Quartz Creek Transmission Corridor Current policy is to underground all transmission lines. = Chapter 3, Section 3.9.1 — Visual Resources Overview, = Avoid impacts on Chugach State Park. Visual Assessment; Appendix D - Mitigation = Sixmile Creek drainage is sensitive because of recreational use. = Chapter 3, Section 3.6.3 — Alternatives, Pt. Campbell to Pt. = Avoid impacts on trails including Resurrection Trail. Woronzof — Route Option N Recreation = Would submarine routes affect sport fishing in Cook Inlet? = Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2 - ‘Transmission Options, Quartz 4 aan Creek Transmission Corridor, “Chugach State Park” Tourism (page 2-12) = Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2 — Transmission Options, Quartz Creek Transmission Corridor, “Sixmile Creek to Anchorage — Submarine” (page 2-19) = Appendix D — Mitigation @ Chapter 3, Section 3.5.9 — Marine Environment Southern Intertie Project DEIS XVi Issue Tracking Index September 2001 ISSUES TRACKING INDEX The Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan is currently being revised and the municipal planning department anticipates that . changes may directly relate to siting the proposed Project. A cooperative effort with the plan update should be considered. State tidelands and other lands managed by the Alaska Department . of Natural Resources must comply with the Alaska Coastal Management Plan. The Municipality of Anchorage utility corridor plan is not designed . for this type of project. Project must comply with the Kenai River Special Management Plan. . Issue Comments Received DEIS Index = Conservation easement at mouth of Sixmile Creek. = Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2 — Transmission Options, Quartz @ Project would require an amendment to the KNWR Comprehensive Creek Transmission Corridor, “Quartz Creek Parallel Route” Conservation Plan. (page 2-11) = How would Chugach National Forest administration incorporate = Chapter 3, Section 3.6.1 — Land Jurisdiction and this Project into the updated Forest Plan? Management Plans, KNWR Comprehensive Management @ Right-of-way along Enstar Route would be incompatible with the Plan KNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan. = Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2 — Transmission Options, Quartz = The 1992 recommendations in the Kenai Peninsula Borough Plan Creek Transmission Corridor, “Chugach National Forest” include “Maintain scenic quality and unique and rural setting of (page 2-12) Cooper Landing.” * = Chapter 3, Section 3.6.1 — Land Jurisdiction and = To what extent would implementation of the proposed Project Management Plans, KNWR Comprehensive Management require additional efforts by land management staff (such as Plan increased patrols for trespassers)? = Chapter 3, Section 3.6.1 — Land Jurisdiction and = Both New Seward Highway and Minnesota Drive are controlled Management Plans, Kenai Peninsula Borough Management access rights-of-way, which restrict the ability to construct or Plan maintain the Project from the road. = Chapter 3, Section 3.6.1 — Land Jurisdiction and = Land and Water Conservation Funds have been used in Captain Management Plans Manage- Cook State Recreation Area and Chugach State Park providing = Chapter 3, Section 3.6.1 — Land Jurisdiction and 5 eer Diana limitations to additional development within the park boundaries. Management Plans, Municipality of Anchorage Management Plan Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2 — Transmission Options, Quartz Creek Transmission Corridor, “Chugach State Park” (page 2-12) Chapter 3, Section 3.6.1 — Land Jurisdiction and Management Plans, Municipality of Anchorage Management Plan Chapter 3, Section 3.6.1 — Land Jurisdiction and Management Plans, Alaska Department of Natural Resources Management Plan Chapter 3, Section 3.6.1 — Land Jurisdiction and Management Plans, Municipality of Anchorage Management Plan Chapter 3, Section 3.6.1 — Land Jurisdiction and Management Plans, Alaska Department of Natural Resources Management Plan Southern Intertie Project DEIS XVii Issue Tracking Index September 2001 ISSUES TRACKING INDEX Issue Comments Received DEIS Index = Potter Marsh is vulnerable to silt input from any construction in the Chapter 3, Section 3.4.6 — Alternatives, Enstar vicinity. “Environmental Consequences and Mitigation” (page 3-33) Watershed = Minimize change to bluffs along Kenai River and the Cook Inlet Chapter 3, Section 3.3.3 — Alternatives (Earth and Water Manage- coastline. Resources) 6 ment and = Minimize right-of-way clearing requirements to the maximum Chapter 3, Section 3.3.3 — Alternatives (Earth and Water Soil extent possible. Resources) Erosion = The environmental and permitting process should be conducted concurrently. Coordination with the Section 404 permit should also be considered. Residential and Recreational Viewsheds Appendix E — Drawings and Simulations = What would the proposed transmission line look like? Chapter 3, Section 3.9.1 — Visual Resources Overview, @ Overhead lines along roadways within the Anchorage Bowl would Visual Assessment, “Travelways” (page 3-235) adversely affect local neighborhoods. = Visual impacts on residential areas need to be evaluated in terms of Appendix C — Inventory Study and Impact Assessment loss of property value and sense of place (specifically, Cooper Methods; Chapter 3, Section 3.9.2 — Alternatives (Visual) Landing, Kenai, south Anchorage, Moose Point, Gray Cliffs, and Pt. Possession). Cooper Landing recently completed a community planning effort that identified preservation of aesthetics as a desired attribute. = The proposed Project should avoid the KNWR due to the high Chapter 3, Section 3.9.2 — Alternatives, Enstar to Chickaloon scenic value. Bay — Route Option F 7 Visual Design Considerations Resources = Recommend the use of the existing route to minimize aesthetic Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2 — Transmission Options, Quartz impacts. Creek Transmission Corridor ® Possibly construct a new line and remove the old facilities. Chapter 2, Section 2.2 — Alternatives Studied and Eliminated @ Project alternatives should include design elements that would from Detailed Study eliminate or minimize adverse effects on aesthetic qualities of the Chapter 3, Section 3.9.2 — Alternatives (Visual) area. Suggest undergrounding the line when crossing visually sensitive areas. Southern Intertie Project DEIS XViii Issue Tracking Index September 2001 ISSUES TRACKING INDEX Issue Comments Received DEIS Index Viewsheds from Travelways = Visual impacts may affect residents and tourists who travel the = Chapter 3, Section 3.9.1 Visual Assessment, Appendix D — Visual Seward Highway National Scenic Byway, Sterling Highway, and Mitigation Resources Turnagain Pass, or who visit Summit Lake, Stormy Lake, Cooper = Appendix C — Inventory Study and Impact Assessment : Landing, Swan Lake, and Sixmile River (Quartz Creek Route). Methods; Chapter 3, Section 3.6.1 — Land Jurisdiction and (continued) = Recommend undergrounding the lines through urban areas. Management Plans = Enstar seems to minimize disturbance and visual issues on the = Chapter 3, Section 3.9.2 — Alternatives (Visual) Peninsula. Wetlands = Draft EIS should identify wetland types, acreage, and location, and = Chapter 3, Section 3.5.1 — Terrestrial - Vegetation, assess wetland functions and values. All construction activities “Wetlands” (page 3-37), Section 3.5.2 “Environmental should avoid high resource wetlands A and B in Anchorage and Consequences and Mitigation/Wetland Vegetation” wetlands in the KNWR to the maximum extent practicable. m Above sections, plus Appendix D — Mitigation, General = If wetlands cannot be avoided, implementation of Best Management Mitigation Practices should be used to minimize effects. The draft EIS should @ See above sections include a discussion of the Best Management Practices. @ Additional clearing would have impacts on wetlands that are already compromised. Management = Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) requires burial of = Chapter 3, Section 3.5.1 — Terrestrial - Vegetation, transmission line through Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. “Environmental Consequences and Mitigation/Wetland 8 Biology = ADF&G recommends boring underneath the vegetated portions of Vegetation” (page 3-39); Section 3.5.2 — Alternatives (page the refuge. 3-41) = Chickaloon Bay is a state critical habitat area. = See above section = Is there a possibility of spruce bark beetle increase? = Chapter 3, Section 3.5.2 — Alternatives (Route Options F-I, page 3-45) Sensitive Species @ Chapter 3, Section 3.5.1 — Terrestrial - Vegetation, = Avoid disturbance to sensitive wildlife species, including brown “Environmental Consequences and Mitigation” (page 3-38); bear, lynx, wolf, trumpeter swan, and bald eagle. Section 3.5.1 — Alternatives (page 3-41) = There is a high density of brown bears on the Chickaloon River. = Chapter 3, Section 3.5.3 — Terrestrial - Wildlife, “General = Enstar Route would disrupt critical brown bear habitat. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation for Wildlife” = Caribou wintering and calving grounds are along the Enstar Route. (page 3-63) Southern Intertie Project DEIS xix Issue Tracking Index September 2001 ISSUES TRACKING INDEX Issue Comments Received DEIS Index Wildlife Habitat = Chapter 3, Section 3.5.3 — Terrestrial - Wildlife, “General = Project would irretrievably alter the landscape reducing wildlife Environmental Consequences and Mitigation for habitat (hydraulic alterations would impact wildlife and habitat). Wildlife/Brown Bears” (page 3-59) = Minimize adverse effects on fish and wildlife habitat. = Chapter 3, Section 3.5.3 — Terrestrial - Wildlife, “Enstar = Cumulative impacts on wildlife and habitat need to be addressed. Route” (page 3-83) = Proposed Project may improve some types of wildlife habitat. @ See above section, plus Section 3.5.3 — Terrestrial - Wildlife, Waterfowl “General Environmental Consequences and Mitigation for = Effects on waterfowl from overhead lines should be mitigated. Wildlife/Caribou” (page 3-62) = Chickaloon Bay is a migration staging area. = Chapter 3, Section 3.5.1 — Terrestrial - Vegetation, = The Environmental Analysis (EVAL) and EIS should have a “Wetlands” (page 3-37), “Environmental Consequences and discussion on Potter Marsh waterfowl. Mitigation” (page 3-38); Section 3.5.2. - Alternatives (page 3-41) Fisheries Chapter 3, Section 3.5.2 — Alternatives (page 3-41) See above section See above section Chapter 3, Section 3.5.3 — Terrestrial - Wildlife, “General Biology Environmental Consequences and Mitigation for (continued) Wildlife/Birds” (page 3-63) = Chapter 3, Section 3.5.3 — Terrestrial - Wildlife, “General Description/Waterfowl” (page 3-58) See both sections mentioned above Chapter 3, Section 3.5.9 — Marine Environment, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation; Appendix D — Mitigation, General Mitigation = Chapter 3, Section 3.5.5 — Freshwater Environment, Aquatic Communities, “Environmental Consequences and Mitigation/Anadromous Fish” (page 3-99) = Would fish be impacted by damaged submarine cables? @ = Siltation as a result of construction would adversely impact fish. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Issue Tracking Index XX September 2001 ISSUES TRACKING INDEX Issue Comments Received DEIS Index Concerns Expressed by Kenai Native Association For all cultural issues: = Archaeological resources need to be addressed in the EIS. = Chapter 3, Section 3.10 — Cultural Resources m Areas surrounding Cooper Landing and Kenai River have high densities of cultural sites. = Increased access may result in damage to unknown archaeological 9 Cultural and historical properties. Resources = Native groups should be allowed to participate in survey work. = Proposed Project may hamper traditional usage. = Avoid disturbance to burial grounds at Pt. Possession. = Avoid use of Native lands for proposed project, specifically the Pt. Possession Native Group. Use of Right-of-Way For all right-of-way issues: m= The ADOT/PF has restricted access along most of their rights-of- = Chapter 2, Section 2.5.2 — Right-of-Way Acquisition way. Process; in addition, see the following sections to address = Expansion of Enstar Pipeline right-of-way conflicts with the KNWR individual issues: Comprehensive Conservation Plan. = Chapter 3, Section 3.6.3 — Alternatives (Land Use); Chapter = Would public access be available along the right-of-way for the 2, Section 2.5.3 — Construction Access, Overhead Facilities proposed Project? = Chapter 3, Section 3.6.1 — Land Jurisdictions and = Would an easement or right-of-way be required on adjoining Management Plans, KNWR Comprehensive Management properties for maintenance access? Plan = The proposed Project would increase the chance of trespassers = Appendix D — Mitigation (page D-4, measure 4) . because of the 150-foot right-of-way that would invite usage. @ Appendix D — Mitigation Right-of- = Can the right-of-way accommodate recreational trails? m@ Appendix D — Mitigation (page D-4, measure 4) 10 Way . = Suggest consolidating right-of-way with other projects; = Appendix D — Mitigation Limitations comprehensive planning should be considered instead of piece-by- = Chapter 2, Section 2.5.3 — Construction Access; Appendix D piece planning. — Mitigation m Use existing right-of-way, even if it must be widened. = See above sections Right-of-Way Requirements = Minimize right-of-way width. + D _ Mitigat; = Would the right-of-way be 150 feet wide in residential areas and 7 —- P — ppendix D — Mitigation how would that affect property owners? = Appendix D — Mitigation @ The only mitigation that should be required by the utilities for this action should be funds required to reclaim the land at the end of the Project. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Xxi Issue Tracking Index September 2001 ISSUES TRACKING INDEX Issue Comments Received DEIS Index m Effects of EMF need to be addressed in the draft EIS. = Chapter 3, Section 3.11.2 — Environmental Consequences, @ Potential hazards of the transmission line include EMF negatively Electric and Magnetic Fields affecting nearby residents and systems in homes. = See above section = Transmission lines and schools are not compatible due to the = Chapter 3, Section 3.11.2 — Environmental Consequences, potential health effects (along North Kenai Road). Electric and Magnetic Fields Physical Hazards = Can gas lines be located close to electrical transmission lines = Appendix B — Construction Activities, “Hazards” (page B- Health and 5 ; 11 Safety without danger of explosion or fire? 24) = Transmission lines should be buried to protect human safety. = Appendix B — Construction Activities, “Hazards” (page B- = Falling lines can be a hazard to people or property. 24) = Request information on the magnitude of the electrical hazard to = Appendix B — Construction Activities, “Hazards” (page B- humans and wildlife and the effects of a spill from insulating oil. 24) = Chapter 3, Section 3.11.2 — Environmental Consequences, Electric and Magnetic Fields; Chapter 3, Section 3.5.9 — Marine Environment, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation/Marine Mammals = Need to weigh consequences of building additional line along right- = Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2 — Transmission Options, Quartz of-way known for avalanche problems. Creek Transmission Corridor, “Avalanche Hazards” (page 2- = Designing an additional line through extended avalanche zone is 13) 2 Avalanche illogical, when better alternatives are available. Risk to the power = See above section Hazards 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. Utility Rates = Chapter 3, Section 3.7.3 — Rate Impacts from the Project = What effect would construction costs have on utility rates? ® See above section = Would the new line reduce the cost of power in the future? @ See above section ® No individual should carry the burden for all rate payers. @ See above section = Would utility rates increase? @ See above section B Socio- ; m= What is the current and projected cost of electricity? economics Southern Intertie Project DEIS Xxii Issue Tracking Index September 2001 ISSUES TRACKING INDEX Consider environmental justice for the residents of the trailer park at Minnesota Drive and Dimond Boulevard. Issue Comments Received DEIS Index Quality of Life ® Quality of life would suffer if the proposed Project is introduced = Chapter 3, Section 3.7.2 — Socioeconomic Consequences of into an area not currently used as a utility corridor. the Proposed Action = What impact would the Tesoro Route have on people and how = See above section; Chapter 2, Section 2.6 — Alternative Route many would be affected by the Quartz Creek Route? Comparison = Impacts on local communities should be considered. = Chapter 3, Section 3.7.2 — Socioeconomic Consequences of = Utilize a proactive community outreach program to involve the the Proposed Action general public in the decision process. Project Cost = Concerned with cost comparisons of options. = Chapter 1, Section 1.4.1 — Construction and Life Cycle Costs = Is the main difference in route costs associated with the submarine = Chapter 1, Section 1.4.1 — Construction and Life Cycle Costs cables? = How much (percentage-wise) would it cost to bury the route? = Are submarine alternatives economically feasible? = Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2 — Transmission Options, Enstar Cost Benefit Analysis Pipeline Corridor, “Bury the Line through KNWR” (page 2- = Cost benefit analysis needs to be updated to reflect current market 23) Socio- conditions. = Chapter 1, Section 1.4.1 — Construction and Lifecycle Costs, economics = When would the benefits accrue? “Submarine Cable Replacement Costs” (page 1-32) (continued) m Where are the benefits coming from? = How much taxpayer money is going into this Project? = Chapter 1, Section 1.4 — Project Benefit and Costs = Where is the money coming from to fund this Project? @ See above section = See above section Effect of the Proposed Project @ See above section = Would landowners directly affected by the right-of-way be @ See above section compensated? = Economic savings versus losses to Peninsula communities should be considered. = Chapter 2, Section 2.5.2 — Right-of-Way Acquisition Process Development = Chapter 3, Section 3.7.2 — Socioeconomic Consequences of = What are the economic benefits to the communities in the Project the Proposed Action; Chapter 3, Section 3.7.3 — Rate area? Impacts from the Project = What are the electrical benefits to the communities in the Project = Chapter 3, Section 3.7.2 — Socioeconomic Consequences of area and the Railbelt? the Proposed Action = Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1 — Reliability Environmental Justice = Chapter 3, Section 3.7.4 — Environmental Justice Southern Intertie Project DEIS XXiii Issue Tracking Index September 2001 ISSUES TRACKING INDEX Issue Comments Received DEIS Index Alternatives to a New Line m= Evaluate alternative means of constructing, operating, and = Chapter 2, Section 2.5.5 — Operation, Maintenance, and maintaining transmission lines to minimize environmental impacts. Abandonment = The full range of reasonable and feasible alternatives should be | ™ Chapter 2, Section 2.2 — Alternatives Studied and evaluated, including energy conservation, local generation, system, Eliminated from Detailed Study fuel cells, wind generation, and transmission alternatives. m System selected for final approval should be the most efficient, cost effective, and easiest to maintain and operate. = Chapter 2, Section 2.6.3 — Applicant's Proposed Alternative = More information needs to be presented in terms of why alternatives = = Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1 — Alternatives to a Transmission such as energy conservation are not feasible solutions to the Option proposed Project. The EVAL should also discuss which energy conservation measures were considered and why they were rejected, what could be done instead of building the intertie. = Corridor should incorporate an access road along the coast (Tesoro alternative). There is potential to incorporate a causeway across | ™ Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2 — Transmission Options, Tesoro Turnagain Arm. Pipeline Corridor, “Submarine Crossings — Turnagain Arm” Alter- = Avoid a submarine crossing from Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof by (page 2-22) natives to running a route along the north shore of the Kenai Peninsula to 14 the Chickaloon Bay, then cross Turnagain Arm to South Anchorage. Proposed = Use existing transmission line corridor and tie into existing | ™ Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2 — Transmission Options Project substations. Suggest removal of old 115kV and 69kV transmission lines, thus improving the aesthetic value of the area. = Consider routing a submarine cable along Quartz Creek to Sixmile to Hope and across Turnagain Arm to Potter Marsh. . Alternative Feasibility = Route selection should be flexible to allow avoidance of sensitive . areas. = What options have been considered for various environmentally sensitive areas and avalanche zones? @ Rationale and criteria for the elimination of alternatives should be documented and presented clearly in the EVAL and EIS. . = Alternatives that do not increase reliable and efficient energy transfer (the purpose and need for the Project) should not be considered in the EVAL. Appendix A — Comparison of Other Routing Alternatives; Chapter 2, Section 2.6 — Alternative Route Comparison Southern Intertie Project DEIS XXiV Issue Tracking Index September 2001 ISSUES TRACKING INDEX Issue Comments Received DEIS Index = Consider a range of alternative construction techniques to minimize m= = Appendix C — Inventory Study and Impact Assessment environmental impacts (burying substantial portions of the route, Methods; Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2 — Transmission Options, using modified tower designs, etc.). Quartz Creek Transmission Corridor, “Avalanche Hazards” = Discourage use of existing Quartz Creek Route because the same (page 2-13) “natural menaces” would be doubled. = = Chapter 2, Section 2.2 — Alternatives Studied and = Overhead and underground lines are more accessible and safer than Eliminated from Detailed Study submarine lines. = See above section Alter- = Submarine crossings are not practical due to cost and engineering = = Chapter 2, Section 2.4 — Alternative Route Facilities natives to feasibility. = = Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2 — Transmission Options, Quartz the = If Project follows railroad, it should be placed underground. Creek Transmission Corridor Proposed = Resolutions have been passed by Bayshore, Klatt, and Oceanview =~ = Chapter 2, Section 2.4 — Alternative Route Facilities Project community councils against locating the Project within their = See above section (continued) communities. = Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2 — Transmission Options, = Routing should be different than current line and should have Underground Line Alternatives; Chapter 3, Section 3.6.1 — substations to provide local power. Land Jurisdiction and Management Plans, Alaska Railroad = The EIS should provide a discussion on the relationship of the Corporation Northern Intertie and Southern Intertie Projects and the anticipated = = Chapter 3, Section 3.12 —- Cumulative Impact Analysis operation of the completed network, and any impacts associated = = = Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2 — Transmission Options, Quartz with the operation of the electrical network. Creek Transmission Corridor; Chapter 2, Section 2.4.5 — Substations Southern Intertie Project DEIS XXV Issue Tracking Index September 2001 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Intertie Participants Group (IPG), also referred to as the Applicant, is proposing to construct an electrical transmission line (the Enstar Route) between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage along the Enstar pipeline through the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR) in south-central Alaska. This 138 kilovolt (kV) transmission line, known as the Southern Intertie Project (Project), is proposed as a system improvement project to increase the overall Railbelt electrical system reliability and transfer of energy capabilities between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. Members of the IPG include Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), Matanuska Electric Association, Chugach Electric Association (CEA), Anchorage Municipal Light and Power (AML&P), Homer Electric Association (HEA), and the City of Seward. This Southern Intertie Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4346) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508). The preparation of this DEIS is required because GVEA, an IPG member, plans to apply to Rural Utilities Service (RUS) for financial assistance for its share of the proposed project. This DEIS is also required because the Applicant has filed for a right-of-way across federal lands on the KNWR, a Conservation System Unit designated under the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA). Rights-of-way across Conservation System Units for transportation and utility systems are governed by regulations (43 CFR Part 36) implementing Title XI of ANILCA. The RUS, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is the lead federal agency for NEPA compliance. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) of the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) are cooperating agencies in the NEPA process. The Project is located within the Railbelt electrical system, a power grid that electrically connects central and south-central Alaska from Homer to Fairbanks. The system allows the six participating utility companies, also referred to as the Railbelt Utilities, to sell and buy power to and from each other, taking advantage of lower costs in other areas, and to provide back-up power to each other. The IPG was formed by the Railbelt Utilities to improve electrical reliability and coordination within the Railbelt by working together to improve the interconnected system through intertie improvements and cooperative energy projects. The Southern Intertie Project is one of these cooperative projects. PURPOSE AND NEED Project Need This Project is needed because the existing Railbelt electrical system is deficient south of Anchorage. The 115kV Quartz Creek transmission line currently provides the sole path for Southern Intertie Project DEIS S-1 Summary | September 2001 coordinating the operation of generation on the Kenai Peninsula with Anchorage area generation. The line also is used to provide back-up power in the case of outages in the Anchorage area or on the Kenai Peninsula. The Quartz Creek transmission line is limited in electrical transfer capability (70 megawatts [MW)]), and its ability to provide reliable back-up power during system outages is subject to outages from ice, wind, and snow loading. The line is also routed across known and historically active avalanche areas. To allow full use of the Kenai Peninsula generation, the intertie secure transfer capacity needs to be increased to 125 MW. The Project would provide the increased transmission capacity to make these higher transfers possible in a secure manner by creating a transmission loop to increase reliability and provide a second path for power to flow during an outage of the Quartz Creek transmission line. In addition, the limitation of 70 MW of power transfer capability along the existing Quartz Creek transmission line reduces the ability to fully utilize the 120 MW generating capacity of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, owned by the State of Alaska. At the time the Power Sales Agreement for the Bradley Lake energy was signed, it was recognized that additional transmission line (interties) would be needed between the Kenai Peninsula and Fairbanks for system reinforcement and the capability to transfer the Bradley Lake hydro power throughout the Railbelt system. The 1992 Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan acknowledged that to fully utilize the Bradley Lake Project, additional transmission line upgrades are needed to carry power to Anchorage and Fairbanks. Project Objectives The systems and economic studies that were conducted on the Railbelt system identified several objectives that, if met, would correct the deficiencies and make the system run more economically and effectively. Specifically, the proposed Project would provide a second path for power to flow between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage and is needed to accomplish the following objectives: = increase the reliability of the interconnected Railbelt electrical system from the Kenai Peninsula to Fairbanks, and reduce the requirement for load shedding during system disturbances = increase the power transfer capacity between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area = provide the capability to utilize the most economic generation mix available to reduce costs to consumers and allow generation capacity in one area to support the load in the other area = reduce area requirements for spinning reserve generation, thereby reducing operating costs and increasing the life-span of generation plants = improve Railbelt electrical system stability Southern Intertie Project DEIS $2 Summary September 2001 = reduce transmission line losses for power transfers and reduce maintenance costs = provide adequate access to power entitlements from the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project for the utilities north of the Kenai Peninsula, and allow Bradley Lake generation to be more fully utilized The Alaska Systems Coordinating Council (ASCC), an association of Alaska’s electric power utilities, reviews the Alaska interconnected system on a continuing basis to promote reliable system operation through coordinated planning and operation of the system. In 1991, based on discussions with the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC), ASCC adopted 12 coordinated interconnection planning and operating criteria (Table S-1), adapted specifically to Alaska from NERC’s industry-standard planning guides for bulk electric system planning. The Southern Intertie Project objectives would help the IPG meet 8 of the 12 ASCC criteria (numbers 1-6, 8 and 9 in Table S-1). The benefits from construction and operation of the Project have been studied and evaluated in detail. Because the interconnected system operates in an integrated manner, benefits from the Project have been evaluated by reviewing the effect of the Project on the overall system. The benefits of the project would include: capacity sharing economic energy transfer reliability spinning reserve sharing reduced line maintenance costs avoiding minimum combustion turbine generation on the Kenai Peninsula avoiding loading the line during bad weather or construction The value of the benefits from the Project can also be viewed as cost savings. If the Project is not constructed, the unrealized benefits would continue to be part of the overall cost of producing electricity, and those costs would be reflected in the rates for electricity paid by consumers. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 5-3 Summary . September 2001 TABLE S-1 ASCC PLANNING AND OPERATING CRITERIA ly Balance Among System Elements - A balanced relationship shall be maintained among bulk electric system elements to avoid excessive dependence on any one element. Contingencies - Additions to the interconnected system shall be planned and designed to allow the interconnected system to withstand any credible contingency situation without excessive impact on the _system voltages, frequency, load, power flows, equipment thermal loading, or stability. ww 3) Emergency Support - Reserves shall be provided such that emergency support from adjacent systems is restricted to acceptable limits as determined by studies of the interconnected system. 4. Support From Adjacent Systems - Adequate transmission ties between adjacent systems shall be provided to accommodate planned and emergency power transfers. 5) Reactive Power Resources - Each control area shall provide sufficient capacitive and inductive resources at proper levels to maintain system steady state and dynamic voltages within established limits, including support for reasonable levels of planned and emergency power transfers. 6. Real and Reactive Power Margins - Margins in both real and reactive power resources are provided for acceptable dynamic response to system disturbances. le Recording System Parameters - Essential system parameters shall be recorded. 8. Reliability During Maintenance - System design shall allow for equipment maintenance without unduly degrading. 9. Switching Flexibility - Switching arrangements shall be provided to limit adverse effects and permit reconfiguration of the bulk power transmission system to facilitate system restoration reliability. 10. Protective Relaying - Provide sufficient relaying equipment such that the severity and extent of the system disturbances is minimized and that malfunctions in the protective relay system do not jeopardize system reliability. ib Black Start-up - Black start-up capability is to be provided for individual systems. 12. Fuel Supply - Plans for generation additions shall consider fuel supply diversity. ALTERNATIVES STUDIED IN DETAIL INCLUDING THE APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL The following discussion provides a brief summary of the no-action alternative, the Applicant’s proposed Enstar Route and alternative Tesoro Route locations, associated project facilities, and construction seasons. No-Action Alternative Implementation of the no-action alternative would mean that the Project would not be constructed and the Quartz Creek transmission line between the Soldotna Substation on the Kenai Peninsula and the University Substation in Anchorage would continue to be utilized as the only electrical connection between Anchorage and the Peninsula region (Figure S-1, see inset). There would be no improvements to the system to address the current electrical system deficiencies associated with this line. Overall, the Railbelt electrical system reliability and transfer of energy capabilities between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage would not be Southern Intertie Project DEIS S-4 Summary September 2001 tow TaN TON Ten Kenai National Wildlife Refuge PL Kenai Pf fons 7. me A a » >| Bernice Lake }) © Substation T - ‘getendey ee of tN aS Substation Soldotna Possession Intemational Substation arse Proposed = es i K \_;] Naptown Substation |“ \y Silat ve | He Siting Area e t S Lak TR e NL NL IWUUTTI NOL NOL Now New ALTERNATIVES STUDIED IN DETAIL SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE S-1 Legend Applicant’s Proposed Route Enstar Route Options Tesoro Route Options Chugach State Park Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Chugach National Forest Private, Borough, or State Selected Lands Note: No-action alternative is shown in inset in upper left-hand corner of map. Base Map Sources: Municipality of Anchorage (1994). Chugach National Forest (1995). Kenai Peninsula Borough (1994). USGS 1:63,360 and 1:25,000 Quads. Contour Interval: 200 Feet Contour Labeling in Feet owt increased. Additionally, the cost savings that would accrue from construction of the Project would continue to be part of the overall cost of producing electricity, and those continuing costs would be reflected in the rates for electricity paid by consumers. Applicant’s Proposal — Enstar Route The Applicant’s proposal is to construct a 138kV transmission line and associated facilities between the Soldotna Substation on the Kenai Peninsula and International Substation in Anchorage. The Applicant’s proposed route is the Enstar Route including Route Options E South, F, H, and K (see Figure S-1). This route begins with an overhead transmission line at the existing substation in Soldotna and replaces an existing 69kV line, running south and then east to the Enstar pipeline (Option E South). At this point the route parallels the Enstar pipeline north through the KNWR for approximately 38.3 miles along Route Option F to Burnt Island on the east side of Chickaloon Bay. An ANILCA application for the crossing of KNWR is on file with USFWS and USACE. Submarine cables would be used to cross the Turnagain Arm to Oceanview Park on the southern end of Anchorage and from the landing point, underground cable would parallel the Alaska Railroad north to 120" Avenue (Route Option H). From there, an overhead line would continue to parallel the Alaska Railroad to the existing International Substation (Route Option K). The overall length of the proposed Enstar Route is 73.4 miles. A local Enstar Route alternative is shown on Figure S-1, in the Soldotna area (E North), that travels north and east from the Soldotna Substation. In addition, there are two alternative routing options across Turnagain Arm and in the Anchorage area (Route Options I, M, and G, J), as shown in Figure S-1. Tesoro Alternative The Tesoro Route alternative is located between the Bernice Lake Substation on the Kenai Peninsula and the Pt. Woronzof Substation in Anchorage. The Tesoro Route includes Route Option A — Bernice Lake to Pt. Possession, in combination with any of three options that cross the Turnagain Arm and terminate at the Pt. Woronzof Substation (see Figure S-1). This route begins as an overhead transmission line at the existing Bernice Lake Substation near Nikiski (Route Option A), and parallels the North Kenai Road to the south end of Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA). Underground cable would parallel the North Kenai Road through the Captain Cook SRA and would also occur where the route is adjacent to two local airstrips along the North Kenai Spur Road. The line would transition back to overhead beyond the north end of the Captain Cook SRA and would parallel the Tesoro pipeline to Pt. Possession. In this area, the Tesoro Route would cross two areas of Native conveyed lands. One near Grey Cliff Lake (less than | mile) and one at Pt. Possession (approximately | mile). Section 22(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) permitting and regulatory requirements would apply to these lands. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 5-6 Summary September 2001 At Pt. Possession, three options (B, C and D) are available to cross the Turnagain Arm and terminate at the Pt. Woronzof Substation. Route Option D would cross the Turnagain Arm from Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell using submarine cables. From the Pt. Campbell landing, underground cable would continue to parallel the Tesoro pipeline through Kincaid Park and terminate at the Pt. Woronzof Substation (Route Option N). The total length of the Tesoro Alternative Route using this option is 62.0 miles (see Figure S-1). Route Option B crosses Turnagain Arm via Fire Island to the Pt. Woronzof Substation. The total length of the Tesoro Alternative Route using this option is 63.2 miles. Using Route Option C, which crosses the Turnagain Arm directly from Pt. Possession to a landing at the Pt. Woronzof Substation, the total length of the Tesoro alternative is 61.3 miles (see Figure S-1). Project Facilities The following five separate types of facilities and associated construction techniques are required for the Project: = Overhead Transmission Lines - Overhead transmission lines with the conductors supported on steel or wood structures are proposed for portions of the Anchorage area and the Kenai Lowlands. = Underground Lines - Underground lines are high-voltage transmission line cables buried below ground surface in a duct bank. Underground lines are proposed for selected locations in the Anchorage area and in the Kenai Lowlands. = Submarine Cable - Submarine cable is specially constructed to operate in a marine environment and is more rugged than the cables used on land. Submarine cable is proposed for crossing the Turnagain Arm. = Transition Stations - A transition station is equipped to change a transmission line from one type to another. Transitions from overhead lines to underground or submarine cable, or from underground cable to submarine cable, would be required for the Project. Terminal facilities for the submarine cables are included in the transition stations. Transition stations would be required near the landfalls for the submarine cable, and at selected locations in the Kenai Lowlands and Anchorage area. = Substations and Reactive Compensation - Substations are located at the ends of transmission lines and at generation plants, and are the points at which the electrical system is joined together to form a network. Reactive compensation involves installation of specialized equipment in a substation to provide voltage support for the system or to increase power flow across a transmission line segment. Modifications to existing substations would be required either at International or Pt. Woronzof substations in the Anchorage area, and at either Bernice Lake or Soldotna substations on the Kenai Southern Intertie Project DEIS Summary September 2001 Peninsula. For the Enstar Route, a new substation would be required near Naptowne. Modifications would also be required at the Dave’s Creek Substation for either option. Construction Season It is intended that the majority of the construction activities would take place during the summer season (April to October). The exception to this is for the overhead transmission lines along the Tesoro Route north of the Captain Cook SRA, Enstar Route within the KNWR, and selected portions of the Soldotna E South Route option along the Kenai River Lowlands. In these areas, winter construction is proposed to minimize environmental impacts. ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY Other alternatives considered were established through a comprehensive review of previous Project documentation and emerging energy systems. Through a comprehensive screening process, each alternative was assessed for its ability to meet the stated purpose and need, and as a result, some alternatives were eliminated from further consideration. Alternatives that initially were considered but then eliminated are listed below and then specifically described: = Alternatives to a new transmission line eliminated - battery energy storage systems - demand-side management and energy conservation - conventional new generation - wind generation - fuel cells - increasing spinning reserves = Alternative transmission systems eliminated - upgrade of the existing Quartz Creek transmission line - alternate voltage levels - underground transmission lines = Alternative transmission routes eliminated - Quartz Creek transmission route parallel - Sixmile Creek to Anchorage (Submarine) Route - Tesoro Route local options - Enstar Route local options Alternatives to a New Transmission Line Eliminated Battery Energy Storage Systems - A Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) consists of a very large bank of electric batteries and automatically controlled electronic equipment to convert the Southern Intertie Project DEIS S-8 Summary il September 2001 electric energy stored in the batteries from direct current (DC) to alternating current (AC) that can be supplied to the electrical transmission system. The BESS would only partially meet the purpose and need for the Project because it will not allow economic operation of generating units due to its limited storage capacity. Conventional Demand-Side Management and Energy Conservation - Demand-side management (DSM) consists of electric utilities planning, implementing, and monitoring activities designed to encourage consumers to modify their levels and patterns of electricity consumption. These DSM programs focus on managing a very small part of the load on the system, whereas the Project need is for improvements to the entire interconnected system. Therefore, DSM programs do not address the purpose and need for the Project and were not considered further as an alternative to the Applicant’s proposal. Conventional New Generation - Adding generation capacity on the Kenai Peninsula and/or in Anchorage was considered as an alternative to constructing a second line from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage. Adding the generation capacity would increase the generation resources available to serve load on the system; however, the overall system currently has an excess of generating capacity over electrical load. What is needed is an enhanced ability to use the existing generation resources in the most economical matter. This alternative, therefore, does not meet the Project purpose and need and was not carried forward for further consideration. Wind Generation - Harnessing the wind to provide electric generation resources has been successful in California and in other parts of the world. As noted earlier, additional generation is not needed and this alternative would not meet the Project purpose and need. Fuel Cells - Fuel cells are power-generating systems that produce electricity by combining hydrogen and oxygen in an electrochemical reaction. Additional generation is not needed and is not considered a viable alternative to the Project. Increasing Spinning Reserves - Spinning reserve is a portion of the operating reserves maintained by utilities. Spinning reserve is unloaded generation, which is synchronized and ready to serve additional demand (NERC 1996). One of the reasons the Project is being proposed as a system improvement is to reduce spinning reserve requirements. Consequently, increasing the amount of spinning reserves on the system was eliminated as an alternative. Alternative Transmission Systems Eliminated Upgrade of the Existing Quartz Creek Transmission Line - One alternative that initially was considered was the upgrade of the existing Quartz Creek transmission line instead of constructing a second transmission line, to increase the power transfer capacity between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The high cost of reconstructing all of the intermediate substations along the line, minimal change in performance, and reliability and stability issues resulted in elimination of this option. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Summary S-9 September 2001 Alternate Voltage Levels - Voltages of both 138kV and 230kV were studied for the second transmission line interconnection between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The 230kV alternative would require larger and more expensive equipment than the 138kV alternative without corresponding benefits and was eliminated; 138kV is proposed for the Project. Underground Transmission Lines - Underground transmission has been proposed only where required by regulations and/or to avoid hazards that would be associated with an overhead line. The cost of underground transmission typically is four to five times the cost of an overhead line, and the operational problems and outage durations are greater. When an outage to an underground line occurs, determining the cause and location of the damage, the replacement parts needed to repair the line, and actually repairing the line takes more time than for an overhead line. Repairs to an underground line are more expensive as well. While industry data indicate that the outage rate for underground transmission lines is lower than for overhead lines, this is offset by the high installation and repair costs for the underground facility as compared to overhead lines. Therefore, overhead lines are preferred to underground lines. Alternative Transmission Routes Eliminated Quartz Creek Transmission Route Parallel - One alternative for the Project would be to parallel the existing 140-mile-long Quartz Creek transmission line corridor between Soldotna and Anchorage. The general types of issues associated with this alternative are summarized below: = conflicts with the Chugach National Forest and Chugach State Park; views from Seward Highway (National Scenic Byway), Cooper Landing, and several other environmentally sensitive areas = avalanche hazards and problems due to ice, wind, and snow along the route have caused numerous outages to the existing Quartz Creek transmission line = opportunity to utilize an existing transmission line corridor = relative differences between the risks to the Quartz Creek transmission line due to the presence of avalanches, in comparison to the potential failures to the Tesoro Route due to adverse submarine conditions near Pt. Possession As a result of these concerns and the ensuing studies, the Quartz Creek Route was eliminated from further consideration for the following reason: = It would not meet the purpose and need for the Project because it would be exposed to the same avalanche, ice, snow, and wind conditions as the existing line, and system reliability and energy transfer capability would remain limited. Southern Intertie Project DEIS S-10 Summary - September 2001 Sixmile Creek to Anchorage (Submarine) Route - This alternative was presented as an option to utilize a portion of the existing Quartz Creek transmission line corridor, reduce avalanche exposure, and avoid Chugach State Park by locating the line in the Turnagain Arm from Sixmile Creek to Anchorage. This alternative would still be approximately 115 miles long, which would increase costs of the Project substantially; therefore, it was eliminated from further consideration. Tesoro Route Local Options - The following local options were considered and have been eliminated, as listed below: = bury transmission line from Bernice Lake Substation to Moose Point = several alternatives were identified to avoid the Captain Cook SRA and Pt. Possession; they would result in significant impacts that could be mitigated by utilizing options that follow Kenai Road and the Tesoro pipeline = Moose Point to Fire Island via submarine cable = use of a causeway that would connect Pt. Possession to Anchorage Enstar Route Local Options - The following local options were considered and have been eliminated, as listed below: = Enstar underground option - Bury the line through the KNWR = Alternatives from Pt. Possession to Anchorage via Enstar pipeline - Cross KNWR and/or Chickaloon Bay to Enstar pipeline at Burnt Island = South Anchorage route options eliminated - New and Old Seward highways from Potter Marsh to Rabbit Creek Interchange - Alaska Railroad/Ocean View Bluff AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The character of the existing environment in the Project area and potential environmental consequences, or impacts, that could result from the proposed Project are summarized below and followed by an overview of the environmentally preferred alternative route: Climate - The climate of south-central Alaska is transitional between maritime and continental. Heavy precipitation, cool summers, and mild winters characterize the maritime regions of the coast. The Cook Inlet basin experiences short periods of extreme cold in winter and high winds throughout the year. No impacts to climate are expected as a result of this project. Southern Intertie Project DEIS S-ll Summary September 2001 Air Quality - The majority of the study area is classified as an air quality attainment area with the exception of urban Anchorage (non-attainment for carbon monoxide) and the Eagle River area of Anchorage (non-attainment for particulate matter nominally 10 microns or less). Air quality impacts associated with the proposed project would be minimal and of a short-term nature, and would result from construction-related causes such as an increase in air emissions from construction equipment and motor vehicles. Earth Resources - The study area includes portions of two physiographic provinces within the Southern Mountainous Belt of Alaska: Cook Inlet-Susitna Lowlands and Kenai-Chugach Mountains. Due to the active seismicity in the region, soils and surficial deposits in the study area are subject to several types of ground failure associated with earthquakes in addition to the more expected hazards of slope instability, erosion, settlement, permafrost, and frost heave. The study area contains a variety of nonmetallic mineral resources, including sand and gravel, clay, and coal. Impacts to soils will be minimal after standard mitigation measures are applied. These measures include preferential use of existing access roads, winter work when the ground is frozen, and use of tracked and low ground pressure vehicles or other special equipment. Water Resources - The Kenai River is the only glacier-fed river in the study area and has distinctive runoff characteristics. Nonglacial streams in the Kenai Lowlands and Anchorage Bowl originate from lowland lakes and tributaries of the western portion of the Kenai Lowlands and Chugach Mountains. These drainage channels are typically low-gradient, meandering systems that flow high in spring from snowmelt and high in late summer and autumn from rain. Impacts to streams will be minimal after standard mitigation measures are applied. These measures include spanning streams, suspending transmission lines beneath existing bridges, boring under streams, and scheduling installations during winter months. Submarine Environment - The physiography of the study area can be described as a large tidal estuary. The seafloor in this area comprises mudflats with tidal channels and deeper channels or depressions. At low tide, approximately 70 percent of the seafloor within Turnagain Arm is exposed as elongate bars dissected by braided tidal channels. Tides within Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm are mixed, with two unequal high and low tides per tidal day. Estuarine deposits, large quantities of sediment, boulder patches, and sea ice are all present in this marine environment. Impacts to submarine environment would be minimal; however, with adherence to selective mitigation, the environmental impact would be further reduced to a non-significant level. Biological Resources - The project area supports diverse biological resources. The six major vegetation types present along alternative transmission line routes are habitats for many wildlife species. Thirty-five species of mammals, 127 species of birds, and 28 species of fish are expected to occur in the study area. Many of these same species also occur in the Anchorage Southern Intertie Project DEIS S-12 Summary — September 2001 area. Special status plant and wildlife species, species of concern to various agencies, are known or have the potential to occur along the alternative routes. The primary concern regarding biological resources is the effects on special status plants and wildlife species, vegetation (loss of habitat), and wildlife. An area of special concern is the KNWR. Possible impacts could include collision hazards (birds), loss of habitat, and increased human access. Any significant impact on the KNWR will be considered nationally significant. However, these impacts can be reduced through mitigation. Land Use and Recreation - The study area includes lands administered by federal, state, borough, and municipal agencies; and lands privately owned in south-central Alaska. The alternative routes traverse portions of the Municipality of Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB), along with portions of the KNWR. Urban land uses in Anchorage include parklands, residential, commercial, industrial, and areas managed for recreation and wildlife purposes. The types of direct impacts on land uses include areas where the project would create a direct conflict with residential, commercial, industrial, or transportation uses and those areas where severance of currently vacant parcels could affect future development. However, these impacts will not be significant, as mitigation measures have been identified to reduce impacts. These measures include utilizing existing access roads, closing access roads that are bladed for construction but not needed for maintenance, avoiding sensitive features by spanning, shifting an alignment, or moving an alignment to the opposite side of existing lines (when paralleled). Socioeconomics and Tourism - The Project study area includes portions of the Municipality of Anchorage and the KPB. Within the KPB, there are two cities and one unincorporated community. The population of the KPB has increased 46 percent since 1980, reaching 46,790 in 1996. The KPB has a diverse economy with the contribution of oil and gas, tourism, fishing and fish processing, transportation, timber, retail, and government sectors. The population of Anchorage has grown by 45 percent since 1980, reaching 254,269 in 1996. Anchorage is the state’s largest city and is the center of commerce for the state. The city has a diverse economy with oil and gas, finance and real estate, transportation, retail, services, communications, and government sectors represented. Potential impacts include temporary increases in population, employment, and income during construction, and longer-term changes in or impacts on existing economic activities or land uses. Subsistence - There are no designated rural communities in the Anchorage Bowl portion of the study area. The subsistence analysis conducted for this DEIS focused on three communities near the study area whose residents do some subsistence harvesting within the study area: Ninilchik, Cooper Landing, and Hope. Data compiled in 1982 indicated that 92 percent of all Ninilchik households participated in subsistence harvests. Sample data compiled for 1990 to 1991 indicate that all households in Cooper Landing and Hope used subsistence resources. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Summary S-13 September 2001 No negative impact on populations of relevant species that would impair subsistence practices is anticipated. Impacts on subsistence are not projected to be significant, and do not vary significantly among the alternatives considered. Therefore, subsistence resources are not a critical factor in selecting among the Project alternatives. Visual — The study area contains a variety of landscapes and viewing conditions, from the mostly urban environment of Anchorage to the natural and wilderness areas of the Kenai Peninsula. The surrounding regional landscape features, including the Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm, Chugach Mountains, Alaska Range, and northern chain of the Aleutian Mountains, contribute to the scenic quality of the Project area. Developments on the Kenai Peninsula, such as Soldotna and Nikiski, occur in rural settings. The KNWR includes landscapes, which are heavily vegetated, consisting of coastal marshes, forested wetlands, shrub bogs, muskegs, upland spruce hardwood forests, and bottomland spruce poplar forests. Significant visual impacts in the City of Anchorage include impacts resulting from views of the proposed Project from travelers and residences. Mitigation to impacts in Anchorage includes paralleling or rebuilding existing structures and utilizing existing rights-of-way. Significant impacts on the Kenai Peninsula occur in areas including Soldotna, Nikiski, and through the KNWR along the Enstar pipeline. These impacts result from the disruption of local viewsheds, the visibility of structures, right-of-way clearing, and associated ground disturbance. Mitigation to these impacts includes winter construction, variable right-of-way clearing, lowering tower heights, or altering the type of tower structure utilized in selected areas. Cultural Resources - More than 600 archeological and historical sites listed in the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey are present within the broad region in which the proposed Project is located. One of these, the Holy Assumption Church in Kenai, is designated as a National Historic Landmark. Forty-three of the more than 600 sites have either been determined eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The nomination of 14 additional properties to the Register is pending. The alternatives avoid known archaeological and historic sites, and no high impacts are projected along any of the alternatives. The degree of variation in cultural resource impacts among the alternatives is not a major factor in choosing among the options. Detailed cultural resource surveys will be conducted along the route chosen for construction. Mitigation measures will be developed in consultation with the State Historical Preservation Office to reduce impacts to sites. Electric and Magnetic Fields and Noise - The two origins of transmission line electrical effects are electric and magnetic fields. Electric fields are due to the voltage on the transmission line and the magnetic fields are due to the current through the conductor. Electrical effects near transmission lines also include possible audible noise and radio/television interference. The line voltage and the distance of prospective line routes from residences reduce the likelihood of objectionable audible noise, radio interference, or television interference from the line. Impacts are expected to be minimal. Noises associated with operation and maintenance of the Project will be minimal, confined to localized, short-duration activity by maintenance crews. The Southern Intertie Project DEIS S-14 Summary i September 2001 electric and magnetic field (EMF) levels associated with the Project would be less than all existing EMF standards or guidelines. Therefore, EMF of the Project are not anticipated to cause adverse health or biological effects. Cumulative Impacts - The greatest potential for cumulative impacts appears to be on biological and visual resources, especially in the Kenai Peninsula region. Cumulative impact issues that differentiate the Tesoro and Enstar alternatives are influenced by the uses associated with existing and foreseeable future effects to the northern Kenai Peninsula from development associated with the KPB versus the KNWR. The KPB has planned a transportation corridor, a separate road, and several large residential parcels for rural development in proximity to the Tesoro pipeline along the western edge of the Kenai Peninsula, north of Nikiski. This development is planned along a strip of land that was withdrawn from the KNWR in order to provide transportation access between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. Land use conflicts will be minimized or avoided by utilizing the rights-of-way of the North Kenai Spur Road, the planned transportation corridor, and the Tesoro pipeline right-of-way. Visual impacts on existing and planned residents could be significant, although there is the potential for vegetation screening to reduce the effects. The quality of the wildlife habitat is in transition based on current and planned development on borough lands. Cumulative impact issues along the Enstar Route center on potential land use, visual, and biological impacts. The existing and future foreseeable development along the western portion of the KNWR is occurring within the highest quality habitat for moose, wolves, lynx, black bears, and brown bears. As this habitat gradually lowers in habitat quality, there will be additional importance to improve the quality of the area along the Enstar pipeline corridor with the prescribed burn program. Prescribed burns allow areas of mature spruce forests to be replaced by a mosaic of brush and early successional species that improves habitat for numerous species including moose. The Enstar Route would conflict with the prescribed burn program as well as increasing access in brown bear habitat. The cumulative effects on wildlife, vegetation, recreation, and visual resources within the KNWR along Route Option F are considered to be long term and significant. Any conflicts between the ability to diversify the habitat and presence of the proposed transmission line would be considered significant cumulative impacts. Alternative Route Comparison - Table S-2 provides a comparative summary for the Tesoro and Enstar routes. This table provides information on key issues, project description and costs, and environmental assessment results including the analysis of impact significance, short-term and long-term impacts, irreversible and irretrievable impacts, and cumulative impacts. There are a range of alternatives associated with both the Tesoro and Enstar routes as previously described and as illustrated on Figure S-4. For purposes of this comparison two alternative routes have been selected: the Applicant’s Proposal, which is the Enstar Route including Options E South, F, H, and K; and the Tesoro Route, including Options A, D, and N. The Tesoro Route alternative chosen for comparison describes potential impacts on the Kenai Peninsula and specifically in Anchorage. The environmentally preferred alternative, Options A and C, would avoid impacts to the Anchorage area. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Summary S-15 September 2001 TABLE S-2 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Evaluation Tesoro Route Enstar Route Factors Key Issues (Route Options A, D, N) Applicant’s Proposal (Route Options E South, F, H, K) Engineering Considerations Project Marine hazards = Total length is 62.0 miles = Total length is 73.4 miles Description associated with = Parallels existing roads for 16.7 miles (including 0.5 mile | * Replaces or parallels existing transmission lines for 19 miles the ability to parallel to existing transmission line and 4.9 miles of = Parallels Enstar pipeline for 38.5 miles embed submarine underground) = Submarine crossing of the Turnagain Arm for 10.5 miles cables under the = Parallels the Tesoro pipeline for 27.4 miles (totally embedded) Turnagain Arm = Submarine crossing of the Turnagain Arm for 13.9 miles | * Parallels the Alaska Railroad for 5.4 miles (including 0.5 mile in order to (5.8 miles embedded) of underground) maximize the life | * | Underground for 4.0 miles of the cable. Suitable locations for transmission facilities. Project Cost Potential to = Cable replacement for non-embedded cables includes = Cable replacement for non-embedded cables includes embed submarine replacing two single phased cables or one three phase replacing one single phased cable or one three phase cable cables and the cable twice during project life once during project life increased costs = — Life cycle costs total $114.5 million (includes * Life cycle costs total $ 99.6 million(includes construction, associated with construction, operation, and maintenance and cable operation, and maintenance and cable replacement costs) assumed replacement costs) replacements affecting life cycle costs. Environmental Considerations Air Quality Degradation of Impact significance: Not significant Impact significance: Not significant air based on vehicle emissions and dust. Short term — Yes Long term — No Irreversible — No Irretrievable — Yes, construction phase Cumulative Impacts - No Short term — Yes Long term — No Irreversible — No Irretrievable — Yes, construction phase Cumulative Impacts — No Southern Intertie Project DEIS S-16 Summary September 2001 TABLE S-2 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Evaluation Tesoro Route Enstar Route Factors Key Issues (Route Options A, D, N) Sppicest 's Proposal (Route Options E South, F, H, K) Geologic Soil loss, erosion | * Impact significance: Not significant Impact significance: Not significant Resources and compaction = — Short term — Yes, localized = Short term — Yes, localized based on clearing | * Long term — Minimal = Long term — Yes, potential for accelerated erosion and development | * Irreversible — " — Irreversible — Yes, construction phase of access and = Irretrievable — " — Irretrievable — Yes, construction phase with potential tower sites. = Cumulative Impacts - No lingering effects Cumulative Impacts - No Drainage Loss of = Impact significance: Not significant = Impact significance: Not significant Basins vegetation cover, | * Short term — Yes, mainly localized = Short term — Yes, construction phase and soil erosion and = Long term — Minimal due to flat terrain = Long term — Slight increase in runoff and sedimentation due Watersheds resulting = Irreversible — No to presence of access and right-of-way clearing sedimentation in | * — Irretrievable —- No = Irreversible — streams based on | * Cumulative Impacts - Yes = Irretrievable — Yes, construction phase with potential vegetative lingering effects clearing, Cumulative Impacts — Yes development of access and tower sites. Marine Degradation of = Impact significance: Not significant = Impact significance: Not significant Environment marine = Short term — Minor, during cable laying = Short term — Minor, during cable laying environment during laying, embedding, or boring for cables during construction, and potential maintenance and repair activities, and replacement of cable. Long term — Numerous hazard areas lead to potential for cable replacement twice over the life of the project. Irreversible — No Irretrievable — No Cumulative Impacts - No = Long term — Embedded cable results in the potential for cable replacement once over the life of the project = — Irreversible — No = Irretrievable — No = Cumulative Impacts — No Southern Intertie Project DEIS S-17 Summary September 2001 TABLE S-2 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES increase in mortality due to presence of the line. nest sites (three within 0.25 mile) Irreversible — Yes Irretrievable — Yes, project life Cumulative Impacts - Yes, trumpeter swans and general waterfowl. Potential, bald eagles. Evaluation Tesoro Route Enstar Route Factors Key Issues (Route Options A, D, N) Applicant’s Proposal (Route Options E South, F, H, K) Biology Vegetation and __| Loss of Impact significance: Not significant Impact significance: Significant impacts due to clearing Wetlands vegetative cover Short term — Yes, construction phase upland vegetation and compaction of wetlands on KNWR. and disturbance Long term — Approximately 453 acres of upland Short term — Yes, during construction phase to wetlands based vegetation removed. Long term — Approximately 530 acres of upland vegetation on vegetation Irreversible — Yes removed clearing for right- Irretrievable — Yes, project life Irreversible — Yes of-way, access, Cumulative Impacts - Yes Irretrievable — Yes, project life and towers, and Cumulative Impacts — Yes compaction. Birds including | Disturbance Impact significance: Potential for locally significant Impact significance: Potential for local and nationally Bald Eagles, during impacts due to tree clearing near nest sites and collision significant impacts on KNWR due to tree clearing near nest Trumpeter construction, loss hazards near large lakes and at stream crossings. sites and collision hazards near Chickaloon Bay, large lakes Swans and of habitat, Short term — Can be avoided through seasonal and at stream crossings. General increased access, construction Short term — Can be avoided through seasonal construction Waterfowl and potential Long term — Yes, clearing within proximity to bald eagle Long term — Yes, clearing within proximity to bald eagle nest sites (two within 0.25 mile) Irreversible — Yes Irretrievable — Yes, project life Cumulative Impacts — Yes, trumpeter swans and general waterfowl. Potential, bald eagles. Southern Intertie Project DEIS S-18 Summary September 2001 TABLE S-2 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Evaluation Tesoro Route Enstar Route Factors Key Issues (Route Options A, D, N) Applicant’s Proposal (Route Options E South, F, H, K) Large Mammals | Disturbance = Impact significance: Not significant = Impact significance: Nationally significant impacts to brown including during = Short term — Temporary displacement of moose and bears, black bears and moose on the KNWR Brown Bears, construction, disturbance to denning black bears during construction = — Short term — Temporary displacement of moose and Black Bears, conflicts with phase. disturbance to denning black bears during construction phase. Moose and management and | * Long term — Yes, mortality due to increased access = Long term — Yes, mortality due to increased access and Caribou habitat plans, loss | * Irreversible — No potential disruption to moose/habitat management plan and of habitat and = Irretrievable — No fire management plans within KNWR. potential increase | * Cumulative Impacts - No = Irreversible — Yes, on KNWR. for mortality = Irretrievable — Yes, on KNWR. based on access = Cumulative Impacts — Yes, significant improvements. Predators Disturbance = Impact significance: Not significant = Impact significance: Nationally significant impacts on including during = — Short term — Yes, temporary displacement during KNWR. Wolves and construction, loss construction phase = Short term — Yes, temporary displacement during Lynx of habitat and = Long term — Increased harvest minimal in low abundance construction phase potential for wolf and lynx habitat. = Long term — Increased harvest minimal in low to moderate increased = Irreversible — No for wolf, and unknown for lynx. abundance habitat for wolf and lynx. mortality based * Irretrievable — No for wolf, and unknown for lynx. = Irreversible — No for wolf, and unknown for lynx on access = Cumulative Impacts — Not expected = Irretrievable — No for wolf, and unknown for lynx. improvements = Cumulative Impacts — Not expected Southern Intertie Project DEIS S-19 Summary September 2001 TABLE S-2 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Evaluation Tesoro Route Enstar Route Factors Key Issues (Route Options A, D, N) Applicant’s Proposal (Route Options E South, F, H, K) Fish Loss of = Impact significance: Not significant = Impact significance: Not significant vegetative = Short term — Yes during construction phase = Short term — Yes, during construction phase thermal cover, = Long term — No «Long term — Potentially yes due to presence of access and soil erosion and = Irreversible — No right-of-way clearing. resulting = Irretrievable — No * — Irreversible — No sedimentationin | *® Cumulative Impacts - No = Irretrievable — Yes, during construction phase streams based on Cumulative Impacts - Unknown vegetative clearing, development of access and tower sites. Marine Disturbance = Impact significance: Not significant = Impact significance: Not significant Mammals during = — Short term — Temporary disturbance during construction * — Short term — Temporary disturbance during construction including the construction, loss phase, avoids conflicts with calving areas through phase, avoids calving areas. Beluga Whale of habitat and seasonal construction * Long term — Temporary disturbance during any repairs increased mortality Long term — Temporary disturbance during any repairs resulting from cable failure (projected to happen once over the life of the project). Irreversible — No Irretrievable — Unknown, during construction phase Cumulative Impacts —- Unknown resulting from cable failure (projected to happen twice over the life of the project). = — Irreversible — No = Irretrievable - Unknown, during construction phase = Cumulative Impacts - Unknown Southern Intertie Project DEIS Summary September 2001 TABLE S-2 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Evaluation Tesoro Route Enstar Route Factors Key Issues (Route Options A, D, N) Applicant’s Proposal (Route Options E South, F, H, K) Land Use and Disturbance, = Impact significance: Not significant = Impact significance: Nationally significant impacts to Recreation displacement of = Short term — Yes, during construction phase recreation and land use on the KNWR. use(s) and = Long term — No * — Short term — Yes, during construction phase potential conflicts | * Irreversible - No = Long term — Yes, conflicts with KNWR management plans with management | * _ Irretrievable — Yes, during construction and qualification criteria for wilderness designation plans = Cumulative Impacts - No = — Irreversible — Yes * — Irretrievable — Yes, project life Cumulative Impacts — Yes, significant Socioeconomics | Regional and = Impact significance: Not significant = Impact significance: Not significant local = — Short term — Yes, benefits based on employment = Short term — Yes, benefits based on employment employment, opportunities opportunities stability in = Long term — Yes, benefits from rate reductions = Long term — Yes, benefits from rate reductions region’s power = — Irreversible — Yes = Irreversible — Yes supply * Irretrievable — Yes, benefits for project life = Irretrievable — Yes, benefits for project life = Cumulative Impacts — Minor positive cumulative effects = Cumulative Impacts — Minor positive cumulative effects Subsistence Disturbance to = Impact significance: Not significant = Impact significance: Not significant wildlife, increased access for hunting and trapping Short term — Yes, potential disruption to hunting and trapping during construction phase Long term — Minimal based on increased access Irreversible — No Irretrievable — No Cumulative Impacts - No = — Short term — Yes, potential disruption to hunting and trapping during construction phase Long term — Minimal based on increased access Irreversible — No Irretrievable — No Cumulative Impacts - No Southern Intertie Project DEIS 8-21 Summary September 2001 TABLE S-2 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Evaluation Tesoro Route Enstar Route Factors Key Issues (Route Options A, D, N) Applicant’s Proposal (Route Options E South, F, H, K) Visual Degradation of = Impact significance: Significant impacts (approximately * Impact significance: Significant impacts, including nationally natural scenic 21 miles total including consideration for landscape significant on KNWR (approximately 32 miles total including quality and visual scenery and residential, recreational, and travelway consideration for landscape scenery and, residential, intrusion to views) recreational and travelway views) residential, = Short term — Yes, presence of equipment during * — Short term — Yes, presence of equipment during construction recreational, and construction phase phase travelway views. | * Long term — Yes, presence of towers, conductors and = Long term — Yes, presence of towers, conductors and access access roads roads = Irreversible — Yes = Irreversible — Yes = Irretrievable — Yes = Irretrievable — Yes = Cumulative Impacts — Yes, locally significant Cumulative Impacts — Yes, nationally significant Cultural Disturbance or = Impact significance: No determination prior to = Impact significance: No determination prior to consultation Resources removal of sites consultation with State Historic Preservation Office, low with State Historic Preservation office, low to moderate or fossils to moderate impact potential Short term — Unknown Long term — Unknown Irreversible — Unknown Irretrievable — Unknown Cumulative Impacts - Unknown impact potential Short term — Unknown Long term — Unknown Irreversible —- Unknown Irretrievable — Unknown Cumulative Impacts — Unknown Southern Intertie Project DEIS S-22 Summary September 2001 An explanation of construction and life cycle costs are provided in Section 1.4.1 of the DEIS. A detailed description of Project alternatives is provided in Table 2-6 of the DEIS, and a comprehensive environmental comparison of Project alternatives is provided on Table 2-11 of the DEIS including environmental preference. Following is a brief description of the environmentally preferred alternative. Environmentally Preferred Alternative - The environmentally preferred alternative is the Tesoro Route, Option A from Bernice Lake Substation to Pt. Possession, combined with a submarine cable crossing of the Turnagain Arm from Pt. Possession directly to Pt. Woronzof (Route Option C) for a total of 61.3 miles. This route is environmentally preferred because it exhibits on balance, lower overall environmental impacts than the other alternatives, as shown on Table 2-11 in the DEIS. Any of the other Tesoro Route alternatives would also exhibit overall lower environmental impacts than the Applicant’s proposed alternative and other Enstar Route options, primarily because of the impacts of the Enstar route where it crosses the KNWR on the Kenai Peninsula. Route Option B is a submarine cable that includes a crossing of Fire Island that connects with Pt. Woronzof, which would minimize environmental impacts in the Anchorage area. Lower impacts in the Anchorage area for the Tesoro Route alternatives would also result from the underground route from Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof (Route Option N), assuming appropriate mitigation. SCOPING, CONSULTATION, AND COORDINATION In accordance with the requirements of NEPA, RUS published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register in October 1996. The notice announced the intent of RUS to prepare an EIS for the Project and the schedule for the three public scoping meetings, which were conducted in Anchorage on November 12, Cooper Landing on November 13, and Soldotna on November 14. In addition to the public scoping meetings, RUS conducted an interagency meeting on November 6, 1996 in Anchorage. In addition, the Applicant and its consultants contacted agencies and organizations having jurisdiction and/or specific interest in the Project. A series of agency and interagency meetings as well as two public meetings (January and February 1996) were conducted. Two community working groups were developed, one on the Kenai Peninsula and the other in Anchorage. Each group met five times at key milestones during the process. All issues and concerns raised during the scoping process were analyzed in the Environmental Analysis prepared for RUS by the Applicant’s consultants and have been considered in the preparation of this DEIS. A total of 14 issues were identified. They are listed below and discussed in more detail in subsequent chapters of this document. Issue 1 — Purpose of and Need for the Project Issue 2 — Urban and Rural Land Use Issue 3 — Aviation Safety Southern Intertie Project DEIS Summary September 2001 Issue 4 — Recreation and Tourism Issue 5 — Management Plans Issue 6 — Watershed Management and Soil Erosion Issue 7 — Visual Resources Issue 8 — Biology Issue 9 — Cultural Resources Issue 10 — Right-of-way Limitations Issue 11 — Human Health and Safety Issue 12 — Avalanche Hazards Issue 13 — Socioeconomics Issue 14 — Alternatives to the Proposed Project Southern Intertie Project DEIS S$-24 Summary ons September 2001 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED 11 INTRODUCTION The Southern Intertie Project is proposed as a system improvement project to increase the overall Railbelt electrical system reliability and transfer of energy capabilities between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The Project would consist of constructing a second electrical transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). The voltage for the proposed transmission line is 138kV. The Railbelt system is a power grid that electrically connects south-central Alaska from Homer to Fairbanks. The Railbelt service area is illustrated on Figure 1-3. There are three distinct regions—the interior area centered around Fairbanks; the Anchorage and Matanuska Valley area; and the Kenai Peninsula. Electric generation, transmission, and distribution within the Alaska Railbelt are currently provided by six utility companies, which compose the IPG, also referred to as the Railbelt Utilities. Members of the IPG include GVEA, Matanuska Electric Association, CEA, AML&P, HEA, and City of Seward. GVEA, an IPG member and RUS borrower, plans to apply to RUS for financial assistance for its share of the proposed project. The RUS, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is subject to the requirements of the NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4346) and the CEQ Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508). In accordance with RUS Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 CFR Part 1794), providing funding for the proposed project would constitute a major federal action that could significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Because of its potential involvement in the proposed project, RUS assumed responsibility as lead agency for the preparation of an EIS for the project as announced in the Federal Register on October 9, 1996. A major portion of one of the alternative routes, the Enstar Route, traverses the KNWR, which is managed by the USFWS. The KNWR is a conservation system unit designated under ANILCA (Section 303 (4), PWOL, 96-487). Access for transportation and utility systems across conservation system units are governed by regulations (43 CFR Part 36) implementing Title XI of ANILCA. The USFWS is a cooperating agency for this EIS and is directly responsible for making a decision on the IPG application for a permit to construct the line through the KNWR under the requirements for the ANILCA. The permit application to use the Enstar Route was submitted to the USFWS in August 1999. The USACE, which may issue permits for the proposed project, is also serving as a cooperating agency on this EIS. 1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND The Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area are connected by one transmission line, known as the Quartz Creek 115kV transmission line. The Quartz Creek transmission line was originally Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-1 September 2001 constructed in 1960 to transmit power from CEA’s Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project to the Anchorage area. The need has grown for transmission line interconnections between load areas to efficiently utilize generating plants across the system, and reliably distribute that power to the load centers. The Quartz Creek transmission line currently provides the sole path for coordinating the operation of generation on the Kenai Peninsula with Anchorage area generation (Figure 1-4). The line also is used to provide back-up power in the case of outages in the Anchorage area or on the Kenai Peninsula. The Quartz Creek transmission line is limited in electrical transfer capability and its ability to provide reliable back-up power during system outages. The line is subject to outages from ice, wind, and snow loading, and is routed across known and historically active avalanche areas. With the addition of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project in 1991, the limitations of the Quartz Creek transmission line have not allowed the increased generating capacity from the Bradley Lake Project to be used to full potential. This has resulted in operation of the Railbelt electrical system in a less than optimum manner, and at higher costs than if a second line were to be constructed between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, owned by the State of Alaska, is located east of Homer on the south end of the Kenai Peninsula, and has a generating capacity of 120 MW. Power from the project is used by the Railbelt Utilities; the percentage shares in Bradley Lake are as shown in Table 1-1. TABLE 1-1 PURCHASERS’ PERCENTAGE SHARES OF BRADLEY LAKE CAPACITY AND OF ANNUAL PROJECT COSTS Percentage Share Purchaser (Percent) Alaska Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Inc. (representing Homer Electric Association and Matanuska Electric Association) 25.8 Chugach Electric Association, Inc. 30.4 Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 16.9 Municipality of Anchorage, d/b/a Municipal Light and Power 25.9 City of Seward Electric System 1.0 Total 100.0 Source: Power Sales Agreement for Bradley Lake Energy, December 8, 1987 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-2 September 2001 TN TION Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Sterling Te Ten Substation Kenai Bemice Lake }) eae ‘iy Ke Intemational Substation | Pt. Woronzof, oe Proposed Transitif Facility Soldotna Substation : CE South : Qn st Ty mise { ° ‘Mosh pos “=| Naptown Subs' x ‘Be (* Siting Area Lake ALTERNATIVES STUDIED IN DETAIL SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 1-1 NOL Legend === Applicant’s Proposed Route ===" Enstar Route Options Ni ===" Tesoro Route Options Chugach State Park __. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (95 Chugach National Forest Private, Borough, or State Selected Lands Note: No-action alternative is shown in inset in upper left-hand corner of map. No New Scale in Miles NOL Base Map Sources: Municipality of Anchorage (1994). Chugach National Forest (1995). Kenai Peninsula Borough (1994). USGS 1:63,360 and 1:25,000 Quads. Contour Interval: 200 Feet Contour Labeling in Feet NPL osn2w1 PROJECT VICINITY MAP FAIRBANKS NY Southern Intertie \ outnern iIntertie aa Study Area pamer 2 = gs ANCHORAGE 7 iG f yWalgez l | / 1 % by k Kenai i oe q Se A) OB an, GFA &Y Seward . 1 Kenai ei) (Ho Peninsula ALASKA Ry Nome Fairban! Anchorage SS wa Juneau < GULF OF ALASKA “wR 9 Figure 1-2 % Sore ag River fe yinana (GVE gga }\ Eielson AFB (US Air Force) VICINITY MAP FY 7 phnson Rd (GVEA) 7 Carney (GVEA) } Proposed Intertie Between Healy and Fairbanks ‘Di "Y / Junctio is Creek (GVEA) b ‘ort Greely (US Army) Healy (GVEA) D Healy (GVK Cantwell (AEA) RAILBELT ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICE AREA ANCHORAGE MUNICIPAL LIGHT & POWER CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION P ay Wie X HOMER ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION Beluga# Pt. Woronzol¢ {University "> MATANUSKA ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION Internationa! : Anchorage 1) SEWARD ELECTRIC SYSTEM — ___ Girdwood posed e between d Anchorage » GENERATING Pan SUBSTATION A ez 69 KV Pi Creek a , y . 230 KV 138 KV Bernice Lak Kenai § oF EA) Qu Kasilof (HEA 4 cess rue er . ) gt E NOTE: LOCATION FOR ELECTRICAL IS APPROXIMATE 10.0 1020 —_—_—— adley Junction madley Lape BO) RAILBELT UTILITIES SYSTEM SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 1-3 CHVOMAWN— >» =OnmvoMEUNn= 3 GENERATION PLANTS nn BELUGA (CEA) 349 MW GENERATING PLANT a BERNICE LAKE (CEA) 66 MW psoiey COOPER LAKE HYDRO (CEA) 21 MW EKLUTNA HYDRO (APA) 44 MW 138 KV NIKISKI_ 37 MW 115 KV BRADLEY LAKE (AEA) 120 MW 69 KV PLANT 1 (AML&P) 93 MW - INTERNATIONAL (CEA) 44 MW 14.4/24.9 KYX—— PLANT 2 (AML&P) 281 MW 7.2/12.5 KV TOTAL ANCHORAGE AREA GENERATION 811 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) LAWING (SES) PORTAGE (CEA) QUARTZ CREEK (CEA) SOLDOTNA (HEA) TEELAND (CEA) O'NEILL (MEA) ” ef SUMMIT LAKE (CEA) \ FVONEK wy SEWARD (SES) PT. WORONZOF Be.uca * 2° BERNICE LAKE m= NIKISK| MS ‘AL STERLIN SOLDOTNA 72\SOLDOTNA (HEA) Ay rastior yer KASILOF (HEA) at * co BRADLEY JUNCTION ANCHOR POINT (HEAJ lf; 5 BRADLEY LAKE (AEA) Fi REEK (HER)S DIAMOND RIDGE YEA DOUGLAS (MEA) & "LOW O'NEILL (MEA) om 4 . sutton WasiLLA 14 TEELAND (CEA) 7 EKLUTNA HYDRO (APA) » Jj $ * > 7 sm 9 Pt. Moron: 4 iB JE TONAL’ 2) ANcHoRAG! land ten f ™~ SYINDIAN cipbwoop caictaton buy een aS IRDWOOD HK RAGE \ Portace aa WHITTIER, HOPE pul he QUARTZ CREEK LINE SUMMIT LAKE 2foaves coors NG 12 JUARTZ CHEEK me ot SMICOOPER\) 104 LawinG (SES) LAKE 1% ° 9 x » y of S 7 a NOTE: LOCATION FOR FACILITIES IS APPROXIMATE. VICINITY MAP +g 50 FIGURE 1-4 At the time the Power Sales Agreement! for the Bradley Lake energy was signed, it was recognized that additional transmission lines (interties) would be needed between the Kenai Peninsula and Fairbanks for system reinforcement and provide for the economical transfer of Bradley Lake power. The purchasers agreed to use their best efforts to obtain sufficient funding for the interties, as well as for the Bradley Lake Project. In addition to the Power Sales Agreement, a transmission wheeling agreement” with CEA to transfer power from Bradley Lake north of the Kenai Peninsula over the Quartz Creek transmission line was executed as well. The wheeling agreement recognized the limitations of the Quartz Creek transmission line to accommodate the transfer of Bradley Lake power. The agreement contains the following specific points: = delivery of Bradley Lake Power to the Purchasers requires transmission facilities = construction of additional transmission facilities (northern and southern interties) was anticipated to reduce the effective cost to ratepayers for power from Bradley Lake = additional transmission facilities had, at that time, not yet been funded = under the circumstances, the Quartz Creek transmission line was/is the only transmission path, and that the wheeling agreement would be superseded if and when additional transmission facilities were constructed The Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan also acknowledges that to fully utilize the Bradley Lake Project, additional transmission line upgrades are needed to carry power to Anchorage and Fairbanks.° ' Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Electric Power (“Power Sales Agreement”) by and among The Alaska Power Authority, an agency of the State of Alaska (“Seller”) and The Chugach Electric Association, Inc., The Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc., The Municipality of Anchorage d/b/a Municipal Light and Power, The City of Seward d/b/a Seward Electric System, and The Alaska Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Inc. (“Purchasers”) and The Homer Electric Association, Inc., and The Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. (Additional Parties), December 8, 1987. > Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, Agreement for the Wheeling of Electric Power and for Related Services (“Services Agreement”) by and among The Chugach Electric Association, Inc., The Homer Electric Association, Inc., The Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc., The Matanuska Electric Association, Inc., The Municipality of Anchorage d/b/a Municipal Light and Power, The City of Seward d/b/a Seward Electric System, and The Alaska Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Inc., December 8, 1987. * Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan, May 1992, page 3-39. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-7 September 2001 1.2.1 How the Existing System is Operated The Alaska Intertie Agreement* provides the contractual umbrella under which the Railbelt Utilities and State of Alaska operate the interconnected electrical system. The Railbelt Utilities and State of Alaska constructed the initial intertie between Anchorage and Fairbanks to allow the participating utilities to improve system reliability and buy and sell power among themselves, in order to reduce the overall cost of operating the system. As noted above, the Quartz Creek transmission line, operated by CEA, currently provides the transmission line path connecting the Kenai Peninsula with Anchorage, and in turn with the Fairbanks area. The existing Quartz Creek transmission line is limited to transferring 70 MW of power for a secure transfer. To allow full use of the Kenai Peninsula generation, the intertie secure transfer capacity needs to be increased to 125 MW. The Project would provide the increased transmission capacity to make these higher transfers possible in a secure manner. Currently the existing system between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage is operated so as to maximize the transfers of economy energy, and coordinate the hydro and thermal generation resources on the Kenai Peninsula and in Anchorage, within the limitations of the existing Quartz Creek transmission line. As depicted on Figure 1-5, power flows in both directions, to and from the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The average variation of the import/export of power to the Kenai Peninsula is plus or minus 40 MW on a daily basis. During the day, when loads in the Anchorage area are high, hydropower is dispatched from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage to “shape” the overall generation so that thermal generation units in the Anchorage area operate near full load for maximum efficiency, which results in overall lower generation costs. At night when electrical loads are lower, the hydrogeneration is reduced to conserve the water in the reservoirs, while the thermal generation units continue to operate at the highest possible efficiency. With the Project in service as a second transmission line interconnection between the Anchorage area and Kenai Peninsula, increased economy energy transfers and hydro-thermal coordination, currently limited by the existing single Quartz Creek transmission line, would be possible, and full advantage could be taken of the Bradley Lake hydro resource. * Alaska Intertie Agreement, among The Alaska Power Authority, The Municipality of Anchorage d/b/a Municipal Light and Power, The Chugach Electric Association, Inc., The City of Fairbanks, Municipal Utilities System, The Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc., and The Alaska Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Inc. of which The Homer Electric Association, Inc. and The Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. are members. December 23, 1985. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need 1-8 September 2001 Hydroelectric resources are coordinated with thermal resources (hydro-thermal coordination) so that thermal resources such as gas-fired turbines at the Beluga Power Station can be operated at the highest possible efficiency, while using the hydro resources to “shape” the instantaneous system load requirements. The hydrothermal generation coordination process is illustrated on Figure 1-6". Anchorage to Kenai Power Transfer Example Power Transfer (Above Line to Anchorage Below Line to Kenai) 12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6PM 12 AM Time of Day Figure 1-5 Hydro-Thermal Generation Coordination Hydro oct2 oen occ2 oce1 Load 12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6PM 12 AM Time of Day Figure 1-6 ° On Figure 1-6, CT means combustion turbine, and CC means combined-cycle combustion turbine. Both are thermal generation resources. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-9 September 2001 1.2.2 Previous Studies The purpose of and need for the Project have been studied extensively and confirmed repeatedly through numerous studies since 1987. A series of engineering, economic, and environmental studies have been conducted for the proposed Project to confirm its need and establish key cost and technical parameters, as shown in Table 1-2. TABLE 1-2 REFERENCE NUMBERS FOR STUDIES ADDRESSING KEY PROJECT ISSUES* Year Study Completed Project Issue 1987 | 1989 1990 | 1991 1996 1997 1998 1999 System reliability 1 2,34 5 6,8 11,13 14 Increased transfer capacity 1 2,3,4 > 6 9 10 11,13 14 Economic utilization of available 2,34 >) 6 11,13 14 |generation System stability 1 2 5 6 9 10 13 14 Spinning reserves 2,3,4 5 6 11,13 14 Project costs 1 2,3,4 6,7 9 12 14 Project benefits 2.3.4 6 11 14 Environmental siting analysis 1 9 14 Transmission line losses 1 2,3,4 6 9 10 ll 14 Maintenance costs 2.3.4 11,12 14 * See list of references for specific studies referenced by number in this table. Initial Southern Intertie related studies included a cost estimate and corridor feasibility study by Power Engineers and Hart-Crowser (1987), and the Alaska Power Authority (APA) Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study (1989). Two of the key volumes included in the 1989 reconnaissance study were a Benefit/Cost Analysis (Decision Focus, Inc. [DFI] 1989a, and updated in December 1989b), and a Reliability Assessment of the Railbelt Interconnected Electric Utility Systems (NERC 1990). The reconnaissance studies were summarized in the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study, Final Report, March 199] (The APA became part of the AEA). The final report included updated cost estimates prepared by Dryden and LaRue (1991). This particular report was prepared to comply with the project review requirements contained in AS 44.83.181 for the northern and southern intertie projects identified in Ch. 208, Sec. 159, SLA 1990. In 1995, Power Engineers and Dames & Moore (1996) prepared updated cost estimates and conducted an alternatives analysis and electrical system, environmental, and macro corridor studies. Completed in 1996, these studies took a fresh look at the electrical, cost, and environmental siting aspects of the Project. In 1997 and 1998, DFI reviewed and updated the value of the Project benefits (DFI 1998). In 1997 and 1998 the reliability assessment of the railbelt systems completed by NERC in 1990 also was updated by the NERC Reliability Assessment Subcommittee (August 1998). The balance of this chapter refers extensively to these Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-10 September 2001 detailed studies, and summarizes their pertinent conclusions. In 1998, Power Engineers updated the cost estimates for the Project (January 1998). In July 1999, the comprehensive Southern Intertie Project Environmental Analysis was completed (Power Engineers and Dames & Moore 1999), 1.2.3 System Planning and Operating Criteria The Alaska interconnected system has grown in much the same way as interconnected systems in the lower 48 states, first as isolated systems, and then as an interconnected system to take advantage of capabilities in adjoining systems to provide mutual support. The Railbelt power grid allows the participating utilities to sell and buy power to and from each other, taking advantage of lower costs in other areas, and to provide back-up power to each other. In this manner, lower cost generation resources in adjacent areas can be utilized more fully and the cost of operating the system and procuring electricity can be minimized. The IPG was formed by the Railbelt Utilities to improve electric reliability and coordination within the Railbelt by working together to improve the interconnected system through intertie improvements and cooperative energy projects. The Southern Intertie is one of these cooperative projects. The ASCC is an association of Alaska’s electric power utilities. The ASCC reviews the Alaska interconnected system on a continuing basis to promote reliable system operation, through coordination between utilities in the planning and operation of the interconnected system. In 1991, as a result of discussions with NERC, ASCC adopted coordinated interconnection planning and operating criteria. The 12 operating criteria adopted are based on NERC planning guides for bulk electric system planning and are adapted specifically to Alaska. The NERC and ASCC criteria are shown in Table 1-3. TABLE 1-3 ELECTRICAL UTILITY PLANNING CRITERIA NERC Planning Guides* ASCC Planning Criteria” To the extent practicable, a balanced relationship is 1. Balance Among System Elements - A balanced maintained among bulk electric system elements in relationship shall be maintained among bulk electric terms of size of load, size of generating units and system elements so as to avoid excessive plants, and strength of interconnections. Application of dependence on any one element. this guide includes the avoidance of the following: = excessive concentration of generating capacity in one unit, at one location, or in one area = excessive dependence on any single transmission circuit, tower line, right-of-way, or transmission switching station = excessive burdens on neighboring systems Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-11 September 2001 TABLE 1-3 (continued) ELECTRICAL UTILITY PLANNING CRITERIA NERC Planning Guides* NERC Planning Guides" The system is designed to withstand credible contingency situations. i) Contingencies - Additions to the interconnected system shall be planned and designed to allow the interconnected system to withstand any credible contingency situation without excessive impact on the system voltages, frequency, load, power flows, equipment thermal loading, or stability. Dependence on emergency support from adjacent 3. Emergency Support - Reserves shall be provided systems is restricted to acceptable limits. such that emergency support from adjacent systems is restricted to acceptable limits as determined by studies of the interconnected system. Adequate transmission ties are provided to adjacent 4. Support From Adjacent Systems - Adequate systems to accommodate planned and emergency transmission ties between adjacent systems shall be power transfers. provided to accommodate planned and emergency _power transfers. Reactive power resources are provided that are 5. Reactive Power Resources - Each control area shall sufficient for system voltage control under normal and provide sufficient capacitive and inductive contingency conditions, including support for a resources at proper levels to maintain system-steady reasonable level of planned transfers and a reasonable state and dynamic voltages within established level of emergency power transfer. limits, including support for reasonable levels of planned and emergency power transfers. Adequate margins are provided in both real and 6. Real and Reactive Power Margins - Margins in both reactive power resources to provide acceptable real and reactive power resources are provided for dynamic response to system disturbances. acceptable dynamic response to system disturbances. Recording of essential system parameters is provided 7. Recording System Parameters - Essential system for both steady state and dynamic system conditions. _ parameters shall be recorded. System design permits maintenance of equipment 8. Reliability During Maintenance - System design without undue risk to system reliability. shall allow for equipment maintenance without unduly degrading reliability. Planned flexibility in switching arrangements limits 9. Switching Flexibility - Switching arrangements adverse effects and permits reconfiguration of the bulk shall be provided to limit adverse effects and permit power transmission system to facilitate system reconfiguration of the bulk power transmission restoration. system to facilitate system restoration. Protective relaying equipment is provided to minimize | 10. Protective Relaying - Provide sufficient relaying the severity and extent of system disturbances and to equipment such that the severity and extent of the allow for malfunctions in the protective relay system system disturbances is minimized and that without undue risk to system reliability. malfunctions in the protective relay system do not jeopardize system reliability. Black start-up capability is provided for individual 11. Black Start-up - Black start-up capability is to be systems. provided for individual systems. Fuel supply diversity is provided to the extent 12. Fuel Supply - Plans for generation additions shall consider fuel supply diversity. | practicable. a NERC Planning Guides as approved by NERC Engineering Committee on February 18, 1989. These planning guides describe the characteristics of a reliable bulk electric system. They are intended to provide guidance to the regional councils, subregions, pools, and/or individual systems in planning their bulk electric systems. > ASCC Planning Criteria adopted by the ASCC on April 4, 1991. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 1-12 Chapter | - Purpose and Need September 2001 These criteria have been developed based on the “lessons learned” from the construction and operation of the interconnected bulk power systems of North America, and are the industry accepted practices for planning and measuring the performance of bulk power interconnected systems. Based on these criteria, binding operating agreements between the Railbelt Utilities have been negotiated, and contractually govern the operation of the Alaska Railbelt interconnected system. The Project has been planned and is proposed in accordance with these criteria. The Project would correct deficiencies in the existing interconnected system and is consistent with the ASCC criteria on system balance, contingencies, provision of emergency support, support from adjacent systems, reactive power resources, real and reactive power margins, reliability during maintenance, and switching flexibility. 1.3. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT This Project is needed because the existing Railbelt electrical system is deficient south of Anchorage. The studies that were conducted on the system identified several objectives that, if met, would correct the deficiencies and make the system run more economically and effectively. How this Project will meet those objectives is described below in more detail. Specifically, the proposed Project would provide a second path for power to flow between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage and is needed to accomplish the following: = increase the reliability of the interconnected Railbelt electrical system from the Kenai Peninsula to Fairbanks, and reduce the requirement for load shedding during system disturbances = increase the power transfer capacity between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area = provide the capability to utilize the most economic generation mix available to reduce costs to consumers and to allow generation capacity in one area to support the load in the other area m reduce area requirements for spinning reserve generation, thereby reducing operating costs and increasing the life-span of generation plants = improve Railbelt electrical system stability = reduce transmission line losses for power transfers and reduce maintenance costs = provide adequate access to power entitlements from the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project for the utilities north of the Kenai Peninsula, and allow Bradley Lake generation to be more fully utilized Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-13 September 2001 Table 1-4 shows how the Project, by meeting its objectives, would fulfill the ASCC criteria that currently are not fully being met. Following the table is a detailed discussion of each Project objective including its definition, the current system deficiency, how the Project would meet the deficiencies, and benefits from the Project. 1.3.1 Reliability System Deficiency System reliability depends on system components remaining in service. Typical system components that can fail and cause major outages are generation plants, transmission lines, power circuit breakers, and power transformers. Adding transmission lines to a system improves system reliability by providing multiple paths for the power to flow; thus, an outage of a single component does not completely disrupt the system. The Quartz Creek transmission line has a history of outages due to wind, ice, snow, and avalanches. The reason for this is that the route traversed by the line passes through known areas of high avalanche activity and areas known for high winds, ice, and snow. The line route along the Turnagain Arm is subject to periodic high winds, and the narrow mountain valleys south of Portage also can “funnel” high winds into the line. The Turnagain Pass and Summit Lake areas are well known for ice and snow loading. Avalanche activity along the Turnagain Arm, Turnagain Pass, and Summit Lake areas expose the line to additional risk. Because of the very steep side slopes along Turnagain Arm and avalanche paths through the mountains, structure locations and alignments for the line are very limited. The line route and structure locations that exist today are not always the most desirable, but they are the best available. A history of unscheduled outages for the Quartz Creek transmission line from 1975 through 2000 is shown in Table 1-5. Outage data are not available prior to 1975. Unscheduled outages are those outages that occur unexpectedly. Scheduled, or planned, outages are those outages that occur in a time and manner planned for by utilities to conduct repair and maintenance activities on the line or other system components. The average duration of an outage (for outages with known durations) is 20.8 hours, based on 52 of the total of 108 (48 percent) outages recorded. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-14 September 2001 Project Objectives Increase the reliability of the interconnected system ASCC Criteria #4 ASCC Criteria #5 ASCC Criteria #6 ASCC Criteria #8 ASCC Criteria #1 ASCC Criteria #2 ASCC Criteria #3 Support from Reactive Power Real & Reactive Power Reliability during ASCC Criteria #9 System Balance Contingencies Emergency Support Adjacent Systems Resources Margins Maintenance Switching Flexibility A second line would A second line would A second line would A second line would allow | A second line would A second line would A second line would allow | A second line would reduce excessive mitigate or eliminate the provide added system planned and emergency provide access to overall provide support to both for continued power provide flexibility to dependence on the Quartz Creek transmission line. current impact of single contingency outages. support in the event of outages. power transfers to minimize outages. system reactive support to minimize outages. areas improving dynamic response and system reliability. transfers during maintenance activities, thereby maintaining reliability. maintain service reliability with switching on the Quartz Creek transmission line or a second line. Increase the power transfer capacity between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage Increased power transfers lessen dependence on the Quartz Creek transmission Power transfers during outages of the Quartz Creek transmission line or Increased power transfer would relieve transmission constraints during Two lines would provide increased ability to support adjoining areas. Increased power transfer capability would provide increased access to reactive Increased power transfer capacity would improve system response to Increased power transfer capacity would provide flexibility in maintenance Increasing the power transfer capacities would make the timing and entitlements from the Bradley Lake Project and allow its generation to be more fully utilized line. a second line would not be_| emergencies. resources. disturbances. scheduling. duration of switching more interrupted, and increased flexible. support would be available for system-wide outages. Provide the capability to Generation can be shared N/A N/A A second line would allow | A second line would A second line would allow | The Project would allow N/A utilize the most economic in a more balanced and generation in adjacent provide increased access to | increased flexibility in economic dispatch of generation mix to reduce economical manner systems to be utilized the most economic reactive | assigning which generation | power to continue during costs system-wide. economically for planned resources at existing provides spinning reserves, | system maintenance. and emergency conditions. _| generation plants. which could reduce costs. Improve overall system Adding a second line A second line would A second line would A second line would A second line would A second line would A second line would allow | N/A stability during would reduce dependence | enable the system to increase the level of provide additional system- | provide better system-wide | provide better access to continued support to disturbances on the Quartz Creek withstand Quartz Creek support that can be wide support during outage | access to available reactive | real and reactive resources | adjacent areas during transmission line and transmission line and other | provided during conditions, enhancing resources to enhance during system disturbances | maintenance of the Quartz would provide a loop feed | outages with higher power | emergencies. system stability. stability during to maintain stability. Creek transmission line to the Kenai Peninsula, transfer, and would disturbances. and maintain stability thereby enhancing system | maintain system stability. during disturbances. stability. Reduce spinning reserve A second line would allow | A second line would A second line would allow | Increased transmission N/A A second line would allow | A second line would allow | N/A requirements sharing of spinning reserve | provide enhanced system- | increased spinning reserves | capacity would allow an adequate real and reactive | flexibility in designating resources between areas, wide access to spinning to be provided from an increased level of support power resources to be spinning reserves during reducing overall spinning reserve resources during adjacent area during from adjacent areas for provided on a system-wide | maintenance activities, reserve requirements. disturbances, thereby emergencies, thereby planned and emergency basis instead of for each thereby reducing overall reducing overall spinning reducing overall spinning conditions, thereby area, thereby reducing costs. reserve requirements. reserve requirements. lowering overall spinning overall spinning reserve reserve requirements. requirements. Reduce line losses and N/A N/A A second line would allow | A second line would N/A N/A A second line would N/A maintenance costs maintenance to be more provide support to adjacent maintain service reliability effectively scheduled systems through more and lower costs during during and as follow-up to | timely maintenance and maintenance of either line. emergencies. lowered line losses. Increase access to power N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A A second line would result in a reduction of maintenance costs because of increased flexibility in the timing and duration of switching. TABLE 1-4 APPLICABLE ASCC PLANNING AND OPERATING CRITERIA Southern Intertie Project DEIS 1-15 Chapter | - Purpose and Need September 2001 TABLE 1-5 QUARTZ CREEK TRANSMISSIONLINE —- UNSCHEDULED OUTAGES Total Outages Outages with Known Durations Year Recorded Number of Outages) Hours | Minutes 1975 2 None - - 1976 3 None - - 1977 3 None - - 1978 3 ) 5 43 1979 2 None - - 1980 ll 3 88 21 1981 7 2 5 56 1982 7 4 8 38 1983 i 2 9 15 1984 2 2 a 47 1985 5 2 10 35 1986 4 i) 107 54 1987 3 I 10 27 1988 10 6 7 11 1989 3 3 1 26 1990 4 4 16 55 1991 1 1 5 56 1992 2 1 2 56 1993 3 y 0 24 1994 2 2 0 32 1995 3 2 8 59 1996 6 2 0 6 1997 10 Z 45 44 1998 0 0 0 0 1999 3 3 5 55 2000 2 2 733 a2 Totals 108 52 1,081 hours, 30 minutes Summary Average outages per year - 4.2 Source: Chugach Electric Association 1975-2001 Eight of the outages included in the total of 108 outages during the period are listed as having been caused by avalanches. Further information on avalanche hazards can be found in Chapter 2. Based on discussions with CEA staff, the Quartz Creek transmission line was out of service for repairs due to these avalanches for approximately 10 days for each event. During these lengthy periods that the line is out of service, it is unavailable to function as an intertie between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The causes of the 108 outages, as recorded by CEA, are shown in Table 1-6. The highest number of outages is attributed to unknown causes. A review of the data indicates that the outage duration from an unknown cause varies from minutes, to 80+ hours, to not recorded. Because outage durations are only available for 52 of the 108 outages, it is not possible to definitively determine which cause is responsible for the most outage time. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-16 September 2001 TABLE 1-6 QUARTZ CREEK TRANSMISSION LINE — CAUSES OF UNSCHEDULED OUTAGES Chugach Electric Association Outage Records Total Outages Percent of Total Cause of Outage Recorded Outages Unknown 35 32 Line Faults (various causes) 26 24 Human Error 12 11 Equipment Failure 12 1 Severe Storms 9 8 Avalanches 8 Z Winds 4 4 Trees 2 2 Total Outages 108 100 While the capability and reliability of the Quartz Creek transmission line between the Anchorage and Kenai areas are limited, the line is still an important part of the interconnected system. As an intertie between the two generation areas, the line is a factor in providing electrical service to all of the Railbelt customers from the Kenai Peninsula to Fairbanks. In addition to acting as an intertie between the two areas, the line also provides electrical service to consumers along the line route in Indian, Girdwood, Portage, Whittier, Hope, Summit Lake, Dave’s Creek, and Cooper Landing. The City of Seward is also served from the Quartz Creek transmission line. Table 1-7 provides a summary of the number of customers in the Railbelt by region, and those more directly affected by the performance of the line in Anchorage, along the line route, and on the Kenai Peninsula. TABLE 1-7 RAILBELT ELECTRICAL UTILITY CUSTOMERS (number of electric meters) Number of Customers Total Customers Region Serving Utility (approximate) by Region Fairbanks Golden Valley Electric 38,000 Association/Fairbanks Municipal 38,000 Utilities System Anchorage Anchorage Municipal Light and 30,000 Power Chugach Electric Association 67,500 eat Matanuska Electric Association 39,200 Quartz Creek Transmission Chugach Electric Association 2,000 4.400 Line Route Seward Electric Association 2,400 if Kenai Peninsula Lowlands Homer Electric Association 23,000 23,000 Total Railbelt Electrical Customers (meters) as of 2001 210,100 Southern Intertie Project DEIS 1-17 Chapter | - Purpose and Need September 2001 In the event of a total system blackout, though such an occurrence is unlikely, 210,100 customers would be without power. For outages affecting only the customers along the Quartz Creek transmission line route and on the Kenai Peninsula, 27,400 customers would be without power. For those situations requiring load shedding® in the Anchorage area, a percentage of those customers would be affected as well, depending on the degree of load shed to maintain system stability during a disturbance. For an interruption of the Quartz Creek transmission line where the system remains stable, the 4,400 customers along the line route would still experience a power outage. A discussion of the number of outages that would be avoided and the unserved energy that would be saved with construction of a new transmission line is included below under the reliability benefits section. NERC conducted reliability assessments of the Railbelt system in 1990, with an update in 1998 (August 1998). Both the 1990 reliability assessment and the 1998 update reached the same conclusion regarding the Southern Intertie Project: that it is needed to improve overall system reliability and reduce load shedding due to outages of the existing Quartz Creek transmission line. NERC also concluded that the existing Quartz Creek transmission line poses a significantly higher than traditional reliability risk for system-wide blackouts due to single contingency outages. In terms of traditional reliability criteria (a system must be able to withstand an outage of any single component), the proposed Project is needed to help improve the reliability of the electric supply to the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage and Fairbanks areas (NERC 1990). Power Technologies, Inc., in their 1989 study on Kenai Peninsula power export limits, concludes that at 70 MW power transfer, “the Kenai Peninsula-Anchorage transmission line operation goes beyond the Railbelt practice of lean system design. Nowhere in the Railbelt is so much resource so critically dependent on stability aids and a single line.... A new line from the Kenai Peninsula area to Anchorage would provide Kenai Peninsula-Anchorage interconnection reliability at least on a par with most of the remainder of the Railbelt electrical system” (AEA 1991). Improved Reliability The construction of the Project between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula would not only provide a parallel path to the existing Quartz Creek interconnection, but also would make the Kenai Peninsula system more of a loop arrangement. Construction of the Project would provide the second path needed to improve the reliability of the overall system. NERC offers the following observations (NERC 1990): = A second transmission line interconnection from the Kenai Peninsula to the Anchorage area would improve reliability by preventing the shedding of consumer load if the ° Load shedding is discussed in more detail in the section on system stability. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-18 September 2001 existing interconnection line trips (with the possible exception of those times when the Kenai Peninsula generation is operated in anticipation of loss of the existing tie). = NERC recognized that when Bradley Lake came into service, reliability would suffer without a second interconnection line. That is, the second line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area is necessary to support Bradley Lake and help reliably distribute the Bradley Lake capacity to the purchasing systems, minimize blackouts in the Kenai Peninsula, and minimize under-frequency load shedding in the Fairbanks and Anchorage areas. Subsequent to gaining operating experience with the Bradley Lake Project as part of the available generation pool, adjustments to system operations have been necessary to maintain system reliability and minimize outages. The following two operational changes were implemented to mitigate load shedding and outages due to trips of the Quartz Creek transmission line: = The existing Quartz Creek 115kV transmission line is operated at zero energy flow in anticipation of possible outages an average of 20 days per year in the winter due to storms, and 20 days during the summer due to construction along the line route. This is an inefficient way of operating the system because during the period the line is not transferring electrical power between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area, higher cost alternate generation sources must be used. The Project would allow power transfers to continue even during poor weather/construction conditions, since the Project provides a second line to continue the power transfers during an outage of the existing line. = Because of the power transfer limitations of the existing Quartz Creek transmission line, current practice is to maintain a minimum thermal generation of 25 MW on the Kenai Peninsula to support the Kenai Peninsula system in the event of a system disturbance and prevent a blackout of the Kenai Peninsula (CEA 1997). Neither of these two operational constraints would be necessary if the Project were constructed. The costs of these two practices are discussed in Section 1.3.4, System Stability. Benefits Reliability is important because the value of electric power exceeds the cost of producing the power. The cost to a utility of an outage in terms of lost sales may be small, while the cost of that same outage to an industrial or commercial consumer may be very large. Depending on the type of customer, outage costs will vary. For example, expensive machinery or process functions may be damaged by an outage for large industrial customers, or a retailer may see his/her shop emptied when the lights go out, but residential customers might only have to defer recreational or household activities. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-19 September 2001 The number, magnitude, and duration of consumer outages determine reliability. Reliability benefits occur if consumer outages are reduced as a direct consequence of constructing a new transmission line. The proposed Project is expected to reduce both the frequency and duration of generation and transmission related outages (i.e., outages related to unexpected loss of generating units or the existing Quartz Creek transmission line) (DFI 1998). As part of the DFI studies completed in 1989, a detailed evaluation of Railbelt customer outages attributable to causes associated with the Quartz Creek transmission line was completed. The DFI studies evaluated the outages to determine the benefits derived from eliminating outages due to the Quartz Creek transmission line, which are essentially the same as the cost of the outages to consumers in the Railbelt. The value associated with avoiding an outage can be measured by the value of the unserved energy resulting from an outage. Unserved energy is the electric energy that would have been demanded by the customer if the customer were not subjected to the outage. The value of unserved energy is different for residential customers than for commercial/industrial customers, and also varies with the duration of the outage. The duration, or how long an outage lasts, is important because as duration increases, the total cost of the outage to a customer increases. DFI’s study included a detailed analysis of the Railbelt Utilities and a number of industry studies to determine the value of a kilowatt hour (kWh) of unserved energy’. Based on the distribution by customer class and duration, the average value of each kWh of unserved energy avoided as a result of the Project is about $21 in 1997 dollars (DFI 1998). The amount of unserved energy saved and outages avoided as a result of construction of the Project were also determined in the DFI studies. The DFI studies calculated that the Project would reduce unserved energy on the Kenai Peninsula by an average of 82.3 megawatt hours (MWh) per year, an average of 45.0 MWh/year in Anchorage, and avoid one to two outages per year of 30 MW and one-hour duration (DFI 1989a). The value of the avoided outages and unserved energy is the value of the reliability to be gained from construction of the Project. Based on the detailed analysis documented in the studies, the value of the reliability benefits to be gained from construction of the Project as calculated by DFI in the 1998 update report is $49.4 million (1997 dollars). ” References cited in the DFI December 1989 study include: [1] “Value of Service Reliability to Customers,” Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Report EA-4494, prepared for EPRI by Criterion, Incorporated, San Diego, CA, May 1986. [2] L.V. Scott, “Ontario Hydro Surveys on Power Systems Reliability: Summary of Customer Viewpoints,” compiled in The Value of Service Reliability to Customers, EPRI Report EA-4494, May 1986. [3] “Customer Demand for Service Reliability: Existing and Potential Sources of Information,” prepared for EPRI by Laurits Christensen Associates, Madison, Wisconsin, May 1989. [4] A. P. Sanghvi, “Economic Costs of Electricity Supply Interruptions: U.S. and Foreign Experience,” The Value of Service Reliability to Customers, EPRI, EA-4494, May 1986. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-20 September 2001 A review of some of the significant factors associated with the system and selected outage data since the DFI studies were completed indicates that the electrical load on the system has grown and system operational practices have changed, but are not substantially different than when the studies were conducted. For example, since that time, the electrical load growth on the system has exceeded the earlier forecasts. In the 1998 DFI update, the load forecasts for the system from the earlier studies were compared with current forecasts. The current load forecasts for the Kenai Peninsula and Fairbanks area exceed the forecasts from the earlier study, and the load forecast for Anchorage is at the high end of the projections forecast at that time (Table 1-8). TABLE 1-8 COMPARISON OF PEAK DEMAND FORECASTS FOR 2010 (MW) Anchorage Kenai Fairbanks 1989 Study Low 403 ® 143 Mid 474 96 151 High 511 106 171 1998 Update Study Update 509 128 256 Source: DFI 1989a, 1998 Also, the interconnected system is essentially unchanged from a transmission viewpoint. The proposed transmission system improvements, including the Northern and Southern Intertie projects, have not been constructed. However, the two operational practices previously identified have helped to improve system reliability. In the DFI studies, HEA was recorded as having about two outage hours per year per customer from power supply outages. Homer tracks outages in accordance with RUS guidelines. RUS Form 7 outage data supplied by HEA for the years 1988 to 2000 are shown in Table 1-9. RUS minimum goals for average annual service interruptions per customer are that interruptions should not exceed one hour per consumer per year for power supply and five hours per year from all causes. TABLE 1-9 HEA ANNUAL OUTAGE HOURS PER CONSUMER FIVE-YEAR AVERAGES Year Power Supply Storm Prearranged Other Total 1988 — 1992 2.68 | 2.63 0.12 2.79 8.22 1989 — 1993 1.80 | 2.81 0.09 2°59 7.29 1990 — 1994 1.60 | 3.01 0.09 2.33 7.03 1991 — 1995 1.41 222 0.10 2.18 5.91 1992 — 1996 1.01 2.04 0.08 7B 4.86 1993 — 1997 0.98 1.44 0.04 1.71 4.17 1994 - 1998 0.66 133 0.04 1.63 3.66 1995 - 1999 0.41 1.24 0.04 1.61 3.30 1996 - 2000 0.24 1.36 0.03 1.21 2.83 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-21 September 2001 Power supply outages are those associated with outages of generation, transmission, or load shedding to maintain system stability. A review of the power supply outage rate for HEA shows improvement since 1988. Contributing to this improvement are the operational practices developed in the last few years. These practices were not anticipated as being required when the 1989 studies were completed, before the Bradley Lake Project came into service in 1991, but have clearly been effective in helping to reduce the number of system outages. 1.3.2 Power Transfer Capability System Deficiency The secure power transfer between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area is currently limited to 70 MW over the existing Quartz Creek transmission line (Power Engineers, Inc. 1996a). This limitation prevents the Railbelt Utilities from taking full advantage of the available generation on the Kenai Peninsula to maximize potential benefits from economy energy transfers. Increased Power Transfer Capacity The capability for increased secure power transfers between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area would allow the Railbelt generation to be provided at a lower cost to consumers. Construction of the Project would cause the secure power transfer between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage to increase from 70 MW to 125 MW. Benefits The economy energy benefits accruing from the Project would be primarily due to disparities in marginal power production costs in the two areas, and because the optimal power flow across the existing Quartz Creek transmission line exceeds its present capacity. This would result in increased hydrothermal coordination® between the Bradley Lake and Copper Lake hydroelectric generation on the Kenai Peninsula and the thermal generation in the Anchorage area. The value of these benefits has been studied and evaluated in detail (DFI 1989a, 1998). DFI calculated that on average, transfer levels from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage would increase by 113 gigawatt hours (GWh)/year, and by 147 GWh/year from Anchorage to the Kenai Peninsula due to the availability of the second line. The value of these benefits, which can also be viewed as cost savings, were calculated to be $37.8 million (1997 dollars) (DFI 1989a, 1998). * Hydro-thermal coordination is the operation of hydro and thermal generation resources in a way that results in overall lower system operating costs. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need <4 September 2001 1.3.3 Economic Generation System Deficiency Standard utility practice is to determine generation requirements and operate individual generation plants in a mix so as to meet the instantaneous demand for power and produce the least cost power. The present limitation on power transfers between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area results in a more expensive mix of power being generated from the existing power plants to supply the load than if the Project were in service. NERC concluded in their reliability assessment study that the existing single line transmission interconnections between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area (the Quartz Creek transmission line) and between the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas constrain the sharing of generation between and among load centers and pose a significantly higher than traditional reliability risk for system-wide blackouts due to single contingency outages’ (NERC 1990). This is particularly the case for generation at the Bradley Lake Project. Use of the generation at Bradley Lake in the north is limited by the 70 MW secure transfer level over the existing Quartz Creek transmission line. Improved Economic Generation The proposed Project would allow the Kenai Peninsula, Anchorage, and areas to the north to share the generation capacity more efficiently in each area and throughout the Railbelt. Increased transmission capacity allows one area to rely more heavily on generation capacity in another area, for capacity as well as for energy. For the Railbelt, the Project would allow Anchorage and Fairbanks to rely on a greater portion of the Kenai Peninsula generation capacity surplus for meeting capacity requirements, thus deferring the need to build new generation capacity. Benefits The Project would produce the following three types of benefits from capacity sharing, resulting in reduced costs for the generation of power: = As load grows in a region, enough generation capacity must be available to meet the peak load in that region plus a required generation reserve margin, in case of system outages. Increased transmission line capacity and reliability increases access to surplus generation capacity in other regions, thus making it possible to defer capacity additions. = The more interconnected a system, the lower the reserve margin that is required to provide the same level of reliability. Increasing transmission capacity increases the level ° A single contingency outage occurs with the loss of any one system component. A double contingency outage occurs with the loss of two system components during the same event. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-23 September 2001 of interconnectedness for the Railbelt, allowing utilities to permanently avoid or indefinitely postpone some capacity additions that would have been needed to maintain the desired reserve margin. = Construction of the Project would allow the Railbelt Utilities to take advantage of the increased interconnectedness of the system by allowing them to share generation capacity, lines, and facilities more readily between areas, and so reduce the overall costs of producing and delivering power throughout the system. The value of capacity sharing benefits were calculated by DFI in the 1989 study. As part of the update report (DFI 1998), DFI compared the load projections used in the 1989 study to current load projections for the same regions, as shown in Table 1-8. DFI concluded in their 1998 update that the new forecasts for Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula were somewhat higher than the previous 1989 forecasts, but not substantially. While the new forecast for the Fairbanks area is substantially higher, this has little impact on the economics of the Southern Intertie Project, because of the transmission limitations between Anchorage and Fairbanks (DFI 1998). Demand growth, along with available capacity, determines the timing of any capacity sharing benefits. Demand tends to grow over time while, unless new generating units are installed, capacity holds steady or shrinks somewhat due to de-rating or retirement of older units. Therefore, capacity sharing benefits tend to first grow over time as the deficiency is eliminated in a relatively capacity-poor region, then fall as surplus disappears in the relatively capacity-rich regions. The capacity sharing benefit in a year is the amount of capacity avoided or deferred in the year, measured in kilowatt-years, multiplied by the cost of a kilowatt-year of capacity. The cost of a kilowatt-year of capacity is composed of the annualized fixed cost of a new combustion turbine, including both the installed capital cost and fixed operation and maintenance cost. Costs for combustion turbines were reviewed and updated (DFI 1998). It was determined that a kilowatt- year of capacity is currently valued at $55 per kilowatt-year, in 1997 dollars. The new value is about 15 percent lower than the value calculated in the 1989 study. The amount of capacity avoided or deferred and calculation of the resultant benefits (or cost savings) has been calculated by DFI. This was accomplished by determining the capacity avoidance and deferrals over time, accounting for the 30 percent of annual peak load reserve criterion stipulated in the Alaska Intertie Agreement (Addendum No. 1, page 1-2), and then applying the value of the capacity to determine the value of the benefits (DFI 1989b, 1998). In this manner a value for capacity sharing benefits for the Project was calculated to be $20.9 million (1997 dollars). Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-24 September 2001 1.3.4 System Stability System Deficiency The existing Quartz Creek transmission line is limited to a 70 MW power transfer for secure or stable system operation. Under certain system configurations and power flows, when the existing Quartz Creek transmission line experiences an interruption, it is necessary to implement automatic load shedding schemes to immediately reduce the overall system load, so that the loads on the remaining generators and transmission lines are reduced to a level where the system will remain stable, and a system-wide blackout is prevented. With the Bradley Lake Project on line, outages to the Kenai Peninsula due to instability from trips of the Quartz Creek transmission line during exports to the north were identified as potential problems (DFI 1989a). Subsequent to Bradley Lake coming on line, and based on operational experience to minimize instability from Quartz Creek transmission line trips, two previously discussed operational changes were implemented to mitigate load shedding and outages due to trips of the Quartz Creek transmission line. The present worth of the cost of reducing power transfers over the Quartz Creek transmission line to near zero during adverse weather conditions and summer construction has been calculated to be $11.4 million in 1997 dollars (DFI 1998). The present worth of the cost of maintaining generation on line on the Kenai Peninsula at all times to provide spinning reserves has been calculated to be $10.7 million in 1997 dollars (DFI 1998). The benefit of the Project would be of the same value, since the need for these practices would be eliminated. The Railbelt Utilities have been collecting information on overall system “deviations” as noted by a frequency swing of more than 0.1 Hertz from the normal 60-Hertz operating frequency. These events are summarized in Table 1-10 for 1993 through 2000. TABLE 1-10 RAILBELT SYSTEMS FREQUENCY DEVIATION AND LOAD SHEDDING EVENTS Number of Events with Year Number of Events Load Shedding 1993 134 27 1994 128 9 1995 71 a 1996 121 4 1997 110 19 1998 145 9 1999 102 6 2000 69 10 Source: CEA 2001 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-25 September 2001 Improved System Stability The Project would enhance the stability performance of the Railbelt system by providing a second path for power to flow in the event of an interruption of the existing Quartz Creek transmission line, and would reduce the need for the implementation of load shedding schemes during system disturbances by increasing the secure power transfer between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage from 70 MW to 125 MW. The Quartz Creek transmission line is only one component of the integrated Railbelt electrical system. The addition of a second line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage would support the system in Anchorage and areas to the north in the event of system disturbances in those areas (Power Engineers 1996a). Also, the system would be able to withstand a single contingency outage of the Quartz Creek transmission line while remaining stable for a 125 MW power transfer. Benefits The benefits of this enhanced stability would be evidenced in the increased reliability of the overall system and in the reduction of load shedding and system outages. The Project also would eliminate the need to maintain a minimum of 25 MW of generation on the Kenai Peninsula and to reduce the power transfer over the Quartz Creek transmission line to zero during adverse weather conditions and summer construction. As noted in the reliability discussion, the DFI studies estimated that the Project would reduce unserved energy on the Kenai Peninsula by an average of 82.3 MWh/year, an average of 45.0 MWh/year in Anchorage, and avoid one to two load shedding outages per year of 30 MW and one hour of duration. The value of the benefits due to increased system stability are accounted for in the reliability benefits of the Project. 1.3.5 Spinning Reserves System Deficiency Spinning reserves respond to changes in consumer demand and failures in the generation and transmission system. Spinning reserves improve reliability, but they are often expensive because some generation units must be operated partially loaded. The hydroelectric capacity at Bradley Lake on the Kenai Peninsula could provide a less expensive source for spinning reserves that otherwise would be provided by thermal generating units in the Anchorage area. Current operating practices and agreements among the Railbelt Utilities result in the provision of approximately 65 MW of operating reserve accessible in the Anchorage area (DFI 1989b). Limited amounts of this spinning reserve can be provided from outside the Anchorage area. Transmission capacity between Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage is a constraint on the transfer of spinning reserves between areas with only the single Quartz Creek transmission line in service. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-26 September 2001 Sharing and Reducing the Overall Need for Spinning Reserves Construction of the Project would allow increased access to spinning reserves, so that spinning reserves for the system could be provided from the most appropriate generation source. This would reduce overall spinning reserve requirements. DFI has estimated that approximately 30 MW of spinning reserve can be transferred from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage over the existing line. This transfer of spinning reserves results from the practice of distributing these reserves such that they are not all lost with a single event. With a second line in service, it is estimated that up to 50 MW of spinning reserves could be transferred from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage (DFI 1996). Benefits The benefits of increased spinning reserve sharing in the interconnected Railbelt system resulting from construction of the Project would be realized through lower generation costs. In addition, because existing generation resources can be shared more readily with a second line in service, system generation can be operated fewer hours overall, resulting in longer service life from existing power plants. These benefits accrue as a result of the additional 20 MW of spinning reserves that can be transferred to Anchorage from the Kenai Peninsula, and on this basis DFI calculated a $9.3 million (1997 dollars) benefit over the life of the Project. 1.3.6 Line Losses and Maintenance System Deficiency Electrical system studies by Power Engineers (1996a) indicate that line losses for the existing Quartz Creek intertie are calculated to be 7 MW (10 percent) for a 70 MW power transfer. Line losses are completely dependent on the current flow and the resistance of the line conductors and increase by the square of the current (e.g., if the current doubles, the losses increase by a factor of four). Maintenance costs on the existing Quartz Creek transmission line are higher than they would be if the Project were constructed. Currently, because the existing line is the only path between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage, it is difficult to schedule outages for maintenance. Also, regardless of whether or not the Project is constructed, the existing line is scheduled for incremental line reconstruction over a multi-year period to replace aging facilities. Removing the line from service for reconstruction and to conduct maintenance activities requires additional generation to be operated both on the Kenai Peninsula and in the Anchorage area to support the load and provide the necessary spinning reserves. This additional generation on line increases overall system operating costs. In addition, the scheduling of construction crews to conduct the Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-27 September 2001 maintenance and reconstruction activities is restricted in the timing and duration available to conduct the maintenance, also resulting in increased costs. Reduced Line Losses and Increasing Flexibility to Schedule Maintenance Construction of the Project would reduce transmission system losses. With both the Project and the existing Quartz Creek transmission line in service, the secure transfer limit would increase from 70 MW to 125 MW, while losses would decrease to 5 MW (4 percent) at the higher 125 MW transfer level. With the Project in service as a second path between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula, reconstruction and maintenance activities can be scheduled independently of generation resources, increasing flexibility in maintenance scheduling and reducing costs. Benefits While these benefits compose a smaller portion of the overall benefits of the Project, cost savings due to reduced line losses and more efficient scheduling of outages for maintenance and reconstruction activities would be realized through construction of the Project. The value of the benefits realized through reduced transmission losses are included as part of the economy energy transfer benefits. The present value of the benefits realized from the greater flexibility in scheduling and carrying out maintenance and reconstruction activities was calculated by DFI (1989a, 1998) to be $4.0 million in 1997 dollars. 1.3.7 Bradley Lake The Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project came into service in 1991, and since that time has provided an additional generation resource to the Railbelt system. With respect to Bradley Lake, construction of the Project to provide a second transmission line path with an increased secure transfer capability from 70 MW to 125 MW between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage would accomplish the following: = allow Bradley Lake to increase system reliability by providing additional spinning reserves to support the system north of the Kenai Peninsula during disturbances and maintain system stability = allow Bradley Lake to be more fully utilized to provide additional hydro-thermal coordination benefits with the thermal generating units in the Anchorage area through increased economy energy transfers Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-28 September 2001 = allow the system increased access to Bradley Lake to share generation capacity with the areas north of the Kenai Peninsula, by adding flexibility to allocate the capacity of Bradley Lake to meet load, and making it possible to defer generation capacity additions to the system = allow the utilities north of the Kenai Peninsula full access to and the benefit of their shares of the power generated by Bradley Lake Construction of the Project would fulfill the need for additional transmission facilities that were recognized by the State of Alaska and Railbelt Utilities when the Bradley Lake Project was constructed, and would allow Bradley Lake to contribute its full potential to the system. The benefits resulting from utilizing Bradley Lake to its full potential are included in the overall benefits calculated for the Project (DFI 1998). 14 PROJECT BENEFITS AND COSTS The benefits from construction and operation of the Project have been studied and evaluated in detail by DFI (1989a), AEA (1991), and were updated by DFI (DFI Aeronomics) in 1998. This section describes the overall benefits that would result from construction of the Project and also details estimated Project construction and life cycle costs. Because the interconnected system operates in an integrated manner, benefits from the Project have been evaluated by reviewing the effect of the Project on the overall system. Determination of a meaningful allocation of Project benefits to each of the members of the IPG is not practical. Each of the utilities has different rate structures, power purchase agreements, and operating agreements in effect. As the Railbelt Utilities transact business among themselves and their customers, agreements and rates can and do change. As a result, any allocation of Project benefits would quickly become out of date. The benefits as presented therefore accrue to the overall system and the IPG as a whole. The December 1989 DFI report focused on the benefits of the Project, and evaluated benefits for the Project in several different categories. The 1998 update focused on the key data values underlying the estimates and determined how the data values have changed. An update of the Project benefits analysis was completed because several factors affecting the value of the benefits (or cost savings) have changed since the 1989 study. These factors include the following: 1. Projected fossil fuel prices are substantially lower now, in real terms. 2. The price of new combustion turbine generating units has dropped, in real terms. 3. A number of existing Railbelt generating units that had been scheduled to be retired by the turn of the century or soon after have had their planned operating lives extended. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-29 September 2001 4. The Bradley Lake Project on the Kenai Peninsula started operating in 1991. As part of the 1998 update study, the effect of each of these factors on the value of the Project benefits was evaluated and the benefit calculations updated. In addition, all of the values were converted to 1997 dollars for comparison with current cost estimates for the Project (DFI 1998). Table 1-11 summarizes the benefit categories and the updated present worth of the benefits resulting from the analysis. TABLE 1-11 NET PRESENT WORTH OF BENEFITS FOR THE PROJECT Updated Value Category (millions of 1997 $) Capacity sharing $20.9 Economy energy transfer $37.8 Reliability $49.4 Spinning reserve sharing $9.3 Reduced line maintenance $4.0 Avoid minimum CT generation on Kenai (*) $10.7 Avoid not loading line during bad weather/construction (*) $11.4 Total $143.5 Notes: 1. Present worth in 2004, the first year of operation for the Project. 2. All present values calculated using discount rate of 4.5 percent, as recommended by AEA. 3. Economy energy transfer includes transmission losses and gas royalties. * — Asterisks indicate benefits not considered in 1989 due to different assumptions for system operating parameters prior to completion of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. Since the 1998 update study was completed there have been two additional changes in the factors affecting the value of the benefits. However, these changes do not substantially impact the value of the overall benefits of the project. First, fossil fuel (natural gas) prices have risen this past year, negating some of the earlier decline in prices mentioned above. This rise in gas prices would have the effect of increasing the overall value of the benefits from the Project. Second, the Soldotna combustion turbine has been moved to the Nikiski Fertilizer Plant and is now operated in a cogeneration mode. The Soldotna unit has partially supplied the requirement for a minimum of 25 MW of generation on the Kenai Peninsula as discussed in previous sections. Operation of the unit in a cogeneration mode tends to lower the cost of providing the 25 MW minimum generation requirement, but not substantially. AEA also evaluated the benefits of the Project based on DFI’s quantitative analysis, and from the point of view of accepted industry practice and compliance with NERC and ASCC criteria for planning and operation of the Alaska interconnected system. While AEA noted that there can be a wide range of benefit values associated with the Project, based on the qualitative and quantitative analyses conducted for the Project, the life cycle benefits of the Project will exceed the costs, and the Project is needed and should be constructed (AEA 1991). Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-30 September 2001 It is important to note that the value of the benefits from the Project can also be viewed as cost savings. If the Project is not constructed, the unrealized benefits would continue to be part of the overall cost of producing electricity, and those costs would be reflected in the rates for electricity paid by consumers. 1.4.1 Construction and Life Cycle Costs The construction costs for the Project were estimated by Power Engineers, Inc. in 1996 and were updated in 1997 and 1998 (Power Engineers 1998) to reflect the potential facility requirements identified as part of the current siting studies being conducted for the EIS for the Project. The updated cost study also determined the present value of the operation and maintenance and submarine cable replacement costs over the 40-year project life. The results of this study are summarized in Table 1-12. For a description of the routes see Chapter 2, Sections 2.6.2 and 26.3: TABLE 1-12 SUMMARY OF BENEFITS AND COSTS (millions of 1997 dollars) Tesoro Route (Route Enstar Route (Route Options A, D, N) Options E South, F, H, K) Constructed cost $99.5 $90.2 Present worth of operation and maintenance costs $4.3 $6.1 Present worth of cable replacement costs $10.7 $3.3 Total life cycle cost $114.5 $99.6 Present worth of project benefits $143.5 $143.5 Benefit/cost ratio 1.25 1.44 Adjusted” benefit/cost ratio range 2.12 2.72 * A discount rate of 4.5 percent was used as recommended by the AEA based on the long-term real cost of money (AEA March 1991). The adjusted benefit/cost ratio is calculated by subtracting the $46.8 million state grant funding for the Project from the constructed cost and dividing into the benefit value. ae 1.4.2 Construction Cost To determine the construction cost for the Project, conceptual designs were prepared for each aspect of the Project and are documented in the Power Engineers Cost Summary Report (Power Engineers 1998). Determination of the construction costs included specifying typical overhead line structure types by line segment depending on expected weather and terrain conditions, and preparing preliminary layouts for the substation and cable transition stations. For the underground and submarine cable installations, typical cable sizes and installation techniques, along with land and submarine ground or bottom conditions, were reviewed as well. Where appropriate, vendor quotations for materials were obtained and combined with historical prices from actual projects. Estimated costs for the submarine cable and installation were compared to the actual bids received by CEA (January 1998) for replacement of their Knik Arm cables. Also Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-31 September 2001 included in the estimate were both winter and summer construction, and air support for transportation of personnel and materials. Operation and Maintenance Costs Annual operation and maintenance costs were determined based on a typical program of annual maintenance for each type of facility, and the present worth was calculated over the life of the Project. Submarine Cable Replacement Costs Based on its experience with submarine cables installed in the Knik Arm since 1967, CEA determined typical replacement intervals for submarine cables in that environment. The replacement intervals depend on whether the submarine cable is installed in an embedded or non- embedded configuration. The non-embedded configuration, in which the double-armored submarine cable is simply laid on the bottom, is used in locations where it is not practical to embed the cable. In the embedded configuration, the cable is physically buried in the bottom using special equipment. Based on discussions with CEA personnel, cable laying contractors experienced with conditions in the Knik and Turnagain arms, and bottom and side scan sonar surveys conducted along the proposed marine routes during the summer of 1996, appropriate replacement intervals for the Southern Intertie submarine cable were determined. The cable replacement schedule for the non-embedded cables on the Tesoro Route is to replace two single- phase cables or one three-phase cable twice during the Project life (years 17 and 34), depending on the type of cable initially installed. For the Enstar Route, the cable can be embedded for the entire distance and the cable replacement schedule for this route is one single-phase cable or one three-phase cable once during the Project life (year 30). The present worth of the cable replacement costs, based on the cable replacement schedule, was included in the total life cycle costs of the Project for both the Tesoro or Enstar routes. Life cycle costs are the sum of the constructed cost, plus the present worth over the Project life of the operation and maintenance and cable replacement costs. The present worth of the Project benefits is the total from Table 1-11. Benefit/cost ratios are calculated for the Tesoro and Enstar routes as shown in Table 1-12. 1.5 SCOPING AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 1.5.1 Process Summary The environmental review process for the Southern Intertie Project began with a Route Selection Study in 1995. Initially, the Applicant’s consultants contacted agencies and organizations having jurisdiction and/or specific interest in the Project. The purpose was to inform them about the Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-32 September 2001 Project, verify the status and availability of environmental data, and request data and comments on the route selection process. Additional contacts were made throughout the process to clarify or update information. The resulting documentation is contained in the Southern Intertie Project Route Selection Study Phase 1 - Environmental Section Report that was submitted to RUS in June 1996. A series of agency and interagency meetings as well as two public meetings (January and February 1996) were also conducted. The NEPA process for the Southern Intertie Project began with the publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register by the RUS in October 1996. The notice announced the intent of RUS to prepare an EIS for the Project and the schedule for the three public scoping meetings. Three public scoping meetings were conducted in November 1996—Anchorage on November 12, Cooper Landing on November 13, and Soldotna on November 14. In addition to the public scoping meetings, RUS conducted an interagency meeting on November 6, 1996 in Anchorage. The purpose of the meeting was to (1) invite the participation of other federal, state, and local agencies; and (2) solicit comments and/or concerns regarding issues that should be addressed in the EIS. Nine agencies were represented at the meeting. Two community working groups (CWG) were also assembled in 1997, one on the Kenai Peninsula and the other in Anchorage. Each group met five times at key milestones during the process. Additional information on the public involvement process is contained in Chapter 4. 1.5.2 Analysis of Issues The applicability and importance of the issues identified during the scoping and public involvement process varied among the regions that comprise the Project area. Issues related to purpose and need, and right-of-way limitations and restrictions are applicable to each region. In Anchorage, the key issues reflect the urban setting and the Municipality of Anchorage’s orientation towards recreation, tourism, and visual quality. Input from the Anchorage CWG and Municipal Planning Department emphasized the importance of visual quality to communities throughout the Municipality. The Chugach Mountains, including Chugach State Park and Chugach National Forest, present a wide range of issues, including rural land use, recreation, tourism, public land management, watershed management, visual resources, biology, cultural resources, and avalanche hazards. For example, views from the Seward Highway, a National Scenic Byway, forest recreation areas, and Cooper Landing have been identified as significant issues to the Project by the agencies and the Kenai Peninsula CWG. Crossing Kenai Lake and the associated visual and possible watershed impacts also have been identified as key issues. The avalanche hazard 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 (ACWR) and Chickaloon Flats has been Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-33 September 2001 identified as a key issue. Engineering issues include risk of failure and potential for embedding the cable due to ocean currents and boulders, gravel, and trenches on the ocean floor. 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 KNWR, and views of the Aleutian and Alaskan ranges across Cook Inlet represent the broad range of public concerns. A separate listing of the issues and a summary of the comments received concerning each issue is presented in Chapter 4. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-34 September 2001 ACV Ad OL SNOISIDAG 1.66 DECISIONS TO BE MADE 1.6.1 Rural Utilities Service The RUS decision will be the identification of a preferred route and whether to provide financial assistance to participating RUS borrowers. 1.6.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The USFWS decision will be whether to issue a right-of-way permit to IPG to construct and operate the proposed facilities on lands within the KNWR. The decision will be made in accordance with the requirements of Title XI of ANILCA for access by transportation and utility systems across conservation system units in Alaska. The USFWS must also meet its responsibilities under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 [((NWRSAA) (16 U.S.C. 668dd)], as amended, which stipulates that proposed refuge uses undergo a compatibility determination, as described below. Compatibility Determination The NWRSAA, as amended, requires that the Secretary of the Interior, before permitting any use of a national wildlife refuge, must determine that the use is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established, and with the mission of the NWRS. ANILCA [Section 304(b)] adopted the compatibility standard and requirement of the NWRSAA. The ANILCA Title XI process also provides that applicable law shall apply with respect to the authorization and administration of transportation or utility systems across conservation units, and includes a determination of compatibility with the unit’s purposes as one of the criteria an agency must consider when reviewing a right-of-way application. A compatible use is defined as a proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use, or any other use of a national wildlife refuge, that, based on sound professional judgment, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the NWRS mission or the purpose(s) of the national wildlife refuge. The proposed construction of the Southern Intertie Project across KNWR must be found to be compatible to be permitted. If the proposed project is found to be not compatible, it cannot be legally permitted. A compatibility determination will be prepared by the USFWS following public review and comment on the draft project EIS. Public comments received during the review will be used in the compatibility determination process. The compatibility determination is a decision document that is not subject to appeal; however, a finding of “not compatible” which by itself, or combined with other factors, results in a denial of the right-of-way permit application, may be appealed to the President following ANILCA Title XI procedures. The President, if receiving an appeal, Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-35 September 2001 would have four months to decide whether the proposed utility system would be compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was established. In providing comment to the USFWS to assist in the preparation of the compatibility determination, the public should focus on providing information on how they believe that the proposed project would impact the Refuge’s ability to meet its mandated purposes and the mission of the NWRS. KNWR purposes, as established by ANILCA, include (1) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but not limited to, moose, bears, mountain goats, Dall sheep, wolves and other furbearers, salmonids and other fish, waterfowl and other migratory and nonmigratory birds; (2) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats; (3) to ensure, the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the first purpose, water quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge; (4) to provide in a manner consistent with the first and second purpose, opportunities for scientific research, interpretation, environmental education, and land management training; and (5) to provide, in a manner compatible with the four previous purposes, opportunities for fish and wildlife-oriented recreation. In addition, the purposes of the Wilderness Act are supplemental to Refuge purposes for designated Wilderness Areas. The purposes of the Wilderness Act are to secure an enduring resource of wilderness, to protect and preserve the wilderness character of areas within the National Wilderness Preservation System, and to administer the wilderness system for the use and enjoyment of the American people in a way that will leave the areas unimpaired for future use and enjoyment of wilderness. The Wilderness Act purposes only apply to those lands specifically designated as wilderness, but proposed uses outside of wilderness that may impact wilderness purposes inside designated areas, must be evaluated as part of the compatibility determination process. Finally, the NWRS mission, as stated in the NWRSAA is “To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” The compatibility determination will be completed subsequent to the public review of the DEIS. Information obtained in the DEIS about the Enstar Route (across the Refuge), and the environmental consequence of the proposed action, can be used by the public in making their comments to address how they believe such activities would impact the Refuge’s ability to meet its purposes and the system mission. These comments may be included along with other general comments on the DEIS to the RUS under the guidance provided on submitting comments in this document. Comments regarding solely the compatibility determination may also be sent directly to Refuge Manager, Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 2139, Soldotna, Alaska 99669; or faxed to (907) 262-3599. It is unnecessary to send comments to both the Refuge Manager and RUS. Any comments regarding compatibility sent directly to the Refuge Manager must be submitted within the same time frame as required for all comments on the DEIS sent to the RUS. The Refuge Manager, after reviewing the public comments, will complete the compatibility determination using sound professional judgment to reach conclusions that are consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-36 September 2001 information, and applicable laws. The Refuge Manager must consider not only the direct impacts of a use but also the indirect impacts associated with the use and the cumulative impacts of the use when conducted in conjunction with other existing or planned uses of the Refuge, and uses of adjacent lands or waters that may exacerbate the effects of a Refuge use. The compatibility determination will be included in the Record of Decision supporting the USFWS’s final action on the right-of-way application. More information about KNWR can be obtained at http://Kenai.fws.gov/, and for the refuge compatibility determination process, at http://www.r7.fws.gov/compatibility/index.html. 1.6.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regardless of which routing alternatives are selected, certain construction activities will require permits from the USACE. The USACE decision will be whether to issue those permits. The USACE decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public interest. The benefits that reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so, the conditions under which it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of the general balancing process. This permit will be issued or denied under the following authorities: = Perform work in or affecting navigable waters of the United States — Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) = Discharge dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States — Section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), including public interest review considering the guidelines set forth under Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 230) = Transportation and utility systems in, across, and access into, Conservation Systems Units in Alaska under ANILCA (43 CFR Part 36) Concurrent with the publication of the DEIS, the USACE has issued a Public Notice of Application for Permit (see Volume II, Appendix F). This notice is intended to solicit comments from the public; federal, state, and other local agencies and officials; Indian tribes; and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the USACE to determine whether to issue, modify, condition, or deny a permit for this proposal. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter | - Purpose and Need 1-37 September 2001 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL 2.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES AND SCREENING PROCESS This chapter describes the alternatives considered for the Southern Intertie Project. It describes the Project alternatives that were considered but not analyzed in detail, and the criteria and rationale for their elimination. It also describes the route selection process, alternative routes considered but eliminated, IPG’s proposed Enstar Route, and other routing alternatives on the Kenai Peninsula, through the Turnagain Arm, and in Anchorage. The route alternative, the Tesoro Route, and optional routings that were considered in detail for this alternative route are also described. These two main routes and sub-regional routing options constitute a reasonable range of alternatives consistent with the purpose and need. The chapter then compares the environmental impacts of the alternatives, including the Applicant’s proposal. An array of alternatives were screened based on their capability to meet the seven criteria discussed in Chapter | under the project purpose and need. Several alternatives met or partially met some of the alternative screening criteria. They included BESS, increased spinning reserves, upgrading the Quartz Creek transmission line, installing a new transmission line underground, and installing a new line at a higher voltage of 230kV. Three other alternatives (DSM, energy efficiency and conservation, and new generation), which would either reduce the electricity load requirements of the system or provide additional power to the system, were also considered but did not meet any of the screening criteria. The reasons these alternatives were not studied further are provided below. That information is also summarized in Table 2-1 and explains how alternatives were evaluated against purpose and need criteria. 2.2 ALTERNATIVES STUDIED AND ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY 2.2.1 Alternatives to a Transmission Option Battery Energy Storage Systems A BESS consists of a very large bank of electric batteries and automatically controlled electronic equipment to convert the electric energy stored in the batteries from DC to AC. This energy can be supplied to or absorbed from the electrical transmission system virtually instantaneously. This capability allows a BESS to compensate very quickly for imbalances between generation and load. However, a BESS can only be operated to support the system for a very limited period of time (20 to 30 minutes). A BESS could be particularly applicable to address the need for increasing the reliability of the Railbelt system and improving overall system stability during disturbances. A BESS is being evaluated by GVEA for installation in Fairbanks. e Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 TABLE 2-1 ALTERNATIVE SCREENING SUMMARY Project Alternatives *No . . woe Action Alternatives Considered but Eliminated Applicant’s Alternatives to a Transmission Option Transmission Options Proposal Battery Energy Energy Increased | Upgrade the | Parallel Line | New Line on Project Objective *No Storage |Demand Side| Efficiency/ New Wind Fuel Spinning | Quartz Creek | on Quartz Enstar or (Purpose and Need) Action System_| Management | Conservation | Generation | Generation | Cells Reserves Line Creek Route | Tesoro Route Alternative Screening Criteria Increase the reliability of no partial no no no no no yes no partial yes the interconnected system Increase the power no partial no no no no no no partial partial yes transfer capacity between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage Utilize the most no partial no no no no no no partial partial yes economic generation mix to reduce costs Improve overall system no partial no no no no no yes no partial yes stability during disturbances Reduce spinning reserve no partial no no no no no no no partial yes requirements Reduce transmission no no no no no no no no partial yes yes line losses Reduce maintenance no no no no no no no no no yes yes costs Notes: yes = meets alternative screening criteria no = does not meet alternative screening criteria partial = partially meets alternative screening criteria * Retained for detailed analysis in compliance with NEPA Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal Septe © 2001 BESSs were examined in some detail in the electrical system study effort (Power Engineers 1997c). Several alternative locations for a BESS, including Bernice Lake, International, Soldotna, Bradley Lake, and Kasilof substations, were evaluated. The conclusion of the electrical studies is that the BESS mitigates power swings due to a sudden interruption of power over the existing line, but introduces instability in some cases and increases the likelihood of tripping other existing lines during a disturbance. Potential gains in system performance and increased power transfer are not achievable consistent with the need to increase the secure power transfer limit from 70 MW to 125 MW between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. For a Kenai BESS, transfers greater than 90 MW would result in violations of the ASCC criteria for system stability for a trip of the existing line. Also, it was noted that installation of a BESS on the Kenai Peninsula and in Anchorage would result in three BESSs on the system (including Fairbanks), and that this may affect the interaction of the controls with the existing static var compensation system and generation controls. There is no comparable industry experience with the operation of an isolated system similar to the Alaska interconnected grid with three BESSs installed and in operation. Considering the results of the electrical studies, the BESS only partially meets the purpose and need for the Project and was eliminated as an alternative to the Applicant’s proposal. Demand-Side Management and Energy Conservation DSM consists of electric utilities planning, implementing, and monitoring activities designed to encourage consumers to modify their levels and patterns of electricity consumption. While DSM affects only a small percentage of the system load, utilities implement DSM programs to achieve two basic objectives: energy efficiency and load management. Energy efficiency (or energy conservation) is primarily achieved through programs that reduce overall energy consumption of specific end use devices and systems by promoting high- efficiency equipment and building design. Energy efficiency programs typically reduce energy consumption over many hours during the year. Examples include energy saving appliances and lighting, high-efficiency heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems or control modification, efficient building design, advanced electric motors and drive systems, and heat recovery systems. Load management programs are designed to achieve load reductions, primarily at the time of peak load. For example, by agreement with their customers, utilities can have direct control over loads that can be interrupted by the utility system operator during periods of peak demand, by directly interrupting power supply to individual appliances or equipment. This method usually involves consumers who allow the utility to periodically interrupt service to water or space heating units during the hours of peak load. Ww Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Another type of load management program makes use of interruptible loads. An interruptible load is a load that can be separated from the system during periods of peak load or system disturbances, either by direct control of the utility system operator or by action of the consumer, at the direct request of the system operator. For example, large commercial and industrial consumers are candidates for interruptible load management, depending on the type of business. Other load management programs that limit peak loads, shift peak load from on-peak to off-peak hours, or encourage consumers to respond to changes in the utility’s cost of providing power, also are used. Included are technologies that primarily shift all or part of a load from one time of day to another and also may affect overall energy consumption. Examples include space heating and water heating storage systems, cool storage systems, and load limiting devices in energy management systems. Members of the IPG have implemented energy efficiency and load management programs to varying degrees. HEA, for example, encourages energy efficiency through their water heater rebate program. Matanuska Electric Association has implemented load management programs that allow direct control of customer water heaters, interruptible load, and off-peak space and water heating incentives. GVEA has several Energy$ense programs that address both energy efficiency and load management. AML&P focuses its efforts on energy efficiency through betterment projects at its generating plants and is also developing other energy storage options. CEA and Seward work with their customers to encourage energy efficiency, but have no formal programs. Energy efficiency and load management programs are important tools that Alaska utilities are using, and will continue to use to manage the demand for and consumption of electricity. However, while valuable, these programs do not address any of the need categories of the Project. These DSM programs focus on managing a very small part of the load on the system, whereas the Project need is for improvements to allow better operational management of the existing interconnected system. Since energy efficiency and load management programs do not address the purpose and need for the Project, DSM was not considered further as an alternative to the Applicant’s Proposal. New Generation As an alternative to constructing a second line from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage, adding generation capacity on the Kenai Peninsula and/or in Anchorage was considered. Adding generation capacity would increase the generation resources available to serve load on the system; however, the overall system currently has an excess of generating capacity over electrical load. ny - Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 Currently, the installed nameplate generation capacity of the Railbelt is about 1,325 MW, as opposed to a winter 2001 projected load of approximately 769 MW as shown on Figure 2-1. Generation capacity as well as electrical load is distributed throughout the Railbelt. As illustrated, Railbelt generation resources currently exceed electrical loads by a factor of nearly two. While new generation resources could be used to enhance reliability and improve system stability during disturbances, generation resources that could be used for this purpose already exist. What is needed is an enhanced ability to use the existing generation resources in the most economical and reliable manner. Following is a description of alternative forms of new generation. 25 MW Generation Fairbanks 188 MW (Oil & Coal) ; fe 186 MW 769 MW Load | 138kV Healy 81 MW (Coal) Submarine 138kV 138kV 349 MW (Gas) 230kV 44 MW (Hydro) 419 MW (Gas 463 MW (Total) Sphge Anchorage 120 MW (Hydro) 480 MW 124 MW (Gas) 244 MW (Total) ' HEY Kenai 103 MW Railbelt Generation and Loads Figure 2-1 Distributed Generation Other types of generation, including distributed generation resources, were also considered. Distributed generation resources can be differentiated from centralized generation resources’ primarily in terms of size and because they are usually installed at or nearby the location that the generated electricity is used. Distributed generation resources come in sizes that range from kilowatt (kW) to a few MW,, in contrast to centralized generation resources that come in sizes from 10 MW to over 1,000 MW per site. Distributed generation resource technologies include photovoltaic, energy storage devices, microturbines, solar, wind, and fuel cells. Wind and fuel cells were identified at public meetings as a resource that should be looked at in more detail for the Southern Intertie Project. ' Centralized generation resources are traditional large utility electric generation plants such as the Beluga Power Plant and other electric generation plants located throughout the Railbelt. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-5 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Wind Generation Harnessing the wind to provide electric generation resources has been successful in California and in other parts of the world. The addition of wind generation to the Railbelt system would be another way of adding new generation resources to the system. Power can be generated from the wind through the use of large wind turbines or windmills that are sited in areas that exhibit high average wind speeds. In 1980, a study was completed for the APA to evaluate the wind energy potential in the Cook Inlet area. The study examined wind data from the Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) wind energy database for the area and from the Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC). Based on an analysis of the information provided from the databases, the study concluded that there was no conclusive evidence that large-scale generation of electric energy by MW-scale wind turbines would be a significant viable energy option in the Cook Inlet area. More recently, in 1998 Chugach commissioned a study to investigate potential sites of wind resources for wind generated power. Fourteen potential locations in the Chugach service territory that could be instrumented for resource data collection were identified. As of May 2001, Chugach has studied 5 of the 14 potential wind generation locations by collecting wind data in the greater Anchorage area. The five locations studied include sites near Portage (two sites), Bird Point (upper and lower bench), Potter Bluff (east of Potter Station House), Fire Island, and the NIKE Site (lower bench). Data were collected with meteorological instrumentation mounted on a temporary tower. Analysis of the data indicates that the five sites have the potential to produce a total of approximately 100 MW of wind generating capacity. Chugach currently has no specific time line for installation of any wind generation. Permitting, engineering, and cost studies will be required should Chugach decide to pursue wind generation any further. Fuel Cells As an emerging technology, fuel cells were considered as an alternative to a second transmission line since early 2000. The addition of fuel cell generation to the Railbelt system would be another way of adding new generation resources to the system. Fuel cells are power-generating systems that produce DC electricity by combining hydrogen and oxygen in an electrochemical reaction. Fuel cells can be designed to use a variety of fuels, such as natural gas, landfill gas, liquid petroleum gas, propane, and coal gasification. Compared with traditional generating technologies that use combustion processes first to convert fuel to heat and mechanical energy, fuel cells convert the chemical energy of a fuel to electric energy directly, without intermediate conversion processes. For example, a 1 MW fuel cell plant, consisting of five 200 kW units, has been operating at the U.S. Postal Service Facility near the Anchorage airport. Fuel cell generating units of 200 kW Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-6 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 capacity are commercially available today for about $3,000/kW, as compared to combustion turbine plants that have been and are being constructed for between $450 and $600/kW depending on the size of the unit and other factors. Additional research and development efforts will likely result in lower costs for fuel cell generation plants, although widespread use of fuel cells for utility generation applications is still several years off. While fuel cell generation plants offer potential for the future, larger size units are not currently commercially available. The distributed generation alternatives were eliminated from further study because additional generation is not needed. Increasing Spinning Reserves Spinning reserve is a portion of the operating reserves maintained by utilities. Spinning reserve is unloaded generation, which is synchronized and ready to serve additional demand (NERC 1996). Spinning reserves instantaneously respond to changes in consumer demand and failures in the generation and transmission system. Spinning reserves improve reliability, but they are often expensive. In order to maintain adequate spinning reserve margins, generation units must be operated partially loaded. Increasing reliability and improving system stability during disturbances by operating additional generation in a spinning reserve mode could be accomplished at higher system operating costs. These higher costs would be reflected through increased fuel and maintenance expenses, and shorter life for the generating plants. Spinning reserves would need to be increased over present levels in order to enhance the reliability of the system. One of the reasons the Project is being proposed as a system improvement is to reduce spinning reserve requirements. The alternative of increasing spinning reserves is in contradiction to that purpose. Consequently, increasing the amount of spinning reserves on the system was eliminated as an alternative. 2.2.2 Transmission Options A route selection process was conducted to ensure that the consideration of alternatives would be responsive to both the purpose of and need for the Project and the issues identified through scoping. Initially, alternative routes were identified through the Southern Intertie Project Route Selection Study — Phase 1 — Environmental Section Report (Power Engineers, Inc. and Dames & Moore June 1996). During subsequent project scoping, public involvement, agency review, and environmental and engineering analysis, some routes were added and others eliminated from further study. The sequence of routing studies is shown on Figure 2-2. Routing opportunities that Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-7 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 were eliminated during the course of the study area are shown on Figure 2-3. The four primary routes are identified below and are discussed in the following sections: = Beluga Transmission Corridor = Tesoro Pipeline Corridor = Quartz Creek Transmission Corridor = Enstar Pipeline Corridor Beluga Transmission Corridor Initially, the project study area included the Beluga Power Plant as a possible termination point. An alternative was studied to determine the potential for a submarine crossing of the Cook Inlet between the Kenai Peninsula and the Beluga Power Plant. This alternative was found to be infeasible for the Project because of extreme submarine conditions, the length of the Cook Inlet crossing (18 to 20 miles), and the lack of a suitable landing location along the west side of the inlet. In addition, costs associated with crossing the Cook Inlet at this location with submarine cable would make the Project financially infeasible. Quartz Creek Transmission Corridor Upgrade of the Existing Quartz Creek Transmission Line The electrical system study effort conducted by Power Engineers (1996a) analyzed the performance of the system by modeling several different upgrade scenarios for the existing Quartz Creek transmission line as an alternative to constructing a second transmission line. The primary benefit to upgrading the existing line would be to increase the power transfer capability between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. Conversion of the operating voltage of the line from 115kV to 138kV or 230kV and the addition of reactive compensation to the line were analyzed. Refer to Figure 2-3. Conversion of the operating voltage from 115kV to 138kV could only increase the power transfer capacity of the existing line by about 20 percent. In addition, most of the line would require reinsulation and the substation transformers at Indian, Girdwood, Portage, Hope, Summit Lake, Dave’s Creek, and Quartz Creek substations would require replacement, along with modifications at University and Soldotna substations. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-8 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Initial Regional Route Selection Study Area Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Substations: 1-Bemice Lake 2- Soldotna 3- Point Woronzof_ 4 International 5 - University Regional Route Selection Study Area and Alternative Study Corridors Tyongh Kenai National Distribution Wildlife Refuge Line @ Chugach National Submarine Lines A Sursations Substations: 1-Bemice Lake 2- Soldotna 3- Point Woronzof- —4- International - University, APA, or Power Plant #2 EIS Study Area Tyonek Girdwood w. N in Kenai National | Wildlife Refuge *** Alternative Transmission Line Corridors Transmission Line Submarine Lines A Babsiations Substations: 1-Bemice Lake 2 - Soldotna 3 - Point Woronzof 4 - International STUDY AREA AND ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PROGRESSION SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 2-2 R3E TIN TION T6N T4N “oe ES LE RIE 1 OP og N % | a ‘ z|| ALTERNATIVE ROUTES \.. 5 LITTLE SUSTTNA RIVER 2 ELIMINATED SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT > - FIGURE 2-3 a Legend Chugach State Park : Kenai National Wildlife Refuge 5| E chugach National Forest Private, Borough, Gi 4 s z SS eae - \s oo _ 2 f ct jes ‘ Lr \ 1 \ ef ! kK (la ¥% fz f rt =) go 7s | Bb det ye 2 i > Z2-\ 3 =Y an of é i 7 ) z J ° . \ Cl. £ | or State Selected Lands Route Eliminated N Scale in Miles " a 6 3 1 01 3 6 s Source Data / Description: Municipality of Anchorage (1994). Chugach National Forest (1995). Kenai Peninsula Borough (1994). USGS 1:63,360 and 1:25,000 Quads. 09/12/01 Increasing the operating voltage of the line from 115kV to 230kV would almost double the power transfer capability of the line. Converting the voltage to 230kV would require replacement of the transformers at the intermediate substations and would also require upgrades to the substations at the endpoints of the line in Anchorage and at the Soldotna Substation. To be capable of carrying 230kV, the entire line would need to be reconstructed by replacing all of the structures. Even though the power transfer capability of the line would be increased, there still would be only one line, and at higher power transfer levels system, stability problems would become worse for an outage of the line. The addition of either shunt or series compensation also would increase the power transfer capability of the line. Again, the higher power transfer levels would aggravate problems associated with system stability and operation of the system. While an upgrade of the existing line could increase the power transfer capability, neither of the upgrade alternatives address the issues associated with having only one transmission line interconnection between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The system stability issues would continue to limit the secure power transfer over the line to 70 MW, the same as the existing situation. The interconnection still would not meet ASCC criteria for single contingency outages. The existing problems associated with system reliability and stability would become worse. An upgrade to the line to achieve higher power transfer levels would aggravate the problems associated with these issues, and would make system-wide blackouts and load shedding more likely for an outage of the line. The reason that system-wide blackouts and load shedding are more likely, and that these problems become worse, is because for system disturbances at transfer levels higher than 70 MW, load shedding is necessary to maintain system stability, resulting in customer outages. If even higher levels of power are transferred across a single line, for example 125 MW (the transfer capacity achieved with the Project), the system will become unstable and it is likely that a system blackout would occur (Power Engineers 1997c). As a result, the alternative of upgrading the existing line was eliminated. Quartz Creek Parallel Route The Quartz Creek transmission line corridor between Soldotna and Anchorage was presented as a potential route that would parallel the existing 115kV transmission line right-of-way from the Soldotna Substation on the Kenai Peninsula to one of three substations in Anchorage. The Anchorage endpoint substation options included the University, Anchorage, or AML&P Plant No. 2 substations. This route is referred to as the Portage option. An additional alternative route for the Quartz Creek option was identified which followed Sixmile Creek north to the Turnagain Arm crossing near Bird Point, as shown on Figure 2-3. This route is referred to as the Sixmile Route. The key issues that led to eliminating the Quartz Creek Route from further study are discussed below. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-11 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 Reliability/Purpose and Need A second line parallel to the existing line would increase the power transfer capacity of the system between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. However, the second parallel line would be subject to the same outage events as the existing line, including weather and avalanche risks. Consequently, reliability would not be enhanced and energy transfer capability would remain limited by the current operational constraints. By failing to meet the need criteria for increased reliability, the ability to transfer power would be adversely affected, even though the power transfer capacity could be improved by using the Quartz Creek Route. As a result, other need criteria, including using the most economic generation mix to reduce costs, improving system stability during disturbances, and reducing the requirements for spinning reserves, would not be fully met. Chugach State Park The existing 115kV transmission line crosses 26.3 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 U.S. National Park Service (NPS) under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA). That action placed the entire park under the legal protection of Section 6(f)(3) of the Act, 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. The existing 115kV line predates the park and funds assistance. 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 and a double-circuit configuration of the existing facilities as a significant change in the visual aesthetics of the property. The Division of Parks opposes altering the existing facility and, therefore, will not support a request for conversion of use to the NPS for either alternative. A conversion of use for the existing line would also require an amendment to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license, under which this line was originally constructed. With the known opposition of the Division of Parks, it is very unlikely that such an amendment would be approved. Chugach National Forest During the route selection process, the U.S. Forest Service requested that rather than establishing a second transmission line in the Chugach National Forest parallel to the existing line, the existing and proposed lines be double-circuited on the same structure. This mitigation would Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-12 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 address both right-of-way and visual impacts on the Chugach National Forest but the result would be an inherent reduction in reliability from having both lines on the same structure. Avalanche Hazards Avalanche damage and outages to the Quartz Creek transmission line are well documented as an ongoing hazard. As such the same hazard would apply to the new line as well, if it were constructed along any of the Sixmile or Portage routing options. Avalanche hazard areas are shown on Figure 2-4. The Quartz Creek transmission line has sustained significant avalanche damage numerous times throughout its life. Most recently in 2000, the line sustained significant damage, causing a power outage in the Girdwood area for about one week while repairs to the line on both sides of the community were completed. Because of this, and other avalanche damage, restoration of the entire Quartz Creek transmission line between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula took more than four weeks. Extended outages to the existing line have occurred because of avalanches in the Bird Flats area, between Girdwood and Hope Junction, 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 in 6 different areas, for an average of at least once every 1.6 years. The longest period of time without interruption was eight years while the least was less than one year. The Alaska Mountain Safety Center assigned levels of risk to each span or structure located near the avalanche paths studied along the Quartz Creek Route in 1991, as follows: = High Risk—five or more large, potentially destructive avalanches during a 50-year period = Moderate Risk—one to four large, potentially destructive avalanches during a 50-year period = Low Risk—the structure or span is capable of being hit, either frequently or infrequently with no damage or destruction During the three-year period from 1989 to 1991, CEA reduced the overall frequency of risk exposure faced by the line by implementing mitigation in many of the areas of highest hazard (i.e., in paths that posed the greatest frequency of destructive threat). The measures included relocating structures to areas of less exposure, protecting structures with reinforced splitting wedges, increasing structure heights and thus conductor spans, installing double-dead ends and breakaway insulators, and designing structures to minimize damage. As a result, most of the remaining hazard (frequency) is rated as moderate, as shown in Table 2-2. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-13 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 TABLE 2-2 QUARTZ CREEK 115kV TRANSMISSION LINE AVALANCHE RISK EXPOSURE 1991 Risk Exposure — Number of Structures or Spans Component Low Moderate High Total Structures 31 56 1 88 Spans 65 49 3 117 Damaging avalanches affecting the Quartz Creek transmission line between 1971 and 2000 are tabulated in Table 2-3. As shown, destructive avalanches have damaged the line in 7 of the last 30 years (1971 to 2000), an average of every 4.3 years. TABLE 2-3 AVALANCHE DAMAGE TO THE QUARTZ CREEK LINE Avalanche Year of General Location Path Damage Powerline Pass Path/Campbell—Indian Creek area A-3 March 1979 Powerline Pass Path/Campbell—Indian Creek area A-3 December 1988 Five Fingers/Bird Creek—Girdwood area B-4 1980 (2 events) The Dump Path/Bird Creek—Girdwood area B-S 1980 Bird Flats No. 6/ Bird Creek—Girdwood area B-7 1976 Bird Flats No. 6/ Bird Creek—Girdwood area B-7 1988 Bird Flats No. 7/ Bird Creek—Girdwood area B-8 1979 Bird Flats No. 7/ Bird Creek—Girdwood area B-8 1988 Bird Flats No. 7/ Bird Creek—Girdwood area B-8 February 2000 Kern Creek, Girdwood to Portage area C3 February 2000 Peterson Group/Girdwood to Portage area c-9 April 1988 Gold Pan/Turnagain East Group, Portage to Granite Creek area D-5 1971 Gold Pan/Turnagain East Group, Portage to Granite Creek area D-5 1975 Dave’s Creek Path/Turnagain East Group, Portage to Granite Creek area D-6 1971 Dave's Creek Path/Turnagain East Group, Portage to Granite Creek area D-6 1975 Bertha/Turnagain East Group, Portage to Granite Creek area D-8 1971 Bertha/Turnagain East Group, Portage to Granite Creek area D-8 1975 Fresno Group, Hope Cutoff to Quartz Creek area F-1 to F-4 February 2000 Lower Summit No. 1, Hope Cutoff to Quartz Creek area F-5 February 2000 Summit Lake S.P. No. 7/Summit Group, Hope Cutoff to Quartz Creek area F-8 January 1980 Summit Lake S.P. No. 6/Summit Group, Hope Cutoff to Quartz Creek area F-9 January 1980 Summit Lake S.P. No. 6/Summit Group, Hope Cutoff to Quartz Creek area F-9 1988 Summit Lake S.P. No. 5/Summit Group, Hope Cutoff to Quartz Creek area F-10 May 1988 Summit Lake S.P. No. 5/Summit Group, Hope Cutoff to Quartz Creek area F-10 January 1980 Summit Lake S.P. No. 4/Summit Group, Hope Cutoff to Quartz Creek area F-11 January 1980 Summit Lake S.P. Nos. 2 and 3/Summit Group, Hope Cutoff to Quartz Creek F-12 January 1980 area “37-Mile”/Avalanche Acres Group, Dave’s Creek to Moose Pass G-4 January 1980 Source: Alaska Mountain Safety Center (1991); Chugach Electric Association (2000) Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-14 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 AVALANCHE HAZARD AREAS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 2-4 NolL TRN Legend Be Avalanche Hazard Areas NUL TION CHICKALOPN BAY | NOLL plain Cook State Rec. Area NSL TON NOL TaN Source Data: Municipality of Anchorage (1994). ‘Chugach National Forest (1995). Kenai Peninsula Borough (1994). USGS 1:63,360 and 1:25,000 Quads. Nol OP/AYOL The Summit Lake Group of avalanche paths would be crossed by any new transmission line constructed along the existing Quartz Creek Route (both the Sixmile or the Portage routes). A review of Summit Lake avalanche activity over the last few years illustrates that avalanche activity can be high, regardless of whether or not damage to the transmission line actually occurs. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT/PF) regularly closes the highway at Summit Lake and shoots potential avalanches to reduce the risk of a destructive avalanche. Avalanche magnitudes are estimated by ADOT/PF. Table 2-4 tabulates the number of avalanches that ran greater than 50 percent of the path, and represents the number of avalanches that had the potential to or did cause damage to the line. Data for the years following 1997 is not yet available. However, there has been a lot of avalanche activity at the Summit Lake Group. For example, in 2000 major avalanches crossed both the transmission line route and the Seward Highway in four locations. TABLE 2-4 SUMMIT LAKE GROUP AVALANCHES INVOLVING 50 PERCENT OR MORE OF THE PATH Number of Transmission Line Year Avalanches Damaged 1986 4 1987 0 Transmission line hit and be 7 damaged three times 1989 6 1990 16 Transmission line hit 1991 7. 1992 3 Transmission line avalanche ie 2 deflector hit 1994 9 1995 4 1996 2 1997 3 Average per year 5.9 Source: Alaska Department of Transportation (1998) The Alaska Mountain Safety Center studies of the existing Quartz Creek transmission line produced recommendations that resulted in the construction of upgrades to the existing structures along the line to mitigate the potential damage to the lines from avalanches. The line was reconstructed in three of the highest hazard areas (paths which pose the greatest frequency of destructive threat) including Bird Flats (1.6 miles - 1988), Peterson Creek (1.2 miles - 1989), and Summit Lake (1.0 mile - 1991). Where possible, structures were relocated and structure height was increased to attempt to mitigate damage from avalanches. At Bird Flat, one angle structure remains directly in the avalanche path, because there is no alternative location for the structure. The line remains routed along the Seward Highway with virtually no alternative locations available. At Peterson Creek, structures were relocated away from known avalanche paths and breakaway links were installed at conductor attachment points in locations where exposure to avalanches could not be avoided. At Summit Lake, structures were replaced with higher steel structures, and wooden deflectors were installed at structures located in known avalanche paths. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-16 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 It is hoped that these reconstructed sections will reduce the damage to the line from avalanche blasts when they occur; however, the reconstructed sections are not capable of withstanding all avalanche blasts. While most of the remaining hazards along the line are rated as moderate, the only difference between high hazard and moderate hazard is one of frequency. Avalanches in areas rated as a moderate hazard can cause just as much damage to the line as those occurring in areas rated as a high hazard (Alaska Mountain Safety Center, Inc. 1991). Avalanche Mitigation As part of the alternative screening process, several options for construction of a new line parallel to the existing Quartz Creek transmission line were evaluated to address these issues. However, there are numerous avalanche paths along the existing line route that also would exist along any parallel route. An alternative to paralleling the existing route around the end of Turnagain Arm and through Turnagain Pass (Portage) would be to cross the Turnagain Arm from the Indian area to Sixmile Creek with submarine cable, and then follow the existing distribution line right-of-way south to Hope Junction (Sixmile). The Sixmile Route avoids 11 avalanche hazard areas located along the existing line route between Indian and Hope Junction. However, the Sixmile route does cross one additional avalanche hazard area in the Sixmile Creek area. The Summit Lake avalanche area crossed by the Quartz Creek Route is about 8 miles long. As noted above, upgrades to the structures over a |-mile section of this area were completed in 1991. As part of the design process for this upgrade, the velocity and density of the various layers of a typical avalanche (snow, snow debris, airborne snow, and air blast) were estimated to define the expected loading on the wire and at different heights along the structures. Steel pole structures were designed for the estimated loads. Because structures could not be located between avalanche paths, wooden deflectors were installed around the new steel poles to redirect the avalanche. The deflectors are built with traditional transmission line material consisting primarily of wooden poles and crossarms. Summit Lake avalanches can be very large and design of the deflectors was based on the “normal” avalanche’. The design of the deflectors is based on a “head-on” avalanche, so they face uphill. Some of the avalanche paths along Summit Lake are quite long and an avalanche can easily turn during its trip to the bottom. The effectiveness of the deflectors has not been truly tested, as no large avalanches have struck the line since they were installed. Other design approaches to mitigate avalanche damage have been constructed. For example, large avalanches at Peterson Creek can extend well into Turnagain Arm, and there are no reasonable structure locations that are not vulnerable. In 1989, new dead-end structures were installed at the edges of the “normal” avalanche runs. These dead ends are intended to break away during an avalanche to limit the line damage to the avalanche path only. This is an unproven concept as the dynamic forces of avalanches even in their historical paths are difficult to estimate. The dead ends may or may not contain the damage. Also, an avalanche that is larger than “normal” could overrun the dead ends. > Design parameters were based on “Avalanche Stagnation — Pressure Calculations, Chugach Electric Association Summit Lake Transmission Line,” prepared for Dryden & LaRue, Inc. by Arthur I. Mears, PE, Inc., July 1989. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-17 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 Another design approach would be to build the line strong enough to withstand the forces generated by an avalanche. While not in the immediate Project area, in Thompson Pass north of Valdez this concept was tested with a large avalanche in 1988. The “School Bus Avalanche” swept away a 10,000-pound steel X-tower and carried it 500 feet. The avalanche was estimated to be traveling 113 miles per hour with a mass of 44 to 88 million pounds when it hit the structure. A very strong, 73,000-pound tensile strength conductor was used in this line segment over the avalanche area. Once the first tower was knocked down, the strong conductor proceeded to damage six additional structures. The attempt to build structures stronger than the avalanche did not work and is seldom appropriate for large avalanches (Mears and Fesler 1989). Another method to mitigate damage to the line and reduce the number of outages due to avalanches would be to underground the line across avalanche paths. Below are advantages and disadvantages to undergrounding the line across the avalanche paths. Advantages: 1. Buried cable will normally not be affected by avalanches that run on the snow. Disadvantages: 1. Typical colluvial soils in avalanche run-out areas may not be consolidated and can be subject to slope stability problems. nN Incised creeks will be very difficult, if not infeasible, to bury cable across due to the exposed bedrock and steep side slopes. 3. If damage does occur to a buried line, it is much more difficult to locate the problem than for an overhead line. 4. If damage does occur to a buried line, it is much more difficult to repair than for an overhead line. 5. If the damage occurs early in the winter, the underground line could be out of service for up to six months until the following spring, due to the difficulty and safety hazards associated with accessing a buried facility in an avalanche area covered with snow and frozen soil. The addition of a spare cable would not be of value because the close proximity of the cables in an underground installation would make it likely that the forces causing the failure would impact all cables. 6. Inventory costs for maintenance materials are much higher for an underground line than an overhead line. 7. Late spring avalanches can excavate soils at lower elevations and possibly dig up the cable. This has occurred in the past with a pipeline in the Bird Flats area. 8. Long underground runs would require pull boxes, located partially above ground, which would be exposed to any ground surface events. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-18 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 The possibility of a damaging event to the underground facility increases with the length of exposure across avalanche paths, and the number of paths crossed. The Sixmile Route would cross a total of seven avalanche paths with underground cable, while the Portage Route would cross a total of 18 avalanche paths with underground cable. Based on historical data, a destructive avalanche can be expected to occur an average of about every five years. Placing the line underground should increase the interval between damaging events, but will not eliminate damaging events. For the Sixmile Route, damage could occur to one of the seven underground segments an average of every 15 years. The Portage Route nearly triples the number of avalanche paths crossed, exposing the underground lines to some of the most destructive avalanche paths on the Quartz Creek Route. The average frequency of a damaging event would increase to once every five to six years to one of the 18 underground segments. Each occurrence of damage to the underground cables due to avalanche could result in an outage of the line for up to six months. The long outage duration from avalanche is due to lack of site access, remote location, and the facility covered with snow and frozen soil. Repairs to pull boxes/buried cable in avalanche paths are impractical and dangerous during the winter and so the circuit would remain out of service until the spring or summer for repairs. A six-month outage duration to the line for repairs to the underground facility is unacceptable from a system operations viewpoint. While for comparison purposes installation of such a facility was considered, it would be imprudent to do so. It would be preferable from an operating standpoint and less costly overall to construct an overhead line along the Quartz Creek Route, and fix it when damage from avalanches occur. Sixmile Creek to Anchorage-Submarine This alternative was presented as an option to utilize the existing Quartz Creek transmission line corridor, minimize avalanche exposure, and avoid Chugach State Park. The distance involved to reach the closest Anchorage submarine landing point from Sixmile Creek would be approximately 18 to 20 miles. This would increase costs of the project substantially, adding to the reasons for elimination of the Quartz Creek Route. Restore or Remove Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Site Public and agency comments questioned the relationship of the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric facility to the Project. A major overhaul and upgrade to the power plant was completed in March 2001. There are no improvements planned for the transmission line between the power plant and the Quartz Creek Substation. The additional power output of about 2 MW will have no discernible impact on the existing transmission system or this Project. Additional changes to the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric facility are not planned as a result of this Project, nor is the Project required for the changes that have occurred at Cooper Lake. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-19 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 Tesoro Pipeline Corridor In 1975 the Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Company completed construction of a 70-mile-long, 10- inch-diameter pipeline across the northern end of the Kenai Peninsula and under Cook Inlet to the Port of Anchorage. This existing corridor is one of the possible routing alternatives considered for this project. The primary routing opportunity for the Tesoro Route between the Bernice Lake Substation and Captain Cook SRA is along the North Kenai Road. Other alternatives studied included a route parallel to the Tesoro pipeline that would avoid a roadside route, and a new overland route that would be located within the KNWR that would avoid the Captain Cook SRA. As described below, these alternatives would result in significant impacts that could be mitigated by utilizing the Kenai Road route. Route options that were studied and eliminated along the Tesoro pipeline corridor are shown on Figure 2-3, and are discussed below. Tesoro Pipeline to Captain Cook SRA This alternative route parallels the Tesoro pipeline from Nikiski to Captain Cook SRA. This corridor already contains approximately four underground pipelines, buried telecommunication cable, and overhead distribution lines, which would present potential construction and right-of- way conflicts. Potentially significant impacts on viewers from concentrated residential development, property conflicts, and aviation safety led to the recommendation that this alternative be eliminated from further consideration. Captain Cook SRA Avoidance Route This alternative does not parallel any existing linear features as it bypasses the Captain Cook SRA by crossing into the KNWR. 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 (KNWR 1985a). The USFWS 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 on trumpeter swan nesting sites, and right-of-way limitations throughout the KNWR resulted in elimination of this alternative from further consideration. " Ww o Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicants Proposal September 2001 Pt. Possession Village to Fire Island 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 Pt. Possession Group. As a result of potentially significant cultural resource impacts, this route was eliminated from further study. Tesoro Anchorage - Alternative Routes = Pt. Possession to Enstar with overhead line through the KNWR = Pt. Possession to Enstar using submarine cable = Pt. Possession to Enstar following the beach and coastline These three alternative routes were proposed to avoid the extreme marine environment located north of Pt. Possession by traversing east through the KNWR or Chickaloon Flats. However, the overhead line alternative through the KNWR would cross through approximately 5 miles of the Kenai Lowland Wilderness Unit requiring an act of Congress to approve the route. It also would cross 12 miles of lands designated Minimal Management, which are areas recommended for future wilderness designation and are currently managed to maintain pristine conditions according to the KNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan of 1985. Trenching the submarine cable across the mudflats would alter the hydrologic properties of stream channels in the Chickaloon Bay estuary, a major breeding ground for waterfowl and spawning habitat for anadromous fish (a directional bore in this area is not feasible due to the length of the crossing of Chickaloon Bay from west to east). This same route would also cross 3 miles of the Pt. Possession Group Native allotment and involve Section 22(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA - see Section 4.6). Overall it would increase the length of the Tesoro Route by approximately 20 miles. As a result of no existing linear features to follow in this part of the refuge, additional regulatory approvals, increased cost, and degree of reasonableness, this alternative route was eliminated from further consideration. The two other route options suggest locating the submarine cable in the Chickaloon Flats tidal areas or adjacent to the coastline in order to reach the Enstar Route, or at least avoid the extreme marine environment north of Pt. Possession. The increased distance for submarine cable, 24 to 28 miles, along with construction practicality in this area, severely constrains this option. Increased exposure to ice scour, tidal fluctuations, and boulder fields also constrain the feasibility of construction and operation. As a result of environmental and regulatory issues, increased distance, increased cost, and construction practicality, these two options were eliminated from consideration. ns we w Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Submarine Crossings - Turnagain Arm Moose Point to Fire Island Following along the Moose Point Shoal This route was presented as an option to avoid the extreme marine environment north of Pt: Possession by following a shoal off the western coastline of the Peninsula from Moose Point to Fire Island. Increased distance of submarine cable (22 to 23 miles) and associated costs, boulder fields, and strong tidal currents all contributed to this route being eliminated from consideration. Turnagain Arm Causeway This alternative suggests that the transmission line be attached to a causeway that would connect Pt. Possession to Anchorage. This alternative would avoid a submarine cable crossing of the Turnagain Arm and minimize any problems associated with submarine cable. At this time, the proposed causeway is a conceptual plan that has been in existence since the mid-1970s. There is no funding associated with the proposed causeway and no alignments or designs delineated. Based on these factors this alternative route was eliminated from further consideration. Pt. Possession to Klatt Road Landing A submarine crossing to the Klatt Road landing in Anchorage was eliminated because the distance was not considered economical. Fire Island to Pt. Campbell The submarine crossing between Fire Island and Pt. Campbell was eliminated because of the availability of the crossing from Fire Island directly to the Pt. Woronzof Substation. Impacts to Kincaid Park in Anchorage would be avoided by routing directly to the Pt. Woronzof. Enstar Pipeline Corridor The primary routing opportunities for the Enstar Route out of the Soldotna Substation include a 69kV line that proceeds through the Funny River area south of the Kenai River, and a 115kV line that traverses the KNWR boundary north of the Sterling area. Both of these options join together in the proposed Naptowne Substation siting area with the existing Enstar pipeline corridor. This corridor contains two Enstar natural gas pipelines that traverse the KNWR in a 50-foot-wide right-of-way from the Soldotna area north to Chickaloon Bay. This route would parallel the pipeline and its associated access trail for 38.3 miles. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-22 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 Route options that were studied and eliminated along the Enstar pipeline corridor are shown on Figure 2-3, and are discussed below. Bury Line through KNWR Undergrounding the transmission line for the entire length through the KNWR has been suggested as a way to minimize visual and environmental impacts. The relative cost of underground is about four to five times more expensive than the cost to construct an overhead line. Unlike an overhead transmission line, an underground transmission line requires reactive compensation at the ends of the underground line segment and at intermediate stations. At least three reactor stations would be required along the 38.3-mile route length through the KNWR. Reactor stations would appear similar to a typical substation, with the equipment contained in an aboveground fenced and graveled area. Access to the reactor station would be required for periodic equipment maintenance. Concrete vaults for splicing the cable would be required at about 2,000-foot intervals throughout the route, depending on the terrain. Placing the line underground through the KNWR would add about $70 million to the cost of the Project and would make the Project financially infeasible. Burnt Island to Pt. Campbell A submarine crossing to Pt. Campbell in Anchorage was eliminated because the distance was not considered economical. Burnt Island to Potter Along Enstar Pipeline A submarine crossing to Potter was eliminated because of routing conflicts along the Seward Highway and Alaska Railroad (see below). Anchorage Area Routes Routes that were eliminated in the Anchorage area are discussed below. Potter to Rabbit Creek Interchange 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 endpoints. 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. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-23 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Right-of-way limitations are encountered when paralleling the roads or the railroad as a result of engineering constraints. New Seward Highway This alternative would parallel the New Seward Highway from Rabbit Creek Interchange to International Airport Road. Siting constraints were identified by ADOT/PF, 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 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 as constraints for 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. Underground Line Alternatives Underground transmission has been proposed only where required by regulations (for example, through Captain Cook SRA and/or to avoid hazards that would be associated with an overhead line (near an airport). The reason for this is that the cost of underground transmission is four to five times the cost of an overhead line. Operational problems are greater and the duration of outages is normally longer. This is because when an outage to an underground line occurs, determining the cause and location of the damage, the replacement parts needed to repair the line and actually repairing the line takes much more time than for an overhead line. Repairs to an underground line are more expensive to fix as well. In addition, if an underground line is damaged during the winter, the presence of snow and frozen soil will increase the length of time required and degree of difficulty to repair the facility. Operationally, overhead lines are preferred. Alternative Voltage The appropriate operating voltage for a second transmission line interconnection between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage has been studied on several occasions (AEA 1991; Power Engineers 1996a). Operating voltages of 138kV and 230kV were studied, because both of these voltage levels are used in the Alaska interconnected system. Each of the studies that considered the two voltage levels reached the same conclusions. Both the 138kV and 230kV alternatives exhibited similar performance for the expected steady state power transfers and system disturbance analyses. The additional power transfer capability offered by Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-24 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 230kV is not required for the power transfer levels projected during the life of the Project, based on the current projections of load growth and generation additions. The only advantage exhibited by a 230kV voltage level was slightly reduced transmission line losses. The 230kV alternative has the disadvantage of requiring larger and more expensive equipment than the 138kV alternative. The substantially higher cost of the 230kV facilities (Power Engineers 1996a) makes the 230kV operating voltage alternative uneconomical, when compared to the 138kV. Therefore, an operating voltage of 138kV is proposed for the Project and an alternate voltage level was eliminated from further study. 2.3 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN DETAIL Three alternatives were carried forward and studied in detail: the no-action alternative; the Applicant’s proposal of constructing a new transmission line between Soldotna and Anchorage along the Enstar pipeline route; and the alternative of constructing a new transmission line between Nikiski and Anchorage along the Tesoro pipeline route. The following steps were used to develop the Enstar and Tesoro routes that were retained for detailed study: 1. Individual segments or “links” were established along the routes. Route options were organized by groups of links and were assigned letters. These route options and link codes can be found on the General Reference Map (Volume II, Maps). N The route option codes were assigned to three geographic regions (Kenai Lowlands, Turnagain Arm, and Anchorage area) and assigned letters. These lettered link combinations or route options can be combined to form entire alternative routes. Table 2-5 provides a list of each alternative route within the three regions. Figures 2-5 and 2-6 illustrate the alternative route options and highlight the Applicant’s proposed route. A schematic diagram that illustrates how each alternative route was developed from the lettered link combinations or route options is presented in Figure 2-7. Therefore, the analysis that is presented in Chapter 3 and summarized in this section will focus on the following routing options. Routing across the Kenai Lowlands will consist of Tesoro Option A and Enstar Options E-North, E-South, and F. The Turnagain Arm crossings will consist of Tesoro Options B, C, and D and Enstar Options H, I, and G. The Anchorage area routes will consist of Tesoro Option N and Enstar Options J, K, and M. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-25 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Ten | mate = wey 4 Substation _ lense ae BAe. Bemice Lake } Intemational PL Woronzof, | Substation ALTERNATIVES STUDIED IN DETAIL SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 2-5 % > | Naptown Substation Siting Area « = ‘te (* Applicant’s Proposed Route Enstar Route Options Tesoro Route Options Kenai National Wildlife Refuge EE [wae [aon |_| Chugach State Park (8) Chugach National Forest — ___ Private, Borough, or State Selected Lands Base Map Sources: Municipality of Anchorage (1994). Chugach National Forest (1995). Kenai Peninsula Borough (1994). USGS 1:63,360 and 1:25,000 Quads. Contour Interval: 200 Feet Contour Labeling in Feet omnwr Pt. Woronzof Substation — Ss ete _yattt Substation (~~ Ve SS ete RT Inte n ational ~~~ ANCHORAGE AREA ALTERNATIVE ROUTES CT | SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJE | FIGURE 2-6 — . | oe at Legend | othr" Mmm = Applicant’s Proposed Route : (Enstar Route) i x Mmmm Anchorage Area Route if Options I a ae Pt — | i “ : : y “e dampbell | Route Option Links ae | Ke J Al, A3, A2, A4, AS | Ve. | kK AG, AT, A8, AD, A10 MS M All, Al3, Al4, AIS, A16 a N TIS | | | | anne F oi | Potter | 1 ‘ J | be P | | -—l | Fr | =| | Tangerra \ | { Lake | | \ 7%, | 4 | \ KA | 4 5 YN Gq | \ re | ¢ ' N CHICKALOON BAY SN : ! ‘ . NO] Base Map Sources: > hy NY Municipality of Anchorage (1994). et-~N fe ee . | Chugach National Forest (1995). < ~~ ~ i y | Kenai Peninsula Borough (1994). z ™, \| USGS 1:63,360 and 1:25,000 Quads. Mull | ~ ; : a a es ea L_ eee Alternative Kenai Peninsula Turnagain Arm Anchorage Anchorage Substation Routes Route Options Route Options Route Options Route Options Applicant’s Proposed Alternative Fee Tesoro Route Options Enstar Route Options ALTERNATIVE ROUTES AND SUBSTATION OPTIONS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 2-7 TABLE 2-5 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE SEGMENTS Tesoro Alternative ® Kenai Lowlands Region Route A - Bernice Lake to Pt. Possession (Links T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9) = Turnagain Arm Region Route B - Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof via Fire Island (Links T10, T11, 712, T13, T14) Route C - Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof submarine (Link T18) Route D - Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell (Links T16, T17) m Anchorage Area Route N - Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof (Link T18) Enstar Alternative = Kenai Lowlands Region Route E North - Northern Soldotna Alternative (Links El, E2, E3, E4) Route E South - Southern Soldotna alternative (Links E5, E6, E7) Route F - Enstar to Chickaloon Bay (Links E8, E9, E10) = = Turnagain Arm Region Route G - Chickaloon Bay to Klatt Road (Link E11) Route H - Chickaloon Bay to Oceanview Park (Link E12) Route I - Chickaloon Bay Rabbit Creek (Link E13) = Anchorage Area Alternatives Route J - Klatt Road to International Substation via Minnesota Drive (Links Al, A2, A3, A4, A5) Route K - Oceanview to International Substation via Alaska Railroad (Links A6, A7, A8, A9, A10) Route M - Rabbit Creek to International Substation via Old Seward Highway (Links All, Al3, Al4, AlS, Al6) Other Routing Options in the Anchorage Area (see Volume II, Appendix A for more information regarding these routes) Any of the routing options across Turnagain Arm or within the Anchorage area have the potential to be selected and ultimately approved for construction. However, in the Anchorage area, a comprehensive evaluation of every potential combination of routing options will include redundant information that can be confusing for the reader. Therefore, the primary route options have been discussed in detail in the text of this document. The four connecting links along with the potential routing combinations these links provide are identified and discussed in Volume II, Appendix A. 2.3.1 No-Action Alternative Implementation of the no-action alternative would mean that the Project would not be constructed and there would be no improvements to the system to address the current electrical system deficiencies. Additionally, the cost savings that would accrue from construction of the Project would continue to be part of the overall cost of producing electricity, and those continuing costs would be reflected in the rates for electricity paid by consumers. The no-action alternative would preclude construction of system improvements designed to increase the overall Railbelt electrical system reliability and transfer of energy capabilities between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The following system deficiencies would remain: Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-29 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 = Reliability of the overall Railbelt electrical system and the power supply to consumers on the Kenai Peninsula and in Anchorage would be diminished due to lack of a second path for the power during an interruption of the existing Quartz Creek 115kV line, and the requirement for load shedding in case of system disturbances would continue. = The electrical transfer capability of the transmission system between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage would remain at the current 70 MW and the existing generation resources would continue to be operated in a less than optimum manner. Reductions in operating costs, overall system requirements for spinning reserves, and improved electrical system stability performance would not be realized. = Access to power entitlements from the Bradley Lake hydroelectric generating station for the utilities north of the Kenai Peninsula would continue to be limited by the electrical system capability. The Bradley Lake generation would remain under-utilized, and the ability of the system to reduce operating costs through increased hydro-thermal coordination and provision of additional spinning reserves to the system north of the Kenai Peninsula would not be realized. = Transmission line losses and maintenance costs on the Quartz Creek transmission line would remain at the current levels, at a higher cost than if the Project were constructed. The no-action alternative would preclude the realization of the benefits from construction of the Project. The potential cost savings from the Project would remain as costs embedded in the rates for electricity. Cost savings would be unrealized in the areas of capacity sharing, economy energy transfer, reliability, spinning reserve sharing, reduced line maintenance costs, avoidance of minimum generation on the Kenai Peninsula, and avoidance of the practice of not loading the Quartz Creek transmission line during bad weather and construction. The no-action alternative does not address the problems that the Project has been proposed to solve. 2.3.2 Transmission Line Alternative Routes Enstar Route The Applicant’s proposal is to construct a 138kV transmission line and associated facilities between the Soldotna Substation on the Kenai Peninsula and International Substation in Anchorage (see Figures 2-5 and 2-6). The Applicant’s proposed route is the Enstar Route including Route Options E South, F, H, and K. This route begins with an overhead transmission line at the existing substation in Soldotna and replaces an existing 69kV line, running south and then east to the Enstar pipeline (Option E South). At this point the route parallels the Enstar pipeline north through the KNWR along Route Option F to Burnt Island on the east side of Chickaloon Bay (ANILCA application for approximately 38.3 miles on file with USFWS and Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-30 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 USACE). Submarine cables would be used to cross the Turnagain Arm to Oceanview Park on the southern end of Anchorage (Route Option H) and, from the landing point, underground cable would parallel the Alaska Railroad north to 120" Avenue (Route Option K). From there, an overhead line would continue to parallel the Alaska Railroad to the existing International Substation (Route Option K). The overall length of the proposed Enstar Route is 73.4 miles and estimated construction costs would be $90.2 million. This proposed route includes one alternative in the Soldotna area (E North) that travels north and east from the Soldotna Substation with estimated construction costs at $89.6 million. There are two alternative routing options across Turnagain Arm and in the Anchorage area, as shown on Figures 2-5 and 2-6, including Route Options I and M that follow Old Seward Highway and International Airport Road with construction costs estimated at $90.1 million, and Route Options G and J along Minnesota Drive with estimated construction costs at $90.1 million. These options assume the use of Soldotna South (Option E South). Tesoro Route The proposed alternative is to construct a 138kV transmission line and associated facilities between the Bernice Lake Substation on the Kenai Peninsula and the Pt. Woronzof Substation in Anchorage. The Tesoro alternative route includes Route Option A - Bernice Lake to Pt. Possession, in combination with any of three options that cross the Turnagain Arm and terminate at the Pt. Woronzof Substation. This route begins as an overhead transmission line at the existing Bernice Lake Substation near Nikiski (Route Option A), and parallels the North Kenai Road to the south end of Captain Cook SRA where the line would transition to underground cable. The underground cable would parallel the North Kenai Road through the Captain Cook SRA. Requirements of the LWCFA, where the Tesoro Route crosses Captain Cook SRA, are met by the underground location for the route. The line would transition back to overhead beyond the north end of the Captain Cook SRA and would parallel the Tesoro pipeline to Pt. Possession. The Tesoro Route crosses two areas of Native conveyed lands within the KNWR. One area is near Grey Cliff Lake (less than 1 mile) and one is at Pt. Possession (approximately | mile). The permitting and regulatory requirements of Section 22(g) of ANCSA would apply to the Tesoro Route where Native conveyed lands are crossed. An ANILCA application would be required if lands at Pt. Possession are reacquired by USFWS. At the time that lands were conveyed at Pt. Possession they were under wilderness designation within the KNWR. This portion of the route through the Pt. Possession area would be underground submarine cable extending inland from the landing point to the transition facility. At Pt. Possession, three options are available to cross the Turnagain Arm and terminate at the Pt. Woronzof Substation. Route Option D would cross the Turnagain Arm from Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell using submarine cables. From the Pt. Campbell landing, underground cable would continue to parallel the Tesoro pipeline through Kincaid Park and terminate at the Pt. Woronzof Substation (Route Option N). The total overall length of the Tesoro Alternative Route using this option is 62.0 miles, and estimated construction costs are $99.5 million. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-31 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 Other Tesoro Route options include alternative submarine crossings of the Turnagain Arm. Route Option B crosses Turnagain Arm via Fire Island to the Point Woronzof Substation. The total length of the Tesoro Alternative Route using Option B is 63.2 miles. Estimated construction costs for this alternative are $98.7 million; however, due to very undesirable marine conditions for submarine cables between Pt. Possession and Fire Island, and including high tidal currents and rocky scoured bottom conditions in the Cook Inlet, cable failures would likely be more frequent than for Route Options C or D. Route Option C crosses the Turnagain Arm directly from Pt. Possession to a landing at the Pt. Woronzof Substation with a total length of 61.3 miles. Estimated construction costs for this alternative would be $105.4 million. 2.4 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE FACILITIES As proposed, the following five separate types of facilities will be required for the project: overhead and underground transmission lines, submarine cable, transition stations, and substations. In Table 2-5 each alternative route is identified by segment and by link. Table 2-6 provides a description of the individual links including length, types of facilities that would be used, and existing rights-of-way conditions. Figure 2-8 illustrates typical overhead transmission line structures, while Figure 2-9 illustrates a typical substation. Figure 2-10 illustrates in profile the mix of facilities that would be used to respond to the technical, physical, and environmental constraints imposed by the Kenai Lowlands public and private land use and land management constraints, the Turnagain Arm submarine conditions, and the Anchorage urban setting. Route locations are shown on Figure MV-1 (Volume II), and Submarine Transition Sites are shown on Figures MV-1a and 1b (Volume II). 2.4.1 Overhead Transmission Lines In most areas, the proposed transmission line would be installed overhead. The overhead portion of the transmission line would be operated initially at 138kV, but may be designed with 230kV insulation and conductor spacing in the event that operation of the line at 230kV becomes desirable at some future date. In order to optimize the cost of construction, operation, and maintenance over the life of the Project, several types of structures were considered for the overhead portion of the transmission line. The four basic structure types that could be used are steel X-towers, wood H-frames, single- shaft steel poles, and single wood poles. Overhead Steel X-Towers On the Kenai Lowlands, steel X-towers are proposed along the Tesoro Route north of the Captain Cook SRA and on the Enstar Route within the KNWR paralleling the Enstar pipeline. The use of X-towers in these areas where right-of-way width is less constrained allows for fewer structures per mile with longer spans and overall lower construction costs. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-32 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 TABLE 2-6 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS Route Region/ Option Construction Alternative | Letter | Description of Link Miles Timing Route Code Links Number | Crossed Types of Facility Existing Conditions (Season) Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: 115kV and Structure type: single-shaft steel pole, 69kV a ue single circuit Adjacent land uses: industrial SUmied Access: paved road Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: roadway 12 0.3 Structure type: single-shaft steel pole, Adjacent land uses - industrial Summer ; single circuit Access: paved road Bernice Lake to ; ri : ; Captain Cook Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: roadway SRA - follows 6.6 Structure type: single-shaft steel pole, Adjacent land uses: commercial, Sumner 5 single circuit residential North Kenai Access: paved road Road 73) : Underground cable (two segments) Right-of-way use paralleled: roadway 0.9 Rediske and Johnson Airports Adjacent land uses: commercial, Sanne . Four riser poles residential, two airstrips Kenai Access: paved road Peninsula/ A Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: roadway Tesoro T4 4.7 Structure type: single-shaft steel pole, Adjacent land uses: residential Summer Alternative single circuit Access: paved road Through Underground cable through Captain Cook Right-of-way use paralleled: roadway Captain Cook TS 40 SRA and two pipelines Summer SRA - follows i: Transitions occur at either end of the Park Adjacent land uses: Captain Cook SRA | * | park road Two riser poles Access: paved road and FWD road Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: pipeline T6 3:0 Structure type: guyed X steel, heavy Adjacent land uses: residential Winter/Summer Gaptain Cook Access: FWD road Se Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: pipeline SRA EE Structure type: guyed X steel, h Adjacent land uses: residential and Possessions a 4 ructure type: guyed X steel, heavy : srs ant uses: residential and | 50. follows Tesoro se ipeline Access: FWD road P Underground/submarine cable Right-of-way use paralleled: pipeline T8 0.4 Adjacent land uses: private/state lands Winter/Summer Access: FWD trail Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 TABLE 2-6 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS Route Region/ Option Construction Alternative | Letter | Description of Link Miles Timing Route Code Links Number | Crossed Types of Facility — Existing Conditions (Season) Kenai Captain Cook - Underground/submarine cable = Right-of-way use paralleled: pipeline : SRA to Pt. - Adjacent land uses: KNWR Peninsula/ ; ; A Possession - T9 1.0 - Access: FWD overland Submarine Tesoro P follows Tesoro Alternative faoeh pipeline - Submarine cable Turnagain Arm - Right-of-way use paralleled: pipeline Fi . a uh - Adjacent land uses: ACWR Submarine Pt. Possession . D to Pt. Campbell - Access: water . - Submarine cable Turnagain Arm T16 3.8 - Right-of-way use paralleled: pipeline Submarine - Access: water - Overhead line segment - Right-of-way use paralleled: - Structure type: H-frame wood undeveloped Tumagain ue ail - Adjacent land uses: CIRI-VORTAC | Summer Arm and Fireisland= - Access: water Fire Island/ enerall - Overhead line segment - Right-of-way use paralleled: FWD road Tesoro 8 y T12 1.4 - Structure type: H-frame wood - Adjacent land uses: CIRI Summer follows road Route B - Access: FWD road - Submarine cable - Right-of-way use paralleled: FWD road T13 0.4 - Adjacent land uses: CIRI - airstrip Submarine - Access: FWD road Pt. Possession T1O 9.2 essubmarine cable - Turnagain arm Submarine via Fire Island > eeeccess! wate tOPtWoronzof T14 5.0 - Submarine cable - Turnagain Arm Submarine - Access: water c Pt. Possession Ts 172 - Submarine cable - Turnagain Arm Submarine to Pt. Woronzof - Access: water Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-34 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal TABLE 2-6 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS Route Region/ Option Construction Alternative | Letter | Description of Link Miles Timing Route Code Links Number | Crossed Types of Facility Existing Conditions (Season) Follows Tesoro - Underground cable Right-of-way use paralleled: pipeline Anchorage pipeline and Future airport Sey clop ment Route future airport Adjacent land uses: airport é N development TI8 4.2 Access: existing and trail Summer Options/ Tosa between Pt. Campbell and Pt. Woronzof Parallels a - Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: two 7 corridor with - Structure type: single pole wood, single 115kV and 69kV Kenai A ae . 7 , P multiple circuit Adjacent land uses: residential Peninsula/ aes Bae transmission El rel Access: gravel road Summer ‘ lines north from Alternative Soldotna Substation - Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: two - Structure type: single-shaft steel pole 115kV Parallels a Ee oa double circuit Adjacent land uses: residential Sumner 11SkV Access: gravel road E-North | transmission - Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: two line north of - Structure type: H-frame wood L15kV, 69kV, and distribution pipeline Soldotna E3 19.4 Adjacent land uses: residential, airstrip | Summer Access: undeveloped FWD road, KNWR Parallels Enstar - Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: two pipeline across - Structure type: guyed X steel pipelines KNWR Adjacent land uses: undeveloped E4 0.7 Access: FWD road Summer Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-35 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 TABLE 2-6 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS Route Region/ Option Construction Alternative | Letter | Description of Link Miles Timing Route Code Links Number | Crossed Types of Facility Existing Conditions (Season) Generally Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: 115kV parallels a E6 1.0 Structure type: H-frame wood Adjacent land uses: residential Summer E-South 1 ISkV ; ACCES gravel road transmission Ovethen’ linescement Right-of-way use paralleled: none line northwest E7 0.3 ee Adjacent land uses: undeveloped Summer ehSoldotna Structure type: H-frame wood ‘Access: FWD road Replacement of Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: two 69kV Structure types: single pole wood (16.1 LISKV, 69kV E-South | transmission E5 17.7 miles), single circuit, with 12.5kV Adjacent land uses: residential and Winter/Summer line south of underbuild (except for Kenai River Bing's Landing State Recreation Site Soldotna crossing on H-frame) Access: gravel road and FWD road Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: two Structure type: guyed X steel pipelines E8& 33:1 Adjacent land uses: moderate and Winter minimal management Access: FWD road/trail Kenai Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: two Peninsula/ Structure type: single pole wood, single pipelines Enstar E9 3.6 circuit (single wood pole modified for Adjacent land uses: moderate Winter Alternative Parallels Enstar shorter pole heights-spans to reduce management FE pipeline across clearing and for bird/raptor protection) Access: FWD trail KNWR Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: two Structure Type: single pole wood, single pipelines circuit (single wood pole modified for Adjacent land uses: moderate shorter pole heights-spans to reduce management E10 1.8 clearing and for bird/raptor protection) Access: FWD trail Winter Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-36 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal Sentembher 2001 TABLE 2-6 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS Route Region/ Option Construction Alternative | Letter | Description of Link Miles Timing Route Code Links Number | Crossed Types of Facility _ Existing Conditions (Season) Submarine - - Submarine cable Right-of-way use paralleled: none G Chickaloon Bay Ell 11.2 Adjacent land uses: ACWR Submarine Turnasnd to Klatt Road Access: water aoe Submarine - - Submarine cable Right-of-way use paralleled: none Arm Route : A F Chickaloon Bay Adjacent land uses: ACWR 5 Options/ H A E12 10.5 Submarine to Oceanview Access: water Enstar Park Submarine - - Submarine cable Right-of-way use paralleled: pipeline I Chickaloon Bay E13 9.0 Adjacent land uses: ACWR Submarine to Rabbit Creek Access: water - Overhead line segments Right-of-way use paralleled: roadway, - Structure type: single-shaft steel pole, 138kV, and three distribution lines Anchorage . i. : 5 : A single circuit (2.8 miles) Adjacent land uses: residential, open Route AS 33 ; : 3 Summer Options - Structure type: single-shaft steel pole, space, and industrial P single circuit with 12.5kV underbuild (0.5 Access: gravel road mile) - Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: roadway A4 0.3 - Structure type: single-shaft steel pole, Adjacent land uses: undeveloped Summer Klatt Road to single circuit Access: paved road International - Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: roadway J Substation via A3 0.5 - Structure type: single-shaft steel pole, Adjacent land uses: undeveloped Summer Minnesota single circuit Access: paved road/none Drive - Submarine cable Right-of-way use paralleled: roadway A2 0.7 Adjacent land uses: Klatt Road Submarine Access: paved road - Submarine cable Right-of-way use paralleled: roadway Submarine Adjacent land uses: Victor Road Al 03 Access: paved road Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-37 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 TABLE 2-6 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS Route Region/ Option Construction Alternative | Letter | Description of Link Miles Timing Route Code Links Number | Crossed Types of Facility Existing Conditions (Season) Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: railroad A8 1.5 Structure type: single-shaft steel pole, Adjacent land uses: industrial Summer ; single circuit Access: gravel railroad bed Oceanview to qi ni eae rmeretional Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: railroad K Seistationteial A9 1.8 Structure type: single-shaft steel pole, Adjacent land uses: industrial Summer Alaska Railroad single circuit Access: gravel railroad bed Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: railroad AlO 0.5 Structure type: single-shaft steel pole, Adjacent land uses: industrial Summer single circuit with 12.5kV underbuild Access: gravel railroad bed Submarine cable as mitigation Right-of-way use paralleled: railroad Anchorage ; 7 ‘ i Adjacent land uses: residential, Flying 7 Route 0.4 a Submarine ‘i Crown airstrip Options , 5 Access: railroad Oceanview to A6 : - : Right-of-way use paralleled: railroad K International Adj And - residential, Flyi Substation via 0.5 Underground cable as mitigation Jacent land uses: residential, YNS | summer : Crown airstrip Alaska Railroad . Access: railroad Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: railroad AT 0.7 Structure type: single-shaft steel pole, Adjacent land uses: residential Summer single circuit Access: gravel railroad bed Rabbit Creek to Underground segment Right-of-way use paralleled: railroad M International 0.3 Adjacent land uses: ACWR Submarine Substation via Access: railroad right-of-way Old Seward Undergound cable as mitigation Right-of-way use paralleled: railroad Highway All 0.7 Adjacent land uses: shooting range Summer Access: railroad right-of-way Overhead line segment Right-of-way paralleled: roadway 1.9 Adjacent land use: residential Summer Access: paved road Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-38 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal Se; ‘er 2001 TABLE 2-6 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS Route Region/ Option Construction Alternative | Letter | Description of Link Miles Timing Route Code Links Number | Crossed Types of Facility Existing Conditions (Season) - Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: roadway Structure type: single-shaft steel pole, Adjacent land uses: residential als we single circuit with 34 5KV and 12.5kV Access: paved road Summer underbuild - Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: roadway ' - Structure type: single-shaft steel pole, Adjacent land uses: mixed use al’ i single circuit with 34.5kV and 12.5kV Access: paved road Summer underbuild - Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: roadway - Structure type: single-shaft steel pole, Adjacent land uses: mixed use aS Is single circuit with 34.5kV and 12 kV ihe eae paved road Summer underbuild Rabbit Creek to - Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled: roadway, Anchorage International - Structure type: single-shaft steel pole, 138kV, and two distribution lines Route M Substation via Al6 2.3 single circuit with 12.5kV underbuild Adjacent land uses: commercial and | Summer Options Old Seward residential Highway Access: paved road Notes: CIRI - Cook Inlet Regional, Inc. FWD - four-wheel drive Construction Timing (Seasons): Summer = April to October Winter = November to March KNWR - Kenai National Wildlife Refuge VORTAC — VHF Omnidirectional Range Tacan Submarine = May to August (May to June preferred) Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-39 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 This structure has normally been constructed of weathering steel to reduce maintenance costs and provide a nonreflective finish. It carries a single three-phase circuit with the conductors suspended by insulators from a crossarm in a horizontal configuration. At points where the line would angle or dead end, a single-guyed tubular-steel tower for each conductor would be used. X-towers can be constructed of tubular-steel members or lattice aluminum or steel angles. The X-tower has two legs and two sets of guy wires. The legs would be supported on pile foundations. The foundations usually would consist of one driven or a drilled pile. The anchors may be piles of the same size as the foundations, or they may be screw anchors or grouted anchors. The typical structure is 90 feet tall. Overhead Wood H-Frames On the Kenai Lowlands, wood H-frame structures would be used when paralleling existing H-frame lines north of Soldotna Substation to match existing line construction and for rebuilding existing lines. H-frames are constructed of two vertical wood poles with two horizontal wood crossarms and braces. The poles are normally placed in augured holes with either native or imported backfill. The typical structure is 90 feet tall. Overhead Single-Shaft Steel Poles On the Kenai Lowlands and in the Anchorage area, single-shaft steel pole structure types would be used along North Kenai Road north of Bernice Lake Substation and in south Anchorage, where right-of-way width is constrained and shorter span length is more appropriate. This type of structure is normally constructed of weathering, galvanized, or corten steel and is used in areas of restricted right-of-way and within existing road rights-of-way. This type of structure can be designed to carry either a single three-phase transmission circuit or with lower voltage circuits attached beneath the transmission circuit (underbuild). The conductors would be supported by either post or suspension insulators. Single-shaft steel poles are normally designed specifically for each line location. Mechanical loads and required clearances dictate pole heights and diameters. Typical structure heights would be approximately 75 feet. Foundations for single steel poles are dependent on the soil type and could be either a concrete pier or piling, or the pole could be directly embedded in the soil. Steel poles are self-supporting structures and would not require guys and anchors except at angle or terminal structures. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-40 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 H-Frame Single-Pole TYPICAL OVERHEAD — LINE STRUCTURES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 2-8 X-Frame na? TYPICAL SUBSTATION SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 2-9 TESORO ROUTE KENAI PENINSULA TURNAGAIN ANCHORAGE ARM TS wes Te | 3 = Ts TS Ts TS nS Ts | | j = PT. POSSESSION PT. CAMPBELL 5 OH UG on UG UG a os PT. WORONZOF BERNICE 4 AIRSTRIPS \ CAPTAIN TESORO “Shore-tail” en SUBSTATION LAKE —_— COOK SRA PIPELINE Embedded KINCAID PARK/ SUBSTATION SUBM D NORTH KENAI ROAD Cable AIREORT Non-embedded Embedded “Shore-tail” Cable Cable Embedded Cable ENSTAR ROUTE KENAI PENINSULA TURNAGAIN ANCHORAGE ARM Ss Ss ; TS ss SS ss ‘ CROSS. TS | + f BURNT ROAD TS i | } ISLAND OH OH Se UG TERN OH NAPTOWNE 2 > INTERNATIONAL SOLDOTNA ria ‘| ern mo Se rr on SUBSTATION SUBSTATION SUBSTATION ENSTAR PIPELINE reste bait? SUBM AIRSTRIP Embedded ALASKA RAILROAD Cable Embedded “Shore-tail” Cable Embedded Cable LEGEND-FACILITY TYPES Poe ENE REPRESENTATIVE ROUTE PROFILES UG - UNDERGROUND LINE SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT SUBM - SUBMARINE CABLE FIGURE 2-10 TS - TRANSITION STATION SS - SUBSTATION NOT TO SCALE Overhead Single Wood Pole On the Kenai Lowlands, single wood poles are proposed to be used north of the Soldotna Substation to match the existing wood pole transmission lines south of Bing’s Landing and near Chickaloon Bay on the Enstar Route. The single wood pole is appropriate in areas of minimum right-of-way and shorter spans. This type of structure blends with the environment and has a history of long service life. This type of structure can be designed to accommodate both transmission level and lower voltage distribution circuits on the same pole. Either post insulators or suspension insulators attached to crossarms can support the conductors. Angles and dead ends would be guyed. Single wood poles are normally directly embedded in the native soils. Mechanical loads and clearances determine the height and pole class required for each location. Typical structure heights would be 70 feet. In the area near Chickaloon Bay, short span lengths would be employed to minimize structure heights to approximately the height of the surrounding taller trees. Structure heights have been limited to mitigate concerns with right-of-way clearing and with bird collisions and raptor considerations. Overhead Conductor and Ground Wire An aluminum conductor steel reinforced 1.1-inch-diameter “Drake” conductor is proposed for the Project. The outside surface would weather with time and tend to become nonreflective. A fiber optic overhead ground wire (OPGW) is being considered to provide a communications path for system protection functions, as an alternative to a microwave communications system. If installed, the OPGW would be located in the shield wire position above the conductors for the X- Frame and H-Frame structures, and either below or above the conductors for the single pole structures, depending on structure type and configuration (see typical structure drawings in Volume II, Appendix B). A typical OPGW is composed of optical fibers contained within a steel reinforced cable of approximately 5/8-inch diameter. 2.4.2 Underground Transmission Lines In certain areas, the proposed transmission line would be installed underground, for relatively short distances, as mitigation to avoid potential impacts in sensitive areas (e.g., airspace and areas stipulated for underground utilities). Placing a 138kV transmission line underground is more expensive and complex than constructing the same line overhead. An underground transmission line requires a continuous trench along the entire length of the facility, which is similar to the installation of a buried pipeline. In addition, cable-splicing vaults are required approximately every 2,000 feet. An underground transmission line must be insulated along its entire length since it is buried and in contact with the ground. The insulation for the underground transmission conductors must be Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-44 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 specially designed to withstand the high voltage on the conductors contained within the cable. The high-voltage cable insulation also must be designed to dissipate the heat resulting from the flow of electricity through the conductors. For heat dissipation, the backfill materials used to fill the trench also must be designed to effectively draw the heat away from the cables and keep them cool, prolonging cable life. 2.4.3 Submarine Cable Turnagain Arm, between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage, would be crossed using a transmission cable specially designed for the marine environment. Submarine cable is designed to accommodate a wide range of marine floor conditions and varying seabed materials. Each alternative route crossing the Turnagain Arm involves a wide range of unique conditions resulting from significant tidal flow, marine bed material movement, strong currents, and ice scour. Cables will be armored, and embedded where feasible, to minimize or prevent damage to the cable from natural hazards in submarine and terrestrial environments. Submarine Cable Systems Submarine cables can be manufactured in various configurations depending on the voltage level and conductor size required for the application. For the security and reliability of power supply, a three-core cable system requires a second cable to be installed. A single-core cable system typically requires four cables for a three-phase circuit scheme, with the fourth cable being an on- line spare in the event of one of the operating phases being damaged. 2.4.4 Transition Stations Since three different types of transmission facilities are proposed for this Project (overhead, underground, and submarine), a series of transition stations would be necessary to convert the transmission line from one form to another. The following configurations are considered. Underground to Overhead Transitions For the transition from underground to overhead lines the first method is the use of a single riser pole termination structure that is fitted with arms to support underground cable terminations. The riser pole configuration design is based on a single shaft steel pole, typically sited along a roadway as one of the structures in a steel pole transmission line. The second method, used in areas where land is available for a fenced enclosure, is construction of a transition station that uses a single three-phase termination take off tower structure, H-frame, for the terminal components of both the underground and overhead lines. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-45 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 Underground to Submarine Transitions The first method of transitioning from underground cable to submarine cable is where the underground and submarine cable circuits enter a transition station and are terminated on an outdoor structure. A second option would have the submarine cables entering and terminating in an SF6 gas insulated substation. While more costly, gas insulated substations are used when the land available is insufficient to fit a normal air insulated substation on the parcel of land. Table 2-7 and Figure MV-1a (Volume II) identify transition site locations and the type of transition for each region of the Project. Submarine Cable Transition Stations Submarine cable transition sites would be located, typically, approximately 800 to 1,000 feet on shore where the submarine cable makes landfall for a transition to either an overhead or underground transmission line. The submarine cable transition sites vary in configuration, but all contain either outdoor or gas insulated structure terminations and their corresponding enclosures or structures. Both termination systems at each end of the submarine cable segment require dielectric fluid-feeding systems for the submarine cables and an automated control and monitoring unit. This includes pressurization equipment used for the self-contained fluid filled (SCFF) submarine cables. The dielectric fluid system is completely enclosed so no fumes or fluid would normally escape the supply system. In the unlikely event of a fluid leak, a fluid containment system, having sufficient capacity to retain the total volume of supply fluid at the site, would contain the leak. 2.4.5 Substations A number of factors are considered in the design of a substation. These factors include cost, available space, transmission line access, future expansion, operational requirements, maintenance, and reliability. Since reliability is a primary concern for the proposed intertie, two main types of substation arrangements have been selected—ring bus and breaker and a half. These two arrangements strike a reasonable balance between reliability and construction cost. The ring bus is applicable where the number of terminals would not exceed a maximum of four and would be used for additions to the Bernice Lake and Pt. Woronzof substations, and for the new Naptowne Substation. The breaker and a half would be used for applications where more than four terminals are expected and would be used for additions to the Soldotna and International substations. Typical equipment to be installed at substation sites includes high-voltage circuit breakers, transformers, reactors (which have a similar visual appearance as transformers), steel structures to support electrical bus work and switches, control building, and a tower to support communication antennas. Table 2-8 identifies the proposed substation arrangements and corresponding layout drawings for this Project. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-46 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Reactive Compensation Sites Reactive compensation involves installation of specialized equipment in a substation to provide voltage support for the system or to increase power flow across a transmission line segment. Reactive compensation is proposed for additions to the International, Pt. Woronzof, and the new Naptowne substations. The transition site at the Pt. Possession south site also would incorporate reactive compensation. Substation Modifications Two existing substations that are integral parts of the electric power system in the nearby geographic area are the Dave’s Creek and the Bradley Lake substations. Dave’s Creek Substation is located in the Chugach Mountains on the Kenai Peninsula. Electrical reinforcement of the existing line at the Dave’s Creek Substation would consist of adding additional reactive compensation equipment to the existing substation. The Bradley Lake Substation is located at the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Plant on the south end of the Kenai Peninsula. Equipment will be added to the existing state of Alaska-owned microwave sites between Soldotna and Bradley Lake. Equipment to be added at the existing substation would consist of microwave transmit and receive gear along with tone gear to signal and detect transfer trip signals from the remote stations. The equipment would be installed within the existing control buildings at the substation and at the microwave sites between Bradley Lake and Soldotna, and are essentially an equipment replacement to the existing microwave system. 2.4.6 Communications for Relaying and Control Communications for relaying and control for the Project would utilize the existing microwave system. It is anticipated that any additional equipment required would be housed within the existing control building at the substation. For any new substations, such as the Naptowne Substation, communications equipment would be contained within the control building at the site, except for the microwave antenna, which would be mounted on a mast outside the control building within the substation fenced area, the same as at existing substations. An alternative to using the existing microwave system would be to use the fiber optic cable being considered for installation on the transmission line. The required equipment would be housed within the control building at the substation. One advantage to the fiber optic cable is the band width available for communications over the fiber. In addition to providing communication and control for the Project, the fiber optic cable could also be designed to have the capacity for other uses, such as for telecommunications. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-47 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Cable Transition Type and Drawing Reference Submarine Cable Reactor Terminal Overhead/ Submarine/ | Submarine/ Secondary Power Transition Sites Required Required _| Solid Dielectric! Overhead _| Solid Dielectric| Transition Site Type Footprint Size Enclosure Link Numbers Requirement Tesoro Corridor Kenai Lowlands Rediske Airport-1 TS-0S Riser pole 3.1 meters (10 feet) diameter None T3 None Rediske Airport-2 TS-05 Riser pole 3.1 meters (10 feet) diameter None T3 None Johnson Airport-1 TS-05 Riser pole 3.1 meters (10 feet) diameter None 2 None Johnson Airport-2 TS-0S Riser pole 3.1 meters (10 feet) diameter None 1 None South End Captain Cook SRA TS-05 Riser pole 3.1 meters (10 feet) diameter None TS None North End Captain Cook SRA TS-05 Riser pole 3.1 meters (10 feet) diameter None TS None Pt. Possession South x/RC-01 TS-03 Outdoor substation 61.0 x 30.5 meters (200 x 100 feet) Fence T8 Yes Turnagain Arm Fire Island South x TS-03 Outdoor substation 39.6 x 30.5 meters (130 x 100 feet) Fence Till Yes Fire Island North x TS-03 Outdoor substation 39.6 x 30.5 meters (130 x 100 feet) Fence T13 Yes Anchorage Bowl Pt. Woronzof submarine x x SS-17 Outdoor substation Existing Fence T14 and TIS Yes Pt. Campbell x TS-04 Outdoor substation 39.6 x 30.5 meters (130 x 100 feet) Fence T18 Yes Pt. Woronzof via Pt. Campbell ix SS-17 Outdoor substation Existing Fence T18 Yes Klatt Road x TS-03 Outdoor substation 39.6 x 30.5 meters (130 x 100 feet) Fence A2 Yes Enstar Corridor Kenai Lowlands Burnt Island x TS-03 Outdoor substation 39.6 x 30.5 meters (130 x 100 feet) Fence E10 Yes Anchorage Bowl Cross Road North im TS-07 Gas insulated substation 9.1 x 9.1 x 7.6-high meters (30 x 30 x 25-high feet) |Small building A6 Yes 120th Avenue TS-05 Riser pole 3.1 meters (10 feet) diameter None A6 None Klatt Road x TS-03 Outdoor substation 39.6 x 30.5 meters (130 x 100 feet) Fence A2 Yes Shooting Range x TS-07 Gas insulated substation _|9.1 x 9.1 x 7.6-high meters (30 x 30 x 25-high feet) |Small building {|AI1 Yes Old Seward Highway TS-05 Riser pole 3.1 meters (10 feet) diameter None All None Riser pole — Single-shaft steel pole cable riser structure Drawings referenced are in Volume II Station — Crushed rock surface with fence control TSO — Transition Station Outdoor substation — Crushed rock surface with fence control of access and small control building A - Air insulated GIS — Gas insulated switchgear contained within a building P — Pole structure H - H-frame structure G - Gas insulated substation TABLE 2-7 TRANSITION SITES - SUMMARY OF LOCATIONS AND FEATURES Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-48 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 TABLE 2-8 SUBSTATION SITES - SUMMARY OF LOCATIONS AND FEATURES Substation Substation New Reactive Drawing Site Compensation Reference Footprint Size | Link Numbers | _Comments KENAI LOWLANDS Bernice Lake - SS-09 190 x 220 feet, T1/south end Ring bus addition addition to the substation Soldotna - SS-15 150 x 120 feet, El/south end Breaker and a addition half operating as aring bus Naptowne (new) Reactor NAP-OL 150 x 200 feet, ES/E6 Ring bus new Bradley Lake - Protection and N/A Existing site: New transfer trip and associated control equip- located out of system stations ment additions study area at the | protection (no drawings) south end of the Kenai Peninsula at Bradley Lake CHUGACH MOUNTAINS Dave's Creek SVS or TCSC RC-08 150 x 200 feet, Existing site; Power system addition located out of reliability and the study area stability south of the corrections junction of the Sterling and Seward highways ANCHORAGE BOWL International Reactor SS-11 150 x 60 feet, A16/west end Breaker and a existing _ half bay addition Pt. Woronzof Reactor SS-17 300 x 200 feet, T18/north end Ring bus addition addition TCSC = Thyristor-controlled series capacitors SVS = Static var system Drawings referenced in Volume II, Appendix B Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-49 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 2.5 CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS 2.5.1 Construction Seasons Overhead Facilities Construction would take place during both summer and winter seasons. The cost of construction and sometimes the quality of construction can be affected by the construction season. During the winter season temperatures are very cold, which affects the equipment operation; the amount of daylight is minimal; fewer workers are available; and the work force efficiency is significantly reduced. During the summer season, temperatures are warmer, sunlight is almost continual, and more workers are available. While construction during the summer season may be preferred, there are issues that may require winter construction. Project schedule, financing, design, and/or material delivery cannot always fit within the short summer season. Environmental issues may dictate construction of certain portions of the line during winter. Soft, wet soils often cannot support heavy construction equipment and construction activities in areas of such soils could result in long-term damage. Within the KNWR, restrictions likely would be required during sensitive periods for certain wildlife species. Winter construction is proposed for the Tesoro Route north of Captain Cook SRA, the Enstar Route within the KNWR, and along selected portions of the Soldotna E South Route option near lowlands along the Kenai River. If abnormal winter conditions are encountered, construction timing can be altered or winter conditions could be recreated. Underground Facilities In the Kenai Lowlands, the underground transmission line construction along north Kenai Road and in the Captain Cook SRA would take place during the summer season as would underground construction in the Anchorage area. For other areas where underground construction may be required, the season and specific requirements would be determined as the plan of development is prepared and in conjunction with obtaining permits. Submarine Cables Installation of the submarine cables must occur when the Turnagain Arm is free of ice and ideally when wind speeds are lowest. The months of May through August are suitable, with May and June being preferred. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-50 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Transition Stations and Substations The transition station equipment could be installed during the summer season. Construction for substations and reactive compensation sites could be completed during one summer season, if multiple crews were utilized or could be scheduled over two summer seasons. 2.5.2 Right-of-Way Acquisition Process In addition to Project authorizations and permits granted by state and federal natural resource management agencies, easement and permit rights must be acquired from a variety of private entities and other state agencies. Permits may be required from respective municipalities and boroughs, as well as from the ADOT and the Alaska Railroad Corporation. Where the Project crosses other utility rights-of-way, such as pipelines or other utility lines, crossing or encroachment permits would be required. In general, these permits would be approved, as long as the utility adheres to commonly accepted design criteria and construction methods. In some cases, such as with the railroad and pipeline companies, the permits are conditional upon the installation of devices designed to mitigate the potential for electrical interference with communication systems or to provide cathodic protection of pipeline systems. Easement acquisition would be required to secure utility transmission line rights across private properties. This process would proceed according to utility right-of-way acquisition policies and procedures. Right-of-way acquisition would first require a validation of the property’s fee interest owner(s). A centerline survey would be conducted and easement descriptions written. The land value would be verified to determine the easement offer to be made to the landowner. A right-of-way agent would personally contact all resident landowners. Absentee landowners would be contacted by telephone and certified mail. During construction, inspectors would monitor activities to ensure that any negotiated mitigation measures and other landowner concerns are honored by the construction contractor. Any project- related damage to private property would result in repair and/or compensation to the landowner. In rural areas where the Project parallels existing transmission lines, a 100-foot right-of-way immediately adjacent to the existing line would be obtained. In rural areas where the Project would be the only transmission line, a 150-foot right-of-way would be obtained, for example, adjacent to the Tesoro and Enstar pipelines. For the portions of the Project that would be underground, but not parallel to existing roadways, a 50-foot-wide construction easement and a 30-foot-wide permanent easement would be obtained. For underground lines paralleling roadways, a 30-foot-wide easement immediately adjacent to the paved area of the roadway would be obtained. For the overhead portions of the Project paralleling public roadways, the single-shaft steel poles would be located at the edge of the right-of-way, either within the road right-of-way or on Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-51 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 private land. A 30-foot-wide easement on private land adjacent to the line along the road right- of-way would be obtained. Along some links, existing buildings are very close to or encroach on the existing road right-of-way. In these areas purchase or relocation of the buildings may be necessary. Alternatively, in these situations the poles could be located within the road right-of- way and an overhang easement could be obtained for the conductors overhanging private property. Otherwise, the conductor could be installed with horizontal post insulators, all on the roadside, thus negating the need for any easement on private property. Each of these situations would be addressed individually during the detailed design and right-of-way acquisition process. 2.5.3 Construction Access Overhead Facilities Access to the right-of-way generally will be along existing roadways or trails. Links in which new access would be required include Link E7 north of Naptowne and Link T11 on Fire Island. In south Anchorage new access would be required for Link A3 north of the radio station, and along Minnesota Drive Link A5. ADOT has specified that the paved roadway cannot be used for access for construction; rather, access for construction must be outside the highway right-of-way or along the edge of the highway right-of-way. All other links have existing access. Travel between structures would be overland along the right-of-way or via existing roadways or trails. For the portions of the Project where overhead lines would be constructed, typical equipment types for the various access conditions have been divided into four categories as listed in Table 2-9. Construction methods and operation and maintenance activities require similar types of equipment. TABLE 2-9 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND ACCESS CONDITIONS Access Access Conditions Type Typical Construction Equipment Existing roadways 1 Rubber-tired vehicles Existing trails summer or winter 2 NODWELL, bulldozer Soft soils, difficult trails, bogs, stream 8 Specialized equipment; low ground pressure vehicles, crossings, winter conditions tracked vehicles, swamp mats or temporary bridges, snow machine, snow cat Stipulated access or winter conditions 4 Helicopter construction with ground access Underground Facilities Existing roads, bridges, field roads, and trails would be used for access to the right-of-way. Where this is not possible, equipment would be required to move over land with minimal impact. Soft soils may require additional support such as mats or temporary bridges. In some cases, a temporary culvert may be installed where a stream is crossed. Construction trails would be Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-52 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 graded and revegetated in accordance with the approved mitigation plan. Existing roads and trails would be maintained and repaired as required during use by the construction contractor. Clearing would be performed as required to allow for access and construction of the underground line and to maintain access for operation and maintenance of the underground system. Gates would be installed, as required, in existing fences located on the right-of-way to facilitate construction access. Survey work on the right-of-way may involve limited trimming of trees and vegetation for line- of-sight staking and distance measuring. No new roads would be established during surveying, since only survey crews and their equipment would be involved. Typical equipment types for the various access conditions have been divided into four categories as listed in Table 2-10. TABLE 2-10 UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION Construction Types Access Construction Equipment 1 Existing roadways Rubber-tired vehicles 2 Existing trails NODWELL 3 Soft, difficult trails Special sized equipment, low bearing pressure iD Stream crossing Rubber-tired vehicles, special equipment-bridge Submarine Cables Access to the submarine cable right-of-way would be primarily by watercraft (e.g., boat or work barge). Excavation equipment could access the shore-tail landing areas by land where there are roads or trails leading to the work area. For the shore-tail landing areas without road or trail access, the installation equipment would be transported to the work sites by barges. Most installation equipment for the laying of the cable would be moved to the work sites by barges or boats. Transition Stations Beyond the site clearing to install the transition station, a permanent site access would be required. The access requirements would vary with the location and type of transition station. A transition station requires access for construction, cable pulling and termination activities, and operation and maintenance access for inspection and the collection of data. This access would be provided on the same roads used to access the high-voltage equipment installed at the sites. A helicopter would be used for routine visits to remote locations for periodic inspections or for repairs not involving heavy equipment. Pt. Possession is the only proposed remote transition site with a heavy reactor. While access via land is available along the Tesoro pipeline road, for initial installation, or in the event of a failure, transport of the reactor would likely be by barge. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-53 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Substations Substations require permanent access roads. Care in construction would usually eliminate concerns about construction on soft soils. It is anticipated that most equipment, with the exception of some earthmoving equipment, would be conventional rubber-tired equipment since permanent access roads are anticipated. Equipment for operation and maintenance would generally be limited to four-wheel drive vehicles and snowmobiles or tracked vehicles, depending on the season. Occasionally, a small truck mounted crane would be used to repair failed equipment. 2.5.4 Construction Activities Overhead Transmission Line Typical activities during the construction of an overhead transmission line include soil boring, surveying, clearing, foundation installation, structure assembly and erection, conductor installation, and cleanup. A detailed description of these activities is included in Volume II, Appendix B. These tasks generally occur in sequence and may be separated in time by several days to several months. Although construction activities would be similar in both the Kenai Lowlands and the Anchorage area regions, situations in either region may vary and require site- specific consideration. All of these activities would be coordinated, according to the permit stipulations, between the IPG’s construction manager, the construction contractor, and the agency having jurisdiction in a particular area. Underground Facilities Construction time for the Kenai Lowlands and Anchorage area underground portion of this Project would vary depending on the route selected. The construction of the underground portion of this Project can be divided into construction phases to shorten construction time and maximize the use of local contractors on a phase-to-phase basis, if desired. The underground construction of a circuit mile is typically more time- and cost-demanding than a mile of an equivalent overhead construction line. Specific construction activities would take place prior to and during the underground cable installation. The activities include the following: soil borings and thermal resistivity testing of the soil surveying clearing site preparation duct bank system installation cable installation cable testing termination and splicing of underground cables Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-54 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 These activities occur in a specific order and are described in Volume II, Appendix B along with the materials and equipment required. Submarine Cable Although the submarine cables for this Project are specially designed to accommodate a wide range of marine floor conditions, the installation of each submarine cable is an important part of the cable system operating life span. Submarine cable installation would include various construction techniques to accommodate different conditions along each specific shore/marine route. The three conditions of installation involve (1) shore-tail installation, (2) tidal mud flats, and (3) deep channel crossings. The submarine cable installation techniques proposed would be designed to address each of the three conditions and selected appropriately for the specific location. There are a number of installation techniques available for each of the three conditions identified above. All the appropriate installation techniques determined to be applicable to this Project are presented in Volume II, Appendix B. Final selection of each installation technique would depend on final pre-installation surveys, equipment availability, and contractor preference. Substation Substation construction activities would include soil boring, surveying, clearing and grading, grounding, fencing, foundation installation, structure and equipment erection, control building erection, conductor installation, conduit and control cable installation, and cleanup. These activities are described in Volume II, Appendix B. The sequence and timing of these tasks are determined by specific conditions at the site and contractor preference. 2.5.5 Operation, Maintenance, and Abandonment System dispatchers in power control centers would direct the day-to-day operation of the connected overhead, underground, and submarine segments of the transmission line. These dispatchers use supervisory equipment to operate circuit breakers at each end of the line. The circuit breakers also operate automatically to further ensure safe operation of the transmission line and isolate the line from the rest of the system during a disturbance. Emergency maintenance would involve prompt movement of crews to repair damage or replace equipment. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-55 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Overhead Facilities Typical preventive maintenance programs for transmission lines would include routine aerial and ground inspections. Aerial inspections also would be conducted after a system disturbance causes a circuit breaker to operate. Ground inspections would be conducted usually to detect equipment needing repair or replacement. Whenever possible, ground inspections and subsequent repair activities would be scheduled during the summer months. Trees that have grown to endanger operation of the line are normally removed during the summer. When the facility is no longer needed, the transmission line structures, conductors, insulators, and hardware would be dismantled and removed from the right-of-way. Underground Facilities Maintenance requirements on the underground cable include periodic visual inspection of cable terminators, link boxes, and splices and integrity testing of cable jacket. When the facilities are no longer needed, the underground cable would be abandoned in place. The transition poles and stations, terminations, arresters, and hardware could be dismantled and removed from the right-of-way. Cable vaults could be filled with sand or sealed, and the surface area restored to pre-project conditions. Submarine Cables Maintenance of the submarine cable transmission line would involve a periodic marine survey to inspect the condition of the marine floor along the cable route and evaluate the possibility of any external mechanical damage. The frequency of the surveys would be once every five years. This would be accomplished with a small boat and hydrographic survey equipment. Cathodic protection testing equipment would be temporarily located at the terminal ends of the submarine cable approximately once every two years to determine the integrity of the submarine cable armor wire. Since 1967, CEA has been installing, operating, and replacing submarine cables in the Knik Arm and has experience with catastrophic and non-catastrophic outages of their submarine cables. During the summer of 1999, four new cables, similar to those proposed for the Southern Intertie Project, were installed from Pt. Woronzof to Pt. McKenzie to replace existing failed cables that are now inactive. Submarine cables are filled with biodegradable alkylbenzene oil. The fluid in cables that currently cross Knik Arm is a synthetic extra fluid alkynate, a benzene derivative with a C-10 Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-56 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 hydrocarbon chain. Leak rates of previously damaged cables in Knik Arm have been between 2.5 and 9 gallons per day. There, it was estimated that with a leak rate of 2.5 gallons per day, the concentration of the fluid in the initial mixing zone would be 0.25 parts per billion. Toxic effects were not reported. Were a cable to be damaged in the Turnagain Arm, the situation would also likely cause no toxic effects. Because of the large dimension of the receiving water, and a large degree of mixing achieved by tidal turbulence, the water has a very large assimilative capacity and so the effective concentration of the fluid in the water would be negligible. No hazardous constituents have been identified in the insulating fluid. Further, toxicity to marine organisms has not been found in either laboratory tests or in actual occasions of leaks of the insulating fluid. Two studies by Italian laboratories to assess the toxicity of the fluid to marine and freshwater organisms provided evidence of low toxicity at concentrations greater than would be expected in the event of an actual leak. Several discharges of cable fluid have occurred around the world, including an incident in Connecticut, and no reports of toxic effects have occurred (CEA 1989, 1990). Based on CEA experience with the Knik Arm cables, catastrophic failure of a submarine cable results in an initial fluid loss of about 16 gallon/hour due to the operating pressure. Within | to 2 hours of the failure, the fluid pressure is reduced and the fluid loss drops to less than | galllon/hour. This flow would be maintained to prevent seawater penetration into the cable until it is determined whether the cable is to be repaired or deactivated. If a cable is determined to be unrepairable, then the fluid supply is cut off. Once the fluid supply has been cut off, fluid will continue to flow out of the damaged end of the cable until equilibrium is established between the fluid pressure in the cable and surrounding water. An additional 4 to 8 gallons of fluid are lost during this equalization process. Once stabilized, no additional fluid escapes from the cable unless further damage is sustained. A non-catastrophic cable failure is usually first noticed by a loss of fluid pressure. If a spare cable is available, the damaged cable will be taken out of service and the rate of fluid loss determined. The fluid pressure in the damaged cable is then reduced to a level to prevent penetration of seawater. Depending on the severity of the damage, a determination to repair or deactivate the cable is made. If repair is determined to be feasible, the cable will be maintained with a fluid pressure sufficient to prevent the intrusion of seawater, and the attendant fluid loss (usually about | to 2 gallons per day) would continue until repairs can be completed. When a failure has occurred in the past, CEA has notified the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and would do so if cable damage and fluid loss is detected for the proposed Project submarine cables. The outage performance of CEA’s existing submarine cables has been analyzed and the projected outage rates for the proposed submarine cables crossing the Turnagain Arm are summarized in Chapter |. For example, with two three-phase cables directly embedded in the sea floor along the Enstar Route, and based on the performance history of the existing cables, 0.6 unscheduled outages are projected during the 40-year project life. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-57 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 A decision to repair a submarine cable involves an assessment of the performance history of the cable and the degree and location of the cable damage. The constant movement of silt and other material in the Turnagain Arm due to tidal action may make recovery of the submarine cable for repair difficult or infeasible, as the amount of material deposited in a given area may vary from year to year. The effective burial depth of the cable due to tidal action may be so deep as to effectively prevent exposure of the cable for repair. In the event a submarine cable is unrepairable, a complete new cable would be installed using the same procedures used for original installation. Transition Stations Operation and maintenance of the transition station site would require structure inspection and, at sites involving submarine cable, the monitoring of the dielectric fluid pressure gauge and alarm system. This would include a visual inspection of the dielectric fluid feeding system, all sites would include inspection including cable terminations and sheath bonding and grounding system. Remote monitoring devices are planned to be installed to assist in operation and maintenance of the facility. Sites would be visited every two to three months. For those sites with reactors and circuit breakers, inspections would take place monthly. Equipment testing and operation checkout would be performed approximately every five years. When the facility is no longer needed, all equipment, building materials, etc. will be removed from the site and the site restored in accordance with the site mitigation and restoration plan. Transition stations involving submarine cable would include additional removal operations. Before abandonment or removal, the dielectric fluid in the submarine cable and accessories including the fluid feeding system would be purged with nitrogen and removed from the site and disposed of in compliance with all relative environmental regulations. The terminal station site would be cleared of all equipment, construction facilities, and materials and the site restored in accordance with the mitigation plan. Substations System dispatchers in power control centers would direct the day-to-day operation of the substations and reactive compensation sites. These dispatchers use supervisory equipment to operate and monitor the equipment in the substations to configure the system and direct power flow. The protective relays in the substations detect faults on the substations and transmission lines and automatically open circuit breakers to isolate faulted equipment. Typical maintenance programs for substations and reactive compensation sites include routine visual inspections of equipment and periodic testing of equipment. The frequency at which equipment is tested and maintained depends on utility practice and operating conditions. Each Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-58 Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 utility has its own program of regular testing and calibration to ensure that the substation equipment is performing correctly. When the facility is no longer needed, the substation structures and equipment would be dismantled and removed from the site. The site would be restored to its original condition. 2.6 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE COMPARISON 2.6.1 Alternatives Comparison Process and Results Table 2-11 (page 2-62) provides a detailed comparative analysis of the resources and resource impacts for each route option. (Refer to Table S-2 for a generalized summary comparison of alternatives.) Table 2-11 is organized by geographic region, with the route options beginning in the south and progressing northward. Along the left-hand side of the pages are found the route options, in letter sequence, with the links that make up that route, the route’s path and whether it is along the Tesoro or Enstar route, and that option’s length. The descriptions of the route options provided assume a southern starting point. In addition to the primary route alternatives presented in Table 2-11 and illustrated on Figures 2-5 and 2-6, several other route combinations in the Anchorage area were considered in this EIS and are presented in Volume II, Appendix A. These routes have been studied extensively in the past; however, they are not part of the Applicant’s proposed alternative or the environmentally preferred alternative. For each resource within a route option, the table provides an identification of key elements associated with the inventory, impacts, and mitigation. A determination of significant impacts remaining after mitigation and cumulative effects (if present) are also identified. The basis for the information provided for each resource in Table 2-11 is contained in Chapter 3. A numerical ranking by preference is provided at the bottom of each cell in the table. This “preference” ranks the route options for that resource only, and compares only that group of route options. If more than one route option has the same preference number, it indicates that those routes are tied for that resource comparison. An environmentally preferred alternative has been identified as a result of this comparison and is noted in Table 2-11 and presented in Section 2.6.2. A description of the Applicant’s proposed alternative and the rationale for its selection is presented in Section 2.6.3. 2.6.2 Environmentally Preferred Alternative Section 1505.2 (b) requires that, in cases where an EIS has been prepared, the Record of Decision must identify all alternatives that were considered, “...specifying the alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferable.” The CEQ recognizes that the identification of the environmentally preferable alternative may involve difficult judgments, particularly when one environmental value must be balanced against another. CEQ encourages Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-59 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 agencies to make recommendations of the environmentally preferable alternative(s) during EIS preparation (Questions and Answers About the NEPA Regulations — 1981 — Question 6). The environmentally preferred alternative is the Tesoro Route, Option A from Bernice Lake Substation to Pt. Possession, combined with a submarine cable crossing of the Turnagain Arm from Pt. Possession directly to Pt. Woronzof (Route Option C) for a total of 61.3 miles. This route is environmentally preferred because it exhibits on balance, lower overall environmental impacts than the other alternatives, as shown on Table 2-11 in the DEIS. Any of the other Tesoro Route alternatives would also exhibit overall lower environmental impacts than the Applicant’s proposed alternative and other Enstar Route options, primarily because of the impacts of the Enstar route where it crosses the KNWR on the Kenai Peninsula. Route Option B is a submarine cable that includes a crossing of Fire Island that connects with Pt. Woronzof, which would minimize environmental impacts in the Anchorage area. Lower impacts in the Anchorage area for the Tesoro Route alternatives would also result from the underground route from Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof (Route Option N), assuming appropriate mitigation. 2.6.3 Applicant’s Proposed Alternative The Applicant’s proposed alternative is the Enstar Route, including Route Options E South, F, H, and K (total overall distance of 73.4 miles). The Applicant’s primary objective is to select an alternative route for the Southern Intertie Project that meets the purpose and need and represents the best overall combination of high reliability, cost to rate payers, and environmental impacts. In selecting this route as the Applicant's proposal, the Applicant considered these factors. Exposure of any submarine cable to the extreme tidal conditions in Turnagain Arm creates the risk of cable failures during the life of the Project. Based on bottom and side scan sonar surveys conducted along the proposed submarine cable alternative routes, the Tesoro Route exhibits numerous hazard areas with hard scoured bottom areas and boulder fields, while the Enstar Route further up the Turnagain Arm is composed primarily of mud with no hard bottom or boulder areas. CEA’s experience with submarine cables in the Knik Arm since 1967 indicates that a longer cable life and higher reliability can be expected if the submarine cables can be embedded in the sea floor, as opposed to simply laying the cables on the bottom. Bottom conditions along the Tesoro Route precludes economically embedding the cables in the hard bottom and boulder areas and therefore increases the risk of cable failure, while along the Enstar Route the cable can be embedded in the mud bottom for the entire distance. Embedding the cable increases reliability, but cable failures due to shifting sea bottom conditions or other hazards must still be anticipated. Cable replacement is projected twice during the project life for the Tesoro Route, and once for the Enstar Route. A recent example of submarine erosion occurred in mid-2000, when a section of the two Enstar gas pipelines buried in the Turnagain Arm near Burnt Island became exposed as a result of submarine erosion. As noted in Chapter 1, Sections 1.4.1 and 1.4.2, submarine cable replacement costs were included in the life cycle cost estimates for the project. The Enstar Route is lower in both Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-60 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 constructed cost and life cycle cost than the Tesoro Route, as summarized in Table 1-12 in Chapter 1, Section 1.4.1. Construction costs are lower for Enstar than Tesoro primarily because of the longer submarine cable crossing (13.9 miles for Tesoro Route Option D versus 10.5 miles for Enstar Route Option H) and because of the underground cable segments required for the Tesoro Route from Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof (4 miles, Route Option N) and through the Captain Cook SRA (4.0 miles, Link T5 of Route Option A). Additionally, the cost of submarine cable replacement during the life of the project is higher for Tesoro than Enstar, because the cables would have to be replaced more often for the Tesoro Route. Thus the applicant proposes the Enstar Route over the Tesoro Route on both a reliability and cost basis. The Applicant’s proposed alternative would connect the Soldotna Substation on the Kenai Peninsula with the International Substation in Anchorage. By paralleling the Enstar pipeline, the route would cross the KNWR. An ANILCA application has been filed with the USFWS for this alternative. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-61 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal September 2001 Bernice Lake to Pt. Possession (Tesoro Route) Route Option A** Links T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9 £ 60.1 Soldotna to Chickaloon Bay (Enstar Route) Route Option E North/F Links El, E2, E3, E4, E8, E9, E10 **Environmentally Preferred Route Linear Features Jurisdiction le (miles) (miles) sal Pipeline Parallel Transmission line parallel / rebuild Railroad parallel Paved/gravel road parallel Kenai Peninsula Borough Municipality of Anchorage (includes private) State USS. Fish and Wildlife Service Cook Inlet Region Inc. (CIRI) Salamatof Native Association Pt. Possession Group Kenai Native Association Existing and Future Land Use Inventory Adjacent to parcels of residential, commercial, industrial and vacant land Future development in Grey Cliffs and Moose Point Subdivisions Parallels Tesoro Pipeline Impacts and Mitigation Underground past airport runways Utilize North Kenai Road right-of-way and transportation corridor No significant impacts on existing land uses Preferred Route Option Use of North Kenai Road right-of-way, and planned transportation corridor with Kenai Borough will avoid parcels Crosses parcels of residential and vacant land 11 airstrips along route Parallels existing 138kV lines Crosses Kenai Native Association conveyed land Crosses KNWR Impacts and Mitigation No mitigation necessary for airstrips; avoids conflicts with airspace Disruption to KNWR Fire Management Practices Significant impacts to KNWR No significant impacts on existing land uses Least Preferred Route Option Disruption to residential parcels and Kenai Native Association lands Preference: 3 Recreation Inventory Captain Cook SRA: route crosses through possible future land additions to park Impacts and Mitigation Underground next to road through Captain Cook SRA Parallel pipeline and transportation corridor to Point Possession No significant impacts on recreation uses Preferred Route Option Minimizes impacts on recreation resources Crosses less KNWR Crosses Moose River at existing transmission line crossing Crosses KNWR Impacts and Mitigation Conflicts with KNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan KNWR Moderate and Minimal Management corridor along Enstar Pipeline Significant impacts on KNWR Least Preferred Route Option Crosses more KNWR lands Preference: 3 TABLE 2-11A: ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON KENAI LOWLANDS: LAND USE Summary of Community Working Group Issues Issues = Preferred route for Kenai and Anchorage CWG = Near two local schools = — Effects on local property values = Effects on known and unknown cultural sites (archaeological) Preference: 1 = Potential impacts on residences = Increased access along Enstar Pipeline route = Negative effects on brown bear populations = Impacts to Chickaloon Bay = Cumulative effects to "wilderness values" of upper KNWR = Impacts Kenai Native Association conveyed lands Preference: 2 Agency Comments Issues = Preferred route by USFWS due to boundary adjustment for road/utility location = KPB concerns about conflicts with subdivided lands = Potential disruption to Trumpeter Swan territories = LWCEF undergrounding requirements through Captain Cook SRA = ADOT/PF concerns over location of overhead line within right-of-way = Compatibility with purposes for which KNWR was established = Potential impacts on brown bears, trumpeter swans and waterfowl = Increased access and subsequent management/law enforcement implications = Aviation safety concerns = Conflicts with existing management practices (i.e., use of prescribed fire for habitat improvement) southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-62 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Soldotna to Chickaloon Bay (Enstar Route) Route Option E South/F* Links ES, E6, E7, E8, E9, E10 (Enstar Route) Links El, E2, E3, E4 Northern Soldotna Area Route Option E North *Applicant’s Proposed Route Pipeline Parallel Transmission line parallel / rebuild Railroad parallel Paved/gravel road parallel Kenai Peninsula Borough Municipality of Anchorage (includes private) USS. Fish and Wildlife Service Cook Inlet Region Inc. (CIRI) Salamatof Native Association Point Possession Group Kenai Native Association Existing and Future Land Use Inventory Crosses KNWR Crosses parcels of residential, agricultural and vacant land (within existing right-of-way) Seven airstrips along route Impacts and Mitigation Mark overhead lines near airstrips, avoids conflicts with airspace Replaces existing 69kV line and utilizes same right-of- way - avoids any additional residential parcel disruption Disruption to KNWR Fire Management Practices No significant impacts on existing land uses Significant Impacts to KNWR Preference: 2 Inventory Crosses parcels of residential and vacant land 11 airstrips along route Parallels existing 138kV lines Crosses Kenai native association conveyed land Impacts and Mitigation No mitigation necessary for airstrips; avoids conflicts with airspace Least Preferred Route Option Disruption of residential parcels and Kenai Native Association lands adjacent to existing transmission line Preference: 2 Recreation Inventory Crosses KNWR Crosses Kenai River at existing transmission line crossings Crosses Funny River State Recreation Site (SRS), and Bing’s Landing SRS Impacts and Mitigation No direct physical impact to recreationists or SRSs Conflicts with KNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan KNWR Moderate and Minimal Management corridor along Enstar Pipeline Significant impacts on KNWR Preference: 2 Inventory Crosses Moose River at existing transmission line crossing Crosses KNWR Impacts and Mitigation Conflicts with KNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Potentially significant impacts on KNWR Least Preferred Route Option Would cross additional KNWR lands Preference: 2 Summary of Community Working Group Issues Issues Adjacent to residences along Bing’s Landing SRS boundary Increased access along Enstar Pipeline Route Effects on brown bear populations Impacts to Chickaloon Bay Cumulative effect to "wilderness values" of KNWR Visual impacts on "wilderness qualities" of KNWR Crossings of Kenai River and impacts on the Kenai River Watershed Preference: 3 Issues Potential impacts on residences Negative effects on brown bears Impacts to Kenai Native Association conveyed lands Preference: 1 TABLE 2-11A: ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON KENAI LOWLANDS: LAND USE Linear Features Jurisdiction : . Land Use (miles) (miles) Agency Comments Issues Compatibility with purposes for which KNWR was established Potential impacts on brown bear, trumpeter swans and waterfowl Increased access and subsequent management/law enforcement implications Aviation safety concerns Visual impacts along Kenai River Special Management Area Issues Aviation safety concerns oouthern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal <3 September 2001 (Enstar Route) Links ES, E6, E7 Southern Soldotna Area Route Option E South* KNWR (Enstar Route) Route Option F* Links E8, E9, E10 *Applicant’s Proposed Route Pipeline Parallel Transmission line parallel / rebuild Railroad parallel Paved/gravel road parallel Kenai Peninsula Borough Municipality of Anchorage (includes private) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cook Inlet Region Inc. (CIRI) Salamatof Native Association Point Possession Group Kenai Native Association Existing and Future Land Use Inventory Existing 69kV right-of-way crosses parcels of residential, agricultural and vacant land Route Option E South replaces existing 69kV line and utilizes same right-of-way Seven airstrips along route Impacts and Mitigation Mark overhead lines near airstrips, avoids conflicts with airspace Avoids any new conflicts with residential parcels No significant impacts on existing land uses Preferred Route Option Avoids disruption to residential parcels Preference: 1 Inventory Crosses moderate and minimal management areas Parallels existing Enstar pipelines Mystery Creek Road Transportation corridor Two airstrips closed along route; Big Indian Creek Airstrip is open Impacts and Mitigation Widens existing transportation corridor Management control on Mystery Creek Road/Enstar pipeline trail Disruption to KNWR Fire Management Practices Recreation Inventory Crosses Kenai River at existing transmission line crossings Crosses Funny River SRS, and Bing’s Landing SRS Impacts and Mitigation No direct physical impact to recreationists or SRSs Preferred Route Option Crosses less KNWR lands Preference: 1 Inventory Crosses KNWR moderate and minimal management areas Mystery Creek prescribed burn plan Hunter, recreationist, snowmobile use on Mystery Creek Road/Enstar pipeline trail Impacts and Mitigation Conflicts with prescribed plan and operations Conflicts with KNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Management control on Mystery Creek Road/Enstar pipeline trail Within KNWR TABLE 2-11A: ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON KENAI LOWLANDS: LAND USE Linear Features Jurisdiction . : Land Use (miles) (miles) Summary of Community Working Group Issues Issues Direct impacts on residences along Bing’s Landing SRS boundary Crossing of Kenai River and impacts on the Kenai River Watershed Preference: 2 Issues Increased access along Enstar Pipeline Route Negative effects on brown bear populations Impacts to Chickaloon Bay Cumulative effect to "wilderness values" of upper KNWR Visual impacts on "wilderness qualities" of upper KNWR Agency Comments Issues Aviation safety concerns Visual impacts along Kenai River Special Management Area (SMA) Issues Compatibility with purposes for which KNWR was established Potential impacts on brown bears, trumpeter swans and waterfowl Increased access and subsequent management/law enforcement implications Aviation safety concerns Conflicts with existing management practices (i.e., use of prescribed fire for habitat improvement) Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-64 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Bernice Lake to Pt. Possession Soldotna to Chickaloon Bay (Tesoro Route) (Enstar Route) (Enstar Route) Route Option A** Links T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9 Route Option E South/F* Links E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E10 ax i) oo a * a ral gS a N sa) Za] 2 a 4 Socioeconomics Impacts and Mitigation Rate reduction .16/KWh 639 worker months labor average 45, peak 60 workers 196 camp sites, 143 with hook-ups 152 establishments registered to provide lodging can accommodate up to 4,500 visitors Year | - 25 workers; Year 2 - 21 workers No environmental justice issues identified Winter construction and advanced planning for construction worker housing will mitigate local impacts on tourism, housing and community resources No significant impacts Preference: 1 Impacts and Mitigation Rate reduction .21/KWh 637 worker months of labor - summer peak 90, fall-winter 30 350 campsites, 275 with utility hook-ups July competition with tourism for housing Year | and Year 2 18 workers No environmental justice issues identified No significant impacts Preference: 1 Impacts and Mitigation Rate reduction .21/KWh 637 worker months of labor - summer peak 90, fall-winter 30 350 campsites, 275 with utility hook-ups July competition with tourism for housing Year | and Year 2 - 18 workers No environmental justice issues identified No significant impacts Preference: 1 Subsistence Impacts and Mitigation Residents of Ninilchik, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Seldovia customarily and traditionally hunted moose on the Kenai Peninsula Federal subsistence priorities for those communities are established there By using existing or planned corridors, conflicts between sport and subsistence hunters will be minimized No significant impacts Preference: 1 Same as Route Option A Same as Route Option A Cultural Resources Impacts Low to moderate potential impact area Preference: 1 At Impacts Low to moderate potential impact area Least Preferred Route Option Greatest amount of area with potentially moderate impacts Preference: 3 Low to moderate potential impact area Preference: 2 Landscape Scenery Local Context Primarily Scenic Quality B, residential and commercial Regional Context = Kenai Lowlands, Cook Inlet views toward Mt. Susitna, Redoubt Volcano Aleutian Range Same as Route Option E North in combination w/ Route Option F Same as Route Option E South in combination w/ Route Option F Residential and Recreation Views Views Immediate foreground and foreground views from residential areas Immediate foreground and foreground views from recreation area (Captain Cook SRA) Immediate foreground and foreground views from residential areas Recreation Views Immediate foreground and foreground views from Moose River Canoe Route Middleground views from Trapper Joe Lake Immediate foreground and foreground views from residential areas Recreation Views Immediate foreground views and foreground views from golf course, campground, Bing’s Landing SRA Middleground views from Trapper Joe Lake Visual Resources Travel Way Views Views Parallels portions of North Kenai Road Crosses Sterling Highway Crosses Sterling Highway TABLE 2-11A: ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON KENAI LOWLANDS: LAND USE Impacts 21.1 miles significant visual impacts Mitigation Steel poles will reduce structural contrast At highway and trail crossings towers will be placed at the maximum feasible distance from the crossing “Dulled” metal of corten finish on towers Clearing of right-of-way will be minimized Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge of the right-of- way into adjacent vegetation patterns Portions of this route option will be underground due to proximity to the flight path of airstrips and Captain Cook SRA Preferred Route Option Least amount of significant visual impacts Preference: 1 Impacts 31.2 miles of significant visual impacts Mitigation Same as Route Option E North in combination with Route Option F Least Preferred Route Option Greatest amount of significant visual impacts Preference: 3 Impacts 30.8 miles of significant visual impacts Mitigation Same as Route Option E South in combination with Route Option F Preference: 2 *Applicant’s Proposed Route **Environmentally Preferred Route e. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal 2-65 September 2001 Northern Soldotna Area (Enstar Route) Route Option E North Links E1, E2, E3, E4 Ss es g < He $3 =m co - ag £2 ev 28 Z Route Option E South* Links ES, E6, E7 dou Enstar to Chickaloon Bay (Enstar Route) Route Option F* Links E8, E9, E10 *Applicant’s Proposed Route Socioeconomic Impacts and Mitigation Rate reduction .21/KWh 637 worker months of labor - summer peak 90, fall-winter 30 Soldotna, Sterling, Cooper Landing experience increase demand for housing and community resources 350 campsites, 275 with utility hook-ups July competition with tourism for housing Year | and Year 2 18 workers No environmental justice issues identified No significant impacts Preference: 1 Impacts and Mitigation Rate reduction .21/KWh 637 worker months of labor - summer peak 90, fall-winter 30 350 campsites, 275 with utility hook-ups July competition with tourism for housing Year | and Year 2 - 18 workers No environmental justice issues identified No significant impacts Preference: 1 Impacts and Mitigation Rate reduction .21/KWh 637 worker months of labor - summer peak 90, fall-winter 30 350 campsites, 275 with utility hook-ups July competition with tourism for housing Year | and Year 2 - 18 workers No environmental justice issues identified No significant impacts Same as Route Option A Same as Route Option A Same as Route Option A Cultural Resources Impacts and Mitigation Low to moderate potential impact area Least Preferred Route Option Greatest amount of area with potentially moderate impacts Preference: 2 Impacts Low to moderate potential impact area Preference: 1 Impacts Low to moderate potential impact area Landscape Scenery Local Context Primarily Scenic Quality B, C, as well as Residential Class B - moderate to densely forested lowlands interspersed with areas of open bottomland and muskeg bogs Regional Context Kenai Lowlands Local Context Primarily Scenic Quality A, B, C, as well as Residential Class A — Kenai River Regional Context Kenai Lowlands Local Context Primarily Scenic Quality A, including the foothills of the Central Kenai Mountains, the Chickaloon Bay tidal estuary and major wetlands/ drainages Regional Context Kenai Ranges Bordering Flats, Turnagain Arm Residential and Recreation Views Views Immediate foreground and foreground views from residential areas Immediate foreground and foreground views from recreation area (Moose River canoe route) Immediate foreground and foreground views from residential areas Immediate foreground and foreground views from recreation area (golf course, campgrounds, and Bing’s Landing SRA) Views Middleground views from Trapper Joe Lake Travel Way Views Visual Resources Views Crosses Sterling Highway Crosses Sterling Highway Views Parallels Mystery Creek Road/Enstar pipeline trail TABLE 2-11A: ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON KENAI LOWLANDS: LAND USE Summary of Visual Impacts and Miti (miles) Impacts 1.0 mile of significant visual impacts Mitigation Wood H-frame structures will match spans of existing transmission At highway and trail crossings, towers will be placed at the maximum feasible distance from the crossing Clearing of right-of-way will be minimized Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge of the right-of- way into adjacent vegetation patterns Less Preferred Route Option Greatest amount of significant visual impacts Preference: 2 0.57 mile of significant visual impacts Mitigation Steel poles will be used to reduce structural contrast At highway and trail crossings, towers will be placed at the maximum feasible distance from the crossing "Dulled" metal or corten finish on towers will be used to reduce visual impacts Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge of the right-of- way into adjacent vegetation patterns Preferred Route Option Least amount of significant visual impacts Preference: 1 Impacts 30.2 miles of significant visual impacts Mitigation Wood poles will reduce structural contrast "Dulled" metal or corten finish on towers will be used to reduce visual impacts Clearing of right-of-way will be minimized Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge of the right-of- way into adjacent vegetation patterns vouthern Intertie Project DEIS 2-66 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Route Option A** Links T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9 Bernice Lake to Pt. Possession (Tesoro Route) Soldotna to Chickaloon Bay (Enstar Route) Route Option E North/F Links E1, E2, E3, E4, E8, E9, E10 Soldotna to Chickaloon Bay (Enstar Route) Route Option E South/F* Links E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E10 *Applicant’s Proposed Route Geologic, Water and Marine Resources Inventory, Impacts, and Mitigation 0.9 mile with compressible materials - mitigated by existing road access, use of tracked and low ground pressure vehicles and special equipment, season-specific construction 0.1 mile prone to slope instability — structural integrity impacts mitigated by cased boring Impacts on Capt. Cook SRA avoided by undergrounding transmission line No significant impacts Preferred Route Option Minimizes stream crossings, potential watershed disruption, compressible material compaction in the Kenai Lowlands, and avoids the Kenai and Chickaloon River watersheds Preference: 1 Inventory, Impacts, and Mitigation 12.4 miles compressible materials - mitigated by existing gravel road (Links E1, E3, and E4) and utility corridor (Link E1); access to tower locations via road with limited disturbance to riparian area; use of tracked and low ground pressure vehicles and special equipment, season-specific construction No significant impacts Preference : 2 Inventory, Impacts, 9.9 miles compressible materials - mitigated by existing road access (Links T4 and T5); use of tracked and low ground pressure vehicles and special equipment No significant impacts Least Preferred Route Option While this route crosses more 100-year floodplain, streams and compressible materials, Route Option B South crosses the Kenai River in two locations as well as the Funny River. Due to the concerns for the protection of the Kenai River, this option would be less preferable. Due to the proposal to replace an existing power line without additional right-of- way clearing, set towers back from the riverbanks and construction during winter; however, any potential impacts will be mitigated. Preference: 3 Drainage Basins and Watersheds Inventory, Impacts, and Mitigation Streams and associated floodplains crossed - Bishop Creek - Swanson River - Scaup Creek - Otter Creek - Seven Egg Creek - Miller Creek 6 stream crossings - mitigated by planned spanning, setting foundations and structures back from sensitive banks and riparian areas, season-specific scheduling, temporary man-made and ice bridging 0.6 mile of 100-year floodplain crossed - mitigated by planned spanning, setting foundations and structures back from sensitive banks and riparian areas, season-specific scheduling, temporary man-made and ice bridging Flood zones generally 500 to 700 feet wide Swanson River mitigated by suspending beneath bridge or boring under river No significant impacts Inventory, Impacts, and Mitigation Streams and associated floodplains crossed - see Route Options E North and F 25 stream crossings — mitigated: see Route Option A 1.5 mile 100-year floodplain — mitigated: see Route Option A Flood zones range from 100 to 1,300 feet wide No significant impacts Inventory, Impacts, and gation Streams and associated floodplains crossed - see Route Options E South and F 22 stream crossings — mitigated: see Route Option A 0.8 mile 100-year floodplain — mitigated: see Route Option A Flood zones generally 300 to 1,300 feet wide No significant impacts TABLE 2-11A ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON Inventory 77.6 acres of bogs and meadows affected Impacts and Mitigation Winter construction Spanning low-growing vegetation No significant impacts Preferred Route Option Minimizes potential impacts on wetlands in the Kenai Lowlands Preference: 1 Inventory 131.6 acres of bogs and meadows affected 72.2 acres of black spruce forest affected Impacts and Mitigation Winter construction (Links E8, E9, E10) Spanning low-growing vegetation Significant impacts on wetlands on KNWR — Route Option F No significant impacts on Route Option E North Least Preferred Route Option Crosses greatest amount of wetland area 62.5 acres of bogs and meadows affected 72.2 acres of black spruce forest affected Impacts and Mitigation Winter construction (Links E5, E8, E9, E10) Spanning low-growing vegetation Significant impacts on wetlands on KNWR — Route Option F No significant impacts on Route Option E South Preference: 2 KENAI LOWLANDS: GEO LOGY AND VEGETATION [ Wetlands Upland Vegetation | Inventory 443.1 acres of closed mixed forest affected 1.3 acres of closed tall shrub affected Impacts and Mitigation Spruce bark beetle mitigation Spanning low-growing vegetation No significant impacts Preferred Route Option Minimizes upland vegetation clearing Preference: 1 Inventory 191.7 acres of closed white spruce affected 476.2 acres of closed mixed forest affected 18.9 acres of needle leaf woodland affected 14.3 acres of moist grassland affected Impacts and Mitigation Spruce bark beetle mitigation Significant impacts on upland vegetation on KNWR Least Preferred Route Option Results in the most upland vegetation clearing Preference: 3 Inventory 191.7 acres of closed white spruce forest affected 337.7 acres of closed mixed forest affected 14.3 acres of moist grassland affected Impacts and Mitigation Spruce bark beetle mitigation Significant impacts on upland vegetation on KNWR Preference: 2 **Environmentally Preferred Route @... Intertie Project DEIS 2-67 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proosal September 2001 TABLE 2-11A ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON KENAI LOWLANDS: GEO LOGY AND VEGETATION Geologic, Water and Marine Resources Drainage Basins and Watersheds Terrestrial Vegetation Wetlands Upland Vegetation Northern Soldotna Area $ £ < s 5 & 3 3 3 a S = 3 = = 3 5 a KNWR (Enstar Route) * Applicant’s Proposed Route (Enstar Route) (Enstar Route) Route Option E North Route Option E South* Route Option F* Links El, E2, E3, Er Links E5, E6, E7 Links E8, E9, E10 Inventory, Impacts, and Mitigation 7.7 miles with compressible materials - mitigated: see Route Option E North/F No significant impacts Preferred Route Option Avoids Kenai River crossings Preference: 1 Inventory, Impacts, and Mitigation 4.7 miles compressible materials — mitigated: see Route Option E South/F No significant impacts Less Preferred Route Option Crosses Kenai River; see Route Option E South/F Preference: 2 Inventory, Impacts, and Mitigation 0.9 mile with compressible materials - mitigated: see Route Option E South/F No significant impacts Inventory, Impacts, and Mitigation Streams and associated floodplains crossed - Soldotna Creek (3 crossings) - Unnamed Creeks (2 crossings) - Moose River 6 stream crossings — mitigated: see Route Option A 1.1 miles of 100-year floodplain — mitigated: see Route Option A Flood zones generally 300 to 1,300 feet wide No significant impacts Inventory, Impacts, and Mitigation Two Kenai River crossings, Funny River crossed also — mitigated: see Route Option A 0.4 mile 100-year floodplain — mitigated: see Route Option A No significant impacts Inventory, Impacts, and Mitigation Streams and associated floodplains crossed - Moose River Drainage Basin (4 crossings) East Fork Moose River 3 unnamed tributaries - Chickaloon River Drainage Basin (7 crossings) Mystery Creek Chickaloon River 5 unnamed tributaries of the Chickaloon River - Big Indian Creek Drainage Basin - Little Indian Creek Drainage Basin - Burnt Island Creek Drainage Basin 19 stream crossings — mitigated: see Route Option A 0.4 mile of 100-year floodplain — mitigated: see Route Option A Flood zones generally 100 to 600 feet wide No significant impacts Inventory 74.6 acres of bogs and meadows affected Impacts and Mitigation Winter construction Spanning low-growing vegetation No significant impacts Least Preferred Route Option Crosses greatest amount of wetland area Preference: 2 Inventory 5.5 acres of bogs and meadows affected Impacts and Mitigation Winter construction Spanning low-growing vegetation No significant impacts Preferred Route Option Crosses the least amount of wetland area Preference: 1 Inventory 57.0 acres of bogs and meadows affected 72.2 acres of black spruce forest affected Impacts and Mitigation Winter construction Spanning low-growing vegetation Significant impacts on wetlands on KNWR due to potential wetland compaction or removal of black spruce Inventory 150.2 acres of closed mixed forest affected 18.9 acres of needleleaf woodland affected Impacts and Mitigation Spruce bark beetle mitigation No significant impacts Least Preferred Route Option Upland vegetation clearing required Preference: 2 Inventory 11.7 acres of closed mixed forest affected Impacts and Mitigation Spruce bark beetle mitigation for any tree removal required No significant impacts Preferred Route Option Minimizes right-of-way clearing by replacing existing transmission line Preference: 1 Inventory 191.7 acres of closed white spruce forest affected 326.0 acres of closed mixed forest affected 14.3 acres of moist grassland affected Impacts and Mitigation Spruce bark beetle mitigation Significant impacts due to clearing upland vegetation on KNWR Gu Intertie Project DEIS 2-68 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proosal September 2001 Bernice Lake to ~ s a 5 e 2 s 4 = = o S £ s = £ Ss 3 > a Soldotna to Chickaloon Bay Pt. Possession (Tesoro Route) > 2 £ 3 8 x i s $ 2 s = = (Enstar Route) Route Option A** Links T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6 T7, T8, Route Option E North/F Route Option E South/F* Links ES, E6, E7, E8, E9, E10 T9 Anadromous Fish Inventory 4 anadromous fish stream crossings Impacts and Mitigation Directional boring at Swanson River All other anadromous fish streams spanned Winter construction north of Captain Cook SRA Erosion control along right-of-way to protect watershed following construction No significant impacts Preferred Route Option Minimizes streams crossed Preference: 1 Inventory 10 anadromous fish stream crossings Impacts and Mitigation All streams spanned Winter construction in KNWR (Route Option F), late summer/fall construction on Route Option E North Erosion control along right-of-way to protect watershed following construction No significant impacts Preference: 2 Inventory 10 anadromous fish stream crossings Impacts and Mitigation All streams spanned Winter construction Erosion control along right-of-way to protect watershed following construction No significant impacts Least Preferred Route Option Crosses Kenai River, making this route more sensitive, although construction will not occur within the river corridor or river banks Preference: 3 Birds (Bald Eagle, Trumpeter Swan, General Waterfowl) Impacts and Mitigation Very limited disturbance to nesting waterfowl (north of Pt. Possession Transition Facility) - no significant impacts No disturbance to nesting waterfowl on remainder of route (late summer/fall/winter construction) Clearing within 0.25 mile of 3 bald eagle nests - selective tree removal — potential for locally significant impacts (seasonal construction and selective clearing provide for mitigation) Collision hazard (especially T1-T4, high density of large lakes, wire marking at stream crossings and near water) - potential for locally significant impacts Preference: 2 Impacts and Mitigation No disturbance to nesting waterfowl — late summer/fall/winter construction - no impacts Collision hazard - Route Option E North, high density of lakes, Moose River - wire marking at stream crossings and near water - potential for locally significant impacts off KNWR - potential for nationally significant impacts on KNWR Clearing within 0.25 mile of 2 bald eagle nests — selective tree removal - locally significant impacts off KNWR, nationally significant impacts on KNWR Least Preferred Route Option Higher collision potential due to adjacent lakes and Moose River Crossing Preference: 3 Impacts and Mitigation No disturbance to nesting waterfowl (late summer/fall/winter construction) - no impacts Collision hazard, especially Route E South (fewer lakes than E North) - wire marking at stream crossings and near water - potential for locally significant impacts off KNWR, potential for nationally significant impacts on KNWR Clearing within 0.25 mile of 4 bald eagle nests, very limited at E South due to limited tree removal requirements on Route Option E South - no significant impacts on E South, potential for nationally significant impacts on KNWR, Route Option F Preferred Route Option Lower collision potential due to least number of lakes in proximity to the route Preference: 1 Large Mammals (Moose, Caribou, Brown and Black Bear Impacts and Mitigation Clearing of black bear habitat - no significant impacts Clearing of moose winter range/creation of new winter range - no significant impacts Limited increase in disturbance and human/brown bear conflicts On periphery of brown bear use, in area of potential future development - no significant impacts Preferred Route Option Periphery of brown bear use in region Preference: 1 Impacts and Mitigation Clearing of black bear habitat - nationally significant impacts on KNWR Clearing of moose winter range/ creation of new winter range - nationally significant impacts on KNWR Increased disturbance and human/brown bear conflicts due to increased access north of Mystery Creek on protected lands of KNWR, in the mountains/lowlands interface - nationally significant impacts Preference: 2 Impacts and Mitigation Clearing of black bear habitat - nationally significant impacts on KNWR Clearing of moose winter range/creation of new winter range - nationally significant impacts on KNWR Increased disturbance and human/brown bear conflicts due to increased access north of Mystery Creek on protected lands of KNWR, in the mountains/lowlands interface - nationally significant impacts Preference: 2 Predators (Gray Wolf, Canada Lynx) Impacts and Mitigation Potential for increased harvest of lynx and wolves (Links T7, T8, T9) in minimal abundance area and area of potential future development - no significant impacts Clearing in lynx denning habitat (no significant impacts) Creation of habitat for prey species - no significant impacts Preferred Route Option Impacts within an area of future development Preference: 1 Impacts and Mitigation Potential for increased harvest north of Mystery Creek on protected lands of KNWR ~- nationally significant impacts Clearing in lynx denning habitat - nationally significant on KNWR Creation of habitat for prey - no significant impacts Preference: 2 Impacts and Mitigation Increased harvest north of Mystery Creek on protected lands of KNWR - nationally significant impacts Clearing in lynx denning habitat - nationally significant on KNWR Creation of habitat for prey - no significant impacts Preference: 2 TABLE 2-11A ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON KENAI LOWLANDS: WILDLIFE RESOURCES Beluga Whale Inventory No beluga whale habitat Impacts Not a factor in route comparison Same as Route Option A Same as Route Option A Threatened and Endangered Species Inventory No habitat for threatened or endangered species Impacts Not a factor in comparison Same as Route Option A Same as Route Option A *Applicant’s Proposed Route **Environmentally Preferred Route southern Intertie Pro ject DEIS 2-69 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 (Enstar Route) Links El, E2, E3, E4 Northern Soldotna Area Route Option E North Links E5, E6, E7 ~ 2 2 3 Ss ~ - s = a s a = Route Option E South* 8 o £ < s 5 £ 3 2 3 a a 5 3 = = 3 5 a KNWR (Enstar Route) Route Option F* Links E8, E9, E10 *Applicant’s Proposed Route Anadromous Fish Inventory 3 anadromous fish stream crossings Impacts and Mitigation Streams will be spanned Winter construction Erosion control along right-of-way to protect watershed following construction No significant impacts Preferred Route Option Avoids Kenai River crossings Preference: 1 Inventory 3 anadromous fish stream crossings Impacts and Mitigation All streams spanned Winter construction Erosion control along right-of-way to protect watershed following construction No significant impacts Less Preferred Route Kenai River crossings make this route more sensitive than Route Option E North, although construction would not occur within the river corridor or river banks Preference: 2 Inventory 7 anadromous fish stream crossings within KNWR Impacts and Mitigation All streams will be spanned Winter construction Erosion control along right-of-way to protect watershed following construction No significant impacts Birds (Bald Eagle, Trumpeter Swan, General Waterfowl Impacts and Mitigation No disturbance to nesting waterfowl (late summer/fall construction) - no significant impacts Collision hazard (high density of lakes, Moose River) - wire marking at stream crossings and near water - potential for locally significant impacts Clearing within 0.25 mile of | bald eagle nest - selective tree removal - no significant impacts Preference: 2 Impacts and Mitigation No disturbance to nesting waterfowl (later summer/fall/winter construction) - no impacts Collision hazard (fewer lakes than E North) - wire marking at stream crossing and near water - potential for locally significant impacts Very limited clearing within 0.25 mile of 3 bald eagle nests - selective tree removal - no significant impacts Preferred Route Option See Route Option E South/F Preference: 1 Impacts and Mitigation No disturbance to nesting waterfowl (winter construction) - no impacts Very limited collision hazard on KNWR (few lakes) - wire marking at stream crossings and near water - potential for nationally significant impacts Clearing within 0.25 mile of | bald eagle nest on KNWR - selective tree removal - potential for nationally significant impacts Large Mammals (Moose, Caribou, Brown and Black Bear) Impacts and Mitigation Clearing of black bear habitat - no significant impacts Clearing of moose winter range/creation of new winter range - no significant impacts No increased human access Preference: 1 Impacts and Mitigation Very limited clearing in black bear and moose habitats - no significant impacts Clearing of moose winter range/creation of new winter range - no significant impacts No increase in human access Preference: 1 Impacts and Mitigation Clearing of black bear habitat on KNWR - nationally significant impacts Clearing of moose winter range/creation of new winter range on KNWR - no significant impacts Increased disturbance and human/bear conflicts due to increased human access north of Mystery Creek on protected lands of KNWR, in mountains/lowlands interface - nationally significant impacts Predators (Gray Wolf, Canada Lynx) Impacts and Mitigation No increased harvest expected Clearing in lynx denning habitat - no significant impacts Creation of habitat for prey species - no significant impacts Preference: 1 Impacts and Mitigation No increased harvest expected Very limited clearing in lynx denning habitat - no significant impacts No creation of additional prey habitat Preference: 1 Impacts and Mitigation Potential for increased harvest north of Mystery Creek on protected lands of KNWR - nationally significant impacts Clearing in lynx denning habitat on KNWR - nationally significant impacts Creation of habitat for prey - no significant impacts TABLE 2-11A ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON KENAI LOWLANDS: WILDLIFE RESOURCES Beluga Whale Same as Route Option A Same as Route Option A Same as Route Option A Threatened and Endangered Species Same as Route Option A Same as Route Option A Same as Route Option A outhern Intertie Pro ject DEIS 2-70 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell (Tesoro Route) Route Option D Links T16, T17 Pipeline Parallel line ission parallel/ rebuild Transm Railroad parallel Paved/gravel road parallel Kenai Peninsula Borough Municipality of Anchorage (includes priva te) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Cook Inlet Region Inc. (CIRD Salamatof Native Association Pt. Possession Group Kenai Native Association Existing and Future Land Use Inventory Pt. Possession and Pt. Campbell landings Potential future development at Pt. Possession Crosses open water Impacts and Mitigation No land use impacts Compliance with KPB Coastal Management Plan (CMP) Preference: 1 Recreation Inventory Kincaid Park at Anchorage landing crosses ACWR Impacts and Mitigation No recreation impacts Summary of Community Working Group Issues CIRI supports use of Fire Island route Potential for future development would be improved with electricity Impacts to private lands along coastline (Pt. Possession Village) TABLE 2-11B ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON TURNAGAIN ARM: LAND USE Linear Features Jurisdiction miles) (miles) Land Use Agency Comments Impacts to ACWR Compliance with KPB CMP Avoid interference with FAA navigation sites located on Fire Island (Tesoro Route) Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof via Fire Island Route Option B Links T10, T11, T12, T13, T14 Inventory Pt. Possession and Pt. Woronzof landings Potential future development at Pt. Possession Crosses open water Crosses Fire Island, uses existing roads VORTAC facilities on island Impacts and Mitigation Compliance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations to avoid impacts with VORTAC Compliance with KPB CMP No land use impacts Preference: 2 Inventory Kincaid Park at Anchorage landing crosses ACWR Impacts and Mitigation No recreation impacts Preference: 1 CIRI supports use of Fire Island route Potential for future development would be improved with electricity Impacts to private lands along coastline (Pt. Possession Village) Impacts to ACWR Compliance with KPB CMP Avoid interference with FAA navigation sites located on Fire Island Pt. Possession Woronzof (Tesoro Route) Option C** Link T15 **Environmentally Preferred Route Inventory Similar to Route Option D except lands at Pt. Woronzof in Anchorage Preference: 1 Inventory Similar to Route Option B Preference: 1 Preferred submarine route from Anchorage CWG viewpoint Avoids impacts to Anchorage Bowl Requires compliance with KPB CMP Impacts to ACWR Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-71 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 TABLE 2-11B ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON TURNAGAIN ARM: LAND USE Linear Features Jurisdiction (miles) (miles) Land Use Chickaloon Bay to Klatt Road (Enstar Route) Route Option G Link E11 Pipeline Parallel Transmission line parallel/ rebuild Railroad parallel Paved/gravel road parallel Kenai Peninsula Borough Municipality of Anchorage (includes private) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Cook Inlet Region Inc. (CIRD) Salamatof Native Association Pt. Possession Group Existing and Future Land Use Kenai Native Association Inventory Chickaloon Bay and Klatt Road landings Impacts and Mitigation No land use impacts Preference: 1 Recreation Inventory Crosses ACWR Impacts and Mitigation No recreation impacts Preference: 1 Summary of Community Working Group Issues Concern over impacts to Chickaloon Bay Effects to ACWR Agency Comments Compliance with KPB CMP Impacts to ACWR Chickaloon Bay to Oceanview (Enstar Route) Route Option H* Link E12 Inventory Chickaloon Bay and Oceanview Park/Alaska Railroad Impacts and Mitigation No land use impacts Preference: 1 Inventory Oceanview Bluff Park Crosses ACWR Impacts and Mitigation Short-term construction impacts; mitigation will replace/repair facilities Potential short-term conflict with Rabbit Creek Shooting Range during construction Preference: 1 Impacts to ACWR and Oceanview Bluff Park Visual impacts associated with transition station Compliance with KPB CMP Conflict with expansion of Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) shooting range during construction Impacts to ACWR Chickaloon Bay to Rabbit Creek (Enstar Route) *Applicant’s Proposed Route Route Option I Link E13 Inventory = Chickaloon Bay to Rabbit Creek/Alaska Railroad landing = Crosses open water Impacts and Mitigation = Noland use impacts Preference: 1 Inventory Crosses ACWR Impacts and Mitigation Potential short-term conflict with Rabbit Creek Shooting Range during construction Preference: 1 Compliance with KPB CMP Impacts to ACWR Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-72 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Socioeconomic Impacts and Mitigation Rate reduction .16/KWh Peak workforce 90 workers, 164 worker months construction labor plus 261 worker months as submerged segment 75 non-local workers $3.8 million in wages and salaries for Turnagain Arm and Anchorage options No environmental justice issues identified No significant impacts Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell (Tesoro Route) Route Option D Links T16, T17 Subsistence Cultural Resources Impacts Low potential impact area Preferred Route Option Least amount of area with potential impacts Preference: 1 Landscape Scenery Local Context Scenic Quality Class B, tidal mudflats, coastal bluffs Park-like image type along T17 Regional Context Cook Inlet, Turnagain Arm, Knik Am TABLE 2-11B ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON TURNAGAIN ARM: SOCIEOCONOMIC, SUBSISTENCE, CULTURAL, AND VISUAL Residential and Recreation Views Views = Foreground views from recreation area (Kincaid Park) Travel Way Views isual Resources Summary of Visual Impacts and Mitigation (miles) Impacts No significant visual impacts — submarine cable Not a factor in route comparison Same as Route Option D > 2 £ 3 3 % c = $ $ so = Route Option B Links T10, T11, T12, T13, T14 3 s s z = 2 P| _ = > oe 3 8 a 3 = z - on & a 2 z z 3 z 2 3 on > a Impacts Low to moderate potential impact area Preference: 3 Local Context Fire Island, Scenic Quality Class A and B: Class A: steep cliffs and tidal mudflats making up the island coastline Class B: relatively flat topography, mixed conifer forests Pt. Campbell: Class A — dense grasslands interspersed with wetlands Park-like image type along T14 Regional Context Cook Inlet, Turnagain Arm, Knik Am Views = Foreground views from recreation area (Kincaid Park) Same as Route Option D Same as Route Option D Pt. Possession to (Tesoro Route) Route Option C** Link T15 **Environmentally Preferred Route Impacts Low to moderate potential impact area Preference: 2 Local Context Pt. Woronzof: Scenic Quality Class A Park-like image type along T15 Regional Context Cook Inlet, Turnagain Arm, Knik Arm Views Immediate foreground views from recreation area (Tony Knowles Coastal Trail, Kincaid Park) Same as Route Option D Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-73 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Socioeconomic Impacts and Mitigation Rate reduction .21/KWh Peak workforce 100 workers, 170 worker months construction labor plus 223 worker months in submerged segment 75 non-local workers $7 million in wages and salaries for Turnagain Arm plus Anchorage options No environmental justice issues identified No significant impacts Chickaloon Bay to Klatt (Enstar Route) Route Option G Link E11 Same as Route Option G => s 2 s s % u & 2 5 a = Route Option H* Link E12 z 2 > 5 a 3 & ° ° & > a a g 3 g a 2 2 < o Subsistence Cultural Resources Impacts = Low potential impact area Preference: 1 Impacts = Low potential impact area Least Preferred Route Option = Greatest amount of an area with potential impacts Preference: 2 Landscape Scenery Local Context Mostly submarine; however, Scenic Quality Class A landscape exists at Chickaloon Bay and the southern edge of Anchorage — coastal marshes interspersed with small drainages, wetlands, and tidal mudflats Regional Context Cook Inlet, Turnagain Arm, Knik Am Same as Route Option G TABLE 2-11B ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON TURNAGAIN ARM: SOCIEOCONOMIC, SUBSISTENCE, CULTURAL, AND VISUAL Residential and Recreation Views Views = Foreground views from residential areas Views = Immediate foreground and foreground views from residential areas Immediate foreground and foreground views from recreation areas (Oceanview Bluff Park, Oceanview Park) Travel Way Views Visual Resources Summary of Visual Impacts and Mitigation (miles) Same as Route Option D Same as Route Option D Same as Route Option G Chickaloon Bay to Rabbit Creek (Enstar Route) Route Option I * Applicant’s Proposed Route Impacts = Low potential impact area Preference: 1 Same as Route Option G Views Foreground views from recreational area (Rabbit Creek Rifle Range) Same as Route Option D Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-74 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof via Fire Island (Tesoro Route) Route Option B Links T10, T11, T12, T13, T14 Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof (Tesoro Route) (Tesoro Route) Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell Route Option D Links T16, T17 **Environmentally Preferred Route Geologic, Water and Marine Resources Inventory, Impacts, and Mitigation Terrestrial resources and hazards = 0.1 mile prone to slope instability (southwest end of Fire Island) — mitigated: see Route Option A = No significant impacts Near-coast resources = Erosion from trenching of tidal mudflats and saltmarsh with selective material backfill (Fire Island and Pt. Woronzof) — could be mitigated by horizontal directional drilling = No significant impacts Marine hazards 3.8 miles boulder/cobble areas — submarine cable embedment not feasible 7.1 miles subject to ice scour or impact from ice floes and pressure ridges — 1.0 mile mitigated by submarine cable embedment 0.5 mile prone to slope instability — submarine cable embedment not feasible Least Preferred Route Option Slope instability at Fire Island Preference: 2 Inventory, Impacts, and Mitigation Near-coast resources = Erosion from trenching of tidal mudflats and saltmarsh with selective material backfill (Pt. Woronzof) — could be mitigated by horizontal directional drilling = No significant impacts Marine hazards = 1.5 miles boulder/cobble areas — submarine cable embedment not feasible = 9.8 miles of submarine areas subject to ice scour or impact from ice floes and pressure ridges — 8.5 miles mitigated by submarine cable embedment Preference: 1 Inventory, Impacts, and Mitigation Terrestrial resources and hazards = 1.0 mile of roadless area would be crossed — mitigated by restricting construction to winter months or use of low ground pressure vehicles * No significant impacts Near-coast resources = Erosion from trenching of tidal mudflats and saltmarsh with selective material backfill (Pt. Campbell) — could be mitigated by horizontal directional drilling « Nosignificant impacts Marine hazards 1.5 miles boulder/cobble areas — submarine cable embedment not feasible 7.1 miles subject to ice scour or impact from ice floes and pressure ridges — 5.8 miles mitigated by submarine cable embedment 0.1 mile prone to slope instability — submarine cable embedment not feasible Preference: 1 Drainage Basins and Watersheds No stream crossings anticipated on Fire Island Submarine Route Submarine Route TABLE 2-11B ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON TURNAGAIN ARM: GEOLOGY AND VEGETATION Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Wetland Vegetation Inventory 2.8 acres saltmarsh potentially affected Impacts and Mitigation Directional boring could mitigate impacts on saltmarsh No significant impacts Preference: 2 Inventory No wetland vegetation Preferred Route Option No wetland vegetation Preference: 1 Inventory No wetland vegetation Preferred Route Option No wetland vegetation Preference: 1 Upland Vegetation Inventory 22.8 acres of closed mixed forest potentially affected Impacts and Mitigation Spruce bark beetle mitigation No significant impacts Preference: 2 Inventory 0.5 acre of closed mixed forest potentially affected Impacts and Mitigation Selective clearing and avoidance by cable location No significant impacts Preferred Route Option Small amount of vegetation with impacts possibly avoided Preference: 1 Inventory No upland vegetation Preferred Route Option No upland vegetation Preference: 1 Southern Intertie Project DEIS. 2-75 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Chickaloon Bay to Ss £ > G3 a < e 3 s 2 2 = o Chickaloon Bay to Rabbit Klatt Road (Enstar Route) Oceanview (Enstar Route) (Enstar Route) Route Option H* Route Option G Route Option I Link Ell Link E12 Geologic, Water and Marine Resources Inventory, Impacts, and Mitigation Submarine Route Near-coast resources = Erosion from trenching of tidal mudflats and saltmarsh with selective material backfill (Chickaloon tidal mudflats) — could be mitigated by horizontal directional drilling = Nosignificant impacts Marine hazards = 8.4 miles of submarine areas subject to ice scour or impact from ice floes and pressure ridges — mitigated by submarine cable embedment Preference: 1 Inventory, Impacts, and Mitigation Submarine Route Near-coast resources = Erosion from trenching of tidal mudflats and saltmarsh with selective material backfill (Chickaloon tidal mudflats) - could be mitigated by horizontal directional drilling = Nosignificant impacts Marine hazards = 10.5 miles subject to ice scour or impact from ice floes and pressure ridges — mitigated by submarine cable embedment 0.3 mile prone to slope instability - submarine cable embedment not feasible Preference: 1 Inventory, Impacts, and Mitigation Submarine Route Near-coast resources = Erosion from trenching of tidal mudflats and saltmarsh with selective material backfill (Chickaloon tidal mudflats) - could be mitigated by horizontal directional drilling " No significant impacts Marine hazards * 10.1 miles of submarine areas subject to ice scour or impact from ice floes and pressure ridges - mitigated by submarine cable embedment = 0.3 mile of submarine and coastal areas prone to slope instability — submarine cable embedment not feasible Preference: 1 Drainage Basins and Watersheds TABLE 2-11B ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON TURNAGAIN ARM: GEOLOGY AND VEGETATION Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Wetland Vegetation Upland Vegetation Inventory No upland vegetation Preferred Route Option No upland vegetation Inventory 2.3 acres saltmarsh potentially affected Impacts and Mitigation Directional boring would avoid impacts on saltmarsh No significant impacts Preference: 1 Preference: 1 Inventory 1.0 acre of closed mixed forest affected Impacts and Mitigation Selective clearing No significant impacts Inventory 9.7 acres saltmarsh potentially affected Impacts and Mitigation Directional boring would avoid impacts on saltmarsh No significant impacts Least Preferred Route Option Greatest amount of saltmarsh potentially affected Preference: 2 Preference: 1 Inventory No upland vegetation Preferred Route Option No upland vegetation Inventory 1.2 acres saltmarsh potentially affected Impacts and Mitigation Directional boring would avoid impacts on saltmarsh No significant impacts Preference: 1 Preference: 1 *Applicant’s Proposed Route Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal 2-76 September 2001 Fire Island (Tesoro Route) Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof via Route Option B Links T10, T11, T12, T13, T14 Route Option C** Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell (Tesoro Route) Route Option D Links T16, T17 **Environmentally Preferred Route Route options D through H are preferred to route options | through L for wildlife in the Turnagain Arm area. Anadromous Fish Impacts and Mitigation No anadromous fish streams Not a factor in route comparison Same as Route Option B Same as Route Option B Birds Impacts and Mitigation Disturbance to nesting waterfowl (Fire Island) - locally significant impacts during construction Collision hazard (Fire Island - wire marking near lakes) - locally significant impacts No loss of habitat Impacts ani No disturbance to nesting waterfowl No loss of habitat Preferred Route Option No disturbance to nesting waterfowl Preference: 1 Impacts and Mitigation Disturbance to nesting waterfowl at edge of habitat (Pt. Campbell) — locally significant impacts during construction No loss of habitat Preference: 2 Large Mammals Impacts and Mitigation Temporary displacement of black bears and brown bears at Pt. Possession - no significant impacts Clearing in moose winter range/creation of new winter range on Fire Island - no significant impacts Temporary displacement of black bears and brown bears at Pt. Possession — no significant impacts Preferred Route Option No clearing of moose winter range Preference: 1 Same as Route Option C Predators Impacts and Mitigation Wolf and lynx not present Not a factor in route comparison Same as Route Option B TABLE 2-11B ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON TURNAGAIN ARM: WILDLIFE RESOURES Wildlife Selected Resources Marine Mammals Impacts and Mitigation Limited noise disturbance No calving areas — no significant impacts Same as Route Option B Same as Route Option B Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts and Mitigation Stellar sea lion present only on very rare occasion Not a factor in route comparison Same as Route Option B Same as Route Option B thern Intertie Project DEIS 2-77 Chapter 2— Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Ss - ~ = 2 Sts mes sam Ses 2s a8 5 g¥ 5 =a © o e272 age 6*e Creek (Enstar Route) Chickaloon Bay to Rabbit 11.2 Route Option G Link Ell 10.5 Route Option H* Link E12 9.0 Route Option I Link E13 *Applicant’s Proposed Route Anadromous Fish Impacts and Mitigation = No anadromous fish streams = Nota factor in route comparison Same as Route Option G Same as Route Option G Impacts and Mitigation = Disturbance to nesting waterfowl within concentration areas at Chickaloon Bay (KNWR) and ACWR, especially high quality habitat at Chickaloon Bay — locally significant impacts at ACWR, nationally significant impacts on KNWR during construction = No loss of habitat Preference: 1 Same as Route Option G Impacts and Mitigation = Disturbance to nesting waterfowl within concentration areas at Chickaloon Bay (KNWR) and ACWR and known bald eagle nesting area at ACWR, Potter Marsh higher quality than rest of ACWR = No loss of habitat Least Preferred Route Option = Potential disturbance to waterfowl in the vicinity of Potter Marsh area during construction Preference: 2 Large Mammals Impacts and Mitigation = Disturbance to black bear spring feeding at Chickaloon Bay (KNWR) — nationally significant impacts = Temporary displacement of brown bears at Chickaloon Bay (KNWR) ~ nationally significant impacts Same as Route Option G Same as Route Option G Predators Impacts and Mitigation = Wolf and lynx not present = Nota factor in route comparison Same as Route Option G Same as Route Option G idlife Selected Resources Marine Mammals Calving areas Calving season should be avoided - . no significant impacts Same as Route Option G Same as Route Option G Impacts and Mitigation Limited noise disturbance . TABLE 2-11B ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON TURNAGAIN ARM: WILDLIFE RESOURES Threatened and Endangered Speci Impacts and Mitigation Stellar sea lion present only on very rare occasions Not a factor in route comparison Same as Route Option G Same as Route Option G thern Intertie Project DEIS 2-78 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Link T18 Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof (Tesoro Route) Route Option N Pipeline Parallel line ission Transm parallel/ rebuild Railroad parallel Paved/gravel road parallel Kenai Peninsula Borough lity of Mun Anchorage (includes icipa private) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cook Inlet Region Inc. Salamatof Native Association Pt. Possession Group Kenai Native Association Existing and Future Land Use Inventory Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof Parallels Tesoro Pipeline and future road edge Anchorage International Airport Impacts and Mitigation Line would be undergrounded through park to mitigate airspace interference with airport; parallel to pipeline and road TABLE 2-11C ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON ANCHORAGE BOWL: LAND USE Linear Features Jurisdiction (miles) miles) Land Use Recreation Inventory Crosses Kincaid Park Crosses ACWR Crosses Tony Knowles Coastal Trail Impacts and Mitigation Short-term construction impacts Summary of Community Working Group Issues = Concerns over the loss of vegetation and disruption to the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail and Kincaid Park Preference: 2 Agency Comments = Compatibility with Kincaid Park Impacts to ACWR Klatt to International (Enstar Route) Route Option J Links Al, A2, A3, A4, AS Alaska Railroad/Oceanview to International (Enstar Route) Route Option K* Links A6, A7, A8, A9, A 10 *Applicant’s Proposed Route Inventory Planned residential development adjacent to route Parallels road right-of-way Impacts and Mitigation Line would be relocated within right-of-way; underground and overhead line Preference: 1 Inventory Submarine landing at Oceanview Bluff Park Parallels railroad right-of- way to substation Flying Crown Airport adjacent to tracks Impacts and Mitigation = Underground line past airport within railroad right-of-way; no impacts to aviation Preference: 1 Inventory Crosses Campbell Creek Greenbelt Open space adjacent to Minnesota Drive Impacts and Mitigation No recreation impacts Preference: 3 Inventory Oceanview Bluff Park Crosses Campbell Creek Greenbelt Impacts and Mitigation Short-term construction impacts; mitigation would include replacement of picnic facilities and revegetation of disturbed areas Preference: 1 Impacts to residential areas adjacent to route Visual impacts to Minnesota Drive Corridor Preference: 2 Impacts to residential neighborhoods Visual impacts along railroad corridor Conflict with expansion of Oceanview Bluff Park Preference: 1 Conflicts with ADOT plans for improvement along Minnesota Drive Limited access along Minnesota Drive Visual impacts to travel corridor Oceanview Bluff Park - MOA Southem Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 > 22 = 2 co S ae & Bz za ge Route Option M Links All, A1l3, Al4, A1S, Al6 3 ° 2 > 3 € S = Ss 5 - S 2 = = £ “ zg - o = 2 a s ~ Pipeline Parallel Transmission line parallel/ rebuild Railroad parallel Paved/gravel road parallel Kenai Peninsula Borough Municipality of Anchorage (includes ite) priva U.S. Fish and Wildlife Cook Inlet Region Inc. (CIRD Salamatof Native Association Pt. Possession Group Kenai Native Association Existing and Future Land Use Inventory Residential and commercial parcels crossed Parallel to Old Seward Highway and International Road Submarine landing at Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek Impacts and Mitigation Mitigation would be to rebuild existing distribution line within the road right-of-way Preference: 2 TABLE 2-11C ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON ANCHORAGE BOWL: LAND USE Linear Features Jurisdiction miles) (miles) Land Use Recreation Inventory = Rabbit Creek Rifle Range = Crosses Campbell Creek Greenbelt Impacts and Mitigation = No recreation impacts Preference: 1 Summary of Community Working Group Issues = Impacts to residential neighborhoods through Oceanview Visual impacts along Old Seward Highway Impacts to residential areas adjacent to route Preference: 4 Agency Comments = Conflicts with ADOT plans for improvements along Old Seward Highway and International Airport Road/Old Seward Interchange Visual impacts to travel corridor Southem Intertie Project DEIS 80 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof (Tesoro Route) Route Option N Link T18 Socioeconomic Impacts and Mitigation Mostly local construction workers 10 to 15 non-local workers to be hired Influx of workers for submerged segments not significant to economy No significant impacts Subsistence Cultural Resources Impacts = Low potential impact area TABLE 2-11C ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON ANCHORAGE BOWL: SOCIEOCONOMIC, SUBSISTENCE, CULTURAL, AND VISUAL Visual Resources Landscape Scenery Local Context Primarily park-like image type, as well as some industrial areas Regional Context Cook Inlet, Turnagain Arm, Knik Arm with distant view to Mt. Susitna, Mt. McKinley Residential and Recreation Views Views = Immediate foreground and foreground views from recreation area (Tony Knowles Coastal Trail) Travel Way Views = Parallels portions of the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail Summary of Visual Impacts and Mitigation (miles) Impacts No significant visual impacts to views within Kincaid Park Mitigation To minimize ground disturbance new access roads will follow the landform contour Clearing of right-of-way will be minimized Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge of the right-of-way into adjacent vegetation patterns This route option will be underground due to location within a park and requirements within the flight path of the Anchorage Airport Klatt to International (Enstar Route) Route Option J Links Al, A2, A3, A4, AS Same as Route Option N Impacts = Low potential impact area Preference: 1 Local Context = Primarily residential interspersed with undeveloped natural areas Regional Context = Turnagain Arm, Anchorage Development Views Immediate foreground and foreground views from residential areas Immediate foreground and foreground views from recreation areas (Pioneer Park, Heritage Land Trust/future park, Campbell Creek Greenbelt, and Javier De La Vega Park Parallels portions of Klatt Road, O'Malley Road, and Minnesota Drive Impacts 1.0 mile of significant visual impacts Mitigation To minimize ground disturbance new access roads will follow the landform contour To reduce visual impacts on recreation areas and safety at highway and trail crossings towers will be placed at the maximum feasible distance from the crossing within limits of standard tower design “Dulled” metal or corten finish on towers will be used to reduce visual impacts Clearing of right-of-way will be minimized Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge of the right-of-way into adjacent vegetation patterns Preference: 2 Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-81 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 (Enstar Route) Route Option K* Links A6, A7, A8, A9, ALO 3 = 3 3 = - se 2 = 5 Ss £ z 2 = = s ys z 2 = sz s S a “a % s 2 z s = Socioeconomic Same as Route Option N Subsistence Cultural Resources Impacts = Low potential impact area Preference: 1 Landscape Scenery Local Context Primarily an industrial image type interspersed with residential, commercial, and park-like areas Regional Context Anchorage Development Residential and Recreation Immediate foreground and foreground views from residential areas Immediate foreground and foreground views from recreation areas (Campbell Creek Greenbelt and Javier De La Vega Park) TABLE 2-11C ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON ANCHORAGE BOWL: SOCIEOCONOMIC, SUBSISTENCE, = Parallels portions of the Alaska Railroad CULTURAL, AND VISUAL Summary of Visual Impacts and gation (miles) Impacts 1.0 mile of significant visual impacts Mitigation Single-shaft steel poles will be used in place of larger, more visually dominant structures in order to reduce structural contrast To reduce visual impacts on recreation areas and safety at highway and trail crossings towers will be placed at the maximum feasible distance from the crossing within limits of standard tower design “Dulled” metal or corten finish on towers will be used to reduce visual impacts Clearing of right-of-way will be minimized Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge of the right-of-way into adjacent vegetation patterns To minimize visual impacts transition facilities will be placed within a small enclosed building in context with the surrounding architecture Preference: 1 Highway (Enstar Route) Route Option M Links All, Al3, Al4, A15, A16 Rabbit Creek to International via Old Seward *Applicant’s Proposed Route Same as Route Option N Impacts = Low potential impact area Preference: 1 Local Context Primarily commercial and residential image types interspersed with industrial and park-like areas Regional Context Anchorage Development Views Immediate foreground and foreground views from residential areas Immediate foreground and foreground views from recreation areas (Rabbit Creek Rifle Range, Community Ball Fields on Old Seward Highway, Campbell Creek Greenbelt, and Javier De La Vega Park) = Parallels portions of the Old Seward Highway and International Airport Road Impacts 2.6 miles of significant visual impacts Mitigation Single-shaft steel poles will be used in place of larger, more visually dominant structures in order to reduce structural contrast Standard tower design will be modified to correspond with spacing of existing transmission line structures To reduce visual impacts on recreation areas and safety at highway and trail crossings towers will be placed at the maximum feasible distance from the crossing within limits of standard tower design “Dulled” metal or corten finish on towers will be used to reduce visual impacts Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge of the right-of-way into adjacent vegetation patterns Preference: 2 Southern Intertie Project DEIS 2-82 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof (Tesoro Routes) Route Option N Link T18 Length (miles) Inventory, Impacts, and Mitigation Cable underground over entire route option 1.2 mile prone to slope instability - mitigated: see Route A 1.0 mile of roadless area - mitigated by routing new access to reduce scarring of landscape No significant impacts Geologic, Water and Marine Resources Drainage Basins and Watersheds Inventory, Impacts, and Mitigation Cable underground over entire route option No significant impacts TABLE 2-11C ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON ANCHORAGE BOWL: GEOLOGY AND VEGETATION Wetland Vegetation Inventory 0.5 acre saltmarsh potentially affected Impacts and Mitigation Directional boring below saltmarsh No significant impacts Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Upland Vegetation Inventory and Impacts 10.2 acres closed mixed forest potentially affected Mitigation Selective clearing No significant impacts Klatt Road to International via Minnesota Drive Rabbit Creek to International Substation via Old Seward (Enstar Routes) (Enstar Routes) wo < + = as 2 ae nN 2x ie] as aT & — Route Option M Links All, Al3, Al4, AIS, Al6 Route Option K* Links A6, A7, A8, A9, *Applicant’s Proposed Route Inventory, Impacts, and Mitigation 1.8 miles @mpressible materials - mitigated: see Route Option A Access road construction over 0.04 mile of Link Al No significant impacts Preference: 1 Inventory, Impacts, and Mitigation No significant impacts Preference: 1 Inventory, Impacts, and No significant impacts Preference: 1 Inventory, Impacts, and Mitigation Streams and Associated Floodplains Crossed - Campbell Creek One stream crossing — mitigated: see Route Option A 0.1 mile 100-year floodplain — mitigated: see Route Option A No significant impacts Inventory, Impacts, and M. Streams and Associated Floodplains Crossed - Campbell Creek (twice) Two stream crossings — mitigated: see Route Option A Flood zones generally 400 to 1,000 feet wide Mitigation measures include utilizing railroad right-of-way to eliminate need for new crossing at Campbell Creek No significant impacts Inventory, Impacts, and Mitigation Streams and Associated Floodplains Crossed - Campbell Creek - Furrow Creek - Rabbit Creek Five stream crossings — mitigated: see Route Option A 0.6 mile 100-year floodplain — mitigated: see Route Option A Campbell Creek flood zone is approximately 500 to 1,000 feet wide No significant impacts Inventory and Impacts 0.2 acre black spruce bogs potentially affected Mitigation Spanning low-growing vegetation Not improving existing roads Selective clearing No significant impacts Preference: 1 Inventory and Impacts 0.1 acre black spruce bogs potentially affected Mitigation Spanning low-growing vegetation Not improving existing roads Selective clearing Limited clearing of right-of-way No significant impacts Preference: 1 Inventory and Impacts 0.9 acre saltmarsh potentially affected Mitigation Directional boring below saltmarsh Spanning low-growing vegetation Not improving existing roads Selective clearing No significant impacts Preference: 1 Inventory and Impacts 0.4 acre closed mixed spruce forest potentially affected Mitigation Selective clearing Spanning low-growing vegetation No significant impacts Preference: 1 Inventory and Impacts 0.5 acre closed mixed spruce forest potentially affected Mitigation Selective clearing No significant impacts Preference: Inventory and Impacts 0.6 acre closed mixed spruce forest potentially affected Mitigation Selective clearing No significant impacts Preferred Route Option Old Seward Highway and Railroad right-of-ways Preference: 1 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 Rabbit Creek to International Substation via Seward Highway Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof 3 < S = a = x S 2 = = (Tesoro and Substation (Enstar Routes) Enstar Routes) Alaska Railroad (Enstar Route) (Enstar Route) Route Option K* Route Option J Route Option M Links All, Al3, Al4, Route Option N Link T18 Links A6, A7, A8, Links Al, A2, A3, A4, A5S Al15, Al6 Anadromous Fish Impacts and Mitigation No anadromous fish streams Not a factor in route comparison Inventory One anadromous fish stream crossing Impacts and Mitigation Anadromous fish stream would be spanned — no significant impacts Same as Route Option J Inventory Four anadromous fish stream crossings Impacts and Mitigation Anadromous fish streams spanned Submarine cable would be bored under Rabbit Creek — no significant impacts Birds Impacts and Mitigation Waterfowl habitat very limited — no significant impacts Clearing within 0.25 mile of known bald eagle nest - selective tree removal - locally significant impacts Preference: Inventory and Impacts Waterfowl habitat limited — no significant impacts No known bald eagle nesting areas - no significant impacts Preference: 1 Same as Route Option J Impacts and Mitigation Disturbance to staging waterfowl at Potter Marsh and known bald eagle nesting area — locally significant impacts Large Mammals Impacts and Mitigation Clearing within moose winter range/creation of new winter range in Kincaid Park - no significant impacts Impacts and Mitigation Clearing within moose winter range/creation of new winter range in urban setting - no significant impacts Same as Route Option J Same as Route Option N Predators Impacts and Mitigation Limited habitat for wolf and lynx in Kincaid Park area - no significant impacts Impacts and Mitigation No wolf or lynx habitat - no impacts Same as Route Option J Same as Route Option N TABLE 2-11C ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON ANCHORAGE BOWL: WILDLIFE RESOURES Wildlife Selected Resources Marine Mammals Impacts and Mitigation No habitat for marine mammals Not a factor in route comparison Same as Route Option N Same as Route Option N Same as Route Option N Impacts and Mitigation No habitat for threatened or endangered species Not a factor in route comparison Same as Route Option N Same as Route Option N Same as Route Option N *Applicant’s Proposed Route outhern Intertie Project DEIS 2-84 Chapter 2 — Alternatives Including the Applicant’s Proposal September 2001 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ONSEQUENCES 3.1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 3 presents the affected environment for the Applicant’s proposal and alternatives as well as the potential impacts of the proposed project on the study area environment. The affected environment describes the current condition of each resource and relevant characteristics that may be subjected to the impacts from the proposed project. The environmental consequences present the direct and indirect impacts for each alternative on each resource. The impacts described are expected residual impacts following the application of mitigation measures. Cumulative impacts are presented in a separate section. Routes and facilities are illustrated on the General Reference Features Map (Figuve MV-1) in Volume II of the DEIS. Also included in Volume II are specific maps and locational diagrams showing transition stations for each alternative (Figure MV-la and 1b). Specific resource mapping, technical diagrams, and simulations that support these discussions are also provided in Volume II of the DEIS. In addition, methods used to conduct the resource studies are summarized in Appendix C, Volume II. As part of the project description, the IPG is proposing to undertake certain measures to protect the environment as standard practice for the entire project. These measures are referred to as generic mitigation measures. Where warranted on a case-by-case basis, mitigation beyond these generic measures was recommended to reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable or lesser level. These are called selective mitigation measures. These general and specific mitigation measures are discussed in more detail in Volume II, Appendix D. The resources inventoried and described in this chapter include the following: climate and air quality earth and water resources marine environment biological resources land use and recreation socioeconomics and tourism subsistence visual resources cultural resources Each resource description contains an explanation of the methods used to gather data and the inventory results. Where appropriate, inventory results are detailed for each alternative. In addition, most of the resource sections contain an overview including the following: = explanations and descriptions of the types of impacts anticipated = identification of significant impacts = descriptions of measures to mitigate impacts = residual impacts after mitigation Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.1 - Introduction 3-1 September 2001 Because of their unique characteristics, the discussion of each resource may vary slightly. For example, socioeconomics, electric and magnetic fields, and noise are addressed regionally rather than for each alternative. Three alternatives, the no-action alternative, Tesoro Route, and Enstar Route (Applicant's Proposal) are analyzed for each resource under study. Route Alternatives Analyzed Description of Route No-Action Alternative The Southern Intertie Project transmission line would not be built. Existing and foreseeable conditions would continue. Tesoro Route Runs from Bernice Lake Substation north along the north Kenai Spur Road and the Tesoro pipeline to Pt. Possession where the line crosses the Turnagain Arm (three submarine route options to cross the Arm) to the Pt. Woronzof Substation. Enstar Route and Runs from Soldotna Substation along two route options (north and south) Anchorage Alternatives following existing transmission line corridors and the Enstar pipeline corridor, through the KNWR to Burnt Island where the line crosses Turnagain Arm (three submarine route options for crossing the Arm) into the Anchorage area, then travels through Anchorage (three route options through Anchorage) to the International Substation. 314 Types of Impacts To determine potential impact levels for resources discussed in this chapter, resource sensitivity and quantity are analyzed. The combination of these two assessment variables determines the level of impact assigned to each resource category. Impacts are categorized into three types, as follows. Direct impact: caused by the action and occurs at the same time and place Indirect impact: caused by the action and is later in time or farther removed in distance, but still reasonably foreseeable; may include growth inducing effects or other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems Cumulative impact: results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions; can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time A summary of cumulative impacts for each resource is located in Section 3.12. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.1 - Introduction 3.9 September 2001 Types of impacts can fall into two categories: (1) impacts associated with ground disturbance that occur during construction, and (2) long-term impacts associated with the presence of the line and associated facilities. Ground disturbances resulting from construction include the following: clearing vegetation for right-of-way and access preparing tower sites, substation sites, and transition facility sites assembling and erecting tower structures stringing conductors (e.g., wire pulling and splicing sites) Considerations for the presence of the facilities include structures, conductors, and access. 3.12 Significance of Impacts As defined in NEPA (CEQ Regulation 1508.27), significance requires considerations of both context and intensity. Context: significance of an action is analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole, the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality; significance varies with the setting of the proposed action; for instance, in the case of a site- specific action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather in the world as a whole Intensity: refers to the severity of an impact; the following should be considered in evaluating intensity: = impacts may be both beneficial and adverse = degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety = unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas = degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial m degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.1 - Introduction 3-3 September 2001 = whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts; significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment; significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small components m= degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources = degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 = whether the action threatens a violation of federal, state, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment Definitions for significant impacts by resource were established to provide a means of interpreting which issues are associated with each resource in the Project area, which impacts are relevant to the resource, and how those impacts must affect the resource to be considered significant. These definitions are provided in Table 3-1. TABLE 3-1 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Resource Issues Significance Criteria Earth = earthquake induced hazards A significant impact is one in which substantial = = ground failure damage to the power line, transition facilities, or = slope instability substations could occur, affecting project reliability = slope and soil conditions and requiring repair or replacement. The following = compressible materials are examples of natural conditions that could represent significant impacts depending on the magnitude of the condition: slope or bluff failure, ground shaking, liquefaction, or other types of ground failure during a major earthquake. Water = ~~ watersheds A significant impact is one where construction causes = stream flow severe localized stream bank erosion, or where right- = ~~ watershed soil of-way clearing and vegetation removal causes major = = flood zones sedimentation in the watershed during and following = groundwater construction. Marine = currents and tides A significant impact is one in which substantial = sedimentation damage to the submarine cable could occur, affecting @ sea ice project reliability and requiring replacement. The =~ marine water quality following are examples of natural conditions that = boulders could represent significant impacts depending on the ™ = estuary environment magnitude of the condition: boulder movements and ice scour in the submarine environment, turbulent tides, and large quantities of sediment. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.1 - Introduction 3-4 September 2001 TABLE 3-1 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Resource Issues Significance Criteria Biological | terrestrial A significant impact would occur under the following Resources - vegetation conditions: (1) the resource or species has a - wetlands designated legal status or protection; (2) the project - wildlife creates wildlife hazards not currently present in the = fresh water environment, or the resource has a high susceptibility =~ marine to the kinds of impacts associated with the project and = threatened and endangered project-related impacts could result in disturbance, species injury, death, or decreased productivity; (3) the project results in a loss of habitat due to right-of-way clearing, or the resource has a high value and quality as wildlife habitat, characterized by high species richness and/or providing critical resources for species of concern; (4) the project results in improved public access into areas that are currently difficult to reach, or the resource is of limited availability within the Project study area; and (5) the project conflicts with or creates obstacles to federal, state, or local resource or wildlife management plans. *See text at end of table and additional discussions. Land Use = = land use plans and policies Significant impacts were assigned to those areas = existing and planned land use_| where an officially stated or approved land use = recreation restriction, plan, or policy would be violated or where = aviation facilities the project would result in a direct conflict of physical = wilderness designation restriction to existing or planned residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, or aviation uses. An additional significant impact would be where the qualification criteria for wilderness designation would be modified by the action thus affecting the wilderness character of the area or where an existing wilderness proposal would be impacted. Socioeconomics | ™ population The significance of a socioeconomic effect depends = housing on the extent to which a change in a parameter (i.e., = community services and “issue”) affects the ability of a community to facilities accommodate the change—e.g., in population, = expenditures and workforce requirements for housing and other community (construction) services and facilities, and quality of life. By far, the = property values most important variable is population, since changes = tourism in the numbers of people in a community set off = rates waves of changes in demand for social and economic resources. *See text at end of table and additional discussions. Subsistence = federal or state designated A significant impact would be restrictions to, or loss rural subsistence communities | of, subsistence or designated subsistence areas. (Ninilchik, Cooper Landing, Hope) or areas (KNWR) provided by section 801 of ANILCA Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-5 Chapter 3.1 - Introduction September 2001 TABLE 3-1 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Resource Issues Significance Criteria Visual = landscape scenery Significant impacts are the result of high visibility Resources - rural from sensitive viewing areas such as residences, - urban recreation areas, or park-like settings, or strong or = residential views moderate visual change to the setting. The proposed @ recreation views facilities would be visually evident in the landscape = highway views and incongruous with the visual character of the area. A significant impact to a travelway occurs when the proposed facilities are one of the few man-made elements visible within the foreground views from the road. The proposed project would dominate the landscape which was previously an open setting offering scenic views to distant or local natural features. Cultural Archaeological and historical: A significant impact would be an unrecoverable loss Resources = sites or degradation of archaeological sites either through = buildings direct disturbance by construction activities, or = structures indirect disturbance due to increase in public = = districts accessibility. = = objects that are eligible or potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register *For example, brown bear summer feeding areas are not legally protected as defined above. They could be highly susceptible to project-related impacts, such as disturbance during construction and increased human/bear interaction resulting from improved access over the long-term. Brown bear summer feeding areas include all anadromous fish streams within the Project study area; however, the quality of these streams as brown bear summer feeding habitat could depend on anadromous fish numbers, levels of human disturbance, and accessibility to fish. Anadromous fish streams that provide good quality summer feeding habitat for brown bears are of relatively low availability within the Project study area. Based on the criteria outlined above, these resources are, therefore, considered sensitive to project-related impacts. Additional brown bear discussion. Impact significance is evaluated within three levels of context: local, regional, and national. The local context for this Project is defined as the immediate vicinity of the alternative routes. The regional context depends on resource distribution and interactions. For example, the regional context for evaluation of impact significance on brown bear resources would be the Kenai Peninsula, because the population of brown bears on the Peninsula are believed to experience little, if any, immigration from or emigration to other brown bear populations. A national context considers resource status at the national level, and federal mandates for resource protection. For example, wildlife within the KNWR is considered a national resource due to the USFWS mandate to protect wildlife. Adverse impacts on wildlife within the KNWR are considered nationally significant. Additional socioeconomic discussion. There are no statutory values for defining socioeconomic significance. Instead, professional judgments are called for to determine whether a community’s social stability, economic welfare, or public service infrastructure might be adversely affected by a given action or activity. “Rules of thumb” have evolved from 30+ years of assessing impacts of Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.1 - Introduction 3-6 September 2001 development projects on communities and regions that indicate that if the induced change in a socioeconomic parameter like population, demand for community services, or asset value is greater than 5 percent to 10 percent (depending on whether the change is temporary or permanent), then there is a potential for disturbance to the local community’s welfare. In such instances, providers of community services and facilities need to be surveyed as to their ability to accommodate the impact, with respect to both the capacity of existing resources as well as to financial means. If those resources appear likely to be stressed, then mitigating measures may be called for to ameliorate the impact. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.1 - Introduction a7 September 2001 3.2 - CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY 3.2 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY Sauk Affected Environment Climate The climate of south-central Alaska is transitional between maritime and continental. Heavy precipitation, cool summers, and mild winters characterize the maritime regions of the coast and Kenai Mountains. The Cook Inlet basin lies in the rain shadow of the Kenai Mountains and receives 15 to 30 inches of precipitation a year, with July and August typically the wettest months. This area experiences short periods of extreme cold in winter and high winds throughout the year. Average mean maximum and minimum temperatures recorded in the region are 4.5 degrees Celsius (°C) to 7.2 °C and —6.7 °C and —1.1 °C (40° to 45° Fahrenheit [F] and 20 °F to 30 °F), respectively. Highest and lowest recorded temperatures in Anchorage are 29.5 °C and -36.7 °C (85 °F and —34 °F), respectively. Highest and lowest recorded temperatures in Kenai are 33.9 °C and -43.9 °C (93 °F and -47 °F), respectively. Mean snowfall varies from 67.5 inches of snow in Anchorage to 55.1 inches in Kenai (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 1997). Air Quality The Alaska State Air Quality Control Plan and Title 18 Chapter 50 of the Alaska Administrative Code regulate air emissions within the state. The study area is classified as class II and the majority of the study area is classified as an air quality attainment area with the following exceptions: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified urban Anchorage as non-attainment for carbon monoxide and the Eagle River area of Anchorage as non-attainment for particulate matter nominally 10 meters and less. 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences No impacts to climate are expected as a result of this project. Air quality impacts associated with the proposed Project would be minimal and of a short-term nature. During construction there may be some increase in air emissions from construction equipment and motor vehicles. These impacts will not persist for long in any one location as construction will be done in phases along the proposed right-of-way. There is not expected to be a substantial difference in potential air quality impacts among the various route alternatives. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.2 - Climate and Air Quality 3-8 September 2001 3.3 - EARTH AND WATER RESOURCES 3.3 EARTH AND WATER RESOURCES The following sections present discussions on earth and water resources in the study area; each are discussed separately. Refer to Section 3.5.5, Freshwater Environment, for information on streams and fish. 3.3.1 Earth Resources The affected environment, environmental consequences, and mitigation measures are combined for earth and water resources for each alternative. The following sections present an inventory of earth resources including the geology and seismicity, soils, and mineral resources of the study area. Geology and Seismicity The study area includes portions of two physiographic provinces within the Southern Mountainous Belt of Alaska: the Cook Inlet-Susitna Lowlands and the Kenai-Chugach Mountains. The Cook Inlet-Susitna Lowlands consist of plains and lowlands generally less than 1,000 feet above sea level with discontinuous plateaus and highlands characterized by gently rolling topography and gentle slopes. (This area includes the Kenai Lowlands and Anchorage Bowl regions of the study area.) The Kenai-Chugach Mountains are moderately high, rugged mountains, generally between 5,000 and 10,000 feet above sea level. The boundary dividing these two physiographic provinces coincides with the Border Range Fault, an inactive fault running parallel to the coast from Sitka in far eastern Alaska west to the Aleutian Islands. Within the study area, the fault runs from just south of Anchorage, southwest 22across the Turnagain Arm to the Kenai Peninsula (near Burnt Island), where it bisects Skilak Lake before continuing west along the coast. There is a second inactive fault south of the Border Range Fault and roughly parallel to it called the Eagle River Fault. These faults separate the major geologic units in the study area: upper Tertiary Continental Deposits, McHugh Complex, and Orca Group. The Continental Deposits are relatively young, Oligocene to Pliocene age, and consist of sandstone, siltstone, claystone, minor conglomerates, and coal beds. These rocks are overlain by even more recent glacial, alluvial, colluvial, lacustrine, and marine deposits of unconsolidated silts, sands and gravels (Anderson and Jones 1972; Winkler 1992). The glacial deposits date from the early Quaternary. The alluvial and marine units in the study area are more recent, less than 11,000 years old. The McHugh Complex is exposed in the western Kenai Mountains and consists of late Triassic to mid-Cretaceous-age metamorphosed volcanic and sedimentary rocks (Clark 1973; Plafker et al. 1994; Tysdal and Case 1979; Winkler 1992). The Orca Group outcrops in the central and Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.3 - Earth and Water Resources 3-9 September 2001 eastern Kenai Mountains and southern Chugach Mountains and consists of mildly metamorphosed flysch, basalt, and ophiolite suites. The geology and structure of the Kenai Peninsula is dominated by an active subduction zone extending from the eastern Gulf of Alaska to the Aleutian Islands that is the source of large, deep-focus earthquakes in the region. The geologic formations described above are part of the Southern Margin composite terrain, a complexly deformed accretionary wedge of material that formed from the intermittent offscraping of oceanic rocks and island arc-related volcanic rocks against the margin of the Alaskan coast during the subduction of the Pacific plate. Major historic earthquakes in this region, including the 1964 Prince William Sound (Moment Magnitude [Mw] 9.2) and the 1957 Aleutian (Mw 9.1), were associated with this extensive offshore fault system called the Alaska-Aleutian megathrust. The Aleutian Megathrust fault line is located approximately 400 miles offshore near the study area. The fault dips to the north reaching a depth of more than 21.8 miles beneath the study area (Plafker et al. 1994). This is an active fault and remains a potential future source of destructive, deep-focus earthquakes. There may be an additional earthquake threat in the study area associated with shallow deformation above the megathrust (Haeussler and Bruhn 1995). Buried, northeast-trending, reverse faults and folds in the upper Cook Inlet basin are associated with historic seismic activity up to magnitude 6.9. These faults and folds form the oil- and gas-producing structures beneath Cook Inlet and the Kenai Lowlands. These structures as well as the Border Range Fault may be active at depth. While surficial deposits show no evidence of ruptures in the last two million years, potentially active faults at depth could cause significant disturbance in the area (Harding- Lawson Associates [HLA] 1979; Plafker et al. 1994). Soils Due to the active seismicity in the region, soils and surficial deposits in the study area are subject to several types of ground failure associated with earthquakes in addition to the more commonplace hazards of slope instability, erosion, settlement, permafrost, and frost heave. Earthquake-Related Hazards—Some unconsolidated deposits may experience ground cracking and horizontal movement from liquefaction, landsliding, and differential settlement (Bartsh- Winkler and Schmoll 1984; Dobrovolny and Schmoll 1974; HLA 1979; Updike et al. 1988). These deposits are depicted as Qg on Figures MV-2 through MV-4 (Volume II). Liquefaction occurs when fine-grained, cohesionless, saturated soils are vibrated during an earthquake or with the use of heavy equipment, transforming the soil from solid to a liquid. Deposits prone to liquefaction have high ground water levels (generally less than 10 feet deep). Most lowland parts of the study area have some susceptibility to liquefaction, while the shallow sediment in Turnagain Arm is expected to be very susceptible to liquefaction. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.3 - Earth and Water Resources 3-10 September 2001 Large earthquakes also could cause landslides resulting in significant damage to the proposed Project. Bands of unconsolidated deposits located above and below steep slopes, as well as deposits underlain by significant clay deposits are included on Figures MV-2 through MV-4 (Volume II) as Qg because of the potential for landslides. (Steep slopes in the study area that could experience landsliding independent of earthquakes are depicted as Qs on Figures MV-2 through MV-4 [Volume II].) Other landslide hazards that could be triggered by earthquakes in the study area include bluff failures along Turnagain Arm and Cook Inlet. Crustal deformation during the 1964 earthquake caused widespread uplift and subsidence throughout southern Alaska, with notable changes in land level over an area between 70,000 and 110,000 square miles. Subsidence within the study area caused the ground to settle approximately two to four feet (HLA 1979). Tsunamis and Seiches—Earthquakes can trigger large waves in oceans (tsunamis) or lakes (seiches) causing severe damage to low-lying coastal areas. Based on computer models for tsunami prediction, tsunamis of significant size are not expected in upper Cook Inlet or Turnagain Arm due to the shallowness and configuration of the inlet (Sokolowski 1996). Tsunamis modeling reported by HLA (1979) indicated that the area affected from any conceivable tsunami in the study area would be smaller than that expected from the 100-year runoff/tidal flood event (HLA 1979). Compressible Soils—Compressible materials (depicted as Qc on Figures MV-2 through MV-4 in Volume II) within the study area include Quaternary-age, unconsolidated, organic-rich soils with a susceptibility to compressibility when loaded. These marsh/bog deposits consisting of silt, clay, and peat are commonly found on low-lying, poor-draining topography in the Anchorage Bowl and Kenai lowlands. Foundations placed within compressible soil can settle over time (Holtz and Kovacs 1981). These soils also are subject to subsidence and ground cracking during major earthquakes (HLA 1979). Permafrost—Isolated, discontinuous areas of permafrost have been reported in the southeast portion of the Anchorage Bowl. The area between Campbell and Furrow creeks in particular is reported by HLA (1979) to have a high potential for isolated permafrost conditions. Other parts of the study area are considered to be free of permafrost, although small isolated patches may exist (HLA 1979; Selkregg 1974). Areas with permafrost that are cleared are subject to ground subsidence. Ground movements of up to four feet have been reported in the Anchorage Bowl (HLA 1979). Frost Heave—Frost heave is soil expansion due to freezing temperatures and can cause frost jacking when this expansion displaces pilings or other buried structures such as transmission line structures. Silty frost-susceptible soils with shallow ground water, a thick capillary fringe, and sub-freezing temperatures provide optimum conditions for frost heave. These conditions occur throughout much of the Anchorage Bowl and Kenai Lowlands. In particular, fine-grained surficial deposits, also expected to have a high potential for compressibility, are likely susceptible to frost heave (HLA 1979; Holtz and Kovacs 1981; SCS 1979). Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.3 - Earth and Water Resources aah September 2001 Mineral and Paleontological Resources The study area contains a variety of nonmetallic mineral resources, including sand and gravel, clay, and coal. Clay, suitable for brick and ceramic manufacturing, is found in the Anchorage Bowl. Sand and gravel resources occur along major streams and are actively mined from subsurface glacial deposits in the Anchorage Bowl. Cook Inlet also is known for its oil and gas resources, although the proposed corridors do not cross any active fields (Magoon and others 1976). There are coal deposits underlying the western portion of the Kenai Peninsula, predominantly beneath the KNWR in the study area. There are no known paleontological resources in the Quaternary surficial deposits of Anchorage or the Kenai Lowlands. Most of the rock types included in the McHugh Complex and Orca Group are not associated with paleontological resources. Microfossils (radiolarian) have been reported in metachert lenses (fine-grained sedimentary rock altered by heat and pressure) in the McHugh Complex, but are rarely preserved (Clark 1973; Plafker and others 1994). 3.3.2 Water Resources This water resources summary includes drainage basins and streams, flood zones, ground water, wetlands, and salt water marshes. Drainage Basins and Streams This section provides a description of the drainage basin and streamflow characteristics of rivers and streams crossed by the alternative routes. The discussion addresses the Kenai River and its tributaries, streams in the Kenai Lowlands, and streams in the Anchorage Bowl. Kenai River—The Kenai River would be crossed at two locations by Option E South of the Enstar Route alternative. This river is the only glacier-fed river in the study area and has distinctive runoff characteristics. The Kenai River derives most of its discharge from the snowfields and glaciers of the Kenai Mountains (Anderson and Jones 1972). The river originates at the outlet of Kenai Lake, flows west, and empties into Cook Inlet near the community of Kenai. The river drains an area of 2,010 square miles (Anderson and Jones 1972). Peak flows in the Kenai River commonly occur during intense snow melting in mid summer, but also have resulted from the release of glacially impounded water in headwater tributaries. During periods of low flow, the river is sustained primarily by outflow from larger lakes. Alternative routes cross three tributaries of Kenai River: = Soldotna Creek would be crossed by Route Option E North. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.3 - Earth and Water Resources Ba 10) September 2001 = Moose River would be crossed by Route Option E North. Option F of the Enstar Route alternative crosses tributaries to Moose River including the East Fork Moose River (north of Seven Lakes) and four unnamed streams. = Funny River is crossed by Route Option E South (Applicant’s Proposal). The Kenai River water quality is typical of glacial streams, with low total dissolved solids and high amounts of suspended silt or clay-sized particles (Anderson and Jones 1972). Kenai Lowlands Streams—Nonglacial streams in the Kenai Lowlands and Anchorage Bowl originate from lowland lakes and tributaries of the western portion of the Kenai and Chugach mountains. These drainage channels are typically low-gradient, meandering systems that flow high in spring from snowmelt and high in late summer and autumn from rain. Low flows occur mainly during winter and are sustained by ground water (Anderson and Jones 1972). = Tesoro Route Option A crosses several streams that originate along the northwest portion of the Kenai Lowlands and drain into Cook Inlet. From south to north, these streams include Bishop Creek, Swanson River, Scaup Creek, Otter Creek, Seven Egg Creek, and Miller Creek. = The Enstar Route Option F (Applicant’s Proposal) would cross a number of streams that drain into Chickaloon Bay, including the Chickaloon River, tributaries of Chickaloon River (Mystery Creek and several unnamed streams), Big and Little Indian creeks, and Burnt Island Creek. General water quality conditions for nonglacial streams in the Kenai Lowlands are described by the KNWR (1995a) as clear water with suspended sediment loads during heavy runoff. Most streams in the Kenai Lowlands are slightly alkaline to slightly acidic and the oxygen content is usually high during the summer (KNWR 1995a). Anchorage Bowl Streams—Streams in the Anchorage Bowl that are crossed by the alternative routes include Campbell, Furrow, and Rabbit creeks. Campbell Creek is a nonglacial stream that drains the hillside and upper reaches of the Chugach Mountains. The drainage basin is forested at the lower elevations, with tundra at elevations above 1,500 feet. The river drains an area of 74 square miles (SCS 1979). Peak flows in Campbell Creek commonly occur during spring snowmelt, but also can result from large rainstorms during late summer. Water quality of Campbell Creek above its confluence with Little Campbell Creek consists of relatively low concentrations of dissolved solids, suspended sediment, and fecal coliform. However, downstream of the confluence, concentrations of these water quality parameters increase as partially urbanized Little Campbell Creek contributes to the stream. This effect occurs during lowland snowmelts with an increased loading of total dissolved solids, suspended Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.3 - Earth and Water Resources 3-13 September 2001 sediment, and fecal coliform. During storms, flow from the North Fork and South Fork Campbell Creek tributaries tend to dilute the water and lessen the adverse water quality impact from Little Campbell Creek (Brabets and Wittenberg 1983). Furrow Creek has a small drainage basin draining only the lower portion of the south Anchorage hillside. No streamflow or water quality data exist for this creek. Rabbit Creek is located in the southern portion of Anchorage Bowl. Together with Little Rabbit Creek, it drains approximately 21 square miles of the Chugach Mountains. The basin is forested at the lower altitudes with tundra at altitudes above 1,500 feet. Peak flows occur during spring runoff and reduce during mid summer and fall. Flood Zones Areas prone to flooding due to precipitation, snowmelt, and/or glacier dam outburst are presented on Figures MV-2 through MV-4 (Volume II). Flood zones along rivers and streams mark the boundaries of the 100-year events. Outburst flooding from the release of glacier- dammed lakes occurs regularly on Kenai River. When flooding occurs in winter, the increase in flow can raise and destroy the river’s ice cover, resulting in ice jams and subsequent backwater flooding. Flooding in nonglacial streams occurs as the result of heavy precipitation, snow and ice melt, and storm surges during high tide. Ground Water Shallow unconfined ground water occurs throughout the Anchorage Bowl and Kenai Lowlands in the surficial glacial and alluvial deposits. Seeps and springs are common along coastal bluffs and stream banks in these areas. Because of the range in types of surficial deposits, ground water availability is locally variable. Areas of poor drainage and near-surface ground water conditions tend to occur in areas with compressible soils (depicted as Qc on Figures MV-2 through MV-4 in Volume II). 3.3.3 Alternatives The following sections describe earth resource issues identified along each alternative route. Locations of earth resource features are shown on Figures MV-2 to MV-4 in Volume II. There are several impacts and associated mitigation measures that are common to many of the alternative routes. These are summarized below and referenced in the text. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.3 - Earth and Water Resources 3-14 September 2001 TABLE 3-2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS COMMON TO MOST ALTERNATIVE ROUTES Source Impact Mitigation Construction ¢ Temporary changes in stream discharge and channel Standard mitigation procedures including impacts near morphology spanning streams with towers sited a streams. ¢ Spills of petroleum products, solvents or other minimum of 200 feet from streams; construction-related materials suspending transmission lines beneath ¢ Removal of protective bank vegetation leading to bank | existing bridges; or boring under streams slough. will reduce impacts to stream channels Vehicle impacts |e Temporary changes in stream discharge and channel Scheduling installations during winter at stream morphology months would allow streams to be crossed crossings ¢ Spills of petroleum products, solvents or other via ice bridges; temporary man-made construction-related materials can adversely impact bridges during spring and summer water quality e Removal of protective bank vegetation leading to bank slough Vehicle impacts : : l / ‘ ae l i ¢ Soil compression caused by vehicles with standard Preferential use of existing access roads; pee tires that concentrate the weight of the vehicle and pane ote Aiba ground is frozen would compact soil causing long-term damage to soil reduce compression; use (on Say an fertility, porosity, hydraulic conductivity, and bulk low ground Pressure vehicles or pea density. equipment such as temporary steel matting during other times of the year Soil erosion e Soil erosion caused by vehicles and construction Limiting road widening and upgrading in activities areas with soils sensitive to disturbance; preferential use of existing access roads and trails; winter work when ground is frozen; and surface restoration would reduce soil erosion; also, provisions of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for construction activities will help limit soil erosion. Other mitigation measures are discussed in the text where appropriate. It should be noted that the regional seismic activity associated with the Aleutian Megathrust has the potential to affect all routes and is not discussed under any specific route. The propensity for major deep focus earthquakes along this fault will not be impacted by the construction of the transmission line. No-Action Alternative Affected Environment—No earth or water resources would be affected under the no-action alternative. Environmental Consequences—There would be no environmental consequences to earth or water resources under the no-action alternative. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.3 - Earth and Water Resources 3-15 September 2001 Mitigation—No mitigation actions would be required to address earth and water resources under the no-action alternative. Tesoro Route Bernice Lake to Pt. Possession - Route Option A Affected Environment—The Tesoro Route from Bernice Lake to Pt. Possession crosses six streams and associated floodplains including Bishop Creek, Swanson River, Scaup Creek, Otter Creek, Seven Egg Creek and Miller Creek. These creeks have flood zones generally on the order of 500 to 700 feet wide. The route crosses a short section of unconsolidated deposits forming steep bluffs northeast of Captain Cook SRA that are prone to erosion and slumping. The Bernice Lake Substation addition is proposed in an area of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits. The closest compressible soils associated with muskegs, or boreal area bogs, lie approximately 800 feet north of the substation. The transition facility sites at Rediske Airport, Johnson Airport, Captain Cook SRA North and South, and Pt. Possession are also located in areas of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits. There are unconsolidated materials subject to seismically induced ground failure approximately 500 feet north of the proposed Pt. Possession location and compressible materials subject to settlement directly north and east of the proposed Johnson Airport location. Environmental Consequences—This route would cross 0.6 mile of 100-year floodplain, six streams, 8.5 miles prone to seismic-induced ground failure, 0.1 mile prone to slope instability, and 0.9 mile with compressible materials subject to settlement. The stream crossings could have the short-term impacts presented in Table 3-2, although spanning is expected to address most of these impacts. Vehicle stream crossing and compressible soil impacts like those described in Table 3-1 are also possible along this route. Mitigation—Suspending the transmission line beneath the existing North Kenai Road Bridge across the Swanson River or boring under the river will significantly reduce impacts on this hydrologic resource. Crossings at other streams will be mitigated using other measures presented in Table 3-2. Impacts to compressible soils and streams from vehicles will also be mitigated using the measures discussed in Table 3-2. The short-term nature of expected construction- related disturbances combined with planned mitigation activities would minimize impacts on streams and soils crossed along this route. Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof via Fire Island - Route Option B Compressible soils are not present, nor are any stream crossings anticipated on the island. The Pt. Woronzof Substation is located in an area of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits. There are some materials subject to slope instability located northeast of the proposed substation Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.3 - Earth and Water Resources 3-16 September 2001 site. The Fire Island North and South transition facility sites are also located in areas of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits. A potential ice scour impact zone is located directly south of the Fire Island South transition site. The aquatic portion of this route is discussed in Section 3.4, Turnagain Arm/Submarine Environment. Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof (Aquatic Route) - Route Option C The submarine route is discussed in Section 3.4.6. Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell - Route Option D The Submarine Route is discussed in Section 3.4.6. Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof — Route Option N Affected Environment—This route follows the coast along the top of a steep bluff vulnerable to landslides, erosion, and seismic ground failure. After the landing at the bluff, the route is not in proximity to these hazards. Approximately | mile of roadless area would be crossed during installation. This proposed route does not cross any streams. The Pt. Campbell transition facility site is located in an area of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits. Unconsolidated materials prone to slope instability are located south and east of the proposed facility site. Environmental Consequences—The cable is underground for this entire route. Access to the roadless area represents a potential impact on geologic resources. Mitigation—Impacts from vehicle access to the roadless area will be mitigated using the measures presented in Table 3-2. Additional mitigation measures in the roadless area will include routing the new access to reduce scarring of the landscape. Although impacts cannot be eliminated they should be significantly mitigated by these measures and the short-term nature of the construction activities. Enstar Route Soldotna North - Route Option E North Affected Environment—This route would cross 1.1 miles of 100-year floodplain, six streams, and 7.7 miles with compressible materials. Stream crossings include three crossings of Soldotna Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.3 - Earth and Water Resources 17) September 2001 Creek, two crossings of unnamed creeks, and one crossing of Moose Creek. Flood zones in these creeks range from about 300 to 1,300 feet wide at the crossings. This alternative route crosses areas of compressible soils in muskegs and minor sections of unconsolidated soils in creek bottoms vulnerable to liquefaction during earthquakes. Two buried anticlines and the inactive Border Range Fault cross this route, presenting a potential for local earthquakes. The Soldotna Substation addition would be located in an area of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits. Soldotna Creek and its relatively narrow floodplain are located about 200 to 300 feet northwest of the substation. The Naptowne Substation siting area includes both relatively stable unconsolidated deposits and compressible soils associated with muskegs. Environmental Consequences—The routing of Link El parallels Soldotna Creek exposing almost | mile of channel and riparian area to potential impacts; however, access to tower locations can be made directly from an existing road, limiting disturbance of the riparian area. The stream crossings and vehicle stream crossings could have the potential impacts described in Table 3-2. Vehicle crossings during construction and installation activities are not anticipated at the southern crossing of Soldotna Creek. The creek is bridged adjacent to the crossing and opposing bank access is also available. The width and depth of Moose River preclude vehicle crossings. Impacts on compressible soils are also likely, especially on the first 9 miles of this route. Impact to compressible soils and the creek along Link El, however, would be minimized by the use of an existing gravel road and utility corridor. Access to tower locations can be made directly from the existing road with limited disturbance of the riparian area. The existing gravel road access continues through Link E2, where it becomes a four-wheel drive road for the length of Links E3 and E4, the remainder of the route. Mitigation—Impacts on streams and compressible soils will be mitigated using the measures discussed in Table 3-2. Soldotna South - Route Option E South (Applicant’s Proposal) Affected Environment—This proposed route includes three stream crossings and areas of compressible soils subject to settlement. Additional concerns include streambank segments of the Kenai River composed primarily of glacial-outwash sand and gravel, which are easily eroded triggering bank failure by slumping. There are areas of compressible soils in muskegs and a steep slope adjacent to Kenai River that may be prone to landslides and erosion. Soils adjacent to this slope may be subject to seismic ground failure and minor sections of unconsolidated soils in creek bottoms may be prone to Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.3 - Earth and Water Resources 3-18 September 2001 liquefaction. A buried anticline and unnamed concealed fault cross this route, presenting a potential for earthquakes. The Soldotna Substation addition would be located in an area of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits. Soldotna Creek and its relatively narrow floodplain are located about 200 to 300 feet northwest of the substation. The Naptowne Substation siting area has both relatively stable unconsolidated deposits, as well as compressible soils associated with muskegs. Environmental Consequences—This proposed route would cross 0.4 mile of 100-year floodplain, three streams, and 4.7 miles with compressible materials subject to settlement. Potential impacts to streams and compressible soils from stream crossings and vehicular traffic are discussed in Table 3-2. Mitigation—The potential impacts to streams and compressible soils can be effectively mitigated by the measures discussed in Table 3-2. With adherence to proposed selective mitigation, the overall environmental impact would be non-significant. Enstar to Chickaloon Bay - Route Option F (Applicant’s Proposal) Affected Environment—There are four streams crossings within the Moose River drainage basin, including East Fork Moose River and three unnamed tributaries. There are seven streams crossed within the Chickaloon River drainage basin, including Mystery Creek, the upper portion of the Chickaloon River, and five unnamed tributaries of the Chickaloon River. Three additional small drainage basins are crossed: Big and Little Indian Creeks and Burnt Island Creek. These drainage basins have flood zones ranging from 100 to 600 feet wide at the route crossings. This portion of the route would cross 0.4 mile of 100-year floodplain, 19 streams, and 4.7 miles with compressible materials subject to settlement. This portion of the route between the Soldotna area and Burnt Island crosses areas of compressible soils in muskegs, minor areas of soils prone to liquefaction, and one area of steep slope potentially prone to landslides. The inactive Border Range Fault parallels the northern part of this route and may represent an increased potential for significant local earthquakes. Environmental Consequences—This portion of the route would cross 0.4 mile of 100-year floodplain, 19 streams, and 4.7 miles with compressible materials subject to settlement. Potential impacts to streams and compressible soils from stream crossings and vehicular traffic are discussed in Table 3-2. Mitigation—The potential impacts to streams and compressible soils will be effectively mitigated by the measures discussed in Table 3-2. The short-term nature of expected construction-related disturbances combined with planned mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts result in negligible to non-significant levels. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.3 - Earth and Water Resources 3-19 September 2001 Chickaloon Bay to Klatt Road - Route Option G This aquatic route is discussed in Section 3.4.6. Chickaloon Bay to Oceanview Park - Route Option H (Applicant’s Proposal) This aquatic route is discussed in Section 3.4.6. Chickaloon Bay to Rabbit Creek - Route Option I This aquatic route is discussed in Section 3.4.6. Klatt Road to International Substation via Minnesota Drive - Route Option J Affected Environment—The route from the Victor Road submarine cable landing to the International Substation along Klatt Road and Minnesota Drive crosses areas of compressible soils in muskegs. Campbell Creek is crossed along this route as well. The International Substation is located in an area of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits. Compressible soils associated with muskegs lie to the southwest of the current substation. The Klatt Road transition facility is located in an area of compressible materials subject to settling. Environmental Consequences—This proposed route would cross 0.1 mile of 100-year floodplain and one stream. Compressible soils are present over the entire route. Potential impacts to streams and compressible soils from stream crossings and vehicular traffic are discussed in Table 3-2. A portion of this route will be underground and impacts from trenching are possible. Selective backfill will be used to bed the cable within the trench and could affect the hydrologic behavior of the soils. Mitigation—The potential impacts to streams and compressible soils will be effectively mitigated by the measures discussed in Table 3-2. Additional mitigation measures may be required to address potential impacts to the hydrologic properties of soils along the underground portion of this route. For example, during construction of Klatt Road in this area, a subsurface dam was constructed parallel to the road to protect the boggy area north of the road from subsurface moisture loss. Selective mitigation for road construction will include routing the new access to reduce scarring of the landscape. Mitigating procedures will be used to address the potential effects of settlement during the construction of the transition facility at Klatt Road. The short-term nature of expected construction-related disturbances combined with planned mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts result in negligible to non-significant levels. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.3 - Earth and Water Resources 3-20 September 2001 Oceanview Park to International Substation via Alaska Railroad - Route Option K (Applicant’s Proposal) Affected Environment—The southern end of this route crosses a steep coastal bluff, prone to erosion and seismic ground failure. Scattered patches of potentially unstable soils susceptible to seismic ground failure are also crossed north of the bluff. The route crosses Campbell Creek at a point near its confluence with Little Campbell Creek. The combined flood zone ranges from 400 to 1,000 feet wide in this area. The International Substation is located in an area of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits. Compressible soils associated with muskegs lie to the southwest of the current substation. The proposed transition facility at Cross Road North is located in relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits. The proposed facility at 120" Avenue is located on the edge of unconsolidated areas prone to slope instability. Environmental Consequences—This proposed alternative would cross two streams. The confluence of the north, south, and main forks of Campbell Creek is the main resource concern along the portions of the above route options that are composed of Links A6, A7, Al2, A8, A9, and A10. The potential impacts on the hydrology of Campbell Creek in this area could be significant; however, there is existing access available via a gravel railroad bed that bridges the confluence. Mitigation—Use of the railroad right-of-way will eliminate the need for a new crossing at Campbell Creek and simplify transmission line installation across the confluence area. Short- term impacts, such as increases in sediment load, may be possible, but long-term impacts on the stability of the hydrologic system will be negligible. Care will be taken to locate the transition facility at 120" Avenue a sufficient distance from the unstable slopes to avoid any slope failures from the increased loading of the planned facility. The overall environmental impact would be non-significant. Rabbit Creek to International Substation via Old Seward Highway - Route Option M Affected _Environment—This route crosses Campbell and Furrow creeks. The flood zone at Campbell Creek is approximately 500 to 1,000 feet wide at the crossing. The area between Campbell and Furrow creeks has high potential for isolated permafrost conditions in undeveloped areas that may be subject to ground subsidence if cleared of vegetation. The International Substation is located in an area of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits. Compressible soils associated with muskegs lie to the southwest of the current substation. The planned transition facility at the Old Seward Highway is located in relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits. The planned facility at the Shooting Range is located within the flood zone and along the edge of the zone of potential ice scour. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.3 - Earth and Water Resources 3-21 September 2001 Environmental Consequences—This proposed alternative would cross 0.6 mile of 100-year floodplain, five streams, and areas of possible permafrost soils. Potential impacts to streams from stream crossings and vehicular traffic are discussed in Table 3-2. Mudflats at the shore landing, specifically Link Al 1, are a potential concern along the portions of the above route options that are composed of Links Al1, Al3, Al4, A15, and A16. The shore- tail portion, as well as the initial 0.3 mile of Link All, parallels the railroad right-of-way adjacent to the mudflats. The right-of-way is outside the boundaries of the ACWR. Rabbit Creek will be bored to reduce impacts to low levels over a distance of approximately 0.2 mile. Installation will continue by trench north of Rabbit Creek to the transition facility location. Link A16 crosses the North and South forks of Campbell Creek just upstream from their confluence. Access will be via an existing paved roadway. Mitigation—The potential impacts to streams and compressible soils will be effectively mitigated by the measures discussed in Table 3-2. As previously discussed, potentially high impacts to the hydrologic system of Campbell Creek are mitigated to a negligible level through the use of the existing roadway. The planned transition facility at the Shooting Range will be constructed to ensure potential flood and ice scour impacts are minimized. The facility is not expected to affect the impact of floods or ice scour in this area. The short-term nature of expected construction-related disturbances combined with planned mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts result in negligible to non-significant levels. 3.3.4 Summary No Action Alternative—The no-action alternative would have no consequences for earth and water resources and no mitigation would be required. Anchorage Bowl Region—Route options starting from Rabbit Creek are preferred in this area because, as proposed, boring under Rabbit Creek would minimize impacts to streams. There are several boggy areas. These areas will require additional mitigation measures. Tesoro Route Options B and C avoid impacts within Anchorage by connecting directly to Pt. Woronzof Substation. Tesoro Route Option D (underground) is preferred over Enstar Route Options J, K, and M, which are all similar. Turnagain Arm Region—In the Turnagain Arm region, the Enstar Route options are preferred over the Tesoro Route options. The Enstar Route options cross areas with fewer hazards and limited adverse impacts on earth resources. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.3 - Earth and Water Resources B99 September 2001 Kenai Lowlands Region—Route Option A has fewer stream crossings and is preferred over Route Options E and F. The Enstar options would require more mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts due to stream crossings. The northern portion of this route follows the currently inactive Border Range Fault and may be at higher risk of seismic activity. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.3 - Earth and Water Resources B13 September 2001 3.4 - TURNAGAIN ARM/SUBMARINE ENVIRONMENT 3.4 TURNAGAIN ARM/SUBMARINE ENVIRONMENT This section describes the marine environment of the study area, including the physiography and bathymetry, currents and tides, sedimentation, sea ice, and marine water quality. Of these marine elements, high sediment load, sea ice, submarine erosion, and shifting bottom contours can damage submarine cables. In addition, construction of the Project could impact the natural drainage of the Turnagain Arm mudflats. A description of submarine conditions of the area illustrates how these hazards and resources are distributed along the alternative routes. Refer to Section 3.5.9, Marine Environment, for information on fish and marine mammals. The description of the marine environment is followed by a brief explanation of the methods used to gather information and prepare the description. As noted, the end of this section also includes the inventory results along the alternative routes for geologic resources, water resources, and the marine environment combined. 3.4.1 Physiography and Bathymetry The physiography of the Upper Cook Inlet can be described as a large tidal estuary approximately 170 miles long and 10 to 55 miles wide. This region of Cook Inlet branches into Knik and Turnagain arms, which are approximately 45 and 43 miles long, respectively. The alternative routes cross the central and western portions of Turnagain Arm. The seafloor in this area comprises mudflats with tidal channels and deeper channels or depressions. At low tide, approximately 70 percent of the seafloor within Turnagain Arm is exposed as elongate bars dissected by braided tidal channels (Bartsch-Winkler 1985c). The bathymetry, or depth, of Cook Inlet varies (Figure 3-1). The mudflats that extend from 0 to 10 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) dominate most of Turnagain Arm. The exceptions are the deep channels that run down the middle of the arm, the deepest of which descends 180 feet between Fire Island and Pt. Possession (NOAA 1994, 1996a, 1996b). 3.4.2 Currents and Tides The tidal range in upper Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm is one of the highest in the world. Tides within Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm are mixed, with two unequal high and low tides per tidal day (24 hours, 50 minutes) (Gatto 1976). Tidal change at Fire Island occurs approximately 2.5 hours later than at the mouth of the Kenai River and about a 0.5 hour later near Burnt Island than at Fire Island (Alaska Tidebook Company 1997). The maximum tidal range of Turnagain Arm is 37.4 feet (Bartsch-Winkler and Schmoll 1984). Tidal bores are a frequent occurrence in the head region of Cook Inlet and in Turnagain Arm. A tidal bore is a solitary, tidally generated wave that typically moves up a slowly flowing estuary with the incoming tide. In Turnagain Arm, a tidal bore forms with each incoming tide, reaches Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.4 - Turnagain Arm/Submarine Environment 3-24 September 2001 heights of five feet, travels more than 10 miles per hour, and occurs throughout the year (Bartsch-Winkler 1985c). The tidal bore forms within one hour after each predicted low tide in Anchorage and takes five and one-half hours to travel from the mouth of Turnagain Arm to the end of the arm. Cook Inlet currents typically average four knots with occasional extremes of six to eight knots, although velocities vary with location and the height and range of tides (Gatto 1976). Oceanic water flows north into Cook Inlet along the east side of the inlet. Maximum tidal current velocities usually occur in Turnagain Arm during flood tides. Peak velocities of 8.2 feet per second (about five knots) occur during the onset of tidal flooding, and peak velocities during ebbtides occur at approximately mid-cycle (Alaska Department of Highways 1969). Tidal currents flow up and down Turnagain Arm with some lateral movement during early flood and late ebb stages (Gatto 1976). 3.4.3 Sedimentation Estuarine Deposits Turnagain Arm was filled with glacial ice approximately 14,000 years ago when the sea level was lower. Since then, the arm has steadily filled with estuarine deposits. The thickness of these deposits at the head of Turnagain Arm is approximately 1,000 feet (Bartsch-Winkler and Schmoll 1984). Estuarine deposits in Turnagain Arm range from silty fine sand to sandy silt. Grain-size distributions of seafloor sediment indicate about a 90 percent sand content near tidal channels in Turnagain Arm and about 10 percent sand content near the shoreline along Anchorage and Chickaloon Bay (Bartsch-Winkler and Schmoll 1984). The current sedimentation rate is estimated to be about 0.1 inch per year, although sedimentation rate changes have occurred due to glacial fluctuations, tectonic events, and sea level changes. The Turnagain Arm floodtide is stronger than the ebbtide, carrying more sediment into Turnagain Arm than is drained out. Sources of Turnagain Arm sediment are composed of glacial deposits surrounding Cook Inlet, including Susitna River and Knik Arm sediment (Bartsch- Winkler and Schmoll 1984). Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.4 - Turnagain Arm/Submarine Environment 3-95 September 2001 Scale in Miles 0 -1 COOK INLET BATHYMETRY SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT == Alternative Route *Soundings in fathoms at mean lower low water FIGURE 3 Legend 09/06/01 ey g 4 CW an ea frre x dpi cco, hv caro ‘Tidal daturis were updated 9 1998 anc depth of ‘attra ores on thi char wae aed accordngy to accor tor ie plane The Cook ret area instead by and up due o forces wuch a8 post- elamic crustal rebound. As a result, Ts a datums inching mean wet throughodt this region Projection Mercator ‘Scale 1:100,000 at Lat 61° 02" ‘AT MEAN LOWER LOW WATER FOAL MFORMATION SOUNDINGS IN FATHOMS (ATHIOMS ANC FRET TO ELEVEN FATHOMS) North American Datum of 1983 (World Geodetic System 1964) COOK INLET EAST FORELAND TO ANCHORAGE Submarine Erosion The strong turbulent tides in Turnagain Arm and Knik Arm of Cook Inlet carry large quantities of sediment, which have over time, damaged submarine cables installed between Pt. MacKenzie and Pt. Woronzof. Data regarding bottom conditions indicate that shifts in seafloor profile of up to 25 feet have occurred over the past 20 years. Channels cut in the seafloor are also slowly but constantly moving and changing size with the tides. The slopes of channels are particularly susceptible to erosion. CEA’s experience with submarine cables in the Knik Arm since 1967 indicates that a longer cable life and higher reliability can be expected if the submarine cables can be embedded in the seafloor, as opposed to simply laying the cables on the bottom. Embedding the cable increases reliability, but cable failures due to shifting sea bottom conditions or other hazards must still be anticipated. Exposure of any submarine cable to the extreme tidal conditions in Turnagain Arm creates the risk of cable failures during the life of the Project, and replacement of submarine cables during the Project life has been accounted for in the cost estimates for the Project (see Chapter 1, Section 1.4.2). A recent example of submarine erosion that required corrective action occurred in mid-2000, when a section of the two Enstar gas pipelines buried in the Turnagain Arm on the east side of Burnt Island became exposed as a result of submarine erosion. Within a few years of the original installation, the Tesoro pipeline also experienced erosion problems and became exposed in the mudflats near Fire Island. In that instance the pipeline was re-embedded, and since that time no further problems are known to have occurred with the Tesoro pipeline due to erosion. It is expected that the submarine cables will be exposed in either crossing at some time during their operational life. In the event that the cable were to become exposed, a decision on corrective action would be made depending on the location within the crossing and on the potential for vibrations induced by tidal currents. Re-embedment near shore could involve conventional trenching or jetting equipment, while jetting or a submarine-plowing device would be employed off shore (see Appendix B in Volume II). These measures are only possible where seafloor conditions allow embedment. Embedment is not possible between Pt. Possession and Fire Island along the Tesoro Route, where the seafloor is hard and covered with boulders. The only mechnical protection for cables or pipelines in such an area would be concrete or cast iron collars; however, placement of such devices on submarine cables is not cost effective. Appendix B (Volume II) describes submarine cable installation procedures. In areas of tidal mudflats the cable would be trenched and where the cable would cross salt marsh, vegetated inter-tidal zones, or steep erodible bluff areas adjacent to the inter-tidal zone, the use of directional boring in order to avoid surface disturbance would be used Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.4 - Turnagain Arm/Submarine Environment B07) September 2001 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Where the cable would cross salt marsh, vegetated inter-tidal zones, or steep erodible bluff areas adjacent to the inter-tidal zone, directional boring would be used in order to avoid surface disturbance. No impacts to such bluff areas, salt marsh, or vegetated inter-tidal zones would occur. Boulders The easily eroded glacial deposits that constitute the bluffs along Cook Inlet and portions of the Anchorage and Fire Island coastlines, slough and break off into large boulder-sized clumps. These boulders are eroded further and moved by currents and sea-ice rafting, resulting in a number of boulder patches in the western portion of Turnagain Arm. Boulders occur on tidal flats around the south end of Fire Island and at Pt. Possession, and extend about 6 miles east along Chickaloon Bay (NOAA 1994, 1996a, 1996b). The boulders diminish in number and size toward the east in Turnagain Arm, probably due to distance from source and erosion. Discrete boulder patches also have been recorded on the seafloor between Pt. Possession and Fire Island and between Pt. Possession and Pt. Campbell at water depths of between approximately 20 and 50 feet MLLW (Golder Associates 1996). In addition, boulders have been recorded by Golder in the deepest parts of the channels, some at depths of 60 to 90 feet MLLW. 3.4.4 Sea Ice Sea ice begins to form in Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm from October through November and remains until March or April. Much of the ice is formed on tidal flats and is lifted during flood tide and incorporated into larger sea ice floes. These are commonly greater than 1,000 feet across, with individual blocks less than three feet thick (Gatto 1976). Pressure ridges up to 20 feet occasionally form on the floe peripheries due to frequent collisions with other floes. The floes become scattered when they move with the tide in upper Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm. Ice remaining on the tidal flats that is repeatedly refrozen forms sheets or stacks of ice (stamukhi), some as thick as 40 feet (Gatto 1976). Submarine areas prone to ice scour or impact from ice floes and pressure ridges were mapped. A water depth of 25 feet MLLW was chosen as a probable limit of seafloor ice impact, based on the size of pressure ridges and tidal range (Alaska Tidebook Company 1997; Gatto 1976). These areas include mudflats and adjacent seafloor slopes between Pt. Campbell, Pt. Woronzof, and Fire Island; in the Anchorage Bowl area from Pt. Campbell to Potter Marsh; at Pt. Possession; and in Chickaloon Bay. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.4 - Turnagain Arm/Submarine Environment 3-98 September 2001 3.4.5 Marine Water Quality Marine water in upper Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm is well mixed due to the large tidal fluctuations and current velocities. Temperature, salinity, and suspended sediment vary with season, water depth, and tidal cycle. Surface water data collected during spring and late summer (Gatto 1976) indicate the following ranges of water quality characteristics near the mouth of Turnagain Arm: temperature 50° to 59°F (10° to 15° C), salinity 15 to 20 parts per thousand (ppt), oxygen 75 to 80 milliliters of oxygen per liter (mLO>/L), and suspended sediment 400 to 1,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Suspended sediment in Turnagain Arm is typically fine to coarse silt size, with about 2 to 4 percent clay (Bartsch-Winkler and Schmoll 1984). 3.4.6 Alternatives The following sections summarize marine resource issues identified along each alternative route. See Figures MV-2 through MV-4 (Volume II) for Turnagain Arm submarine conditions. Locational information for transition facilities are illustrated on Figures MV-la and MV-Ib (Volume ID) and installation of project facilities is described in Appendix B (Volume II). No-Action Alternative No marine resources would be affected under the no-action alternative. Tesoro Route Bernice Lake to Pt. Possession- Route Option A Affected Environment—This is an overland route. No marine environment exists. Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof via Fire Island - Route Option B Affected Environment—The submarine portion of the Tesoro Route from Pt. Possession to Fire Island crosses sections of boulder fields, shallow areas of potential ice scour or impact, and steep slopes indicating a possible increased potential for sediment erosion and shifting bathymetries. At Fire Island, Route Option B crosses a short section of steep erodable bluffs and adjacent soils prone to ground failure during earthquakes. The submarine section from Fire Island to Pt. Woronzof crosses areas of potential ice scour or impact and a short section of steep erodable bluffs adjacent to the Pt. Woronzof Substation. The Pt. Possession Transition Facility would be located in an area of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits. Steep bluffs prone to erosion and slumping lie approximately Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.4 - Turnagain Arm/Submarine Environment 3-29 September 2001 1,000 feet northwest of the site. Soils above the steep slopes that are prone to ground failure during earthquakes extend to approximately 700 to 800 feet of the site. The transition facility at the south end of Fire Island would be located in an area of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits, surrounded closely by unstable soils. Steep bluffs prone to erosion and slumping lie approximately 200 to 400 feet to the east and southeast of this site. Soils prone to liquefaction, as well as soils above and below the steep slopes, which are prone seismically to induced ground failure, extend to approximately 100 to 300 feet of the site. The transition facility at the north end of Fire Island would be located in an area of soils prone to liquefaction, as well as impacts by sea ice during high tides. Steep bluffs prone to erosion and slumping lie approximately 200 to 300 feet to the south of this site. The Pt. Woronzof Transition Facility addition would be located in an area of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits. Steep bluffs that are prone to erosion and slumping lie approximately 200 to 300 feet northwest of the site. Soils above the steep slopes are prone to ground failure during major earthquakes. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation—Trenching of tidal mudflats within 0.1 mile of Fire Island and within 0.1 mile of Pt. Woronzof would result in non-significant geologic impacts to those sections of this route. Where the cable would cross salt marsh, vegetated inter-tidal zones, or steep erodible bluff areas adjacent to the inter-tidal zone, directional boring would be used in order to avoid surface disturbance. No impacts to such bluff areas, salt marsh, or vegetated inter-tidal zones would occur. Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof (Aquatic Route) - Route Option C Affected Environment—The route crosses sections of boulder fields, shallow areas of potential ice scour or impact, and steep slopes indicating a possible increased potential for sediment erosion and shifting bathymetries. The route crosses a short section of steep erodable bluffs adjacent to the Pt. Woronzof Substation. The Pt. Possession Transition Facility would be located in an area of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits. Steep bluffs prone to erosion and slumping lie approximately 1,000 feet northwest of the site. Soils above the steep slopes that are prone to ground failure during earthquakes extend to approximately 700 to 800 feet of the site. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation—Trenching within 0.1 mile of Pt. Woronzof in tidal mudflats represents the main impact on geologic resources along this route. Impact magnitude is similar to other routes landing at Pt. Woronzof. Where the cable would cross salt marsh, vegetated inter-tidal zones, or steep erodible bluff areas adjacent to the inter-tidal zone, directional boring would be used in order to avoid surface disturbance. No impacts to such bluff areas, salt marsh, or vegetated inter-tidal zones would occur. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.4 - Turnagain Arm/Submarine Environment 3-30 September 2001 Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell - Route Option D Affected _Environment—The submarine route from Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell crosses sections of boulder fields, large areas of potential ice scour or impact, and a steep submarine slope, which may be prone to slumping or erosion. The Pt. Possession Transition Facility would be located in an area of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits. Steep bluffs prone to erosion and slumping lie approximately 1,000 feet northwest of the site. Soils above the steep slopes that are prone to ground failure during earthquakes extend to approximately 700 to 800 feet of the site. The Pt. Woronzof Transition Facility addition would be located in an area of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits. Steep bluffs that are prone to erosion and slumping lie approximately 200 to 300 feet northwest of the site. Soils above the steep slopes are prone to ground failure during major earthquakes. The Pt. Campbell Transition Facility siting area would be located in an area of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits. Steep bluffs that are prone to erosion and slumping lie approximately 800 feet south of the site. Soils above the steep slopes that may be susceptible to ground failure during earthquakes extend to approximately 800 feet of the site. Coastal mudflats and soils prone to liquefaction during earthquakes extend out into Turnagain Arm. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation—This route has similar impacts to tidal mudflats as Route Option C. Where the cable would cross salt marsh, vegetated inter-tidal zones, or steep erodible bluff areas adjacent to the inter-tidal zone, directional boring would be used in order to avoid surface disturbance. No impacts to such bluff areas, salt marsh, or vegetated inter-tidal zones would occur. Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof - Route Option N This is an overland route. No marine environment exists. Enstar Route Soldotna North - Route Option E North This is an overland route. No marine environment exists. Soldotna South - Route Option E South (Applicant’s Proposal) This is an overland route. No marine environment exists. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.4 - Turnagain Arm/Submarine Environment 3-31 September 2001 Enstar to Chickaloon Bay - Route Option F (Applicant’s Proposal) This is an overland route. No marine environment exists. Chickaloon Bay to Klatt Road - Route Option G Affected Environment—The northern end of the crossing to the Klatt landing crosses a relatively steep slope comprised of unconsolidated deposits prone to landslides and/or erosion and ground failure during earthquakes. A large portion of the route crosses shallow ice scour or impact zones within the tidal flats area of Turnagain Arm. Near the southern portion of Chickaloon Bay, the route crosses an area of unconsolidated material prone to slope instability. The concealed Border Range Fault to the east parallels this route and may indicate an increased potential for significant local earthquakes and ground shaking. From Chickaloon Bay to the Anchorage area, the alternative crosses tidal flats, which are subject to ice scour/impact. The northern end terminates at a steep bluff prone to landslides and coastal erosion. The Burnt Island Transition Facility would be located in an area underlain by metamorphic bedrock. The mudflats of Chickaloon Bay lie directly adjacent to the site to the west. The Klatt Road Transition Facility siting area has both boggy compressible soils and relatively stable unconsolidated deposits. Environmental Consequences _and_Mitigation—Where the cable would cross salt marsh, vegetated inter-tidal zones, or steep erodible bluff areas adjacent to the inter-tidal zone, directional boring would be used in order to avoid surface disturbance. No impacts to such bluff areas, salt marsh, or vegetated inter-tidal zones would occur. Submarine cables will be installed by trenching techniques at Chickaloon tidal mudflats on this route. Horizontal directional drilling will be used for cable installation through marsh land. The shore-tail at Klatt Road falls within the boundaries of the ACWR and impacts on the inter-tidal mudflats will be mitigated to a negligible level by horizontal directional drilling. With adherence to selective mitigation, the overall environmental impact would be non-significant. Chickaloon Bay to Oceanview Park - Route Option H (Applicant’s Proposal) Affected Environment—The northern end of the crossing to the Oceanview landing crosses a relatively steep slope composed of unconsolidated deposits prone to landslides and/or erosion and ground failure during earthquakes. A large portion of the route crosses shallow ice scour or impact zones within the tidal flats area of Turnagain Arm. Near the southern portion of Chickaloon Bay, the route crosses an area of unconsolidated material prone to slope instability. The concealed Border Range Fault is to the east and parallels this route, indicating an increased potential for significant local earthquakes and ground shaking. From Chickaloon Bay to the Anchorage area the route is composed of tidal flats, which are subject to ice impact and scour. The northern end terminates at a steep bluff prone to landslides and coastal erosion. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.4 - Turnagain Arm/Submarine Environment 3-32 September 2001 The Burnt Island Transition Facility would be located in an area underlain by metamorphic bedrock. The mudflats of Chickaloon Bay lie directly adjacent to the site to the west. The Oceanview Transition Facility siting area contains a steep bluff prone to erosion and slumping, as well as soils above the bluffs which are prone to ground failure during earthquakes. These soils extend to approximately 700 to 900 feet north of the top of the Oceanview bluff. Soils north of this point consist of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation—Impact concerns would be the same as those described for Route Option G. The shore-tail at Oceanview Bluff Park is located within the boundaries of the ACWR and impacts on the inter-tidal mudflats will be mitigated by directional drilling to a negligible level. With adherence to selective mitigation, the overall environmental impact would be non-significant. Chickaloon Bay to Rabbit Creek - Route Option I Affected Environment—The northern end of the crossing to the Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek landing crosses a relatively steep slope composed of unconsolidated deposits prone to landslides and/or erosion. A large portion of the route crosses shallow ice scour or impact zones within the tidal flats area of Turnagain Arm. Near the southern portion of Chickaloon Bay, the route crosses an area of unconsolidated material prone to slope instability. The concealed Border Range Fault is to the east and parallels this route, indicating an increased potential for significant local earthquakes and ground shaking. From Chickaloon Bay to the Anchorage area the route is composed of tidal flats, which are subject to ice impact and scour. The northern end terminates at a steep bluff prone to landslides and coastal erosion. The Burnt Island Transition Facility would be located in an area underlain by metamorphic bedrock. The mudflats of Chickaloon Bay lie directly adjacent to the site to the west. The Rabbit Creek Transition Facility siting area contains low-lying soils prone to liquefaction. Rabbit Creek is located nearby to the east, where it drains into the north end of Potter Marsh. Steep slopes prone to slumping and erosion are also located in the siting area along the edge of Potter Marsh and Rabbit Creek. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation—Impact concerns would be the same as for Route Option G. The shore-tail at Rabbit Creek is located within the boundaries of the ACWR and impacts on the inter-tidal mudflats up to the route’s intersection with an existing Enstar pipeline and railroad right-of-way will be mitigated by directional drilling to a negligible level. With adherence to generic and selective mitigation, the overall environmental impact would be non- significant. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.4 - Turnagain Arm/Submarine Environment Bra September 2001 Klatt Road to International Substation via Minnesota Drive - Route Option J This is an overland route. No marine environment exists. Oceanview Park to International Substation via Alaska Railroad - Route Option K (Applicant’s Prposal) This is an overland route. No marine environment exists. Rabbit Creek to International Substation via Old Seward Highway - Route Option M This is an overland route. No marine environment exists. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.4 - Turnagain Arm/Submarine Environment 3-34 September 2001 3.5 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The following sections present discussions on biological resources, including terrestrial vegetation and wetlands, terrestrial wildlife, freshwater environment, marine environment, and threatened and endangered species. Figures MV-5 through MV-17 (Volume II) illustrate biological resources. Methods for biological studies are provided in Volume II, Appendix C. 3.5.1 Terrestrial - Vegetation This section provides a general description of the existing vegetation in the Project study area, potential impacts, significance criteria, and mitigation measures. A description is then given of the existing vegetation, potential impacts, and mitigation measures for each proposed route. Acreages given for potential impacts assume that the entire right-of-way is cleared. Affected Environment The Project study area on the Kenai Peninsula, Fire Island, and the Anchorage Bow] falls within the interior boreal forest zone, which transitions to coastal forest just east of the study area toward Prince William Sound (Hulten 1968). Boreal forest in the study area contains a mixture of white spruce (Picea glauca), white spruce and Sitka spruce hybrid (Picea glauca x P. sitchensis), black spruce (Picea mariana), balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), and Kenai birch (Betula kenaica). Widespread, poorly drained areas are dominated by muskeg or shrub bog communities and forested wetlands of black spruce. The Kenai Lowlands on the Kenai Peninsula consist of an extensive area of lakes, muskegs, and bogs, most of which is within the KNWR. Western portions of the Kenai Lowlands contain many lakes, and as a result of the low relief and poor drainage in this area bogs and muskegs are extensive. Eastern portions of the Kenai Lowlands also have extensive wetlands, but fewer lakes. Vegetation within the alternative corridors includes plant communities associated with wetlands and with drier upland areas. Upland communities include closed white spruce forest, needleleaf woodland, closed mixed forest, closed tall shrub, and moist grasslands. Wetlands include saltmarshes and freshwater bog and meadow communities. Each of the vegetation types identified is described below. A list of vegetation types and associated dominant plant and wildlife species is provided in Table 3-3. Figures MV-5 through MV-8 (Volume II) illustrate burn areas, vegetation cover, and wetlands. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-35 September 2001 TABLE 3-3 MAJOR VEGETATION TYPES AND CHARACTERISTIC SPECIES CROSSED BY THE SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Major Vegetation Types Characteristic Plant Species Characteristic Animal Species Closed White Spruce Forest White spruce, mountain hemlock, rusty menzesia, devil’s club, feather moss, club moss Martin, red squirrel, boreal chickadee, Townsend's warbler, ruby-crowned kinglet, brown creeper, three-toed woodpecker Black Spruce Forest Black spruce, balsam poplar, paper birch Moose, black bear, Arctic shrew gale, shrubby cinquefoil, bog rosemary, willow Closed Mixed Forest White spruce, paper birch, Black bear, wolf, lynx, moose, red squirrel, aspen, cottonwood, highbush coyote, snowshoe hare, porcupine, black-capped cranberry, lowbush cranberry, chickadee, hairy woodpecker, three-toed wild rose, devil's club, rusty woodpecker, great horned owl, spruce grouse, menzesia yellow-rumped warbler, gray jay, dark-eyed junco, Swainson’s thrush, Needleleaf Woodland Black spruce, white spruce, Moose, greater yellowlegs, common snipe, gray willow, Labrador tea, horsetail | jay Closed Tall Shrub Alder, willow, white spruce, Muskrat, beaver, river otter, bald eagle, rusty (riparian) paper birch, bluejoint reed-grass | blackbird, Lincoln’s sparrow, Barrows’s goldeneye Moist Grassland Bluejoint reed-grass, fireweed, Moose, Savannah sparrow, fox sparrow cow parsnip, lupine Saltmarsh Lyngbye’s sedge, Raminski’s Canada goose, sandhill crane, northern pintail, sedge, alkali grass, least sandpiper, song sparrow goosetongue, seaside arrowgrass Low Shrub Bogs Dwarf birch, bog blueberry, Caribou, sandhill crane, greater yellowlegs, least Labrador tea, crowberry sandpiper, common snipe, northern harrier, mew gull, red-necked phalarope Black Spruce Bogs and Black spruce, Labrador tea, Lincoln’s sparrow, masked shrew, arctic shrew, Muskegs crowberry, bog blueberry, sweet | Barrow’s goldeneye, spotted sandpiper Wet Meadows Sedges, cottongrass, spike rush, buckbean, dwarf birch, crowberry, Labrador tea, bog cranberry Common snipe, masked shrew, Arctic shrew, mink, northern harrier, spotted sandpiper, short- eared owl Source: KNWR 1984 Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-36 Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources September 2001 Uplands Closed White Spruce Forest The closed white spruce forest cover type is dominated by white spruce, with scattered paper birch and aspen. This type occurs on well-drained soils of rolling, low-lying hills, primarily in the eastern portions of the study area. The understory is typically rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea), American red current (Ribes triste), highbush cranberry (Viburnum edule), bunchberry (Cornus canadensis), starflower (Trientalis europaea), and lowbush cranberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea). Ground cover is usually a thick carpet of feather moss (Hylocomium spp.), haircap moss (Polytrichum spp.) club moss (Lycopodium spp.), and foliose lichens (Peltigera spp.). Recent epidemic infestations of the spruce bark beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) have resulted in the death of nearly all mature white spruce in thousands of acres of pure and mixed white spruce stands on the KNWR (1996b). Needleleaf Woodland This open forest community is dominated by black spruce with some white spruce. It occurs on moderately well-drained to poorly drained soils on level ground to rolling hills and is scattered throughout the study area. The understory is sparse with scattered forbs and low growing shrubs on a thick carpet of feather moss and lichens. Closed Mixed Forest Mixed spruce/birch/aspen forest is a very widespread forest type occupying the foothills area of western Kenai Mountains; well-drained uplands along Cook Inlet, including much of the Anchorage area; and on smaller well-drained sites within the Kenai Lowlands. In some areas, notably in the Anchorage area at Pt. Campbell and Pt. Woronzof, spruce bark beetle infestations have killed most of the white spruce trees, leaving a plant community that is strongly dominated by birch, poplar, and aspen. In its healthy state, this community consists of closed canopy white spruce (white and Sitka spruce hybrid), paper birch or Kenai birch, balsam poplar, and quaking aspen. Mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) is also found in some areas, especially in foothills of the Kenai Mountains. Shrub species include Sitka alder (Alnus sinuata), thinleaf alder (A. tenuifolia), willows (Salix spp.), Labrador tea (Ledum decumbens), wild rose (Rosa acicularis), devil’s club (Oplopanax horridus), and highbush cranberry. Ground cover species include lowbush cranberry, oak fern (Gymnocarpium dryopteris), twinflower (Linnaea borealis), club moss (Lycopodium spp.), and wintergreen (Pyrola spp.). Black spruce occurs in poorly drained areas within this forest type. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-37 September 2001 Closed Tall Shrub Tall shrub communities in the study area occur both as floodplain thickets along major streams and rivers (riparian communities) and, in the higher elevations, as alder-willow communities in the transition zone between forest and alpine tundra. The riparian shrub thickets on river floodplains consist primarily of willows and thinleaf alder. This community is found along most major tributaries within the study area. The tall shrub communities at timberline consist of shrub birch (Betula glandulosa), Sitka alder, and several species of willow. Moist Grassland The moist grassland community consists of open communities of bluejoint reed-grass (Calamagrostis canadensis) mixed with red fescue (Festuca rubra), foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum), and bluegrass (Poa spp.). Common forbs include cow parsnip (Heracleum lanatum), fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium), nootka lupine (Lupinus nootkatensis), and meadow rue (Thalictrum sparsiflorium). A small percentage of shrubs such as aspen, willow, and alder also are associated with this community. This type is relatively limited in the study area, mainly occurring in the 1947 and 1969 burn areas on the Kenai Peninsula and in disturbed areas in Anchorage. Wetlands Saltmarsh Saltmarsh habitats in Upper Cook Inlet are characterized by a distinct zonation depending on exposure to saltwater (Batten et al. 1980). The upper elevations of the inter-tidal and supra-tidal zones are dominated by a variety of sedges, such as Lyngbye’s sedge (Carex lyngbyei) and Raminski’s sedge (Carex ramenskii), and several species of alkali grass (Puccinellia spp.) (Alaska Department of Fish and Game [ADF&G] 1990; USFWS 1982). The middle elevations are irregularly flooded by tides and are characterized by forbs such as seaside arrowgrass (Triglochin maritimum), goosetongue (Plantago maritima), arctic daisy (Chrysanthemum arcticum), pacific silverweed (Potentillia egedii), lupine, and seabeach lyme-grass (Elymus arenarius). In the lower portions of the marsh on muddy inter-tidal substrates is a thin layer of dark-green algae (Vaucheria longicaulis) (ADF&G 1990). Black Spruce Forest Black spruce forest greater than 20 feet tall covers portions of the interior Kenai Lowlands, and is dominated by extensive stands of black spruce with small amounts of balsam poplar and paper birch, or Kenai birch. Understory species include Labrador tea, dwarf Arctic birch (Betula nana), wild rose, and leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne calyculata). Sphagnum mosses (Sphagnum spp.), Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-38 September 2001 horsetail (Equisetum spp.), bog cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccos), blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), and lowbush cranberry are the major ground cover species in this forest type. This type grows extensively on shallow peat soils, glacial deposits, poorly drained outwash plains, and on some north-facing slopes in the study area. Large areas of this forest type have become established on the eastern portions of the 1947 burn near Mystery Creek, where moose overbrowsed the young hardwood component as the forest grew back, giving a competitive edge to the spruce (Bailey and Bangs 1980; Oldemeyer et al. 1977). Mature black spruce forests are highly susceptible to wildfires, especially during periods of warmer and drier summers. Bogs and Meadows Black Spruce Bogs and Muskegs—These communities occur in low-lying areas with saturated soils, wet areas on old poorly drained floodplains, and in the higher elevations of stream drainages. They are dominated by dwarf trees (<20 feet tall) and low shrubs, have varying degrees of sedges and mosses, and are classified as wetlands by the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (Cowardin et al. 1979). Stunted black spruce is often a dominant species with dwarf birch, Labrador tea, crowberry (Empetrum nigrum), bog blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum), sweet gale (Myrica gale), shrubby cinquefoil (Potentilla fruiticosa), bog rosemary (Andromeda polifolia), and several species of willow. Sedges (Carex spp.), grasses, and cottongrass (Eriophorum spp.) are often common components of this community. The most extensive areas of bogs and muskegs occur in the Kenai Lowlands, particularly northeast of the Kenai Airport and north of Sterling in the Moose River Flats. This community type is present also in the Anchorage area, mostly at Klatt/Campbell, Turnagain, and Connors bogs. Low Shrub Bogs—Dominant species in this saturated scrub-shrub bog community are dwarf birch, Labrador tea, bog blueberry, bog cranberry, sweet gale, and leatherleaf. Cottongrass and a variety of sedges dominate the herbaceous layer, growing on a thick layer of sphagnum moss. This community is similar to the dwarf tree type, only lacking black spruce as a dominant. Wet Meadows—This community type consists of wet sedge meadows, string bogs, and saturated emergent bog-type marshes with a sphagnum mat. Dominant herbaceous species include several sedges, cottongrass, spike rush (Eleocharis spp.), and buckbean (Menyanthes trifoliata). A shrub component also is typically associated with this community and includes dwarf birch, crowberry, Labrador tea, and bog cranberry. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Upland Vegetation Impacts on upland vegetation types would result from right-of-way clearing, crushing of vegetation by construction vehicles, and post-construction right-of-way maintenance. In general, large woody plants would be excluded within the right-of-way for the life of the Project. Of all Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-39 September 2001 vegetation types affected by construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project, the largest volume of vegetation loss would occur within the closed white spruce and closed mixed forest types, due to the number and size of individual plants (i.e., trees) that would be removed. Debris piles of fallen white spruce left within the right-of-way following clearing could encourage spruce bark beetle infestations. Impacts on upland vegetation would not be regionally significant. They could be locally significant due to adverse effects on individual animals, especially in the case of closed tall shrub communities, which provide important resources for wildlife. Any impacts on upland vegetation within the KNWR would be significant at a national level due to conflicts with the USFWS mandate to protect wildlife and their habitats on the KNWR. Table 3-4 illustrates the number of acres of upland vegetation that would be disturbed. TABLE 3-4 IMPACTS ON ACRES OF UPLAND VEGETATION FOR ALTERNATIVE ROUTES Route Closed White Closed Mixed Needleleaf Closed Tall Moist | Option | Spruce Forest Forest Woodland Shrub Grassland Tesoro Route A 0.0 443.1 0.0 1.3 0.0 B 0.0 22.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cc 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tesoro (Anchorage) Route N 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Enstar Route E North 0.0 150.9 18.9 0.0 0.0 E South 0.0 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 F 191.7 326.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 G 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Enstar (Anchorage) Route J 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.05 0.0 K 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.02 0.0 M 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Impacts on upland vegetation could be reduced by not improving existing roads, minimizing clearing of the right-of-way, and selective removal of vegetation within the right-of-way. Spanning areas of closed tall shrub would minimize impacts on this community (see Volume II, Appendix D for mitigation measures). Wetland Vegetation Direct impacts to wetland vegetation could result from removal of vegetation in right-of-way clearing, construction of spur roads, and improving existing access roads or trails. In addition to Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-40 September 2001 large plants being removed along the right-of-way in wetland areas, smaller plants would be crushed by vehicles. Use of rubber-tired and tracked vehicles in wetland areas could result in soil disturbance, rutting, and changes in surface water hydrology. Soil disturbances in some wetland communities also could result in invasion of undesirable herbaceous plant species. Right-of-way clearing and construction of the transmission line may also have indirect impacts on wetlands adjacent to the right-of-way. Any alterations in flow patterns may affect wetlands downstream, either raising or lowering the water level. Changes in flow may inhibit the water- quality functions of wetlands and affect the overall storage capacity of a wetland and its ability to regulate storm events and sustain base flows. Sedimentation into a wetland from runoff from the access road may affect water quality. Of the wetland types that occur within alternative corridors, saltmarsh habitats are considered the most sensitive to disturbance. This habitat type is very important to migrating waterfowl and shorebirds and provides excellent foraging opportunities for black bears in spring. Trenches cut for submarine cables in this vegetation type would not likely return to preconstruction conditions for many years after construction. Impacts from construction and right-of-way maintenance over the life of the Project could be locally significant. Due to the small amount of wetlands that could be affected in relation to the wide distribution of these communities within the Project study area, impacts would be regionally insignificant. Any adverse impacts on wetlands within the KNWR would be significant at a national level due to conflicts with the USFWS mandate to protect wildlife and their habitats on the KNWR. Table 3-5 illustrates the number of acres of wetland vegetation that would be disturbed. Impacts on wetland vegetation could be substantially reduced by winter construction during normal winter conditions. If snow conditions are insufficient to reduce impacts to wetland vegetation, snow and/or ice could be manufactured on site or construction could be postponed until conditions are suitable. Spanning sensitive areas, not improving existing roads, minimizing clearing of the right-of-way, and selective removal of vegetation within the right-of-way would also reduce impacts to wetland vegetation. Horizontal drilling under the saltmarsh habitats associated with the marine crossings would avoid damage to this wetland community (see Volume II, Appendix D for mitigation measures). Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-4] September 2001 TABLE 3-5 IMPACTS ON ACRES OF WETLAND VEGETATION FOR ALTERNATIVE ROUTES Black Spruce Bogs and Route Option Forest Meadows Saltmarsh’ Tesoro Route IN 0.0 77.6 0.0 B 0.0 0.0 2.8 Cc 0.0 0.0 | 0.0 | D 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tesoro (Anchorage) Route 0.0 0.0 0.5 N Enstar Route E North 0.0 74.6 0.0 E South 0.0 5.5, 0.0 F 72.2 57.0 | 0.9 9 G 0.0 0.0 2.3 H 0.0 0.0 9.7 I 0.0 0.0 12 Enstar (Anchorage) Route J 0.0 0.2 | 0.05 K 0.1 0.0 0.0 M 0.0 0.0 0.9 TAIL potential impacts to saltmarsh will be avoided by directional drilling. 3.5.2 Alternatives No-action Alternative The no-action alternative would result in no impacts on vegetation. No ground disturbance, or loss or degradation of vegetation is involved in the no-action alternative. Tesoro Route Bernice Lake to Pt. Possession - Route Option A The centerline of this segment passes through about 32.9 miles of closed mixed forest, 5.9 miles of developed lands, 4.6 miles of bogs and meadows, 0.1 mile of barren cliffs and beach, and less than 0.1 mile of closed tall shrub communities. Right-of-way clearing would impact 443.1 acres of closed mixed forest, 77.6 acres of bogs and meadow, and 1.3 acres of closed tall shrub. Impacts to low-growing vegetation in bogs and meadows and closed tall shrub communities Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-42 September 2001 would be minimized by spanning these areas. Winter construction and maintenance north of Captain Cook SRA (Links T6, T7, T8, T9) would minimize impacts on all vegetation resources, especially in wetland communities. In order to discourage bark beetle infestation, spruce logs and slash from clearing in closed mixed forest would be chipped, dispersed, or hauled out based on agency or landowner discretion. Other selective mitigation measures that would reduce impacts include not upgrading existing roads and minimizing clearing of the right-of-way. Impacts on vegetation from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Bernice Lake Substation Site—The existing Bernice Lake Substation site is located in an area of patchy development. The proposed new substation site is an area of closed mixed spruce forest immediately adjacent to the existing Bernice Lake Substation. Project activities would require clearing of approximately | acre of closed mixed forest. Kenai Lowlands—Transition Facility Sites (Reside Airport Sites | and 2, Johnson Airport Sites | and 2)—These proposed transition sites are all located on presently developed lands. There are no natural vegetation resources associated with these sites, and no adverse impacts are expected. North and South Ends of Captain Cook State Recreation Area—Both proposed transition sites are in closed mixed spruce forest. These facilities consist of a single riser pole and would not require clearing outside of the right-of-way. Pt. Possession Transition Facility Site—This proposed transition site is located on the top of a bluff in closed mixed spruce forest. The transition facility would occupy approximately | acre of land within the right-of-way. The facility would not require clearing outside of the right-of-way. Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof via Fire Island - Route Option B The centerline of this route passes through 5.2 miles of closed mixed forest, 0.2 mile of saltmarsh, 0.2 mile of barren bluffs and beaches, and 0.1 mile of developed lands. Right-of-way clearing would impact 22.8 acres of closed mixed forest on Fire Island and at Pt. Woronzof and 2.8 acres of saltmarsh. Impacts to saltmarsh habitats would be avoided by horizontal drilling. In order to discourage spruce bark beetle infestation, slash from clearing in closed mixed forest would be chipped, dispersed, or hauled out based on agency or landowner discretion. Fire Island South and North Transition Facility Site—The proposed Fire Island south site is situated in a transition area between saltmarsh, barren sandy beach, and mixed closed spruce forest. The site itself is in an open area of mixed sand dune and grass/shrub cover just south of a small lake. The proposed Fire Island north site is located in closed mixed spruce forest. Both proposed transition facilities will occupy approximately | acre of land within the right-of-way. These facilities would not require clearing outside of the right-of-way. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-43 September 2001 Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof (Aquatic Route) - Route Option C The centerline of this route intersects 0.2 mile of developed lands, and small portions of barren bluffs, beaches, and closed mixed forest. Right-of-way clearing would impact 0.5 acre of closed mixed forest at Pt. Woronzof. To discourage spruce bark beetle infestation, slash from clearing would be chipped, dispersed, or hauled out based on agency or landowner discretion. Impacts on closed mixed forest from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Pt. Woronzof Substation Site—The existing Pt. Woronzof Substation is located on developed lands but has a minor component of mixed spruce forest that is dominated by hardwoods. Upgrading the existing Pt. Woronzof site would not involve clearing or disturbance of vegetation. Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell - Route Option D The centerline of this route intersects 0.07 mile of barren bluffs and beaches. No potential impacts to vegetation were identified for this route. Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof - Route Option N The centerline of this route traverses 2.8 miles of closed mixed forest, 1 mile of developed land, and 0.1 mile of saltmarsh. Right-of-way clearing along this route would impact 10.2 acres of closed mixed forest and 0.5 acre of saltmarsh. Impacts to saltmarsh would be avoided by horizontal drilling. To discourage spruce bark beetle infestation, slash from clearing would be chipped, dispersed, or hauled out based on agency or landowner discretion. Pt. Campbell Transition Facility Site—This proposed site is in mixed spruce forest with a dominant hardwood component. The facility site itself is an abandoned gravel quarry with very limited vegetation resources present. No impacts on vegetation have been identified. Pt. Woronzof Substation Site—The existing Pt. Woronzof Substation is located on developed lands but has a minor component of mixed spruce forest that is dominated by hardwoods. Upgrading the existing Pt. Woronzof site would not involve clearing or disturbance of vegetation. Enstar Route Soldotna North - Route Option E North The centerline of this route intersects 11.9 miles of closed mixed forest, 1.8 miles of developed lands, 6.2 miles of bogs and meadows, and 1.7 miles of needleleaf woodland. Right-of-way Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-44 September 2001 clearing on this route would impact 18.9 acres of needleleaf woodland, 74.6 acres of bogs and meadows, and 150.9 acres of closed mixed forest. Spanning low-growing vegetation in bogs and meadows would minimize impacts to these areas. Spruce logs and debris from clearing in closed mixed forest would be either hauled out or chipped in place based on agency or landowner discretion. Other selective mitigation measures that would reduce impacts on vegetation resources include not upgrading existing roads and minimizing clearing of the right-of-way. Soldotna Substation—The existing Soldotna Substation is located in an area of relatively intense human development and occupation. Vegetation has previously been cleared from the site, and no adverse impacts are expected. Naptowne Substation—The proposed Naptowne Substation would be sited in closed mixed forest. Construction at this site would result in removal of approximately 0.7 acre of closed mixed forest. Soldotna South - Route Option E South (Applicant’s Proposal) The centerline of this route passes through 7 miles of developed lands, 5.9 miles of closed mixed forest, 2.9 miles of needleleaf woodland, and 2.6 miles of bogs and meadows. Right-of-way clearing on this route would impact 5.5 acres of bogs and meadows and 12.4 acres of closed mixed forest. Spanning low-growing vegetation in bogs and meadows would minimize impacts to these areas. Winter construction and maintenance (Link ES) would minimize impacts on vegetation resources, especially in wetland communities. Slash from clearing in closed mixed forest would be dispersed, hauled out, or chipped in place at landowner or agency discretion. Other selective mitigation measures that would reduce impacts on vegetation resources include not upgrading existing roads and minimizing clearing of the right-of-way. Soldotna Substation—The existing Soldotna Substation is located in an area of relatively intense human development and occupation. Vegetation has previously been cleared from the site, and no adverse impacts are expected. Naptowne Substation—The proposed Naptowne Substation would be sited in closed mixed forest. Construction at this site would result in removal of approximately 0.7 acre of closed mixed forest. Enstar to Chickaloon Bay - Route Option F (Applicant’s Proposal) The centerline of this route intersects 18.6 miles of closed mixed forest, 11.2 miles of closed white spruce forest, 4 miles of black spruce forest, 3.1 miles of bogs and meadows, 0.8 mile of moist grassland, and 0.07 mile of saltmarsh. Right-of-way clearing would impact 326 acres of closed mixed forest, 191.7 acres of closed white spruce forest, 72.2 acres of black spruce forest, 57.0 acres of bogs and meadows, and 14.3 acres of moist grassland. Low-growing vegetation in Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-45 September 2001 bogs and meadows would be spanned. Winter construction and maintenance would minimize impacts on these resources, especially wetland communities. To discourage spruce bark beetle infestation, slash from clearing in closed mixed forest and white spruce forest would be dispersed, hauled out, or chipped in place based on agency or landowner discretion. Other selective mitigation measures that would reduce impacts include not upgrading existing roads and minimizing clearing of the right-of-way. Transition Facility South of Burnt Island—The proposed transition site south of Burnt Island is situated in mature closed mixed forest. This facility would not require clearing outside of the right-of-way. Chickaloon Bay to Klatt Road Landing - Route Option G The centerline of this route passes through about 0.1 mile of saltmarsh. Of the saltmarsh traversed, only a small fringe is at Chickaloon Bay and the remainder is below the bluff at Klatt Road within the ACWR. Right-of-way clearing would affect 2.3 acres of saltmarsh. Potential impacts on saltmarsh at Chickaloon Bay and the ACWR would be avoided by horizontal drilling below the marshes. Chickaloon Bay to Oceanview Park - Route Option H (Applicant’s Proposal) The centerline of this route intersects 0.5 mile of saltmarsh, 0.06 mile of closed mixed forest, and 0.1 mile of developed lands. Route Option H (Applicant’s Proposal) crosses the widest part of the ACWR, but traverses a relatively narrow band of saltmarsh. Right-of-way clearing would affect 1 acre of closed mixed forest at the Anchorage landfall and 9.7 acres of saltmarsh. Potential impacts on saltmarsh at Chickaloon Bay and the ACWR would be avoided by horizontal drilling below the marshes. To discourage spruce bark beetle infestation, slash from clearing in closed mixed forest would be dispersed, hauled away, or chipped in place at landowner or agency discretion. Chickaloon Bay to Rabbit Creek - Route Option I The centerline of this route intersects 0.07 mile of saltmarsh. Right-of-way clearing would affect 1.2 acres of saltmarsh. Potential impacts on saltmarsh at Chickaloon Bay and the ACWR would be avoided by horizontal drilling below the marshes. Klatt Road to International Substation via Minnesota Drive - Route Option J The centerline of this route passes through 4.9 miles of developed land, 0.1 mile of closed mixed forest, 0.06 mile of bogs and meadows and 0.05 mile of saltmarsh. Right-of-way clearing on this Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-46 September 2001 route would impact 0.2 acre of black spruce muskeg and 0.4 acre of closed mixed forest. To discourage spruce bark beetle infestation, debris from clearing in closed mixed forest would be dispersed, hauled out or chipped in place at landowner or agency discretion. Other selective mitigation measures that would reduce impacts include not upgrading existing roads and minimizing clearing of the right-of-way. Klatt Road Transition Station—The Klatt Road site would occupy approximately 0.3 acre of developed lands. No impacts to vegetation have been identified for this site. International Substation Site—The existing International Substation site is located within the Municipality of Anchorage on developed lands. Upgrading the existing International site would not involve clearing or disturbance of vegetation. Oceanview Park to International Substation via Alaska Railroad - Route Option K (Applicant’s Proposal) The centerline of this route passes through 5.4 miles of developed land, 0.1 mile of closed mixed forest, and <0.1 mile of closed tall shrub and black spruce muskeg. Right-of-way clearing on this route would impact 0.5 acre of closed mixed forest, 0.1 acre of black spruce muskeg, and 0.02 acre of closed tall shrub. To discourage spruce bark beetle infestation, debris from clearing in closed mixed forest would be dispersed, hauled out or chipped in place at landowner or agency discretion. Cross Road North and 120" Avenue Transition Stations—These transition facility sites are located on developed lands with minimal vegetation resources. No impacts to vegetation have been identified. International Substation Site—The existing International Substation site is located within the Municipality of Anchorage on developed lands. Upgrading the existing International site would not involve clearing or disturbance of vegetation. Rabbit Creek to International Substation via Old Seward Highway - Route Option M The centerline of this route passes through 8.4 miles of developed land, 0.3 mile of saltmarsh, and 0.2 mile of closed mixed forest. Right-of-way clearing on this route would impact 0.6 acre of closed mixed forest and 0.9 acre of saltmarsh. Potential impacts on saltmarsh at the ACWR would be avoided by horizontal drilling below the marsh. To discourage spruce bark beetle infestation, debris from clearing in closed mixed forest would be dispersed, hauled out, or chipped in place at land-managing agency or landowner discretion. Other selective mitigation measures that would reduce impacts include not upgrading existing roads and minimizing clearing of the right-of-way. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-47 September 2001 Shooting Range and Old Seward Highway Transition Facility Sites—These transition facility sites are located on developed lands with minimal vegetation resources. No impacts to vegetation have been identified. International Substation Site—The existing International Substation site is located within the Municipality of Anchorage on developed lands. Upgrading the existing International site would not involve clearing or disturbance of vegetation. 3:53 Terrestrial - Wildlife This section provides a general description of the wildlife resources in the Project study area, potential impacts, significance criteria, and mitigation measures. A description is then given of the existing wildlife resources, potential impacts, and mitigation measures for each proposed route. Acreages given for potential impacts assume that the entire right-of-way is cleared. General Description The Kenai Peninsula supports a wide diversity of wildlife species. Thirty-five species of mammals, 136 species of birds, and 28 species of fish are expected to occur in the study area. Many of these same species also occur in the Anchorage area. Birds known to occur in the study area include loons, ducks, geese, trumpeter swans, shorebirds, eagles, hawks, and neotropical migrant and resident species of songbirds. Saltmarshes of the Chickaloon Flats, ACWR, and Potter Marsh are major waterfowl concentration areas. Mammals of the study area include wolves, bears, lynx, moose, and caribou. Wolves, bears, moose, and lynx are found throughout the majority of the Kenai Peninsula portion of the study area. Moose are also common in the Anchorage area. Many of the lakes and streams in the study area support anadromous fish, including five species of salmon. These fish provide an important source of food for bears and eagles. Freshwater resources are discussed in more detail in Section 3.5.5. Upper Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm provide habitat for marine fish including saffron cod and Bering cisco. Turnagain Arm also provides habitat for beluga whales. Habitat for harbor seals is present in Chickaloon Bay, with haul out points at the mouths of Chickaloon River and Big Indian Creek. Marine resources are addressed in Section 3.5.9. Birds The study area supports over 130 species of resident and migrant birds (Table 3-6) (KNWR 1984; West 1994). The major groups of species include loons, grebes, waterfowl, shorebirds, gulls, terns, raptors, and songbirds. These birds and their nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-48 September 2001 Loons Common (Gavia immer), Pacific (Gavia pacifica), and red-throated loons (Gavia stellata) nest within the study area. Common loons are the most widespread (KNWR 1984). Smith (1981) estimated the population of common loons to be around 1,200 for the KNWR. Loons occupy many of the larger lakes and ponds (> 20 acres) on the refuge (Bailey 1978). Grebes Red-necked grebe (Podiceps grisegena) and horned grebe (Podiceps auritus) are relatively common year-round residents of the Cook Inlet region, but occur in the study area during the spring through the fall. Pied-billed grebes (Pedilymbus podiceps) occur as a casual or accidental species. During the breeding season, grebes occupy freshwater lakes, ponds, marshes, and slow- moving rivers. Their floating nests are anchored to emergent vegetation in shallow waters. Grebes occupy inshore marine waters during winter (Armstrong 1995). Waterfowl The study area supports a diverse population of waterfowl on a seasonal basis, either as migrants or breeders at lakes and wetlands throughout the Kenai Lowlands and Anchorage area (see Volume II, Figure MV-9, Waterfowl Distribution, illustrating duck and goose concentration areas). Common species of waterfowl using upper Cook Inlet regions include tundra (Cygnus columbianus) and trumpeter swan (C. buccinator), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), white- fronted goose (Anser albifrons), snow goose (Chen caerulescens), and various species of diving and dabbling ducks. Diving ducks include greater scaup (Aythya marila), barrow’s goldeneye (Bucaephala islandica), harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus), and common (Mergus merganser) and red-breasted merganser (M. serrator). The harlequin duck nests along mountain streams. This species was heavily impacted by oil following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in the Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska. As of 1998, the harlequin duck was considered a “species not yet recovered” (EVOS Trustee Council 1998). The most common dabbing duck species include the northern pintail (Anas acuta), American wigeon (A. americana), mallard (A. platyrhynchos), green-winged teal (A. crecca), and northern shoveler (A. clypeata) (Eldridge 1997). Major waterfowl concentration areas include saltmarsh habitats in the Chickaloon Flats, portions of the ACWR, and Potter Marsh. These areas provide feeding habitat and limited nesting habitat. In the upper Cook Inlet, ducks tend to concentrate along the inter-tidal mudflats during migration, feeding along the tideline as the tide rises and falls (Eldridge 1997). Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-49 September 2001 TABLE 3-6 BIRD SPECIES OF THE KENAI PENINSULA AND ANCHORAGE AREA Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Loon Gavia immer Bonapart’s Gull Larus philidelphiensis Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica Mew Gull Larus canus Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata Herring Gull Larus argentatus Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator Aleutian Tern Sterna aleutica Greater White-fronted Anser albifrons Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus Goose Canada Goose Branta canadensis Northern Hawk Owl Surnia ulula Snow Goose Chen caerulescens Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus Northern Pintail Anas acuta Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus Green-winged Teal Anas crecca Downey Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus American Wigeon Anas americana Northern Three-toed Picoides tridactylus Woodpecker Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Greater Scaup Aythya marila Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata Tree Swallow Tachycinetra bicolor Black Scoter Melanitta nigra Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Common Merganser Mergus merganser Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Steller’s Jay Cyanocitta stelleri Osprey Pandion haliaetus Common Raven Corvus corax Bald Eagle Haliacetus leucocephalus Black-billed Magpie Pica pica Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Boreal Chickadee Poecile hudsonicus Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus Brown Creeper Certhia americana Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis harlani Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-50 September 2001 TABLE 3-6 BIRD SPECIES OF THE KENAI PENINSULA AND ANCHORAGE AREA Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos American Robin Turdus migratorius American Kestrel Falco sparverius Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius Merlin Falco columbarius Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus Spruce Grouse Canachites canadensis Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa Willow Ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Rock Ptarmigan Lagopus mutus American Pipit Anthus rubescens White-tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata Pacific Golden-Plover Pluvialis fulva Townsend's Warbler Dendroica townsendi Black-bellied Plover Pluvialus squatarola Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Red Knot Calidris canutus Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis Rock Sandpiper Calidris ptilocnemis Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Dunlin Calidris alpina Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus Gray-crowned Rosy Finch Leucosticte tephrocotia Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra scolopaceus Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea American Dipper Cinclus mexicanus Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-51 September 2001 The Chickaloon Flats estuary and associated wetlands are the major staging area on the northern Kenai Peninsula for thousands of migrating waterfowl and shorebirds (Quimby 1972). Species that use the flats include trumpeter and tundra swans, lesser and cackling Canada geese, greater white-fronted geese, snow geese, mallard, northern pintail, green-winged teal, northern shoveler, and a number of species of shorebirds. The total number of birds on the flats during fall migration may exceed 25,000 individuals. Numbers of geese in fall can be in excess of 5,000 birds (KNWR 1984). Other areas of importance to waterfowl include the numerous small lakes and associated wetland habitats throughout the northern portion of the Kenai Peninsula. These areas provide significant nesting and brood-rearing habitat for waterfowl (USFWS 1994). Trumpeter Swans After a period of concern for population numbers of trumpeter swans, the species has made a comeback over the last 32 years. The number of swans in the Alaskan breeding population, including the south-central region of the state, has steadily increased and expanded its range (Bangs et al. 1982a; Connant et al. 1991). However, trumpeter swans have been shown to be sensitive to human activity and development, and this species is listed as a Migratory Nongame Bird of Management Concern by the USFWS (1995). With the human population on the Kenai Peninsula increasing in areas occupied by nesting swans, long-term viability of swan populations is a concern (Bailey and Fischbach 1995). Twenty-three of the 89 historic nesting territories identified between 1957 and 1994 have been abandoned due to increased human activity, including lakeshore residences and recreational boating (Bailey and Fischbach 1995). In 1998, 52 nesting territories on the central and northern Kenai Peninsula were occupied by nesting pairs of trumpeter swans. Most of the available habitat on the Kenai Peninsula appears to be fully occupied, as indicated by establishment of territories in newly constructed beaver ponds or at high elevations, and by a significant proportion (about 47 percent) of non-breeding adults using the Kenai Peninsula in the summer (Bailey and Fischbach 1995). Nesting trumpeter swans and cygnet productivity on and adjacent to the KNWR have been monitored annually since 1957 via aerial surveys by KNWR pilots and biologists. Most annual trumpeter swan surveys include a nesting survey (May to June), an early cygnet productivity survey (July), and a late cygnet productivity survey (August to September). Movements of trumpeter swans on the refuge nesting grounds, areas used by trumpeter swan broods, staging areas, and migration routes and wintering areas have been documented and identified by banding swans with neck-collars and leg bands in the 1970s and 1980s. In addition, 25 swans were fitted with radio transmitters in 1984 and 1985 to accomplish these study objectives. This study revealed the importance to swan broods of lakes adjacent to nesting lakes, documented the lower Moose River and Watson Lake as important swan staging areas, and verified that swans migrated through the Chickaloon River Flats area (Compton et al. 1988). Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-52 September 2001 Trumpeter swan nest survey data were plotted for all years in which data from aerial surveys were digitized (KNWR, unpublished data) to delineate optimum swan habitat. Swan nesting areas (defined as a 2-mile-radius circle around the nest site) that have supported nesting swans at some time since 1968 have been identified throughout the KNWR and on nonrefuge lands. These areas were mapped (see Figure MV-10 in Volume II) to quantify the number of swan nesting areas intersected by the centerline. The trumpeter swan nesting areas map indicates that swan concentrations extend throughout the lowlands, from the coastal fringe along Cook Inlet to the foothills of the Kenai Range just west of the Enstar pipeline route. Many of the trumpeter swans that use the Kenai Lowlands stage in the lower reaches of Moose River in the spring prior to establishing nesting territories and in the fall prior to migration (Alaska Department of Natural Resources 1986). Trumpeter swans also use other areas for staging, including the Chickaloon Flats and ACWR. Bailey et al. (1995) reported that fall migratory movements of radio marked trumpeter swans which nested or remained on the Kenai Peninsula in summer moved in a northeast direction west of the Kenai Mountains to the Chickaloon Flats where they abruptly turned east up the Turnagain Arm of the Cook Inlet before crossing the Kenai Mountains near Portage Pass south to Prince William Sound. Most waterfowl probably follow a similar route from Chickaloon along the coast of Turnagain Arm to Portage on their fall migration (Eldridge personal communication, 1997). Shorebirds More than 30 species of shorebirds have been documented within the Project study area. Shorebirds are present along lakeshores, saltmarshes, and on estuarine mudflats within the study area. They occur as summer residents (e.g., red-necked phalarope [Phalaropus lobatus], spotted sandpiper [Actitis macularia], least sandpiper [Calidris minutilla], greater and lesser yellowlegs [Tringa melanoleuca and T. flavipes], common snipe [Gallinago gallinago], and semipalmated plover [Charadrius semipalmatus]) and migrants (e.g., western sandpiper [Calidris mauri], semipalmated sandpiper [C. pusilla], dunlin [C. alpina], and turnstones [Arenaria spp.]) moving to breeding areas in western Alaska or the Arctic (Rosenberg 1986). Gulls and Terns Common gull species in the study area include glaucous-winged (Larus glaucescens), herring (L. argentatus), mew (L. canus), and Bonapart’s gulls (L. philadelphia). Black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) are also common. Glaucous-winged gulls and mew gulls are year-round residents of the Cook Inlet. Herring gulls are present during migration. Bonapart’s gull and black-legged kittiwake are common from spring through fall. Gulls nest in trees, on cliff ledges, or on the ground near lakes, rivers, tidal flats, and beaches. During the winter, they are found in inshore and offshore marine waters, tidal flats, lakes, rivers, and rocky shores. The Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea) is the only tern species commonly found in the study area, and is present Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-53 September 2001 from spring through fall. This species nests on the ground along tidal flats, beaches, rivers, lakes, and marshes. The Aleutian tern (S. aleutica) is an uncommon breeding bird present in this vicinity from spring through fall. These terns typically nest in coastal areas, marshes, islands, rivers, lagoon, and inshore marine waters (Armstrong 1995). Raptors A variety of raptor species occur in the study area either as breeders or migrants. Species regularly present in the study area include bald (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden eagles (Aguila chrysaetos), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), rough-legged hawk (B. lagopus), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), merlin (F. columbarius), American peregrine falcon (F. peregrinus anatum), and gyrfalcon (F. rusticolus) (Bailey, personal communication, 1997; KNWR 1984). Bald eagles and their nests are protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1972. These birds are common, year-round residents of the study area, nesting in areas near suitable food supplies along the coast or major water courses including lakes, rivers, and sloughs (Bangs et al. 1982b). Streams with both spring spawning fish and fall salmon runs appear to provide the best bald eagle nest sites (Bangs et al. 1982b). Bald eagles usually select large mature trees, often cottonwoods, to support their large, bulky stick nests. Nest trees typically have a perch with a view of the water (KNWR 1984). Bald eagle nest sites are scattered along the coastal fringe north of Nikiski, along the Moose and Kenai rivers, and at a few sites along the foothills of the Kenai Mountains. The population of bald eagles in the Anchorage area has increased in recent years. Nests have been documented on Little Rabbit Creek, near John’s Park, east of Pt. Woronzof, and at Pt. Campbell (Sinnott, personal communication, 1996). Nesting bald eagles and eaglet productivity on and adjacent to the KNWR have been monitored annually since 1979 via aerial surveys by KNWR pilots and biologists. Most annual bald eagle surveys include a nesting survey (May) and an eaglet productivity survey in June to July (early) and/or July to August (late). Bald eagle nesting areas (defined as a 0.5-mile-diameter circle centered on the nest tree) identified in 1979-1998 and 2000 were mapped throughout the project area (see Volume II, Figure MV-10). Surveys of numbers of bald eagles wintering along the upper Kenai River, between Kenai Lake and Skilak Lake, have been conducted by watercraft (boat or raft) under ice-free conditions, or by aircraft if the river is frozen, since the winter of 1983-84. Between 1984 and 1986, 26 bald eagles were captured along the Kenai River and fitted with radio transmitters to determine movements to and from the upper Kenai River. Golden eagles, also protected under the Eagle Protection Act, are uncommon or rare breeders in the upper elevations of the Kenai Mountains. They migrate south during the winter (Bangs et al. 1982b). Golden eagles would not likely be encountered along the alternative routes due to the lack of suitable habitat. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-54 September 2001 Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) are uncommon on the Kenai Peninsula. Ospreys on the peninsula have been observed nesting on oil field towers near Swanson River and on an electrical transmission line structure in the Bernice Lake area (Bailey, personal communication, 1996). The northern goshawk is an uncommon resident of the northern Kenai Peninsula. The species is considered a Migratory Nongame Species of Management Concern by the USFWS (1995) and appears on the Partners-in-Flight list of land birds with high priority for conservation action in south-coastal Alaska. Population numbers tend to follow the cycles of their major prey species, the snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus). The great horned owl (Bubo virginiana) is the most common owl in the project area. The boreal owl (Aegolius funereus) is uncommon, and the great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) is rare in the project area. These two species have been identified on the Partners-in-Flight list of land birds with high priority for conservation action in south-coastal Alaska. The northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus) is likely to be a rare resident in this vicinity, and the short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) is likely from spring through fall on beach areas and bogs north of Kenai. The northern hawk-owl (Surnia ulula) is uncommon in this area, but it is a focal species for management in the USFWS Management Plan for Alaska Raptors. Songbirds Common songbirds in the study area include = three species of flycatchers =m one waxwing = four swallows = two kinglets m two jays = one shrike = two chickadees m™ seven sparrows = one nuthatch = one junco = one creeper = one bunting = one dipper = one longspur = five thrushes = one blackbird = seven warblers = five finches = one pipit Songbirds occupy a diverse array of vegetation communities in lowland and upland portions of the study area. Many of the songbirds that occur in the study area in summer are neotropical migrants that nest in Alaska and winter in Latin America. Trend data in recent years have indicated that populations of these birds are in decline in North America, although local data are often insufficient to determine local trends. Populations of neotropical migratory birds are experiencing threats from a number of factors, including habitat loss within their breeding and wintering ranges and migration stop-overs, severe weather, and nest parasitism. An aspect of habitat loss that is of Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-55 September 2001 particular concern for neotropical migratory and resident birds is habitat fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation involves the reduction of large areas of habitat into smaller and often isolated habitat patches as a result of habitat removal. Smaller habitat patches generally support fewer species because they cannot adequately accommodate species that require large territories or species that specialize in habitat interiors. Increasing edge from habitat fragmentation, or edge effect, in forested habitats leaves forest-breeding birds more vulnerable to predation, nest parasitism, and invasion of non-indigenous species. The USFWS has identified several songbird species as Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern, based on declining population trends. These include alder flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum), olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), gray-cheeked thrush (Catharus minimus), and blackpoll warbler (Dendroica striata). The olive-sided flycatcher, gray- cheeked thrush, and blackpoll warbler are also considered Species of Special Concern by the State of Alaska. The State of Alaska’s list of Species of Special Concern includes species of fish or wildlife native to Alaska that have entered a long-term decline in abundance or are vulnerable to a significant decline due to low numbers, restricted distribution, dependence on limited habitat resources, or sensitivity to environmental disturbance. Townsend’s warbler (Dendroica townsendi) is another songbird species in the study area that is considered a Species of Special Concern. Partners-in-Flight is an international program of governmental and non-governmental entities formed to emphasize the conservation of land birds that are not covered under other programs such as the Endangered Species Act but are in need of conservation actions. Boreal Partners-in- Flight, the local Alaska working group for Partners-in-Flight, is in the process of assembling a list of species specific to Alaska for which there is a high priority for conservation efforts. For birds that occur on the western portions of the Kenai Peninsula and in the Anchorage area, several species are listed under the category of “Species of High Priority for Conservation” and include the olive-sided flycatcher, boreal chickadee (Poecile hudsonicus), varied thrush (Jxoreus naevius), Townsend’s warbler, white-winged crossbill (Loxia luecoptera), and pine grosbeak (Pinicola enucleator) (B. Andres, personal communication, 1999). Concern for many of these songbirds is based on the suspected negative effects on populations from the loss of forest cover in central or south coastal Alaska. Alaska is of substantial importance to the North American populations of these birds (B. Andres, personal communication, 1999). Small Mammals Over 20 species of small mammals occur in the Kenai Lowlands (Table 3-7). These include at least eleven rodents, six members of the weasel family, two shrews, two lagomorphs (hares and pikas), and one bat species. About one-third of these species are commercially harvested as furbearers. Feeding habits among these groups of small mammals range from herbivorous to insectivorous and carnivorous. Small mammals may use a variety of vegetation types in the study area, but in general require some vegetative cover for concealment from predators. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-56 September 2001 Although not identified as a group of special concern in the Project area, small mammals are also vulnerable to the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation, especially during dispersal. TABLE 3-7 TERRESTRIAL MAMMAL SPECIES COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus Vagrant Shrew S. Vagrans Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus Black Bear Ursus americanus Brown Bear Ursus arctos Marten Martes americana Least Weasel Mustela nivalis Short-tailed Weasel (Ermine) Mustela erminea Mink Mustela vison River Otter Lutra canadensis Wolverine Gulo gulo Coyote Canis latrans Wolf Canis lupus Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Hoary Marmot Marmota caligata Arctic Ground Squirrel Spermophilus parryii Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Beaver Castor canadensis Northern Bog Lemming Synaptomys borealis Northern Red-backed Vole Clethrionomys rutilus Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus Tundra Vole Microtus oeconomus Singing Vole Microtus gregalis Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Porcupine Erithizon dorsatum Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus Collared Pika Ochotona princaps Moose Alces alces Caribou Rangifer tarandus Mountain Goat Oreamnos americanus Dall Sheep Ovis dalli Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-57 September 2001 Predators The Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) and gray wolf (Canis lupus) are key predators in the study area. Coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), wolverine (Gulo gulo), and mink (Mustela vison) are also present (see Table 3-7). Canada Lynx The Canada lynx is a candidate for listing as threatened or endangered (62 FR 49398) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the contiguous United States due to declining population trends. The lynx is an important furbearer in central Alaska. Lynx are distributed throughout much of the forested lowlands of the northern Kenai Peninsula (see Volume II, Figure MV-11), overlapping the distribution of their major prey species, the snowshoe hare (Bailey et al. 1983). Lynx also are present in the foothills of the Chugach range and in the undeveloped areas of Anchorage. Fluctuations in the abundance of snowshoe hare on an 8- to 11-year cycle generally result in drastic changes in lynx abundance. During years with high hare populations, lynx numbers can reach as much as 10 times the numbers observed during low population cycles (Poole 1994). Studies of lynx populations on the KNWR, however, indicate a depressed lynx population, despite abundant habitat and prey (Bailey et al. 1986). Snowshoe hare habitat includes forested and shrub habitats that provide cover from avian predators. Lynx are most abundant in early to mid-successional stage forests and subalpine shrub zones, but most often select mature forest stands for denning. Densities, home range sizes, movements, productivity, and mortality have been determined each year for lynx in selected areas on the KNWR since 1983. The segment of the refuge lynx population that is monitored includes those lynx inhabiting areas of the refuge north of the Kenai River that are intensively developed and experience the most recreational use. Lynx in that portion of the refuge occur at the highest densities and are most susceptible to human-related mortality and disturbance. The principal monitoring method for lynx on the KNWR has been radio-telemetry because their secretive behavior and preference for dense cover, plus frequent poor snow cover and tracking conditions, often preclude snow-dependent census methods. Lynx are live-captured annually, fitted with radio collars, and monitored periodically from aircraft. Results of these studies and monitoring efforts have been published in scientific journals (Bailey et al. 1986) and are presented in two graduate students’ Master of Science theses (Kesterson 1988; Staples 1995). Gray Wolf The wolf is one of the dominant predators of the Kenai Lowlands, preying mostly on moose (Alces alces), beaver (Castor canadensis), and various small mammals (Peterson et al. 1984). Wolves tend to avoid human activity or disturbance, including settled areas west of the KNWR and along the Sterling Highway corridor (Bailey 1984). They do use roads that are closed to Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-58 September 2001 vehicular traffic, such as the Enstar pipeline access road (Thurber et al. 1994). Wolves are strongly associated with their main prey species, the moose, for much of the year (Peterson et al. 1984). There are seven wolf packs that may potentially utilize the northern Kenai Peninsula portions of the study area. These are the Big Indian River and Skilak Lake packs on the eastern side of the study area; and Swanson River, Bear Lake, Elephant Lake, Moose Research Center, and Pt. Possession packs in the central and western portion of the study area (see Volume II, Figure MV-12). The health status of the packs is a concern due to a biting louse infestation in most of the packs (Bailey, personal communication, 1997), and their incidence of exposure to canine parvo virus and distemper (Bailey, personal communication, 1999). Wolves also occur in the outskirts of Anchorage along the foothills of the Chugach Mountains and undeveloped areas of the military bases, but generally are not associated with the developed coastal areas and do not occur on Fire Island (Sinnott, personal communication, 1996). The most critical habitat requirements for wolves are an abundance of large ungulates, especially moose, and minimum human disturbance (KNWR 1984). Wolf habitat has diminished on the northern Kenai Peninsula due to increased human settlement, transportation corridors, and other forms of development. Human-caused mortality in the form of hunting and trapping is the most significant factor influencing the size of the wolf population (Peterson et al.1984). Densities, numbers per pack, numbers of packs, pack territory sizes, movements, and rates and causes of mortality have been determined each year for wolves on the KNWR since 1976. The wolves that are monitored are those wolves inhabiting areas on the refuge north of the Kenai River that are intensively developed and experience most recreational use. Wolves in that portion of the refuge occur at the highest densities and are most susceptible to human-related mortality and disturbance. The principal monitoring method for wolves has been radio-telemetry, since the dense forest cover and frequent poor snow cover and tracking conditions often preclude snow- dependent census methods. Wolves are fitted with radio collars annually using a combination of live-capture and helicopter darting capture methods and monitored periodically from aircraft. Results of these studies and monitoring efforts have been published in scientific journals (Peterson et al. 1984) and a graduate student’s Master of Science thesis (Jozwiak 1997). Large Mammals Black bear (Ursus americanus), brown bear (U. arctos), caribou (Rangifer tarandus), and moose are of particular importance in the Project area because of their subsistence, recreational, or ecological importance and are discussed below. Dall sheep (Ovis dalli) and mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) habitat is not present along any alternative route. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-59 September 2001 Black Bears Black bears are common throughout the study area and are much more common than brown bears. Black bears use a wide range of habitat types between den emergence in the spring and late fall (KNWR 1984). They prefer open forest, mixed forest, and shrub habitats, which provide cover and preferred forage species such as berries, succulent forbs, grasses, and devil’s club (Erickson 1965; Schwartz and Franzman 1980; Schwartz et al. 1985). General black bear habitat on the Kenai Peninsula study area and vegetation communities that may support devil’s club within the study corridor are shown on Figure MV-13 (Volume II). In the Anchorage area, black bears occur in the foothills of the Chugach Mountains, the coastal fringe of the ACWR, and undeveloped areas. Black bears tend to avoid unforested areas, preferring dense timber, except during the spring when grasslands or estuarine saltmarsh habitat provide important feeding habitat for bears emerging from their dens (USFWS 1980). Black bears feed mostly on herbaceous vegetation, but also feed on carrion and spawning salmon in many of the rivers and streams during the summer months (ADF&G 1976). The highest quality habitats for black bears are forested areas with relatively small openings (close to escape cover), a high diversity of forage species, and a high percentage of cover of these species. The highest carrying capacity for black bears is reached in mature forests (51 to 100 years) (Schwartz et al. 1985). Brown Bears Brown bears are a species of special interest for resource agencies, as well as the public, because they need large tracts of undeveloped land with little human presence to survive. Over the last 20 years, the human population of the Kenai Peninsula has almost doubled. Increases in roads, utility corridors, logging, development of private lands, and recreational activity (e.g., hiking, fishing, hunting) are associated with the increased population. As more people have entered formerly undeveloped areas, bear-human encounters have increased, resulting in an increase in defense of life and property (DLP) shootings on the Peninsula. The number of DLP bear deaths has increased in recent years. From 1973 through 1989, 38 DLP bear deaths were recorded (2.4 bears per year) on the Kenai Peninsula. From 1990 through 1996, 40 DLP bear deaths were recorded (5.7 bears per year). There are no recent estimates of the brown bear population on the Kenai Peninsula, but it is believed to be between 250 and 300 animals. In order to maintain this population, the annual brown bear harvest is limited to 14 bears, of which only a portion are female. The harvest of female bears should not exceed a 3- year mean of six “female units” (females <2 years of age make up 2 unit) (S. Farley, ADF&G, personal communication). In 1995-2000, the fall brown bear harvest season remained closed by emergency order because the number of females lost from the population exceeded the maximum allowable number (ADF&G, unpublished data, 1999; G. Del Frate, ADF&G, personal communication, 2001). Brown bears are one of the dominant large mammals on the Kenai Peninsula and are considered an indicator species by the USFWS and U.S. Forest Service. The Kenai Peninsula brown bears Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-60 September 2001 were declared as a species of special concern by the ADF&G in 1998. Brown bears on the Kenai Peninsula are believed to be isolated from populations to the north (Jacobs 1989a). Brown bears prefer open tundra and grassland or shrub habitats that provide lush vegetation and berry- producing plants. After emerging from their dens in the spring, bears feed extensively on horsetail, sedges, and grasses in the valley bottoms and open wetland areas. They also prey on moose and caribou calves, and eat carrion (Jacobs 1989a). Terrestrial meat (e.g., moose, caribou, rodents) and vegetation comprise approximately 76 and 24 percent of the spring diet, respectively (Hilderbrand 1998). In the summer, bears graze on bluejoint reedgrass and feed on spawning salmon in the streams (KNWR 1984). In the fall, roots and berries, along with salmon, are fed on heavily prior to denning. Devil’s club may be an important food source for brown bears as well as black bears (Schwartz, personal communication, 1997). Salmon is the most important fall resource for brown bears, constituting approximately 60 percent of their diet, with terrestrial meat (21 percent) and vegetation accounting for the remainder. During the fall, the average adult female gains 123.5 pounds, most of which (81 percent) is fat (Hilderbrand 1998). Thus, salmon is critical to accumulating the energy reserves necessary to support the costs of hibernation (denning) and/or cub production. Brown bears generally enter dens from late October through November and emerge in early April. Brown bear home ranges are large and their population densities are low. Home range size is approximately 368 miles” for males and about 186.5 miles” for females (Farley 2001). Recent population estimates range from 200 to 300 brown bears on the entire Kenai Peninsula (Schwartz and Arthur 1996). Habitats that are particularly important for brown bear include spring feeding areas in valley bottoms, riparian habitats, denning areas, and anadromous fish streams. These streams vary in quality as brown bear feeding habitat, depending primarily on availability of salmon to bears and degree of human activity. Riparian habitats along the western face of the Kenai Mountains may also serve as travel routes for brown bears feeding along anadromous fish streams (see Volume II, Figure MV-14). The Chickaloon River drainage has been suggested as optimum or “essential” habitat for brown bears on the northern Kenai Peninsula because of its quality and diversity of habitats, anadromous fish streams, and absence of human development (Jacobs 1989b). Telemetry has revealed that some brown bears move from the Kenai Mountains to feed in the lowlands during the spring, summer, and fall; then return again in the winter to den in the mountains. These bears would seldom, if ever, move as far west as the coast of Cook Inlet because there are fewer streams with abundant spawning salmon along the western side of the Refuge, compared to the foothills of the Kenai Mountains. The Interagency Brown Bear Study Team (IBBST), which consists of biologists from the U.S. Forest Service, USFWS, ADF&G, and NPS, is in the process of assessing habitat quality for brown bears throughout the Kenai Peninsula. This preliminary assessment indicates areas of known or potential brown bear habitat. Project consultants preparing the EIS met with the IBBST in February and March 1999 to determine habitat assessment criteria for brown bears on the Kenai Peninsula. As a result of these meetings, it was determined that areas of particular Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-61 September 2001 importance to brown bears include anadromous fish streams and riparian habitat associated with these streams. Streams identified by the ADF&G as having anadromous fish runs are mapped as important summer feeding areas for brown bears. Riparian habitats adjacent to these streams, assumed to be approximately | mile on either side of the stream in undeveloped areas and approximately 0.25 mile in developed areas, are identified as brown bear concentration areas. Remaining areas on the Peninsula are brown bear habitat, development, or areas of potential development influence. Moose The KNWR was established originally to protect the Kenai moose population, which declined in the mid 1920s and 1930s from over-use of winter range and harsh winter weather (Bangs et al. 1982b). Wildfires on the KNWR may influence moose populations through improvement of browse conditions. After an extensive wildfire on the Kenai Peninsula in 1947, the moose population increased over the next 20 years. A burn in 1969 northeast of Kenai provides the best winter habitat for moose on the northern Kenai Peninsula. The winter abundance of moose within the Kenai Peninsula portion of the study area is influenced by these burn areas (see Volume II, Figure MV-15). Numbers of moose present during winters on the KNWR and on adjacent areas (usually within ADF&G management sub-units) have been determined via aerial surveys since the mid-1940s using transect (up to 1964) or quadrant/survey unit census techniques (since 1964). These surveys are dependent on adequate snow cover and vary three to seven years between surveys. Annual aerial surveys of moose population composition are also dependent on adequate snow cover and are used to determine the proportions of calves, cows, and bulls in the moose populations. Moose are one of the most common and visible wildlife species in the region and are found throughout the majority of the study area on the Kenai Peninsula and in Anchorage. They are the primary large herbivore and a key prey species for wolf, black bear, brown bear, and several species of scavengers. Moose seasonally occupy habitats from the lowland muskegs to the high mountain valleys. Bailey (1978) described two moose populations on the Kenai Peninsula: (1) migratory populations that gather in the mountain drainages during rutting season but move to the lower elevations and into the Kenai Lowlands to winter, and (2) a second population that remains in the Kenai Lowlands throughout the year. Similarly, some moose in Anchorage move between the Chugach Range and undeveloped lowlands around Anchorage, such as Kincaid Park, while others remain in the lowlands through summer. Moose are common to all terrestrial habitats in the study area, with the possible exception of mature needleleaf forest areas. Two important resources for moose are winter range habitat, determined by snow depth and forage availability, and areas suitable for calving. Optimum moose winter range occurs in early successional forest (burn areas) with birch and aspen saplings, and climax and riparian shrub communities, which have little snow cover (KNWR Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-62 September 2001 1984). Intermediate and mature forest stands are also heavily used during years of low snow cover (Oldemeyer and Reglin 1984). Cover provided by dense coniferous or mixed forest is important, particularly in late winter and especially when such cover is in proximity to areas with good forage (KNWR 1984). During the spring, summer, and fall, water is an important habitat component because it facilitates escape from predators such as wolves (Peterson et al. 1984) and provides aquatic vegetation for forage (KNWR 1984). Moose calving areas are scattered throughout the Kenai Lowlands in open, bog meadows and black spruce habitat, although denser habitats also may be valuable (Bailey and Bangs 1980). The numerous wetlands, ponds, bogs, and sloughs provide suitable cover for calving. Cows often give birth on islands or peninsulas where the threat from predators is reduced. Moose River Flats, between the drainages of the Moose and Chickaloon rivers, provided optimum calving habitat prior to forest succession following the 1947 wildfire (Bangs and Bailey 1982). Preferred moose browse varies by geographic area and season of the year, but willow is the favored winter food. Burned-over areas in the Kenai Lowlands offer such browse. Birch and aspen also are used as a food source and are found throughout upland spruce hardwood forests in the study area (Oldemeyer and Reglin 1984). Moose forage in the early spring and summer on aquatic vegetation and emergent plants associated with rivers, bogs, and muskegs. Caribou Caribou were extirpated on the Kenai Peninsula by 1912 as a result of fires and unregulated hunting. The species was reintroduced by the ADF&G in 1965 and 1966, when 44 animals were released just north of the Kenai River (Bangs et al. 1982b). These animals became established and formed two distinct herds—the Kenai Mountain herd (KMH) and the Kenai Lowlands herd (KLH)—and have now grown to 400 and 100 animals, respectively (ADF&G 1985). Each of these herds occupies distinctly different habitats (see Volume II, Figure MV-16). The KMH is confined to the upper elevations of the Kenai Mountains and the KLH occupies the extensive wetlands in the center of the Kenai Lowlands near the Kenai Airport and south and east of Kalifornski Beach Road. The KMH ranges throughout the alpine and subalpine areas of the Kenai Range near Hope and to the foothills on the western slope of the Kenai Range. This herd winters in the Big Indian Creek drainage basin and ranges south to their calving area at American Pass (ADF&G 1985). The KLH became established in an extensive wetland surrounding the Kenai Airport (Bangs et al. 1982a). This herd has two possible calving areas north of the Kenai Airport: a large wetland south of the Lower Kenai River mouth, and a small area in the Moose River Flats. Caribou from this herd move east to the Moose River rutting area in early October. The KLH winters in the Moose River Flats in the eastern portion of its range as far north as Scenic Lake (Spraker, personal communication, 1996). There is no post-calving aggregation area for either of these herds (ADF&G 1994). Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-63 September 2001 Caribou are not present in the Anchorage area or on Fire Island. General Environmental Consequences and Mitigation for Wildlife Birds The proposed Project could impact bird populations through disturbance during construction and maintenance, increased legal and illegal harvest associated with increased human access, habitat loss resulting from right-of-way clearing, and collision with conductors and other structures. Potential electrocution of birds is not a concern because the distance between conductors would be too large for any bird to simultaneously contact more than one conductor, or a conductor and support structure. Some degree of collision hazard will exist for the life of the Project. Although birds could collide with conductors and guy wires, approximately 80 to 93 percent of avian collisions with transmission lines have been shown to involve static lines (Faanes 1987). Static lines are small diameter wires that are placed above the conductors to intercept lightning. The conductors are of much larger diameter and highly visible compared to static lines. It has been suggested that birds in flight see phase wires (conductors), flare upward to avoid them, and collide with the static lines above (Alonso et al. 1994; Colson & Associates 1994; Faanes 1987; James and Haak 1979). Although static lines are not part of the Project, fiber optic lines of small diameter are proposed to be attached to the Southern Intertie Project towers in the same location as static lines (i.e., above the conductors) and will present a similar hazard. Collisions are especially a concern in areas where birds are moving between foraging and roosting areas or are present in large numbers during staging for migration (Faanes 1987). Collision hazards would be of particular concern for bald eagles in riparian areas where eagles forage along anadromous fish streams. In general, large-bodied birds and species that congregate in large flocks are more susceptible to collisions (Anderson 1978; Colson & Associates 1994; Faanes 1987). The potential for collisions increases during periods of low light visibility, including early morning and evening hours, and during periods of precipitation, fog, or low ceiling clouds (Bevanger 1994; Colson & Associates 1994). Panic flight in response to disturbance can also result in birds colliding with electrical transmission lines (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee [APLIC] 1994). Locally breeding birds would be expected to habituate to the presence of a transmission line in their territory, and would be more aware of the line compared to transient birds (Meyer 1978). Juvenile birds could be particularly vulnerable to collisions. Ospreys often nest in tower structures and young ospreys occasionally collide with wires. It is impossible to estimate the numbers of waterfowl, raptors, and other birds that are likely to collide with transmission line structures over any period of time because collision rates depend on site-specific settings and conditions. A collision rate of 0.07 percent (78 collisions in 156,975 crossings) was reported in a study of flight behavior of waterfowl and other birds in relation to Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-64 September 2001 transmission lines (Meyer 1978). Another study of waterfowl collisions reported a very similar rate (Stout and Cornwell 1976). An average collision rate of 0.51 percent (965 collisions in 189,267 crossings) was reported for waterbirds at five study sites in Oregon (James and Haak 1979). A study in Montana reported that at least 4,100 birds were killed from May 1, 1980 to September 29, 1981 as a result of collision with a transmission line over a large wetland. Ducks and grebes accounted for the majority of the mortalities (Malcolm 1982). Site-specific conditions at each of these study locations make it very difficult to extrapolate results to the Project area on the Kenai Peninsula and in the Anchorage area. Although large-bodied birds are more susceptible to collision, small passerines are known to collide with wires (APLIC 1994). They are especially susceptible to collision with structures during nocturnal migrations or poor weather conditions (Avery et al. 1978). The percentage of passerines among dead birds collected below transmission lines varies greatly between studies. Of the collected dead birds, 7 percent (Brown and Drewien 1995) to 55 percent (Pearson 1993) were passerines, with differences likely due to habitat variables and line type. Factors contributing to the lower collision mortality rate of these birds are their tendencies to fly under wires and reduce flight activity during poor weather conditions (Avery et al. 1978). Collisions with transmission lines have not been identified in the literature as a major source of mortality for birds in Alaska. On the KNWR between January 1989 and October 1998, 16 bald eagle mortalities, and injuries to a common loon, an osprey, and one great-horned owl from power line strikes were documented by the KNWR (1998a). Injuries to the loon were attributed to collision with an overhead power line. The remainder of the injuries and deaths were associated with electrocution, which is not a factor for this Project. Additional data for the time period between March 1991 and Feburary 2000 document that 20 bald eagles, 2 great horned owls, 1 hawk owl, | osprey, and 1 common loon have collided with, or been confirmed as electrocuted, by power lines within and near the KNWR (KNWR, unpublished data). These mortalities are not inclusive, and do not represent an actual frequency or total number of electrocutions since 1991 because data were not collected by systematic survey methods (no power lines were surveyed for dead birds). These data document that power lines have killed and injured birds on the northern Kenai Peninsula, both on and off the KNWR. As mentioned above, injuries and deaths associated with electrocution are not a factor for this Project. Segments of the transmission line on this Project where potential for avian collision is relatively high would be marked to reduce collision mortality. Various wire marking techniques have proven to be effective in reducing bird mortality (Alonso et al. 1994; Beaulaurier 1980; Brown and Drewien 1995; Morkill and Anderson 1993) and have been acceptable as a mitigation action for “take” as defined in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Lewis 1993). Collision hazard is greatest and wires should be marked within approximately 131 feet from the edge of water (Faanes 1987), unless there is forest between the water and the transmission line. Transmission lines would not present a collision hazard to waterfowl where birds would have to fly above forests Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-65 September 2001 that lie between water and the line. River crossings are also areas of collision hazard and should be marked. Construction and right-of-way maintenance activities during the nesting season (April to mid- July) could result in loss of nests, direct mortality of nestlings, and disruption of nesting activities. Construction and maintenance of the Project outside the nesting season would avoid disturbance to all nesting birds. Habitat fragmentation is of particular concern for neotropical migratory and resident birds. Clearing of the right-of-way would parallel existing corridors, therefore minimizing habitat fragmentation and edge effect. Clearing of mature forest habitats along the right-of-way could impact nesting and foraging habitat for several birds on the State of Alaska List of Species of Special Concern that require mature forest habitats. These species include the olive-sided flycatcher, gray-cheeked thrush, Townsend’s warbler, and blackpoll warbler. Conversely, clearing of mature forest habitats along the right-of-way could be beneficial to forest edge species and species that prefer open, grassy, or shrub-dominated habitats. Clearing of trees could reduce potential nest, roost, and perch sites for bald eagles and other raptors. The USFWS recommends that major clearing of vegetation be avoided within the Primary Zone around each bald eagle nest. The Primary Zone extends a minimum of 330 feet from the nest tree, and in areas where topography and vegetation do not provide screening for the nest, the Primary Zone may extend up to 0.25 mile from the nest tree (USFWS 1993). Activities should also be restricted within the Secondary Zone, which extends at least 330 feet from the Primary Zone and may extend up to 0.5 mile from the nest in open areas. Construction activities should be avoided during the nesting season (March through August) within the Secondary Zone (USFWS 1993). According to the recommendations, aircraft should be no closer than 1,000 feet from active nests. Helicopters would be used for Project construction and annual maintenance patrol. Increased human access associated with the transmission line corridor and access roads could potentially result in increased disturbance and illegal harvesting of birds. Trumpeter swans and bald eagles would be especially vulnerable to human disturbance. Trumpeter swans could also be affected by disturbance related to construction or monitoring during the nesting season and by collision hazards. Impacts would be reduced in bald eagle and trumpeter swan nesting areas by not improving existing roads. Selective clearing of vegetation in the right-of-way that avoids bald eagle nest trees and minimizes clearing in the vicinity of nests also would reduce impacts on bald eagle nesting areas. Habitat loss and disturbance during construction are unlikely to affect swans in nesting areas where the center of the nesting area is more than | mile from the centerline. In addition, wires would be marked at river crossings and within 1,312 feet of open water where there is no forest between the water and the transmission line. Shorter 70-foot single poles (approximate tree height) would be used adjacent to migratory bird paths. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-66 September 2001 Impacts on birds related to habitat loss could be locally significant, but would not be significant at a regional level owing to the very small quantity of habitat likely to be affected and the presence of an existing utility corridor through much of the proposed routes. Habitat loss in saltmarsh would be avoided by boring beneath the surface of saltmarsh via horizontal drilling. Boring could still result in disturbance to waterfowl and shorebirds during construction. Direct impacts would be restricted to those individuals present in areas of construction disturbance, right-of-way clearing, or trenching. Loss of individual birds, especially among ducks, geese, and swans, as a result of collisions with wires and other structures could affect individual birds for the life of the Project, but local populations are not expected to be adversely affected. Impacts on birds could be locally significant but are expected not to be regionally significant due to the limited amount of habitat and number of birds that could be affected by the Project. Adverse impacts on birds within the KNWR would be nationally significant due to conflicts with the USFWS mandate to protect wildlife on the refuge. Mammals Black Bears Potential impacts of the Project on black bears include disturbance during construction, habitat loss, and increased legal and illegal harvest of black bears resulting from increased human access to black bear habitat. Black bears, however, are widespread on the Kenai Peninsula. Construction of the Project in spring in the Chickaloon Bay area could result in displacement of individual black bears that come to the area to forage on early greening Equisetum and bluejoint reedgrass. Similarly, vegetation removal associated with right-of-way clearing in mature closed spruce and mixed spruce forest likely would result in loss of some stands of devil’s club, an important forage species for black bears in late summer and fall. Lowbush cranberry, another important forage species for black bears, is also associated with mature forest. Right-of-way clearing could enhance moose habitat by opening up new potential winter range in closed forest communities, which would improve opportunities for black bears to forage on moose calves or moose carcasses. Impacts on black bears could be locally significant if bears are disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activities in Chickaloon Bay during the spring. Locally significant impacts also could occur in mature forest if large areas of devil’s club are lost. Impacts on black bears are otherwise expected to be non-significant at local and regional levels due to the dispersed nature of black bear foraging habitat and the limited area to be affected by the Project. Impacts on black bear habitat on the KNWR would be nationally significant due to conflicts with the USFWS mandate to protect wildlife and their habitats on the refuge. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-67 September 2001 Brown Bears Potential impacts on brown bears from construction of the Project would primarily result from short-term disturbance expected from construction activities and long-term disturbance from increased human access. Disturbance from construction activities could cause displacement of bears, interrupting feeding opportunities and limiting use of brown bear concentration areas. Although disturbance to bears is primarily a concern during periods of bear activity, disturbance to denning bears could result in human/bear conflicts and abandonment of dens and, possibly, cubs. Brown bears are known to den at all elevations, from alpine snow chutes in the Kenai Mountains down to small upland areas scattered around the Kenai Lowlands. Field workers disturbed three denning brown bears in two dens during a seismic exploration project within the KNWR during the 1997-1998 winter. The bears permanently abandoned their dens in mid- winter. A female and her cub fled their disturbed den. The third bear attacked and fatally injured a nearby seismic worker before deserting the area (Staples and Bailey 1998). Denning bears also could be disturbed by helicopter overflights (Reynolds et al. 1986). Routine maintenance inspections for the proposed Project would likely involve use of a helicopter. The presence of a transmission line itself is not expected to impede brown bear movement or other activities. Clearing of the right-of-way could result in some loss of foraging and denning habitat, and in the loss of overstory cover in riparian corridors used by brown bears for travel. The placement of towers at least 200 feet from stream crossings and selective clearing of vegetation between the tower and the stream will minimize the loss of travel cover. Loss of devil’s club could impact foraging opportunities for brown bears, but the area cleared for the right-of-way represents a small portion of total bear habitat on the Kenai Peninsula. The possibility of increasing the ability of humans to access areas that are currently difficult to reach is a major concern of wildlife management personnel on the Kenai Peninsula. The extent to which an additional 150-foot-wide clearing from the transmission line right-of-way would increase human activity in these areas is not known. An increase in inappropriate use of snowmobiles and unauthorized use of all-terrain vehicles likely would occur as a result of the Project (Johnston, personal communication, 1998). Increased human access resulting from clearing of the right-of-way and improvement of existing roads likely will result in increases in human/brown bear contact, potentially resulting in brown bear mortality and/or displacement of bears from traditional use areas. An increase in brown bear mortality, from either DLP deaths or poaching, could affect the population level of brown bears on the Kenai Peninsula (S. Farley, ADF&G, personal communication, 2001). A comprehensive report on brown bears in the Project area, “A Management Strategy for Kenai Peninsula Brown Bears” (Jacobs 1989b) outlines recommendations for protection of brown bears on the Kenai Peninsula. Recommendations include retaining a large area of continuous suitable habitat for brown bears, eliminating or minimizing disturbances in areas essential or seasonally important to bears, setting a conservative harvest, and reducing destruction of life and property conflicts. The strategy specifically calls for retaining a large area of undeveloped land Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-68 September 2001 along the western slopes of the Kenai Mountains, including the Chickaloon drainage on the KNWR. Limited access is recommended for the pipeline road on the KNWR. Poor condition of the existing road is expected to limit use, and improvements that would increase human use are discouraged. The strategy also recommends that the area north of the Chickaloon River be as undisturbed as possible from mid-June to late-October. Seasonal road closure and prohibition of aircraft use along much of the remaining Enstar Route and near Pt. Possession on the Tesoro Route also are recommended. According to the recommendations, roads should not cut through riparian zones. Construction of a transmission line would conflict with the above management objectives. Impacts related to disturbance from construction activities during sensitive periods for brown bears potentially could be considered to be locally and regionally significant. Winter construction would greatly reduce impacts related to disturbance of bears. The potential of increasing human access in brown bear habitat is very significant locally and regionally, especially where existing access is limited and in areas where bears move seasonally between upland and lowland areas. Impacts on brown bears on the KNWR would be nationally significant due to conflicts with the USFWS mandate to protect wildlife on the refuge. Increased access could be minimized by not improving existing roads. Moose Potential impacts on moose from construction of the Project could result from clearing of the right-of-way, which could have the effect of a short-term reduction in preferred browse in high- quality moose winter range. Depending on the length of time between subsequent clearings of the right-of-way following construction, impact on moose winter range may be of short duration. It is anticipated that plant species sought by moose in winter (e.g., birch and aspen saplings) would likely re-establish within a few years following initial removal. Clearing of the right-of- way in closed forest communities would remove some winter thermal cover for moose, but may have a beneficial effect by opening up new winter range as browse species become established within an open corridor. Moose winter range is important to moose survival during winter; however, vegetation types that provide moose winter range are relatively common in the Project study area. Given the relatively small quantity of moose winter range affected by this Project, impacts outside the KNWR would not be significant at the local, regional, or national level. Similarly, any enhancement of moose winter range through right-of-way clearing also would not be significant. Any adverse impacts on moose winter range on the KNWR, however, are considered significant at a national level due to the USFWS mandate to protect wildlife. Selective clearing of vegetation in the right-of-way could reduce impacts on moose winter range. If low-growing shrubby vegetation under 10 feet tall were only cleared for tower sites and along access and spur roads rather than within the entire right-of-way, much of the available forage would be protected. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-69 September 2001 The moose population is currently lower than what is prescribed in the refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Ernst, personal communication, 2001). Prescribed burns are utilized on the KNWR as a means of enhancing or creating moose habitat, especially winter range (Davis, personal communication, 1997). The presence of a transmission line could restrict the opportunity to apply prescribed burning. If burn programs are restricted, the ability of KNWR staff to create and maintain habitat to support the numbers of moose called for in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan would be compromised. Moose population levels also affect animals that feed on moose such as bears, wolves, coyotes, wolverine, lynx, and eagles. Interference with the prescribed burn program would constitute a significant impact both locally and nationally. Figure MV-5 (Volume II) illustrates previous burn areas on the KNWR. Caribou The Project would not impact the KMH because the alternative routes do not traverse the range of the KMH. The routes traverse the known range of the KLH, and caribou could be temporarily displaced from the vicinity of alternative routes during construction. These effects would be negligible because of the wide distribution of winter range and calving areas in the Kenai Lowlands. Clearing within the right-of-way could encourage caribou to use the right-of-way as a travel corridor. However, beneficial impacts as a result of right-of-way clearing are expected to be negligible. Predators Construction and maintenance of the transmission line could potentially disturb predators over the short term. Increased human access along the alternative routes could result in disturbance over the long term, as well as increased mortality to wolves, lynx, coyote, red fox, wolverine, and mink from hunting and trapping. A study of wolves on the Kenai Peninsula revealed that wolves were attracted to the pipeline road that parallels the Enstar Route, probably because it provides an easy travel corridor with little human use (Thurber et al. 1994). If human activity along the route increases, wolves likely would avoid the road (Thurber et al. 1994). Lynx, however, might not exhibit similar avoidance behavior (Staples 1995). Increased visibility and human access from clearing of the right-of-way could result in increased legal and illegal harvest of predators. Hunting and trapping are the major causes of mortality among wolves on the Kenai Peninsula (Peterson et al. 1984). Dispersing wolves would be especially vulnerable to harvest by humans (Peterson et al. 1984). A study of lynx harvests indicates that the lynx population may have been over-exploited on the Kenai Peninsula from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s (Bailey et al. 1986). Increased illegal harvest of predators would complicate management of these animals and conflict with management objectives outlined in the Wolf Management Operational Plan (KNWR 1988c) and the Furbearer Management Plan (KNWR 1988d) for the KNWR. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-70 September 2001 Clearing of the right-of-way will result in a relatively small area of habitat modification. Such modification would result in loss of potential denning habitat for lynx. In addition to negative impacts on predators, there is some potential for improving conditions by creating new habitat for prey species. Vole populations, for example, might increase in some areas as a result of overstory removal. Snowshoe hare and moose habitat also could be improved in some areas by vegetation removal. Such potential enhancement of prey populations could benefit wolf, lynx, red fox, and coyote. Impacts on predators are not expected to be significant because these species are widely distributed within the region. However, as a result of improved access in both summer and winter, local harvest could increase. Effects of increased access could be reduced by not improving existing roads for Project construction and maintenance. Adverse impacts on mammalian predators on the KNWR would be nationally significant due to conflicts with the USFWS mandate to protect wildlife on the refuge. Small Mammals Potential impacts on small mammals are related primarily to habitat loss, destruction of burrows or other cover sites, and direct mortality by construction equipment. Small mammals also may experience effects of habitat fragmentation and edge effect similar to birds. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project are unlikely to affect any small mammals at the population level, and overall Project impacts are expected to be non-significant. 3.5.4 Alternatives No-Action Alternative Under the no-action alternative, no impacts on wildlife resources are anticipated. No habitat loss or disturbance is associated with the no-action alternative. Similarly, there would be no habitat enhancement related to right-of-way clearing for species that rely on early seral stages of forest development. Tesoro Route Bernice Lake to Pt. Possession - Route Option A Approximately 5.9 miles of this route pass through developed areas, and approximately 13.3 miles pass through areas influenced by development. Human disturbance in these areas may displace wildlife or prevent wildlife use. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-71 September 2001 Waterfowl—All of this route passes through areas used by waterfowl during the spring and summer for nesting, brood-rearing, and staging. Waterfowl habitat includes small ponds, lakes, riverine habitats, and emergent wetlands. Winter construction north of Captain Cook SRA and not widening or upgrading existing roads in wetland habitats would minimize habitat loss from right-of-way clearing. Disturbance to waterfowl during nesting, brood rearing, and staging also would be avoided through late summer/fall or winter construction and maintenance. Approximately 41.6 miles of the route contain stream crossings or are within | mile of open water and, therefore, present a potential collision hazard for waterfowl. Hazard exists primarily to birds that might cross the route as they fly between lakes or along stream channels. Collision hazard would be minimal north of Captain Cook SRA. Waterfowl would not likely fly across the route in this area except at river crossings due to the absence of lakes, ponds, or saltmarsh west of the route. There would not be a collision hazard at the Swanson River because the wires would be installed beneath the river bottom. Within areas of identified potential collision hazard, wires would be marked at river crossings and within 1,312 feet of open water where there is no forest between the water and the transmission line. Indirect impacts resulting from increased access could be an issue on the northern end of the route where there is presently only an unimproved trail. Increased human disturbance in this area could result in more disturbance or short-term displacement of waterfowl in localized areas. Impacts on waterfowl from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Trumpeter Swan—Approximately 32.6 miles of Route Option A are within 19 known trumpeter swan nesting areas. Six of these nesting areas were occupied in 2000 (KNWR, unpublished data 1998b), and 6 of the 19 nests are within | mile of the centerline. An additional 13 historic territories occur within | mile of the route. Potential disturbance to nesting swans would be avoided through late summer/fall or winter construction and maintenance. Approximately 41.6 miles of the route are within | mile of open water. These areas present a potential collision hazard for trumpeter swans. Collision hazard is expected to be minimal north of Captain Cook SRA. Trumpeter swans in this area would be less likely to fly across the transmission line due to the absence of lakes and ponds west of the route. Within areas of identified potential collision hazard, wires would be marked within 1,312 feet of open water where there is no forest between the water and the transmission line. Indirect impacts resulting from increased access may be an issue on the northern end of the route where there is presently only an unimproved trail. Increased human access in this area could result in some increased disturbance of trumpeter swans. Bald Eagle—The centerline of this route passes within 0.25 mile of two documented bald eagle nests. One of these nests was active during the spring of 2000 (KNWR, unpublished data). Right- of-way clearing would result in reduction of vegetative cover and potential nest and roost sites in Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources B70 September 2001 these nesting areas. Impacts of clearing would be minimized by identifying and avoiding existing bald eagle nest trees and by selective vegetation removal within the right-of-way. Two additional bald eagle nests, one of which was active in 2000, are within 0.5 mile of the centerline. Fall or winter construction would avoid disturbance to nesting bald eagles. Eight other bald eagle nesting areas have been identified within 1 mile of the centerline of this route. Two of these nests were active in the 2000 breeding season (KNWR, unpublished data). Swanson River and Bishop, Otter, and Seven Egg creeks are anadromous fish streams that provide feeding opportunities for bald eagles, primarily from June through September. The Project could present a minimal collision hazard to bald eagles foraging at Bishop, Otter, and Seven Egg creeks. There would not be a collision hazard at the Swanson River because the wires would be installed beneath the river bottom. Within nesting areas, bald eagle fledglings could be vulnerable to collisions with wires. Within areas of identified potential collision hazard, wires would be marked within 1,312 feet of open water where there is no forest between the water and the transmission line. Increased human access on the northern portion of Route Option A is not likely to have an effect on bald eagles because only one known bald eagle nesting area is present and it is more than | mile from Route Option A. Impacts on bald eagle from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Wolf—The central portion of this route traverses the home range of the Swanson River wolf pack. The northern part of the route passes to the west and avoids the traditional home range of the Pt. Possession wolf pack. This pack has not been monitored in several years, and the exact status of this pack in 1998 was unknown (Bailey, personal communication, 1999). Wolf abundance is low along 30.3 miles of this route. Increased access on the northern portion of Route Option A could result in increased hunting and trapping pressure on wolves. Wolves might be attracted to the right-of-way as a travel corridor, and thus become more vulnerable to harvest. Because wolf abundance is low and no pack areas are crossed where access would be improved, increase in harvest would be expected to be minimal. Clearing of the right-of-way in mature forest would provide additional moose winter range that would benefit wolves. Impacts on wolves from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Canada Lynx—Lynx abundance is low for 30.3 miles of this segment because of the presence of mature forest habitat. Increased access on the northern portion of Route Option A could result in increased harvest of lynx. Lynx would be especially vulnerable within the right-of-way. The potential for increased frequency of legal and illegal harvest on the northern portion of Route Option A likely would be low because lynx abundance is low. Clearing of the right-of-way could remove potential denning habitat for lynx, but could also benefit lynx by improving habitat for snowshoe hare. Impacts on lynx from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3°73 September 2001 Black Bear—This route crosses 30.3 miles of black bear habitat. Approximately 521 acres of general black bear habitat could be affected by right-of-way clearing. Approximately 85 percent of this area contains forest types that could support devil’s club, an important food source for black bears. These forest types are widely distributed in the Project study area, and right-of-way clearing along this route is not expected to significantly impact availability of important food sources for black bears. Individual black bear dens adjacent to the corridor potentially could be disturbed during winter construction and maintenance. Black bears in the vicinity of the northern portion of the route could be subject to increased legal and illegal harvest where human access is improved. Impacts on black bear from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Brown Bear—The centerline of this route crosses four anadromous fish streams that provide summer feeding areas for brown bear when salmon are present. Approximately 11.2 miles of riparian habitat associated with these streams are concentration areas for brown bear. These areas consist of a 1-mile corridor on either side of the Swanson River, Otter Creek, and Seven Egg Creek; and a |-mile corridor on the east side of Bishop Creek. A 0.25-mile corridor is assumed for the west side of Bishop Creek because of existing development. Approximately 23.1 miles of this route pass through general brown bear habitat. Despite the presence of resources that could be used by brown bears, the amount of development and human activity near Bishop Creek and Swanson River has probably already displaced brown bear use of the salmon resources. Brown bears could experience long-term disturbance from increased access in the northern portion of Route Option A. Presently, there is only an unimproved trail in this area; however, a 100-foot-wide road is planned to Moose Point as well as a 300-foot-wide utility corridor. Increased human access would result in higher risk of human and bear conflicts. Disturbance to brown bears is mainly a concern where brown bears might concentrate within the riparian corridor along Seven Egg Creek. Right-of-way clearing in forest communities could result in limited loss of foraging habitat for brown bears; however, these communities are widespread within the Project study area. Disturbance to brown bears would be minimized by winter construction and maintenance, although denning bears potentially could be disturbed. Brown bears are known to den in the Kenai Lowlands; however, no dens have been recorded near the coast. In general, brown bear use of coastal portions of the Kenai Peninsula study area is limited due to human disturbance and distance from high quality foraging and denning habitats. Impacts on brown bears from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Moose—Moose habitat along this route includes year-round moose habitat and high quality moose winter range. Approximately 3.2 miles are within areas of high winter moose abundance, and 27.1 miles are within areas of low moose abundance. Approximately 297 acres of winter range might be affected by right-of-way clearing within areas of moderate to super-high winter moose abundance. Remaining portions of the route are in areas of low winter moose abundance. Clearing within closed forest communities could reduce winter thermal cover for moose, but could improve winter forage range within the right-of-way. Impacts on moose from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources B74 September 2001 Caribou—Route Option A is well outside of the traditional range of the KLH of caribou, although right-of-way clearing could reduce vegetative cover in habitats suitable for future use by caribou. Such habitats are, however, widely distributed throughout the Kenai Lowlands. Impacts on caribou from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Bernice Lake Substation Site The extent of low-density residential and general industrial development around the site precludes use of the area by many wildlife species. There are no waterfowl habitat areas, trumpeter swan nesting areas, bald eagle nests, or caribou habitat areas near the proposed new substation. The immediate area of the substation does not provide appreciable habitat for wolves, Canada lynx, black bears, or brown bears. In addition, moose habitat at the site is considered low quality. Therefore, no significant impacts on wildlife from project activities at this site are expected. Kenai Lowlands Transition Facility Sites (Reside Airport Sites | and 2, Johnson Airport Sites | and 2)—The extent of general development around the site precludes use of the area by many wildlife species. There are no waterfowl habitat areas, trumpeter swan nesting areas, bald eagle nests, or caribou habitat areas near the proposed new substation. The immediate area of the substation does not provide appreciable habitat for wolves, Canada lynx, black bears, or brown bears. In addition, moose habitat at the site is considered low quality. Therefore, no significant impacts on wildlife from Project activities at this site are expected. North and South Ends of Captain Cook State Recreation Area Waterfowl—Waterfowl are distributed throughout the surrounding area, but these proposed sites do not affect wetland habitats. Potential disturbance to nesting waterfowl in surrounding areas would be avoided by construction in late summer, fall, or winter. Trumpeter Swans—The proposed transition facility sites at the north and south ends of Captain Cook SRA are both on the periphery of trumpeter swan nesting areas. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace swans in the vicinity of the transition facilities. Construction is unlikely to disturb nesting swans because the facility sites are more than | mile from trumpeter swan nests. Bald Eagle—The transition facility and the south end of Captain Cook SRA is on the periphery of a known bald eagle nesting area. A second nesting area is within 1 mile of the transition facility. There are no known bald eagle nests in the vicinity of the transition facility at the north end of Captain Cook SRA. Late summer or fall construction would avoid any impacts to nesting bald eagles. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-75 September 2001 Wolf/Canada_Lynx—Wolf and lynx abundance is low at both of these transition facilities. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace wolves or lynx in the vicinity of the transition facilities. Black Bear—Both transition sites are in general black bear habitat. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace black bears in the vicinity of the transition facilities. Brown Bear—The transition site at the south end of the Captain Cook SRA is located within a developed area, so brown bears are not likely to be present. The northern site is located within the riparian corridor of the Swanson River, which is considered a brown bear concentration area. Disturbance to brown bears within the Swanson River corridor would be minimized by construction in early spring or late fall. Construction in late fall would be consistent with minimizing disturbance to nesting waterfowl. Moose—The southern transition facility site is within an area of development influence, though moose are common. Moose abundance is moderate at the northern transition facility site. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace moose in the vicinity of the proposed sites. Caribou—These sites are outside the traditional range of the KLH. Pt. Possession Transition Facility Site Waterfowl—Waterfowl are generally distributed throughout the area surrounding the site, but the proposed site would not affect wetland habitats. Project construction may result in limited noise disturbance to waterfowl nesting in surrounding areas. Trumpeter Swan—This proposed transition site lies within three trumpeter swan nesting areas that were active prior to 1998 (KNWR 1998b). Construction activities are not likely to disturb nesting swans because nest sites are over | mile away. Bald Eagle—No bald eagle nests have been documented within | mile of the facility. Wolf—tThe proposed transition site is located north of the traditional home range of the Pt. Possession wolf pack. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace wolves in the vicinity of the transition facility. Canada Lynx—Lynx abundance is classified as low in this area. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace lynx in the vicinity of the proposed transition facility. Black Bear—This site is located within general black bear habitat. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace black bears in the vicinity of the proposed transition facility. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-76 September 2001 Brown Bear—This site is located within general brown bear habitat. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace brown bears in the vicinity of the proposed transition facility; however, the proposed site is not within a brown bear concentration area or summer- feeding area. Moose—Moose habitat in this area is classified as low quality because of the mature forest. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace moose in the vicinity of the proposed site. Caribou—The site is outside the traditional range of caribou from the KLH. Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof via Fire Island - Route Option B This route crosses an undeveloped area of Fire Island. Waterfowl—Waterfowl use saltmarsh habitats on the southwest end of Fire Island and in the ACWR south of Pt. Woronzof for nesting and staging. Construction activities could disturb nesting or staging waterfowl in the vicinity. There is no waterfowl nesting or staging habitat in the vicinity of the Pt. Woronzof landfall. Noise disturbance during construction would not likely impact nesting and staging waterfowl along the coast south of Pt. Woronzof due to the distance between construction activities and waterfowl nesting and staging areas. Trumpeter Swan—The submarine portion of the route passes through two historic trumpeter swan nesting areas at Pt. Possession and one nesting territory at Fire Island. Installation of the submarine cable would not likely disturb nesting swans at Pt. Possession or Fire Island because nest sites are over | mile from where submarine cable would be installed. One pair of trumpeter swans with three young was observed on the only lake on Fire Island during a 1984 survey. Swan nesting on the island had not been previously documented, and no nesting trumpeter swan observations were recorded on Fire Island during four subsequent surveys. Approximately 3.4 miles of the overhead portion of Route Option B are within the trumpeter swan nesting area on Fire Island. Disturbance to nesting swans from construction of overhead line on Fire Island could be avoided by late summer or fall construction. Collision hazard would be a concern and wires would be marked if the route is immediately adjacent to the lakes on Fire Island. Bald Eagle—The only documented bald eagle nesting area along this route is located east of Pt. Woronzof within | mile of the Pt. Woronzof Substation. However, shoreline areas along the route are likely used to some extent for foraging by bald eagles during the summer. Construction activities are unlikely to disturb nesting bald eagles because construction would not occur within 0.5 mile of any known bald eagle nests. Eagles foraging along the shoreline near the Pt. Woronzof Substation could be temporarily displaced by construction activities. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources S277, September 2001 Wolf/Canada Lynx—Wolf and lynx do not occur in shoreline areas at Pt. Possession, on Fire Island, or at Pt. Woronzof. Black Bear—Black bears potentially use the beach area near Pt. Possession to forage for carrion. No appreciable amount of black bear habitat occurs at Pt. Woronzof, and black bears are not known to occur regularly on Fire Island. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace black bears that might forage for carrion along the shoreline at Pt. Possession. Impacts on black bears from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Brown Bear—Shoreline areas at Pt. Possession provide less than 0.1 mile of general brown bear habitat. However, due to the lack of anadromous fish steams in the vicinity, this area does not provide summer feeding areas for brown bear and brown bear use of the area is minimal. No brown bear habitat occurs at Pt. Woronzof or Fire Island. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace brown bears in the vicinity of Pt. Possession. Impacts on brown bears from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Moose—Fire Island provides moose habitat along 4.9 miles of this route and supports small numbers of resident moose. Clearing of the right-of-way would temporarily reduce browse in moose winter range on Fire Island. Clearing within closed forest communities could reduce winter thermal cover for moose, but improve winter forage range within the right-of-way. Impacts on moose from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Caribou—Pt. Possession is north of the range of caribou from the KLH, and there are no caribou in the Anchorage area or on Fire Island. Fire Island South and North Transition Facility Site Waterfowl—Saltmarsh habitats are found at both the north and south ends of the island and are likely high uses areas for waterfowl. The proposed facility sites would not be located within these areas. Construction activities could disturb nesting waterfowl in adjacent areas during construction. Trumpeter Swan—The north transition facility is within a known trumpeter swan nesting area. Construction activities are not likely to disturb nesting swans because the nest site is over | mile from the proposed sites. Bald Eagle—No bald eagle nests have been reported on Fire Island, but the shoreline areas are likely used for foraging. Disturbance from construction may temporarily displace bald eagle that may forage along the shoreline in the vicinity of the proposed sites. Wolf/Canada Lynx/Black Bear/Brown Bear—Wolves, lynx, black bear, and brown bears do not occur on the island. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-78 September 2001 Moose—A small population of resident moose lives on the island, but no appreciable habitat occurs at the proposed sites for these facilities. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace moose in the vicinity of the proposed sites. Caribou—There are no caribou on Fire Island. Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof (Aquatic Route) - Route Option C None of this segment passes through areas influenced by development. Waterfowl—There is no waterfowl nesting or staging habitat in the vicinity of the Pt. Woronzof landfall. Noise disturbance during construction would not likely impact nesting and staging waterfowl along the coast south of Pt. Woronzof due to the distance between construction activities and waterfowl nesting and staging areas. Trumpeter Swan—The shoreline at Pt. Possession is within two historic trumpeter swan nesting areas. Installation of submarine cable would not likely disturb nesting trumpeter swans in the vicinity of Pt. Possession because nest sites are over | mile from the route. There is no trumpeter swan nesting habitat in Anchorage. Bald Eagle—The shoreline in this route provides some foraging habitat for bald eagles, but the lack of nearby anadromous streams limits the use of the area. One bald eagle nest has been documented within | mile of this route option east of Pt. Woronzof. The nest is over 0.5 mile from the centerline, and impacts on bald eagles from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Wolf/Canada Lynx—Wolf and lynx are not present at the shoreline area of Pt. Possession or at Pt. Woronzof. Black Bear—Black bear potentially use the beach area near Pt. Possession to forage for carrion. No appreciable amount of black bear habitat occurs at Pt. Woronzof. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace black bears that might forage for carrion along the shoreline at Pt. Possession. Brown Bear—Shoreline areas at Pt. Possession provide less than 0.1 mile of general brown bear habitat. However, due to the lack of anadromous fish steams in the vicinity, this area does not provide summer feeding areas for brown bear. No brown bear habitat occurs at the north end of the route near Pt. Woronzof. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace brown bears in the vicinity of Pt. Possession. Impacts on brown bears from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Moose—The shoreline at either end of this route does not provide habitat for moose. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-79 September 2001 Caribou—The southern end of the route is outside the range of caribou from the KLH. Pt. Woronzof Substation Moose probably occur near the Pt. Woronzof site. Construction activities could displace moose in the area. No other selected wildlife resources or impacts were identified for this site. Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell - Route Option D None of this segment passes through areas influenced by development. Waterfowl—Pt. Campbell is within the ACWR, which supports staging, nesting, and brood rearing waterfowl, although concentration areas have not been identified at Pt. Campbell. Installation of the submarine cable could disturb nesting waterfowl in the vicinity of Pt. Campbell during construction. Trumpeter Swan—This route passes through the periphery of two known trumpeter swan nesting areas at Pt. Possession. Installation of submarine cable would not likely disturb trumpeter swans because nest sites are over | mile from the route. Bald Eagle—Bald eagles forage for carrion along the shoreline in this segment. However, the lack of nearby anadromous fish streams limits the use of the area. Wolf/Canada Lynx—Route Option D does not include any wolf or lynx habitat. Black Bear—Black bear may feed on carrion along the beach near Pt. Possession. No black bear habitat occurs along this route at Pt. Campbell. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace black bears in the vicinity of Pt. Possession. Brown Bear—Shoreline areas at Pt. Possession provide less than 0.1 mile of general brown bear habitat. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace brown bears in the vicinity of Pt. Possession. Brown bear use in the vicinity is, however, minimal due to the absence of anadromous fish streams Moose/Caribou—This route does not provide habitat for moose or caribou. Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof — Route Option N This route follows a pipeline through an undeveloped portion of Kincaid Park. The remainder of the route is influenced by adjacent airport and industrial development. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-80 September 2001 Waterfowl—The saltmarsh below the bluff adjacent to this segment is within the ACWR and is used seasonally by waterfowl and shorebirds for feeding and staging for migration. Potential disturbance to nesting waterfowl adjacent to the route would be avoided by late summer/fall construction. Trumpeter Swan—No trumpeter swan nesting habitat occurs in the vicinity of this route. The Project is not expected to affect trumpeter swans that my pass through the ACWR adjacent to the route during migration. Bald Eagle—The centerline of this route passes within 0.25 mile of a known bald eagle nest north of Pt. Campbell. Another bald eagle nesting area was documented east of Pt. Woronzof within | mile of the route (KNWR 1998c, unpublished data). Bald eagles forage along the coast adjacent to this route from spring through fall, but the lack of anadromous fish streams in the immediate area likely limits use by eagles. Potential disturbance to nesting bald eagles would be avoided by installing the underground cable after August. Right-of-way clearing could result in reduction of vegetative cover and potential nest and roost sites within 0.25 mile of the bald eagle nest north of Pt. Campbell. Bald eagle nest trees would be identified and avoided during construction. Selective vegetation removal within the right-of-way would minimize impacts of clearing. Impacts on bald eagles from Project activities along this route could be locally significant. Wolf—There is no appreciable use of this area by wolves. Canada Lynx—Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace lynx in Kincaid Park. Lynx habitat within the park is limited and is subject to disturbance from adjacent development and year-round human recreation use in the park. Clearing of the right-of-way could remove potential denning habitat for lynx, but could also benefit lynx by improving habitat for snowshoe hare. Black Bear—Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace black bears in Kincaid Park. Black bear habitat within the park is limited and is subject to disturbance from adjacent development and year-round human recreation use in the park. Clearing of the right-of-way would result in limited removal of potential foraging habitat for black bears. Impacts on black bears from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Brown Bear—Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace brown bears in Kincaid Park. Brown bear habitat within the park is limited and is subject to disturbance from adjacent development and year-round human recreation use in the park. The absence of anadromous fish streams in the park, combined with human disturbance, limits use of the area by brown bears. Moose—Kincaid Park is notable because of its thriving moose population. Mixed forest and shrub habitat on this route provides year-round moose habitat. Clearing within closed mixed Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-81 September 2001 forest along the route could temporarily reduce winter thermal cover for moose, but could also improve moose winter range by creating an opening for establishment of low-growing shrubs and trees. Caribou—Caribou do not occur in the Anchorage area. Pt. Campbell Transition Facility Site The transition facility site proper has only minimal wildlife value due to past disturbance. Waterfowl—This site does not provide habitat for waterfowl. Trumpeter Swan—There is no trumpeter swan nesting habitat in Anchorage. The Project is not expected to affect trumpeter swans that may pass through the ACWR during migration. Bald Eagle—The proposed site is within a known bald eagle nesting area, and construction activities may result in noise disturbance to nesting bald eagles. Disturbance to nesting eagles would be avoided by construction during fall or winter. Wolf—Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace wolves in Kincaid Park. Wolf habitat within the park, however, is limited and is subject to disturbance from adjacent development and year-round human recreation use in the park. Canada Lynx—Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace lynx in Kincaid Park. Lynx habitat within the park is limited and is subject to disturbance from adjacent development and year-round human recreation use in the park. Black Bear—Black bear habitat within the park is limited and is subject to disturbance from adjacent development and year-round human recreation use in the park. Brown Bear—Brown bear habitat within the park is limited and is subject to disturbance from adjacent development and year-round human recreation use in the park. The absence of anadromous fish streams in the park combined with human disturbance limits use of the area by brown bears. Moose—Kincaid Park supports a very robust moose population. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace moose in Kincaid Park. Caribou—Caribou do not occur in Anchorage. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-82 September 2001 _ Pt. Woronzof Substation Moose probably occur near the Pt. Woronzof site. Construction activities could displace moose in the area. No other selected wildlife resources or impacts were identified for this site. Enstar Route Soldotna North - Route Option E North Approximately 13.1 miles of this route pass through areas of development influence and less than 0.1 mile passes through developed areas. Human disturbance in these areas may displace wildlife use. Waterfowl—Approximately 12 miles of Route Option E North are within areas used by waterfowl during nesting, brood rearing, and staging. Waterfowl habitat along this route includes small ponds, lakes, riverine habitats, and emergent wetlands. The Moose River has been identified as a migratory staging area for several species of waterfowl. Habitat loss from right-of-way clearing would be minimized by spanning streams, winter construction, and not widening or upgrading existing roads in wetland habitats. Disturbance to waterfowl during nesting, brood-rearing, and staging would be avoided through late summer/fall construction and maintenance. Approximately 19.9 miles of the route contain stream crossings or are within 1 mile of open water and, therefore, present a potential collision hazard for waterfowl. The hazard exists primarily to birds that might fly past the conductors between lakes or along stream channels. Collision hazard is especially a concern where the route crosses the Moose River, an important concentration and staging area for waterfowl. Within areas of potential collision hazard, wires would be marked at river crossings and within 1,312 feet of water where there is no forest between the open water and the transmission line. Trumpeter Swan—Approximately 4.0 miles of Route Option E North are within a trumpeter swan nesting area identified during the 1998 breeding season (KNWR 1998b, unpublished data) and 5.2 miles of the route are within a territory identified in 1999 (KNWR 2000, unpublished data). Three additional historic trumpeter swans territories were identified within | mile of the route. None of these territories were known to be active in 2000. Potential disturbance to nesting swans would be avoided through later summer/fall construction and maintenance. Approximately 19.9 miles of the route are within 1 mile of open water. These areas present a potential collision hazard for trumpeter swans. Collision hazard is especially a concern where the route crosses the Moose River, an important migration staging area for trumpeter swans and other waterfowl. Lines presently span the river near the proposed crossing for this project. In Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-83 September 2001 areas of potential collision hazard, wires would be marked within 1,312 feet of water where there is no forest between the open water and the transmission line. Bald Eagle—Route Option E North passes within 0.25 mile of a known bald eagle nest that was active during the 2000 breeding season (KNWR 2000, unpublished data). Four additional known nesting areas are within | mile of the route. None of these territories were active in 2000. Moose River provides feeding habitat for bald eagles primarily between June and September. Late summer/fall construction would avoid disturbance to nesting bald eagles. Right-of-way clearing would result in reduction of vegetative cover and potential nest and roost sites within 0.25 mile of a known bald eagle nesting area. Bald eagle nest trees would be identified and avoided during construction. Selective vegetation removal within the right-of-way would minimize impacts of clearing. The project might present a collision hazard to bald eagles foraging at the Moose River. Within nesting areas, bald eagle fledglings could be vulnerable to collisions with wires. In areas of potential collision hazard, wires would be marked within 1,312 feet of water where there is no forest between the open water and the transmission line. Wolf—A portion of this route traverses the home range of the Elephant Lake wolf pack. Wolf abundance along this route is anticipated to be high for about 0.7 mile, medium for about 3.7 miles, and low for about 4.1 miles. The route would parallel an existing transmission line and is in the vicinity of existing development. Clearing of the right-of-way in mature forest could provide additional habitat for moose and snowshoe hare and could potentially benefit wolves. Canada Lynx—This route traverses approximately 4.6 miles where lynx abundance is low, 3.2 miles where abundance is moderate, and less than | mile where lynx abundance is high. Clearing of the right-of-way could remove potential denning habitat for lynx but could also benefit lynx by improving habitat for snowshoe hare. Black Bear—This route crosses 8.4 miles of black bear habitat, and approximately 390 acres of general black bear habitat could be affected by right-of-way clearing. Approximately 51 percent of this area contains forest types that might support devil’s club, an important food source for black bears. These forest types are widely distributed in the Project study area. Right-of-way clearing along this route is not expected to substantially impact availability of important food sources for black bears. The remaining portion of the route is developed or within areas of potential development influence. Although black bears may be present, these areas do not provide good black bear habitat. Brown Bear—This route traverses approximately 3.9 miles of general brown bear habitat. The centerline intersects 4 anadromous fish streams that provide summer feeding areas for brown bear when salmon are present. Approximately 8.4 miles of riparian habitat associated with the streams are potential concentration areas for brown bear. These areas represent a 0.25 mile corridor on either side of Soldotna Creek and one of the unnamed tributaries. The other unnamed Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-84 September 2001 tributary has a |-mile corridor on either side. Moose River has a |-mile corridor on either side, except in areas of development or potential development influence. Disturbance to brown bears would be minimized by late summer/fall construction and maintenance. Right-of-way clearing in forest communities could result in limited loss of foraging habitat for brown bears; however, these communities are widespread within the Project study area. Moose—This entire route lies within year-round moose concentration areas. Winter moose abundance is super-high for approximately 1.9 miles, high for approximately 3.7 miles, and low for approximately 2.9 miles. Approximately 270 acres of areas of moderate to super-high winter moose abundance would be affected by right-of-way clearing. Clearing within closed forest communities could reduce winter thermal cover for moose but might improve winter range if preferred browse species vegetate the cleared areas. Caribou—All of Route Option E North passes through the range of the KLH. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace caribou from the vicinity of the route. Right-of-way clearing could reduce vegetative cover in habitats used by caribou. Such habitats are, however, widely distributed throughout the Kenai Lowlands. Soldotna Substation The extent of human development and disturbance at this site precludes use by most wildlife species. There are no waterfowl habitat areas, trumpeter swan nesting areas, or bald eagle nests near the proposed new substation. Human activity at the site limits use of the area by wolves, Canada lynx, black bears, and brown bears. Moose would be the most common large wildlife species in the area. This site is within the range of the Kenai Lowlands caribou herd, but human development and activity in this area have degraded the quality of habitat for caribou. Therefore, no significant impacts from Project activities at this site were identified for any wildlife species. Naptowne Substations The extent of human development and disturbance at these sites precludes use of the areas by many wildlife species. There are no waterfowl habitat areas, trumpeter swan nesting areas, or bald eagle nests near either of the proposed new substations. Human activity in the vicinity of the sites limits use by wolves, Canada lynx, black bears, and brown bears. Human activities have likely degraded the quality of habitat for caribou. Moose would be the common large wildlife species present in the immediate vicinity of both sites. No significant adverse impacts on wildlife from project activities were identified at either of the sites. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-85 September 2001 Soldotna South - Route Option E South (Applicant’s Proposal) Approximately 1.9 miles of this route pass through developed areas and approximately 15 miles pass through areas of development influence. Human disturbance in these areas may displace wildlife use. Waterfowl—This route passes through areas of waterfowl habitat along the Kenai River, but no concentration areas have been identified. Habitat loss from right-of-way clearing would be minimized through spanning streams, winter construction, and not widening or upgrading existing roads in wetland habitats. Disturbance to waterfowl during nesting, brood-rearing, and staging would be avoided through late summer/fall or winter construction and maintenance. Approximately 16.5 miles of the route contain stream crossings or are within | mile of open water and, therefore, present a potential collision hazard for waterfowl. Within areas of potential collision hazard, wires would be marked at river crossings and within 1,312 feet of water where there is no forest between the open water and the transmission line. Trumpeter Swans—There is one historic record of a trumpeter swan nesting area within | mile of Route Option E South (Applicant’s Proposal). However, the route does not traverse any known nesting areas. Approximately 16.3 miles of the route are within | mile of open water. These areas present a potential collision hazard for trumpeter swans. Within areas of potential collision hazard, wires would be marked within 1,312 feet of water where there is no forest between the open water and the transmission line. Bald Eagles—This route passes within 0.25 mile of a historic bald eagle nest (KNWR, unpublished data). This nest was not known to be active in the 2000 breeding season (KNWR unpublished date). Two bald eagle nests that were active in the 2000 breeding season are within 0.5 mile of the centerline. Six additional nesting areas, four of which were active in 2000, are within | mile of the route. This portion of the route is a rebuild within an existing right-of-way and vegetation clearing would be limited to the removal of individual trees. Bald eagle nest trees would be identified and avoided during construction. Winter construction would avoid disturbance to nesting bald eagles. The Kenai River provides feeding habitat for bald eagles, primarily from June through September. It also provides some winter feeding habitat. The Project might present a minimal collision hazard to bald eagles foraging at the Kenai and Funny rivers. Within nesting areas, bald eagle fledglings could be vulnerable to collisions with wires. Wolf—Wolf abundance along this route is expected to be moderate for approximately 2.1 miles. This route does not traverse any wolf pack areas. The route would parallel an existing transmission line and is in the vicinity of existing development. Clearing of the right-of-way along most of the route would be limited to the removal of individual trees. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-86 September 2001 Canada Lynx—Approximately 2.1 miles of Route Option E South (Applicant’s Proposal) occur in areas where lynx abundance is moderate. Clearing of the right-of-way along most of the route would be limited to the removal of individual trees. Black Bear—This route contains approximately 2.1 miles of general black bear habitat. Approximately 1.2 miles are in mature forests that may support devil’s club, an important food source for black bears. Right-of-way clearing along this route is not expected to significantly impact availability of important food sources for black bears. Clearing of the right-of-way along most of the route (Link E5) would be limited to the removal of individual trees. Winter construction and maintenance could disturb black bears denning near the route. Brown Bear—Along this route, the centerline intersects the Kenai River at two locations, and the Funny River in one. These anadromous fish streams provide summer feeding areas for brown bear when the salmon are running. Approximately 3.5 miles of riparian habitat associated with the streams are concentration areas for brown bear. These areas consist of a 1-mile corridor on either side of the streams, except in areas of development or potential development influence where the corridors are narrowed to 0.25 mile. There is 0.8 mile of general brown bear habitat along this route. Development and human activity along this route have likely displaced brown bear use of the salmon resources. Disturbance to brown bears would be minimized by winter construction and maintenance. Denning bears could potentially be disturbed by project activities; however, it is unlikely that brown bears would select den sites in the vicinity of the route due to existing human disturbance. Moose—Year-round moose habitat and important moose winter range occur along this route. Winter moose abundance is high for approximately 1.2 miles and moderate for 0.9 mile. Clearing of the right-of-way within areas of moderate to high winter moose abundance would be limited because construction on most of the route would involve a rebuild within an existing right-of-way. Caribou—This route option lies within the range of the KLH. Human development and activity throughout much of this area has degraded the quality of the habitat for caribou in this area. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace caribou from the vicinity of the route. Right-of-way clearing would be very limited along most of the route, involving primarily the removal of individual trees. Soldotna Substation The extent of human development and disturbance at this site precludes use by most wildlife species. There are no waterfowl habitat areas, trumpeter swan nesting areas, or bald eagle nests near the proposed new substation. Human activity at the site limits use of the area by wolves, Canada lynx, black bears, and brown bears. Moose would be the most common large wildlife species in the area. This site is within the range of the KLH caribou herd, but human Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources B=87, September 2001 development and activity in this area have degraded the quality of habitat for caribou. Therefore, no significant impacts from Project activities at this site were identified for any wildlife species. Naptowne Substations The extent of human development and disturbance at these sites precludes use of the areas by many wildlife species. There are no waterfowl habitat areas, trumpeter swan nesting areas, or bald eagle nests near either of the proposed new substations. Human activity in the vicinity of the sites limits use by wolves, Canada lynx, black bears, and brown bears. Human activities have likely degraded the quality of habitat for caribou. Moose would be the common large wildlife species present in the immediate vicinity of both sites. No significant adverse impacts on wildlife from project activities were identified at either of the sites. Enstar to Chickaloon Bay - Route Option F (Applicant’s Proposal) None of this segment passes through areas influenced by development. Waterfowl—Waterfowl are seasonally present along most of the route. Chickaloon Flats, at the northern end of Route F, is a designated concentration area for several species of waterfowl and supports both nesting and staging during spring and fall migration. Shorter poles will be utilized for 4.4 miles along Links E9 and E10 at the edge of the Chickaloon Flats to reduce the risk of avian collision. Pole heights will be approximately 70 feet in height. Habitat loss from right-of-way clearing would be minimized by spanning streams, winter construction, and not widening or upgrading existing roads in wetland habitats or adjacent streams. Disturbance to waterfowl during nesting, brood-rearing, and staging also would be avoided through winter construction and maintenance. Approximately 19 miles of the route contain stream crossings or are within | mile of open water and, therefore, present a potential collision hazard for waterfowl. In areas of potential collision hazard, wires would be marked at river crossings and within 1,312 feet of water where there is no forest between the open water and the transmission line. Route Option F (Applicant’s Proposal) has a number of stream crossings, but very few lakes in close proximity to the route. Indirect impacts resulting from increased access could be an issue north of Mystery Creek, where access would be improved by the Project. Increased human disturbance in this area might result in more panic flights, thus increasing the risk of waterfowl collisions with wires (APLIC 1994). Trumpeter Swan—Approximately 7.4 miles of Route Option F (Applicant’s Proposal) pass through 3 trumpeter swan nesting territories. Two of these nests are within 1 mile of the centerline. An additional seven territories are within | mile of the centerline. None of these nests Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-88 September 2001 was known to be active in 2000 (KNWR, unpublished data). Potential disturbance to nesting swans on this route would be avoided through winter construction and maintenance. Approximately 17.2 miles of the route are within | mile of open water. These areas present a potential collision hazard for trumpeter swans. With the exception of Afonasi and Trapper Joe Lakes, there are no lakes in close proximity to the route. Collision hazard is expected to be minimal north of Mystery Creek because there are no lakes on the east side of the transmission line route and trumpeter swans in this area would not regularly fly across the transmission line toward the Kenai Mountains. In areas of potential collision hazard, wires would be marked within 1,312 feet of water where there is no forest between open water bodies and the transmission line. Indirect impacts resulting from increased access is an issue north of Mystery Creek. Increased human access for hunting in this area could result in increased illegal “take” of trumpeter swans in the Chickaloon Flats during waterfowl hunting season. Bald Eagle—Route Option F (Applicant’s Proposal) passes within 0.25 mile of a known bald eagle nest that was active during the spring of 2000 (KNWR, unpublished data). Right-of-way clearing would result in reduction of vegetative cover and potential nest and roost sites near this nest. Bald eagle nest trees would be identified and avoided during construction, and selective vegetation removal within the right-of-way would minimize impacts of clearing. Three other nesting areas, one of which was active in 2000, have been identified within 1 mile of Route Option F (Applicant’s Proposal). Winter construction would avoid disturbance to all nesting bald eagles. The seven anadromous streams on this route provide feeding habitat for bald eagles from June through September. The Project could present a collision hazard to bald eagles foraging at these streams. Within nesting areas, bald eagle fledglings could be vulnerable to collisions with wires. Wolf—Route Option F (Applicant’s Proposal) traverses approximately 18 miles of the traditional home range of the Big Indian wolf pack. Wolf abundance is moderate for 13.9 miles along the southern portion of the route and low for 24.3 miles along the northern portion of the route. This route runs along the base of the Kenai Mountains and would be crossed by wolves traveling between upland and lowland areas. Increased access north of Mystery Creek could result in increased legal and illegal harvest of wolves. Although wolf abundance is low along this portion of the route, the route passes through the middle of the Big Indian wolf pack. Wolves might be attracted to the right-of-way as a travel corridor and, thus, become more vulnerable. Clearing of the right-of-way in mature forest would provide additional moose winter range and potentially benefit wolves. Canada Lynx—Approximately 24.3 miles of Route Option F (Applicant’s Proposal) traverse areas where lynx abundance is low. Approximately 13.9 miles of the southern portion of the Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-89 September 2001 route lie within areas of moderate abundance of lynx. The 1947 burn area provides moderate quality habitat for Canada lynx. Increased human access north of Mystery Creek could result in increased legal and illegal harvest of lynx. Lynx would be especially vulnerable to harvest within the right-of-way. Because lynx abundance is low north of Mystery Creek, increase in legal and illegal harvest would be minimal. Clearing of the right-of-way would remove potential denning habitat for lynx, but also could benefit lynx by improving habitat for snowshoe hare. Black Bear—This route crosses approximately 38.2 miles of black bear habitat. Approximately 679 acres of general black bear habitat could be affected by right-of-way clearing. Approximately 78 percent of this area contains forest types that might support devil’s club, an important food source for black bears. Because these forest types are widely distributed in the Project area, right-of-way clearing along this route is not expected to significantly impact availability of important food sources for black bears. Disturbance during winter construction and maintenance could disturb black bears denning near the route. Black bears in the vicinity of the northern portion of the route could be subject to increased legal and illegal harvest where human access is improved. Brown Bear—The centerline of this route intersects seven anadromous streams that provide feeding areas for brown bear during the summer and fall when salmon are present. Approximately 18.2 miles of riparian habitat associated with the streams are concentration areas for brown bear. These areas consist of a 1-mile corridor on either side of the streams. The remainder of this route traverses approximately 20 miles of brown bear habitat. Riparian corridors along the Chickaloon River, Big Indian Creek, and Little Indian Creek extend into the saltmarsh habitats within Chickaloon Flats. These stream drainages also provide travel corridors from the Kenai Mountains to the lowlands in the center of the KNWR and spring foraging areas. Disturbance to brown bears will be minimized by winter construction and maintenance, although denning bears potentially could be disturbed. Brown bears could experience long-term disturbance from increased access, especially north of Mystery Creek. Currently existing access in this area consists of a four-wheel drive road of varying width and condition that is associated with the Enstar pipeline. This area is under protective management by the KNWR and the road is open to highway vehicles during the August and September hunting season only. The road is open to snow machines in the winter. Increased human access would result in higher risk of human and bear conflicts. Brown bears would cross the route as they seasonally move between the mountains and the lowlands. Disturbance to brown bears is mainly a concern where brown bears may concentrate within the riparian corridors. Right-of-way clearing in forest communities could result in limited loss of foraging habitat for brown bears; however, these communities are widespread within the Project study area. Moose—Year-round moose habitat is present along Route Option F (Applicant’s Proposal). Approximately 2.3 miles of the route are within areas of high winter moose abundance, about 8.8 miles contain areas of moderate winter abundance, and about 27.1 miles are within areas of low Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-90 September 2001 winter moose abundance. This route intersects moose calving habitat and medium-to-high quality winter range. The high quality winter range is in areas in the KNWR where mechanical crushing has been utilized to create or maintain early successional habitats within the 1947 burn area. Route Option F (Applicant’s Proposal) intersects areas of seasonal moose migration between the uplands and lowlands. Clearing of the right-of-way would temporarily reduce browse in moose winter range. Approximately 203 acres of winter range may be affected by right-of-way clearing within areas of moderate to high winter moose abundance. Remaining portions of the route support low winter moose abundance. Impacts of right-of-way clearing on moose winter range would be minimized by removing low-growing shrubby vegetation under 10 feet tall only for tower sites and along access and spur roads rather than within the entire right-of-way. The opportunity to apply prescribed burning to create or maintain moose winter range would be restricted by the presence of a transmission line. Clearing within closed forest communities would reduce winter thermal cover for moose, but improve winter range within the right-of-way. This route traverses areas of general movement of moose between uplands and lowlands. Construction or presence of the line is not expected to interfere with moose movements; however, increased human access north of Mystery Creek could result in increased harvest of moose. Caribou—Approximately 17 miles of this route are within the range of the KLH. South of the Chickaloon River, disturbance during construction could temporarily displace caribou of the KLH from the vicinity of the route. North of the Chickaloon River, the route is outside of the traditional range of the KLH. Right-of-way clearing may reduce vegetative cover in suitable habitats for caribou. Such habitats are, however, widely distributed throughout the Kenai Lowlands. Transition Facility South of Burnt Island Waterfowl—There is no waterfowl habitat at this proposed site. Construction of the facility could result in noise disturbance to nesting waterfowl in Chickaloon Bay. Trumpeter Swan/Bald Eagle—There are no trumpeter swans or bald eagles nesting in the vicinity of this transition facility. Wolf/Canada Lynx—Wolves and lynx are found in relatively low abundance at this proposed site. Clearing for this facility would involve minimal habitat loss for wolves and lynx. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace wolves and lynx in the vicinity of the transition facility. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-91 September 2001 Black Bear—This site is located within general black bear habitat. Clearing for this facility would involve minimal habitat loss for black bears. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace black bears in the vicinity of the proposed transition facility. Brown Bear—This site is located within general brown bear habitat. Clearing for this facility would involve minimal habitat loss for brown bears. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace brown bears in the vicinity of the proposed transition facility; however, the proposed site is not within a brown bear concentration area or summer-feeding area. Moose—This site is located within an area of relatively low moose abundance. The Project would involve limited loss of moose habitat. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace moose in the vicinity of the proposed facility. Caribou—This site is not within the range of any caribou herd. However, the KMH range extends to within | mile of the proposed site. No impacts to caribou are expected. Chickaloon Bay to Klatt Road - Route Option G None of this segment passes through areas influenced by development. Waterfowl—The shoreline habitats at the Chickaloon Bay landfall and in the ACWR provide habitat for nesting and staging waterfowl. Potential impacts to waterfowl habitat in Chickaloon Bay and the ACWR would be avoided by horizontal drilling. Installation of submarine cable could disturb waterfowl nesting in the vicinity of the landfall at Chickaloon Bay and the ACWR during construction. Trumpeter Swan—This route traverses no trumpeter swan nesting habitat. Swans could use the saltmarsh in the ACWR and at the Burnt Island landfall for staging during migration. Staging swans may be temporarily displaced by disturbance during construction. Bald Eagle—A known bald eagle nesting area in the ACWR is within | mile of the route. The centerline is less than 0.5 mile from the nest, and construction activities are unlikely to disturb nesting eagles. Wolf/Canada Lynx—This route option does not provide habitat for wolves or lynx. Black Bear—The Chickaloon Flats is an important spring feeding area for black bears and saltmarsh habitat in the ACWR is potential habitat for black bear. Horizontal drilling could disturb black bears foraging in the Chickaloon Flats or in the saltmarsh at the ACWR. Brown Bear—Less than 0.1 mile of general brown bear habitat surrounds the landfall at Chickaloon Bay. General brown bear habitat occurs in the band of saltmarsh in the ACWR at the Klatt Road landfall. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace brown bears in Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-92 September 2001 the vicinity of Chickaloon Bay and potentially the ACWR. Brown bear use in these areas is, however, minimal due the absence of anadromous fish streams. Moose—This route option does not provide habitat for moose. Caribou—This route does not pass through any caribou habitat. Chickaloon Bay to Oceanview Park - Route Option H (Applicant’s Proposal) None of this segment passes through areas influenced by development. Waterfowl—The shoreline habitats at the Chickaloon Bay landfall and in the ACWR provide habitat for waterfowl nesting and staging during migration. Potential impacts to waterfowl habitat in Chickaloon Bay and the ACWR would be avoided by horizontal drilling. Installation of submarine cable could disturb waterfowl nesting in the vicinity of the landfall at Chickaloon Bay and the ACWR during construction. Trumpeter Swan—This route traverses no trumpeter swan nesting habitat. Swans may use the saltmarsh in the ACWR and Chickaloon Bay for staging during migration. Staging swans may be temporarily displaced by disturbance during construction. Bald Eagle—This route does not cross any known bald eagle nesting areas, and no bald eagle nesting areas have not been identified within | mile of this route. Wolf—tThis route option does not contain any appreciable amount of wolf habitat. Canada Lynx—This route does not provide habitat for lynx. Black Bear—The Chickaloon Flats is an important spring feeding area for black bears and saltmarsh in the ACWR is potential habitat for black bear. Horizontal drilling could disturb black bears foraging in the Chickaloon Flats or in the saltmarsh at the ACWR. Brown Bear—Less than 0.1 mile of general brown bear habitat surrounds the landfall in Chickaloon Bay landfall. General brown bear habitat occurs in the band of saltmarsh in the ACWR at the Oceanview Park landfall. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace brown bears in the vicinity of Chickaloon Bay and potentially the ACWR. Brown bear use in these areas is, however, minimal due the absence of anadromous fish streams. Moose—The fringe of habitat in the ACWR provides very limited year-round habitat for moose. Clearing within closed mixed forest along the route could temporarily reduce winter thermal cover for moose, but could also improve moose winter range by creating an opening for establishment of low-growing shrubs and trees. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-93 September 2001 Caribou—This route does not pass through any caribou habitat. Chickaloon Bay to Rabbit Creek - Route Option I None of this segment passes through areas influenced by development. Waterfowl—The shoreline habitats at the landfall at Chickaloon Bay and in the ACWR near Rabbit Creek provide some habitat for feeding and staging waterfowl. The northern end of the route at the Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek landing is also within 0.1 mile of Potter Marsh, a popular waterfowl and wildlife viewing area that is used by waterfowl for both nesting and staging. Disturbance to nesting waterfowl would be greater at Rabbit Creek than at other Anchorage landings due to the high quality of waterfowl habitat at Potter Marsh. Trumpeter Swan—Route Option I traverses no trumpeter swan nesting habitat, but swans may use Potter Marsh and the saltmarsh in the ACWR for staging during migration. Staging swans may be temporarily displaced by disturbance during construction. Bald Eagle—The Anchorage landing lies within the periphery of known bald eagle nesting areas. Potter Marsh and the saltmarsh within the ACWR provide foraging areas for bald eagles from June through September. Wolf/Canada Lynx—This route does not provide habitat for wolves or lynx. Black Bear—The Chickaloon Flats is an important spring feeding area for black bears. Black bears may forage within saltmarsh at the ACWR. Horizontal drilling could disturb black bears foraging in the Chickaloon Flats or the saltmarsh at the ACWR. Brown Bear—Less than 0.1 mile of general brown bear habitat surrounds the Chickaloon Bay landfall. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace brown bears in the vicinity of Chickaloon Bay. Brown bear use in this area is, however, minimal due the absence of anadromous fish streams. Moose—This route does not provide habitat for moose. Caribou—Option I does not pass through any caribou habitat. Klatt Road to International Substation via Minnesota Drive - Route Option J This segment passes through areas influenced by development in Anchorage. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-94 September 2001 Waterfowl—The saltmarsh within the ACWR adjacent to this route provides habitat for nesting and staging waterfowl. Installation of submarine cable may disturb nesting and staging waterfowl in the vicinity of the route during construction. Trumpeter Swan—No trumpeter swan nesting habitat occurs in the Anchorage area. Saltmarsh within the ACWR may support some staging swans during migration. Installation of submarine cable may disturb swans staging in the vicinity of the route during construction. Bald Eagle—No bald eagle nests have been documented within | mile of this route. Wolf/Canada Lynx/Black Bear/Brown Bear—No appreciable habitat occurs along this route for wolf, lynx, black bear, or brown bear. Use of the area is limited by development in the surrounding areas, and no impacts are anticipated for these species. Moose—Moose habitat occurs along most of this route in undeveloped areas, with most use occurring during winter months. Clearing within closed mixed forest along the route might temporarily reduce winter thermal cover for moose, but also could improve moose winter range by creating an opening for establishment of low-growing shrubs and trees. Caribou—There are no caribou in the Anchorage area. International Substation Site No selected wildlife resources or impacts were identified for this site. Klatt Road Transition Facility Site None of the selected wildlife resources were identified at this site, and no impacts to these wildlife resources are expected. The extent and intensity of human development and occupation probably precludes all but infrequent use of this site by selected wildlife species. Oceanview Park to International Substation via Alaska Railroad - Route Option K (Applicant’s Proposal) This segment passes through areas influenced by development in Anchorage. Waterfowl—The saltmarsh within the ACWR adjacent to this route provides habitat for nesting and staging waterfowl. Potential disturbance to nesting waterfowl adjacent to the route would be avoided by construction in late summer or fall. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-95 September 2001 Trumpeter_Swan—No trumpeter swan nesting habitat occurs in the Anchorage area. The saltmarsh habitat in the Anchorage coastal refuge could potentially support some staging during migration. Potential disturbance to staging swans would be avoided by construction in late summer or fall. Bald Eagle—No bald eagle nests have been documented within | mile of this route. Wolf/Canada Lynx/Black Bear/Brown Bear—No appreciable habitat occurs along this route for wolf, lynx, black bear, or brown bear. Use of the area is limited by development in the surrounding areas, and no impacts are anticipated for these species. Moose—Moose habitat occurs along most of this route in undeveloped areas, with most use occurring during winter months. Clearing within closed mixed forest along the route might temporarily reduce winter thermal cover for moose, but also could improve moose winter range by creating an opening for establishment of low-growing shrubs and trees. Caribou—There are no caribou in the Anchorage area. International Substation Site No selected wildlife resources or impacts were identified for this site. Cross Road North, 120" Avenue Transition Facility Sites None of the selected wildlife resources were identified at either of the sites, and no impacts to these wildlife resources are expected. The extent and intensity of human development and occupation probably precludes all but infrequent use of these sites by selected wildlife species. Rabbit Creek to International Substation via Old Seward Highway - Route Option M This segment passes through areas influenced by development in Anchorage. Waterfowl—The saltmarsh within the ACWR provides habitat for waterfowl nesting and staging during migration. Installation of submarine cable could disturb nesting waterfowl in Potter Marsh in the vicinity of the route during construction. Trumpeter Swan—No trumpeter swan nesting habitat occurs in the Anchorage area. Saltmarsh within the ACWR may support some staging swans during migration. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace staging swans in the ACWR. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-96 September 2001 Bald Eagle—This route passes within 0.5 mile of a known bald eagle nest in the ACWR. Construction could disturb nesting eagles and temporarily displace bald eagles that might forage for carrion along the shoreline. Disturbance to nesting eagles would be avoided by construction in late summer or fall. Wolf/Canada_Lynx/Black Bear/Brown Bear—No appreciable habitat occurs along this route option for wolf, lynx, black bear, or brown bear. Use of the area is limited by development in the surrounding areas, and no impacts are anticipated for these species. Moose—Moose habitat occurs along most of this route in undeveloped areas, with most use occurring during winter months. Clearing within closed mixed forest along the route could temporarily reduce winter thermal cover for moose, but also may improve moose winter range by creating openings for establishment of low-growing shrubs and trees. Caribou—There are no caribou in the Anchorage area. International Substation Site No selected wildlife resources or impacts were identified for this site. Shooting Range and Old Seward Highway Transition Facility Sites None of the selected wildlife resources were identified at either of the sites, and no impacts to these wildlife resources are expected. The extent and intensity of human development and occupation probably precludes all but infrequent use of these sites by selected wildlife species. 3.5.5 Freshwater Environment Aquatic Communities Affected Environment Lacustrine Lacustrine systems include lakes and ponds more than two acres in surface area (Cowardin et al. 1979). There are hundreds of small lakes and ponds throughout the study area, with the highest concentration located in the central portions of the Kenai Lowlands. These areas provide feeding and nesting habitat for many kinds of birds, including loons, ducks, geese, and trumpeter swans. These areas also are important habitat for mammals such as muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), beaver, and mink. They also provide rearing habitat for both resident and anadromous fish, such as Dolly Varden (resident and anadromous populations), rainbow trout, and longnose sucker Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-97 September 2001 (Catostomus catostomus). Some of the common plants characteristic of these habitats include white waterlily (Nuphar polysepalum), pond lily (Nymphaea tetragona), and pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.). Estuarine Estuarine saltmarsh habitats are one of the more important habitats in the study area. They are found in low-lying coastal areas (e.g., below the coastal bluffs in the Anchorage area) and at the mouths of river systems (e.g., Chickaloon River at Chickaloon Bay, Kenai River, and Swanson River in Captain Cook SRA). These areas are important feeding and resting areas for migrating waterfowl and shorebirds, especially at Chickaloon Bay. Bears feed on terrestrial meat (e.g., moose, caribou, rodents) and vegetation in the spring and on anadromous fish in the fall in estuarine habitats. Inter-tidal mudflats and estuarine open water areas function as habitat for low densities of epifaunal marine invertebrates, marine and anadromous fish, and feeding areas for beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) and harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). Riverine Riverine systems occur within the limits of river or stream channels (Cowardin et al. 1979). Such systems are numerous within the study area and include both high gradient mountain streams (e.g., upper reaches of the Big Indian Creek) and low gradient, slower, perennial streams and rivers (e.g., Swanson and Moose rivers). The largest riverine system in the area is the Kenai River, which supports substantial runs of chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (O. kisutch), pink (O. gorbuscha), and sockeye salmon (O. nerka); and small runs of chum salmon (O. keta). These riverine systems function as spawning and rearing habitats for salmon and habitat for resident fish species such as Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). This category includes all anadromous fish streams, which provide important summer feeding habitat for brown bears. Other key species that use riverine habitats include common merganser, river otter (Lutra canadensis), and mink. Resident Fish Several species of resident fish (ones that remain in freshwater) inhabit lakes and streams in the study area. Among these are rainbow trout, lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), and Dolly Varden, which are considered important for recreational fishing on the Kenai Peninsula. Several of the resident fish species also have anadromous populations in the same drainage system, such as the Dolly Varden, rainbow trout (steelhead), Arctic lamprey (Lampetra japonica), threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), and ninespine stickleback (Pungitius pungitius). Common and scientific names of freshwater fish species are presented in Table 3-8. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-98 September 2001 TABLE 3-8 FISH SPECIES OF FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENTS Category Common Name Scientific Name Anadromous Fish Arctic Lamprey Lampetra japonica Pacific Lamprey Entosphenus tridentatus Bering Cisco Coregonus laurettae Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Coho Salmon O. kisutch Pink Salmon O. gorbuscha Chum Salmon O. keta Sockeye Salmon O. nerka Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma Eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus Longfin Smelt Spirinchus thaleichthys Threespine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Ninespine Stickleback Pungitius pungitius Freshwater Fish Arctic Char Salvelinus alpinus Slimy Sculpin Cottus cognatus Coastrange Sculpin Cottus aleuticas Round Whitefish Prosopium cylindraceum Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush Arctic Grayling Thymallus arcticus Northern Pike Esox lucius Longnose Sucker Catostomus catostomus Anadromous Fish Commercially important anadromous fish species in the study area include five species of salmon: chinook, coho, pink, chum, and sockeye. A large number of lakes and freshwater streams provide both spawning and rearing habitat for salmon. Nearshore estuarine environments provide important foraging habitat for outmigrating juvenile salmon. Spawning habitats of these species are particularly sensitive because siltation can result in suffocation or burial of eggs or newly hatched fry in the stream gravels. Recreational boating, sportfishing, and shoreline development can degrade nearshore rearing habitats. Other important anadromous species include Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus), Arctic lamprey, Bering cisco (Coregonus laurettae), eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), and threespine stickleback. Anadromous fish also use the nearshore estuarine habitats for foraging during out migration of juveniles and migration of adults back to the spawning stream. Other important habitats for these fish include nearshore rearing habitat for juveniles in the streams and lakes. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-99 September 2001 Spawning adult salmon provide a significant food source for wildlife species on the Kenai Peninsula. Fish-eating birds include osprey, bald eagle, and several species of gulls. Avian scavengers that eat fish include common raven (Corvus corax), black-billed magpie (Pica pica), and gray jay (Perisoreus canadensis). Other wildlife species that make use of the anadromous fish resource include mink, river otter, coyote, and black and brown bears. Spawning salmon play an important role in the distribution of bears throughout the KNWR (Jacobs 1989a). Beluga and killer whales (Orcinus orca) also feed heavily on adult salmon. A map of anadromous fish streams located within the study area is provided on Figure MV-17 (Volume II). A brief description of the major streams is provided below. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Estuarine Impacts on estuarine mud flats in Turnagain Arm are not considered to be significant due to a lack of vegetation and the naturally highly stressed nature (due to tidal actions) of upper tidal level mud flats. Anadromous Fish Anadromous fish streams are protected under state law and are vital to salmon and other anadromous species. They provide an important food source for brown bears as well as bald eagles, otters, black bears, and other scavengers. These streams are also of significant regional economic importance relative to commercial and sport fisheries. Activities associated with construction of an electrical transmission line in or near anadromous fish streams could potentially result in sedimentation that could bury anadromous fish eggs or impact fry and juvenile fish. Not only are such potential impacts deleterious to anadromous fish themselves, there is also the potential for indirect impacts to the species that forage on anadromous fish. Impacts on these streams would represent a significant and unacceptable impact at a local, regional, and national level. Application of selective mitigation measures will minimize such impacts. Streams will be spanned, most construction will occur during the winter months, and where possible existing roads at anadromous fish stream crossings will not be improved. With the exception of an emergency event, such as wildfire, impacts related to ground disturbance during maintenance activities also could be minimized. Overall, construction and maintenance of a transmission line is not expected to conflict with goals and objectives described in the KNWR’s Fishery Management Plan (KNWR 1995b). Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-100 September 2001 3.5.6 Alternatives No-Action Alternative Under the no-action alternative, no impacts on aquatic resources are anticipated. No habitat loss or disturbance is associated with the no-action alternative. Tesoro Route Bernice Lake to Pt. Possession - Route Option A This centerline of this route crosses 0.6 mile of open water and less than 0.1 mile of riverine habitats. This route crosses six streams, including four anadromous fish streams. Bishop Creek and Swanson River support runs of pink, coho, and sockeye salmon, and small numbers of chinook salmon occur in the Swanson River. The Swanson River is the largest producer of salmon on the northwest side of the Kenai Peninsula. Otter and Seven Egg creeks support runs of coho salmon, but little is known about the size or timing of the runs. The numbers of fish in these systems would be expected to reflect the small size of the drainage basins. Miller Creek and Scaup Creek are not known to support runs of salmon. Placing towers at least 200 feet from stream crossings, selective clearing of vegetation between the tower and the stream, and not widening or upgrading existing roads adjacent to streams will minimize the potential for erosion at all anadromous stream crossings. Winter construvction will also minimize potential impacts to Otter and Seven Egg creeks. Boring beneath Swanson River would avoid the loss of thermal cover at this river crossing. Any loss of thermal cover as the result of overstory removal at the Bishop, Otter, and Seven Egg creek crossings would be negligible because of the narrow width (30 to 100 feet) of right-of-way clearing. The potential for increased sedimentation in these streams is minimal because of slight to moderate slopes, and impacts on anadromous fish from project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof via Fire Island - Route Option B The centerline of this route passes through 12.8 miles of estuarine open water, and 0.7 mile of estuarine flooded mudflats. This route does not cross any anadromous fish streams. Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof (aquatic route) - Route Option C The centerline of this route intersects 10.2 miles of estuarine open water and 6.7 miles of estuarine flooded mudflats. This route crosses no anadromous fish streams. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-101 September 2001 Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell - Route Option D The centerline of this route traverses 8.7 miles of estuarine open water and 5.2 miles of estuarine flooded mudflats. This route crosses no anadromous fish streams. Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof - Route Option N This route crosses less than 0.1 mile of estuarine flooded mud flats. The route does not cross any anadromous fish streams. Enstar Route Soldotna North - Route Option E North The centerline of this route crosses 0.3 mile of riverine habitat and less than 0.1 mile of open water. Route Option E North crosses the Moose River once and Soldotna Creek twice. Soldotna Creek supports runs of coho salmon. Moose River, a large slow-moving river, supports runs of chinook, pink, sockeye, and coho salmon, along with several other anadromous and resident fish species. The loss of thermal cover as the result of overstory removal will be negligible because of the narrow width (100 feet) of right-of-way clearing. Placing towers at least 200 feet from streams, selective clearing between the tower and the stream, allowing recovery of low-growing vegetation in the right-of-way, and not widening or upgrading existing roads adjacent to streams would minimize the potential for increased sedimentation in Moose River and Soldotna Creek. Increased sedimentation in these streams as a result of the Project is also unlikely because of slight to moderate slopes in the area. Soldotna South - Route Option E South (Applicant’s Proposal) The centerline of this route crosses 0.4 mile of riverine habitat. The route crosses the Kenai River in two places and also crosses the Funny River. The Kenai River is the largest river in the project area and supports large runs of sockeye, chinook, pink, and coho salmon. The Kenai River also supports populations of several other anadromous and resident fish species. There would be no loss of thermal cover at these stream crossings because the route is a rebuild of an existing transmission line and no additional clearing will be required. the potential for increased sedimentation in these streams would be minimized by spanning these streams, winter construction, and not widening or upgrading existing roads adjacent to the streams. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-102 September 2001 Enstar to Chickaloon Bay - Route Option F (Applicant’s Proposal) The centerline of this route crosses 0.4 mile of riverine habitat. Route Option F (Applicant’s Proposal) crosses seven streams that support runs of anadromous fish: East Fork Moose River, Mystery Creek, North Fork Chickaloon River, Chickaloon River, East Fork Chickaloon River, Big Indian Creek and Little Indian Creek. The Chickaloon River system is the largest producer of salmon on the northern portion of the Kenai Peninsula, with runs of pink, sockeye, coho, and chum salmon. Little is known of run size in Big Indian and Little Indian creeks. Spanning these streams, winter construction, and not widening or upgrading existing roads adjacent to the streams will minimize potential impacts on anadromous fish in these streams. Removal of overstory vegetation within the right-of-way could reduce streamside thermal cover, particularly along densely vegetated streams at the base of the Kenai Mountains, but the narrow width of the right-of-way (150 feet) and relatively high stream gradients would make any change in thermal qualities of the stream negligible. Spanning these streams, winter construction, selective clearing within 200 feet of the stream, allowing recovery of low-growing vegetation in the right-of-way, and where possible not widening or upgrading the existing Enstar trail adjacent to the streams will reduce the potential for increased sedimentation in these streams. Because of steep gradients, significant potential for erosion may persist following construction in the Big and Little Indian Creeks. Chickaloon Bay to Klatt Road - Route Option G The centerline of this route passes through about 8.7 miles of estuarine flooded mudflats and 2.4 miles of estuarine open water. This route crosses no anadromous fish streams. Chickaloon Bay to Oceanview Park - Route Option H (Applicant’s Proposal) The centerline of this route intersects 7.4 miles of estuarine flooded mudflats and 2.4 miles of estuarine open water. This route crosses no anadromous fish streams. Chickaloon Bay to Rabbit Creek - Route Option I The centerline of this route intersects 6.5 miles of estuarine flooded mudflats and 2.4 miles of estuarine open water. This route crosses no anadromous fish streams. Klatt Road to International Substation via Minnesota Drive - Route Option J The centerline of this route crosses 0.02 mile of riverine habitat. This route crosses one anadromous fish stream, Campbell Creek, which supports coho, chinook, and sockeye salmon. Loss of thermal cover at this stream crossing will be negligible because of the narrow width (30 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-103 September 2001 feet) at the right-of-way and because little to no clearing will be required within the municipality of Anchorage. Spanning the creek and not widening or upgrading existing roads adjacent to the creek would minimize the potential for increased sedimentation in Campbell Creek. Oceanview Park to International Substation via Alaska Railroad - Route Option K (Applicant’s Proposal) The centerline of this route crosses 0.02 mile of riverine habitat. This route crosses one anadromous fish stream, Campbell Creek, which supports coho, chinook, and sockeye salmon. Loss of thermal cover at this stream crossing will be negligible because of the narrow width (30 feet) at the right-of-way and because little to no clearing will be required within the municipality of Anchorage. Spanning the creek and not widening or upgrading existing roads adjacent to the creek would minimize the potential for increased sedimentation in Campbell Creek. Rabbit Creek to International Substation via Old Seward Highway - Route Option M The centerline of this route crosses 0.02 mile of riverine habitat and 0.03 mile of estuarine flooded mud flats. This route crosses four anadromous fish streams: Little Rabbit Creek, Campbell Creek, South Fork Little Campbell Creek, and North Fork Little Campbell Creek. Little Rabbit Creek supports all five species of salmon. The submarine cable would be installed by horizontal drilling below Little Rabbit Creek, which therefore would not be affected by the Project. Loss of thermal cover at the remaining stream crossings will be negligible because of the narrow width (30 feet) of the right-of-way and because little to no clearing will be required within the municipality of Anchorage. Potential impacts on anadromous fish in Campbell, South Fork Little Campbell, and North Fork Little Campbell creeks would be minimized by spanning the creeks and not widening or upgrading existing roads adjacent to the creeks. 3.5.7 Drainage Basins Affected Environment Kenai Lowlands The Kenai Lowlands may be divided into several drainage basins. The Swanson River drainage basin covers approximately 277 miles” of the northwest portion of the KNWR. It originates in the Swanson Lakes area and flows west into Cook Inlet. The Swanson River supports the largest runs of salmon on the northwest side of the peninsula, including runs of sockeye, pink, and coho, as well as small runs of chinooks. Resident fish in the Swanson River system include Arctic char (Salvelinus alpina), which is found in approximately 50 lakes within the drainage. Other resident fish include the Dolly Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-104 September 2001 Varden, longnose sucker, Arctic lamprey (freshwater population), coastrange and slimy sculpin (Cottus aleuticus and C. cognatus), and the threespine and ninespine sticklebacks (Pungitius pungitius) (KNWR 1995b). Other drainages on the Kenai Lowlands that support anadromous fish runs include Bishop, Otter, and Seven Egg creeks. Bishop Creek supports a run of sockeye and coho salmon. The other two streams support runs of coho salmon only, and little is known of the timing or size of these runs. Miller and Scaup creeks also drain the Kenai Lowlands, but are not known to support anadromous fish runs (KNWR 1995b). Kenai Mountains The largest river on the Kenai Peninsula, the Kenai River, is glacially fed and drains much of the interior of the Kenai Mountains and central Kenai Peninsula. It flows from Kenai Lake through Skilak Lake west into Cook Inlet. The Kenai River system provides spawning and rearing habitat for chinook, pink, sockeye, and coho salmon. The river also has both resident and anadromous populations of Dolly Varden. The Kenai River, including the Russian River and Hidden Lakes system, is the major producer of sockeye salmon in Cook Inlet. Kenai River sockeye support both a major commercial fishery in Cook Inlet and the largest recreational sockeye fishery in Alaska (KNWR 1995b). Large numbers of chinook, coho, and sockeye return to the Kenai River in two distinct runs. Early run chinook salmon enter the river in mid-May and late run chinook begin in July. Early run chinook begin spawning in July in tributary streams, whereas late run fish tend to spawn in the main channel from mid- to late August (KNWR 1995b). The early run of sockeye salmon typically enters the Kenai River in June and spawns in the Russian River system. Late run sockeye enter the Kenai River in mid-July, and spawn in the mainstream Kenai River and tributary streams (KNWR 1995b). Coho salmon begin entering the Kenai River in August, and spawn in tributaries during September and October. Late run coho enter the river in September and spawn in the main stem of the Kenai River in October through March. Pink salmon enter the river in July and August, in greater numbers in even-numbered years. Adults generally do not migrate far upstream and, in some areas, spawning occurs in tidally influenced areas on the river. Resident fish species in the Kenai River include the rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, lake trout, round whitefish, longnose suckers, Arctic lamprey, coastrange and slimy sculpin, and threespine and ninespine sticklebacks (KNWR 1995b) Moose River is the largest tributary of the Kenai River, with a drainage basin covering 250 miles” of lowland habitat containing 117 miles of streams, 60 named lakes, and over 200 un- named lakes and ponds. The East Fork Moose River is an important tributary of the Moose River. The Moose River drainage basin supports at least 16 species of fish, including sockeye, coho, chinook and pink salmon, as well as Pacific and Arctic lamprey, eulachon, rainbow trout, and Dolly Varden (KNWR 1995b). Northern pike (Esox lucius), a species believed to have been Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-105 September 2001 introduced into MacKay Lake in the Soldotna Creek drainage basin by a private citizen, was observed in the Moose River in 1986. Salmon runs in the Moose River system are moderate in size in comparison to those of the Kenai River. Other major tributaries of the Kenai River include the Funny River and Soldotna Creek. The Funny River enters the Kenai River from the south and drains a large drainage basin on the south side of the Kenai River. The river supports runs of pink, coho, chinook, and sockeye salmon, as well as populations of rainbow trout and Dolly Varden (KNWR 1995b). The Chickaloon River drainage basin, one of the largest on the KNWR, includes 11 tributaries and drains 308 miles of the western slope of the Kenai Mountains and a portion of the Kenai Lowlands into Turnagain Arm. Mystery Creek is the largest of the Chickaloon River tributaries, followed by the North Fork and East Fork Chickaloon River. The Chickaloon River system supports major runs of pink, chinook, sockeye, and coho salmon, in addition to a diverse population of other anadromous and resident fish species. This system is the largest producer of salmon on the northern portion of the Kenai Peninsula (KNWR 1995b). The lakes within this drainage support Dolly Varden, rainbow trout, lake trout, longnose sucker, coastrange and slimy sculpin, and threespine and ninespine stickleback. In the Anchorage area, Campbell and Rabbit creeks are the only anadromous fish streams potentially affected by the Project. Fire Island does not have anadromous fish streams. Campbell Creek is the largest free-flowing stream in the Anchorage metropolitan area. The North and South forks of the stream drain the Chugach Mountains east of Anchorage. The upper sections of the creek flow through canyons that are impassable to upstream fish migration. The lower portion of Campbell Creek, from Lake Otis Parkway downstream to Campbell Lake, comprises the primary spawning and rearing habitat for chinook and coho salmon and Dolly Varden (Stratton and Cyr 1997). Small numbers of sockeye salmon also spawn and rear within the drainage basin. Resident fish species include rainbow trout (stocked), Dolly Varden, coastrange and slimy sculpin, and threespine and ninespine stickleback. The municipality of Anchorage has been making an effort to obtain and preserve riparian habitat, and improve the water quality of the creek to increase the spawning and rearing success of the creek’s salmon populations. Rabbit Creek, which flows into Potter Marsh and then into Turnagain Arm, supports runs of all five species of salmon. Pink, chinook, and coho are the major species, with smaller runs of sockeye and chum salmon. Resident fish include rainbow trout (stocked), Dolly Varden, and the common sculpins and sticklebacks (Cyr, personal communication, 1999). Northern pike have also been introduced into some lakes around the Anchorage area, but are not known to occur in Campbell or Rabbit creeks. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-106 September 2001 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Potential impacts on drainage basins associated with construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project include increased erosion, alteration of the function of anadromous fish streams, and possible spills of fuels, lubricants, or other liquid contaminants during construction and/or maintenance activities. Right-of-way clearing and maintenance in steep or hilly terrain poses a greater threat of eroded materials entering downslope streams. Such materials can interfere with the anadromous fish function of streams by interfering with or preventing the normal development of fertilized salmon eggs. Any long-term residual impact would be considered cumulative to the drainage basins, based on other background disturbances in the region. Some drainage basins are at least partially located within the KNWR, which has as part of its purpose the protection of water quality and quantity. Impacts on these drainage basins would be minimized by the application of selective mitigation measures. Streams will be spanned, tower sites will be placed at least 200 feet from streams, vegetation will be selectively cleared between the tower site and the stream, construction on the majority of routes will occur during the winter months, and where possible existing roads at anadromous fish stream crossings will not be improved. With the exception of an emergency event, such as wildfire, impacts related to ground disturbance during maintenance activities also could be minimized. 3.5.8 Alternatives No-Action Alternative Under the no-action alternative, no impacts on freshwater resources are anticipated. No habitat loss or disturbance is associated with the no-action alternative. Tesoro Route Bernice Lake to Pt. Possession - Route Option A Six streams are crossed by the Tesoro alternative between the Bernice Lake Substation and Pt. Possession. Potential impacts on drainage basins and the streams themselves include the following. Bishop Creek Drainage Basin—Bishop Creek drains an area of approximately 33.9 square miles, supports a limited anadromous fish run, and is low gradient stream with known discharges between 5 and 150 cubic feet per second. Selective clearing within 200 feet of stream banks and allowing development of low shrub and herbaceous cover within the project right-of-way would reduce erosion potential. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-107 September 2001 Swanson River Drainage Basin—The Swanson River drains an area of approximately 277 square miles and has an average gradient of four feet per mile. The Swanson River is the largest river in this portion of the Kenai Peninsula and supports significant runs of sockeye, coho, and pink salmon. Allowing recovery of low-growing vegetation within the cleared right-of-way would minimize increased erosion within the Swanson River drainage basin. Scaup, Otter, Seven Egg, and Miller Creeks—This group of small streams drain drainage basins of 19, 20, 42, and 11 square miles, respectively. Gradients for these streams are 37, 20, 15, and 26 feet per mile, respectively. All of these streams are higher gradient waterways than the Swanson River. Otter and Seven Egg creeks support runs of coho salmon, but little is known about the size or timing of the runs. The numbers of fish in these systems would be expected to reflect the small size of the drainage basins. Miller Creek and Scaup Creek are not known to support runs of salmon. Right-of-way clearing and maintenance may result in increased erosion in these drainage basins. Selective clearing within 200 feet of the streams, winter construction, and allowing low-growing vegetation to persist in the cleared right-of-way would minimize these impacts. Enstar Route Soldotna North - Route Option E North Moose River Drainage Basin—This is the largest tributary of the Kenai River, draining an area of approximately 250 miles” within the KNWR. The Moose River is a low gradient stream with an average gradient of five feet per mile. It originates in the Kenai Lowlands and receives water from tributaries that originate in the Kenai Mountains including the East Fork Moose River, Seven Lakes, and three unnamed streams each of which are crossed by the Enstar alternative (Route Option F). The Moose River and its tributaries support fairly substantial runs of sockeye and coho salmon with lesser presence of chinook and pink salmon. Impacts on the Moose River drainage basin are more likely to be significant along higher gradient tributaries that have their headwaters in the Mystery Hills of the Kenai Mountains, such as the East Fork of the Moose River. Erosion potential is greater on upland sites compared with lowland sites. Winter construction and maintenance along high-gradient tributaries, allowing recovery of low- growing right-of-way vegetation, and selective clearing within 200 feet of streams would reduce erosion potential. Residual impacts on the Moose River drainage basin are likely to be non- significant if these mitigation recommendations are applied. Soldotna Creek Drainage Basin—This small creek drains a series of lakes and wetlands northeast of the city of Soldotna. The creek ultimately drains into the Moose River and may support very minor runs of anadromous fish. There are no streamflow or gradient data for Soldotna Creek. As Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-108 September 2001 with other small streams, leaving a buffer of vegetation along the creek and allowing recovery of vegetation in the cleared right-of-way would likely result in non-significant residual impacts on the Soldotna Creek drainage basin. Soldotna South - Route Option E South (Applicant’s Proposal) Kenai River—The Kenai River receives its discharge waters from the snowfields and glaciers of the Kenai Mountains. The river drains an area of 2,010 miles” and has peak flows in summertime as a result of intense snowmelt in the mountains. Construction of the proposed Project would not likely have a significant effect on the Kenai River drainage basin. Winter construction in wet areas adjacent to the river would minimize erosion associated with construction and maintenance activities. The addition of small amounts of soil and silt to the river are likely to have little effect due to its size and normally turbid condition. Funny River Drainage Basin—The Funny River is a non-glacial tributary of the Kenai River that originates in the Kenai Mountains, drains an area of approximately 127 miles”, and is partially in the KNWR. The Funny River is a fairly steep gradient stream with an average gradient of 113 feet per mile. Winter construction, allowing recovery of low-growing right-of-way vegetation, and selective clearing within 200 feet of the stream would reduce erosion potential. Residual impacts on the Funny River drainage basin are likely to be non-significant if these mitigation recommendations are applied. Enstar to Chickaloon Bay - Route Option F A number of streams that drain the northeast Kenai Lowlands and the western Kenai Mountains empty into the Chickaloon River or Chickaloon Bay. The streams involved include the Chickaloon River and six of its tributaries (Mystery Creek and five unnamed creeks), Big and Little Indian creeks, and Burnt Island Creek, all at least partly in the KNWR. Chickaloon River Drainage Basin—This is the third largest drainage basin on the KNWR with a total area of approximately 308 miles”. Headwaters include marshes and lakes in the eastern Kenai Lowlands and small streams draining the western slopes of the Kenai Mountains. The Chickaloon River has an average gradient of 4.7 feet per mile. However, many of the tributaries draining the Kenai Mountains have much greater gradients, probably up to more than 200 feet per mile. The Chickaloon River and its tributaries function as spawning and rearing habitat for salmon including an estimated 3,000 sockeye; 5,000 coho; thousands of pink; and an estimated 100,000 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-109 September 2001 king or chinook salmon annually. The river and its tributaries also host 4,000 to 6,000 Dolly Varden each year. Winter construction, allowing recovery of low-growing right-of-way vegetation, and selective clearing within 200 feet of streams would reduce erosion potential. Residual impacts on the Chickaloon River drainage basin are likely to be non-significant to potentially significant if these mitigation recommendations are applied. Long-term, aggressive maintenance of the right-of-way on hills or slopes adjacent to streams could result in an elevated level of long-term residual impact. Big and Little Indian Creek Drainage Basins—The drainage basin areas of Big and Little Indian creeks are 58 and 16 square miles, respectively. The stream gradient of Big Indian Creek is 31 feet per mile, compared with 346 feet per mile for Little Indian Creek. Both creeks support small runs of chinook salmon. Winter construction, allowing recovery of low-growing right-of-way vegetation, and selective clearing within 200 feet of streams would reduce erosion potential. Because of the steepness of the terrain and removal of overstory vegetation throughout the proposed right-of-way, significant erosion potential may persist following construction. Burnt Island Creek Drainage Basin—This is a small drainage basin adjacent to Little Indian Creek. Burnt Island Creek is not a designated anadromous fish stream and there are no hydrologic data available for it. Winter construction, allowing recovery of low-growing right-of-way vegetation, and selective clearing within 200 feet of streams would reduce erosion potential. Because of the steepness of the terrain and removal of overstory vegetation throughout the proposed right-of-way, significant erosion potential may persist following construction. All three Anchorage Enstar Routes cross Campbell Creek. Campbell Creek Drainage Basin Campbell Creek drains hillsides and upper slopes of the Chugach Mountains. The 74-square- mile drainage basin is forested at lower elevations and is characterized by tundra at elevations above 1,500 feet. Upper elevation stream gradients are steep (about 260 feet per mile), while lower elevation gradients are approximately 160 feet per mile. Campbell Creek supports a small run of anadromous fish. Given the relatively urban nature of alternative crossings of Campbell Creek and the fact that little to no right-of-way clearing will be associated with construction within the Municipality of Anchorage, spanning the creek should result in non-significant residual impacts. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-110 September 2001 3.5.9 Marine Environment Affected Environment Lower Trophic Level Turnagain Arm in Upper Cook Inlet is a large tidal estuary that experiences a great degree of physical stress (ADF&G 1990). Turnagain Arm is a relatively unproductive marine environment compared to other areas in Cook Inlet, such as Kachemack Bay, which is characterized by a highly diverse flora and fauna. The paucity of resident marine organisms found in Upper Cook Inlet is primarily because of low primary productivity, widely fluctuating water temperatures and salinities, glacial silt, high turbidity, and ice scour of the bottom and inter-tidal sediments (ADF&G 1990). The primary source of organic carbon for upper Cook Inlet appears to be the large quantities of terrestrial organic material discharged into the inlet from the area’s many rivers, streams, and marshes (Dames & Moore 1983). Marine invertebrates that occur in very low densities include inter-tidal marine infaunal invertebrates (living in the sediment) such as clams (Mya arenaria), Baltic macoma (Macoma _ balthica), eastern softshell clam (Mya arenaria), heart cockle (Clinocardium nuttalii), periwinkle snails (Littorina spp.), and five species of polychaetes (Bakus et al. 1979). Epifaunal invertebrates (living above the bottom) are the dominant marine invertebrates in the Upper Cook Inlet and include gammarid amphipods or sand fleas (Eogammarus confervicolous), sand shrimp (Crangon spp.), and a small mysid (Mysis spp.; a shrimp-like crustacean) (Bakus et al. 1979; Dames & Moore 1983). Marine Fish Marine fish within upper Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm are important food sources for both birds and marine mammals. Saffron cod (Eleginus gracilis) and Bering cisco (Coregonus laurettae) appear to be relatively abundant in upper Cook Inlet (Table 3-9) (Dames & Moore 1983). Both the saffron cod and Bering cisco appear to spawn in streams in the fall and return to the inlet for the remainder of the year. Upper Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm also are used as seasonal migration routes for large numbers of anadromous salmonids, both out-migrating juveniles and returning adults. Out-migrating juvenile salmon appear to be present in upper Cook Inlet during May through June (Dames & Moore 1983) and returning adult salmon from approximately mid-May until August. Marine Mammals Four species of marine mammal frequent the waters of the Upper Cook Inlet on a seasonal basis: the harbor seal, beluga whale, killer whale, and Steller sea lion (Table 3-10). Harbor seals may be found in small numbers in Turnagain Arm during the summer months when salmon are present. No specific concentration areas for seals have been identified by the NOAA or ADF&G within the study area (ADF&G 1976), although they are often seen hauled out on the flats at Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-111 September 2001 Chickaloon Bay during low tide. KNWR staff have observed approximately 20 to 30 seals at a time in Chickaloon Bay (Bailey 1999). Due to recent declines in harbor seal populations, the State of Alaska has designated this seal a Species of Special Concern (ADF&G et al. 1994). TABLE 3-9 FISH SPECIES OF MARINE ENVIRONMENTS Category Common Name Scientific Name Anadromous Fish Arctic Lamprey Lampetra japonica Pacific Lamprey Entosphenus tridentatus Bering Cisco Coregonus laurettae Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Coho Salmon O. kisutch Pink Salmon O. gorbuscha Chum Salmon O. keta Sockeye Salmon O. nerka Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma Eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus Longfin Smelt Spirinchus thaleichthys Threespine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Ninespine Stickleback Pungitius pungitius Marine Fish Pacific Herring Clupea harengus pallasi Saffron Cod Eleginus gracilis Capelin Mallotus villosus Yellowfin Sole Limanda aspera Pacific Staghorn Sculpin Leptocottus armatus Pacific Sandfish Trichodon trichodon Snailfish Liparis rutteri Pacific Halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis Starry Flounder Platichthys stellatus Lemon or English Sole Parophrys vetueus TABLE 3-10 MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES Common Name Scientific Name Harbor Seal Phoca vitulina Beluga Whale Delphinapterus leucas Killer Whale Orcinus orca Steller Sea Lion Eumetopias jubatus Beluga whales in Cook Inlet appear to be a small, geographically isolated population separated from the populations in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas and the Arctic Ocean (Caulkins 1989; Klinkart 1966; Morris 1992). The beluga whale is included on the state’s list of species of special concern. Belugas are mainly found in the inter-tidal and nearshore areas of Turnagain and Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-112 September 2001 Knik Arms near Anchorage. The distribution of beluga whale habitat is shown on Figure MV-17 (Volume II). These areas provide food sources and also may be used for calving or epidermal molt (Morris 1992). Concentrations occur primarily in the early spring to late fall (March through November) usually at the mouths of rivers (Mahoney, personal communication, 1998). During this time, beluga whales frequent the waters of Turnagain Arm as they feed on smelt and adult salmon (Mahoney, personal communication, 1998). Beluga whales are not known to be present in the Upper Inlet from December through February. Beluga calving areas in Cook Inlet have not been identified, but it is now believed that calving may occur in May and June, particularly in estuaries such as Chickaloon Bay (Mahoney, personal communication, 1998; NOAA 2000). Improvements in survey techniques for beluga whales and development of a correction factor for estimating population sizes have recently revealed a dramatic decline in numbers of beluga whales in Cook Inlet. Between 1994 and 1998, population estimates decreased from 650 to 350 beluga whales (Mahoney, personal communication, 1998). Abundance estimates in 1999 and 2000 were 357 and 435 whales, respectively (NOAA 2000). Most of the nearshore oil and gas lease tracts in the Chickaloon Bay have been removed from lease sale based on concern for the beluga population. In April 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announced that it had received petitions to list the Cook Inlet population of beluga whales under the ESA and to designate the population as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. NMFS determined that an ESA listing was not warranted (64 FR 38778) but designated the population as depleted on May 31, 2000 (65 FR 34590). Subsistence harvest has been identified as the most likely cause of the decline in the Cook Inlet stock of beluga whales. No other activities can be directly linked to the population decline, and NMFS concluded that the cumulative impacts from activities other than subsistence harvest are minimal. NMFS has proposed to conserve this beluga whale population in part by regulating subsistence harvest (NOAA 2000). Subsistence hunting of beluga whales in Cook Inlet is currently prohibited unless through a cooperative agreement with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Under this agreement, the harvest of one Cook Inlet beluga whale would have been allowed in 2000. No whales were harvested, however (NOAA 2000). Although infrequent, killer whales occur in the waters of the upper inlet in small pods feeding on beluga whales (Morris 1992). No concentration areas have been identified. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Marine Mammals Information on sensitivity of marine mammals to utility developments is limited; however, potential impacts on marine mammals resulting from placement of a submarine cable include noise disturbance, changes in water quality from trenching, and potential release of insulating fluid in the event of a submarine cable break. Beluga whales and harbor seals are not expected to Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-113 September 2001 collide or otherwise come into contact with submarine cables during installation because both species are likely to avoid the area while cable is being installed. Once in place, the cable will lie on or beneath the sea floor. In the event of cable breakage or displacement, marine mammals could be temporarily disturbed by repair activities. Construction on shoreline areas, as well as installation of submarine cable, could result in minor disturbance to marine mammals in the Turnagain Arm. Because sound travels long distances under water and many marine mammals use acoustic cues for communication, navigation, and locating prey, changes in the acoustic environment can be potentially significant (Hazard 1988). Reactions to noise disturbance could include cessation of resting, feeding, or social interactions; increased ‘alertness (in pinnipeds); changes in surfacing, respiration, or diving cycles (in cetaceans); and onset of avoidance. Responsiveness to man-made noise disturbance varies widely, even within a species. Marine mammals have been observed to continue their normal activities in the presence of high levels of man-made noise and also have been observed to exhibit avoidance of much lower levels of noise. Because marine mammals cope with disruption of activities by predators, bad weather, unusual ice conditions, and other natural phenomena, it is assumed that they can also tolerate occasional brief periods of man-induced disturbance, e.g., by a single passing ship or aircraft (Richardson et al. 1995). Beluga whales in Cook Inlet seasonally move close to areas of routine noise from heavy small boat traffic, oil and gas activity, recreation, transport, and commercial fishing. They temporarily avoid areas of sudden noise-level change (McCarty 1981). Therefore, the whales likely would avoid the immediate vicinity of the cable-laying vessel. Such avoidance could impact calving activities in Chickaloon Bay. Disturbance to beluga whales during calving season in Chickaloon Bay would be considered an adverse impact and significant at every level due to the concern for the Cook Inlet population of beluga whales and their designation as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Impacts on whales during calving would be avoided by not installing submarine cable between mid-June and mid-July. Beluga whales normally occupy turbid waters of Turnagain Arm and upper Cook Inlet and are, therefore, not likely to be significantly impacted by increased turbidity from dredging. The effects of small ongoing leaks of insulating fluid on beluga whales are unknown. The insulating fluid is non-toxic and readily biodegradable. No hazardous constituents have been identified in the fluid, and no adverse effects to marine life have been documented from previous discharges of laboratory tests (CEA 1996d). The insulating fluid used by CEA is manufactured by Shell Chemical Inc. as Dobane 80 and marketed by Pirelli as Voltoil 10L. The fluid is extremely light, has good evaporation characteristics, and closely resembles water in texture and physical appearance. Due to the small discharge, vigorous currents, bed load, and large volume of well- mixed receiving waters, and compared to other local oil and grease discharges, concentrations of cable fluid would be almost non-detectable (CEA 1989). Construction in shoreline areas at Chickaloon Bay is not expected to result in disturbance to harbor seals hauled out on the flats during low tide due to the distance between the construction area and the haul-out area. Construction activities associated with the Enstar marine crossing Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-114 September 2001 may temporarily displace seals hauled out at Chickaloon Flats. The Tesoro marine crossing may result in minor disturbance to individual seals at Pt. Possession. 3.5.10 Alternatives No-Action Alternative The no-action alternative would have no impacts to marine environments. Tesoro Route Bernice Lake to Pt. Possession - Route Option A This route is entirely on land. Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof via Fire Island - Route Option B Beluga—The route crosses beluga whale concentration areas for 7.4 miles. These areas are north of Pt. Possession and between Fire Island and Pt. Woronzof. Noise disturbance during installation of submarine cable could temporarily displace beluga whales in the immediate vicinity of the cable-laying vessel; however, disturbance would not affect suspected areas of calving activities. Impacts on beluga whales from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Harbor Seal—Individual harbor seals near Pt. Possession may be temporarily disturbed by construction activities. Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof (aquatic route) - Route Option C Beluga—This route passes through beluga whale concentration areas for approximately 12 miles. These areas are east of Pt. Possession and south of Pt. Woronzof. Beluga whales use these areas from spring through the fall. Noise disturbance during installation of submarine cable could temporarily displace beluga whales in the immediate vicinity of the route; however, disturbance would not affect suspected areas of calving activities. Impacts on beluga whales from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Harbor Seal—Individual harbor seals near Pt. Possession may be temporarily disturbed by construction activities. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-115 September 2001 Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell - Route Option D Beluga—Approximately 8.6 miles of this route pass through beluga whale concentration areas. These areas are east of Pt. Possession and south of Pt. Campbell. Noise disturbance during installation of submarine cable could temporarily displace beluga whales in the immediate vicinity of the cable-laying vessel; however, disturbance would not affect areas of suspected calving activities. Impacts on beluga whales from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Harbor Seal—Individual harbor seals near Pt. Possession may be temporarily disturbed by construction activities. Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof - Route Option N This route is entirely on land. Enstar Route Soldotna North - Route Option E North; Soldotna South - Route Option E South (Applicant’s Proposal); and Enstar to Chickaloon Bay - Route Option F (Applicant’s Proposal) are entirely on land. Chickaloon Bay to Klatt Road - Route Option G Beluga—This route passes through 7.9 miles of beluga whale concentration areas in Chickaloon Bay and south of Anchorage. During high water, belugas can also utilize relatively shallow intertidal areas at either end of the route for feeding. The Chickaloon Bay may be an important calving area for beluga whales. Installing submarine cable after mid-June would avoid disturbance to beluga whale calving. Disturbance could temporarily displace beluga whales in the immediate vicinity of the route. Harbor Seal—Construction activities associated with this marine crossing may temporarily displace seals hauled out at Chickaloon Flats. Chickaloon Bay to Oceanview Park - Route Option H (Applicant’s Proposal) This route passes through 7 miles of beluga whale concentration areas. These areas are in Chickaloon Bay and south of Anchorage. During high water, belugas can also utilize relatively shallow intertidal areas for feeding and can be seen throughout the estuarine waters of Turnagain Arm. The Chickaloon Bay may be an important calving area for beluga whales. Installing Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-116 September 2001 submarine cable after mid-June would avoid disturbance to beluga whale calving. Disturbance _ could temporarily displace beluga whales in the immediate vicinity of the route. Harbor Seal—Construction activities associated with this marine crossing may temporarily displace seals hauled out at Chickaloon Flats. Chickaloon Bay to Rabbit Creek - Route Option I This route passes through approximately 12 miles of beluga whale concentration areas. These areas are in Chickaloon Bay and south of Anchorage. During high water, belugas can also utilize relatively shallow intertidal areas for feeding and can be seen throughout the estuarine waters of Turnagain Arm. The Chickaloon Bay may be an important calving area for beluga whales. Installing submarine cable after mid-June would avoid disturbance to beluga whale calving. Disturbance could temporarily displace beluga whales in the immediate vicinity of the route. Harbor Seal—Construction activities associated with this marine crossing may temporarily displace seals hauled out at Chickaloon Flats. Route Options J, K (Applicant’s Proposal), and M are all entirely on land. 3.5.11 Threatened and Endangered Species Affected Environment Steller Sea Lion The Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) is federally listed as endangered and threatened, dependent on the stock, and appears on Alaska’s list of species of special concern. The western stock was listed as endangered in 1997 (62 FR 30772, June 5, 1997) for the area west of Cape Suckling in the eastern Gulf of Alaska. The eastern stock, which is the stock to the east of Cape Suckling, remains listed as threatened (SS FR 49204, November 26, 1990). The Steller sea lion is a year-round resident of Lower Cook Inlet, but rarely ventures into the turbid waters of Upper Cook Inlet, although there are irregular sightings off Anchorage (Bailey, personal communication, 1997). The nearest haulout site to the Project is West Forelands on the western side of Cook Inlet near Trading Bay. There are no documented haulouts in Turnagain Arm or on Fire Island. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Placement of a submarine cable is not expected to affect Steller sea lions. The species rarely ventures into turbid waters of the Upper Cook Inlet and would not likely be in the vicinity of Southern Intertie Project DEIS. Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources B17 September 2001 cable installation. No significant impacts have been identified for the Steller sea lion as a result of the Project. 3.5.12 Impact Summary Kenai Lowlands Among the route options in the Kenai Lowlands, Route Option A, the Tesoro pipeline route, is clearly preferred with respect to most biological resources. Impacts related to increased human access would be greater on the Enstar alternatives. The Tesoro and Enstar alternatives both involve potential increased human access on the northern portion of the alternatives. Increased human access is particularly a concern for brown bear, wolf, and lynx. The distance for which access would be significantly improved is greater on the Enstar alternatives. Resources for brown bears are generally higher quality on the Enstar alternatives due to relatively low human disturbance and resource availability within this portion of the KNWR. Brown bears are also more likely to cross the Enstar Route as they seasonally move from mountains to lowlands, whereas brown bears are less likely to occur near the coast on the Tesoro alternative. Increased human access is considered to be a significant impact associated with Route Option F (Applicant’s Proposal), although access is controlled by the KNWR, leading to an opportunity to mitigate the impact. The cumulative effect of injecting an expanded right-of-way and electrical transmission line into the area traversed by the Enstar pipeline would be significant given that the foreseeable future status of the route would be no development under USFWS management. Although the Tesoro alternative is preferred for most biological resources, portions of the Enstar Route including Route Option E South/F (Applicant’s Proposal) would present the least amount of collision hazard for trumpeter swans and other waterfowl, due to the fewer number of lakes in proximity to the route. Route Option E South (Applicant’s Proposal)/F (Applicant’s Proposal) avoids collision hazard at the Moose River, an important concentration and staging area for waterfowl. Route Option E South (Applicant’s Proposal)/F (Applicant’s Proposal) involves clearing less acreage of high quality moose winter range (moderate to super high abundance) and black bear foraging (devil’s club) habitat than Route Option E North/F (Applicant’s Proposal). Turnagain Arm Overall, the marine crossings associated with the Tesoro alternative would be preferred to those associated with the Enstar alternative. Although waterfowl concentration and staging areas, black bear spring feeding areas, and sensitive beluga whale concentration areas at Chickaloon Bay are present, they can be mitigated. The Tesoro alternatives are preferred because they would avoid these areas. Impacts on the marine environment are expected to be similar and not significant on all of the marine crossings associated with the Tesoro alternative. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-118 September 2001 Anchorage Area From a biological resources perspective, Route Option N (Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof) is the least desirable of the Anchorage area alternatives. Route Option N involves some habitat loss and disturbance to various wildlife species that may occur in Kincaid Park, including bald eagle, lynx, black bear, and moose. Among the remaining Anchorage alternatives, the Old Seward Highway/International Road routes are least preferred. The Old Seward Highway/International Road routes would require selection of the least preferred marine crossing (Route Option I). The best scenario for biological resources in the Anchorage area would be selection of Route Option C (Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof) as the marine crossing, which would avoid any adverse impacts in the Anchorage area. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.5 - Biological Resources 3-119 September 2001 3.6 - LAND USE AND RECREATION 3.6 LAND USE AND RECREATION This section summarizes the land use inventory and assessment for the project. The inventory includes general descriptions of land jurisdiction and management plans and existing and planned land use for the study area. Following the general discussions is a detailed analysis of each alternative route including a discussion on the affected environment and the environmental consequences for each route. The methods of the land use study are provided in Volume II, Appendix C. 3.6.1 Land Jurisdiction and Management Plans The jurisdiction map (see Volume II, Figure MV-18) depicts the lands administered by federal, state, and local agencies; Native corporations; and lands privately owned. Although inholdings, lease agreements, joint ownership, cooperative agreements, etc. may be present in the study area, they are not depicted on the map. Based on digital geographic information system (GIS) information provided by the municipality of Anchorage and the KPB, the following categories of land jurisdiction and land uses were identified and mapped on Figures MV-18 through MV-21 (Volume II): = Federal - Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service = State Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Lands Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Alaska Railroad Corporation = Boroughs/Municipalities - Municipality of Anchorage - Kenai Peninsula Borough = Native Corporations - Cook Inlet Regional Corporation - Pt. Possession Group Salamatof Natives Association Kenai Natives Association Tyonek Native Corporation = Private lands Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-120 September 2001 The following is a brief description of some of the jurisdiction categories identified and the direction given by their management plans. Recreational purposes are also identified for jurisdictions as applicable. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The USFWS administers the KNWR. Established to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity, the KNWR also encompasses recreational, educational, water quality, wilderness, and scientific values. Two geographically separated sections of the Kenai wilderness are located within the KNWR, along with the designated Skilak Wildlife Recreation Area and additional special management areas. Section 303.4 of ANILCA sets forth the following major purposes for which the Kenai Refuge was established and is to be managed including: “. .. (i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but not limited to moose, bear, mountain goats, Dall sheep, wolves and other furbearers, salmonoids and other fish, waterfowl and other migratory and nonmigratory birds; (ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats; (iii) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the purposes set forth in paragraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge; (iv) to provide in a manner consistent with subparagraphs (i) and (ii), opportunities for scientific research, interpretation, environmental education, and land management training; and (v) to provide, in a manner compatible with these purposes, opportunities for fish and wildlife-oriented recreation.” The purposes of Kenai Refuge, as stated in ANILCA, are unique among the 16 refuges in Alaska in two aspects. First, Kenai is the only refuge for which opportunities for compatible fish and wildlife-oriented recreation is a major purpose. Second, Kenai is the only refuge for which provision of subsistence use opportunities is not a major purpose. The original KNWR boundary encompassed 2,058,000 acres. In 1964, settled lands in the vicinity of Sterling, Soldotna, and Kenai, and a strip of land along the shore of the Cook Inlet, about 500 miles” in all, were removed from the refuge to exclude these privately developed areas. This was accomplished to provide a future corridor for transportation and utility system development, and development in general, on the Kenai Peninsula. These exclusions reduced the size of the KNWR to approximately 1.73 million acres. In 1980, the ANILCA expanded the refuge to its present size of 2,007,262 acres, designated 1.35 million acres wilderness, and established the current boundary (KNWR 1985b). Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-121 September 2001 Recreation opportunities in the KNWR include the salmon fishery of the Kenai River and its tributaries; waterfowl hunting in the Chickaloon Bay area; or canoe system on the Swanson River, Moose River, and Swan Lake area; and Skilak Lake Wildlife Recreation Area, which provides an opportunity for education and interpretation of wildlife and recreation on the refuge. Because of its proximity to the Anchorage Bowl, the KNWR supports more recreational use than any other refuge in Alaska (KNWR 1985b). Recreation activities allowed on the KNWR are based on the management categories discussed in the KNWR Management Plan. Developed recreation includes campgrounds, interpretive sites, fishing sites, hiking trails, and scenic overlooks. Dispersed recreation uses include aerial flights for sightseeing, hiking, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, dog mushing, boating, fishing, trapping, canoeing, and hunting. Seasonal moose and water-fowl hunting occur in the Pipeline Lowlands and Chickaloon Flats areas. The Mystery Creek Road is typically open to snowmobile use from December | to April 30, depending on whether there is sufficient snow depth. The KNWR experiences heavy fishing pressure during salmon runs on the Russian and Kenai rivers. All commercial and special use activities including but not limited to outfitting, guiding, collecting of firewood, camping, and air taxi services are permitted by special-use permit on the KNWR. Sixty-six outfitter/guide operations are located within the study corridors (Johnston 1997a). KNWR Comprehensive Management Plan Management of the KNWR is governed by the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (KNWR 1985b) and related laws and statutes such as National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and ANILCA. The discussion below identifies management prescriptions and land classifications present on the refuge. There are five roadless areas or wilderness review units on the KNWR within the study area— Two Indians, Pipeline Lowland, Chickaloon, Moose River/Mystery Creek, and Skilak Loop/Lake. (The 1985 Comprehensive Conservation Plan specified wilderness review units different than the 1988 Wilderness Proposal Final EIS. For purposes of discussion here, the units from the 1988 study are used.) The roadless areas are part of a wilderness review conducted in 1981 and updated in 1988 in response to the requirements of ANILCA. This review indicated that most lands on the refuge meet the criteria of wilderness according to the Wilderness Act of 1964 and, if planned management does not preclude designation, they could be added to the National Wilderness Preservation System. These areas are currently managed within the minimal, moderate, and traditional management classifications as shown on Figure MV-22 (Volume II). As stated in the 1988 Final EIS, the fact that the pipelines are in place does not eliminate these units from wilderness consideration. In fact, the preferred alternative designates the northern portion of the Enstar pipeline right-of-way as recommended for future wilderness designation by Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-122 September 2001 the USFWS. The Tesoro pipeline at Pt. Possession used to be within designated wilderness until that area was conveyed to a Native Corporation. The 1988 Final EIS proposed that the wilderness review units be designated as Wilderness by Congress. The designation of additional wilderness areas on the KNWR is pending. A goal of the USFWS’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the KNWR includes a desire to acquire inholdings within the refuge while maintaining a balance of indigenous wildlife and natural processes. The plan also stresses protection of the Chickaloon Flats as one of the major reasons for extending the northeastern boundary of the refuge, in addition to the reconfiguration according to the ANILCA. The plan notes that the KNWR has more roads and trails than any other refuge in Alaska. Oil and gas exploration and development are still considered active within the KNWR. Management categories on the KNWR were developed as a method for designating areas of the refuge with different resources and uses. The Project alternatives are located within a moderate and minimal management area along the Enstar pipeline corridor. Moderate management was established along the pipeline corridor and access trail in recognition of future use by hunters and recreators utilizing motorized equipment. Although off-road travel is prohibited within the KNWR during summer, refuge managers acknowledge that this corridor would receive disproportionately higher use during the hunting season versus other access areas on the northern portion of the refuge. Minimal management was established to maintain the pristine conditions of areas that have important fish, wildlife, and wilderness values. Lands in this category represent USFWS recommendations for future wilderness designation. Other step-down plans, which guide the management of the KNWR, include: Land Protection Plan Fire Management Plan Wolf Management Operational Plan Furbearer Management Plan Fishery Management Plan Moose/Habitat Management Plan Kenai Peninsula Caribou Management Plan Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan Fire Management Plan The KNWR uses prescribed and naturally occurring fires to manipulate habitat for certain key species, most notably moose. According to the 1985 KNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan, major fires of unknown origin occurred on the refuge in 1871, 1883, 1891, and 1910, and two human-caused fires in 1947 and 1969 (KNWR 1985a). As a result, areas of mature spruce forests were replaced by a mosaic of brush and early successional species that improved habitat for numerous species including moose. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-123 September 2001 Another purpose of prescribed burning within the refuge is to provide necessary fuel breaks for populated/developed areas while enhancing habitat for moose and other wildlife. Fire management direction is based on the following four management plans: Alaska Wildland Fire Management Plan, amended March 1998 Alaska Interagency Fire Management Plan, Kenai Peninsula Planning Area, April 1984 KNWR Fire Management Plan, revised February 1988 Prescribed Burn Plan, KNWR, Mystery Creek III Prescribed Burn, 1996 Each plan relates specifically to the KNWR at different levels. Both the Alaska Wildland Fire Management Plan and the Alaska Interagency Fire Management Plan have a broad scope and define general levels of suppression activities related to management goals, wildlife, scenery, and human development, while the KNWR and Mystery Creek plans are specific to the refuge. Route Options E and F (Applicant’s Proposal) along the Enstar pipeline corridor intersect the Mystery Creek burn unit and three fire suppression designations—full protection management option, modified action management option, and limited action management option. From the refuge boundary in Sterling to the east fork of the Moose River, full protection lands are crossed for 9 miles. From the east fork of Moose River to Mystery Creek Road, modified action lands are crossed for 3 miles. From the Mystery Creek Road intersection with the pipelines to Chickaloon Flats (26 miles), the pipelines serve as a boundary between modified and limited action. Land Protection Plan The goal of the KNWR Land Protection Plan is to preserve high quality habitat found on and in the vicinity of private lands within the KNWR. The plan identifies where private lands are located, what resources need protection, what methods of resource protection exist, what are priorities for resource protection, and recommendations and methods of implementation. Private inholdings within the refuge potentially affected by the Project include lands conveyed to Pt. Possession Inc. (now with private developer interest attached), Salamatof, and Kenai Natives Association. The Plan identifies Pt. Possession lands along Route Option A (Bernice Lake to Pt. Possession) as a low and medium ranking of importance according to the Alaska Priority System (APS). The APS model is based on the mission of the USFWS and management concerns of each individual refuge. The APS model uses the following seven criteria to rank land and resources: endangered species migratory birds diversity of wetlands diversity of uplands marine mammals resident refuge purpose species fisheries NAWVEYNS Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-124 September 2001 According to the KNWR Land Protection Plan, the probability of development at Pt. Possession is rated as medium (the USFWS does not have right of first refusal on this property). Significant concerns include disturbance to trumpeter swans on Diamond Lake; the property also is formerly part of the Kenai Wilderness Area. APS ranking for the Salamatof lands along Route Option E, Spirit Lake Tract, is high with a high probability of development noted. The parcel includes existing cabins and a road. Title 22(g) does not apply, thereby removing limitations on development. Significant areas of concern include high-density moose wintering and trumpeter swan nesting areas, lynx, coyote, and wolf denning areas. Alaska Department of Natural Resources The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manages Alaska’s land, water, and surface and subsurface resources for both development and conservation. Two divisional branches of the DNR are present within the study corridors. The first branch, Division of Lands, is responsible for acquisition, surface use, sale, development, conservation, and protection of the state’s land. State lands within the corridors are generally designated as public recreation land, settlement, or general use lands. The second branch, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, was created in 1970 and was developed to manage the Alaska state park system, and provide grants and assistance for recreation and historic preservation. This division alone operates 130 parks, recreation areas, and historic sites in the Alaska state park system and contains 3.3 million acres. State parks in the study area include the Captain Cook SRA, Morgan’s Landing SRA, Bing’s Landing State Recreation Site (SRS), Scout Lake SRS, Izaak Walton SRS, Funny River Campground SRS, Nilnunqua State Historic Site (SHS) and Honeymoon Cove SRS. The Kenai River Special Management Area (SMA) also is a unit of the state park system. Captain Cook SRA is on the western edge of the Kenai Peninsula and was established in 1971 to provide a variety of recreational opportunities including hiking, fishing, boating, camping, scenic viewing, and the pullout point for the Swanson River Canoe Route (a National Recreation Trail). The Bishop Creek Campground has 12 camping sites and the Discovery Campground has 53 sites. Proposed recreation facilities include two public use cabins on the southeast side of Stormy Lake, and a camp shelter at Discovery Campground. The 3,466-acre park was funded with assistance from the LWCFA, which was used to purchase facilities within the park. The LWCFA is administered by the NPS. Section 6(F)(3) of the act 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. Funny River SRS is located at river Milepost 30 along the Kenai River. The northernmost portion of the 336-acre site is used for picnicking. The southern half of the site is to be retained as a general habitat area with no new developments. The addition of an adjacent parcel to the Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-125 September 2001 existing site is under consideration. This transfer would be with the KPB and would occur within the next 10 years. Bing’s Landing SRS is a 130-acre parcel with boat launch facilities and includes a 30-site campground, river front trail, and picnic area. The campground facilities are located south of Sterling Highway near the middle of the park and include camping sites and associated facilities. Honeymoon Cove SRS, Scout Lake SRS, Izaak Walton SRS, Nilnunga SHS, and Morgan’s Landing SRA are within the study corridors but are not directly crossed by the alternative routes. The Kenai River SMA was established in 1984 to recognize the importance of the Kenai River and its fish and wildlife resources. The SMA is one of the highest use areas within the state park system. Typical activities include fishing, hiking, and sightseeing. The Kenai River SMA includes the tributaries and lakes within the Kenai River drainage basin between Kenai Lake and the Cook Inlet. The SRAs and SRSs such as Honeymoon Cove, Scout Lake, Bing’s Landing, Izaak Walton, Nilnunga, Funny River, and Morgan’s Landing are a part of the Kenai River SMA. Alaska Department of Natural Resources Management Plan Management prescriptions for state lands in the Turnagain Arm area are determined in the Turnagain Arm Management Plan. The Turnagain Arm planning area includes approximately 23,000 acres of state-owned and state-selected lands and approximately 25,000 acres of state- owned tidelands (DNR 1994b). Only the tidelands in west Turnagain Arm Management Unit | near Potter would be affected by the alternative routes. Management emphasis here is focused on protecting scenic values, offering recreation opportunities, and maintaining and enhancing wildlife habitat. The Cook Inlet areawide oil and gas lease sale is managed by the Division of Oil and Gas. The lease sale areas potentially affected within the study area include portions of Turnagain Arm. The lease sale phase only authorizes the transfer of mineral interests. There are no site-specific decisions made in regards to future development activities. Those activities will be subject to independent permitting requirements. Management prescriptions for state lands on the Kenai Peninsula are identified in the Draft Kenai Area Plan (DNR 1998). The plan identifies goals and guidelines for management of lands within the KPB. State lands in this part of the study area are mainly along the western coast of the peninsula and in the Soldotna and Sterling areas. These lands are designated as general use, settlement, resource management, or public recreation lands. Public recreation lands are managed for a variety of public uses such as camping, hunting and fishing, or as additions to the state park system. KPB has selected several of these state parcels for conveyance. The Chickaloon Flats management area is managed by a cooperative agreement signed by the DNR, ADF&G, and KNWR. The agreement called for ADF&G to develop a management plan Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-126 September 2001 by 1973, but this was never done. In 1989 ADF&G drafted a revised management agreement, but this was not signed by all parties. The draft agreement called for the DNR to classify lands in the area as fish and wildlife habitat, and manage them to protect shorebirds, marine mammals, waterfowl, and other wildlife habitat and public recreation through the Kenai Area Plan (DNR 1998). Units of the state park system in the study area are primarily managed by direction from the Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan. This plan identifies general management intent for each park unit. All of the upland areas in the Kenai River SMA are zoned as recreational development, natural, or cultural (DNR 1986). Alaska Department of Fish and Game Management Plan The ADF&G manages, protects, maintains, and improves the fish, game, and aquatic plant resources of Alaska. The ACWR borders the coast from Pt. Woronzof to Potter Marsh (see Volume II, Figure MV-23). The refuge (created in 1988) includes 32,476 acres and the former Potter Point State Game Refuge. The refuge was established to protect natural habitats and game populations, especially waterfowl. The refuge also is used for seasonal recreation activities such as waterfowl hunting (from September | to March 31), cross country skiing, and hiking by residents and visitors to the Anchorage Bowl. Major public access points to the refuge include Pt. Woronzof, Tony Knowles Coastal Trail between Pt. Woronzof and Pt. Campbell, Oceanview Bluff Park, Rabbit Creek Rifle Range, and Potter Marsh. The Potter Marsh Wildlife Viewing Boardwalk is a heavily visited attraction for birdwatching, wildlife viewing, and education. From April to September 1996 approximately 40,000 to 60,000 people visited the boardwalk (Sinnot 1996). The Rabbit Creek Rifle Range is managed by ADF&G and provides shooting ranges and hunter education facilities for Anchorage residents. Planned facilities include expansion of the ranges at the north and south ends of the property. The ADF&G manages ACWR through the ACWR Management Plan. The plan presents goals and policies to determine whether proposed activities within the refuge are compatible with the protection of fish and wildlife, their habitats and public use of the refuge (ADF&G 1991). In 1960, the Alaska State Legislature designated all of the Kenai National Moose Range including land yet to be removed along the coast, as a state game refuge (Alaska Statute 16.20.030 (A)(8)). In 1964 the KNWR boundary was Congressionally changed, removing portions of the refuge from the western coastline. However, the State Legislature never modified their designation of the same lands. The Kenai Area Plan now guides state lands in this area and State Game Refuge Designation is essentially a Defacto Classification. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-127 September 2001 Alaska Railroad Corporation The Alaska Railroad Corporation operates and manages the Alaska Railroad, which the federal government sold to the state in 1985. Potentially affected Alaska Railroad lands are located in Anchorage. Alaska Railroad currently has plans to construct a second railroad line on the east side of the existing tracks. The railroad has planned this track addition to allow for future transmission lines. CEA has begun construction of a line within this corridor from approximately 100" Avenue to Klatt Road. Municipality of Anchorage Management Plan Management direction for the Municipality of Anchorage is derived from the Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan and zoning maps with additional guidance from the Area Wide Trails Plan, Utility Corridor Plan, Transportation Plans, and Coastal Zone Management Plan. On February 20, 2001, the Anchorage Assembly adopted, with amendments, the ANCHORAGE 2020 - Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan. This Plan serves as a guide for community development and identifies the desired patterns of land use. Zoning regulates the use of land and is specific to individual properties and uses. The 1996 Area Wide Trails Plan is a planning and policy document for the development of trails in the municipality of Anchorage. The 1990 Utility Corridor Plan identifies policy and planning guidelines for existing and planned utility systems. The 1982 Coastal Zone Management Plan applies policies to land and water uses and associated activities. Development plans with the City of Anchorage are approved by the Planning and Zoning Department. Currently, there are no approved development plans, which would conflict with the Project alternatives. The municipality of Anchorage has identified certain corridors for planned utilities in the Utility Corridor Plan of 1990. O’Malley Road and Minnesota Drive Extension have been identified as future corridors for new transmission lines. Old Seward Highway is identified as a future transmission line upgrade. The presumed centerline locations of the alternative routes adhere to the guidelines in the plan specifying that lines should be located on the outside edge of an existing road right-of-way, or can be placed within a road right-of-way near the private property line. The planning commission will review route proposals that deviate from the plan in a plan amendment review process. The plan amendment process requires identification of alternatives considered, description of the alternatives, evaluation of environmental, cost, community/land use, and visual impacts of the line. Mitigation for minimizing or eliminating impacts also must be specified. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-128 September 2001 An additional utility corridor in Anchorage is the public right-of-way corridor for surface transportation and utilities established within the ACWR that utilizes state-owned land and water for development of a road, railroad, and utilities. The municipality of Anchorage has a developed parks and recreation program for passive and active recreation activities. Several types of parks exist in the study corridors including school playgrounds, neighborhood parks, community parks, large urban parks, and regional parks. The municipality also has a system of greenbelts and conservation areas that act as buffers between land uses and link recreation resources. A trail system within the greenbelt provides opportunities for walking, hiking, jogging, biking, cross country skiing, and equestrian use (see Volume II, Figure MV-23). The largest park within the study corridors is Kincaid Park. Kincaid Park offers summer and winter recreation trails systems for walking, hiking, jogging, biking, cross-country skiing, dog mushing, and equestrian use. The Tony Knowles Coastal Trail parallels the bluff overlooking Knik Arm and currently terminates at the park’s outdoor center. There is a proposal to extend the trail from Pt. Campbell south to Potter Marsh. A portion of this trail would go through the ACWR (Municipality of Anchorage 1996a, 1998). Other parks in the study corridors include Campbell Creek Greenbelt, Taku Lake Park, Javier De La Vega Park, Pioneer Park, Oceanview Park, and Oceanview Bluff Park. Campbell Creek Greenbelt, Oceanview Bluff Park, and Kincaid Park are crossed by the alternative routes. Kenai Peninsula Borough Management Plan Kenai Peninsula Borough Management Plan direction is provided by the 1992 Comprehensive Plan. A revised plan is currently under development. Management plan direction also comes from the Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program. The program provides policies and guidelines for management of lands and water resources within the coastal zone while maintaining ecological, cultural, historic, and aesthetic values as well as the need for economic development. The coastal zone stretches from the coast up to a 1,000-foot elevation contour boundary. In addition, the KPB is in the process of developing more specific plans that apply to Borough-owned and selected lands. Given that the borough lands located along the coast from Captain Cook SRA to Pt. Possession have been subdivided and a transportation/utility right-of-way has been formerly platted, the Tesoro alternative appears to be consistent with the plan. The transmission line was evaluated along this utility right-of-way; therefore, no land use conflicts are expected with platted parcels. Although the coastal management plans for both the KPB and municipality of Anchorage stress environmental considerations within the coastal zone, neither plan excludes construction and operation of the proposed Project. In locations where the Project is within the coastal zone, it appears that installation of the Project facilities would be consistent with the requirements of the Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-129 September 2001 Anchorage Coastal Management Plan (ACMP). In order to comply with the ACMP, Municipality of Anchorage, KPB, coastal management plans, and recommendations of federal, state and local agencies, the following design considerations have been incorporated into the proposed Project: = Installation methods include boring under the vegetated tidal flats within the ACWR, as recommended by the ADF&G and Municipality of Anchorage. This will minimize ground disturbance, direct effects on local wildlife populations, visual impacts, and disturbance to the bluffs. = Transition stations will be placed inland of the shoreline, thereby minimizing ground disturbance and visual impacts. Based on a review of the coastal management plans, the proposed Project is consistent with the requirements of the local plans and the Federal Coastal Management Act. Proposed roadway projects by the ADOT/PF include a bridge crossing of the Kenai River between Scout Lake Loop Road, on the north side of the river, and Rabbit Run Road, on the south side. Bridge construction is not currently programmed or funded. Widening of the Old Seward Highway from two to five lanes is planned from Huffman to Dowling. North Kenai Road is planned to be extended north from Captain Cook SRA through Grey Cliffs Subdivision within the next six years. The alignment would be within the dedicated road right-of-way. The Sterling Highway is proposed for realignment from Cooper Landing to the Mystery Creek Road area. Exact alignments have not been determined at this time. The environmental documentation for this project is still under development. Native Corporations Alaska Native Corporation conveyed and selected lands are scattered throughout the study area with concentrations occurring along the western edge of the Kenai Peninsula, on Fire Island, and within the KNWR. CIRI, one of 13 Regional Native Corporations established by Congress under ANCSA, holds ownership of both surface and subsurface estate (see Volume II, Figure MV-18). Village corporations, including Salamatof Native Association, Inc., Tyonek Native Corporation, Kenai Native Association, Inc., and Point Possession, Inc., hold title to surface lands only. Certain Native corporation land selection are still pending. Native corporation surface lands conveyed within the KNWR are subject to Section 22(g) of ANCSA, which may affect plans for development of those lands. The majority of these lands remain undeveloped. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-130 September 2001 3.6.2 Land Use This portion of the inventory includes classifications developed to categorize various land uses in the study corridors. Land uses within the Municipality of Anchorage are shown on Figure MV-21 (Volume II). The categories inventoried for existing land use include residential, commercial, industrial, agriculture, extraction, institution, recreation, and communication facilities. Residential development includes multi-family and single-family dwellings, mobile homes, and cabins. Most residential development occurs in Anchorage, Nikiski, Soldotna, and Sterling. Commercial land uses are generally located along major arterial roads throughout Anchorage, along the Sterling Highway, and North Kenai Road. These include retail establishments, offices, and warehouses. Industrial uses are primarily manufacturing facilities, landfills, material processing plants, and oil refineries. In Anchorage, industrial land uses are primarily located along the Alaska Railroad in central and southern Anchorage, and at the International Airport. In other parts of the study area, industrial uses such as processing plants and oil refineries are located near the Bernice Lake Substation in Nikiski. Agricultural uses in the study corridors consist of small farms ranging from 10 to 160 acres. They are typically small, subsistence operations or hay fields that are limited due to the available growing season. The extraction category consists of any major active surface mining operations such as sand and gravel operations or gold mining. There are no known mining claims in the study corridors. Land uses inventoried for the institutional classification include public/quasi-public facilities, churches, cemeteries, schools/educational facilities, and government facilities. Transportation facilities are limited within the overall Project area. Essentially one road serves the Kenai Peninsula and connects it to Anchorage. Items inventoried within the study corridors include primary, secondary, four-wheel drive, and scenic roadways. Airports, airstrips, and float plane lakes also were identified. Primary roads include multi-lane divided and two-lane paved highways with partially controlled access, and major state routes. Primary roads in the study area include Seward Highway, Sterling Highway, and Minnesota Drive Extension. Secondary roads within the study area are two-lane paved state routes, as well as other paved local roads. Secondary roads include the North Kenai Road, Swanson River Road, and the network of major arterial roads throughout the Anchorage Bowl. Four-wheel-drive roads are composed of dirt and gravel roadways that are not typically passable to passenger cars and require high clearance vehicles. Recreation The study area is one of the most visited recreation areas in the state of Alaska. Recreational choices range from passive to active recreation and occur throughout the study area during all seasons of the year. In the spring, summer, and fall, recreation consists of freshwater and saltwater sport fishing, big game and waterfowl hunting, sightseeing, wildlife viewing, rafting, camping, and hiking. During the winter, recreation activities include cross-country skiing, Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-131 September 2001 snowshoeing, snowmobiling, and dog mushing. Commercial recreation plays a large part as well, with guides, outfitters, float planes, and air/water taxiing providing services to tourists and residents alike. Recreation features can be found on the recreation maps MV-24 through MV-26. Aviation Because of the lack of roads, the entire region depends heavily on aircraft for transportation. The aviation category includes general aviation airports, airstrips, and float plane lakes. Major airports in the study corridors include the Anchorage International Airport, Merrill Field, and Campbell Lake, Lake Hood, and Soldotna airports. Private airstrips occur throughout the entire study area including lakes and rivers that are used by float planes. A listing of airports was identified through a data file search of airstrips and float plane lakes within the 4-mile-wide study corridors by the Alaskan Aviation Safety Foundation and consultation with the Alaska Airmen’s Association and FAA. Air traffic in the study area includes air taxi service, commercial sightseeing flights, transport of anglers and hunters to remote areas, search and rescue operations, state and federal wildlife survey flights, commercial air traffic, and the operation of privately owned aircraft. Local communities are dependent on local air travel because the area has few roads. Commercial aircraft, private aircraft, and helicopters generally fly at different altitudes. Low- altitude flying should occur only during periods of severe weather or unforeseen weather changes. Minimum flight altitudes are in effect permanently regardless of weather. Low-level flight activity and landings on the beach occur on the western coast of the Peninsula. Float planes can take off from water bodies shorter than | mile in length. The federal standards for marking obstructions to air navigation away from airports, airstrips, or float plane lakes require only that an object be marked if it is 200 feet above ground level at the site of the object or if it penetrates the airspace of that respective facility. The FAA recognizes registered public, military, and private airports and airstrips and will make specific determination of interference of airspace following their receipt of an application for Notice of Intent should the selected route pass near a recognized air facility. Aircraft Safety Many Alaska residents and businesses depend on aircraft for passenger and cargo transportation due to the lack of roads and the large size of the state. According to the FAA, Alaska leads the nation in general aviation use per capita, with approximately 12 times as many aircraft and 6 times as many pilots than the lower 48 states. Because of Alaska terrain and weather, and because many aviators fly to remote destinations that are potentially hazardous (mountains, beaches, sand bars, rivers, lakes, glaciers), safety is a Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 32182 September 2001 major issue within the aviation industry. Specific safety issues regarding the proposed Project include location in relation to airports, airstrips, navigation facilities, and lakes, and the transmission line’s potential to obstruct aircraft operation within the Project area. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigates reported aviation accidents to determine their causes. The NTSB database shows 10 aviation/transmission line accidents have occurred in Alaska since January 1987. Nine of the 10 accidents were a result of pilot error, mechanical problems, or weather, and the other accident involved a helicopter that struck a wire. Local Air Traffic Aircraft use in the study area is highly varied, but typically includes flightseeing, domestic passenger service, private use, cargo transportation, and guiding services. People with remote property on the Kenai Peninsula also may utilize small fixed-wing aircraft that are equipped to land on beaches or nearby lakes to access their land. In addition, hunters are usually transported to remote locations in aircraft typically equipped with floats, skis, or tundra tires (Schommer, personal communication, 1998). A minimum flight altitude of 500 feet above ground level (AGL) is in effect year-round for non- congested areas. Congested areas, such as Kenai and Anchorage, have a 1,000-foot AGL minimum altitude. Undeveloped areas only require a 1,000-foot lateral separation between any object, including other aircraft. Violations of these regulations can be punishable by license revocation or fines. However, local pilots often fly at low altitudes during inclement weather or during approaches and departures (FAA 1989). Regulatory Environment A large portion of the airspace within the Project area falls under control of the Anchorage International Airport. Federal regulations governing Anchorage International Airport airspace are promulgated by the FAA in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 14, Chapter I (Parts 1- 199). Section 91.119 of the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) states that no person may operate an aircraft below an altitude of 500 feet within the Anchorage International Airport control area. The KNWR regulations for operations on refuge lands and waters are specified in CFR 50.30.39. An FAA Altitude Advisory also is published for the KNWR, which recommends that pilots make every effort to fly not less than 2,000 feet above a national wildlife refuge. Wire Marking Requirements Obstruction marking requirements are specified in 14 CFR Part 77, Standard for Determining Obstruction (FAA 1989). Federal marking standards require an object be marked if it is 500 feet AGL. FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1G (FAA 1991) states that hazard warning balls or lights Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-133 September 2001 must be used when obstructions protrude into airspace. The Advisory Circular also states that an object may require marking because of its particular location, even though its height does not exceed FAR 77 standards. Notice to the FAA Administrator must be submitted if the proposed Project falls within or near a public use airport, heliport, seaplane base, or military airport. The notice falls under the provisions of the FAR Part 77. The notice must identify the location of the overhead communications and transmission lines as well as the height of the supporting structures. After the notice has been filed, the FAA also will issue notice to local pilots to obtain comments and to identify any specific concerns. If the FAA finds that the Project will not pose an aviation hazard, the FAA will issue a statement reflecting the finding. Published Safety Information Available to Pilots Known airspace limitations and requirements are shown on aviation charts, and also published as FARs, Airport/Facility Directories, advisory circulars, and sectional aeronautical charts. Most sectional charts are replaced every six months. Once the information has been published, pilots are responsible for using it to plan their flights. NOTAMs are another important source of safety information available to pilots. After construction, the proposed Project would be mapped and a NOTAM would be issued. CEA’s Policies Regarding Aviation Demarcation Requirements CEA’s policy regarding aviation safety is to mark aboveground facilities with hazard warning balls and/or lights if there is any potential for obstruction to aviation use. As appropriate, CEA will mark all transmission lines that cross roadways, canyons, and water bodies. Other hazard warning locations are determined on a case-by-case basis and include consultation with FAA officials. Communication Facilities Communication facilities inventoried include radio navigation aids, microwave/radio towers, and VORTAC navigation aids associated with airspace. VORTAC facilities are subject to specific FAA standards regarding operations and obstruction. Fire Island contains the greatest concentration of communication facilities in the study corridors. FAA regulations (FAA Order 6820.10) stipulate that transmission lines must be located 1,200 feet from VORTACs to reduce electromagnetic interference to navigation communication equipment. Regulations also state that no conductor should extend above the horizontal plane of the antenna. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation B2134) September 2001 3.6.3 Alternatives No-Action Alternative Under this alternative, the environment would remain as it presently exists. Tesoro Route Bernice Lake to Pt. Possession - Route Option A Affected Environment Jurisdiction and Management Plans—The southern segment of this route from Bernice Lake through Captain Cook SRA crosses private, borough, and state land. One state park holding is crossed: Captain Cook SRA. North of Captain Cook SRA the route passes through private, borough, state, and native lands within the KNWR near Grey Cliff Lake and at Pt. Possession. The state lands are designated for either legislative additions to Captain Cook SRA or are designated for general use. Several of the state land holdings have been identified for conveyance to the KPB. At the northern end of the route near Pt. Possession there are native allotments and conveyed lands present. There is no development present on the conveyed land. The 4,481-acre parcel of conveyed land was originally designated as part of the Kenai Lowland Wilderness Unit until recognized as a private land claim. Section 22(g) of ANCSA applies to these lands and the native lands near Grey Cliff Lake. Existing and Planned Land Use—The Bernice Lake Substation is served by 115kV and 69kV transmission lines from Soldotna. Bernice Lake distributes power to Nikiski through 25kV distribution lines. Distribution lines are located on the west side of the North Kenai Road. Natural gas lines and telephone lines are located on the east and west sides of the road. A |-acre addition would be added to the Bernice Lake Substation. This expansion to the existing substation would be located on private land. The riser pole locations on Links T3, T4, and T5 would be located on either private or state land. The transition facility on Link T8 near Pt. Possession would be located on state land designated for multiple use and would require 0.3 acre. Dispersed hunting occurs in this area. In Nikiski, land uses are a mixture of residential, commercial, educational, and industrial along the North Kenai Road. Residences exist within a 0.25-mile study corridor, along with two schools, Nikiski Elementary and Nikiski Junior-Senior High School. The Kenai Peninsula Borough has not zoned lands in the Nikiski area. The route would cross underground through Captain Cook SRA along the east side of the road edge. State lands immediately north of Captain Cook SRA are possible legislative additions to the SRA and are currently designated public recreation lands. This route parallels the North Kenai Road for 16.7 miles. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation BHIe5 September 2001 North of Captain Cook SRA, only remnants of a four-wheel-drive road are evident. The route crosses through two platted subdivisions: Grey Cliff and Moose Point. Residences exist within a 0.25-mile-wide study corridor. The subdivisions have a planned road and transportation corridor incorporated into their design. This area is zoned for rural development. The 21,000-acre coastal strip between Pt. Possession and Captain Cook SRA is designated by the Kenai Peninsula Borough for a transportation corridor, fish camps, subdivisions, and local timber use. Two future school sites are adjacent to the route in the Grey Cliffs subdivision. The planned North Kenai Road corridor is 100 feet wide and the associated transportation corridor is 300 feet wide. Typically the two corridors are connected; however, in some instances residential lots separate them by as much as several hundred feet. North Kenai Road is expected to be extended north through Grey Cliffs subdivision within the next six years. A system of oil and natural gas pipelines stem from the refineries, oil rigs, and gas fields of the western edge of the Peninsula. The Tesoro and Phillips Petroleum pipelines branch out from Nikiski. They carry petroleum products and natural gas, respectively. The Tesoro pipeline connects the Nikiski area to Anchorage by a submarine pipeline from Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell. Tesoro’s right-of-way is 10 feet. The Phillips Petroleum line parallels Tesoro’s from Nikiski to Moose Point where it branches off to oil derricks in the Cook Inlet. The two pipelines have a combined right-of-way width of approximately 50 feet. Aviation—In Nikiski, aviation facilities within | mile of the assumed centerline include two private airstrips, one heliport, and four lakes accessible to float planes. The two airstrips are located adjacent to, and east of, the proposed alignment of the route (Link T3, Mileposts 2.9 and 4.6, respectively). According to the FAA, both airstrips are private and unauthorized for commercial use (Schommer, personal communication, 1998). The heliport, located west of Link T3 at Milepost 3.7 is approximately 265 feet from the proposed alignment. The float plane lakes are located east of the proposed alignment, the closest of which is 500 feet from the assumed centerline. There is one airstrip located along the shore at Moose Point. The airstrip is oriented parallel and adjacent to the proposed alignment approximately 1,200 feet west of the pipeline right-of-way. In addition, several residents along the bluff utilize aircraft to access their cabins, typically flying at low levels along the coastline and landing on the beach at low tide. Environmental Consequences Existing and Planned Land Use—The expansion of the Bernice Lake Substation, riser pole locations on Links T3, T4, and T5, and the new transition facility site on Link T8 near Pt. Possession (located on state land designated for multiple use) do not conflict with any existing or planned residential, commercial, industrial, or transportation uses. In Nikiski, the assumed centerline is located on private property, on the east side of the road right-of-way. A 30-foot utility easement would be required from landowners. Residential and commercial uses (2.9 miles) were identified within the proposed 30-foot right-of-way. Mitigation Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-136 September 2001 to avoid impacts on parcels includes locating the line within the North Kenai Road right-of-way, and acquiring a 30-foot aerial easement for the transmission facilities in this area. The route crosses through Captain Cook SRA with an underground transmission line adjacent to the road. The LWCFA requirements would apply to this section. There are no long-term direct impacts on any of the campgrounds or facilities within the park. Short-term but non-significant impacts would occur during construction of the line. Heavy equipment will temporarily occupy one lane of traffic and cause ground disturbance. Lands north of the park designated as possible future additions would be crossed with an overhead transmission line offset from the existing pipeline corridor but within the platted transportation corridor. North of Captain Cook SRA, the assumed centerline would be located within the 300-foot-wide transportation corridor to conform to the Grey Cliffs and Moose Point subdivision plans. Following the planned transportation corridor would involve crossing a corner of a section of native conveyed land within the KNWR. Aviation—The two private airstrips located adjacent to Link T3 are within 350 to 425 feet of the proposed alignment. An overhead transmission line would present an obstruction to approaches and departures from both airstrips. Although FAA regulations requiring mitigation measures do not apply to unapproved aviation facilities, CEA would bury the transmission line for approximately 1,000 to 2,500 feet where it crosses the flight paths to the private airstrips to mitigate potential hazards. The overhead portions of the Project near the heliport would be marked with appropriate devices as required by the FAA and in accordance with CEA’s standard practices. This would effectively mitigate potential impacts on aviation facilities associated with the heliport. Due to the distance from the assumed centerline and the parallel orientation of the airstrip at Moose Point, no mitigation is necessary. Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof via Fire Island - Route Option B Affected Environment Jurisdiction and Management Plans—This route mainly crosses open water managed by DNR (in addition to other agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries, etc.). Fire Island is owned by the CIRI. The submarine cable landings at Pt. Campbell would cross through preservation areas of the Anchorage Coastal Management Zone, in addition to crossing through the ACWR. Land Use—On Fire Island, VORTAC and communication facilities are present. These assist the FAA in controlling airspace for the International Airport. Several seasonal residences and fish camps are situated on the west side of the island. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-137 September 2001 The route parallels a dirt road briefly at the north end of Fire Island. Between the north end of the island and Pt. Campbell, a transportation corridor through the ACWR was established for development of a road, railroad, and utilities. Two transition facility sites would be required on Fire Island, one at the south end of the island and one at the north end. Each facility would be 0.3 acre and located on CIRI land. The transition facility site at Pt. Woronzof would be located within the existing substation. The Pt. Woronzof Substation would require a 1.4-acre addition to the north of the existing facility. This addition would be located on Municipal land that is zoned as a transition district. Aviation—An airstrip, closed by CIRI and no longer in use, is located on the northern edge of Fire Island at the intersection of Links T13 and T14. Fire Island, owned and manage by CIRI, is closed to access without prior permission. The FAA maintains a secondary navigation facility on the island located east of Link T11 at Milepost 2.7. The facility includes a VORTAC and related communications facilities. Environmental Consequences Access conditions at the north end of the island minimized impacts when compared to the lack of access availability at the south end of the island. VORTAC and communication facilities on the island would require compliance with FAA regulations, resulting in low residual impacts. No impacts are anticipated to the airstrip on Fire Island because it is closed. The transition facility at Pt. Woronzof would be located within the existing facility site; therefore, no impacts would occur. The 1.4-acre addition to the substation would not conflict with any existing or planned land uses to the area. On Fire Island two transition facilities would be required, one at the south end of the island and one at the north end. Residual impacts would be minimal. Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof (Aquatic Route) - Route Option C Affected Environment Jurisdiction and Management Plans—This route crosses open water managed by DNR (in addition to other agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, NMFS, etc.), ACWR, and lands within the Municipality of Anchorage. Land Use—This route parallels the Tesoro pipeline for 3.8 miles under water. The transition facility site at Pt. Woronzof would be located within the existing substation. The Pt. Woronzof Substation would require a 1.4-acre addition to the north of the existing facility. This addition would be located on municipal land that is zoned as a transition district. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-138 September 2001 Environmental Consequences There are no land use impacts along this route. Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell - Route Option D Affected Environment Jurisdiction and Management Plans—This route crosses open water managed by DNR (in addition to other agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, NMFS, etc.) as it parallels the Tesoro pipeline across Turnagain Arm. Land Use—This route option would cross under the Turnagain Arm, paralleling the Tesoro pipeline from Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell. Environmental Consequences No land use impacts are expected to occur from this route option as it crosses the Turnagain Arm. Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof - Route Option N Affected Environment Jurisdiction and Management Plans—From Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof, this alternative crosses a combination of private and municipal lands. Land Use—This route crosses through Kincaid Park for 0.6 mile. Trails crossed in the Park include the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail and the Alex Sisson Loop cross-country ski trail. The Anchorage International Airport is passed by the route. An Airport Master Plan Update was last completed in the fall of 1995. Future developments associated with this plan include building a west airpark with airport support facilities. Associated developments would include the realignment of Pt. Woronzof Drive and another north-south runway. Infrastructure and realignment of Pt. Woronzof Drive are planned for construction within 6 to 10 years for the West Airpark. The transmission line along this route would be underground past the International Airport between Pt. Campbell and Pt. Woronzof, avoiding conflict with airspace and navigation aids. The Tesoro pipeline is paralleled from its landing at Pt. Campbell through Kincaid Park and past the airport. Pt. Woronzof Substation is served by two 138kV transmission lines from the Beluga Power Plant by way of submarine cables from Pt. MacKenzie. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-139 September 2001 The transition facility at Pt. Campbell would be located in an existing gravel pit within Kincaid Park and require 0.2 acre (Volume II, Figure MV-1a). The transition facility site at Pt. Woronzof would be located within the existing substation. The Pt. Woronzof Substation would require a 1.4-acre addition to the north of the existing facility. This addition would be located on municipal land that is zoned as a Transition District. Environmental Consequences Short-term impacts in Kincaid Park would include vegetation clearing, ground disturbance, and the presence of heavy equipment during construction and installation of the line. Recreation activities would be temporarily interrupted during either summer or winter construction. Long- term impacts would not be expected to conflict with existing or planned uses. The transition facility at Pt. Woronzof would be located within the existing facility site; therefore, no impacts would occur. The 1.4-acre addition to the Pt. Woronzof Substation and the transition facility at Pt. Campbell would not conflict with any existing or planned land uses to the area. Enstar Route Soldotna North - Route Option E North Affected Environment Jurisdiction and Management Plans—This route segment crosses a mosaic of state, borough, native, and private lands. Land Use—This route passes through low-density residential and vacant undeveloped lands adjacent to an existing transmission line. The route borders the southern edge of the KNWR. One small farm is adjacent to the route at the Moose River crossing. Future land use in the Sterling area is predicted to occur as small developments, typically second-home construction. Salamatof lands have a high probability for development compared to other Native Corporation surface lands. Section 22(g) restrictions under ANCSA do not apply to these lands (see Section 4.6). This route crosses several secondary roads in the Soldotna and Sterling areas. The Soldotna Substation is served by four 115kV and two 69kV lines. Three lines travel north from the substation towards the Mackey’s Lake area. One 115kV line traverses the KNWR boundary north of the Sterling area. The route crosses the Moose River, which is used for canoeing, parallel to an existing 115kV line. An expansion of the existing Soldotna Substation would require an additional 0.4 acre to the south. This facility would be located on private land. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-140 September 2001 Aviation—Three float plane lakes and 11 private airstrips are located within | mile of the assumed centerline. Moose River is also used by float planes. Approaches and departures to Moose River require that the aircraft cross the existing line and proposed route perpendicularly. Environmental Consequences Possible initial impacts along Link El would occur for 0.1 mile as a result of residences within the proposed right-of-way. Impacts on these residences would be mitigated by realigning the route or double-circuiting the existing transmission line. The expansion of the existing Soldotna Substation would not conflict with any existing or planned residential, commercial, industrial, or transportation uses. The crossing of the Moose River would occur at the existing location. Canoeists utilizing the Swan Lake National Recreation Trail, which ends at the refuge boundary, would see the new line at the same time and from the same locations as the existing line. It is unknown how this would affect visitor use or experiences. Recreational boaters and local residents use the Moose River as a destination and a route for recreational purposes. The 11 airstrips located along this link do not appear to require any specific mitigation measures. However, CEA’s practice of marking overhead wires in areas used by aircraft would minimize any potential impacts. This route parallels an existing overhead transmission line crossing of the Moose River, which is currently marked with a hazard warning ball. The proposed Project also would be marked at this crossing point. Soldotna South - Route Option E South (Applicant’s Proposal) Affected Environment Jurisdiction and Management Plans—This route segment crosses a mosaic of state, borough, native, and private lands including Bing’s Landing SRS. Salamatof Native Association owns a conveyed parcel “Kenai River East 2/3," which is governed by Section 22(g). Land Use—This route passes through residential and vacant undeveloped lands with residences occurring within a 0.25-mile study corridor. Small farms are along this route as well. The Funny River subdivision area is crossed near the Kenai River. Future land use in the Sterling area is predicted to occur as small, typically second-home developments. Development pressure for housing and recreational facilities such as cabins and lodges will likely increase as populations on the Kenai Peninsula increase. This route crosses several secondary roads in the Soldotna and Funny River areas along with the Sterling Highway once. A proposed bridge and associated roadway crossing the Kenai River is Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-141 September 2001 planned between Scout Lake Loop Road on the north side of the river, and Rabbit Run Road on the south side. Bridge construction is not yet programmed. Two lines, a 115kV and 69kV, travel south from the Soldotna Substation, with the 69kV line traversing through the Funny River area south of the Kenai River. The route parallels the Birch Ridge Golf Course and crosses the Kenai River SMA twice. Bing’s Landing SRS is crossed by the route at the existing 69kV river crossing. An expansion of the existing Soldotna Substation would require an additional 0.4 acre to the south. This facility would be located on private land. A new substation, Naptowne, would require 2.5 acres and be located on private land at the junction of Links E2 and E6. Aviation—Seven private airstrips and three float plane lakes are within | mile of the assumed centerline. Environmental Consequences On Link ES, through the Funny River Subdivision, the proposed line would replace the existing 69kV line on a pole-for-pole basis and maintain the existing H-frame crossing of the Kenai River. No direct impacts would occur to recreationists using the river for boating or fishing. The existing 69kV transmission line would be replaced along Funny River and Bing’s Landing SRSs. The expansion of the existing Soldotna Substation would not conflict with any existing or planned residential, commercial, industrial, or transportation uses. A new substation, Naptowne, would be located at the junction of Links E5 and E6. This facility would be located on private land and require 2.5 acres. Seven airstrips located with 1 mile of this link are all private. The proposed Project would be marked appropriately as per CEA’s general practices and FAA requirements. Enstar to Chickaloon Bay - Route Option F (Applicant’s Proposal) Affected Environment Jurisdiction and Management Plans—This route crosses lands designated moderate and minimal management in the KNWR, as shown on Figure MV-22 in Volume II (refer to Section 3.6.1). Two Enstar natural gas pipelines traverse the KNWR in a 50-foot-wide right-of-way from Soldotna to Chickaloon Bay. This route would parallel the pipelines and its associated access trail for 38.3 miles. Public access to the Enstar pipeline is provided by the Mystery Creek Road, which is located between the Sterling Highway and the pipeline. Mystery Creek Road and the Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-142 September 2001 pipeline trail are open typically between late August and September for moose and waterfowl hunting, and December to April 30 for snowmobile use depending on snow depth. In the KNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan, the Enstar pipeline trail is considered a transportation corridor. The route passes in proximity to Trapper Joe Lake and a recreation cabin. A transition facility site would be required at the end of Link E10 in the KNWR. This 0.2-acre facility would be located on lands designated Minimal Management. Burnt Island is located immediately north of the transition facility. A five-acre private parcel is situated on the south end of the island. Aviation—Three landing strips are located along the pipeline right-of-way. Two of these airstrips are closed to aircraft use except in the event of an emergency; the third, named Big Indian Creek, is open consistent with refuge regulations. Environmental Consequences Construction of the proposed Project would widen the existing transportation corridor in the KNWR. Access along the Enstar pipeline may be substantially changed as a result of construction activities. Historically used campsites may be defoliated, and traditional long-time users may be displaced by new users more tolerant of altered landscapes and increased motorized use. The refuge may experience a loss of control over maintaining limited access opportunities along the Enstar pipeline north of Mystery Creek Road. This loss of control could result in significant management problems similar to those associated with oil and gas development. Based on the mandate and purpose establishing the refuge, predicted environmental impacts, proximity of highly sensitive wildlife species, and management concerns, the proposed Project would conflict with the KNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan. A significant impact would be where the qualification criteria for wilderness designation would be modified by the presence of the proposed transmission facilities within the minimal management. This occurs along the route between Big Indian Creek and Chickaloon Bay. KNWR personnel have indicated that clearing of the right-of-way would, in most cases, result in an increase in snowmachine use along the right of way. Subsequently, the refuge may close the area, which is currently open to snow machining. The KNWR intends to conduct a prescribed burn along the entire length of the Enstar pipeline corridor from Sterling to Chickaloon Flats; operations will involve helitorches carried by helicopters to ignite the area. Helicopters with water buckets have been used for holding actions on fires. Both water buckets and helitorches are slung on cables below the helicopter. The transmission line would present a risk of entanglement during fire management activities. Smokey conditions and low visibility also increase the potential for accidents. Other aircraft, such as spotter planes and slurry bombers, are brought in from other areas in the state. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation Ba43 September 2001 Unfamiliarity with the area combined with the presence of the transmission line could increase the possibility of an accident. To minimize risk to suppression crews, CEA would typically shut down the intertie during a fire if warranted, thereby eliminating any risk of electrocution or “arcing.” This can be done immediately by calling the dispatch center at CEA, and would not require any additional efforts. The dispatch center is on-call 24 hours a day. The proposed transmission line towers are constructed of steel and are able to withstand some degree of heat/flame produced from ground fires. The conductors can be damaged by fire, but potential for damage depends on variables such as fire intensity, fuel, wind, and proximity. CEA would inspect the line before energizing and any portions determined to be damaged would be replaced. Maintaining recreation in the right-of-way minimizes exposure of the lines to effects from fire. One potential fire management benefit of a power line, or any significant right-of-way clearing, is a maintained fuel break. The proposed right-of-way clearing of 150 feet would provide an additional fire break adjacent to the access trail. However, the transmission line right-of-way would not be cleared to mineral soil, leaving some fuels available for fire advancement. The project in conjunction with the existing Enstar pipelines would provide fire managers a defensible barrier for anchoring fire control lines during prescribed burning or wildland fire suppression activities. However, fire management activities near transmission lines can be problematic as a result of safety hazards to suppression personnel as discussed previously (i.e., helicopter operations, low visibility in smoky conditions, etc.). The presence of the proposed project may directly affect fire management decisions, such as whether to suppress a wildland fire threatening the transmission line, or which suppression tactics to use in a wildland fire incident. KNWR fire managers may also be required to reevaluate suppression strategies for the area occupied by the project and change the designation to full suppression (KNWR 2001). As a result, construction of the proposed transmission line is expected to conflict with fire management plan. Some increase in law enforcement patrols is anticipated whether the right-of-way remains open or closed to snowmachine use. If the right-of-way remains open, an increase in snowmachining would require a corresponding increase in enforcement patrols. If the right-of-way is closed, patrols would be required to prevent snowmachine users from trespassing. Therefore, although enforcement is expected to increase, the level of enforcement is uncertain. Based on the interpretation of the KNWR Land Protection Plan and discussions with USFWS representatives, there is no identifiable impact on the KNWR Land Protection Plan related to the proposed Project. A transition facility site would be required at the end of Link E10 in the KNWR. This facility would be located on lands designated Minimal Management. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-144 September 2001 Of the three airstrips adjacent to this route, two are closed to all but emergency landings, while the third, Big Indian Creek airstrip, is open to use. Hazard warning marker balls would be installed pending FAA review. Chickaloon Bay to Klatt Road - Route Option G Affected Environment Jurisdiction and Management Plans—Upon crossing the Turnagain Arm, the route lands at Victor Road. The submarine cable landings at Victor Road would cross through preservation areas of the Anchorage Coastal Management Zone, in addition to crossing through the ACWR. Open water areas are managed by DNR (in addition to other agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard, Corps of Engineers, NMFS, etc.). Land Use—The Enstar pipelines have a submarine crossing of Turnagain Arm from the KNWR (immediately south of Burnt Island) to Potter. Environmental Consequences There are no land use impacts along this route. Chickaloon Bay to Oceanview Park - Route Option H (Applicant’s Proposal) Affected Environment Jurisdiction and Management Plans—Upon crossing the Turnagain Arm, the submarine cable landing would be on Alaska Railroad holdings within Anchorage. The landing at the railroad would cross through preservation areas of the Anchorage Coastal Management Zone, in addition to crossing through the ACWR. Open water areas are managed by DNR (in addition to other agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, NMFS, etc.). Land Use—Oceanview Bluff Park and Oceanview Park are adjacent to the submarine cable landing at the railroad. Dispersed activities occur in the ACWR. The Enstar pipelines have a submarine crossing of Turnagain Arm from the KNWR (immediately south of Burnt Island) to Potter. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-145 September 2001 Environmental Consequences There are no significant land use impacts along this route. Impacts to Oceanview Bluff Park are expected to be short term, lasting only during construction (see Route Option K (Applicant’s Proposal) for impact discussion). Chickaloon Bay to Rabbit Creek - Route Option I Affected Environment Jurisdiction and Management Plans—Upon crossing the Turnagain Arm, preservation areas of the Anchorage Coastal Management Zone and the ACWR are crossed by alternative route. This submarine cable then would enter the Alaska Railroad right-of-way. Open water areas are managed by DNR (in addition to other agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard, Corps of Engineers, NMFS, etc.). Land Use—The Enstar pipelines have a submarine crossing of Turnagain Arm from the KNWR (immediately south of Burnt Island) to Potter. Environmental Consequences There are no land use impacts along this route. Klatt Road to International Substation via Minnesota Drive - Route Option J Affected Environment Jurisdiction and Management Plans—This route crosses through conservation and utilization areas of the Anchorage Coastal Management Zone. Land Use—This route follows along Klatt Road and then parallels Minnesota Drive all the way to International Substation. The transition facility site at Klatt Road would be located on private land zoned residential and require 0.3 acre. The submarine/underground cable trench would be constructed in the road right-of-way from its landing at Victor Road to the transition station on Klatt Road. Land uses adjacent to the route include residential, commercial, industrial, vacant land, and parks. There are residences within a 660-foot-wide study corridor along Links Al, A2, A3, A4, and A5. The Campbell Creek Greenbelt is crossed as well. Three planned residential subdivisions are adjacent to the proposed alternative centerline along Victor and Klatt roads. Minnesota Drive Extension is a primary road. Along Minnesota Drive most utilities such as telephone, cable, sewer, and water lines are located on the eastern edge of the road right-of-way. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-146 September 2001 Environmental Consequences The initial assumed centerline of this route was located on private land outside of the road right- of-way. Impacts along the route to residential uses were mitigated by relocating the line to within the Victor Road, Klatt Road, and Minnesota Drive rights-of-way for the entire route. The route does not conflict with planned residential development. Planned open space is located on the west side of Minnesota Drive, north of Raspberry Road. Oceanview Park to International Substation via Alaska Railroad - Route Option K (Applicant’s Proposal) Affected Environment Land Use—This route parallels the Alaska Railroad all the way to the International Substation. Land uses adjacent to the railroad tracks include residential, commercial, industrial, extraction, institution, vacant land, and parks. There are residences within a 660-foot-wide study corridor. The Campbell Creek Greenbelt is crossed. The submarine cable landing would cross the picnic area in Oceanview Bluff Park. The Alaska Railroad has a 200-foot-wide right-of-way. The Alaska Railroad plans to double track the railroad through Anchorage at some point in the future. Utilities such as gas lines and fiber optic lines are located in the right-of-way. The transition facility site located north of Cross Road would be located in a light industrial area and require a 30-foot by 30-foot site. Aviation—The Flying Crown private airstrip is located adjacent to the tracks within the Oceanview subdivision. This airstrip is parallel to the assumed centerline. The proposed Project would be buried underground along this portion of the link. Environmental Consequences The submarine landing at the railroad tracks would cross through a landscape enhancement and picnic area in Oceanview Bluff Park. Initial impacts would be potentially significant and mitigation would include revegetation of disturbed areas. Residual impacts are expected to be minimal. The transition facility north of Cross Road would not conflict with any existing or planned residential, commercial, industrial, or transportation uses. Potential impacts along the remainder of the corridor would not conflict with recreation plans. The alternative that parallels the railroad adjacent to the Flying Crown Airstrip would be buried within the railroad; therefore, no impacts on aviation are anticipated. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-147 September 2001 Rabbit Creek to International Substation via Old Seward Highway - Route Option M Affected Environment Jurisdiction and Management Plans—This route crosses a combination of private and municipal lands. Land Use—This route crosses 265 private parcels. It parallels the Alaska Railroad, Old Seward Highway, and International Airport Road to International Substation. Land uses adjacent to the route include residential, commercial, industrial, institution, vacant lands, and parks. There are residences within a 660-foot-wide study corridor. The Campbell Creek Greenbelt is crossed along with the parking lot of the Rabbit Creek Rifle Range. Old Seward Highway and International Airport Road are major arterials in Anchorage. ADOT/PF plans to widen and upgrade Old Seward Highway to five lanes from Huffman to Dowling in the year 2000/2001. From Huffman north, an existing distribution and subtransmission line parallels the east edge of the roadway to Dowling Road. Along International Airport Road, there is a 115kV line on the north side of the road from Arctic Boulevard to just north of the International Substation. The riser pole location at 120" Avenue and along Old Seward Highway would be located in areas zoned light industrial and residential, respectively. The transition site near Rabbit Creek Rifle Range would be located on private land that is zoned residential, on the east side of New Seward Highway. Environmental Consequences Initial impacts along this route accounted for the assumed centerline to be located on private land outside of the road right-of-way. Initial impacts on residential and commercial uses on this route will be mitigated by rebuilding the transmission line within the road right-of-way. Residual impacts would not result in conflicts with any existing or planned residential, commercial, industrial, or transportation uses. The transition facility sites located at 120" Avenue, along Old Seward Highway and near Rabbit Creek Rifle Range, would not conflict with any existing or planned residential, commercial, industrial, or transportation uses. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.6 - Land Use and Recreation 3-148 September 2001 3.7 - SOCIOECONOMICS AND TOURISM 3.7 SOCIOECONOMICS AND TOURISM This section is divided into two major sub-sections: affected socioeconomic environment encompasses the existing setting for the human environment in the project region, while socioeconomic consequences of the proposed action addresses the impacts of the proposed alternative facility developments on that environment. 3761 Affected Socioeconomic Environment The demographic, economic, fiscal attributes, and tourism resources of the study area were inventoried and characterized for use in evaluating potential effects on the human environment associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project. Potential socioeconomic effects include temporary increases in population, employment, and income during construction, and longer-term changes in or impacts on existing economic activities and other human uses of the environment. Tourism is included here because of the activity’s importance to the local economy. Socioeconomic resources tend to be characterized in terms of their occurrence within KPB and municipality of Anchorage geographic units, as opposed to site-specific characteristics within the power line corridors. For the proposed Project, the relevant areas and communities in terms of socioeconomic resources include the following: = Kenai Peninsula Borough - Nikiski - Kenai - Soldotna = Municipality of Anchorage The Project study area includes portions of the Municipality of Anchorage and the KPB, as shown on Figure MV-18 (Volume II). Within the KPB, there are two cities and one unincorporated community. Demographic and economic information for these areas are described following a brief discussion of inventory study methods. Inventory Study Methods Socioeconomic Inventory Demographic and economic information for the study area was gathered primarily from secondary sources including state land use plans, local government comprehensive plans, community profiles, and other statistical reports, including the following: Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-149 September 2001 Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs Community Profiles Alaska Department of Labor Population Reports Alaska Department of Labor Economic Reports Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage Indicators 1996 and 1997 Municipality of Anchorage Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 1996 Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 1995 Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program Final Document 1990 1990 U.S. Census Data (2000 census data was not available at the time of the analysis) Tourism Inventory Data for tourism resources were collected as part of the recreation resources inventory (which is included in land use). The inventory took in study corridors 2 miles wide on either side of the alternative route centerlines. This was accomplished by reviewing, refining, and updating data accumulated from the Southern Intertie Route Selection Study (Power Engineers and Dames & Moore 1996). Field investigations for recreation resources were conducted from August to September 1996 for all alternative routes and updated in April 1999. Agency contacts were conducted to obtain and/or confirm specific recreation data. Federal, state, regional, and local governmental agencies and special interest organizations were contacted through telephone, letter, or meetings to collect and discuss recreation data. A comprehensive listing of all data sources is provided in the references section of this report. Secondary data sources included government agencies, state agencies, local municipalities, private enterprises, and special interest groups. Information collected included environmental impacts statements, planning reports, maps, pamphlets, and brochures. Kenai Peninsula Borough The KPB incorporates the Kenai Peninsula, portions of Cook Inlet, and a large unpopulated area of the Alaska Peninsula. KPB communities within the study area for this Project include the cities of Kenai and Soldotna, as well as the unincorporated community of Nikiski. The amount of socioeconomic data on the KPB is limited, compared to the Municipality of Anchorage. Demographic Summary The population of the KPB has increased 46 percent since 1980, reaching 46,790 in 1996 (Table 3-11). Since 1990, the rate has been approximately 2.6 percent per year. Population estimates for the KPB are broken into two census subareas, the Kenai-Cook Inlet subarea and the Seward subarea, with the Kenai-Cook Inlet subarea accounting for 98 percent of the KPB population in 1996. Major population concentrations within the KPB occur in the City of Kenai (6,950), community of Sterling (5,378), City of Homer (4,064), City of Soldotna (3,968) and Nikiski (3,013). The City of Kenai is the largest community in the KPB. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-150 September 2001 TABLE 3-11 KPB AND COMMUNITIES WITHIN PROJECT AREA RACIAL COMPOSITION, 1990 KPB Kenai Nikiski Soldotna Total Population 40,802 6,327 2,710 3,456 White 37,258 5,660 2,523 3,285 Black 248 47 0 0 American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut 2,894 535 168 140 Asian or Pacific Islander 338 70 19 31 Other 64 15 0 0 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. “1990 U.S. Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3A,” (October 1997). The population of Kenai has increased 10 percent since 1990, with an average annual growth rate of 1.6 percent. The City of Soldotna is the fourth largest community in the KPB, after Kenai, Sterling, and Homer. The population has increased steadily from 3,482 in 1990 to 3,968 in 1996. The community of Nikiski had a 1995 population of 3,013, up 10 percent from 1980. In 1990, the KPB had a total population of 40,802 of which 91 percent were white and seven percent were American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut. Approximately 7.5 percent of the population was below the poverty level. The KPB had a total of 14,323 households with a median income of $42,403. Of the total households, 1,206 were receiving public assistance income (Table 3-12) (U.S. Census Bureau 1990). For the towns of Kenai, Nikiski, and Soldotna, specific data on racial composition are in Table 3-11 and the poverty level of individuals and economic status of households are in Table 3-12. TABLE 3-12 KPB AND COMMUNITIES WITHIN PROJECT AREA INCOME/POVERTY LEVEL, 1990 KPB Kenai Nikiski_| Soldotna Median household income $42,403 $42,889 $44,242 $38,004 Total number of households 14,323 2,337 899 1,269 Households with public assistance income 1,206 191 65 126 % households with public assistance income 8.4 8.2 7.2 9.9 Total population 40,802 6,327 2,710 3,456 Persons below poverty level 3,076 461 186 196 % population below poverty level 75 7.3 6.9 Dal. Source: U.S. Census Bureau. “1990 U.S. Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3A,” (October 1997). Economic Summary The KPB has a diverse economy with the contribution of oil and gas, tourism, fishing and fish processing, transportation, timber, retail, and government sectors (Department of Community and Regional Affairs [DCRA] 1997a). Total employment in the KPB was estimated at 17,137 in Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-151 September 2001 the 1990 U.S. Census (Table 3-13). The largest industries in terms of employment were trade (wholesale and retail) and professional services, which include health and education services. These two industries accounted for almost 38 percent of total employment in the KPB. The cities of Kenai and Soldotna showed the same pattern, with trade and professional services accounting for the most employment. Nikiski was different in that mining accounted for the greatest employment, followed by trade and manufacturing. TABLE 3-13 KPB COMMUNITIES EMPLOYMENT 1990 U.S. CENSUS DATA Kenai Peninsula Industry Borough Kenai_ | Soldotna | Nikiski Agriculture, forestry, fisheries 1174 100 35 67 Mining 1401 367 114 767 Construction 1350 129 85 81 Manufacturing 1585 321 73 158 Transportation 891 96 21 68 Communications and public utilities 399 4] 39 4 Wholesale and retail trade 3631 640 431 224 Finance, insurance, real estate 454 88 61 29 Business and repair services 650 123 104 83 Personal services 472 101 45 6 Entertainment and recreation services 227 53 13 9 Professional services 3513 474 424 101 Public administration 1390 205 151 68 Total employment 17,137 2738 1596 1059 Source: 1990 U.S. Census Tourism provides employment primarily in the retail, transportation, and service sectors. The economic importance of tourism in the Kenai Peninsula was noted in the results of two studies reported in the Coastal Management Program document (KPB 1990). One study completed in 1985 found that tourism accounted for about 7.7 percent of average annual employment, increasing to about 16.8 percent during the summer season. Employment in the visitor industry is difficult to quantify, however, because it involves a variety of other industries and is seasonally dependent. Some businesses, such as guiding and lodge operations, have a direct correlation to tourism, while other businesses, such as restaurants and grocery stores, benefit year-round from local customers, and enjoy an influx of business during summer from tourist sales (KPB 1992). A study by the ADF&G attributed expenditures of $31 million to sport fishing by both resident and non-resident anglers in 1986, primarily for retail and guiding services. The Alaska Department of Labor (ADOL) employment estimates for 1990 through 1995 are presented in Table 3-14. ADOL estimates that total nonagricultural employment in the KPB has increased from 13,693 to 15,269 over a six-year period, an increase of 12 percent. ADOL has Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-152 September 2001 also prepared employment estimates for the “Kenai Soldotna Area” within the KPB (Table 3-15). According to the ADOL, this area includes most of the KPB, excluding Homer and Seward (ADOL 1997b). Based on the ADOL data, the top five industries in terms of employment over the last six years have been government, trade, services, and manufacturing. Total employment over the last six years has increased from 8,671 to 10,698, an increase of 23 percent. Total government employment has increased at an average annual rate of 4.8 percent over the same period, trade at 5.8 percent, services at 4.1 percent, and manufacturing at 5.1 percent. Industries that have decreased employment over this period include transportation, food and kindred products, and state government. TABLE 3-14 KPB WAGE AND SALARY EMPLOYMENT % Change Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1990-95 Nonagriculture Wage and Salary Employment Mining 1,174 1,155 1,043 1,063 1,146 1,106 -6 Construction 717 713 623 689 813 846 18 Manufacturing 1,861 2,066 1,848 1,833 1,799 1,804 -3 Transportation 995 1,066 967 1,001 1,059 1,052 6 Trade 2,556 2,708 2,936 3,194 3,414 3,432 34 Finance, insurance 281 277 300 323 352 366 30 and real estate Services and 2,688 2,808 2,823 3,163 3,362 3,241 21 miscellaneous Government 3,421 3,398 3,479 3,729 3,788 4,182 22 Total all industries 13,693 14,191 14,019 14,995 15,733 15,269 12 Source: ADOL 1995; Alaska Economic Trends, February 1995; Employment and Earnings Summary Report 1994 and 1995 The total wage and salary income for the KPB in 1989 was estimated at $528 million, according to the 1990 U.S. Census. Approximately 32 percent of households had incomes greater than $60,000 in 1989. Per capita income was estimated at $18,173 for the KPB in 1989. The City of Kenai was incorporated as a home rule city in 1960, shortly after oil was discovered in the nearby Swanson River area (DCRA 1997c). Kenai’s economy is based primarily on oil and gas services and supplies and tourism. Fishing and fish processing, timber and lumber, agriculture, and other industries also are represented. Aggregate wage and salary income in 1989 in Kenai was 89 million dollars, according to the U.S. Census. About 29 percent of the households in the city had incomes greater than $60,000 in 1989. Per capita income was estimated at $17,877. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-153 September 2001 TABLE 3-15 KENAI SOLDOTNA AREA EMPLOYMENT: 1990-1995 % Change Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1990-1995 Mining 1,034 1,036 1,047 1,068 1,141 1,100 6 Construction 327 490 489 543 619 595 82 Manufacturing 961 1,310 1,294 1,258 1,219 1,256 31 Food and kindred * * 733 707 637 627 -- Transportation 560 598 S57. 548 565 524 -6 Trade 1,652 1,722 1,939 2,201 2,348 2,226 35 Wholesale 303 288 312 373 398 361 19 Retail 1,349 1,434 1,627 1,829 1,951 1,865 38 Finance 174 176 194 203 218 222 28 Services and 1,862 1,974 1,965 2,176 2,315 2,147 15 miscellaneous Government 2,039 1,966 2,089 2,274 2,282 2,628 29 Federal 140 150 155 196 214 223 59 State 611 529 529 545 540 544 -ll Local 1,355 1,287 1,405 1,533 1,528 1,861 37 Total all industries 8,671 9,279 9,574 | 10,272 | 10,708 10,698 23 Source: Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Section 1996b Soldotna, located at the junction of the Sterling and Kenai Spur highways, was incorporated in 1967 (DCRA 1997e). Its economy, like that of Kenai, is heavily dependent on oil and gas, tourism, and fishing, as well as timber and lumber, agriculture, and other industries. Aggregate wage and salary income in 1989 was reported at $41 million. About 28 percent of the households in the city had incomes greater than $60,000 in 1989. Per capita income was estimated at $15,800. Several oil refineries are located in Nikiski, representing the major local industry (DCRA 1997d). Other employment includes timber, commercial and sport fishing, retail, and tourism. Aggregate wage and salary income in 1989 was reported at $40 million. More than 31 percent of the households in the Nikiski area had incomes greater than $60,000 in 1989. Per capita income was estimated at $18,823. Housing Summary According to the 1990 U.S. Census, the KPB had a total of 19,364 housing units. Single-family homes made up 70 percent of the total, with multi-family homes accounting for 15 percent, and mobile homes accounting for another 15 percent. Approximately 47 percent of the housing units have been built since 1980. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-154 September 2001 The City of Kenai accounted for 2,681 of the KPB’s housing units. Single-family units made up 54 percent of the housing units in Kenai, multi-family units accounted for 36 percent, and mobile homes accounted for the remaining 10 percent. Forty-three percent of all housing units were constructed since 1980. Soldotna had a total of 1,457 housing units, of which almost 60 percent are single-family units and 34 percent were multi-family units. Mobile homes made up only six percent of the housing units. Forty-seven percent of the housing units were constructed between 1980 and 1990. The 1990 Census reported 1,009 housing units in the community of Nikiski. Single-family homes accounted for 68 percent of the units, with multi-family units making up seven percent, and mobile homes making up the remaining 25 percent. Units constructed since 1980 accounted for 46 percent of total units in this area. Community Services and Facilities The KPB provides education, solid waste, health care, recreation, road maintenance, fire protection, and emergency services (KPB 1992). Public water and wastewater services are provided within some municipalities, such as Kenai and Soldotna; areas outside of the municipalities primarily rely on wells and septic systems. Police services also are provided by municipalities; the Alaska State Troopers provide public safety services in unincorporated areas of the borough. There are five fire service areas within the KPB, including the Ridgeway- Sterling fire service area, which covers Soldotna, and the Nikiski fire service area. In addition, there are local volunteer fire departments within some communities, including Kenai. The borough is divided into two hospital service areas. The central hospital service area covers an area including Kenai, Soldotna, and Nikiski. Health services for this area are provided at the Central Peninsula General Hospital, located in Soldotna. A Senior Citizen Service Area was set up in Nikiski in 1995 to provide services, including a Senior Center, in this area. The Borough School District operated 39 schools in 1995, serving 10,226 students (KPB 1995). The City of Kenai provided water and wastewater service to approximately 75 percent of the housing units in the City in 1990, according to the U.S. Census. The city provides police services within its boundaries and has a local volunteer fire department. The 1990 U.S. Census reported that the City of Soldotna provided water and wastewater service to approximately 80 percent of the housing units within the city. The city also provides police service within its boundaries. Fire and emergency services are provided by the KPB. Nikiski is not an incorporated community; therefore, community services in the area are provided by the KPB, as described above. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-155 September 2001 Fiscal Summary The KPB has three primary sources of general government revenues: intergovernmental revenues, general property taxes, and sales taxes. Total general government revenues totaled $118 million in 1995 (KPB 1995). Intergovernmental revenues accounted for 55 percent of total revenues, property taxes accounted for 30 percent, and sales taxes accounted for another 9 percent. General fund expenditures totaled $114 million in 1995 with 72 percent of these expenditures related to education costs. Other major expenditures included debt service (13 percent), general government (6 percent), and fire and emergency medical expenses. Total taxable property was valued at $3.1 billion in 1995, with 16 percent of the property reported as oil related (KPB 1995). The borough also has a two percent sales tax on purchases. The cities of Kenai and Soldotna each have a three percent sales tax. Tourism Summary As noted earlier, tourism is an important industry to the Project area, and especially to the Kenai Peninsula, providing income to residents and an economy to the KPB during winter and summer. South-central Alaska draws 68 percent of the total visitors to the state every summer because of the scenery and recreational opportunities. Other interests on the peninsula include museums, libraries, visitor centers, chambers of commerce, and historical and cultural sites (KPB 1997a). According to the Kenai Visitors and Convention Bureau, well over half of all annual visitors to the Kenai Peninsula are from Anchorage, and of those visitors, most go to the peninsula for recreation purposes. According to peninsula destination marketing organizations, more than 180,500 Anchorage residents visit the peninsula annually, each making an average of 4.34 trips. The overall most popular summer recreation activity for both residents and non-residents is fishing (KPB 1997a). The Kenai Peninsula’s natural resources—lakes, rivers, coastal waters, mountains, and glaciers—attract visitors primarily from out-of-state and Anchorage. The natural resources provide recreational opportunities such as beachcombing, canoeing/kayaking, clam digging, fishing, wildlife and marine life observation, power boating, windsurfing, backpacking/hiking, camping, cross-country skiing, hunting, rafting, picnicking, road and mountain biking, snowmobiling, horseback riding, sightseeing, mountain climbing, and berry picking (KPB 1992). The most popular activities are fishing and sightseeing. The Kenai River is both scenic and one of the most famous fishing rivers in the world. According to a survey by the Alaska Visitors Association, the Kenai River is the fourteenth most visited attraction in Alaska. The number of non-resident visitors to the Kenai Peninsula is difficult to determine because they often arrive by one mode of transportation and depart by another. For instance, they may arrive and/or leave by highway, cruise ship, train, or airplane. However, one marketing study Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-156 September 2001 determined 185,000 non-residents visited the peninsula during the summer of 1994 (KPB 1997a). Between May and September, visitor centers and chambers of commerce provide tourists with informational services and direction. During the summer of 1996, the Kenai Visitors and Convention Bureau recorded that 53,143 people visited the City of Kenai and 45,807 visited the City of Soldotna. In addition, a July 1996 survey counted the number of visits by tourists to Captain Cook SRA at 12,500; Bing’s Landing SRS at 33,811; Kenai River Flats at 6,696; and Middle Kenai River at 10,352 (KPB 1997a). Charter and guiding operations exist solely because of tourism. The number of guides registered to operate on the Kenai River in 1996 was 375, and guides registered to operate on waters within the KPB numbered 1,019. Yearly earnings for lodge operations were estimated at $6.7 million for 1996 (KPB 1997). The Project area falls within ADF&G Game Management units 15A and 7. In 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Kenai National Moose Range to protect the habitat and breeding grounds of the “giant Kenai moose” (USFWS 1985). With the passage of the ANILCA, the conservation and protection purposes for the moose range grew to include resident fish and wildlife and their habitat. ANILCA changed the range name to the KNWR and broadened the boundaries of the range by almost 250,000 acres, bringing the total acreage to approximately 2 million. The act also authorizes public education and recreation opportunities, as well as economic uses, such as oil and gas exploration, subsistence opportunities, and transportation and utility systems (USFWS 1985). Municipality of Anchorage The Municipality of Anchorage is a unified city/borough home rule municipality and is the largest city in Alaska. The Municipality of Anchorage encompasses 1,698 square miles of land, from Chugiak in the north to Girdwood in the south, and includes 264 square miles of water (DCRA 1997b). The majority of the population in Anchorage resides within the Anchorage Bowl, which consists of the areas east of the Chugach Mountains, from Fort Richardson in the north to the Potter Marsh area in the south. The areas north of the Anchorage Bowl are typically referred to as the Eagle River-Chugiak area, while the areas south of the Anchorage Bowl are referred to as the Turnagain Arm area. Demographic Summary The population of Anchorage has grown by 45 percent since 1980, reaching 254,269 in 1996 (Table 3-16). Since 1990, the rate of growth has been approximately two percent per year based on estimates from ADOL (1997b). Estimates of the Municipality's population estimates differ slightly, but show a similar increase (Table 3-17). The Municipality of Anchorage estimates Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-157 September 2001 population for more than 30 community council or planning areas within the KPB. The largest concentration of population within the KPB is in northeast Anchorage, which makes up 31 percent of the total Municipality of Anchorage population. The Turnagain Arm area currently has the lowest total population, 2,269, but is growing at the fastest rate. The population in this area increased 66 percent between 1990 and 1996. South Anchorage is seeing the greatest growth within the Anchorage Bowl, with population increases of 19 percent between 1990 and 1996 in both southeast and southwest Anchorage. There are a few areas, primarily in downtown and north Anchorage, that show a loss of population since 1990. The area with the greatest decrease in population is the military base area, including both Elmendorf Air Force Base and Fort Richardson Military Reservation. TABLE 3-16 HISTORICAL POPULATION ESTIMATES ANCHORAGE AND KPB % Increase % Increase AREA 1980 1990 1996 1980-1990 1990-1996 Municipality of Anchorage 174,431 226,338 254,269 22.9 11.0 KPB 25,282 40,802 46,790 38.0 12.8 Kenai 4,324 6,327 6,950 31.7 9.0 Nikiski 1,109 2,743 3,013 59.6 9.0 Soldotna 2,320 3,482 3,968 33.4 12.3 Sources: Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Section, Demographics Unit 1997 U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing 1980 TABLE 3-17 ANCHORAGE POPULATION BY PLANNING AREAS - 1990 TO 1996 Population Planning Areas and % Change Community Councils 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1996 90-96 Eagle River-Chugiak 25,324 | 26,342 | 26,869 | 27,880 28,632 29,199 15 Southeast Anchorage 32,703 33,942 | 34,916 | 36,987 37,739 38,803 | 19 Northeast Anchorage 68,931 72,127 | 72,716 | 75,145 75,324 78,146 13 Northwest Anchorage 42,253 | 43,570 | 44.013 | 45,825 | 46,190 47,677 13 Southwest Anchorage 40,664 | 44,654 | 45,075 | 45,594 | 46,154 48,453 19 Turnagain Arm 1,366 1,391 1,465 1,542 1,689 2,269 66 Military bases 15,097 14,441 13,823 13,770 12,467 9,557 -37 Remainder of area * 1,443 1,381 1,552 1,810 a - Total 226,338 | 237,907 | 240,258 | 248,296 | 250,006 | 254,105 iy) *Included in estimates above. Note: All numbers do not add exactly to totals due to rounding. Source: Anchorage Indicators 1997, Volume 1; Municipality of Anchorage 1997 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Anchorage had a total population 226,338 in 1990 of which 80 percent were white, 6 percent black, 7 percent American Indian, Eskimo or Aleut, 5 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-158 September 2001 percent Asian or Pacific Islander, and 2 percent other (Table 3-18). Of the total population, 6.9 percent were below the poverty level. There were a total of 83,043 households within the Municipality of Anchorage with a median income of $43,946. Of these households, 5,297 (6.4 percent) were receiving public assistance income (Table 3-19) (U.S. Census Bureau 1990). TABLE 3-18 ANCHORAGE — MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE RACIAL COMPOSITION, 1990 Total Population 226,338 White 182,867 Black 14,411 American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut 14,910 Asian or Pacific Islander 10,764 Other 3,386 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. “1990 U.S. Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3A,” (October 1997). TABLE 3-19 ANCHORAGE - MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE INCOME/POVERTY LEVEL, 1990 Median household income $43,946 Total number of households 83,043 Households with public assistance income 5,297 % households with public assistance income 6.4 Total population 226,338 Persons below poverty level 15,614 % population below poverty level 6.9 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. “1990 U.S. Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3A,” (October 1997). Economic Summary As mentioned above, Anchorage is the state’s largest city and is the center of commerce for the state. The city has a diverse economy with oil and gas, finance and real estate, transportation, retail, services, communications, and government sectors represented. Government and military employment makes up significant portions of total employment in Anchorage compared to other areas of the United States. Recent cutbacks in both government and military employment are reducing the importance of these sectors in the economy. Government employment has decreased from 26 percent of the workforce to 23 percent of the work force over the last 20 years, while military employment has decreased more dramatically, from 24 percent to 9 percent. Private sector employment has become a more significant sector of the economy over this period, increasing from 44 percent to 62 percent. Historical data on Anchorage employment are presented in Table 3-20. Employment has increased steadily from 1990 to 1996 at an average annual rate of approximately 1.4 percent. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-159 September 2001 Over that time period, employment has increased primarily in services and trade while decreasing in manufacturing, federal employment, and mining. Unemployment in Anchorage was estimated at 5.5 percent in 1996, slightly higher than the U.S. average rate of 5.4 percent. Between 1990 and 1995, the Anchorage rate was consistently lower than the U.S. average, after recovering from high unemployment during the late 1980s (Table 3-21). TABLE 3-20 ANCHORAGE EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY % Change Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1990-96 Nonagricultural Wage and Salary Employment Mining 3,800 4,000 3,400 3,400 3,200 2,700 2,500 -34 Construction 5,800 5,600 5,400 6,200 6,400 6,400 6,300 9 Manufacturing 2,400 2,600 2,000 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,000 -17 Transportation 11,100 11,900 12,000 12,400 12,600 12,000 11,800 6 Trade 26,200 26,000 26,200 26,400 28,700 29,700 29,700 13 Finance, insurance, 6,500 6,600 6,500 6,800 7,200 7,200 7,100 9 and real estate Services and 28,800 28,700 29,900 31,100 31,300 [ 32,400 33,500 16 miscellaneous Government 26,900 27,300 28,400 29,400 28,800 28,100 27,800 5 Total all industries 111,500 | 112,700 | 113,800 | 117,600 | 120,200 | 120,600 | 120,700 8 Source: Anchorage Indicators 1997, Volume 1.; Municipality of Anchorage 1997 Total earnings in Anchorage in 1995 were four billion dollars, with 28 percent from government employment (Municipality of Anchorage 1997). The mining industry, including oil and gas, had the highest average monthly wage at $7,199, and retail trade had the lowest average monthly wage at $1,507. The average monthly wage for all industries was $2,789. Table 3-22 lists historical wage information for Anchorage from 1990 to 1995. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-160 September 2001 TABLE 3-21 ANNUAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN U.S., ALASKA, AND ANCHORAGE 1980-1996 Year US. Alaska Anchorage 1980 7.1% 9.7% 7.0% 1981 7.6% 9.3% 6.6% 1982 9.7% 9.9% 7.3% 1983 9.6% 10.3% 7.3% 1984 7.5% 10.0% 7.5% 1985 7.2% 9.7% 7.2% 1986 7.0% 10.8% 8.4% 1987 6.2% 10.8% 8.4% 1988 5.5% 9.3% 74% 1989 5.3% 6.7% 5.1% 1990 5.6% 7.0% 5.1% 1991 6.8% 8.7% 6.8% 1992 7.5% 9.2% 7.3% 1993 6.9% 71.7% 5.9% 1994 6.1% 7.8% 5.6% 1995 5.6% 7.3% 5.2% 1996 5.4% 7.8% 5.5% Source: Anchorage Indicators 1997, Volume 1; Municipality of Anchorage 1997 Alaska had the highest median household income in the United States in 1995, according to the ADOL (1996a). Similarly, Anchorage’s per capita income has consistently exceeded the national average. Per capita income in Anchorage in 1994 was estimated at $27,026, and the city ranked sixteenth overall in per capita income for metropolitan areas of the United States (Municipality of Anchorage 1997). Compared to all Alaskan communities, Anchorage had the largest number of visitors (543,600) during the summer of 1993. Of the 543,600 visitors, 387,100 were visiting for vacation or pleasure (Alaska Division of Tourism 1997). Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-161 Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism September 2001 TABLE 3-22 ANCHORAGE AVERAGE MONTHLY WAGE BY INDUSTRY - 1990 TO 1995 Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Private Sector 2,446 2,496 2,565 2,611 2,633 2595 Agriculture, forestry, fish and other 1,483 1,609 1,591 1,710 1,653 1,744 Mining 6,239 6331 7,093 6,762 7,105 7,199 Construction 3,843 3,664 3,493 3,808 3,899 3.885 Manufacturing 2,037 2,273 2,511 2,457 2,475 2,472 Transportation and public utilities 2,940 3,034 3,244 3,349 3,467 3,459 Wholesale trade 2,780 2,864 2,914 2,863 2,879 2,843 Retail trade 1,457 1,494 1,558 sy 7) 1,505 1,507 Finance, insurance and real estate 2,404 2.469 2,610 2,757 2,688 2,785 Services 1,935 1,954 2,034 2,091 2,146 Dat Government Sector 2,960 3,085 3,245 3,371 3,452 3,443 Federal 2,820 2.944 3,145 3,293 3,281 3,380 State 2,911 3,100 3,187 3,259 3,321 3,366 Local 3,182 3,251 3,423 3,580 3,798 3,588 All Industries 2,568 2,636 2,133 2,797 2,824 2,789 Source: Anchorage Indicators 1997, Volume 1; Municipality of Anchorage 1997 Housing Summary There were approximately 92,000 housing units within the Municipality of Anchorage in 1996, based on Municipality of Anchorage estimates (Municipality of Anchorage 1997). Single-family housing units made up 46 percent of the total, with multi-family units accounting for 47 percent, and mobile homes making up the remaining 7 percent. More than 88 percent of the total housing units were located within the Anchorage Bowl (81,461 units). The Municipality of Anchorage estimates that 95 percent of the housing units are in average to very good condition, with 4 percent in poor condition, and | percent in very poor condition. Community Services The Municipality of Anchorage provides water and wastewater service to the majority of households within its boundaries (DCRA 1997b; Municipality of Anchorage 1996a). The Municipality of Anchorage water system includes both surface and ground water sources. The surface water sources are the Ship Creek Reservoir and Eklutna Lake. Ground water is supplied through wells located in the Anchorage Bowl, Eagle River, and near Girdwood. The Municipality of Anchorage’s wastewater treatment system consists of three wastewater treatment plants, one in the Anchorage Bowl, one in Eagle River, and one in Girdwood. Although the 1990 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-162 September 2001 U.S. Census reported that the Municipality of Anchorage provided utility services to the majority (86 to 87 percent) of the housing units within the KPB, there are areas that still rely on private water wells and septic systems. Most of these areas are located in the Eagle River-Chugiak area, smaller communities along Turnagain Arm, and the Hillside area of the Anchorage Bowl. Electrical service in the Municipality of Anchorage is provided by the publicly owned AML&P and CEA. Both utilities purchase power from federally and state-owned hydroelectric facilities located at Bradley Lake and Eklutna Lake, as well as owning and operating smaller generating facilities locally. Local telephone service is provided by the publicly owned Anchorage Telephone Utility. The Anchorage School District includes 76 schools within the Municipality of Anchorage, serving approximately 46,000 students (Municipality of Anchorage 1996a). There are 56 elementary schools, 10 junior high schools, and 12 senior high schools. Higher education is provided by the University of Alaska - Anchorage and Alaska Pacific University. Health-care services within the community are provided by three major hospitals: Alaska Regional Hospital, Providence Medical Center, and Alaska Native Hospital. Alaska Regional and Providence are operated by private companies. The Alaska Native Hospital is operated by the Indian Health Service. There also are medical facilities that provide service to military families in the area including a hospital on Elmendorf Air Force Base and a medical clinic at Fort Richardson. Numerous smaller emergency clinics and specialty clinics also are located within the Municipality of Anchorage, operated by private companies. Psychiatric care is available at the Alaska Psychiatric Hospital, a state facility, and Charter Center, a private facility. Public safety and emergency services are provided primarily by the Municipality of Anchorage within Municipality of Anchorage boundaries (Municipality of Anchorage 1996a). There are 11 police stations throughout the Municipality of Anchorage; areas not within the police service area rely on the Alaska State Troopers for police protection. There are 11 staffed fire stations and an additional 6 volunteer-staffed stations. Fiscal Summary The Municipality of Anchorage’s primary sources of general government revenues are taxes and intergovernmental revenues (including federal and state grants, state revenue sharing, and municipal assistance). Property taxes provide the largest revenue source for the Municipality of Anchorage, making up approximately 82 percent of total government revenues. Intergovernmental revenues accounted for eight percent. Other revenue sources include license and permit fees, charges for services, fines and forfeitures, interest on assets, and other miscellaneous income. Total general-fund revenues were estimated at $292 million for 1996 (Municipality of Anchorage 1996a). General-fund expenditures totaled $292 million in 1996 with 30 percent of these expenditures related to the Anchorage School District and 21 percent of total expenditures on public safety services. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-163 September 2001 The total assessed value of taxable property in 1996 was reported as $11.8 billion, with 87 percent of this total associated with real property and 13 percent in personal property (Municipality of Anchorage 1996a). There are no sales taxes in the Municipality of Anchorage. Tourism Summary Tourism is not a major industry in the Anchorage area economy. Anchorage’s tourism activities largely are an adjunct of the city’s function as a transportation hub for visitors from the Lower 48 and overseas making connections to attractions in other parts of the state. The city has a variety of cultural amenities and some nearby recreational locations (e.g., the Alyeska skiing area) to attract the visitor, but it is destinations like Mt. McKinley, the Kenai Peninsula, Fairbanks, and others beyond the city that attract the majority of visitors, for whom Anchorage is a stopover point in the journey. Beginning in the summer of 1998, the cruise ships Harmony of Crystal Cruises, and the /sland Princess of Princess Cruises began bringing sea-going travelers to Anchorage from Vancouver, British Columbia. The Harmony can accommodate 960 passengers, and the /sland Princess can accommodate 600. Each vessel docks at the Port of Anchorage five times between June 3 and September 3, for a total of 10 trips. From Vancouver, the vessels travel the Inside Passage, stopping at ports frequented by cruiseliners. Another 600-passenger cruiseliner, the Asuka, docked at the Port of Anchorage once in July 1998. 33572 Socioeconomic Consequences of the Proposed Action This section analyzes the socioeconomic impacts of the Southern Intertie Project. The discussion commences with a brief description of the methodology employed for the study, and then presents the findings of the analysis, first for the Kenai Peninsula area, then for the Turnagain Arm area, and finally for the Anchorage Bowl area. Section 3.7.3 reviews the potential impacts of rate changes to Railbelt power customers arising from implementation of the Project. Concluding the chapter is Section 3.7.4, which presents the findings of an examination of potential Environmental Justice issues, first for the Kenai Peninsula area and then for the Anchorage Bowl area. Direct Effects of Construction Overall Project Expenditures and Workforces Socioeconomic impacts are caused by changes in utilization of people and material resources. One focus of the analysis is to determine the demand for community resources such as housing, utilities, and other public services during construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project. During construction, the Project would generate between 85 and 90 person-years of direct Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-164 September 2001 construction employment (full-time equivalent with 60-hour workweek) during the spring of year | to fall of year 2, which would yield around $8.75 million in direct wages and salaries. Another $50+ million is projected to be spent for equipment, materials, and construction goods and services. Operations and maintenance activities would have no discernible impacts on local community life due to their very small staffing requirements and the relatively infrequent need for surface access to facility sites. Determining whether concentrations of workers and construction activities might stress local communities involves reviewing the timing and location of deployments of workers and local spending (by workers as well as by the project). Because the project has not gone out to bid, there are no data on how much work would go to Alaska-based contractors or how they might recruit their workforces (local residents versus outsiders). In a typical project, major parts of the overhead transmission line, submarine cable, and substation construction components typically are contracted to firms of national or even international scope, with local contractors being subcontracted for traditional tasks like site preparation, trenching, and foundation work. Because of the highly specialized nature of power transmission systems and their construction requirements, particularly the submarine cable segments of the project, it can be expected that many of the supervisory personnel and skilled trades specialties would be hired from out of state. The contractors would be interested in maximizing the hiring of local workers in order to minimize relocation costs, but the more specialized skill requirements would probably have to be recruited elsewhere in order to ensure that the project is adequately staffed and that completion deadlines would be met. The Project’s consulting design engineers estimate that approximately half of the manpower would be recruited from out of state.' Therefore, approximately 45 of the 90 worker-years of employment would be completed by out-of-state workers. Such personnel would reside in Alaska only during their specific work phases. A similar number of person-years of work would go to residents of the Anchorage and Kenai Peninsula areas. Much of the equipment, conductors, control systems, and other electrical components would likely be imported from out of state. Local vendors, on the other hand, would be expected to supply the Project’s basic construction materials and logistical services. The project’s consulting design engineers estimate that most of the non-labor procurements—about 85 percent—would be made out of state.” Accordingly, such non-local procurements of materials, equipment and other construction services would constitute around $42.5 million of the $50+ million of the project’s non-labor expenses, with the balance of approximately $7.5 million accruing to local suppliers and vendors of construction goods and services. Project Scheduling and Location Factors—An Overview of Project Logistics The foregoing numbers provide part of the basis for estimating the economic forces that would act on communities along the Project right-of-way during construction. The other part of the ‘Power Engineers, 1997a. Source: Power Engineers, Inc. 1997a. Total costs of the Project are outlined in Chapter | of the report. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-165 September 2001 analysis is the timing of construction activities. Much of the construction work on the Kenai Peninsula would be completed during winter months to reduce potential impacts on ecological resources. Figure 3-2 provides an overview of the projected monthly manpower loading levels for construction of the two alternatives. The bands depict the average number of workers per month for each route, including all aspects of the Project (i.e., Kenai Lowlands, Turnagain Arm, and Anchorage Bowl segments for power lines, substations, submarine crossings, etc.); subsequent figures break out each area’s loading. Figure 3-2 shows the period January year | through December year 2. The Tesoro Route is projected to have a peak summer loading of around 60 workers in the first year, declining to about 45 during the winter, but rising to a peak of approximately 155 workers by late spring of the second year. The workload then declines, with work completed by fall of year 2. The Enstar Route’s manpower loading rises in the first year to a summer peak of approximately 80 workers, then declines to around 30 in early winter, but rises to over 90 by spring of year 2; the loading continues to rise to its year 2 peak of about 135 workers in the summer. The pattern of winding down in the summer and fall of year 2 is relatively linear for the Tesoro Route, whereas the Enstar Route has a step in its manpower loading during the summer due to the greater length of its Anchorage Bowl overhead cable segment. SOUTHERN INTERTIE MANPOWER LOADING COMPARISON OF ENSTAR VS. TESORO TOTALS 160 140 120 100 No. of Workers per Month g Figure 3-2 Numbers of workers vary according to the phase of work and the precise route option being implemented in a segment. Based on the design engineers’ estimates of work scheduling and crew sizes, the number of workers involved in the overhead cable portion of the Kenai Lowlands segment could be 95 persons on the Enstar Route. The Tesoro alternative’s peak would be Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-166 September 2001 around 65 workers, occurring in summer year 2, following a constant level of 45 workers on the peninsula during the winter and early spring months. For either alternative, the overhead cable work would proceed continuously from summer of year | through winter, spring, and summer of year 2. Work on other components would be undertaken only during the warm weather months. The Tesoro Route’s underground cable sections and associated transition facilities on the Kenai Peninsula would employ approximately two dozen workers during each of the warm weather seasons of both years. The Enstar Route has a much smaller component of these facilities, and would employ only about a half-dozen workers on the Peninsula during the spring and summer of year 2. Construction and modification of substations on the Kenai Lowlands and in the Anchorage Bowl would employ an additional one to two dozen workers at the several sites along the rights-of-way for both routes.» Construction of the submerged cable segment across Turnagain Arm for either alternative would require 55 to 75 workers at the time of maximum effort in late spring of year 2. Finally, in the Anchorage Bowl area, two to three dozen workers (depending on the route) would be involved in constructing the underground and overhead cable sections of the transmission line.* It is difficult to be precise about the timing and location of worker requirements for transient accommodations, which is the critical issue for communities near the Project right-of-way in the Kenai Lowlands region. The communities of Soldotna, Kenai, Nikiski, Sterling, and Cooper Landing would be particularly affected (some more than others, depending on the route option selected). With the May through September construction season coinciding with the peak tourist and recreation season, operators of motels, recreation vehicle (RV) parks, and campgrounds in the northern part of the Kenai Peninsula could encounter increased demand for sites from the workers at the same time as they are serving the traditional high season customers. Displacement of traditional motel, RV park, and campground users by transmission project workers is an issue that must be assessed in view of the potential for the disruption of business and personal relationships among residents and visitors to the northern Kenai area. Kenai Flats Area Impacts Field research was conducted in the Kenai Flats area regarding availability of transient accommodation, visitation and recreational demand patterns, provision of welfare services, and anticipated public works projects. From a socioeconomics perspective, this research revealed that there is little to distinguish the two alternatives’ local impact areas. The central issue is the number and location of non-resident transmission line construction workers. Their number is a function of the Project’s logistics. Their location (during the Project) is a function of where lodging is available relative to the workplace. Commute times between the Project area communities of (from west to east) Nikiski, Kenai, Soldotna, Sterling, and Cooper Landing and *Power Engineers, Inc. 1997a. “The Tesoro Route into the western end of the city involves mainly submerged and buried cable terminating at the Pt. Woronzof Substation. The Enstar Route has a short length of underground cable where the line comes ashore at the eastern end of the city, but several miles of overhead cable follow it to the International Substation. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-167 September 2001 the Project work sites are all less than one hour. Accordingly, transient workers could find accommodation anywhere among the Project area communities and be within a reasonable commuting distance of the job. The principles of a gravity model tend to apply, where people making a location decision endeavor to optimize between availing themselves of the maximum quantity of amenities available while minimizing the travel time. Most of the amenities in the Kenai Flats area are in Soldotna, Sterling, and Kenai, so it is logical to expect that most transient workers would look there for accommodation. It follows that the analysis of local socioeconomic impacts could be conducted in the context of a single impact area, namely the communities along the Kenai Highway between Nikiski and Cooper Landing. No-Action Alternative As noted earlier, the no-action alternative is described in the Section 3.7.1 discussion of the baseline patterns and trends of socioeconomic activity. Current levels and trends of population, income, employment, and private and public sector activity presumably would, absent the Applicant’s Proposal, continue unchanged. Tesoro Alternative The socioeconomic setting of the Tesoro Route alternative over the Kenai Lowlands area may be characterized as having a variety of human activities and facilities, including residential development, recreational attractions (notably the Captain Cook SRA and the Cook Inlet shoreline), and industrial activity (e.g., the Nikiski oil refinery, various oil and gas industry support activities, warehouses, and the Tesoro pipeline). The proposed action would not disturb a pristine area. The right-of-way follows existing road and pipelines all the way to Pt. Possession. The Tesoro Route consists of three principal segments (from south to north): Bernice Lake to the Captain Cook SRA; the Captain Cook SRA itself; and the segment north of the Captain Cook SRA along the North Kenai Road to Pt. Possession (along the right-of-way of the Tesoro pipeline). The southern segment runs along the western side of Nikiski (along existing utility rights-of-way), passing through a mélange of urban/commercial/industrial parcels interspersed with low- and medium-density residential parcels and adjacent vacant lands. The Captain Cook SRA is undeveloped. The area to the north is initially in low-density residential development, giving way to natural open areas with scattered homesites accessible via the beach. The northern Peninsula is zoned for minimum parcel sizes of 40 acres. Several areas along the coast, such as Grey Cliffs/Moose Point, have been platted for residential development in anticipation of the extension of the North Spur Road. Construction of the Tesoro Route transmission facilities on the Kenai Peninsula would take an estimated 639 worker-months of labor, distributed as depicted on Figure 3-3. Except for the Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-168 September 2001 summer 2003 peak of around 60 workers, the workforce would averase around 45 persons for much of the Project. ° SOUTHERN INTERTIE MANPOWER LOADING KENAI LOWLANDS--TESORO ROUTE x 3 No. of Workers per Month 8 8 8 8 8 van Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Figure 3-3 If the Tesoro Route were selected, then the entire northern Kenai Peninsula road system would be affected. The communities of Kenai, Nikiski, and Soldotna would experience increases in demand for housing and other community resources, and there would be increases in traffic along the Sterling Highway and North Kenai Road due to Project worker and logistical support travel through the area. Enstar Alternative (Applicant’s Proposal) The socioeconomic setting for the Enstar Route alternative over the Kenai Lowlands area is distinguished by having substantial human activities and facilities at its southern terminus at the boundary between Soldotna and Sterling, but having the majority of its route passing through virtual wilderness (albeit along the right-of-way of a buried pipeline). Two alternative alignments of the initial segment of the proposed transmission line, which commences at the °The question arises of how many workers on the Kenai Flats segment would be permanent residents of the area. In the mid-1990s, the Kenai/Soldotna area had approximately 600 workers employed in construction, according to the ADOL, suggesting that the local area could supply some of the Project's labor requirements. Since these local workers would have been involved on existing jobs it is likely that in the future only a fraction would be free at any given point in time to be available for the Southern Intertie Project. To obtain the requisite numbers and types of skills, most of the Project's workers would have to be recruited from the Anchorage area and elsewhere, and they would therefore require transient accommodations. Anecdotal information indicates that perhaps 5 percent of the local construction workers might be between jobs at points in time during the transmission project (fewer in summer, more in winter), suggesting that around two or three dozen local resident/construction workers might be available for hiring. Only some of these workers would have the requisite skills for transmission line projects, however. That number is not known, but a rough estimate of around 10 to 15 (depending on the season) seems reasonable, and those numbers are being used in this assessment for estimating the need for transient accommodations. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-169 September 2001 Soldotna Substation, bypass most of the towns of Soldotna and Sterling. One route option (Links El and E2) runs along the northern edge of Sterling while the other (Link ES) runs along the south side. They converge at the eastern boundary of Sterling from which point the route runs north and east to a crossing point on the shore of Turnagain Arm. From a socioeconomic impact standpoint, Enstar’s two initial southern segment alignments are identical, in that both traverse mostly undeveloped muskeg bogs, scrub, and Alaskan cedar woodlands. The more southern alignment passes a few parcels of low-density residential property and some gravel pits near the Kenai River, while the northern alignment (which occupies an existing transmission right-of-way) passes a few low-density residential parcels just north of the substation, skirts the Mackey’s Lakes subdivision, and then runs east through the transmission line corridor. In sum, the portions of Soldotna and Sterling crossed by either of the two alternate initial alignments are virtually indistinguishable, apart from one cluster of low- density parcels experiencing transmission line construction activities with one alternative versus another group experiencing them from the other. In either instance, the transmission line work would progress rapidly, remaining only a few days in any one location. Disturbances to any given neighborhood would be brief. Construction of the Enstar Route transmission facilities on the Kenai Peninsula would entail an estimated 637 worker-months of labor distributed over two construction seasons. As depicted on Figure 3-4, the first season would have a relatively low level of manpower loading, peaking at around 60 workers in mid-summer, but declining to 30 by late fall/early winter. The second season, in contrast, would have an early peak of around 90 workers in March, with the mid- summer loading being about 20 workers. SOUTHERN INTERTIE MANPOWER LOADING KENAI LOWLANDS--ENSTAR ROUTE | : & 1 i i i z | 0 Jan Feb Mar AprMayJun Jul AugSep Oct NovDec Jan Feb Mar AprMayJun Jul AugSep Oct NovDec Figure 3-4 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-170 September 2001 If the Enstar Route were selected, mainly Soldotna, Sterling, and Cooper Landing would be affected by the local construction activities. Transient Accommodation Impacts from Construction of Facilities There are a considerable number of motels, lodges, inns, and bed and breakfast establishments in the lowlands area communities. These facilities are primarily oriented to the summer tourist trade. It is unlikely that many Project workers would utilize them for extended periods of time during the summer season, however, due to relatively high rates. Some rates are well in excess of $100 per night.° There are houses, condominiums, apartments, and rooms available for rent, but summer vacancy rates are generally tight, according to community surveys by the state Department of Labor’s Annual Rental Market Survey. The 1996 survey of the KPB showed vacancy rates ranging from 0.0 percent (4-bedroom apartments with a median monthly rent of $997) to 6.4 percent (2-bedroom apartments with a median monthly rent of $625) (DCRA 1997a, d, e). The best prospects for summer worker lodging would be RV and campground sites. A directory of RV and campground facilities for the northern part of the Kenai Peninsula indicated that there are more than 1,600 spaces, but that there are seasonal limitations on availability of sites. Table 3-23 provides those data. TABLE 3-23 RV AND CAMPGROUND FACILITIES IN THE KENAI FLATS AREA . Campground Sites RV Park Sites (limited amenities, With e.g., pit toilets, no Community Area Hookups Other showers) Total Sites Nikiski-Kenai 143 0 53 196 Soldotna 245 334 461 1,040 Sterling 58 15 142 215 Cooper Landing 26 85 125 236 Total 472 434 781 1,687 Source: Woodall’s ‘96 Western Campground Directory 1996 If the Tesoro Route were selected, workers probably would prefer to locate in the Nikiski-Kenai area. During the warm weather season (typically mid-May through mid-September), there are around 200 campsites available, of which 143 have utility hookups. Daily rates in 1996 were around $20 to $25 for sites with hookups, or $10 to $15 for sites without utility services. During the other months, however, most RV parks and campsites are closed, and transient workers ®AAA Tourbook 1997 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-171 September 2001 would have to stay in motels, many of which keep at least some facilities open year-round.’ Daily costs of lodging would be higher than staying in RV parks, however, so subsistence allowances for the off-season non-local workers would probably have to be adjusted. The communities of Soldotna and Sterling would most directly serve workers on the Enstar Route. There are several motels and lodges in the area (whose summer rates are high), and the towns’ RV parks have around 275 sites with utility hookups (see Table 3-23). Kenai, to the west, and Cooper Landing, to the east, also could be used, adding another 200 hookup sites. There are several hundred non-hookup RV and campground sites in the area with minimal amenities.® In the course of the fieldwork mentioned above, various people in the peninsula’s visitor industry were contacted for information about visitation trends and facilities. They were asked how an influx of between 60 and 90 non-local transmission line workers would affect the availability of transient lodging. Uniformly, the response was that the influx could be easily accommodated except during the peak of the red salmon run in the middle two weeks of July. If reservations for that period were made sufficiently in advance (before the end of the preceding year), there would be no problem in obtaining space. Data were collected on various measures of visitation, and the data support the observation of the local visitor industry. Following are several graphs of various aspects of tourism and visitation to the peninsula. Figure 3-5 shows the monthly levels of visitors to the Kenai Visitors and Convention Bureau during 1996 and 1997. The July peak is distinct. Kenai Visitors & Convention Bureau Visitors, 1996, 1997 25,000 = a 20,000 < 2 2 3 15,000 S x | 3 10,000 3 5,000 0 ae ee Se co ge € ASS QEBese ¥ PEL ELIS TES TLS en —e—1996 —m-1997 | Figure 3-5 7 Few dependents are expected to accompany the non-local workers, in line with typical transmission line work practices involving 60-hour weeks and spartan living arrangements. The Enstar Route passes by the Bing’s Landing State Recreation Site, whose campground has 37 sites (no utilities). Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-172 September 2001 Figure 3-6 shows the average daily traffic levels per month during 1997 at the Placer River traffic station south of Palmer (which intercepts all vehicular traffic to and from the Kenai Peninsula). 8,000 7,000 ADT/Month FS | | 6,000 5,000 | ,000 3,000 2,000 | 1,000 Kenai Peninsula Traffic, 1997 (Placer River Station) sh Figure 3-6 Figure 3-7 shows the levels of passenger emplanements through the Kenai Municipal Airport during 1997. Passengers/Month Cy ,000 ,000 000 Kenai Municipal Airport Emplanements, 1997 Os ,000 4 000 4 ,000 4 ,000 4 $ > > ry F YP SFP FPF LS SK Figure 3-7 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-173 September 2001 Finally, Figure 3-8 shows the numbers of person-days per month for camping and day-use of the state parks and recreation areas on the peninsula. This last chart indicates that the peak of visitation for campers occurs during the month of July, following a gradual buildup from the mid-spring season. Kenai Peninsula State Parks and Recreation Areas Visitation, 1997 | 160,000 4 an Sa | | 140,000 | = = | § 120,000 = 5 | 5 100,000 a i| g 80,000 | 2 60,000 — 2 @ 40,000 naa > é E > 2 > > =» $ > k~} g ry > 9 FEL EST IS TPF TPS | MCamping ODay Use Figure 3-8 It is clear from the foregoing charts that the demand for visitor accommodations in the Kenai Peninsula peaks in July. According to owners and operators of such facilities, motels, RV parks, and other rental facilities are completely booked during the middle two weeks of the month. Before and after that period, the vacancy rate increases. The Greater Soldotna Area Chamber of Commerce reports that there is a vigorous booking agency system in the area whose principal business is locating accommodations for short-term visitors during the summer season. Facilities booked not only include apartments and condominiums, but also private homes’ guestrooms, small inns, and bed and breakfast establishments. Trend data from previous years indicate that demand is growing at about 5 percent per year, to which the visitor industry has responded with gradual expansion and addition of motels, RV parks, apartments, and condominiums. An initial concern was whether owners and operators of motels and RV parks might be reluctant to rent space to transmission line workers during the summer season for fear of displacing their regular clientele. Conversations with several persons in the accommodations business and the local chambers of commerce have diminished that concern. These people have uniformly stated that if facilities were booked and guaranteed sufficiently in advance there would be no problem in supplying the space during the high season. The Best Western King Salmon Motel in Soldotna, for example, has been renting out its top floor (24 rooms) for the first two weeks of June for several years to a group sponsoring training of Russian petroleum engineers (Christopher, personal communication, 1998). The King Salmon also operates an RV park with 46 spaces (full hookups), which are rented on a first-come, first-served basis. Further, a King Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-174 September 2001 Salmon Best Western RV space can be occupied indefinitely.’ For space at either their motel or RV park during July, however, reservations must be made before the end of the preceding year to ensure availability. First-come, first-served is the rule for the area’s commercial operators. For other times of the year, there is plenty of space, except for the weeks of Thanksgiving and New Year. The Greater Soldotna Area Chamber of Commerce and Kenai Convention and Visitors Bureau are able to assist organizations find accommodations for groups visiting the area, and this would include transmission line contractors’ workers. The chambers use their connections with member motels, lodges, and inns as well as booking agencies to direct inquiries for bulk accommodations (Smith, personal communication, 1998). The chambers and bureau do not provide direct booking because the service would compete with their members. The chambers and bureau do work to facilitate the placement of visitors. The Soldotna Chamber of Commerce even noted that the City of Soldotna had initiated a program to recruit RV and motorhome visitors to stay at schoolyards during the summer in order to provide a presence that would discourage vandalism (Smith, personal communication, 1998). It would be useful to compare the number of transient accommodations that the Southern Intertie Project workers would need with the available supply during the peak visitation season. Unfortunately, there is no consolidated estimate of the total number of motel rooms, rental apartments, and condominiums in the Nikiski/Kenai/Soldotna/Sterling area. The Kenai Peninsula Economic Development Department reports that there are 152 establishments registered to provide hotel and lodging services (including RV parks, but excluding public campgrounds), as follows: = Soldotna 91 = Kenai 37 = Sterling 13 = Nikiski 3 = Cooper Landing 8 The size of individual establishments ranges from a few to several dozen rooms or RV parking spaces. Based on field observation and conversations with people in the business it is estimated that the average number of rooms or spaces per establishment is 10, yielding a total of over 1,500 rooms and RV sites in the Nikiski to Cooper Landing corridor. Based on state park and recreational data for campground visitors, a party of three persons constitutes the typical visitor group, so the 152 establishments identified above could accommodate upwards of 4,500 visitors (assuming an average of 10 rooms/spaces per establishment and three persons per party). These numbers exclude many small bed and breakfast operations lacking business licenses as well as a multitude of apartment and condominium buildings and complexes whose owners rent them out individually through booking agents. The picture emerges, however, of a large and ° This is unlike the state parks and recreation area campgrounds, which typically limit stays from 7 to 10 days and to no more than two or three stays during a season. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-175 September 2001 growing visitor accommodation industry on the peninsula, which, while fully occupied during the middle part of July, is able to accommodate large numbers throughout other parts of the year. The projected numbers of transmission line workers needing accommodations during July are well below the Project’s manpower loading peaks. For the Tesoro Route, the July manpower loading is 25 workers in the first year and 21 in the second year, while for the Enstar Route, it is 18 in both years. The problem could decrease by multiple occupancy of rooms and RV spaces by Project workers. These considerations indicate that obtaining space for the non-local workers during the height of the Kenai tourist season will not impose any significant burden on the Project area’s visitor accommodations, provided they are secured and guaranteed well in advance. Moreover, at other times of the year, especially the September through April period of low demand, the workers would represent a welcome addition to the area’s customer base (Christopher, personal communication, 1998). Facility Impacts on Property Values Rights-of-way will be purchased or leased for property used for the transmission line. Any impact on property values crossed by the transmission lines will be included in the right-of-way purchase price or lease rate. The issue of adjacent property values possibly being adversely affected by transmission lines has arisen in some projects. Depending on the alternative selected, other property owners in Nikiski or Soldotna/Sterling would be primarily affected. In Nikiski, the transmission line would follow an existing right-of-way. In the Enstar alternative, the route options are routed mostly over vacant lands at the edges of the communities of Soldotna and Sterling.'° Residential parcels in these communities tend to be scattered and interspersed with vacant parcels, which reduces the chances for houses to be close to the lines. Further mitigating the potential adverse effect is the state’s requirement of a 100-foot buffer zone between any transmission line right-of-way and adjacent structures. For these reasons, the Project would have a negligible impact on properties adjacent to the right-of-way. It has been found in various studies of property values in metropolitan areas of comparable property transactions (i.e., similar qualities of houses except that one of each pair was next to a high-voltage overhead transmission line) that the properties next to the transmission lines sold for no more than one or two percent less than their more distant counterparts. The studies concluded that other factors such as location of the property, type and condition of improvements, and the level of real estate activity were far more significant factors than the presence or absence of transmission lines in determining the value of residential property.!! 10 The northern alignment around Sterling would utilize an existing transmission corridor. "| Cited in Right of Way magazine, 1996. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-176 September 2001 Effects of Power Line Construction on Trade and Commerce Project workers’ daily expenditures would probably average on the order of $50 per day per person, based on projected subsistence, and travel allowances factored into the labor cost projections. Project workers could spend $1 million over the course of the entire Project for lodging, subsistence and travel expenses in the Kenai Lowlands area.'” In addition, construction materials such as lumber, cement and aggregates, fuels, and construction services would be procured from local vendors and contractors for the Project. If these local procurements represented 10 percent of the Project’s materials budget, more than $5 million could be expended for local materials for the Kenai Lowlands segment over the two years of work, or about $2.5 million per season. Thus, the annual direct infusion of Project-related spending into the local Kenai Peninsula economy could amount to around $6 million over the nearly two-year duration of the Project. To give some perspective on the potential impact of this construction spending, the population of the communities of the Kenai Lowlands area (Nikiski, Salmatof, Kenai, Soldotna, Ridgeway, Sterling, and Cooper Landing) was about 22,000 in 1996. According to the state Departments of Labor and Community and Regional Affairs, total personal income, based on a median household income for the area of $38,000 and an average of 2.7 persons per household, was $310 million. This is approximately 30 percent of the total income for the entire KPB. Retail sales in the lowlands area amounted to an estimated $100 million.'* Thus it can be inferred that an increment of $3 million per year in retail expenditures for the Project in the Kenai Lowlands area would be a small but positive boost to the local economy. Public Services and Utilities Impacts The influx of Project workers would not materially impact community services such as police, fire, health care and welfare. Service providers in Kenai, Soldotna, Sterling, and other communities are organized to deal with large numbers of non-residents passing through the area during the summer months, and the Project’s complement of field personnel would represent a small increment. As an indicator of the area’s tourism dynamics, the Kenai Convention and Visitors Bureau in Soldotna received over 50,000 visitors during 1993. During the month of July, visitors number around 800 per day (DCRA 1997c). After completion of construction, virtually all personnel-related socioeconomic factors associated with the transmission Project would disappear. Operation of the facility would be 2 Assumes a total of 640 worker-months at a spending rate of $50 per day for subsistence, lodging, entertainment and the like. 'SBased on the ratio of retail sales per capita with per capita income for the entire KPB population in 1993. In that year, total retail sales per resident were $7,607, which was about one-third of average income per capita of $22,761 (U.S. Census Bureau data). The ratio rather than the value was used to adjust for the northern Kenai Lowlands area’s lower average income compared to the borough-wide averages. The borough-wide retail sales activity in 1993, which totaled $329.4 million, included an estimated $95 million of tourist expenditures. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism BATT, September 2001 remotely controlled, and maintenance would entail only a few personnel performing helicopter inspections, with infrequent occasions for ground inspections of the right-of-way. The principal long-term socioeconomic factor would be fiscal, in the form of payments to owners of lands to be occupied by the right-of-way. These payments would include compensation for easements on privately owned lands, property taxes on fee lands acquired for the right-of-way, and in-lieu-of property tax payments and administrative fees for easements on publicly-owned lands. The value of these land-related costs has not been determined, but they would be classified as positive, beneficial effects for the entities and jurisdictions receiving them. Mitigation Strategy It is recommended that final Project design and scheduling plans include a precise estimate of the location and timing of the manpower loading. The plans should identify the peaks of worker deployment along the right-of-way. This information then would be used to determine the time- path of transient housing requirements, followed by an appraisal (preferably in the year before work commences) of the actual availability of RV sites, campground sites and other transient accommodations near the Project right-of-way. The principal concern is ensuring that adequate accommodation is secured during the month of July, when visitor demand for space is at a peak. Advance planning and timely booking will make it likely that transient facilities will accommodate the Project’s field personnel without major disruption to the Kenai Lowlands area’s recreational and tourist housing market. If the Tesoro Route were selected, residents along the northwestern shore of the upper Kenai Peninsula might experience temporary disturbances from construction activities. These could be mitigated by good construction management practices avoiding or minimizing interruption of access to homesites. Public involvement activities also would allay concerns about the project’s local effects. Other socioeconomic effects in the area of construction and operation of the transmission facility would be small but positive increments in revenues to local businesses, workers, and public jurisdictions. Concurrent Projects Alone, the Southern Intertie Project will not constitute a major source of disturbance to the socioeconomic equilibrium of the Kenai Peninsula. To ascertain the potential that other large construction projects, in combination with the Southern Intertie Project, may impose unacceptable burdens on community resources, a survey was conducted of organizations knowledgeable about future developments on the peninsula. Contacts were made to the Kenai Peninsula Borough’s Economic Development District and Planning Division, cities of Soldotna and Kenai, and ADOT. The KPB and the cities of Soldotna and Kenai cited a number of current projects or projects that might occur in the same timeframe as the Southern Intertie Project. As reported in Bower Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-178 September 2001 (personal communication 1998), Gregory (personal communication 1998), and Simmons (personal communication 1998) such projects may include the following: = $5 million Challenger Learning Center = $1.7 million public health facility in the borough m= juvenile detention center = convention/hotel facility in Kenai or Soldotna (for which no funding has been announced) = wastewater outfall project for Kenai (still in the initial planning stages of a 5 to 10 year effort) = Kenai Watershed Project (long-term regional water resource development planning effort sponsored by the Army Corps of Engineers with involvement of the borough and local communities) None of these local projects appear to be of sufficient magnitude to impose significant pressures on the communities’ social and economic balance, with or without the Southern Intertie Project. Several contacts mentioned that the principal forthcoming construction projects in the area would be highway upgradings by ADOT. To identify major highway projects on the Kenai Peninsula that might coincide with the Southern Intertie Project, the state’s currently approved Surface Transportation Implementation Plan (ADOT 1998) was reviewed. The STIP lists highway and other surface transportation projects that have funding approved and appropriated for the period Fiscal Years (FYs) 1998-2000, plus prioritized projects for which funding is pending approval from federal and state sources. These latter projects are slated for implementation during FYs 2001, 2002, and 2003. The STIP includes 16 highway improvement projects on the Kenai Peninsula. These are listed in Table 3-24 by ADOT “Need” identification number, location, phase of work, and year of implementation. The STIP identifies the following three phases of project implementation: = Phase 2 — Design = Phase 3 — Right-of-Way Acquisition = Phase 4 — Construction In total, Alaska is planning to spend more than $110 million for highway and_ bridge improvements on the peninsula over the next six years. Of this total, $62.2 million is to be expended during FYs 1998-2000; $52.2 million is for direct construction. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-179 September 2001 It is the highway construction phase that is of particular interest to the socioeconomic impact assessment. That is when the workforce is mobilized and, if local heavy construction contracting or manpower resources are not sufficient, non-local workers must be recruited and temporarily relocated to the Project area. To estimate the number of highway workers that would be associated with the highway projects, the IMPLAN regional economic model database was used, which provides values for direct employment and other parameters of economic activity as a function of total spending. Thus, for the activity “New Highway and Street Construction,” the IMPLAN database indicates that $1 million in direct expenditures will employ eight workers (this does not include secondary employment generated by procurement of supplies and workers’ consumer spending). This coefficient was applied to the sum of Phase 4 spending to obtain the number of highway workers that would be needed each year between FY 1998 and FY 2003. During that period, the manpower loading for the Tesoro Route on the peninsula is around 45 workers, with a brief peak of about 60 workers during the summer of year 2. For the Enstar Route, the Project manpower loading varies from a low of around 30 during the fall/winter of year | to a peak of around 90 during spring of year 2, thereafter decreasing sharply to 25 or less. Juxtaposing these numbers with the projected highway project workforce indicates that the cumulative manpower loading of the two programs would amount to a maximum of around 180 workers during the spring of year 2 with the Enstar Route, versus a maximum of around 150 during the summer of year 2 with the Tesoro Route. These numbers do not suggest an excessive burden for the Kenai Peninsula communities. A significant proportion of the highway project workforce likely can be recruited locally from peninsula resident construction workers. Skill requirements for highway and street improvements are not as specialized as those for transmission line construction. Thus, the number of non-local highway workers needing accommodations in peninsula communities should be significantly smaller than the total workforce requirement. In addition, most of the highway construction work during FY 2001-2003 will be in the Seward area, whereas the Southern Intertie Project work would be based out of Nikiski or Soldotna. Most of the highway projects’ non-local workforce would lodge in the Seward area, while the Southern Intertie workers would lodge in the Nikiski/Kenai/Soldotna/Sterling area. A third mitigating factor is that the bulk of the manpower loading for the transmission line Project occurs during the off season, i.e., during the fall-winter-spring quarters, when demand for visitor accommodations is low. Accordingly, the competition for transient accommodations between the transmission line and highway projects should be negligible. The potential for cumulative adverse impacts on the Kenai Peninsula’s socioeconomic resources from the Southern Intertie Project and the state’s highway program appears to be insignificant. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-180 September 2001 TABLE 3-24 ALASKA SURFACE TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR 1998-2000 Kenai Peninsula Highway Projects (Funding in thousands of dollars) Need ID__| Location Project Description Phase | FFY 98 | FFY 99 | FFY 00| FFY 01 | FFY 02 | FFY 03 2404 Kenai__|North Kenai Spur Road MP 10.5 to 25 Rehabilitation 2 700.0) Resurface the existing paved surface, add shoulders, 3 100.0 provide separated pedestrian pathway. 4 4,500.0 Project Total 700.0) 100.0} 4,500.0 2614 Seward |Milepost 0.0 to 8 - Seward to Grouse Creek Canyon 2 800.0) Rehabilitate roadway and/or upgrade including 3 1,250.0 bridge work as needed. 4 8,730.0 Project Total 800.0} 1,250.0 8,730.0 2615 | Seward |Milepost 8 to 13 - Grouse Creek Canyon Rehabilitate the roadway to include widening for 2 passing lanes, grade changes, and reconstruction of 3 500.0) the Grouse Creek Bridge. 4 10,000.0 Project Total 10,500.0 2616 | Seward {Milepost 13 to 18 - The Summit to Snow River 2 Rehabilitate roadway, widen and construct a grade- 3 150.0] 260.0, separated railroad crossing just south of Snow River. 4 6,500.0 Project Total 150.0} 6,760.0) 2617_| Seward |Milepost 18 to 25 - Snow River to Falls Creek Widen to include a grade-separated railroad crossing at 2 1,200.0 Crown Point, bridge rehabilitation, passing lanes and 3 1,500.0 resurfacing of the roadway. 4 11,200.0 Project Total 1,200.0 1,500.0} 11,200.0 2618 Seward |Milepost 25 to 30 - Falls Creek to Moose Pass 2 800.0 Rehabilitation of roadway including widening, resurfacing, and 3 500.0 replacement of the Fall Creek and Trail River bridges. 4 8,100.0 Project Total 800.0 500.0} 8,100.0 2620 | Seward |Milepost 30 to 35 — Moose Pass to Sterling Wye 2 300.0 Rehabilitation roadway and/or upgrade as needed. 3 100.0 4 Project Total 300.0 100.0 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-181 September 2001 TABLE 3-24 ALASKA SURFACE TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR 1998-2000 Kenai Peninsula Highway Projects (Funding in thousands of dollars) Need ID__| Location Project Description Phase | FFY 98 | FFY 99 | FFY 00| FFY 01 | FFY 02 | FFY 03 2672 | Sterling |Milepost 36 to 45 - Sterling/Seward Wye to Sunrise Rehabilitation the Sterling Highway from the Seward Highway at the Tern Lake Wye (Milepost 36) to Milepost 45 near Kenai Lake. Includes minor realignments, replacement of 2 250.0 the Quartz Creek Bridge, drainage improvements, 3 widening and resurfacing. 4 11,500.0 Project Total 250.0} 11,500.0 2673 | Sterling |Milepost 45 to 60 - Sunrise to Skilak Lake Road Relocation of the highway around Cooper Landing with new 2-lane 12-foot driving lanes, paved shoulders, and climbing lanes where necessary from Milepost 46 to Milepost 2 450.0) 2,000.0: 55. Several scenic pulloffs will be constructed. Rehabilitation of the 8 1,000.0} 1,500.0 highway from Milepost 55 to Milepost 58. 4 Project Total 450.0) 2,000.0} 1,000.0} 1,500.0 2674 | Sterling [Soldotna Urban & Kenai River Bridge Replacement Rehabilitation of about 1.5 miles of the Sterling Highway (5 lanes) through Soldotna between Kenai Spur Road and 2 Kobuk Street. Additional lanes, widen the Kenai River 3 800.0 500.0 Bridge, and improve intersections, including walkways. 4 11,700.0 Project Total 800.0 500.0} 11,700.0 6109 Sterling |Skyview High School Entrance Capacity Improvements 2, 100.0 Provide turn lanes and lighting at the school entrance. 3 50.0 4 600.0 Project Total 750.0 2401 Kenai __|Kenai River Bridge Access Road Rehabilitation Rehabilitation bridge access road including resurfacing and 2 widening. Project starts at the Kenai Spur Road and e ends at Kalifornsky Beach Road (3.5 miles). 4 1,600.0) Project Total 1,600.0: Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-182 Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism September 2001 TABLE 3-24 ALASKA SURFACE TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR 1998-2000 Kenai Peninsula Highway Projects (Funding in thousands of dollars) Need ID__| Location Project Description Phase | FFY 98 | FFY 99| FFY 00 | FFY 01 | FFY 02 | FFY 03 2398 Kenai__|Kenai Forest Drive/Redoubt Avenue Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Forest Drive from Kenai Spur Road to 2 250.0 Redoubt Avenue, (1 mile) and Redoubt Avenue from 3 500.0) Forest Drive to Kenai Spur Road (1.5 miles). 4 5,300.0) Project Total 750.0 5,300.0) 2644 | Soldotna |Funny River Road: Milepost 2.7 to Milepost 17.0 Rehabilitation Rehabilitation from end of pavement near Soldotna Airport (Milepost 2.7) to Milepost 17 with the intent of hard surfacing. 2 This gravel road. Including shoulder widening, drainage 5 150.0 improvements and scenic waysides. 4 3,550.0 Project Total 150.0} 3,550.0) 2645 | Soldotna |Kalifornsky Beach Road Milepost 16.4-22.4 Rehabilitation and Safety Improvements Rehabilitation from the Kenai River Bridge Access Road (Milepost 16.4) to the Sterling Hwy (Milepost 22.4) (6 miles). Including widening for a 2-way left turn lane, 6-foot 2 shoulders, resurfacing, and reconstruction of the 3 250.0} 1,865.0 Gaswell Road intersection. 4 5,000.0 Project Total 250.0} 6,865.0 2642 | Soldotna |East Redoubt Avenue Rehabilitation Rehabilitation East Redoubt Ave between the Sterling Highway and end of road at Milepost 5. Includes adding to road base to support hard surfacing, drainage improvements (including 2 450.0 culvert installations, clean out ditches and hard surfacing 3 75.0 a 36-foot top. 4 5,525.0 Project Total 450.0 75.0} 5,525.0) Grand Total, Kenai Peninsula Projects 5,800.0) 28,775.0| 27,600.0) 17,980.0} 13,225.0) 18,775.0 Total Phase 2 (Design) 1,850.0} 1,900.0) 0.0} 3,250.0 300.0) 0.0 Total Phase 3 (Right-of-way) 1,750.0} 3,875.0) 600.0) 1,500.0} 1,725.0) 1,600.0) Total Phase 4 (Construction) 2,200.0} 23,000.0| 27,000.0) 13,230.0} 11,200.0| 17,175.0' Total Man-Years Construction Labor (@ 8 FTE/$million) 18 184 216 106 90 137 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-183 September 2001 Long-term Tourism and Recreation Impacts The Kenai Peninsula Borough’s Planning Division has expressed a concern that the project’s aboveground transmission facilities might contribute to erosion of the KPB’s attractiveness and economic vitality as a tourism and recreation destination. The KPB states that the negative impact of the project would be “...in the nature of a cumulative impact in which the location of above-ground electrical transmission lines, along with existing and future development activities measurably detracts from the wild and pristine character of the region.”"* It is not disputed that intrusion of man-made structures to the setting could be a distraction from its natural state. Detracting from the pristine character is a matter of degree. There is, however, no commonly accepted measure of the detraction that might occur due either to the Project alone or the project in conjunction with others. Unfortunately, it is not possible with the currently available tools of economic analysis to make a quantifiable estimate of whether or to what extent the Southern Intertie Project’s facilities (alone or in conjunction with other projects) might induce people to reduce their demand for or consumption of the peninsula’s tourism and recreation resources. Additional information in the form of a contingent valuation survey” might provide a sense of how much it might be worth to a group of users to have the transmission line system entirely undergrounded, to avoid the visual intrusion of transmission lines in the landscape of the KNWR. But unless the survey included a question asking how much the respondents would be willing to pay to have the facility out of sight, the conclusions could only be regarded as indicative of a general sentiment. The KPB cites one study, The Economic Analysis of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KPBEDD 1998), which estimates that spending by consumptive users of the refuge’s wildlife resources (sport fishers and hunters), non-consumptive users (hikers, campers, etc.) and the refuge administration on refuge-related activities generated 5.7 percent of the borough’s total value of sales in FY 1995-96 and 8.7 percent of the jobs.'® The study also noted a strong upward trend of visitation by fishermen and hunters to the peninsula (as well as the rest of the state) over the past decade by non-residents. This shows the importance of the area’s natural resources as one source of income and employment. Of itself, the project would not seriously damage the area’s tourist and recreation trade. It would not affect the majority of people using the area’s fishing, hunting, camping and hiking resources. The red salmon run would still fill up every motel, resort, RV and bed and breakfast space every July. However, if people came to fear a “grafitti” effect, i.e., that one degradation of the setting leads to another and then another and another one after that, then perhaps a line would have been drawn on what additional changes to the landscape should be permitted. This would apply not '* Parker, op. cit., p. 3. iS Contingent valuation surveys attempt to determine monetary values for non-marketable natural resources by creation of a pseudo market for the resource in question (e.g., preservation of a vista or an endangered specie, etc.) by asking how much a person would be willing to pay to preserve the asset (or be willing to accept in lieu of it). The results from a sampling of respondents are then extrapolated to the total population or user base. '© op. cit., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-184 September 2001 only to essential infrastructure like roads and power facilities, but also to the borough encouraging development of subdivisions in remote areas like Grey Cliffs/Moose Point, where all the accoutrements of residential life would have to be inserted into a mostly undisturbed setting. Turnagain Arm Region Impacts Because the construction activities for the submerged portions of the Southern Intertie Project would mainly involve offshore operations, the principal socioeconomic impact of constructing this segment would be its effects on local traffic from logistical support activities. These include workers commuting and moving construction materials and equipment to and from work areas along the Turnagain Arm. Workers likely would be transported on a daily basis from staging areas in Anchorage to work boats and barges. This impact is assessed in the discussion of the project’s impacts on the onshore sections in the Anchorage Bowl region, in which area it is assumed the bulk of the logistical support for the marine cable work would be located and mobilized. Cable-laying activities will not significantly impact navigation and fishing in the Turnagain Arm, as very little boating and fishing occurs. Extensive mudflats and the wide range of tidal flows discourage excursion into the offshore area. Anchorage Bowl Area Impacts No-action Alternative Current levels and trends of population, income, employment, and private and public sector activity would presumably continue. Combined Turnagain Arm/Anchorage Bowl Project Alternative It is logical to combine the impact analysis of these two project segments because workers likely reside or stay in the Anchorage Bow] during construction of either. The socioeconomic effects of the project in the Anchorage Bowl area principally would be temporary increases in the area’s labor force. Some of the project’s specialized labor likely would be recruited from outside the area causing associated changes in the demand for housing and consumption of public and private goods and services. The personnel constructing the Turnagain Arm crossing and the onshore transmission line segments in the Anchorage Bowl would be housed in the metropolitan area (many would be permanent residents of the area). Workers on the submerged portion would be transported daily to and from the work sites. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-185 September 2001 The Tesoro and Enstar route alternatives have similar manpower loading patterns for the combined effects of the Anchorage Bowl transmission line and Turnagain Arm underwater cable segments. Figure 3-9 shows the patterns for each route’s combined manpower loading. The peaks of the Enstar Route’s combined manpower loading in the construction season of year | are of the same general magnitude as that of the Tesoro alignment’s, but are split into two sub-peaks due the earlier scheduling of the underwater crossing work. In the construction season of year 2, however, the two routes have similar peaks. Due to the Enstar’s larger overhead cable workforce, however, Enstar peak is 100 and the Tesoro peak is 90 workers. SOUTHERN INTERTIE MANPOWER LOADING COMBINED ANCHORAGE BOWL SEGMENTS 8 8 No. of Workers per Month g Figure 3-9 Tesoro Combined Underwater and Overland Segments The manpower loading projections for construction of the Tesoro Route alternative’s combined Anchorage Bowl and Turnagain Arm segments are depicted on Figure 3-10. The Tesoro Route alternative would require an estimated 164 worker months of construction labor for the onshore cable segment plus another 261 worker months of labor on the submerged segment.” Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-186 September 2001 SOUTHERN INTERTIE MANPOWER LOADING ANCHORAGE AREA--TESORO ROUTE 100 No. of Workers per Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Figure 3-10 The Tesoro Route’s onshore cable segment in the western end of Anchorage is relatively short, with the conductors mainly located in an underground conduit after coming ashore. As a result, the onshore segment has a relatively low manpower loading of around 20 workers. The combined peak of on- and off-shore worker loading for the first season’s work would be around 30. In contrast, the offshore segment has most of its work concentrated during the year 2 season, peaking at nearly 80 workers in June. Most of the off-shore personnel would be working from barges and work boats. Accordingly, residents living along the right(s)-of-way of the Tesoro Route alternative(s) in the western side of the Anchorage Bowl would experience relatively minor disturbances. Enstar Alternatives Combined Underwater and Overland Segments The manpower loading projections for construction of the Enstar Route’s combined Anchorage Bowl and Turnagain Arm segments are depicted on Figure 3-11. The Enstar Route would require an estimated 177 worker-months of construction labor for the onshore cable segment (versus 164 for Tesoro) plus another 223 worker-months of labor for the submerged segment (versus 261 for Tesoro).'’ Thus, the Enstar alignment would involve more on-shore overhead cable work than the Tesoro Route, due to Enstar’s greater overland distance, but less submerged cable work because of the shorter length of the Enstar’s crossing of Turnagain Arm. 19 POWER Engineers, Inc. 1997a Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-187 September 2001 SOUTHERN INTERTIE MANPOWER LOADING ANCHORAGE AREA--ENSTAR ROUTE 120 100 80 60 20 No. of Workers per Month 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Figure 3-11 Impact Summary - Anchorage Bowl Unlike the Kenai Lowlands situation where most of the Project’s workers would be temporary relocators and weekend commuters from the Anchorage area, many of the workers for the Anchorage Bowl sections of the Project would be residents who would not require transient accommodations. Based on the work crew size projections, 10 to 15 non-local construction workers would be hired for the Anchorage Bowl transmission line segment. In contrast, the majority of workers on the submerged cable crossing more likely would be non-locals. Very specialized skills are required for this work, and the contractors (who generally are international) would be inclined to recruit experienced workers from their headquarters locales. Seventy-five non-local workers may need temporary lodging during their assignments. The non-local workers would represent an insignificant increment to the city’s population and construction labor force (254,000 and 8,000, respectively, in 1996). Anchorage has adequate visitor accommodations and amenities to accommodate non-local workers. The Anchorage Yellow Pages contain 10 pages of hotels and motel listings. Vacancy rates for apartments in the city in 1996 were relatively high, ranging from 6 percent (3-bedroom apartment with a median monthly rent of $838.00) to 9.3 percent (1-bedroom apartment with a median monthly rent of $550.00) (ADOL 1996). Finding temporary lodging for this number of non-local workers should not be a problem, nor would the workers place a strain on the city’s other visitor resources. Spending of payroll earnings and procurement of local materials, equipment, and services would make a relatively small contribution to the area’s economy. Wages and salaries for the Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-188 September 2001 Anchorage Bowl and Turnagain Arm segments of the Project are estimated at approximately $7 million for the Enstar Route and $3.8 million for the Tesoro Route. As noted earlier, major parts of the system components, notably the cables and control systems, would be obtained from national and international suppliers. Some portion of the projected $50+ million in the Project’s material costs would accrue to local vendors and contractors. The increment would be insignificant to the region-wide total economy. No information is available on the likely fiscal effects of the project. Most of the route alternatives in the Anchorage area involve public lands (highways and railroad alignments), so state and local jurisdictions would receive compensation for Project rights-of-way in the form of payments in-lieu of taxes. These revenues probably would not have a significant impact on overall agency budgets. Once the final route alignment and configuration is determined, definitive right-of-way costs can be determined and fiscal impacts can be better estimated. 3:73 Rate Impacts from the Project Construction of the Project would lower electric rates overall. The project is being proposed by the six Railbelt Utilities, all having different rate structures. The cost of the end-use kWh rates for each of the utilities is based on many factors that vary from utility to utility. Therefore, an average net saving per kWh each year for all the utilities combined was calculated, based on their total projected electric energy demand. An analysis of rate impacts was completed by DFI- Aerodynamics (1997). The cost reductions attributable to the project are described and quantified in the Update and Reevaluation of Economic Benefits of Southern Intertie (DFI 1998) and summarized in Chapter |. In addition to cost reductions resulting from these savings, ratepayers also would benefit from the improved reliability the intertie would allow Railbelt Utilities to provide. However, since the reliability benefits do not directly impact electricity rates, they were not considered in calculating the rate impacts from the Project. The Enstar Route, the least expensive of the two alternatives, would produce a small savings starting in the first year of operation, and the savings would grow larger in later years, eventually reaching almost 0.35 cents per kWh. The average reduction over the 2004 to 2043 life of the Project would be 0.21 cents per kWh. In contrast, the Tesoro Route would provide a small savings in the early years of operation, and these savings would grow larger in later years, reaching a maximum of about 0.25 cents per kWh. The average reduction over the 2004 to 2043 life of the Tesoro alternative would be 0.16 cents per kWh. The Tesoro Route exhibits lower savings than the Enstar Route in subsequent years. The cable replacement costs account for the sawtooth pattern of ratepayer savings shown on Figure 3-12. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-189 September 2001 Rate Impacts of Southern Intertie Project (in Cents/kWh) Cents/kWh GEnstar 2-3 Route MliTesoro 2-3 Route Figure 3-12 In order to put these findings into a macroeconomic context that encompasses the Railbelt customer base, regional economic data are used. Table 3-25 shows the numbers for population and personal income in the four boroughs constituting the Railbelt service area. TABLE 3-25 RAILBELT POPULATION AND INCOME DATA, 1996 Personal Income Area Population ($ mil.) Anchorage Borough 249,377 7,208.97 Fairbanks North Star Borough 83,835 1,762.06 Kenai Peninsula Borough 47,175 1,090.50 Matanuska-Susitna Borough 52,564 883.41 Subtotal Railbelt Boroughs 432,951 10,944.93 Percent Alaska 71.6% 73.6% Alaska 604,966 14,880.18 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, 1998 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-190 September 2001 The Railbelt boroughs had about 433,000 residents in 1996 (72 percent of the state’s total population), whose earnings and other income was almost $11 billion (74 percent of the state’s total) in that year.'* These Railbelt inhabitants were served by 190,000 metered connections by the Railbelt Utilities, whose estimated demand for electrical energy in 1997 was 3,850 GWh (3,850,243,000 kWh), according to the IPG.’ The estimated economic benefits of the project are based on projections of power demand and cost savings over the 40-year period 2004 to 2043. At the beginning of the period, projected total energy demand will be 4,510 GWh, rising to 5,866 GWh in 2043. The average annual level of demand over the 40-year period would be 5,556.6 GWh. As noted in Chapter 1, the average cost savings were estimated to be 0.21 cent/kWh for the Enstar Route and 0.16 cent/kWh for the Tesoro Route. Multiplying these values by the average annual amount of electrical energy demanded yields the aggregate cost savings to the Railbelt customers, which then can be related to the macroeconomic setting of the service area. For the Enstar Route the average annual electric power cost savings would be $11.7 million, while for the Tesoro Route they would be $9.0 million. In 1997, the Railbelt Utilities served 190,000 metered customers. The average savings per metered customer (assuming that the customer base remained fixed) would be about $61.70 per year over the life of the project with the Enstar Route, versus $47.50 per year with the Tesoro Route. The region has a total annual personal income of $10.94 billion, with an average annual income per metered customer of about $57,600. Thus, the individual average annual electrical energy cost savings per customer (applied as if they had been available in 1996/97) would be about 1/10 of | percent of the average income for the Enstar Route, and 0.08 percent for the Tesoro Route. Electricity users’ energy requirements vary widely. Residential customers use much less than commercial customers, who in turn use less than industrial customers. The customer base is expanding as the Railbelt’s population and economic activities grow. Therefore, the savings per customer kWh would decrease slightly over time. The overall savings from the Enstar Route, averaging $11.7 million per year, would still represent an increase in current regional disposable income of 0.11 percent, versus 0.08 percent for the Tesoro Route’s $9.0 million.’ Even taking possible multiplier effects into account, these increments in purchasing power, while beneficial, are too small to have any discernable impact on the Railbelt region’s economic performance. '8 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Economic Information System (REIS), 1998. The IPG (Intertie Participants Group), also referred to as the Railbelt Utilities, is composed of the GoldenValley Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, Chugach Electric Association (CEA), Anchorage Municipal Light and Power, Homer Electric Association, and Seward Electric Association. *° Source: IPG estimates, 1997. *! The percentages would diminish slightly in future years as the value of aggregate personal income increases in step with population and economic growth. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-191 September 2001 3.7.4 Environmental Justice Presidential Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (February 11, 1994), requires that each federal agency identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low- income populations. To carry out an evaluation of potential environmental justice issues a series of questions may be posed: First, does the potentially affected community include minority and/or low-income populations? Second, are the environmental impacts likely to fall disproportionately on minority and/or low-income members of the community and/or tribal resources? Third, have all communities been sufficiently involved in the decision-making process? Each of these questions is addressed below, first for the Kenai Peninsula area of the project and then for the Anchorage Bowl area. Kenai Peninsula = Does the potentially affected community include minority or low-income populations? To determine whether the community includes minority and/or low-income populations, the demographics and socioeconomics of the project areas were evaluated. The composition of the population was documented. Within each alternative area, the minority population was between 5 and 6 percent. The population under the poverty level ranged from 4.9 to 7.8 percent. These statistics indicate very low proportions of low income and minority persons residing in the Project area in 1990. Borough-wide, 7.2 percent of the population is Alaska Natives, and the borough is classified as Non-Native (Census Bureau 1990; DCRA 1998). A minority population may be present if the minority population percentage of the affected area is “meaningfully greater” than the minority population percentage in the general population or other “appropriate unit of geographic analysis.””” The foregoing data substantiate the finding that minority populations do not represent a significant proportion of the Project area population. = Are minority or low-income persons disproportionately impacted by the Project? To determine if minority or low-income persons would be disproportionately impacted by the Project, two issues were analyzed. The first was whether the routing of the Project within communities in the Nikiski, Soldotna, and Sterling areas of the Kenai Peninsula”? would ~ EPA Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA’s NEPA Compliance Analysis, April 1998. 3 An extensive scoping and public involvement program was aimed at affording residents ample opportunity to voice their concerns. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-192 September 2001 disproportionately affect minorities or low-income populations. The second was whether impacts to the natural resources would affect minorities differently than other non-minorities. = Have all communities been sufficiently involved in the decision-making process? A public outreach and consultation program was designed and implemented that provided information to all community residents, including Native American groups (and others with different socio-cultural perspectives). Information on the Project plans, including environmental and health aspects of electrical facilities, was made available to groups and individuals. In conjunction with the public involvement and consultation program, a proactive environmental planning process was structured to include the views of potentially affected low-income and minority populations in formulating environmental analysis criteria. (A description of the public involvement program is included in Chapter 4.) Project Routing The 1990 Census was used to determine the populations of minority and low-income persons along the alternative Project routes. It provides the only geographically disaggregated compilation of information on the area’s population from which socioeconomic differences among the communities can be distinguished.”* Typically, the Census of Population and Housing divides areas into census tracts, blocks and other geographic units for enumeration. In the case of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, the population is too small and dispersed to be enumerated in tracts or blocks. Instead, the borough is divided into two subareas within which communities are identified as census designated places (CDPs). The Seward Census Subarea includes the southeastern coastal area of the peninsula while the Kenai-Cook Inlet Census Subarea includes the rest of the borough, including the communities and areas traversed by the Project’s alternatives. Those of concern for the Project are the Nikiski and Daniel’s Lake CDPs for the Tesoro Route, and the Soldotna, Ridgeway, and Sterling CDPs for the Enstar Route. Figure 3-13 shows these CDPs with the alternative transmission line routes superimposed.”> The Tesoro Route commences at the Bernice Lake Substation in Nikiski and follows the North Kenai Highway through the Nikiski and Daniel’s Lake CDPs into the North Kenai area (which takes in all the area on the northern part of the peninsula not falling within designated CDPs). The Enstar Route has two alternative alignments from its departure from the Soldotna Substation, one along the north side of the Sterling CDP and the other generally along the southern side. The northern alignment (Links El, E2, and E3) runs north along the Soldotna/Sterling CDP boundary, west along the Soldotna/Ridgeway CDP boundary, north through Ridgeway to the northwest corner of the Sterling CDP, then east to the latter’s eastern boundary. The southern alignment (Link E5) *4 No supplemental censuses have been taken since 1990 to update the data. °> The figure was made by scanning and superimposing sections from the EIS maps onto a portion of the CDP map prepared by the Kenai Peninsula Borough from data generated by the Alaska Dept. of Labor, Resource and Analysis. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-193 September 2001 passes virtually entirely within the Sterling CDP. Beyond the eastern boundary there are no CDPs. Analysis Selected data from the 1990 Census for the above CDPs are presented in Table 3-26, which shows numbers for white and non-white population, labor force and unemployment, income, poverty status, and housing conditions. In 1990, there were 3,548 people living in the Tesoro Route CDPs, and 9,302 people living in the Enstar Route CDPs (including the Soldotna and Ridgeway CDPs—Sterling CDP alone had 3,802 persons). The Tesoro Route CDPs’ residents represented 8.7 percent of the entire borough’s 1990 population, while the Enstar’s constituted 22.8 percent (the Sterling CDP’s alone was 9.3 percent). TABLE 3-26 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE DATA, KENAI PENINSULA, 1990 Route: Tesoro Route Enstar Route Daniels CDP: Nikiski | Lake Total | Soldotna | Ridgeway | Sterling | Total Total persons 2,710) 838 3,548 3,482 2,018 3,802 9,302 White 25 792 3,343 3,267 1,867 3,673 8,807 Non-White 159 46) 205 215 151 129) 495 Percent non-White 5.9% 5.5% 5.8% 6.2% 7.5% 3.4% 5.3% Civilian labor force (16 + years old) 1,833, N/A N/A 2,382 1,446 2,647 6,475 Percent in labor force 67.6% N/A N/A 73.4% 74.1% 66.0% 71.2% Employed 1,059 N/A N/A 1,596 1,003 1,617 4,216 Unemployed 180) N/A N/A 153) 68 130 S51 Percent unemployed 14.5% N/A N/A 8.7% 6.3% 74% 7.5% Per capita income (1989) 18,823 N/A N/A 15,800) 17,404 18,436 17,213: Median household income (1989) 44,242 N/A N/A| 38,004 48,967 51,145 46,039 Poverty status in 1989: Percent persons below P/L 7.0% N/A| N/A 5.7% 6.1% 7.71% 6.6% Percent families below P/L 7.8% N/A N/A 4.5% 2.3% 6.7% 4.9% Housing conditions: Percent HUs lacking complete plumbing 3.7% N/A N/A 0.0% 7.0% 21.4% 10.3% facilities Percent HUs lacking complete kitchen facilities 2.5% N/A N/A 0.0% 8.8% 21.7%| 10.8% Sources: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1991 (corrected data) and Alaska Dept. of Labor, Research and Analysis 1991. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-194 Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism September 2001 Se wk nist cement A : NORTH KENAI CDP Figure 3-13 Census Designated Places in The Kenai Peninsula Borough Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-195 September 2001 Summarizing the data from Table 3-26: Characteristic Tesoro Route CDPs | Enstar Route CDPs Percent non-White 5.8% 5.3% [2] Percent unemployed 14.5% [1] 7.5% [3] Percent families below poverty level 7.8% [1] 4.9% [4] Percent houses lacking complete plumbing 3.7% 10.3% [5] facilities Source: U.S. Census Bureau 1990 Notes: [1] Nikiski CDP only. Data not available for Daniel's Lake CDP [2] Sterling CDP = 3.4% [3] Sterling CDP = 7.4% [4] Sterling CDP = 6.7% [5] Sterling CDP = 21.4% The racial composition of the CDPs was predominantly white, ranging from low of 92.5 percent in the Ridgeway CDP and 94.1 percent in Nikiski CDP, to a high of 96.6 percent in the Sterling cpp.” Unemployment was relatively high in Nikiski CDP, reflecting the national recession, but moderate in the Enstar Route CDPs. The percentage of the families below the poverty level was moderate to low in all areas. Houses lacking complete plumbing facilities were very low in Nikiski, non-existent in Soldotna, moderately high in Ridgeway, and surprisingly high (21.4 percent) in Sterling, considering the relatively high levels of family income and employment.” These statistics indicate very low proportions of low income and minority persons residing in the Project area in 1990. Age/gender/racial origin data are not available for later years, but a review of the area indicates continued growth of population, employment, residential construction, and commerce. The ADOL subsequently prepared estimates of population change, which show that by mid-1997, the Tesoro Route CDPs’ populations had expanded 12 percent while the Enstar Route’s three CDPs had grown by 31 percent (mostly in the Sterling CDP). Visual inspection of neighborhoods along the rights-of-way indicated that there is a wide diversity of housing types. A feature common to all neighborhoods is large lots, with large, tree- filled distances between homes. The initial 6 miles of the Tesoro Route’s right-of-way in Nikiski passes through a mélange of urban/commercial/industrial parcels interspersed with low and medium density residential parcels and adjacent vacant lands. There is an occasional old and unattractive structure, often with cars and machinery lying about, but there are no clusters of shanties or slum dwellings. There are many mobile homes or modest manufactured houses along the highway, with very substantial residences in adjacent parcels off the highway on side roads, well screened from their neighbors and the traffic. Beyond Daniel’s Lake, infrastructure and housing is very sparse. North of the Captain Cook SRA, there are occasional homesites nestled in small clearings near the Cook Inlet shoreline, but there is little other development, even in the ©The majority of the non-Whites were American Indian, Eskimo or Aleut. ” We suspect that the Sterling CDP had a relatively high number of construction workers’ trailers listed as domiciles. Interestingly, the median annual family income of the Sterling CDP was highest among all CDPs, at $51,145. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-196 September 2001 Grey Cliffs/Moose Point subdivision, which is halfway between Nikiski and Pt. Possession, and was platted in the 1980s. Recent aerial photography of the subdivision area taken by the borough shows only a few widely scattered homesites. The Enstar Route lies entirely within the Sterling CDP. The northern alternative passes short portions of the Soldotna and Ridgeway CDPs after departing the Soldotna Substation, but except for its detour around the west side of the Mackey’s Lake subdivision, the right-of-way traverses vacant land. The homes along the right-of-way between the Soldotna Substation and Mackey’s Lakes are widely spaced and generally medium-sized and well kept, and near Mackey’s Lakes, are upscale. Many of the houses facing the lakes have floatplanes. The southern alternative of the Enstar Route’s first mile passes through an area of low density, upscale development south of the Soldotna Substation. Then the setting becomes open country- side with large stands of spruce and brush. There are numerous unpaved roads penetrating the area between the highway and Kenai River, and occasionally homesites and RV parks tucked away in clearings. Lodges, resorts and fishing guides are located at points along the river. There are no concentrations of housing. According to the manager of the Soldotna office of the state Department of Public Assistance, which serves the northern part of the Kenai Peninsula, the caseload is scattered.”* The manager of the Soldotna office of the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), which administers the federal Section 8 rent subsidy program for the area, said the office had approximately 250 households receiving assistance, with a waiting list of another 115.° There are approximately 7,000 households in the area. Those 365 households on or waiting to get on the Section 8 rent subsidy list represent about 5 percent of the total population. Findings As is shown in Table 3-26 the percentage of families below the poverty level in 1990 was around 5 percent for the Enstar Route CDPs (7.8 percent in Nikiski). This suggests that the Section 8 caseload would be a good proxy for the size and location of low-income households. Since the AHFC office could not divulge any information about its cases, a secondary source of data on where low-income households resided had to be used. The office supplied a listing of landlords in the area participating in the Section 8 program. The frequency of occurrence for locations of low-income housing offered by those landlords on the list was as follows: Soldotna — 12, Kenai — 11, Nikiski — 4, and Sterling — 2. This distribution accords with the observation that most low- income households in the area live in the cities of Kenai and Soldotna, which have the more developed infrastructure of social services. It is unlikely that a disproportionate burden will be °6 Personal conversation, Kathy Price, 09 September 1998. The Department will not divulge any details about its cases. ?° Personal conversation, Marilyn Holvert, 09 September 1998. The Department would not release names or addresses of its cases. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-197 September 2001 placed on low income or minority populations in the Project area due to the routing of the transmission line. Anchorage Bowl Approach The methodology employed to assess the potential for environmental justice issues along the Anchorage area rights-of-way consisted of superimposing 1990 census tract and census block boundaries on the Anchorage area land use map for the project, and then tabulating census data for blocks bordered or transected by the candidate power line alignments.*” Specifically, data were compiled for total numbers of persons and households, numbers of persons by race, and number of persons below the poverty level for Anchorage. The data were cross tabulated by census tract and block, by transmission link, and then summarized to compare percentages of minority and low-income persons in each block with the Anchorage Borough’s area-wide averages (Figure 3-14). Analysis The has developed guidelines for evaluating environmental justice concerns.*! Central to the analysis is determining whether there is a minority community or low-income community in the project area. The guidelines state: The first part of the guidance on minority population...provides a numeric measure: over 50 percent of the affected area. The remainder of the guidance calls for the analyst to use his or her best judgment in evaluating the potential for EJ concerns." [Section 2.1, Defining Minority and/or Low-Income Population] In Table 3-27, specifically the third from last and final columns, it will be seen that none of the census blocks met the criterion of at least 50 percent of the population being either minority (non-White) race or low-income. The borough-wide averages for Anchorage in 1990 were 19.2 percent of the population minority and 6.9 percent low-income (i.e., below the poverty level). Among the Project area block groups (i.e., those crossed or bordered by one or another Project transmission link), the highest incidence of minority population occurred in Census Tract (CT) 19, Block Group (BG) 5, with 29.4 percent. The highest incidence of low-income population occurred in CT 27.12, BG 2, with 12.0 percent. *° The boundaries were obtained from the Census Bureau's Internet website, which provides maps for all census tracts and blocks in the United States. The boundaries were copied from the Bureau’s GIF-formatted images and then superimposed on a scanned image of the project map. >! Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities. "Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA’s NEPA Compliance Analyses, April 1998." Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-198 September 2001 There are 25 block groups in the Project area. Not all, of course, would be impacted by any one contiguous alignment. The total population of these block groups in 1990 was 27,015, representing about 12 percent of the KPB’s total population. Minority residents of the 25 project- affected block groups numbered 3,895 persons (14.4 percent of the project area's 27,015 total). Low-income residents numbered 1,127 (7.2 percent of the borough-wide low-income population and 4.2 percent of the project area's population). The EPA's guidelines state that the 50 percent criterion is a point of departure for the assessment of environmental justice concerns. They call for the environmental justice analyst to consider "...that a minority population may be present if the minority population percentage of the affected area is "meaningfully greater" than the minority population percentage in the general population or other "appropriate unit of geographic analysis.""~ In Table 3-27, the data are organized by population characteristic by census tract and block group. Blocks with percentages of either minority or low-income residents greater than the KPB averages are highlighted by shading. Table 3-28 identifies which block groups are directly affected by each transmission link and presents the summary percentages for each block group. EPA's guidelines do not provide any quantitative criteria for defining "meaningfully greater" or “appropriate unit of geographic analysis," however, thus leaving it to the analyst to exercise judgment on the scope of the environmental justice assessment. The approach taken here was to evaluate the extent to which the Project area's block group concentrations of minority and low- income residents exceeded the borough-wide averages. As measures of significance, we defined "meaningfully greater" as twice the borough-wide average levels for minority and low-income populations, considering that the block groups versus the entire borough constituted “appropriate” units of analysis. * Op. cit., Section 2.1.1. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 - Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-199 September 2001 TABLE 3-27 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CENSUS DATA FOR ANCHORAGE TRACTS/BLOCK GROUPS WITH TRANSMISSION LINKS 1990 Census Data Number by Race Low Income Amer. No. | Percent No. Indian, | Asian or Percent | below | below Block No. House- Eskimo. | Pacific Non- | Poverty | Poverty Census Tract| Group Links Persons | holds | White | Black | Aleut |Islander| Other | White | Level | Level [19 Py 3 ta.3 1123) 410 793} 20) 98 191 21 29.4% 45 4.0% 23.01 1 T4.1-4.3/ PWL.1 880) 301 851 0} 13 16 0 3.3% 6 0.7%! 123.02 1 15‘) 764 311 694) 8 48 0} 14 9.2%) 44) 5.8%) 123.03 4 15:0 1443 554 1164 66 44 155] 14] 19.3% 56) 3.9% 24 3 1533) 1113) 360 1085) 0} 14) 14 0} 2.5% 41 3.7% 25.01 | 15.3, 15.9, 16.3 922) 289 791 48 43 29 11 14.2% 31 3.4% 2 15,35'15,9: 654 243) 595 9 45 S 0} 9.0% 55 8.4%) 5 155 1076) 406 788 71 18} 164} 3D) 26.8% 21 2.0% 125.02 1 15571533 692) 314 630) 21 41 0} 0} 9.0% 14 2.0% 2 15:7,:15.9 774 319 571 116} 22) 47 18) 26.2% 70} 9.0% i! 16:1; 15.7; 15.9 1,087| 483 891 36 52 98 10) 18.0% 104 9.6% 4 , 15.9 825 424 644) 59) 1 95) 16 21.9% 24 2.9% 127.02 1 13.1 1,431 494 1,219) 0} 97 77 38} 14.8% 0} 0.0%! 2, 12.4, 12.6 1,350) 481 el 49 40} 42) 8 10.3% 54 4.0% 5) 12.4, 12.8, 12.5, 12.6 956) 367 895 12 24 16) 9} 6.4% 42 4.4% 4 12.4, 12.7, 12.5, 12.6 489 169 489} 0} 0 0} 0} 0.0% 32) 6.5% 5 12.4 e712 545| 1,436 18) 119) 114 25} 16.1% 59} 3.4% 6 12:55:12.6 1,605 486) 1,427 102 23) 18) 35 11.1% i 0.4% 27.12 | 1 | 1a ay ae, verre 1,035 38) 772), Ss n 110 o| 25.49% 83) 8.0% a | 2 155 784 306] 644) 5 135 0 0} 17.9% 94 12.0% 3 | 15.6 1,228 523 977] 74 107 47 23} 20.4% 78 6.4% Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-200 Chapter 3.7 — Socioeconomics and Tourism September 2001 TABLE 3-27 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CENSUS DATA FOR ANCHORAGE TRACTS/BLOCK GROUPS WITH TRANSMISSION LINKS 1990 Census Data Number by Race Low Income Amer. No. | Percent No. Indian, | Asian or Percent | below | below Block No. House- Eskimo. | Pacific Non- | Poverty | Poverty Census Tract| Group Links Persons holds | White | Black | Aleut |Islander| Other | White | Level | Level 12.7, 14.2, 12.6, 14.3, 13.1- 4 3, 14.4, 15.5 1,038 328) 928) 9 34 40} 27 10.6% 15) 1.4% 5 | ISS 769| 324! 584 49 69 67 0} 24.1%) 41 5.3% 28.21 2 MS.3, 12.4 2,073} 628 1,882| 0} 22 169 0) 9.2% 7 0.3% 128.22, | 3 | 12.4 | 1,193] 377 1,159 0} 19 14 0 2.8% 104) 8.7% Subtotal 27,015 9,480} 23,120 853 1,210 1,528 304 14.4% 1,127 4.2% ANC Borough 226,338} 83,043} 182,867} 14,411 14,910 10,764} 3,386] 19.2% 15,614 6.9% Note: Highlight indicates block group with minority or below poverty concentration greater than Anchorage Borough average (1990). Source: Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing (STF3 data). Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-201 Chapter 3.7 — Socioeconomics and Tourism September 2001 TABLE 3-28 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES BY CENSUS TRACT/BLOCK GROUP FOR ANCHORAGE AREA 19 23.01 | 23.02 }23.03|24] 25.01 27.02 27.12 28.21 | 28.22 5 1 1 3] 1 |2 1 1 213]/4] 5 | 6 1 Bel 4 ESS: 2 = Percent Minority 29.4 3.3_| 9.2 | 19.3 |2.5|14.2|9.0]26.8}9.0 14.8] 10.3]6.4]0.0] 16.1] 11.1 ]25.4 179)204 10.6|24.1] 9.2 | 2.8 Percent < Poverty Lvl. 4.0 0.7 | 5.8 | 3.9 [3.7] 3.4 ie 2.0 |2.0 0.0 | 4.0 |4.416.5] 3.4 | 0.4 | 8.0 [12.0] 6.4 | 1.4 | 5.3 | 0.3 | 87 Census Tract Block Group =: Link Number: T13 (Fire Island) x TIS x E13 x All x x x x x x Al2 a Al3 x x Al4 x x AIS x eee I Al6 x x| x [al x A6 x x x AT x x. x x As x A9 x Ex Kee Al0 z ALEI1 7 5 A3 x x x AS x Es x | [x Rok x |e Note: Highlight indicates value greater than average for Anchorage Borough (Minority = 19.2%; No. < Poverty Level = 6.9% -- 1990 Census). Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 — Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-202 September 2001 Findings Eight of the 25 project area BGs had minority concentrations in excess of the KPB average, while those with percentages of low-income residents in excess of the KPB average numbered six (see Table 3-27). Among the eight blocks with minority concentrations greater than the borough-wide proportion (19.2 percent), the percentages of minority residents ranged from 19.3 percent (CT 23.03, BG 4) to 29.4 percent (CT 19, BG 5). Thus, the maximum exceedence of minority percentage was about one-half the KPB’s average. Regarding low-income population, among the six BGs with percentages exceeding the KPB average (6.9 percent), the percentages of low-income residents ranged from 8.0 percent (CT 27.12, BG 1) to 12.0 percent (CT 27.12, BG 2). Thus, the maximum exceedence of a low-income group’s percentage was about three- fourths of the KPB’s average. By these measures of significance, none of the BGs in the Anchorage Project area meets the thresholds for a finding of impairment of environmental justice considerations. Should there be interest in seeing which alignments would minimize the Project’s impact on minority and low-income populations regardless of levels of concentration, a review of the Project map is useful. Looking at Figure 3-14, it can been seen that none of the census tracts and block groups along the transmission line alignments leading to the Point Woronzof Substation has minority or low-income concentrations above the borough-wide averages. On the other hand, all of the alignments to the International Substation affect BGs with higher-than-average concentrations. Among this latter set of transmission routes, the alignment with the least effect on minority and low-income residents would be the more westerly of the three, consisting of Links E11, Al, A2, A3, A4, and AS. It passes through (from south to north) CT 27.02 (BG 1); CT 27.12 (BGs 4 and 5); CT 23.03 (BG 4); CT 23.02 (BG 1); and CT 25.01 (BG 1). From the data in Table 3-27, this alignment had a total of 802 minority and 146 low-income residents in 1990 (equivalent to 21 percent of the Project area block groups’ total of 3,895 minority residents and 13 percent of its 1,127 low-income residents). In contrast, Routes K and M alignments feeding the International Substation would affect larger percentages of the minority and low- income residents in proximity to the power line alignments. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 — Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-203 September 2001 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.7 — Socioeconomics and Tourism 3-204 September 2001 3.8 SUBSISTENCE Section 801(1) of the 1980 ANILCA provides for “the continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses by rural residents of Alaska, including both Natives and non-Natives, on the public lands.” Section 803 of the Act defines subsistence as “the customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation; for the making and selling of handicraft articles out of nonedible byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption; and for customary trade.” Section 810 of the ANILCA requires evaluation of the effects of the proposed Project on subsistence uses or access to subsistence resources in an area. If the proposed project were to significantly restrict subsistence uses, the agency must (1) notify appropriate state agencies, regional councils, and local committees; and (2) notice and hold a hearing in the vicinity of the Project. The agency also must determine that any significant restriction of subsistence uses is consistent with sound management of public lands, will involve the minimum of public lands needed for the proposed use, and reasonable measures will be implemented to minimize adverse effects. In compliance with ANILCA, the Federal Subsistence Board manages the subsistence use of fish and wildlife resources on federal lands, which includes the KNWR within the Project area. Under state law, the Subsistence Division of the ADF&G also can designate subsistence areas on nonfederal lands. None of the study area is used for subsistence by any state designated subsistence communities. The Federal Subsistence Board implements provisions of ANILCA by designating rural areas and certifying customary and traditional resource use patterns. There are no designated rural communities in the Anchorage Bowl portion of the study area. Communities within and closest to the Kenai Peninsula portion of the Project area, including Kenai, Soldotna, Sterling, Nikiski, Salamatof, Kalifornsky, Kasilof, and Clam Gulch, are designated as non-rural. 3.8.1 Affected Environment The subsistence analysis conducted for this environmental evaluation focused on three communities near the study area whose residents do some subsistence harvesting within the study area: (1) Ninilchik, located about 38 miles southwest of the study area; (2) Cooper Landing, located about 19 miles southeast of the study area; and (3) Hope, located about 9 miles east of the study area. Subsistence use by these communities, documented primarily by data compiled by the ADF&G (Reed 1985) and USFWS Office of Subsistence Management (1993) for Game Management Unit 15A, is summarized in this section. The Kenai Peninsula portion of the Project area is almost entirely in Unit 15A (see Figure MV-27, Volume II). Other Kenai Peninsula communities designated as rural include China Poot Cove, Halibut Cove, Homer Rural Area (including Fox River and Nikolaevsk), Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Seldovia. All of these communities are located some 50 to 80 miles to the southwest of the study Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.8 - Subsistence 3-205 September 2001 area. There is no documentation that residents of these communities use the study area for subsistence. Residents of Whittier, another federally designated rural community located about 40 miles east of the study area, may undertake some subsistence hunting near the eastern end of Chickaloon Bay, but use within the study area is so limited that it does not warrant consideration. No specific designation has been made by the Federal Subsistence Board providing a priority to a particular group having customary and traditional subsistence practices in Unit 15A. The Federal Subsistence Board has given all rural residents subsistence priorities over non-rural residents for hunting and trapping for the following species within Game Management Unit I5A: coyote, hare, wolf, wolverine, spruce grouse, ptarmigan, beaver, red fox, lynx, mink and weasel, muskrat, and otter. In addition, federal subsistence priorities have been established for all rural residents in this same area for goat and ruffed grouse, but there is no open hunting season. The Board also has determined that the residents of Ninilchik, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Seldovia customarily and traditionally hunted moose and has established federal subsistence priorities for these communities to hunt moose within Game Management Unit 15. Ninilchik Employees of the Russian American Company, some of whom married Native women, founded the original village at the mouth of the Ninilchik River around 1835 (Braund and Benke 1980). The original community focused on agricultural pursuits and became a focus of education, trading, and Russian Orthodox missionary efforts in the Cook Inlet region. Fishing emerged as a commercial industry in 1882 with the establishment of a cannery in Kasilof (Cobb 1911). Construction of the Sterling Highway into the area in the 1950s spurred an influx of some homesteaders, but the population of Ninilchik was only 50 to 170 residents from its founding into the 1970s. Subsequent economic growth, related primarily to tourism and recreation, has increased population to almost 650 by 1996 (ADOL 1991, 1997). About 20 percent of the residents are Alaska Natives. Nonsubsistence activities include retail and service industries related to tourism (focused especially on the historic Russian Orthodox church that continues to be used), commercial fishing, timber harvests on Native lands, school and public sector jobs, and non-local employment in the oil industry on the Kenai Peninsula and the North Slope (DRCA 1996; Reed 1985; USFWS 1993). Average household income in 1990 was about $31,000 (ADF&G 1997). Data compiled in 1982 indicated that 92 percent of all Ninilchik households participated in subsistence harvests (Reed 1985). About one-third of the households indicated that most (50 to 89 percent) of the meat and fish they consumed was from wild resources, and another half of the households reported that some (10 to 49 percent) of their fish and meat consumption was based on wild resources. A small sample survey in 1992 indicated that more than three-fourths of the households in Ninilchik continued to derive more than half of their food supply from subsistence harvests (Alaska Legal Services 1992; USFWS 1993). Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.8 - Subsistence 3-206 September 2001 In 1982 an average of 86 pounds of subsistence resources per person was consumed (an aggregate of approximately 56,000 pounds for the community). About 56 percent of these resources were fish, 23 percent land mammals, 16 percent marine invertebrates, 3 percent vegetation, and 2 percent birds and eggs. The hunting of land mammals focused on moose. Information about where Ninilchik residents hunted is limited, but harvest ticket reports from 1983 to 1992 indicate that 95 percent of the moose were taken in Game Management Unit 15C, where Ninilchik is located. Only 5 percent were taken in Units 15A and I5B located farther to the north (the Kenai Peninsula portion of the Project area is almost entirely in Unit 15A). Caribou were absent from the Kenai Peninsula from 1912 to the 1960s. Hunting of the introduced Kenai Lowland herd has been very limited, but Nilnilchik residents have expressed interest in gaining more access to caribou. Hunting of black bear and brown bear by Ninilchik residents is limited. Ninilchik residents harvested only three black bears from Unit 15 in 1982, and only six brown bears from 1962 through 1992 (USFWS 1993). Cooper Landing Cooper Landing is a small, unincorporated community on the banks of the Kenai River and Kenai Lake in the Chugach Mountains near the western edge of the Chugach National Forest. The area was settled by Dena’ina Athabaskan Natives before Russian explorers of the Russian American Company came in the 1800s (USFWS 1993). Because of diseases, forest fires, reduced salmon runs, and declining fur prices, virtually all Dena’ina left the area by 1919. Before 1980, the population of Cooper Landing was approximately 100 or fewer residents (Rollins 1978). Subsequent growth triggered by tourism increased the population to 243 residents living in 100 households by 1990. By 1996, population had increased somewhat more but was still less than 300. Alaska Natives constitute only about one percent of the current population (ADOL 1991). The location of Cooper Landing along the Sterling Highway and the Kenai River has promoted tourism, and a number of fishing and hunting guides have operated out of the village since the 1930s. Service industries, retail trades, and government jobs are the primary sectors of the local economy. A half dozen residents also hold commercial fishing permits. Average annual income is about $40,100 per household (Seitz et al. 1994). Sample data compiled for 1990 to 1991 indicate that all households used subsistence resources and average consumption was about 92 pounds per person for an aggregate of almost 24,000 pounds for the community (Seitz et al. 1994). More than 40 percent of the households indicated their reliance on subsistence resources was decreasing (because of reduced time to hunt and fish, a choice not to use wild resources, and reduction in numbers of certain species), while 8 percent of the households said their use of subsistence resources was increasing (Braund 1994). About 59 percent of the subsistence resources used were fish, 32 percent land mammals, 4 percent vegetation, 3 percent marine invertebrates, and 3 percent birds and eggs (ADF&G 1997). Fishing focused on the Russian and Kenai rivers, Cook Inlet, and Hidden, Resurrection, and Sixmile creeks (Seitz et al. 1994). The land mammals hunted most intensively by residents of Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.8 - Subsistence 3-207 September 2001 Cooper Landing include moose (used by 50 percent of households), deer (13 percent), caribou (10 percent), and black bear (8 percent) (ADF&G 1997). Deer do not occur on the Kenai Peninsula so they would have been hunted elsewhere. Virtually all of Game Management Unit 15A, which includes most of the Kenai Peninsula portion of the study area, is among the areas hunted for moose. Caribou hunting focuses on the Kenai Mountain herd, which may range into the eastern portion of the Project area, but is mostly to the east (USFWS 1993). Four black bears were harvested in Game Management Unit 15 in a broad area along the road system from Turnagain Arm to Seward and down to the east of Homer, which includes little if any of the study area (USFWS 1993) (see Volume II, Figure MV-27). Other minor species of the subsistence system include sheep, mountain goats, brown bear, furbearers (beaver, coyote, hare, river otter, marmot, marten, and squirrel), upland game birds, and migratory birds, as well as edible plants (primarily berries). These resources were harvested in various locations, some of which may be within the study area (Seitz et al. 1994). Hope The small community of Hope is situated within the Chugach National Forest near the mouth of Resurrection Creek where it flows into Turnagain Arm. Dena’ina Athabaskan Natives reportedly lived in the area in the 1800s and early 1900s (USFWS 1993). The arrival of gold miners who founded Hope in the 1880s resulted in a decrease in the local Alaska Native population because of increased disease and out-migration. The population of Hope has always been small. In 1975 there were fewer than 175 residents, with only about 3 percent being Alaska Natives (ADOL 1991, 1997b; Rollins 1978). Some minimal mining activities are still pursued in the region, but employment is dominated by services mainly related to tourism, retail trade, and government jobs. Local residents use a sawmill and one person holds a commercial fishing permit (DRCA 1996). Average annual household income is about $31,000 (Seitz et al. 1992). Sample data compiled in 1990-1991 indicate that all households of Hope used subsistence resources and an average of 111 pounds per person were consumed annually for an aggregate of about 17,000 pounds for the community (Seitz et al. 1994). Approximately 60 percent of these resources were fish, 30 percent land mammals, 5 percent vegetation, 4 percent marine invertebrates, and 2 percent birds and eggs (ADF&G 1997). Some of the places fished include Cook Inlet, and Hidden, Resurrection, and Sixmile creeks (Seitz et al. 1994). Hunting focused on moose (used by 68 percent of households), caribou (20 percent), and black bear (15 percent). Less emphasis was placed on sheep (2 percent), goat (5 percent), and deer (5 percent), which do not occur on the Kenai Peninsula and obviously were hunted elsewhere. Although Hope is within Game Management Unit 7, the hunting territory of Hope residents extends into Game Management Unit 15A (USFWS 1993). The areas hunted for moose include the eastern side of Game Management Unit 15A and an area near Sterling, which Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.8 - Subsistence 3-208 September 2001 are at the eastern and southern margins of the Kenai Peninsula section of the study area, respectively. Hope residents also hunted caribou, sheep, goats, furbearers, and birds along the eastern margin of Unit 15A, in areas that may be partially within the study area. Bear were hunted in the northeastern corner of Unit 15A, which is within the study area, and along the Kenai River east of Sterling, which would be mostly outside the study area. Plant resources, mostly berries, were harvested primarily in the vicinity of Cooper Landing, which is outside the study area. 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences Before the USFWS can grant a right-of-way for the proposed Project, that agency must comply with Section 810 of the ANILCA by evaluating the effects of the proposed Project on subsistence uses and access to subsistence resources in the area. If the proposed Project were to significantly restrict subsistence uses, the agency must (1) notify appropriate state agencies, regional councils, and local committees; and (2) notice and hold a hearing in the vicinity of the Project. The agency also must determine that any significant restriction of subsistence uses is consistent with sound management of public lands, will involve the minimum of public lands needed for the proposed use, and reasonable measures will be implemented to minimize adverse effects. The Federal Subsistence Board has determined that the residents of Ninilchik, Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Seldovia customarily and traditionally hunted moose and has established federal subsistence priorities for these communities to hunt moose within Game Management Unit 15. The designated subsistence communities of Ninilchik, Cooper Landing, and Hope, located some 10 miles to 40 miles from the Project area may do some subsistence hunting within the Project area, but the extent of use appears to be quite minimal. The extent of right-of-way required across federal lands for the alternatives considered varies from 30 feet to 150 feet wide. Increased public accessibility along such corridors sometimes leads to conflicts between sport and subsistence hunting and fishing. The alternatives across the Kenai Peninsula portion of the Project area largely parallel corridors previously disturbed by pipelines. Public accessibility is anticipated to increase along all routes. However, due to the overall low level of subsistence use in the area, no impacts, or only minimal impacts, on subsistence practices are anticipated from increased uses of hunting and fishing sports. There appears to be no negative impact on populations of relevant species that would impair subsistence practices. Under state law, the Subsistence Division of the ADF&G also can designate subsistence areas on nonfederal lands. None of the Project area is used for subsistence by any state-designated subsistence communities. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.8 - Subsistence 3-209 September 2001 In sum, impacts on subsistence are not projected to be significant, and do not vary significantly among the alternatives considered. Therefore, subsistence resources are not a critical factor in selecting among the Project alternatives. 3.8.3 Summary No federal or state designated rural subsistence communities reside within the study area. The federal land within the study area, the KNWR, is designated as the customary and traditional use area for residents of Nilnilchik. No state of Alaska subsistence designations occur within the study area. The analysis conducted for this environmental evaluation identified three federally designated rural communities—Ninilchik, Cooper Landing, and Hope—whose residents do some subsistence harvesting within the study area. These small communities, with populations of about 175 to 650 residents, are located approximately 10 to 40 miles from the Kenai Peninsula portion of the study area. Each of these communities has experienced some population growth during the last two decades due primarily to developing tourism and recreation industries. Reliance on subsistence resources is decreasing in at least one of these communities. The available data, mostly some 5 to 15 years old, indicate that residents of these communities annually consumed an average of about 85 to 110 pounds of subsistence resources per person. About 55 to 60 percent of these subsistence resources were fish, and 20 to 30 percent were land mammals, primarily moose. Marine invertebrates, birds and eggs, and vegetation (primarily berries) each constituted about | to 15 percent of the harvested subsistence resources in each of these communities. Detailed information about where residents of these subsistence communities hunted, fished, and collected is unavailable. It appears that few fishing areas are within the study area. Moose hunting appears to be the most substantial subsistence use within the study area. Ninety-five percent of the moose hunted by residents of Ninilchik are taken in areas closer to their community and outside the study area. Residents of Cooper Landing apparently hunt moose throughout much of the study area, but there is no documentation about how many moose are harvested within the study area. The territory hunted by residents of Hope includes the eastern margins of the study area, but again there are no data about the percentage of game they take in this area. In sum, the communities within the study area itself are not rural subsistence communities, and the subsistence resources harvested within the study area by residents of rural communities in other parts of the Kenai Peninsula are a small percentage of their annual harvests. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.8 - Subsistence 3-210 September 2001 3.9 VISUAL This section of the EIS addresses visual resources related to the Project. The visual resources overview provides a description of the landscape setting and the general elements considered in the inventory and assessment. Visual resource methods are provided in Appendix C, Volume II, and visual resource Figures MV-28 through MV-30 are also located in Volume II. 3.9.1 Visual Resources Overview Landscape Setting The study area encompasses a region in south-central Alaska with significant scenery, most of which is under state and federal management. Several significant regional landscapes including Mt. McKinley, Mt. Sustina, and the Redoubt Volcano are visible, highly scenic, and influence the study area by contributing to the aesthetic appeal (Figure 3-15). Local landscapes within the study area also exhibit unique characteristics that further contribute to the dramatic scenery, and influence views on the Kenai Penninsula (including the KNWR), Turnagain Arm and Cook Inlet, and Anchorage Bow] as described below. Kenai Peninsula and KNWR The Kenai Peninsula is a large, diverse landscape bound by the Cook Inlet to the west, Chikaloon Bay of the Turnagain Arm to the north, and the Chugach National Forest to the east. Within the study area, the Kenai Peninsula consists of a diverse range of largely natural and wilderness landscapes including the KNWR and the dispersed communities of Soldotna, Sterling, and Nikiski. This landscape is heavily vegetated, consisting of coastal marshes, forested wetlands, shrub bogs, muskegs, upland spruce hardwoods forests, and bottomland spruce poplar forests. The Kenai Mountains, located to the east, include diverse landforms with rugged topography, steep jagged slopes, and peaks that often dominate the lowland settings. The unique combination of vegetation, water, and adjacent scenery provide dynamic viewing conditions throughout the Kenai Peninsula. The range of colors and textures characteristic of the vegetation is complemented by the unique form and line defined by ponds, lakes, streams, rivers, and marsh edges. Scenic areas within the Kenai Peninsula include the Captain Cook SRA, Kenai River, and several locations on the KNWR. The KNWR is the only refuge in Alaska that was established to provide for compatible fish and wildlife-oriented recreation, including wildlife viewing. In addition to wilderness and minimum management lands inherently sensitive to visual intrusions, the Swan Lake and Swanson River canoe routes located within the vast interior wilderness system with lakes, waterways, and trails are also highly sensitive visual resources. Collectively referred to as the Kenai Canoe Trails, this is one of only three wilderness canoe systems Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-211 September 2001 established in the United States. Other scenic areas on the KNWR include the Kenai River, Mystery Creek, Chikaloon Flats and the Chickaloon River. Turnagain Arm and Cook Inlet The Turnagain Arm and Cook Inlet are vast landscapes in continuous motion due to the influence of tides and weather conditions. The coastal zones in these areas are characterized by bluffs, marshes, forests, tidal mudflats, and boulders in select locations. Upland areas include steep jagged mountain slopes rising from sea level to 6,500 feet capped with glaciers in the northern and eastern areas while dense stands of spruce and hemlock forests cover the mountain slopes at lower elevations along Turnagain Arm and in tributary valleys. Naturally occurring events such as avalanches, windstorms, and tides represent continuous agents of change throughout this landscape that dramatically alter its appearance on a localized basis in a very short period of time and highlight the landscape dynamics. Seasonal changes are also dramatic between summer and winter when lush green vegetation and open water give way to ice and snow. Human activity, although evident, is largely concentrated in easily accessible locations. Scenic areas within the Turnagain Arm include Chickaloon Bay, Chugach State Park, and Chugach National Forest. Anchorage Bowl The Anchorage Bowl is a relatively flat and developed peninsula (alluvial plain) surrounded on one side by the foothills of the Chugach Mountains and on the other by the Cook Inlet, including the Knik and Turnagain Arms. This area is dominated by Anchorage, the largest municipality within the state of Alaska. Anchorage is a community composed of heavily developed areas interspersed with natural features. Scenic areas within the Anchorage Bowl include Lake Hood, Jewel Lake, Campbell Creek, Ship Creek, Rabbit Creek, Kincaid Park, Tony Knowles Coastal Trail, Potter Marsh, and others. In addition, views and vistas of adjacent landscapes such as the Cook Inlet, Fire Island, Mount McKinley (Alaska Range), the “Sleeping Lady” (Mount Susitna), Redoubt Volcano (Aleutian Range), and Chugach State Park (Chugach Mountains) are characteristic elements of this landscape. Visual Inventory The visual resources inventory focused on landscape scenery and views within the study area and along the alternative routes. The inventory is consistent with the principles of the Scenery Management System established by the U.S. Forest Service (USDA 1995). As previously described, the majority of the Project area outside of Anchorage is rural and undeveloped, including the KNWR, portions of the Chugach National Forest, coastal edges of the Cook Inlet, Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-212 September 2001 Chisik tslond Dominant Regional Landscape Features and Views Ranges Bordering Flats, Lowlands and Inlet/Arms INFLUENCE OF 7 ™ Scenic Byways and Roads fa Cook Inlet/Turnagain Arm/Knik Arm REGIONAL LANDSCAPES UTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT © Kenai River Sf Panoramic Views from Study Area FIGURE 3-15 * Mountains/Glacier and Turnagain Arm. Urban settings include the Anchorage area and the communities of Soldotna, Sterling, and Nikiski on the Kenai Peninsula. Since the study area includes both rural and urban settings, the inventory was designed to respond to both. Landscape Scenery The landscape character type of each rural and urban setting consists of distinct elements that create a visual and cultural image both individually and as a region. This image or “sense of place” for the region is a combination of physical, biological, climatic, and cultural attributes that make the area identifiable and unique as described below and on Figure MV-28 (Volume II). Rural Areas The inventory of rural areas was based on the premise that each characteristic landscape (i.e., Chugach Mountains, Kenai Lowlands, coastal areas of the Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm) exhibits its own type of scenic quality. In these settings, scenic quality was determined by evaluating landscape character type based upon the uniqueness and diversity of landform, water, vegetation, cultural features, and influence of adjacent scenery. The majority of the study area is represented by Class A and B scenery. Examples of Class A scenery (outstanding or distinctive scenery) include the Kenai River, the coastal zones of the Cook Inlet, coastal zones of the Turnagain Arm, foothills and valleys of the Chugach Mountains, and forested wetlands, lakes, and extensive bogs of the Kenai Lowlands. Class B scenery (typical scenery) includes the bottomlands and isolated muskeg bogs of the KNWR, and rolling forests adjacent to the western edge of the Chugach Mountain foothills. Class C scenery (indistinctive scenery) in the Project area is limited and consists primarily of previously disturbed landscapes and dispersed grasslands near Soldotna and Sterling. Urban Areas Within the urban settings of Anchorage, Soldotna, Sterling, and Nikiski, landscape scenery is based primarily upon the visual image of the built environment and was defined by image types. The purpose of characterizing the types of existing and planned visual images in proximity to the alternative routes was to determine the compatibility of the proposed transmission line in these urban settings. Anchorage, in particular, is rapidly changing and evolving. Urban patterns once associated with past development are now being replaced through comprehensive planning efforts that focus on aesthetics as evidenced by the “visioning” process in the municipality of Anchorage. Image types consist of development patterns that are defined by planning concepts (circulation and building types), visual character (landscape design and architecture, and viewer orientation (viewer position relative to the location of the proposed Project). Four major image types were identified for urban settings including residential (e.g., Oceanview Subdivision), Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-214 September 2001 park-like (e.g., Campbell Creek Greenbelt), commercial (e.g. Dimond Center convenience stores), and industrial areas. Existing Visual Conditions Existing visual conditions (e.g., the presence of existing transmission lines) that may affect the scenic quality or visual image of an area also were considered in the evaluation of landscape scenery. The scenic quality of rural areas and the visual image of urban settings may be modified locally by the presence of facilities including transmission lines, overhead lighting, signage, pipelines, and other features that affect landscape scenery. The existing visual conditions for each alternative were also evaluated in order to determine those locations where modifications would influence scenery. Examples of these locations include the Old Seward Highway and North Kenai Road, where the setting has been modified by the presence of existing transmission line(s), among other discordant modifications. Views The inventory of views included the identification of key viewpoints and viewing areas, viewer sensitivity associated with these viewpoints, and the viewsheds from these locations including distance and screening potential and is shown on Figures MV-29 and MV-30 (Volume II). Viewpoints Numerous key viewpoints and viewing areas were identified including individual residences and communities, recreational areas, and travelways. Of particular importance were those locations where dominant regional landscape features could be viewed in the context of the larger setting, such as views from areas along the coastline of the Cook Inlet including Captain Cook SRA, Pt. Woronzof, and Kincaid Park on Pt. Campbell. More localized views of importance, within the KNWR, included views along the Moose River, Afonasi Lake, and along the Mystery Creek Road and the Enstar pipeline. These areas are often viewed in context of the regional setting from aircraft flights both for recreational purposes and sightseeing. Due to the lack of opportunities for recreational boating on the Turnagain Arm and the Cook Inlet, water-related views are primarily limited to cruise ships traveling into Anchorage. While the scheduling of cruise ships varies per season, they are limited in overall number. Viewer Sensitivity Viewer sensitivity is a measure of the degree of concern for change in the scenic quality of the rural landscape or to the visual image of an urban setting. In general, the visual resources Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-215 September 2001 investigation concluded that a majority of the viewers are highly sensitive to change. This was particularly true for views from residential areas (Anchorage, Soldotna, Sterling, and Nikiski, as well as dispersed locations), recreational areas (Campbell Creek Greenbelt, Bing’s Landing SRS, Tony Knowles Coastal Trail, Captain Cook SRA, etc.) and primary travelways (Seward Highway, Sterling Highway, Minnesota Drive, etc.). Moderate sensitivity views include commercial areas and public facilities (Dimond Center), and low sensitivity views include industrial areas. Viewsheds Viewsheds are the visible portion of the landscape seen from a viewpoint or viewing area and were analyzed based on distance zones and screening. Distance from the viewer was defined as immediate foreground (0 to 300 feet), foreground (300 feet to 0.25 mile), middleground (0.25 to 3 mile), and background (3 to 15 miles, or further). Three levels of screening were also considered based on intervening terrain, vegetation, and or buildings. Open viewing conditions exhibit minimal to no screening; partially screened views include areas where viewing opportunities are intermittent; screened views include areas where terrain, vegetation, or buildings obscure views. Viewsheds within the study area often are limited in the interior of the Kenai Lowlands by trees and local terrain. Extended views of distant mountains occur at the coastal edge or at selected locations where view corridors occur due to break in tree cover or local terrain. Viewsheds in Anchorage are quite variable due to the mix of urbanization combined with open space, forested areas, and local terrain. The Chugach Mountains are a dominant landscape feature from most of Anchorage to the east, while coastal vistas across Turnagain Arm occur to the south and west. As a result, both local viewsheds with limited views, as well as extended viewsheds with virtually unlimited views surrounding ranges, occur throughout the study area. Both local and extended views have been incorporated into the viewshed analysis. Key viewing locations along alternative routes within Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula are identified in Table 3-29 and illustrated on Figure 3-16 and 3-17. Visual Assessment Visual impacts associated with the proposed Project would be long term, remaining over the life of the Project. Construction and operation of the proposed facilities may result in impacts that affect the landscape scenery of an area (scenic quality or urban image types), as well as views from residences, recreation areas, and travelways. Potential impacts on landscape scenery and viewers were assessed independently; therefore, the impacts described for each alternative overlap. These two impact discussions address the same distinct geographic area and cannot be considered to be additive. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-216 September 2001 TABLE 3-29 RECREATION AREAS AND TRAVELWAYS VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING AREAS Views Feature Landscapes Photo Loca- Toward Orientation Viewed From Viewpoint Name Number tion Route With Route Viewpoint TESORO ROUTE OPTIONS North Kenai Road none Links T2, | open parallel Swanson River, Stormy T3, T4, TS Lake, other lakes North Kenai Road Scenic Overlook #1 1 T4 open perpendicular lake/wetlands North Kenai Road Scenic Overlook #2_| none TS open _perpendicular Stormy Lake Bishop Creek Campground none TS screened perpendicular Bishop Creek, Cook Inlet Stormy Lake Picnic Area #1 none TS screened perpendicular Stormy Lake Stormy Lake Picnic Area #2 and Boat none TS screened perpendicular Stormy Lake Ramp _ Stormy Lake Primitive Tent none TS screened perpendicular Stormy Lake Campground Stormy Lake Swimming Beach Area 2 TS screened away Stormy Lake Discovery Campground none TS screened perpendicular Swanson River, Cook Inlet, Mt. Redoubt Discovery Campground Scenic none TS screened away Swanson River, Cook Overlook Inlet, Mt. Redoubt Swanson River Trailhead 3 TS open perpendicular Swanson River Swanson River Canoe Trail 3 TS open _perpendicular Swanson River Tesoro Pipeline 3b ite, screening from | internal views/ lots parallel and perpendicular Moose Point 3a ih? screened from | general area Cook Inlet- Alaska Range ground open- aerial views ENSTAR ROUTE OPTIONS Birch Ridge Golf Course none E1,E5 partially screened _| perpendicular none Morgan's Landing State Recreation none ES screened perpendicular Kenai River Area Kenai River 4 ES open perpendicular Kenai River Winter Use Trails none E3 screened perpendicular/ KNWR parallel Typical Residential Views 5,6 E3 partially screened | perpendicular/ none parallel Scout Lake State Recreation Site none E3, ES screened perpendicular Scout Lake Bottenintnin Lake Campground none E6 screened perpendicular Bottenintnin Lake Bing’s Landing State Recreation Site 4 ES open perpendicular Kenai River Funny River State Recreation Site none ES screened perpendicular Funny River, Kenai River Funny River Road Scenic Overlook none ES screened tpendicular Funny River, Kenai River Sterling Highway 7,8 ES open perpendicular/ KNWR, Chugach arallel Mountains VIEWING CONDITIONS WITHIN KNWR Swan Lake 8a E3 screened rpendicular Chugach Mountains Mystery Creek Road none E3 open perpendicular/ KNWR, Mystery Creek parallel Swanson River Road none E3 open perpendicular KNWR, Chugach Mountains Trapper Joe Lake and Cabin 8b, 8c E3 partially screened | perpendicular Trapper Joe Lake, from lake open- Chugach Mountains aerial views Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-217 Chapter 3.9 - Visual September 2001 TABLE 3-29 RECREATION AREAS AND TRAVELWAYS VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING AREAS Views Feature Landscapes Photo Loca- Toward Orientation Viewed From Viewpoint Name Number tion Route With Route Viewpoint Gull Rock Trail none E9, E10 open perpendicular KNWR, Chugach Mountains Chickaloon River Trail none E8 open perpendicular KNWR, Chugach Mountains, Chickaloon River Aerial Vantage Point from Chickaloon | 8d E10, E9 open perpendicular/ Chickaloon Flats, Bay and Chickaloon Flats parallel Chugach Mountains Burnt Island Cabin none E10, E9 screened parallel Turnagain Arm, Chugach Mountains, Chickaloon Bay Enstar Pipeline Trail 8c E8 open _parallel views Chugach Mountains Afonasi Lake/East Fork Moose River none E8 open to partially | perpendicular Moose River corridor & screened Afonasi Lake ANCHORAGE BOWL ROUTE OPTIONS Conners Lake Park none AS screened perpendicular park Javier Dela Vega Park none AS screened perpendicular park, Chugach Mountains Wolverine Park none AS screened perpendicular park Papago Park none AS screened |_ perpendicular park Campbell Creek Greenbelt none A6, A5, | opento screened | perpendicular Campbell Creek AQ Taku Lake Park none A8& screened | perpendicular Taku Lake Emerald Hills Park none AS open to screened | perpendicular Campbell Creek Pop Carr Park none Al6 screened | perpendicular park Northwood Park none Al6 screened perpendicular | park Lore Road Park none Al5 screened perpendicular park Potter Marsh none All open to partially | parallel Turnagain Arm, Chugach screened Mountains, wetlands Rabbit Creek Rifle Range none All screened parallel Turnagain Arm, Chugach Mountains, Potter Marsh Oceanview Park none A6 open to screened | perpendicular/ Cook Inlet, Chugach parallel Mountains, Turnagain Arm, Mt. Redoubt Timberline Park | none A3 screened perpendicular__| park Golf Course Driving Range none A3 open pliperpencicular golf course McHugh/Rabbit Lakes Trail none all open to screened | panoramic Anchorage, Chugach Anchorage Mountains, Power Line Pass, Cook Inlet, Turnagain Arm, Mt. McKinley, Mt. Redoubt Airport International Road 9 Al6 | open | parallel [ Chugach Mountains Minnesota Drive | 10, 11 AS open | parallel Chugach Mountains Old Seward Highway 12518 All, A13, | open parallel Chugach Mountains, Al4, AlS Turnagain Arm Klatt Road none A3 open | parallel Chugach Mountains Dimond Boulevard none A8, AO open parallel Chugach Mountains Pt. Woronzof Scenic Overlook none T18 screened away Fire Island, Mt. McKinley, Mt. Susitna, Mt. Redoubt, Cook Inlet Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-218 September 2001 TABLE 3-29 RECREATION AREAS AND TRAVELWAYS VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING AREAS Views Feature Landscapes Photo Loca- Toward Orientation Viewed From Viewpoint Name Number tion Route With Route Viewpoint Flattop Mountain Trail 14 all open to screened | panoramic Anchorage, Chugach Anchorage Mountains, Power Line Pass, Cook Inlet, Turnagain Arm, Mt. McKinley, Mt. Redoubt Tony Knowles Coastal Trail 15, 16 TI8 open to screened | parallel Fire Island, Mt. Susitna, Mt. Redoubt, Cook Inlet Kincaid Park none T18 screened perpendicular Fire Island, Mt. Susitna, Mt. Redoubt, Cook Inlet, Turnagain Arm Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-219 Chapter 3.9 - Visual September 2001 Photo location: North Kenai Road pulloff overlooking lake viewing east towards the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Orientation: Views are parallel with roadway along east side. Photo location: Captain Cook State Recreation Area at Stormy Lake viewing east towards the Kenai Mountains (route would be underground through recreation area). Orientation: Views are away from route. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 3-16 Photo location: Captain Cook State Recreation Area at the mouth of the Swanson River viewing west towards the Aleutian Range (route would be underground through park). Orientation: Views are away from route. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 3-16 Photo location: Aerial photo from above Moose Point viewing south. Orientation: Views are panoramic and above route. Photo location: Tesoro Pipeline access road viewing north. Orientation: Views of the route are parallel with the east side of the pipeline. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 3-16 Photo location: Bing’s Landing State Recreation Site viewing west along the Kenai River Valley. Orientation: Views are perpendicular to the route crossing the Kenai River. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 3-16 Photo location: Kenai Peninsula viewing southeast from a typical residential setting north of Soldotna. Orientation: Views are perpendicular to the route. Photo location: Kenai Peninsula viewing south from a typical residence north of Sterling. Orientation: Views are perpendicular to the route. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 3-16 Photo location: Sterling Highway viewing north towards the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Orientation: Views are parallel with the north side of roadway. Photo location: Sterling Highway viewing east towards the Kenai Mountains. Orientation: Views are perpendicular to the crossing of the roadway. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 3-16 Photo location: Swan Lake viewing east towards Kenai Mountains. Orientation: Views are perpendicular to the route. Photo location: Trapper Joe Lake viewing northeast towards Kenai Mountains. Orientation: Views are perpendicular to the route. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 3-16 8c 8d Photo location: Aerial photo from above Trapper Joe Lake viewing north towards Chickaloon Bay. Orientation: Views are panoramic and above route. Photo location: Chickaloon Bay viewing southeast towards Kenai Mountains. Orientation: Views are perpendicular to the route. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 3-16 Photo location: Enstar Pipeline at junction with Mystery Creek Road viewing north Orientation: Views of the route are parallel with the east side of the pipeline. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 3-16 Photo location: International Airport Road viewing east towards Chugach Mountains. Orientation: Views of the route are parallel with the north side of the roadway. Photo location: Minnesota Drive viewing southeast towards Chugach Mountains. Orientation: Views of the route are parallel with the west side of the roadway. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 3-16 12 Photo location: O’ Malley Road viewing east towards Chugach Mountains. Orientation: Views of the route are parallel with the south side of the roadway. - Photo location: Old Seward Highway viewing southeast towards the Kenai Mountains and Turnagain Arm (route would transition from underground to above ground directly behind this viewpoint). Orientation: Views are away from the route. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 3-16 Photo location: Typical residence viewing north along Old Seward Highway. Orientation: Views from rear of lots are directly perpendicular to the route. 14 ae ieee isa 6S Sta ema an a Photo location: Flattop Mountain Trailhead viewing west towards Fire Island, the Aleutian Range, and overlooking Anchorage. Orientation: Views are panoramic and above the routes and transition facilities. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 3-16 Photo location: Tony Knowles Coastal Trail on the western edge of Anchorage viewing south towards Kincaid Park. Orientation: Views of the route are parallel with the east side of the trail. Photo location: Tony Knowles Coastal Trail on the western edge of Anchorage viewing southwest towards the Cook Inlet, Aleutian Range, and Fire Island. Orientation: Views are away from the marine landing and transition facility. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 3-16 VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING 3] LOCATIONS MAP SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 3-17 PL Woronzof Substation | ABD EM Voy! Legend () General Photograph Location Al A15)2 BG ‘ wu Sah é P SN = a ° an P16) Noe \ Na No New = “es J Bemice Lake |." #7. re Substation y, Ptsatoitey } Scale in Miles i i) —— No Source Data: | Ce Kenai /~ < f C Municipality of Anchorage (1994). Y Chugach National Forest (1995). Kenai Peninsula Borough (1994). USGS 1:63,360 and 1:25,000 Quads. Base Map Sources: Municipality of Anchorage (1994). Chugach National Forest (1995). Kenai Peninsula Borough (1994). USGS 1:63,360 and 1:25,000 Quads. Ee PEM Soldotna : ° 4 i © | Substation | >’ | Naptown Substation & EE , Siting Area rules Contour Interval: 200 Feet —$§e- ez. ae ) 5 Z|] Contour Labeling in Feet a Ey 7 = on Impacts on visual resources were assessed by determining the potential for change to the landscape scenery and views. The measure of potential adverse impact on visual resources is based on the degree of visibility to the project (distance zones and screening previously described) and the resulting visual contrast based on the introduction of the Project. Visual contrast is a measure of the degree of perceptible change that would occur in the form, line, color, and texture of the landscape as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed Project facilities. Three levels of contrast (strong, moderate, and weak) were determined for the project and are presented in detail in Volume I, Appendix C. The two major components that contributed to the visual contrast included the addition of structural elements in the landscape and removal of vegetation. Vegetation contrast would result from the clearing of new right-of- way or widening of an existing right-of-way. Structure contrast examines the compatibility of transmission and other ancillary facilities with the existing landscape. Structure contrast is largely dependent on the presence or absence of existing parallel transmission lines in the landscape and is typically the strongest where there are few existing structural elements (e.g., existing utilities, etc.) in the landscape and weaker where existing transmission lines are paralleled. Following is a general description of the conditions and types of visual impacts identified for the project and proposed mitigation measures. Separate discussions are provided for impacts to scenery and viewers in (1) rural landscapes, (2) urban landscapes, and (3) from travel ways. Rural Landscapes In general, significant visual impacts in rural landscape settings are the result of high visibility from sensitive viewing areas such as residences and recreation areas with strong or moderate project/setting contrast within scenic quality Class A, B, or C landscapes. Significant impacts also are a result of moderate visibility and strong contrast within scenic quality Class A landscapes. Potentially significant impacts include areas of high to moderate visibility from sensitive viewpoints where the Project would result in moderate to weak contrast within scenic quality Class A landscapes. Other impacts also were assigned to a wide range of conditions where the Project would be noticeable and begin to attract attention including middleground views located in areas of moderate contrast. Where structures would be located in conditions that do not attract attention or would be seldom seen, impacts are considered to be minimal. These include areas where the views are generally beyond 1.0 mile, or screened by vegetation in a middleground setting. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-234 September 2001 Urban Landscapes In general, a significant impact is a result of high to moderate visibility and strong or moderate Project/setting contrast within residential and park-like image types. In these settings, the proposed facilities are visually evident in the landscape and are incongruous with the visual image types. Other impacts occur in areas where the line is visible but subordinate to the landscape. They also include areas of strong contrast within open foreground views from commercial/public image types. Other impacts were assigned to a wide range of conditions where the Project would be noticeable and begin to attract attention. These conditions include areas with high visibility to areas of strong Project/setting contrast located within commercial/retail image types. Travelways Visual impacts along travelways were assessed separately from rural and urban landscapes. Impacts on views from travelways are largely dependent upon distance, the setting, and orientation to the Project (i.e., either parallel or perpendicular to the roadway). Significant impacts are a result of strong or strong to moderate contrast along a high sensitivity travelway. A high sensitivity travelway would be characterized by an open landscape setting, which offers scenic views to distant or local natural features. Construction of the proposed Project in these locations would interrupt views to natural features and would be one of the few man-made elements visible within foreground views from the road. In this condition, the proposed activity would dominate the landscape. Other impacts occur where strong to moderate through moderate to weak contrast occurs within a moderate sensitivity travelway corridor. A moderate sensitivity travelway would be characterized by landscapes that provide intermittent views to distant and local natural features. Development patterns in these areas typically have a fairly unified and organized appearance. Other impacts are also a result of moderate to weak contrast along a high sensitivity travel route or strong to moderate contrast within a moderate to low sensitivity travel route corridor. Where structures are located in conditions that do not attract attention, impacts are considered to be minimal. Minimal impacts include areas where Project contrast ranges from strong to weak along a low sensitivity travelway. Minimal impacts also are the result of moderate to weak contrast along a moderate to low sensitivity travelway. Mitigation Measures In many locations, the methods of construction (i.e., underground or submarine) have provided substantial mitigation and have reduced visual impacts. In other areas selective mitigation that Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-235 September 2001 would reduce visual impacts include measures 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13, as shown in Volume II, Appendix D. 3.9.2 Alternatives Representative photos of viewpoints and viewing locations along with a location map can be found in Figures 3-16 and 3-17. No-Action Alternative Under this alternative, the environment would remain as it presently exists. Tesoro Route Bernice Lake to Pt. Possession - Route Option A Affected Environment Landscape Scenery—The majority of lands from Bernice Lake through Captain Cook SRA fall into three classifications: scenic quality Class B, residential, and commercial. The Class B landscapes are densely forested lowlands interspersed with small wetlands and drainages typical of the Kenai Peninsula (Links T3, T4, and T5). In addition, there are areas of scenic quality Class A landscapes consisting of large lakes, streams, and wetland complexes located along this route (Links T4 and TS). Examples of Class A landscapes include Daniels Lake and Stormy Lake. From Captain Cook SRA to Pt. Possession, lands consist of scenic quality Class A and B landscapes. Class A landscapes (Links T6, T7, T8, and T9) consist of rolling forested terrain interspersed with large lakes wetland complexes; the dynamic coastline of the Cook Inlet; and large drainages such as the Miller, Otter, and Seven Egg creeks. Class B landscapes (Links T6, T7, T8, and T9) consist of relatively flat terrain with a moderately dense cover of upland spruce hardwoods, grasslands, and muskeg bogs. Residential areas occur in random patterns defined by local access roads and are dispersed throughout the forested lowlands (Link T3 and T4). These residential areas are characterized by low-density single-family detached houses. The setting is extremely diverse with a variety of architectural styles. Commercial and industrial facilities are located adjacent to the North Kenai Road (Links T1, T2, and T3). These facilities are dominant features in these areas and detract from the overall landscape setting. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 236 September 2001 Ww 1 This route parallels an existing electrical distribution line from the Bernice Lake Substation to Nikiski along the North Kenai Road (Links T1, T2, and T3). Other modifications include several local access roads and signage. It parallels an existing buried pipeline from Captain Cook SRA to Pt. Possession (Links T6, T7, T8, and T9). There is extensive vegetation clearing for the pipeline right-of-way, as well as an access road. Other modifications include above-ground pipeline facilities near Pt. Possession (Link T9). The Bernice Lake Substation site is an existing electrical facility (including 115kV and 69kV transmission lines) located in a scenic quality Class C landscape characterized by relatively flat, heavily vegetated terrain. There are several existing modifications located throughout this area including large commercial buildings, residential development, and roadways. There is extensive vegetation clearing for the existing transmission line right-of-way. Viewers—Residential areas occur along this route adjacent to the North Kenai Road (Links T3 and T4). Immediate foreground and foreground views predominate in this relatively flat terrain. Dense vegetation provides partial-to-full screening of views from most residences throughout this route. However, there are some residences immediately adjacent to the route with open views, including the community of Nikiski (Link T3). Views from dispersed residences north of Captain Cook SRA (Links T6, T7, and T8) along this route range from open to partially screened in the immediate foreground and from partially screened to fully screened due to dense vegetation in the foreground and middleground. Views from recreation areas (e.g., campgrounds, picnic areas) are primarily concentrated within the Captain Cook SRA (Link TS). These immediate foreground and foreground views are primarily screened by the dense vegetative cover. However, there are open to partially screened immediate foreground views of the route near the Swanson River. A bicycle/pedestrian trail located adjacent to the North Kenai Road (Links T2 and T3) would have open views along this route. Dispersed recreational users potentially would have open-to-partially screened immediate foreground views throughout this route, dependent upon specific location. These views would be expected to be intermittent and short term. Dispersed recreation users north of the Captain Cook SRA (Links T6, T7, T8, and T9) have open to screened views due to the presence of vegetation throughout this route. Views from the North Kenai Road would be open where an existing electrical line along this route would cross overhead (Link T2) in the immediate foreground, and open to screened due to dense vegetation where the route parallels the travelway in the immediate foreground and foreground (Links T2, T3, T4, and T5) including two pull-offs. There is concentrated use on the unmaintained road that follows the existing pipeline (Links T6, T7, T8, and T9) by local residents and recreational users. Views along this access road are open to partially screened in the immediate foreground. There is considerable daily air traffic year-round over the Kenai Peninsula. Flights occur between Anchorage and Kenai several times a day with views of the Tosoro route. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual B2987 September 2001 Middleground views from residences to the east of the Bernice Lake Substation site are entirely screened due to the presence adjacent dense vegetation. Foreground views from the North Kenai Road are limited to a relatively small clearing of vegetation for the access road. This view is very short term and is not prominent. Environmental Consequences Landscape Scenery Transmission Line Route—Approximately 14.7 miles of significant impacts were assigned to scenic quality Class A forested wetlands, the coastline of the Cook Inlet, and forested residential areas near Nikiski (Links T3, T4, T6, and T7). Impacts to scenic quality Class B forested lowlands and residential areas would occur for approximately 23.6 miles (Links T3, T4, T6, and T7). The remaining portion of this route would have little to no impact on landscape scenery, including Captain Cook SRA where the line is underground. Transition Facilities—Significant impacts from transition facilities (riser pole) would occur on residential and scenic quality Class B landscapes for undergrounding the line at the Johnson airstrip (Link T3) near Nikiski; on scenic quality Class A and Class B landscapes at Captain Cook SRA (Link T5) on the north and south boundaries; and on scenic quality Class A landscapes at Pt. Possession (Link T8) where the transition facilities would be located within the right-of-way for the transmission line. Non-significant impacts would occur on heavily developed commercial landscapes from the transition facilities (riser pole) for undergrounding the line at the Rediske airstrip (Link T3) near Nikiski. Substation—The Bernice Lake Substation would have minimal impact on scenic quality since this facility exists in previously disturbed landscapes. Viewers Transmission Line Route—Significant on open immediate foreground and foreground views from residences would occur for approximately 12.3 miles from Nikiski to Captain Cook SRA (Links T3 and T4), as well as dispersed residences from Captain Cook SRA to Pt. Possession (Links T6 and T7). Approximately 20.2 miles of this route would have impacts on views from residences, which are partially screened to screened due to the presence of vegetation (Links T3, T4, T5, and T6). The remaining impacts on residences along this route are minimal due to viewing distance and local screening conditions. Visual impacts on the Grey Cliffs and Moose Point subdivisions would result from the clearing of the right-of-way and visibility of structures from existing and future development. Mitigation would include the use of the planned transportation corridor, which is independent from the planned future road corridor. By placing the 150-foot right-of-way of the Project within the Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-238 September 2001 planned 300-foot right-of-way, there is the opportunity to establish vegetation screening to existing and future development. Through right-of-way feathering techniques in sensitive areas, the width of required clearing would be minimized. Impacts on views from recreation areas within Captain Cook SRA would be minimal (Link T5), due to underground construction within the existing road right-of-way. Impacts on views from dispersed recreation users along this route would be variable depending upon activity, viewer orientation, and proximity to the route. Significant impacts on open immediate foreground views from the North Kenai Road (Links T2, T3, T4, and T5) would occur for 8.6 miles where roadside conditions are characterized by forested areas where man-made features are absent or subordinate to the natural landscape scenery. In addition, there would be significant impacts on views overlooking adjacent lakes (Link T4) from two pullouts along the North Kenai Road. Other impacts on views along the North Kenai Road would occur for 2.5 miles where roadside conditions are characterized by areas in which development is evident, but does not dominate natural landscape scenery. Impacts to views from the remaining portion of the North Kenai Road would be minimal due to conditions adjacent to the roadway, including commercial and industrial development. The visual impact to air travelers resulting from right-of-way clearing is an additional visual resource issue for the Tesoro alternative because the amount of air traffic between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. The visibility of clearing will be variable depending on flight patterns, weather conditions, and season. Typical flight patterns for commuter planes are east of the coast, over the interior of the Kenai Lowlands, where the Project right-of-way would be seen from an angle as a linear clearing parallel to the coast. Adjacent trees would screen portions of the right- of-way. The setting varies from adjacent wilderness to a pattern of existing oil field development and seismic lines. The clearing would be most evident in the winter, when there is a strong contrast between the snow cover and the adjacent forest. In the summer, the clearing would be green, similar to the surrounding vegetation, and therefore less evident. The contrast of the vegetation clearing would appear strongest in uniform dense forest, and least evident in spruce bogs with low growing vegetation. Mitigation for reducing vegetation contrast in dense forest areas would be consistent with those described for minimizing visual impacts on residential development, variable right-of-way clearing widths and minimal ground disturbance. Transition Facilities—Significant impacts would occur on residential views of the transition facilities (riser pole) for undergrounding the line at the Johnson airstrip (Link T3) near Nikiski and to viewers along the North Kenai Road where the transition facilities would be located at the north and south boundaries of Captain Cook SRA (Link TS). Minimal impacts would occur on views of the transition facilities (riser pole) at the Rediske airstrip (Link T3) near Nikiski and on views from residences near Pt. Possession (Link T8), which are screened due to terrain and heavy vegetation. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-239 September 2001 Substation—The Bernice Lake Substation would have minimal impacts on views from residences, recreation areas, and travelways since this facility exists in previously disturbed landscapes. Impact and Mitigation Summary The route option between Bernice Lake to Pt. Possession would span a distance of 44.1 miles, of which a total of 21.1 miles of significant landscape scenery and/or viewer impacts were assigned. Significant impacts from the construction of this route option would result from a combination of vegetative clearing along North Kenai Road and the Tesoro pipeline, the addition of aboveground structures along the majority of this route, and the disruption of local viewsheds. Viewers potentially affected by this route option include the community of Nikiski, dispersed residences, travelers on North Kenai Road, and recreators in Captain Cook SRA. Highly valued views along this route option include views on the ground from residences, recreation areas and key travel routes as well as aerial views from planes and helicopters. Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof via Fire Island - Route Option B Affected Environment Landscape Scenery—This route crosses predominantly scenic quality Class B landscapes consisting of relatively flat, mixed conifer forests on Fire Island (Links T13, T11, and T12). The steep cliffs and tidal mud flats making up the island coastline are scenic quality Class A landscapes (Links T11 and T13). The route crosses scenic quality Class A landscapes (Link T14) near Pt. Woronzof as it transitions from the Cook Inlet. Modifications on Fire Island include dispersed buildings, a communications facility, local access roads, and helicopter/airplane landing areas. Modifications at Pt. Woronzof include existing transmission lines and a substation (Link T14). Viewers—Middleground views of the route from seasonal residences along the north and south coastline of Fire Island (Links T10 and T14) coast are open to partially screened due to terrain. Dispersed-recreation viewers located on the Fire Island (Links T12 and T13) would have short- term and intermittent views of the route. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-240 September 2001 Environmental Consequences Landscape Scenery Transmission Line Route—Impacts on scenic quality Class B landscapes would occur along the route crossing the relatively flat heavily vegetated terrain on Fire Island (Links T11, T12, and T13). Transition Facilities—The transition facilities would have impacts on scenic quality Class B landscapes at Fire Island (Links T11 and T13). Viewers The transition facilities and transmission line would have no impacts on views from seasonal residences at the north and south ends of Fire Island (Links T11 and T13) due to terrain and vegetation screening. There would be no impacts on views from seasonal residences located on Fire Island due to distance and screening from terrain and vegetation. Impact Summary and Mitigation The route option from Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof via Fire Island would result in 4.9 miles of visual impacts where this route option would transition from marine cable to a 90-foot-tall H- frame wood aboveground transmission line. Visual impacts along these links (T11 and T12) would result from a combination of vegetation and structure contrast. Clearing of vegetation would occur in forested areas along the transmission line right-of-way, which would be noticeable primarily from aerial views and seasonal, dispersed recreational views. Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof Submarine (Aquatic Route) - Route Option C Affected Environment Landscape Scenery and Viewers—This route consists of a submarine crossing from Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof. The route crosses scenic quality Class A landscapes near Pt. Woronzof as it transitions from the Cook Inlet (Link T15). Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-241 September 2001 Environmental Consequences Landscape Scenery and Viewers—These routes would have little to no impacts on landscape scenery or viewers because they are underground or submarine. Impact Summary and Mitigation The route options between Pt. Possession and Pt. Woronzof would largely result in no identifiable visual impacts because much of these route options would consist of marine cables to span the Turnagain Arm. Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell - Route Option D Affected Environment Landscape Scenery and Viewers—This route is a submarine crossing of the Turnagain Arm extending from Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell. This area includes scenic quality Class B tidal mudflats and coastal bluffs (Links T16 and T17) and a park-like image type (Link T17) at Pt. Campbell. Recreational users would have screened views to the transition facility at Pt. Campbell. Environmental Consequences Landscape Scenery and Viewers—There will be minimal impacts to Landscape Scenery and Viewers associated with the route and transition facility. Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof — Route Option N Affected Environment Landscape Scenery The area from Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof (Link T18) consists primarily of park-like image types, as well as industrial. The park-like image types are natural appearing, relatively flat landscapes with a dense cover of upland spruce hardwoods. There are developed trail systems and facilities, including the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail and Kincaid Park. Pt. Woronzof substation is an existing electrical facility located in a relatively flat, moderately vegetated area adjacent to the coastal bluffs of the Cook Inlet. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-242 September 2001 The Anchorage International Airport and industrial areas are heavily modified landscapes occurring near the central portion of Link T18. This development detracts from the adjacent natural appearing landscape of the coastline. The Tony Knowles Coastal Trail and a parking lot near the trailhead are located adjacent to the substation site. There are several existing transmission lines coming into the substation along the edge of the coastline. Viewers Recreational users would have views of the transmission line along this alternative route along Tony Knowles Coastal Trail and from Kincaid Park. Immediate foreground views from these areas are partially to fully screened due the presence of dense vegetation. However, there are isolated areas of relatively flat grasslands where views of the route are open in the immediate foreground and foreground. Views of Cook Inlet and Fire Island are open to partially screened due to vegetation. There are several locations along the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail where there are views of the Cook Inlet and Mt. Susitna. Immediate foreground views of Pt. Woronzof substation from the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail are open. Environmental Consequences Landscape Scenery Transmission Line Route—Approximately 3.7 miles of impacts would occur on park-like landscapes along the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail (Link T18). Minimal impacts for this route would occur along an industrial area adjacent to the airport for the remaining 0.3 mile of this route. Transition Facility—The transition facility at Pt. Campbell (Link T18) would have no significant impacts on landscape scenery, because of existing modifications (borrow pit and road) adjacent to the site. Substation—There would be minimal impacts on the industrial landscape. Viewers Transmission Line Route—Impacts on immediate foreground and foreground views from the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail (Link T18) would occur for approximately 1.1 miles along this Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-243 September 2001 route. The remaining portion of this route would have minimal impacts on views from recreation area due to low scenic quality and screening due to the presence of vegetation. Transition Facility—Impact would occur on immediate foreground views along a cross-country ski area near Pt. Campbell (Link T18). Substation—There would be minimal impacts on viewers due to the expansion of the existing Pt. Woronzof Substation. Impact and Mitigation Summary This underground route option follows the Tesoro Pipeline and future airport development between Pt. Campbell and Pt. Woronzof. This route option would be within immediate foreground and foreground views of the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail; however, since the line would be buried underground, there would not be any structure contrast from aboveground utility poles. In select locations impacts would occur from, vegetative clearing within views from the Tony Knowles Trail. Enstar Route Alternatives Soldotna North - Route Option E North Affected Environment Landscape Scenery The majority of lands crossed by this route fall into three classifications: scenic quality Classes B and C, as well as residential areas. The Class B landscapes (Links E3 and E4) are moderate to densely forested lowlands interspersed with areas of open bottomland and muskeg bogs. Class C (Link E3) landscapes along this route consists of relatively flat grasslands and disturbed areas. There are two Class A landscapes located along this route: Soldotna Creek (Links El and E3), a relatively small drainage with meandering curves flowing through a series of wetlands; and the Moose River (Link E3), a broad straight drainage flowing through bottomlands opening into the Kenai River. Residential areas are found north of the Soldotna Substation (Links El and E2) and near Mackey’s Lakes, Sport Lake, Sevena Lake, Cisca Lake and Tree Lake (Links E2 and E3). The residences occur in random patterns defined by local access roads and are located within the moderate to densely forested areas. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-244 September 2001 There is one area of disturbance located along this route adjacent to the east side of the Moose River (Link E3). This area has been cleared of vegetation and detracts from the immediate landscape setting. This route parallels two 115kV transmission lines and a 69kV distribution line (Links El and E2) from the Soldotna Substation to an area approximately one mile north of Sport Lake, and one 115kV transmission line from one mile northwest of Mackey’s Lakes east adjacent to the KNWR boundary. There is extensive, and some unauthorized vegetation clearing within the existing right-of-way, as well as local access roads following the transmission line. The Soldotna Substation site is an existing electrical facility (including 115kV and 69kV transmission lines) located in a predominantly residential landscape characterized by large lot development and curvilinear circulation situated in heavily vegetated, rolling terrain. There is extensive, and some unauthorized vegetation clearing for the existing transmission line right-of- way. Viewers Immediate foreground and foreground views from residences predominate in this relatively flat terrain. However, dense vegetation provides partial to full screening of views from most residences throughout the majority of the route. Open views of the route in the immediate foreground and foreground exist north of the Soldotna Substation (Link E1), northeast of Sport Lake (Link E3), east of Sevena Lake (Link E3), and east of the Moose River (Link E3). Foreground and middleground views from residences near the Soldotna Substation site are open to fully screened due to dense vegetation. Immediate foreground views from the Sterling Highway are open due to the vegetation clearing. Immediate foreground and foreground views from the Birch Ridge Golf Course to the west would be partially screened due to vegetation. The Moose River canoe route (Link E3) is the only recreation site crossed by this route. Views along the river where the route crosses would be open ranging from the immediate foreground to foreground. Other immediate foreground to foreground views of the route would be from dispersed-recreational users along the existing access road and from adjacent lakes. These views would range from open to partially screened and are expected to be intermittent and short term. Views from Swanson River Road (Link E3) would be open where the transmission line would cross overhead in the immediate foreground; and open to screened due to the presence of vegetation where the route is viewed short term, in the immediate foreground and foreground. Other travelways include local access roads within residential areas (Links El, E2, and E3). Views from these roads are expected to be similar to the previous description, except where the roads parallel the route in the immediate foreground and foreground for short distances. In this case, there would be longer duration of views in open to partially screened conditions. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-245 September 2001 Environmental Consequences Landscape Scenery Transmission Line Route—Approximately | mile of significant impacts would occur in areas classified as scenic quality Class A. This would occur in forested residential areas near Sport Lake and Union Lake (Links E2 and E3), and Sevena Lake (Link E3). Impacts on scenic quality Class A and B landscapes would occur for approximately 13.8 miles of this route where the setting has been modified by the presence of existing transmission line(s) or pipeline corridors such as the Class A wetland complex and drainage landscapes of Soldotna Creek (Link E1) and the Moose River (Link E3), and the Class B landscapes near Soldotna and Sterling in forested lowlands (Link E3) and forested rolling hills (Links E3, E4, and E8). Additional impacts would occur in forested residential areas (Links El, E2, and E3) and minimal impacts would occur throughout the remaining portion of this route in disturbed areas, bottomland, and grassland. Substation—The Soldotna substation would have minimal impacts on scenic quality since this facility exists in previously disturbed landscapes. Viewers Transmission Line Route—Significant impacts on immediate foreground and foreground views from residences within an area of forested wetlands near Sevana Lake (Link E3) would occur for 0.1 mile along this route. Approximately 10.1 miles of impacts on immediate foreground and foreground views from residences north of the Soldotna Substation (Links El and E2) would occur where residential views are open to partially screened due to the presence of vegetation. This portion of the route parallels two existing 115kV and 69kV transmission lines from the Soldotna Substation to an area approximately | mile north of Sport Lake. The remaining portion of this route would have little to no impacts on views from residences. Substation—The Soldotna Substation would have minimal impacts on views from residences, recreation areas, and travelways since this facility exists in previously disturbed landscapes. Minimal impacts on viewers would also occur for the Naptowne substation. The Naptowne Substation site will be a new facility located in a scenic quality Class B landscape characterized by heavily vegetated, rolling terrain. There is dispersed residential development located to the west of this site. Other modifications include an existing 115kV transmission line and local access roads. There is extensive, and some unauthorized vegetation clearing in the existing transmission line right-of-way. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-246 September 2001 Impact Summary and Mitigation The Northern Soldotna Route option spans a distance of 21.6 miles, of which a total of 1.0 mile of significant landscape scenery and/or viewer impacts were assigned. Impacts from the construction of this route option would result from a combination of vegetative clearing, the addition of aboveground structures, and the disruption of local residential, recreational, and travel route viewsheds. Visual project/setting contrast is considered to be greater when structures are placed within an undeveloped setting without existing structures in place. Therefore, anticipated structure contrast from the addition of new structures within existing utility corridors is considered to be of low to moderate structural contrast. Viewers potentially affected by this route option include dispersed residences around the community of Soldotna; travelers on Swanson River Road at a single crossing; recreators on Sevena Lake, Moose River, and East Fork of the Moose River; and viewers from planes. Southern Soldotna - Route Option E South (Applicant’s Proposal) Affected Environment Landscape Scenery The lands crossed by this route fall into four classifications: scenic quality Classes A, B and C, as well as residential areas. Class A landscapes occur where the route crosses the Kenai River. Class B landscapes are moderate to densely forested lowlands interspersed with small areas of open grasslands and bogs (Links E5 and E6). In addition, the Class C landscapes located along this route consists of a combination of grasslands interspersed with small spruce vegetation (Link E5), as well as disturbed areas along the Funny River and adjacent to the Sterling Highway east of Bing’s Landing. Residential areas are found near the Soldotna Substation (Link E5); near the crossing of the Funny River (Link E5); along the Kenai River south of Sterling (Link E5); and southeast and east of Sterling (Links E5 and E6). The residences occur in random patterns defined by local access roads and are located within the moderately to densely forested areas. This route parallels two 115kV transmission lines and a 69kV distribution line from the Soldotna Substation to an area where the Kenai River enters the KNWR (Link E5); one 69kV and 12kV distribution line from this point to an area five miles east of Sterling (Link E5); and one 115kV transmission line from this point one mile north to the Enstar pipeline (Link E6). Other modifications include extensive vegetation clearing within the existing right-of-way, several local access roads, signage, airport, and extraction areas. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-247 September 2001 Viewers Views from residences along this route are partially to fully screened throughout the majority of the route. However, there are open to partially screened views of the route in the immediate foreground and foreground south of the Soldotna Substation (Link El) where the route would be viewed from residences overlooking a valley; adjacent to the Funny River (Link E5); at the Kenai River crossing near Bing’s Landing (Link E5); and east of the Sterling Highway (Links ES, E6, and E7). Foreground and middleground views from residences near the Soldotna Substation site are open to fully screened due to dense vegetation. Immediate foreground and foreground views from residences to the west of the Naptowne Substation site would be open to partially screened and middleground views would be fully screened due to the presence of vegetation. Major recreation sites along this route include a golf course, campgrounds, and Bing’s Landing SRA. Views of the route overlooking a valley setting from Birch Ridge Golf Course west of the Soldotna Substation (Link E5) would be partially to fully screened due to the presence of vegetation in the foreground and middleground. Middleground views from the Funny River Campground (Link E5) would be screened due to the presence of dense vegetation. Immediate foreground and foreground views from Bing’s Landing SRA are open at the crossing of the Kenai River and partially to fully screened due to the presence of vegetation adjacent to the river. Major travelways along this route include the Funny River Road (Link ES) and the Sterling Highway (Links E5, E6, and E7). Views from these roads would be open where the route crosses overhead (Link E3) in the immediate foreground. Other travelways include local access roads serving residential and recreation areas (Links E5, E6, and E7). Views from these roads are expected to be similar to the previous description, except where the roads parallel the route in the immediate foreground and foreground for short distances. In this case, there would be longer duration of views in open to partially screened conditions. Immediate foreground views to the Soldotna Substation from the Sterling Highway are open due to the vegetation clearing. Environmental Consequences Landscape Scenery Transmission Line Route—Approximately 0.3 mile of significant impacts would occur on scenic quality Class A landscapes along this route, as previously described for Links E3, E9, and E10 of Route Option B. Other impacts would occur for approximately 6.7 miles on scenic quality Class A Kenai River valley (Link ES); as well as forested residential areas adjacent to the Kenai River (Link E5), along Funny River Road (Link E5), and east of Sterling (Link E6), where the route parallels an existing 69kV transmission line. Impacts on the remaining landscapes along this route are Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-248 September 2001 expected to be minimal due to low scenic quality and the presence of an existing transmission line or pipeline. Substation—The Soldotna Substation would have minimal impacts on scenic quality since this facility exists in previously disturbed landscapes. Other impacts from construction of the Naptowne Substation site would occur on scenic quality Class B and densely vegetated residential landscapes west of Sterling. Viewers Transmission Line Route—Significant impacts on immediate foreground and foreground views from residences would occur where the route crosses the Kenai River at Bing’s Landing (Link ES) and east of Sterling (Link E6). Other impacts would occur along the Kenai River and Funny River Road to immediate foreground and foreground views.. The remaining portion of this route would have minimal impacts on views from residences due to screening from vegetation and the presence of existing transmission line(s). Significant impacts on views from recreation areas occur for approximately 0.2 mile along this route including immediate foreground views of the Kenai River (Link ES) crossing at Bing’s Landing. Other impacts on views from recreation areas occur for approximately 1.1 miles. This includes immediate foreground and foreground views where the route crosses the Kenai River (Links ES) and immediate foreground and foreground views from Birch Ridge Golf Course south of the Soldotna Substation (Link ES). The remaining portion of this route would have minimal impacts on views from residences due to screening from vegetation and the presence of existing transmission line(s). There would be approximately 0.1 mile of impacts to transportation on immediate foreground views at the crossing of the Funny River Road (Link ES) and Sterling Highway (Link E5), where an existing 69kV transmission line crosses the road. Substation—The Soldotna Substation would have minimal impacts on views from residences, recreation areas, and travelways since this facility exists in previously disturbed landscapes. Significant impacts would occur on immediate foreground and foreground views of the Naptowne Substation site from residences. This would be a result of vegetation clearing and construction of new facilities adjacent to the existing 1 15kV transmission line. Impact Summary and Mitigation The Route Option E South (Applicant’s Proposal) spans a distance of 18.9 miles, of which a total of 0.57 mile of significant landscape scenery and/or viewer impacts were assigned. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-249 September 2001 Impacts from the construction of this route option would occur at the crossing of the Kenai River, where an existing 69kV wood H-frame structure would be replaced with a wood, single- pole structure within the viewshed of both local residences and recreators. Impacts also would occur where this route option would be visible from dispersed residences along Link E7, north of the Sterling Highway. The primary factors that contribute to impacts in these locations are the visibility from sensitive viewers, close proximity of the viewers, additional clearing of vegetation, and widening the existing right-of-way. Enstar to Chickaloon Bay - Route Option F (Applicant’s Proposal) Affected Environment Landscape Scenery The majority of areas crossed by this route are scenic quality Class A and B landscapes. Class A landscapes occurring along this route include the foothills of the Central Kenai Mountains (Links E8 and E9) located along the east edge of the route; the Chickaloon Bay tidal estuary (Link E10) at the north end of this route; and several major wetlands/drainages interspersed throughout the route (Links E8 and E9). The Class B landscapes are areas of gently rolling terrain covered with densely forested upland spruce hardwoods interspersed with small drainages (Link E8 and E9). There is one Class C landscape (Link E8) crossed near the south end of this route, an area of disturbance where vegetation has been cleared. This route parallels the Enstar pipeline. There is minor vegetation clearing within the pipeline corridor. Other modifications include the access road and above ground pipeline structures (Link E10) at the north end of the route. Viewers (KNWR) A field investigation was conducted by helicopter with the USFWS on April 22, 1998 to verify viewing conditions from selected locations of concern within the KNWR. The following locations were observed and photographed in order to assess the potential for visual impacts from Alternative Route F. = Skyline Trail and Fuller Lakes Trail System = Indian Valley = Mystery Creek = Chickaloon Bay = Moosehorn Lake = Pt. Possession = Swan Lake = Moose Point = Moose Lake = East Fork of the Moose River Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-250 September 2001 = Scenic Lake = Afonasi Lake = Trapper Joe Lake a Mystery Creek Road = Moose Pasture Lake In summary, the field observations established that Alternative Route F would be unseen from the majority of lakes within the KNWR wilderness area due to distance and screening. The Enstar pipeline right-of-way is not visible from ground elevations other than at Trapper Joe Lake and Cabin, Mystery Creek Access Trail (including the Enstar pipeline), East Fork of the Moose River, Afonasi Lake, and Chickaloon Bay. The Mystery Creek Access Trail is a dispersed recreation route that runs parallel, and in close proximity to, the proposed route. The majority of the views are perpendicular to the route from distant lakes and in most cases obscured by vegetation and topography. Views from Skyline Trail and Fuller Lakes Trail Systems—The viewing elevation is approximately 2,800 feet in a westerly direction from the trail to Route F. The route is perpendicular to the view and would not be distinguishable from the ridges adjacent to the trail system, due to distance and screening from topography and trees. Route F would be approximately 8 miles from the viewpoint. Parallel views of clearings for both the Enstar pipeline and the Quartz Creek transmission line are visible in the distance near Sterling (distance to nearest edge of clearing is approximately 16 miles). View from Enstar Pipeline Trail—Views from the pipeline trail would be parallel to Route F. The estimated tree height range from 10 to 20 to 60 feet along the route. Views from Interior Lakes—There are distant views in an easterly direction towards the Kenai Mountains from the interior lakes associated with the Swan Lake area. The Enstar right-of-way is completely obscured from view by vegetation and topographic screening. These lakes offer the most open views towards the mountains in this part of the KNWR. View from Moose Lake enroute to Trapper Joe Lake—There are distant views from the Moose Lake in an easterly direction towards the Kenai Mountains. Based on observation of views from the helicopter hovering over water, the route adjacent to the Enstar pipeline would be completely obscured from view from Moose Lake. Vegetation and topography would provide some partial screening to Route F from Scenic Lake. The right-of-way is not visible from Lake Surface, because it is obscured by trees and topography. Several low-lying ridges screen the route from a direct view from the lake. It was agreed that the clearing for the Southern Intertie would not be visible from the lake. Views from Trapper Joe Lake—The right-of-way will be visible as a break in the trees, especially at the southern end of the lake. The Enstar pipeline clearing is located on a side at the base of a hill. Views to the south (from the cabin) are somewhat parallel to the route, and additional clearing will be visible from the southern portion of the lake. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-251 September 2001 Views from Indian Valleys—Additional right-of-way clearing would be visible from the high elevation views from either the ridgeline or from an airplane. There is a | mile” area in the mudflats of Chickaloon Bay, which is open to airplane landing. This area is located approximately 6 to 8 miles from the Enstar pipeline right-of-way. A portion of the existing right-of-way is visible in the distance Aerial Views over Pt. Possession—Aerial views over Pt. Possession in-line with the right-of-way would show a substantial change as a result of clearing, even for a buried section of the project. Environmental Consequences Landscape Scenery Within the KNWR (Route Option F, Applicant’s Proposal), significant impacts on scenic quality would occur for approximately 19.8 miles in forested wetlands and drainages near Mystery Creek Road (Link E8), small creeks crossing the Enstar pipeline (Link E8), and densely forested foothills and valleys of the Chugach Mountains (Links E8, E9, and E10). Viewers Significant impacts on viewers would occur within the KNWR for 29.1 miles along Links E8, E9, and E10. Significant visual impacts were assigned to foreground views from the Afonasi Lake along East Fork of Moose River, Trapper Joe Lake, and Chickaloon Flats areas as well as to the surrounding landscapes that have been designated as wilderness within the KNWR, from the Mystery Creek Road intersection to Chickaloon Bay. Other impacts were identified on the segment of Route Option F (Applicant’s Proposal) along Link E8, 3 miles south of the Mystery Creek Road. Impact Summary and Mitigation The Enstar to Chickaloon Bay route option spans a distance of 38.3 miles, of which a total of 30.2 miles of significant visual impacts were assigned to these links. This route option would parallel the Enstar pipeline through the KNWR. Impacts from the construction of this route option would result from vegetative contrast and the addition of aboveground structures (guyed X steel along Link E1.3, and single-pole wood along Links E9 and E10) within this right-of-way. Views of concern include both recreational views from Mystery Creek Road, Moose River, the East Fork Moose River, Afonasi Lake, Trapper Joe Lake and Cabin, as well as aerial views. The appearance of this route option in this setting is illustrated on simulations in Volume II, Appendix E. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-252 September 2001 The significant impacts assigned to Route Option F (Applicant’s Proposal) through the KNWR reflect the management and wilderness values adjacent to the Enstar pipeline. Visibility of structures, right-of-way clearing, and associated ground disturbance all contribute to the visual impacts on the KNWR. Mitigation through winter construction that would reduce impacts on the terrain, variable right-of-way clearing, and lowering tower heights or structure types in selected areas could reduce the magnitude of the visual impacts. In the Trapper Joe Lake area, lowering tower heights and minimizing clearing would minimize visual impacts from the lake and local cabin. In the Chickaloon area, where the route would be visible along the hillside above the flats, impacts could be reduced by the use of single-pole structures at lowered heights. Chickaloon Bay to Klatt Road - Route Option G; Chickaloon Bay to Oceanview Park - Route Option H (Applicant’s Proposal); Chickaloon Bay Rabbit Creek - Route Option I Affected Environment Landscape Scenery Links E11, E12, and E13 are mostly submarine. However, there are areas of scenic quality Class A landscape located at Chickaloon Bay and on the southern edge of Anchorage. These landscapes are large coastal marshes interspersed with numerous small drainages, wetlands, and tidal mudflats. Seasonal changes result in bright green cover of mosses and grass on the tidal mudflats. These coastal marshes are natural appearing landscapes with little or no disturbance evident. Viewers Portions of Link E11 are within foreground views from residences along the coastline. Views of the proposed route from these residences are open to partially screened due to the presence of vegetation towards the Turnagain Arm, the Kenai Peninsula, Redoubt Volcano, and the Chugach Mountains. Portions of Links E12 and E13 are within immediate foreground views from the Alaska Railroad. Views of the proposed route along this portion of the Alaska Railroad are open and towards the Turnagain Arm, the Kenai Peninsula, Redoubt Volcano, and the Chugach Mountains. Foreground and middleground views from the Old Seward and New Seward Highways are open towards the Turnagain Arm and Chugach Mountains. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-253 September 2001 Environmental Consequences Landscape Scenery Transmission Line—These routes would result primarily in minimal impacts on landscape scenery because they are underground or submarine. Link E11 would result in 0.3 mile of minimal impacts on landscape scenery where this link would cross through coastal marsh, resulting in vegetative contrast within the viewshed of Klatt Road and surrounding residences. Link E12 would result in | mile of visual impacts where this link crosses through coastal marsh near Oceanview Park. Link E13 would result in 0.1 mile of impacts where this link crosses through coastal marsh near the Alaska Railroad. Impacts to coastal marshes would be mitigated through the use of directional drilling under the marsh. Transition Facility—Impacts would occur on scenic quality Class B landscapes near Burnt Island (Link E10), where the transition facility would be located within the transmission line right-of- way. Viewers Transition Facility—The transition facility would have minimal impacts on views from a seasonal cabin and dispersed recreational activities on Burnt Island (Link E10), due to vegetation screening. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation The route options between Chickaloon Bay and the Anchorage area would largely result in no identifiable visual impacts because much of these route options would consist of marine cables to span the Turnagain Arm. Where these routes cross through coastal marsh, directional drilling would be used to avoid vegetative contrast within the viewsheds of key travel routes such as Klatt Road, Old Seward Road, and the Alaska Railroad. Anchorage Klatt Road to International Substation via Minnesota Drive - Route Option J Affected Environment Landscape Scenery The residential areas along Klatt Road (Links Al, A2, and A3) are characterized by mixed height, moderate density homes with curvilinear or cul-de-sac circulation. The undeveloped Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-254 September 2001 natural areas (Links A2 and A3) are characterized by a moderate to dense cover of vegetation interspersed with grasslands and small muskeg bogs. Existing modifications along Klatt Road include local access roads, signage, overhead lighting, and a radio tower. The majority of Link AS crosses undeveloped land. There are areas of residential and park-like lands occurring along Minnesota Drive and a large electrical facility is located southeast of the intersection of Airport International Road and Minnesota Drive. The undeveloped lands consist of natural to slightly disturbed conditions. Vegetation types and patterns consist of sparse to dense covers of coniferous and deciduous trees interspersed with areas of grasslands. There are occasional wetlands found within the open areas adding moderate visual interest to the landscape setting. The residential image types along Minnesota Drive (Link A5) are characterized by mixed height, moderate density homes with curvilinear or cul-de-sac circulation and high density, small lot, trailer parks. Alternatives along Links A3 and Al would be underground along the residential type landscapes. Park-like lands along Link A5 include Campbell Creek Greenbelt, located north of the intersection of Minnesota Drive and Dimond Boulevard. This area is a natural appearing landscape with a dense cover of vegetation following along the edges of the creek. Included in this greenbelt is a bike/pedestrian trail adjacent to the creek. Each of the links parallels multi-lane roadways. There are extensive modifications including bridges, signage, and overhead lighting. In addition, this route parallels an existing 138kV transmission line as well as three distribution lines near the International Substation (Link A5). International substation is an existing electrical facility located adjacent to the Alaska Railroad, Airport International Road, and Minnesota Drive in an area characterized by industrial and commercial development. There are several 115kV and 69kV transmission lines and distribution lines located in the substation area. Viewers Views from residences near North Klatt Road and Klatt Road (Links A2 and A3) range from open in the immediate foreground and open to fully screened due to vegetation in the foreground and middleground. Views of the link paralleling north Klatt Road and other local access roads are open in the immediate foreground. Views from the undeveloped natural areas (Link A2) range from open to screened due to vegetation in the immediate foreground and foreground. These views are not fixed and would be short in duration. Residents near the intersection of O’Malley Road and Minnesota Drive (Link A4) have open immediate foreground views toward the Chugach Mountains in an area currently being further developed. Residents along the western side of Minnesota Drive (Link A5) also have open to partially screened immediate foreground and foreground views that are open toward the Chugach Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-255 September 2001 Mountains. Residents along the east side of Minnesota drive have open to partially screened immediate foreground and middleground views toward the Chugach Mountains. Views from a commercial area along O’ Malley Road are partially screened in the immediate foreground to foreground. Low sensitivity views from an extraction area along O’ Malley Road would be in the foreground. Foreground views of the North Klatt and Klatt Road area from the golf driving range are open across flat grasslands. Views from the trail within Campbell Creek Greenbelt are open in the immediate foreground for a short distance. Portions of these views are screened by the bridge crossings along Minnesota Drive. Foreground views from the Javier Delavega Recreation Complex on the southeast corner of Minnesota Drive and International Road would be open to partially screened due to the presence of vegetation. Travelways located along these links include a small portion of O’Malley Road (Link A4) and Minnesota Drive (Link A5). Minnesota Drive is characterized by open visibility, offering scenic views to the Chugach Mountains and local natural features such as Campbell Creek Greenbelt, streams, wetlands and bogs. Views of the proposed Project paralleling North Klatt Road (Link A3) would be open in the immediate foreground and open to partially screened where the proposed Project would be adjacent to North Klatt Road (Link A3). Immediate foreground and foreground views of International Substation from Minnesota Drive and Airport International Road are open to fully screened due to the presence of adjacent vegetation and development. Middleground views from residences and recreation areas would be partially to fully screened due to the presence of adjacent vegetation and development. Environmental Consequences Landscape Scenery Transmission Line Route—Significant impacts along Minnesota Drive and O’Malley Road would occur on residential areas (Links A4 and A5), park-like (undeveloped landscapes) (Links A4, and A5), and the Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link A5). Significant impacts would occur on park-like landscapes including an undisturbed natural area located south of O'Malley Road (Link A3, and A4). Transition Facility—Potentially significant to significant impacts would occur on park-like (natural) landscapes adjacent to Klatt Road (Link A3), as a result of the transition facility. Substation—There would be minimal impacts on industrial landscapes associated with the expansion of the existing International substation, due to the existing modifications. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-256 September 2001 Viewers Transmission Line Route—Significant impacts would occur on immediate foreground and foreground views from residences along the south side of Klatt Road (Link A3). Significant impacts would also occur to immediately foreground and foreground views from residences along Minnesota Drive (Link A4). No impacts to residences are expected along Links A2 and Al since these links would be underground. Significant impacts would occur on immediate foreground, foreground, and middleground open and partially screened views from residences along Minnesota Drive (Links A4 and A5). Impacts would also occur on foreground and middleground views from residences that are partially screened along Minnesota Drive (Links A4 and A5). The remaining impacts on residences along Minnesota Drive would be minimal due to proximity to the route and the presence of screening from vegetation and development. Significant impacts would occur on immediate foreground and foreground views from a neighborhood park along Klatt Road (Link A3). Impacts on foreground and middleground views from the golf course driving range at the northwest intersection of Klatt Road and C Street (Link A3). Significant impacts on recreation areas along Minnesota Drive would occur to immediate foreground views from Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link A5) and Javier Dela Vega Park (Link A5) located at the southwest corner of the intersection of International Road and Minnesota Drive. Other impacts on recreation areas would occur to partially screened foreground and middleground views from Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link A5) and Javier Delavega Park (Link AS). The remaining impacts on views from recreation areas would be minimal due to proximity to the route and screening due to the presence of vegetation and development. Significant impacts on immediate foreground views from travelways would occur along Klatt Road (Link A3) and O’Malley Road (Links A3 and A4), including middleground and background views of the Chugach Mountains. Significant impacts on travelways would occur where there are open views of the Chugach Mountains from Minnesota Drive (Link A5) and other impacts would occur where the views are partially screened. Transition Facility—Significant impacts would occur on immediate foreground and foreground views from residences and from Klatt Road (Link A3) due to the transition facility. Mitigation such as placing the transition facility within a building would substantially reduce impacts on viewers in this area. Substation—There would be non-significant to no impacts on viewers due to the expansion of the existing International substation. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual B57) September 2001 Impact Summary and Mitigation The Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive option spans a distance of 5.1 miles, of which a total of | mile of significant visual impacts were assigned. Links Al, A2 and A3 parallel portions of Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive, and would be within immediate foreground and foreground views of residences. Significant visual impacts from the construction of this route option would result from strong project/setting contrast within immediate foreground and foreground views from travelers on Minnesota Drive/O’ Malley Road and adjacent residences and recreational uses. This segment would consist of single-shaft, steel transmission line poles within the Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road right-of-way. The paralleling of Minnesota Drive would result not only in structure contrast, but also vegetation contrast where widening into existing vegetation would occur. OceanviewPark to International Substation via Alaska Railroad - Route Option K (Applicant’s Proposal) Affected Environment Landscape Scenery Lands crossed by Links A6, A7, A8, and A9 include residential, commercial and industrial areas. Residential areas near the southern edge of the city of Anchorage (Link A6) and near the north end of this route along Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link A9) and south of International Airport Road (Link A10) are characterized by mixed height, moderate density homes with curvilinear or cul-de-sac circulation. Park-like image types includes Oceanview Park (Link A6), a heavily vegetated, natural appearing park including trails, tennis courts, and other recreation facilities. The majority of lands surrounding Links A7, A8, and A9 consist of commercial and industrial image types. The commercial areas vary from buildings organized along arterial corridors with a variety of architectural facades and signage, to strip malls housing several offices or retail facilities with a more unified architectural theme. The industrial image types along these links range from large sand-and-gravel operations to light-industrial development. The industrial images are characterized by chain link fencing, disturbed areas, and machinery and storage facilities. These areas lack any natural appearance and detract from the landscape setting. Existing modifications to this setting include the railroad, an electrical distribution line, and several areas of industrial development. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-258 September 2001 Viewers Views from residences along Link A6 are within the immediate foreground. Most of the residences along Link A6 have open immediate foreground and foreground views toward the Alaska Railroad, although views from several residences at the southern end of this link are partially confined by vegetation. Link A7 has foreground-to-middleground views from residences. Foreground views from residences near Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link A9) are partially screened. Residents on the south side of International Airport Road (Link A10) have immediate foreground and foreground views that range from open to partially screened within an area of extensive industrial development. Commercial and industrial developments (Links A6, A7, and A12) have foreground views with little or no screening between them. Links A6, A7, A8, A9, and A10 parallel the Alaska Railroad. Views along the Alaska Railroad are open and dominated by various small structures, signs, and utilities located along the railroad with a wide variety of architectural facades and signage treatments. This setting lacks any cohesiveness as a result of the many discordant elements that characterize it. Environmental Consequences Landscape Scenery Significant impacts would occur on park-like (undeveloped landscapes) (Link Al2), the Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link A9), and residential areas (Link A10). Other impacts would occur on residential landscapes north of Oceanview Park (Link A6), where the route would be underground. The remaining industrial (Links A7, A8, A9, and A10) and commercial landscapes (Links A12, A8, and A9) along the Alaska Railroad would have minimal impacts. Viewers Significant impacts would occur on immediate foreground and foreground views from residences along the Alaska Railroad south of the Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link A9). Other impacts would occur on immediate foreground and foreground views from residences that are partially to fully screened north of Oceanview Park (Links A6), south of the Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link A9), and east of International Substation (Link A10). The remaining impacts on views from residences would be minimal due to proximity to the route, the presence of screening from vegetation, and existing development. Significant impacts on recreation areas along the Alaska Railroad would occur to immediate foreground views from the Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link A9). Other impacts would occur on partially to fully screened immediate foreground and foreground views from Oceanview Park Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-259 September 2001 (Link A6), where vegetation would be cleared for the underground route along the Alaska Railroad. The remaining impacts on views from recreation areas would be minimal due to proximity to the route and screening due to the presence of vegetation and adjacent development. Significant impacts on immediate foreground views from travelways would occur along the Alaska Railroad near the Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Links A9) and other impacts would occur north of Oceanview Park (Link A6). Impact Summary and Mitigation The Alaska Railroad route option spans a distance of 5.4 miles, of which a total of 1 mile of significant impacts were assigned. This route option would parallel the Alaska Railroad from Oceanview Park to the International Substation. Significant visual impacts from the construction of this route option would result from strong project/setting contrast within immediate foreground and foreground views from residences and recreational uses. This segment would consist of single-shaft, steel transmission line poles within the Alaska Railroad right-of-way. Due to the paralleling of Alaska Railroad, structure contrast is considered to be minimal and minimal clearing of vegetation would occur. Rabbit Creek to International Substation via Old Seward Highway - Route Option M Affected Environment Landscape Scenery Lands along Links All, Al3, Al4, Al5, and A1l6 are comprised of residential, park-like, commercial, and industrial areas. Residential image types (Links All, Al4, Al5, and A16) throughout this area consist of high- and medium-density residential units, with some low- density residential units near Rabbit Creek Interchange. Development patterns are organized around a hierarchy of streets, which include a central collector road with access to secondary streets and cul-de-sacs. Park-like areas along this route include the recreation complex located at the northeast corner of the O’ Malley and Old Seward Highway intersection (Link Al4) and Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link A16), located south of the intersection at Airport International Road and Old Seward Highway. Campbell Creek Greenbelt is a natural appearing landscape with a dense cover of vegetation following along the edges of the creek. Included in this greenbelt is a bike/pedestrian trail adjacent to the creek. In addition, there are several natural areas and/or vacant open space (Links A13, Al2, Al4, A15, and A16) occurring along this route. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-260 September 2001 Commercial areas crossed by Links All, Al3, Al4, Al5, and A16 include office and retail developments located along Old Seward Highway and International Airport Road. The commercial areas vary from single buildings with a variety of architectural facades to strip malls housing several offices and/or retail facilities. This combination of development along with multiple signs and overhead light structures create a chaotic visual setting. Industrial areas consist of a sawmill/lumberyard (Link A14), heavy equipment storage areas and several small manufacturing facilities (Links All, A1l3, Al4, A15, and A16), and an electrical facility (Link A16). Link A11 parallels the Alaska Railroad for approximately 0.7 mile, beyond which it parallels Old Seward Highway. The majority of Link All and all of Link A1l3 would replace an existing distribution line. Many modifications have occurred along Old Seward Highway and International Airport Road including residential, commercial, recreational, and industrial development. Links Al4, A15, and A16 parallel multi-lane roadways. Links Al4 and A15 would replace an existing distribution line. A portion of Link A16 parallels an existing 138kV transmission line and two distribution lines, near International Substation. Viewers Views from residences along Old Seward Highway (Links All, Al3, Al4, and AIS) and International Airport Road (Link A16) range from immediate foreground to middleground and from open to partially screened due to adjacent vegetation. Residential views along International Airport Road range from open views within immediate foreground distance zones to middleground views that are screened by vegetation and other residential development. Views from parks and recreation areas including a recreation complex (Link Al4), Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link A16), and several natural areas and/or open space (Links A1l3, Al2, Al4, A15, and A16) range from open to fully screened due to vegetation and adjacent development. Views from the Rabbit Creek Rifle Range are partially screened (Link Al 1. Views from commercial developments include office and retail developments located along Old Seward Highway (Links All, Al3, Al2, Al4, and A15) and International Airport Road (Link A16). Views from these facilities range from open to screened due to adjacent development, signage, and lighting. Views from the historic Alaska Railroad (Link Al1) and the Old Seward Highway (Links A11 and A13) are open to partially screened towards the Chugach Mountains, Turnagain Arm, and local natural features including coastal marshes, wetlands, and streams. Views of the proposed Project from Dimond Boulevard (Links A14) towards the Chugach Mountains to the east would be open in the immediate foreground to foreground. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-261 September 2001 Environmental Consequences Landscape Scenery Transition Line Route—Significant impacts would occur on residential development along Old Seward Highway (Links All and A15) and International Airport Road (Link A16) as well as park-like landscapes including the Campbell Creek Greenbelt, a recreation complex at the northeast corner of the intersection of O’Malley Road and Old Seward Highway (Links A14). Other impacts would occur on commercial development along Old Seward Highway (Links Al1 and A1l4) and Airport International Road (Links Al4). The remaining industrial (Links Al], Al4, and A16) and commercial landscapes (Links All, Al4, and A1l6) would have non- significant impacts. Transition Facility—Potentially significant to significant impacts would occur on residential landscapes along Old Seward Highway (Link A11), due to vegetation clearing required for the transition facility. Non-significant impacts would result on park-like landscapes near the Rabbit Creek Rifle Range (Links E13 and A16), where the transition facility would be located inside of a building adjacent to the shooting range buildings. Viewers Transmission Line Route—Significant impacts would occur on immediate foreground and foreground views from residences along Old Seward Highway (Link All and A16) and Airport International Road (Link A16). Other impacts would occur on foreground and middleground views from residences that are partially to fully screened along Old Seward Highway (Links A11 and A16) and Airport International Road (Link A1l6). The remaining impacts on views from residences would be minimal due to proximity to the route, the presence of screening from vegetation, and existing development. Significant impacts would occur on immediate foreground views from the Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link Al6) Other impacts would occur on partially screened foreground to middleground views from the Rabbit Creek Rifle Range (Link A11). Significant impacts on immediate foreground views from travelways would occur along the Old Seward Highway (Links All) and Airport International Road (Link A16); this also would include middleground and background views of the Chugach Mountains (Links All and A16) and Turnagain Arm (Link A11). Other impacts would occur on immediate foreground views along the Old Seward Highway (Links A1l1) and Airport International Road (Link A16), where the route would be located in commercial or industrial settings. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-262 September 2001 Transition Facility—The transmission facility along the Old Seward Highway (Link Al1) would have significant impacts on immediate foreground and foreground views towards the Chugach Mountains and Turnagain Arm from residences and travelers. Impacts on viewers along 120" Avenue (Links A6 and A7), and Cross Road (Links E12 and A6), would be non-significant. Impacts on viewers near the Rabbit Creek Rifle Range (Links A13 and A16) would be non-significant. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation The Old Seward Highway/International Road route option spans a distance of 8.9 miles of which a total of 2.6 miles of significant visual impacts were assigned. This route option would parallel Old Seward Highway/International Road from the Rabbit Creek Rifle Range to the International Substation. Significant visual impacts from the construction of this route option would result from strong project/setting contrast within immediate foreground and foreground views from travelers on Old Seward Highway/International Road and adjacent residences and recreational uses. This segment would consist of single-shaft, steel transmission line poles within the Old Seward Highway/International Road right-of-way. The paralleling of Old Seward Highway/International Road would result not only in structure contrast, but also vegetation contrast where widening into existing vegetation would occur. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.9 - Visual 3-263 September 2001 3.10 - CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that the possible effects of federal undertakings on properties included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places be considered. Section 110 of the Act requires that federal agency heads take steps to minimize harm to National Historic Landmarks (properties designated by the Secretary of the Interior as Landmarks) that could be directly and adversely affected by their undertakings. The cultural resource inventory for this Project considered archaeological and historic sites, buildings, structures, districts, and objects in the Project area that are eligible or potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register. The intent of the cultural resource studies conducted for this environmental analysis was to begin addressing the requirements of NHPA and identify any potential conflicts between the proposed Project and preservation of major known cultural resources. The inventory of recorded cultural resources proved to be quite limited, and therefore a sensitivity model was developed to characterize the cultural resources of the Project area and provide a basis for evaluation and comparison of alternatives. The compiled inventory information is described along with the sensitivity model after the cultural history of the region is briefly summarized to provide an evaluation context. 3.10.1 Cultural History Aboriginal Settlement The earliest archeological sites in the Upper Cook Inlet region have been found at Beluga Point on Turnagain Arm and along the upper Kenai River. These sites, dating to the early Holocene (several thousand years ago), have characteristic core and blade assemblages (Reger 1996). Other components at Beluga Point and sites along the Kenai River contain artifacts that are reminiscent of pieces found on the Alaska Peninsula 3,500 to 4,500 years ago (Reger 1996). There is a gap separating the early to middle Holocene occupations of the region and later cultures. However, during the last millennium BC and first millennium AD, the interior of the Kenai Peninsula was inhabited by Pacific Eskimos who were taking advantage of the area’s rich salmon resources (Reger 1996). Reger (1996) concludes that these people, who he labels “Riverine Kachemak,” were related to coastal groups of Cook Inlet and had ties to the Norton culture of the Bristol Bay region. During the second millennium AD, the Eskimos were replaced by Dena’ina Athapaskans (Dumond and Mace 1968). Late prehistoric Dena’ina sites “are numerous and scattered widely over the area” (Reger 1996). According to Osgood (1966), Dena’ina activities were concentrated along streams, although the use of land mammals also was important. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.10 - Cultural Resources 3-264 September 2001 Ethnography Ethnographic information compiled by European explorers and researchers documents aspects of the aboriginal occupation of the region. According to Frederica de Laguna (1976): The Cook Inlet region is at present [1930s] inhabited by the Kenai Indians...Their territory extends down the Inlet as far as Seldovia on the south shore of Kachemak Bay, and the south shore of Kamishak Bay on the west side of the inlet. At the time of Russian contact, Knik Arm and its tributaries were inhabited by a subgroup of the Dena’ina (Osgood 1966). Unique among northern Athapaskans, the Dena’ina used both inland and marine resources. Although the Dena’ina of upper Cook Inlet and the Susitna River depended on the sea to a lesser degree than did the people on the Kenai Peninsula and around Kachemak Bay, they did hunt seals and beluga whales (Osgood 1966). Most Dena’ina activities in the Susitna area, however, were concentrated along streams and near lakes with runs of anadromous fish. Exploration and Early Settlement Captain James Cook was the first European explorer to sail the waters of Cook Inlet. In May 1778, his two ships, Resolution and Discovery, entered the inlet in search of the Northwest Passage (Bancroft 1970). Cook ultimately recognized that he had not found a northern route to the Atlantic. He did, however, send boats to briefly explore Turnagain Arm and the mouth of the Knik River (Bancroft 1970). Captains Nathaniel Portlock (1789) and George Dixon, both of whom had been with Cook during his 1778 voyage, returned to Cook Inlet in July 1786. Eight years later, in April 1794, Captain George Vancouver, on board the Discovery, and Lieutenant William Broughton, in command of the Chatham, reached the head of Cook Inlet (Orth 1967; Vancouver 1967). Vancouver corrected Cook’s observations concerning the nature of Turnagain Arm and made many additions to Cook’s charts. His party spent about a month in Cook Inlet mapping and describing the coast. In contrast to the short visits of the English explorers, the Russians were very active in Cook Inlet during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Their activities, however, were primarily limited to the coastal areas (Osgood 1966). Early contacts between Russian fur traders and the inhabitants of the Gulf of Alaska were brief and not always peaceful. Initial forays into Cook Inlet were made from Kodiak or the Aleutians. Gold American trappers frequented the upper Kenai Peninsula in the years following the sale of Alaska to the United States (Reger and Antonson 1977), but it was ultimately gold that led to the Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.10 - Cultural Resources 3-265 September 2001 exploration and settlement of the area. The gold era began around 1849 (Barry 1973). In 1869 and 1870, retired soldiers, American merchants, and at least one Russian settler formed an expedition to prospect along the Kenai River. They too found little gold, failing to cover even the cost of food for the expedition. Between 1870 and 1890, prospectors continued to look for gold along tributaries of the Kenai River drainage and Cook Inlet. The Kenai gold rush was probably precipitated by an itinerant miner named King. After prospecting for two years, King returned to Kenai in 1890 to pay off his grubstake and then departed. His strike area, near the present day town of Hope, was discovered later. By the early 1890s, claims had been filed on many of the Kenai Peninsula’s creeks, and word of the gold find began to spread. Lured by tales of riches, gold seekers began arriving in 1895. That same year, the towns of Sunrise, center of the Sunrise Mining District, and Hope, a small settlement near the beach at Resurrection Creek, were established (Barry 1973). The real rush to the district began in 1896, with Sunrise growing to a thriving community with several stores, a brewery, two saloons, and a restaurant (Barry 1973). Gold was first discovered in the Knik Arm area in 1897 (Barry 1973). The resulting influx of miners into the Willow Creek District, and placer mining and prospecting activities in the early 1900s, led to the development of the town of Knik from a trading post into the economic center for the entire area. The influx of people looking for gold along Turnagain Arm had abated by 1905, with the Kenai fields being superseded by those of Nome and Fairbanks (Barry 1973). However, prospectors continued to search the Kenai districts and established mines continued to operate. Mining activities remained depressed through World War I. There was an upsurge of mining activity in the 1930s, but World War II brought a virtual end to commercial gold mining in all of Alaska (Barry 1973). The Alaska Railroad, Anchorage, and Twentieth Century Development The Alaska Central Railroad Company, formed in 1900, was the first to attempt to build a railroad out of Seward across the Kenai Peninsula. Alaska Central was bankrupted in 1904, however, having completed construction only as far as Milepost 45 (Reger and Antonson 1977). Established in 1904, the Alaska Northern Railroad Company managed by 1915 to extend the tracks to Milepost 71 at Kern Creek (Reger and Antonson 1977). Although financial difficulties prevented Alaska Northern from further work, the portion of the line that had been built provided daily passenger service across the peninsula during the summer and fall (Barry 1973). The Alaska Northern Railroad Company was about to follow Alaska Central in bankruptcy when it was purchased by the U.S. government. In 1913, Congress passed the Alaska Railroad Bill, which authorized the location, construction, and operation of a railroad linking the Pacific Coast of Alaska with navigable waters in the interior. The Alaska Engineering Commission (AEC) was created to carry out the project. After 1915, work on the line progressed rapidly, and in Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.10 - Cultural Resources 3-266 September 2001 September of 1918 Seward was connected by rail to the Matanuska coal fields (Reger and Antonson 1977). The history of Anchorage is directly linked to the construction of the Alaska Railroad. The AEC set up a headquarters camp at Ship Creek in 1914, and by the time President Wilson made the decision to proceed with a route that basically followed the present Seward-Fairbanks rail line, a large number of people were waiting at Ship Creek for construction to begin. Anchorage developed rapidly, both in size and in general importance. The growing town was named Anchorage by the U.S. Post Office over the objection of the AEC, which had proposed the name Ship Creek. From 1915 to 1920, when the city was officially incorporated, Anchorage was managed by the AEC. The Iditarod Trail was very much a part of the history of the Cook Inlet area. Actually a series of trails, the Iditarod was first a route from Seward to Knik and the Willow Creek mining district. From Turnagain Arm the trail crossed both Crow Creek and Indian Creek passes to Eklutna, then ran along the upper end of Knik Arm to Knik. In 1908, a survey party for the AEC laid out a winter route that extended the trail to Nome. The discovery of gold in the Iditarod region in 1910 and the resulting rush of prospectors led to improvements in the trail and gave it its name. Following the founding of Anchorage, a spur of the trail was developed from the Eagle River area along Knik Arm and across what is now Elmendorf Air Force Base and Fort Richardson (Carberry 1979). Cooper Landing, which had developed during the early years of the twentieth century into an important hunting and fishing resort, was connected to Seward by road in 1938 (Pittenger and Thomas 1980). The Sterling Highway, named after Hawley Sterling of the Alaska Road Commission who planned the road and pushed for its construction, was begun in 1947 but not completed until 1954 (Pittenger and Thomas 1980). Anchorage was linked to Seward in 1951 when the present highway was built. This Project was financed by the Department of the Interior, with the construction done under the supervision of the Alaska Railroad and Road Commission (Reger and Antonson 1977). 3.10.2 Inventory Results _ More than 600 archeological and historical sites listed in the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey are present within the broad region in which the proposed Project is located. One of these, the Holy Assumption Church in Kenai, is designated as a National Historic Landmark. Another property, the Iditarod Trail system, was designated a National Historic Trail in 1978. Forty-three of the more than 600 sites have either been determined eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The nomination of 14 additional properties to the Register is pending. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.10 - Cultural Resources 3-267 September 2001 Although hundreds of cultural resources have been recorded within the general vicinity of the Project, archaeological survey has been limited within the alternative corridors defined for the proposed transmission line. A detailed record search identified only 16 known archaeological and historical sites within 2-mile-wide corridors along each of the alternative transmission line routes (Table 3-30). TABLE 3-30 CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY ARHS No. Name Links Type of Resources Tesoro Alternative, Bernice Lake to Captain Cook State Recreation Area KEN-064 Bishop Creek TS waste flakes, bone fragments, and hearth KEN-254 Bishop Creek Parking Site TS house depressions and cache pits KEN-096 Swanson River Site #1 TS house depressions and cache pits KEN-097 Swanson River Site #2 TS house depressions and cache pits KEN-112 TS house depressions and cache pits KEN-114 TS house depressions and cache pits KEN-253 Discovery Campground TS house depressions and cache pits Site Tesoro Alternative, Captain Cook State Recreation Area to Pt. Possession KEN-059 T7 house depressions, cache pits, and refuse midden TYO-032 Miller Creek Site T7 house depressions and possible grave TYO-O15 Pt. Possession T7 historic Native village Tesoro Alternative, Turnagain Arm TYO-030 Pt. Woronzof 714, T15, house depressions TI18 Enstar Alternative, Southern Soldotna KEN-025__| Custom House ES reported archaeological site KEN-149 ES cache pits and fire-cracked rock KEN-262 Naptown Rapids Site ES midden and fire-cracked rock Enstar Alternative, Enstar to Burnt Island SEW-164 Little Indian Creek Cabin E10 trapper’s or miner's cabin Enstar and Tesoro Alternatives, Anchorage Bowl ANC-326 | AEC Cottage #19 A8, Al4 frame structure built in 1916-1917 3.10.3 Sensitivity Model To compensate for the lack of inventory data, a sensitivity model was developed in consideration of the distribution of known sites within the larger region and in consultation with archaeologists with experience in the Project area. The known archaeological and historical sites within the region are concentrated around the coast and along the highway system. The majority of the known prehistoric sites are less than 1,000 feet above sea level, and in areas of gentle slopes or forested valley bottoms. Late prehistoric sites are usually associated with bodies of water, and important villages appear on streams with large salmon runs. There are, for example, several hundred sites and more than 3,000 cultural features recorded in the Sqilantnu Archaeological District at the confluence of the Kenai and Russian rivers (Kent et al. 1996). Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.10 - Cultural Resources 3-268 September 2001 There are concentrations of known historic properties in downtown Anchorage, and along the northern shore of Turnagain Arm, the Alaska Railroad south of Portage, and the Seward Highway south of the Hope Cutoff. There is no apparent relationship between mining sites and slope, elevation, or landform, although such sites do occur in zones of strong mineralization. Landforms that could be considered “high sensitivity zones” for prehistoric sites include lake, stream, and coastal margins; stream junctions; river terraces; inlets and outlets of lakes; elevated topographic features providing panoramic views of the surrounding terrain; constricting geomorphic features which tend to channel the movement of animals; and natural travel routes. Muskegs, colluvial slopes, shallow soils overlying rock, and steep slopes compose areas of lower or no archeological potential. Locations where there is a high potential for discovering additional historic sites include historic trails, mineralized zones that attracted gold miners, and early settlement areas. The possibility of locating sites in other settings should not be ruled out because the distribution of known archaeological and historic properties may be the biased by ease of access. High sensitivity zones were modeled to include locales within 820 feet of fresh water and with a slope of 25 percent or less. All other areas were characterized as having low sensitivity. The resulting map of sensitivity zones is depicted on Figure MV-31 (Volume II). 3.10.4 Alternatives Tesoro Route Kenai Lowlands Region There are 11.7 miles of moderate impact area and 32.4 miles of low impact area in the Bernice Lake through Captain Cook SRA to Pt. Possession. Seven prehistoric sites, all along Link TS, have been recorded along Bishop Creek and Swanson River. These sites consist primarily of house depressions and cache pits, although one is a hearth with an associated scatter of bone fragments and lithic flakes. Two other archaeological sites with house depressions have been recorded along Link T7. One also has cache pits and a refuse midden, and a possible grave has been noted at the other site. Turnagain Arm Region The submarine portions of the Turnagain Arm alternatives are rated as having no potential to affect cultural resources. The perimeter of Fire Island is rated as a moderate impact zone, as is the landing at Pt. Woronzof, where a late prehistoric or early historic village has been recorded just to the south of the substation. The Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell alternative crosses 0.1 mile rated as a moderate impact zone. The Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell alternative via Fire Island crosses 2 miles of moderate impact zones, and 3.5 miles of low impact zones. The Pt. Possession Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.10 - Cultural Resources 3-269 September 2001 to Pt. Woronzof Route via Fire Island crosses 2.1 miles of moderate impact zones, and 3.5 miles of low impact zones. In contrast, the Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof submarine alternative crosses only 0.3 mile of moderate impact zones and no low sensitivity zones. The Pt. Possession to Klatt Road option crosses 0.1 mile of moderate impact zones and 0.2 mile of low impact zones. Enstar Route Kenai Lowland Region The Northern Soldotna alternative includes 7 miles of moderate and 14.5 miles of low impact zones. No cultural resources have been recorded along this route. There are 2.3 miles of moderate impact zones and 16.7 miles of low impact zones along the Southern Soldotna alternative. Three prehistoric sites have been recorded adjacent to the Kenai River along the Southern Soldotna alternative. Little is known about one of these sites, and the other two have fire-cracked rock along with cache pits or midden deposits. The Enstar to Chickaloon Bay section traverses 7.8 miles of moderate impact zones and 28.9 miles of low impact zones. The only known cultural resource along this 38.3-mile-long section of the Enstar Route is a trapper’s or miner’s cabin near Little Indian Creek. Turnagain Arm Region The submarine portions of the Turnagain Arm alternatives are rated as having no potential to affect cultural resources. All four of the considered alternatives are projected to cross 0.4 mile of moderate impact zone on the edge of Chickaloon Bay. The Chickaloon Bay-Klatt Road alternative also crosses 0.7 mile of low impact zones, and the Chickaloon Bay-Alaska Railroad/Oceanview Park alternative crosses 1.3 miles of low impact zones. The Chickaloon Bay-Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek and Chickaloon Bay to Pt. Campbell alternatives both cross 0.4 mile of low impact zones. Anchorage In general, all of the southern and central Anchorage Bowl is considered a low impact zone. The two options of the Alaska Railroad alternative include 1.8 miles and 3.8 miles of low impact area, respectively. There are 3.8 miles and 5.7 miles of low impact area along the two Old Seward Highway/International Road options. The Klatt area options include 1.5 miles, 1.8 miles, and 2.5 miles of low impact area, respectively. There is only one known cultural resource along any of the various links of the Anchorage area alternatives. This is a historic Alaska Engineering Commission cottage that is adjacent to Links T12, Al4, and A8. The cottage was originally in downtown Anchorage, but was moved to its Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.10 - Cultural Resources 3-270 September 2001 present location just off the Old Seward Highway, | mile south of Dimond Boulevard, in the 1950s. Because the original setting of the building has been lost, any visual intrusions on the building are not expected to be significant. 3.10.5 Impact Summary No high impacts are projected along any of the alternatives. The Tesoro Route through the Kenai Lowlands region crosses approximately 11 miles of moderate impact zones, compared to about 10 miles for Route Option B South and about 15 miles for Route Option B North. Given the margin of error in the model used to define archaeological sensitivity and level of impacts to cultural resources, the difference between these three options seems negligible. In the Turnagain Arm region, the submarine routes that avoid Fire Island, as well as Pt. Woronzof, are more likely to impact cultural resources than the other options. However, the degree of variation in cultural resource impacts among the alternatives is not a major factor in choosing among the options. There is only one known cultural resource along any of the various links in the Anchorage area and impacts along all alternatives are expected to be low. From the perspective of impacts on cultural resources, none of the alternatives appear to be are more or less advantageous than the others. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.10 - Cultural Resources B71 September 2001 3.11 - ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS AND NOISE 3.11 ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS AND NOISE 3.11.1 Affected Environment In recent years, interest has grown about what effects may be associated with the electrical environment around electric power lines. This includes concerns about the potential for audible noise, radio/television interference, and questions about the possibility of health effects. The two origins of transmission line electrical effects are EMF. Electric fields are due to the voltage on the transmission line and the magnetic fields are due to the current through the conductor. Electrical effects near transmission lines also include possible audible noise and radio/television interference. Audible Noise and Interference Concern about noise is related to negative impacts on humans and animals. Human response to noise is most commonly expressed as annoyance, and the level of annoyance may be affected by the intensity of the noise, its frequency (pitch), its duration of exposure, and/or its recurrence. Ambient noise is the total noise in an environment and usually comprises sounds from many sources. The principal sources of ambient noise in rural and isolated settings are from wind, water, insects, birds and other wildlife, highway traffic, and occasional recreational users and airplanes. Audible noise discussions in this section are based on A-weighted sound levels. The A-weighted sound level is defined by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) as sound that is measured with a sound-level meter using the A-weighted response filter that is built into the meter circuitry. The A-weighting filter is commonly used to measure community noise and it simulates the frequency response to the human ear. Typical audible sound levels are as follows: = Factory 80 to 90 dB = Office with Machines 65 to 75 dB = Office without Machines 50 to 70 dB = Retail Store 45 to 60 dB = Home at Night 25 to 45 dB Alaska has no state noise regulations. There are no noise regulations for the KPB. The Municipality of Anchorage noise regulations, when measured at or within the property boundary of the receiving land use, are as follows: Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.11 - Electric and Magnetic Fields and Noise 479 September 2001 Land Use Time of Day DBA Levels Residential daytime (7 am to 10 pm) 60 dBA nighttime (10 pm to 7 am) 50 dBA Commercial daytime (7 am to 10 pm) 70 dBA nighttime (10 pm to 7 am) 60 dBA Industrial anytime 80 dBA dBA = decibels, A-weighted Construction Noise Audible noise will result from construction activities. However, construction noise will be short term at any one location. Transmission Line Noise Transmission lines can generate a small amount of sound energy and radio/television frequency noise. The source of this electrical noise and interference is corona activity. Corona is a partial electrical breakdown of the air next to the energized conductors that can result in very small amounts of sound and radio/television noise. Corona occurs when the voltage gradient surrounding the conductors or hardware exceeds the breakdown strength of the air, resulting in electrical discharges at the conductor surface. Corona can occur during either rainy or icy weather conditions. Corona is normally not a problem on transmission lines below 345kV due to the lower voltages and surface gradients. Substation and Transition Site Noise Sources of audible noise within a substation or transition site can include transformers, reactors, voltage regulators, circuit breakers, and other intermittent noise generators. Among these sources, transformers and reactors have the greatest potential for producing noise. Reactors are similar to a transformer in terms of audible noise. The broadband sound from fans, pumps, and coolers has the same character as ambient sound and tends to blend in with the ambient noise. At a distance of approximately 50 feet, a large transformer has an audible noise level of about 57 dBA. At a distance of approximately 100 feet this noise level would be about 51 dBA, which is similar to an urban residence. The noise level for a small-town residence is about 45 dBA. As a general rule, substation noise will not be a problem if, when combined with the ambient noise, it is less than 5 dBA above the ambient noise level. Based on the above example and a calculation method for combining noise levels from the Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, the following noise level increases would occur at 50 feet from a large transformer: Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.11 - Electric and Magnetic Fields and Noise 3-273 September 2001 = for an urban residence the combined noise level would increase approximately | dBA = for a small-town residence the combined noise level would increase approximately 0.25 dBA In the above examples, the combined noise levels are less than the 5 dBA above the ambient noise level and, therefore, audible noise is not expected to be a problem. Sound levels attenuate (lessen) with distance. Approximately a 6 dBA reduction can be obtained with each doubling of the distance between the source and the point of measurement. This is equivalent to a decrease of 20 dBA for each increase in distance from the source by a factor of 10. Electric and Magnetic Fields The change in voltage over distance is known as the electric field. The units describing an electric field are volts per meter (V/m) or kilovolts per meter (kV/m). The electric field becomes stronger near a charged object and decreases with distance away from the object. Electric fields are a very common phenomenon. Static electric fields can result from friction generated when taking off a sweater or walking across a carpet. Almost all household appliances and other devices that operate on electricity create electric fields. An electric current flowing in a conductor (electric equipment, household appliance, or otherwise) creates a magnetic field. The most commonly used magnetic field intensity unit is the Gauss or milliGauss (mG), which is a measure of the magnetic flux density (intensity of magnetic field attraction per unit area). As a reference, the earth has a natural static magnetic field in the Anchorage area of about 0.56 Gauss, or 560 mG. The magnetic fields under transmission and distribution lines and near substations are relatively low, at least in comparison with measurements near many household appliances and other equipment. The magnetic field near an appliance decreases with distance away from the device. The magnetic field also decreases with distance away from electrical power lines and substation equipment (such as transformers and capacitor banks). Substations Electric power substations also create EMF. Usually, electric fields outside the fenced area of a substation are low compared to those inside the fence. This occurs because shielding by metallic substation components themselves and the metal fencing surrounding the substation can reduce the field magnitudes considerably. Additional shielding also may be provided by nearby shrubbery and trees. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.11 - Electric and Magnetic Fields and Noise 3-274 September 2001 EMF Standards There are no national or federal government standards in the United States for EMF exposure. A few states have some type of electric field guideline and two states have a magnetic field standard. These guidelines are summarized in Table 3-31. The International Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) has published “Interim Guidelines on Limits of Exposure to 50/60-Hz and Magnetic Fields” in the January 1990 issue of Health Physics. The guidelines were approved by the council on May 3, 1989; those guidelines relating to the general public are summarized in Table 3-32. TABLE 3-31 STATE REGULATIONS THAT LIMIT FIELD STRENGTHS ON TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHTS-OF-WAY STATE Field Limit Montana 1kV/m at edge of right-of-way in residential areas Minnesota 8kV/m maximum in right-of-way New Jersey 3kV/m at edge of right-of-way New York 16 kV/m at edge of right-of-way; 200 mG at edge of right-of-way North Dakota 9kV/m maximum in right-of-way Oregon 9kV/m maximum in right-of-way Florida 10kV/m maximum for 5O0kV lines in right-of-way; 2kV/m maximum for 500kV lies at edge of right-of-way; 8kV/m maximum for 230kV and smaller lines in right- of-way; 3kV/m maximum for 230kV and smaller lines at edge of right-of-way; 200 mG for S00kV lines at edge of right-of-way; 250 mG for double circuit 500kV lines at edge of right-of-way; and 150 mG for 230kV and smaller lines at edge of right-of- way TABLE 3-32 IRPA GENERAL PUBLIC EXPOSURE GUIDELINES Exposure Electric Field Magnetic Field Up to 24 hours/day 5 kV/m 1,000 mG Few hours/day 10 kV/m 10,000 mG EMF Health Effects The issue of health effects due to EMF exposure to EMF has been raised. EMF exposure in residential and occupational situations has been studied for a wide variety of sources, including transmission lines, distribution lines, household wiring, electric appliances, electrically operated equipment or machinery, and others. A number of studies over the last 20 years or so generally have found no conclusive evidence of harmful effects from typical power line and substation EMF. Some studies during this period did report the potential for harmful effects. The evidence for such an association is inconclusive, and the most recent independent comprehensive review of the scientific literature by the National Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.11 - Electric and Magnetic Fields and Noise B75 September 2001 Academy of Sciences, Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields (1997), reached the following conclusions: “Based on a comprehensive evaluation of published studies relating to the effects of power-frequency electric and magnetic fields on cells, tissues, and organisms (including humans), the conclusion of the committee is that the current body of evidence does not show that exposure to these fields presents a human-health hazard. Specifically, no conclusive and consistent evidence shows that exposures to residential electric and magnetic fields produce cancer, adverse neurobehavioral effects, or reproductive and developmental effects. The committee reviewed residential exposure levels to electric and magnetic fields, evaluated the available epidemiologic studies, and examined laboratory investigations that used cells, isolated tissues, and animals. At exposure levels well above those normally encountered in residences, electric and magnetic fields can produce biologic effects (promotion of bone healing is an example), but these effects do not provide a consistent picture of a relationship between the biologic effects of these fields and health hazards. An association between residential wiring configurations (called wire codes) and childhood leukemia persists in multiple studies, although the causative factor responsible for that statistical association has not been identified. No evidence links contemporary measurements of magnetic-field levels to childhood leukemia.” 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences The electrical effects associated with the Project have been evaluated and the results of the study are summarized in the following paragraphs. The line voltage and the distance of prospective line routes from residences minimizes the likelihood of objectionable audible noise, radio interference, or television interference from the line. Should it occur, utility engineers can record and investigate any complaints reported, and take corrective action when necessary. Audible Noise and Interference Construction Noise Noises associated with operation and maintenance of the Project will be minimal, confined to localized, short-duration activity by maintenance crews. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.11 - Electric and Magnetic Fields and Noise 3-276 September 2001 Transmission Line Noise Little or no corona activity would be expected for the proposed Project because the relatively low operating voltage, increased phase spacing, and larger diameter conductors result in very low conductor surface gradients. Since corona activity would be very low or non-existent for the proposed 138kV transmission line, audible noise and radio/television interference should not be a problem for operation of the line. The line voltage and the distance of prospective line routes from residences minimizes the likelihood of objectionable audible noise, radio interference, or television interference from the line. Substation and Transition Site Noise Substation modifications for the Project could take place at the existing International, Pt. Woronzof, Soldotna, Dave’s Creek, or Bernice Lake substations. The proposed modifications are not anticipated to result in a noticeable change in audible noise from these substations. The proposed Naptowne Substation siting area is remote from existing residences, and so should not cause any audible noise problems. The transition sites proposed, with the exception of the Pt. Possession South site, which would contain a reactor, do not contain transformers or reactors and would not cause an increase in ambient audible noise. The Pt. Possession South siting area is located away from existing residences, and audible noise is not expected to be a problem. Electric and Magnetic Fields EMF levels have been calculated for each of the possible configurations that may be used in the Project. The calculations are based on a secure transfer limit of 125 MW, between the Anchorage area and Kenai Peninsula, which would result in a maximum load of 92.4 MW or 387 Amperes on the new Southern Intertie Project 138kV line, when operated parallel with the existing Quartz Creek transmission line, which would carry the balance of the load. The electric field calculation results are summarized in Table 3-33 for each of the assumed configurations. Values are reported for each edge of the assumed right-of-way and the maximum value on the right-of-way. Values can differ between the two right-of-way edges because of asymmetric placement of circuits within the right-of-way. There will be no electric fields above ground for any of the underground cables (configurations 1-5) due to shielding from the earth and the cable’s metallic sheath. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.11 - Electric and Magnetic Fields and Noise 3077 September 2001 TABLE 3-33 ELECTRIC FIELD VALUES FOR ASSUMED RIGHT-OF-WAY Electric Field on Right-of-Way - kV/m Right-of- Right-of- Way Width Way Used for Configuration Left Edge | Right Edge | Maximum | Calculations Submarine Cable: Water (3-Phase Flat Type) N/A Submarine Cable: Land (3-Phase Flat Type) 9.1 m (30 ft) Submarine Cable: Water (Single-Phase Type) (No Electric Field for Underground Cables) N/A Submarine Cable: Land (Single-Phase Type) 15.2 m (50 f)t Land Cable (PVC Conduit) 9.1 ms (30 ft) X-Tower - 138kV 0.40 0.40 1.30 45.7 m (150 ft) Steel Pole - 138kV 0.54 0.62 0.88 18.3 m (60 ft) Steel Pole: Double Circuit, 138kV/115kV 0.58 0.53 1.57 18.3 m (60 ft) Steel Pole: 138kV_ w/12.47kV 0.44 0.45 0.49 18.3 m (60 ft) Steel Pole: Double Circuit 138kV w/12.47kV 0.36 0.28 0.66 18.3 m (60 ft) Wood H-Frame: 138kV 0.33 0.33 1.19 45.7 m (150 ft) Steel Pole: 138kV W/34.5kV and 12.47kV 0.44 0.42 0.46 18.3 m (60 ft) Parallel H-Frames: 138kV and 115kV 0.76 0.45 1.22 60.1 m (200 ft) Substation magnetic field attenuation characteristics are similar to electric fields. At distances on the order of 50 feet or more from the substation fence, the external magnetic field will have decreased to a much lower level than the level inside the substation. In contrast to electric fields, the substation magnetic fields are not shielded significantly by most common objects (e.g., shrubbery and trees). The magnetic field calculation results are summarized in Table 3-34 for each of the assumed configurations. Values are reported for each edge of the assumed right-of-way edge and the maximum value on the right-of-way. Values can differ between the two right-of-way edges because asymmetric placement of circuits within the right-of-way and/or different loadings for configurations with multiple circuits. 3.11.3 Summary The EMF from the 138kV transmission line and substations will be similar to other 138kV electric power facilities, which have been in service for many decades. The EMF levels due to the Project would be less than all existing EMF standards or guidelines. The proposed facilities should have little or no corona activity under most operating conditions and, therefore, should not cause audible noise or radio/television interference. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.11 - Electric and Magnetic Fields and Noise 3-278 September 2001 TABLE 3-34 MAGNETIC FIELD VALUES FOR ASSUMED RIGHT-OF-WAY* Magnetic Field on Right-of-Way - mG Right-of- Right-of- Way Width Way Used for Configuration Left Edge | Right Edge | Maximum | Calculations Submarine Cable: 10° Water Depth 0.07 0.07 7.48 N/A (3-Phase Flat Type) 25° Water Depth 0.07 0.07 1.20 N/A 50° Water Depth 0.06 0.06 0.30 N/A Submarine Cable: Land (3-Phase Flat Type) 1.68 5.12 16.26 30 ft Submarine Cable: 10° Water Depth 22.07 22.07 253.9 N/A (Single-Phase Type) 25° Water Depth 21.51 21.51 101.5 N/A 50° Water Depth 19.80 19.80 50.6 N/A Submarine Cable: Land (Single-Phase Type) 52.19 122.3 350.4 50 feet Land Cable (PVC Conduit) 24.51 24.51 136.8 30 feet X-Tower - 138kV 16.2 16.2 65.7 150 feet Steel Pole - 138kV 18.67 19.9 31.0 60 feet Steel Pole: Double Circuit 138kV 30.7 30.2 43.6 60 feet Steel Pole: 138kV_w/12.47kV 15.43 14.80 20.9 60 feet Steel Pole: Double Circuit 138kV_w/12.47kV 30.47 23.67 41.9 60 feet Wood H-Frame: 138kV 13.57 13.57 61.9 150 feet Steel Pole: 138kV_W/34.5kV and 12.47kV 18.15 17.23 33.6 60 feet Parallel H-Frames: 138kV and 115kV 26.52 10.29 60.0 200 feet *For undersea cable configurations, field values are given at +/- 100 feet from outside cable. There is nothing unusual or unique about the proposed design of the Southern Intertie 138kV Project. The Project is to be designed to be in compliance with the National Electrical Safety Code and should produce a well-engineered facility that will have minimal impact. The laboratory and epidimiologic data have provided no consistent and conclusive evidence of a health hazard to humans from being exposed to residential EMF from power lines. Therefore, EMF of the Project are not anticipated to cause adverse health or biological effects. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.11 - Electric and Magnetic Fields and Noise 3-279 September 2001 3.12 - CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS 3.12 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS This section presents the cumulative effects associated with the Project, including (1) a general definition of cumulative impacts, (2) elements that were considered in the cumulative impact analysis, (3) the assessment approach, and (4) the results of the cumulative impact assessment for the project. 3.12.1 Definition Cumulative impact as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.7) is the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes other such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. These reasonably foreseeable future actions refer to future action projections, or estimates, of what is likely to take place when a proposed action is implemented. They are not part of the proposed action but are projections being made so that future impacts, cumulative and otherwise, can be estimated as required by NEPA. Cumulative impacts are interdisciplinary, multi-jurisdictional, and usually do not conform to political boundaries. The CEQ has defined the resulting effects as direct and indirect. Direct effects are caused by the project action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects also are caused by the project action, but are later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR 1508.8). Cumulative effects are the total effect on a given resource or ecosystem of all actions taken or proposed. 3.12.2 Cumulative Impact Process The cumulative impact process considered (1) scoping and project issues; (2) cumulative impact time frames and the resources (or receptors) that may be affected by the Project alternatives, including no-action, Tesoro Route, and Enstar Route; (3) the geographical area in which the impacts will occur; and (4) other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions that have, or can be expected to cause impacts to these resources when considered with development of the Southern Intertie Project. Scoping and Project Issues An overview of project scoping and issues is provided in Chapter 4. The scoping of cumulative impact issues was conducted in association with federal, state, and local agencies; special interest groups; and the CWGs. Scoping was conducted in reference to both geographic and resource related issues. The following is an overview of cumulative issue topics. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.12 - Cumulative Impacts Analysis 3-280 September 2001 Kenai Lowlands and KNWR The KNWR is the only conservation system unit in Alaska for which the management and protection of fish and wildlife populations, and habitats, as well as compatible fish and wildlife- oriented recreation is a major purpose. Primary cumulative issues for the Enstar Route relate to loss of habitat of key wildlife and fish species, recreation and visual resources, and refuge management activities. Two of the specific issues of concern are the cumulative impacts to the moose habitat and brown bear populations on the Kenai Peninsula and specifically the KNWR. Moose_Habitat—Initially, the Kenai National Moose Range was established in 1941 for protecting the natural breeding and feeding range of the moose population on the Kenai Peninsula. With the passage of ANILCA in 1980, the KNWR was established. Some key events in the history of the refuge have shaped the current landscape and habitat for moose. Specifically, the discovery of oil in the late 1950s and the development of the Swanson River Unit, beginning in 1957, caused a major turning point in the history of the Kenai Peninsula. With the oil discovery came rapid population growth and infrastructure development on the Kenai Peninsula. The development of oil on the Swanson River Unit, as well as in the Cook Inlet, led to refineries at Nikiski starting in 1969. The population of Kenai increased from 1,000 to 3,000 between 1960 and 1970, and to 4,000 by 1980 (KPBEED 1998). The population of the Kenai, Soldotna, Nikiski, and infrastructure related to this growth and oil and gas development have used an estimated 22,742 acres within the KNWR (USFWS 1988b). Another factor that has influenced the moose habitat on the KNWR is the history of fires. In recent history, the 1947 fire consumed 310,000 acres, and the 1969 Swanson River fire consumed 84,000 acres. These major fires on the KNWR resulted in changes from mature spruce forests to a mosaic of forest succession that provides habitat for moose and other wildlife, that has been characterized as super high to high abundance in the 1969 burn area, and moderate habitat abundance for the 1947 burn area. With the overlay of the Swanson River leases, the area of highest habitat abundance in the KNWR associated with the 1969 burn will be giving way to oil field development. Protected lands to the east of the oil lease area that are in wilderness, and minimal and moderate management remain for the future habitat for moose and other wildlife on the KNWR. Keys to sustaining the moose population on the KNWR is the Moose/Habitat Management Plan, which is intended to improve the current moderate to low habitat abundance in the eastern portion of the refuge, through which the Enstar pipeline traverses. The cumulative effects of the proposed Enstar Route with the fire management program associated with the Plan are a primary issue related to moose habitat on the KNWR. Brown Bear—The IBBST has estimated the brown bear population to be between 250 to 300 animals on the Kenai Peninsula. In November 1998, the ADF&G listed the Kenai brown bear as an Alaskan “species of special concern.” With the evolving changes to the KNWR and surrounding development changes, as described above, the Kenai brown bear population has Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.12 - Cumulative Impacts Analysis 3-281 September 2001 declined due to habitat loss, but more specifically due to the ever-increasing bear-human contact that has inevitably resulted in the increased mortality of bears through legal hunting and defense of life and property mortality. A population level effect could result from continued loss of female brown bears. Because the Kenai brown bear is an isolated population in Alaska, the IBBST and the KNWR are focused on managing access to brown bear habitat in order to limit bear-human conflicts. Because the Enstar Route crosses brown bear habitat along the tributaries to the Chickaloon River, the widening of the Enstar pipeline clearing and any associated access improvement that would result in increase bear-human contact is a primary issue. Kenai Peninsula Borough The KPB has planned a transportation corridor, a separate road, and several large residential parcels within the Moose Point-Grey Cliffs subdivision in proximity to the Tesoro pipeline along the western edge of the Kenai Peninsula, north of Nikiski. This development is planned along a strip of land that was withdrawn from the KNWR in order to provide transportation access between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. Land use conflicts will be minimized or avoided by utilizing the rights-of-way of the North Kenai Spur Road, the planned transportation corridor, and the Tesoro pipeline right-of-way. Issues associated with the use of the transportation corridor have been an issue with the KPB. Visual impacts on existing and planned residents could be significant, although there is the potential for vegetation screening to reduce the effects. The quality of the wildlife habitat is in transition based on current and planned development on borough lands. Turnagain Arm The primary issue in crossing the Turnagain Arm is the current decline of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population. The most isolated population of beluga whales is the Cook Inlet Stock, separated from the others by the Alaska Peninsula. The geographic and genetic isolation of the whales in Cook Inlet in combination with their strong site fidelity, makes this stock vulnerable to impacts from large or persistent harvests. In Cook Inlet, beluga concentrate near river mouths during spring and early summer across the nethermost portion of upper Cook Inlet, especially in the Susitna Delta, Knik Arm, and Chickaloon Bay. Calving areas include the northern side of Kachemak Bay in April and May, off the mouths of the Beluga and Susitna Rivers in May, and in the Chickaloon Bay and Turnagain Arm during the summer. These whales also congregate at the mouths of several large river systems during the early spring, feeding on salmon, and may reside in and near the Susitna River, the Little Susitna River, Turnagain Arm, and several streams to the west of the Susitna River. The Federal Actions Associated with Management and Recovery of Cook Inlet Beluga Whales (FAAMR), Draft Environmental Impact Statement (NOAA 2000) concludes that subsistence Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.12 - Cumulative Impacts Analysis 3-282 September 2001 harvest is the most likely cause of the decline in this population. The report has proposed an annual harvest reduction, until the stock had recovered to a minimum population level of 780 animals (preferred alternative). The crossing of the Turnagain Arm with the Enstar Route is an issue with respect to any conflicts with the beluga whales and suspected calving in the Chickaloon Bay. The issues associated with the Municipality of Anchorage are generally associated with the cumulative visual impacts of the Southern Intertie Project transmission line and other overhead lines. Of primary concern are residential and recreation settings, and disruption of mountain views and views of the Turnagain Arm and Cook Inlet. Any disruption to recreation areas including Kincaid Park and Oceanview Park, and the ACWR are also primary concern in Anchorage. The Anchorage CWG was instrumental in scoping local issues associated with alternatives within Anchorage as described in Chapter 4. Northern Intertie Transmission Line The Southern Intertie and the Northern Intertie Transmission Line projects are separate but related actions, as they are both improvements to the interconnected Railbelt transmission system. The cumulative impact assessment includes an assessment of the cumulative impacts of both projects. Cumulative Impact Time Frame and Receptors The temporal time frame for the cumulative effect analyses is established as 1950 prior to development boom on the Kenai, through the year 2010. This time frame allows for the incorporation of potential effects from past and the reasonably foreseeable future impacts in the spatial areas described below. The baseline condition for the cumulative effect analyses was defined as current conditions (2001) and the affected environmental resources and potential direct and indirect effects of the proposed project were identified using the project description and information contained in this chapter. The receptors that were evaluated included the following topic: Air Quality Geologic Resources Drainage Basins and Wetlands Marine Environment Biological Resources - Vegetation and Wetlands - Birds including general waterfowl, trumpeter swans, and bald eagles - Mammals including black bears, brown bears, moose, and caribou - Predators including the Canada Lynx, and Gray Wolf Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.12 - Cumulative Impacts Analysis 3-283 September 2001 - Anadramous Fish - Beluga Whales Land Use and Recreation Resources Socioeconomics Subsistence Visual Resources Cultural Resources Identification of Geographic Area in Which Impacts will Occur The cumulative impact study area or “sphere of influence” for the Project varied according to the effected resource (i.e., land use, biology). For example, cumulative effects, such as impacts to land use, cultural resources, and water resources, if present are expected to be limited specifically to the local area. Other cumulative effects, associated with biology, visual resources, tourism, recreation, and socioeconomics, have the potential to be effected in a larger area when considering past, present, and future actions. For the purposes of this analysis the area of cumulative effects was identified for two general geographic areas as shown in Figure 3-18 including (1) the area encompassing the alternatives study area and including the KNWR, and (2) the Railbelt, inclusive of the Kenai Peninsula up to Fairbanks. Study Area - Including the KNWR Cumulative impacts associated with the study area included the consideration of those lands evaluated in detail for the alternative transmission line routes. This area is encompassed by Anchorage and Fire Island to the north; Cook Inlet from Pt. Possession to the Kenai River to the west; Kenai River to the south; and Chugach National Forest/KNWR boundary to the east (from Burnt Island to the Russian River and Skilak Lake). Within this area three specific zones were identified for evaluation of cumulative impacts: (1) Kenai lowlands, (2) Anchorage area, and (3) Turnagain Arm including Chickaloon Bay. Within the area of the Kenai lowlands, the KNWR also was considered a “sphere of influence” and has been specifically addressed. Railbelt Area — Including the Kenai Peninsula The Railbelt area encompasses the Kenai Peninsula and stretches from Homer and Seward north through Anchorage to Fairbanks, and specifically includes those resources affected by the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Northern Intertie Project. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.12 - Cumulative Impacts Analysis 3-284 September 2001 Identification of Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions and Trends In general, four types of projects were considered in the cumulative assessment, including other transmission facilities, highways, oil and gas developments, and development plans. Known past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and trends for each of impact areas or “spheres of influence” are described below. Past, present and future developments specific to the study area are illustrated on Figure 3-19. Study Area — Including the KNWR Kenai Lowlands—Lands within the KPB that are currently undeveloped extend from the Kenai River north toward Nikiski and Captain Cook SRA, and from Moose Point to Pt. Possession. The area between Captain Cook SRA and Moose Point is slated for future development. Specific development plans exist for projects at Moose Point and Grey Cliffs. On private and state lands outside of the KNWR the KPB is planning to extend the North Kenai Road past Captain Cook SRA into Grey Cliffs Subdivision within the next six years (Figure 3- 19). The Planning Department has identified that an upgraded access road may be beneficial to develop that area. Construction of an access road north of the park to Pt. Possession could lead to increased use of this area by hunters and recreationists, and allow for easier access to existing residences. The Grey Cliff and Moose Point developments will continue to develop as rural recreation subdivisions and borough holdings will continue to be sold to private interests. As the population on the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage increases, both primary and secondary homes would continue to be developed. Lake-front property would remain highly valued. Pt. Possession conveyed lands have been purchased by a private developer. Potential uses may range from commercial recreation uses to residential subdivisions. HEA is planning two projects in the Sterling area. A new 115-24.9/14.4kV substation and 1 15kV tap line will be needed in the future, although specific sites or construction dates have not been identified. The design and construction of a similar substation in the north Kenai area is in progress (HEA 1993). KNWR—Past, present, and planned projects on the KNWR were evaluated to estimate the increment of cumulative impact that would result from construction of Route Option F (Applicant’s Proposal) that crosses the KNWR. The major portion of the development on the KNWR has occurred historically, as described in the KNWR Wilderness Proposal/Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (KNWR 1985a). Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.12 - Cumulative Impacts Analysis 8-085 September 2001 FAIRBANKS Southern Intertie \ Study Area Study Area Kenai Peninsula Railbelt Area Yd CUMULATIVE IMPACT AREAS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 3-18 The KNWR was originally established in 1941 to include 2.1 million acres of land to protect moose populations. In 1964, the KNWR area was reduced to 1.73 million acres to exclude private lands, and provide a future corridor for transportation and utility systems, and development in general on the Kenai Peninsula. In 1980, the area was expanded to its present size of 2,007,000 acres by ANILCA, including 1.35 million acres of designated wilderness. Historically, there has been development of various rights-of-way, oil and gas field development, and other land uses that have diminished the quality of the refuge environment. The Bureau of Land Management was the responsible agency for permitting rights-of-way on the KNWR until 1966 when the USFWS assumed that role and enforced new protection stipulations and requirements. Rights-of-way have been granted for roads, highways, pipelines, telephone lines, recreation facilities, communications towers, airstrips, and electric transmission lines as listed in Table 3-35 and illustrated on Figure 3-19. There also are plans to realign the Sterling Highway, which may result in clearing for additional right-of-way through the corner of the wilderness area west of Cooper Landing, although an alternative has not been identified at this time. Oil and gas leases have been issued since 1958. There were 771,000 acres of land open to oil and gas leasing until 1980 when ANILCA reduced the area to 536,000 acres—presently there are 117,240 acres of land subject to federal oil and gas leasing (Johnston 1998) as shown in Figure 3-19. Over 100 wells have been drilled on the 8,000-acre Swanson River Oil Field, although less than half are currently operating. Natural gas production, which began in 1993, is expected to accelerate as the rate of oil extraction diminishes. Anchorage—The Anchorage Bowl has a limited land base and as a result, development is expected to fill in the existing vacant and undeveloped parcels. Urban renewal will occur according to the Municipality of Anchorage Comprehensive Plan and Visioning Plan. Planned land uses identified at this time will be potentially completed with in a few years. As electrical loads grow as a result of increased development, electrical system upgrades are required to strengthen power systems to support the load in the Anchorage area. Current and long-range plans for construction of electrical transmission and distribution facilities were obtained from the two utilities serving the Anchorage area—AML&P and CEA. The AML&P is planning future substations and a subtransmission line upgrade in the Anchorage area, but has not identified any planned facilities in the Project area (AML&P 1997). Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.12 - Cumulative Impacts Analysis 3-287 September 2001 TABLE 3-35 ESTIMATED CUMULATIVE PROJECT AREA OF IMPACT ON THE KNWR Length Estimated Right-of-way Amount of Land Land Use/Facility Type (in miles) Average Width (in feet) Used (in acres) PAST AND PRESENT PROJECTS State roads and highways 52 200 1,261 Access roads (oil and gas) 60 100 127 Electric transmission lines 50 150 909 Telephone lines 3 50 18 Buried pipeline 95 150 1,727 Seismic exploration lines 1,500 30 5.455 Communications towers (2) 300 Sand and gravel sites 150 Airstrips (4) 800 Oil and gas fields 12,000 Subtotal: Past and Present 23,347 PLANNED OR FUTURE PROJECTS Oil and gas field area subject to lease 182,271 (117,240 less present 12,000 acres) Subtotal: Planned or Future 105,240 Southern Intertie Project 56.8 150 640 Cumulative Total 129,227 Sources: USFWS 1988b and EPG, Inc. 2001 estimates. CEA reported one project, the International-South Anchorage 138kV transmission line and substation, that is planned within the Anchorage area. While there is no specific date for the planned south Anchorage circuit, the purpose of this planned transmission line is to reinforce the electrical system in the south Anchorage area. As a result of local growth, it is required independently of the Southern Intertie Project. If the Southern Intertie Project were to be routed to the International Substation, both projects could share portions of the same line through south Anchorage. Sharing common facilities could mitigate any cumulative effects that might result from the combination of both projects (CEA 1992b). Turnagain Arm—As a result of the extreme marine environment it is anticipated that the Turnagain Arm will remain essentially undeveloped. A harbor potentially could be built on Fire Island at some point in the future, but at this time that plan is very conceptual. Development of a causeway from Anchorage to the Peninsula seems as equally unlikely. Recreation and aesthetics will continue to be the main focus of this area. The ACWR would continue to manage coastal lands for wildlife-related uses. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.12 - Cumulative Impacts Analysis 3-288 September 2001 enw mow Ww RSW, raw T2N TON TN Ten TaN North Foreland oo Cook Inlet Areawid Oil and Gas Lease Sale Area Nikiski Kenai Bernice Lake Substation Ue : Soldotna A aptain Cook ate Rec. Area if E © | Substation Ne NEL Qh Egumen Lake ° ci -| Naptown Substation Siting Area PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE STUDY AREA SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FIGURE 3-19 Legend a Developed (Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Oil and Gas, Public, Extraction) Protected Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Lands fe] Potential Future Development (Residential, Oil and Gas, Conveyed Native Lands, Resort) Ba Park/Open Space/Agriculture (State Recreation Areas, Parks, Campgrounds, Agriculture) Linear Facilities N Proposed Road Alignment Existing Roads /\/ Airstrip / Pipeline Multiple Pipeline Corridor (2 or More) ¢ Transmission Line ?! Quartz Creek Transmission Line “Recreation Trails “Cook Inlet Areawide Oil and Gas Lease Sale Area No Nel Scale in Miles 3 1 ool 3 Resource Data Source: Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 1985. Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan, 1997. Kenai Area Plan, 1998. Base Map Sources: Municipality of Anchorage (1994). Chugach National Forest (1995). Kenai Peninsula Borough (1994). USGS 1:63,360 and 1:25,000 Quads. Contour Labeling in Feet Ned on201 Contour Interval: 200 Feet Railbelt Area The analysis of the cumulative impacts of the Railbelt area focuses on the combined effects of the Northern and Southern Intertie projects. GVEA has initiated construction of the Northern Intertie Project, a 230kV transmission line that will extend from Healy to Fairbanks, Alaska. This additional transmission has been recommended since the mid 1970s and is designed to improve electrical service to the Railbelt Electric Utility Service Area and Fairbanks. The broader context for cumulative impacts within the Railbelt region has also been considered, particularly in reference to waterfowl and trumpeter swans, bald eagles, and visual resources. Identification of Specific Ongoing and Future Projects In addition to the past, present, and future foreseeable actions and trends previously described, the analysis of cumulative effects also factored in specific “known” projects that are either ongoing, or scheduled for immediate completion. These future projects are listed in Table 3-36. 3.12.3 Analysis Approach The cumulative impact assessment addresses scoping issues, integrates the environmental receptors, considers the relevant geographic areas, takes into account the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions with the project alternatives including no action, Tesoro Route, and Enstar Route. Specific techniques to assess cumulative impacts to biological resources included a systematic cumulative screening process and quantification of wildlife impacts on the Kenai Lowlands (including KNWR) through a GIS Overlay process. The results of this evaluation were included in the overall assessment. 3.12.4 Results A detailed presentation of the cumulative impact analysis results are shown on Table 3-37. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.12 - Cumulative Impacts Analysis 3-290 September 2001 TABLE 3-36 FUTURE PROJECTS Agency Project Name Location Timeframe Study Area ADOT Sterling Highway Project Milepost 45 to Milepost 60 on | SDEIS to be completed in Sterling Highway 2002 Kenai River Crossing Funny River Road to Scout FEIS complete Lake Loop Road, Kenai Rivermile 34 East Anchorage Study of East Anchorage arterial Improvements over the next Transportation roadways 10 to 20 years C Street Project O'Malley Road to FEIS completed in 1999 International Airport Road in Anchorage O*Malley Road Project O*Malley Road from New Analysis underway Seward Highway to Hillside Drive KNWR Unocal proposal area Kenai NWR - Swanson River | Under environmental review Oil Field KNWR Marathon Oil — Wolf Lake Kenai National Wildlife FEIS complete Project Refuge. HEA Two new Nikiski Nikiski Under construction substations 115kV CEA South Transmission Loop South Anchorage In design phase Railbelt including the Kenai Peninsula ADOT Anton Anderson Memorial | Portage Glacier Highway to Nearing completion Tunnel Whittier Enstar Homer Pipeline Soldotna area south to Homer__| Analysis underway Chugach National | Land Management Plan Chugach National Forest FEIS scheduled for Forest completion in September 2001 Iditarod Recreation Trail Seward to Girdwood EA to be completed in Spring 2002 Grant Lake Mine Grant Lake, Moose Pass EA to be completed in Exploration Project August 2001 ADOT Glenn and Parks Highway 40 miles north of Anchorage EIS completed Intersection GVEA Northern Intertie Project Anchorage to Fairbanks Under construction FEIS — Final EIS EA - Environmental Assessment SDEIS — Supplemental DEIS Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.12 - Cumulative Impacts Analysis 3-291 September 2001 TABLE 3-37 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS Topic | BIOLOGY | VEGETATION AND _DRAINAGE BASINS AND WATERSHEDS No Action Alternative/Affected Areas and Issues Southern Intertie Study Area Special Values of the KNWR (Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1985) = Protection of Kenai River watershed for water quality and fisheries = Protection of watersheds in the Kenai Lowlands = Protection of the Chickaloon watershed and estuary (Indian Creek and Chickaloon watershed) Moose Point-Gray Cliffs subdivision development = Management of Scaup Creek, Otter Creek and Seven Egg Creek Nikiski Area = Management of Bishop Creek and Swanson River North of Moose Point = Management of Miller Creek Tesoro Route Options Enstar Route Options No long- term cumulative effects to Bishop Creek and the Swanson River in the Nikiski area. Bishop Creek is generally an undeveloped watershed primarily within the KPB. The Swanson River is protected within the KNWR and Captain Cook SRA and the route would be bored under the River. Scaup Creek, Otter Creek, and Seven Egg Creek have headwaters in the KNWR, and cross through the Moose Point — Gray Cliffs subdivision. The combination of the Tesoro pipeline, development of the subdivision and the Tesoro transmission line alternative may result in some potential cumulative effects. No long-term cumulative effect as Miller Creek is located within an undeveloped area with no future planned development. = Potential erosion from right-of-way clearing will be minimized as a result of winter construction and erosion control mitigation. No long- term cumulative effects to the protected watersheds on the KNWR, including the Kenai and Chickaloon watersheds are anticipated. = In addition, no additional cumulative effects from the Enstar Route are expected to the Kenai River at Bing’s Landing, where structures will be located within an existing right-of-way, spanning the Kenai River above the riverbank and wetland zone. The Kenai River Overlay District would also be avoided. Railbelt Area = None of the water resources associated with the Tanana, Nenana, and the Chena rivers of the Yukon drainage are expected to be adversely impacted by the Northern Intertie. The clearing of streamside vegetation will be minimal and any crossing of streams will be done in a manner, which avoids disturbance or sloughing of stream banks. Summary would be avoided. WETLANDS Potential for cumulative effects when all of the watersheds crossed by the Railbelt transmission system are considered across the Susitna Flats and between Anchorage and Fairbanks. = Potential for curnulative effects when all of the watersheds crossed by the Railbelt transmission system are considered across the Susitna Flats and between Anchorage and Fairbanks. = The Southern and Northern Interties traverse important watersheds within the Railbelt region with protective management guidelines = The watersheds crossed by the Southern Intertie within the KNWR are identified as special value resources = There is the potential for cumulative impacts by the combined construction and operation of the Northern and Southern Intertie projects. With the proposed mitigation measures and best management practices, significant cumulative impacts Southern Intertie Study Area = Estimated cumulative effect of past and present projects (roads, utility lines, seismic exploration, oil and gas fields) on the KNWR account for the use and clearing of 22,742 acres. Planned or future projects, such as oil and gas field leases, are estimated to occupy an additional 105,240 acres. = Riparian and wetland habitat comprises only 11% of the entire refuge but are the most valuable wildlife habitat present. Habitats of this type are essential to 36 species of birds and are used by every other species occurring on the refuge. Estimated clearing of 521 acres on Tesoro route from Bernice Lake to Pt. Possession. An additional 25 acres on Fire Island or 10 acres in Kincaid Park would potentially be cleared. Clearing of vegetation is primarily concentrated north of Captain Cook SRA. Impacts on wetland vegetation could be reduced by winter construction, spanning sensitive areas, minimizing clearing of the right-of-way and selective removal of vegetation. Horizontal drilling under saltmarsh habitats associated with marine crossings would reduce impacts. = Estimated clearing of 640 acres of upland and wetland vegetation along route through KNWR. Impacts on upland and wetland vegetation would be significant on a national level due to conflicts with USFWS mandate to protect wildlife and their habitats on the KNWR = Impacts on wetland vegetation could be reduced by winter construction, spanning sensitive areas, minimizing clearing of the right-of-way and selective removal of vegetation. Horizontal drilling under saltmarsh habitats associated with marine crossings would reduce impacts. Railbelt Area = Estimated clearing in forested uplands and forested wetlands is 1,300 acres. Construction in wetlands areas will be restricted to winter in order to minimize potential impacts from habitat loss and degradation of water quality. Potential for cumulative effects when all of the vegetation clearing for the Railbelt transmission system is considered. = Potential for cumulative effects when all of the vegetation clearing for the Railbelt transmission system is considered. Summary = The Southern and Northern Interties would cumulatively clear approxi mately 1,800-2,000 acres of vegetation and wetlands. = Impacts on upland and wetland vegetation in the KNWR would be significant on a national level due to conflicts with USFWS mandate to protect wildlife and their habitats. BIRDS General Waterfowl Southern Intertie Study Area * Potential collision with transmission lines in proximity to nesting and brood rearing areas = An estimated 6 swan nesting and brood rearing areas are crossed by existing transmission and distribution lines within the study area = Trumpeter swan population is increasing An estimated 8 swan nesting and brood rearing areas are crossed by Route Option A Long-term cumulative effects potential when combined with future development in the Moose Point and Gray Cliff subdivisions = One swan nesting and brood rearing area along Route Option E north would be affected by a second parallel line along the Moose River = One swan nesting and brood rearing area is crossed by Route Option F north of Trapper Joe Lake Southern Intertie Project DEIS. 3-292 Chapter 3 - Afffected Environment and Environmental Consequences September 2001 TABLE 3-37 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS Topic No Action Alternative/Affected Areas and Issues Railbelt Area . Potential collision conflicts with existing transmission lines across the Susitna Flats Potential collision conflicts and habitat loss associated with future Northern Intertie Project in the Tanana Flats Waterfowl population in general is increasing on the Susitna, Tanana Flats, and Kenai Lowlands. Summary There is the potential for cumulative impacts to waterfowl as a result of the Southern and Northern Interties, as well as existing transmission lines across the Susitna Flats. Habitat loss effecting waterfowl associated with other past, present and future actions that are effecting waterfowl in the Railbelt region include Coastal fringe development, onshore oil and gas development, and residential development, and natural events including fire. Tesoro Route Options Cumulative effects as a result of the combination of past present and potential future actions associated with the Northern Intertie and other transmission lines in the Railbelt region. Waterfowl mortality is caused from potential collision with transmission lines, subsistence and sport hunting, and climatic variation There is the potential for cumulative impacts by the combined construction and operation of the Northern and Southern Intertie projects. With the proposed mitigation measures including seasonal timing of construction of construction and marking of lines, significant cumulative impacts would be avoided. Enstar Route Options Cumulative effects as a result of the combination of past present and potential future actions associated with the Northern Intertie and other transmission lines in the Railbelt region. Trumpeter Swan Bald Eagle Southern Intertie Study Area . Potential collision with transmission lines in proximity to nesting and brood rearing areas . An estimated 6 swan nesting and brood rearing areas are crossed by existing transmission and distribution lines within the study area Trumpeter swan population is increasing An estimated 8 swan nesting and brood rearing areas are crossed by Route Option A Long-term cumulative effects potential when combined with future development in the Moose Point and Gray Cliff subdivisions Railbelt Area . Potential collision conflicts with existing transmission lines across the Susitna Flats Potential collision conflicts and habitat loss associated with future Northern Intertie Project in the Tanana Flats Trumpeter Swan population in general is increasng on the Susitna, Tanana Flats, and Kenai Lowlands. Cumulative effects as a result of the combination of past present and potential future actions associated with the Northern Intertie and other transmission lines in the Railbelt region. One swan nesting and brood rearing area along Route Option E north would be affected by a second parallel line along the Moose River One swan nesting and brood rearing area is crossed by Route Option F north of Trapper Joe Lake, KNWR Cumulative effects as a result of the combination of past present and potential future actions associated with the Northern Intertie and other transmission lines in the Railbelt region. Summary There is the potential for cumulative impacts to Trumpeter Swans as a result of the Southern and Northern Interties, as well as existing transmission lines across the Susitna Flats. Habitat loss effecting trumpeter swans associated with other past, present and future actions that are effecting Trumpeter Swans in the Railbelt region include Coastal fringe development, onshore oil and gas development, and residential development, and natural events including fire. Other disturbances to Trumpeter Swans are associated with displacement from habitat due to development Trumpeter Swan mortality is caused from potential collision with transmission lines, subsistence and sport hunting, and climatic variation There is the potential for cumulative impacts by the combined construction and operation of the Northern and Southern Intertie projects. With the proposed mitigation measures including seasonal construction and marking of lines, significant cumulative impacts would be avoided. Southern Intertie Study Area “ Potential collision with fiber optic cable . Possibility of increased levels of human disturbance at nest sites Potential increased disturbance to nest sites along Route Option A Potential for disruption based on Moose Point and Gray Cliffs subdivision, and oil and gas development on the KNWR Possibility of increased disturbance at nest sites Long-term collision potential to young eagles from fiber optic cables crossing the Kenai River (Route Option E south); and the Moose River and Soldotna Creek (Route Option E north) Potential increased disturbance to nest sites along Route Option F will be mitigated by seasonal road closure along the Enstar Pipeline within the KNWR Railbelt Area . Potential collision conflicts with existing transmission lines across the Susitna Flats Potential issues with nest desertion, loss of habitat associated with future Northern Intertie Project Ten documented nest sites on the Tanana River between Fairbanks and Nenana Potential cumulative effects identified relative to the combined influence of the Northern and Southern Intertie projects and the other transmission lines in the region. Potential cumulative effects identified relative to the combined influence of the Northern and Southern Intertie projects and the other transmission lines in the region. Summary A combination of effects based on loss of habitat, disturbance during construction and maintenance, along with presence of the line (potential collisions) could lead to cumulative effects to eagles Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-293 Chapter 3 - Afffected Environment and Environmental Consequences September 2001 TABLE 3-37 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS General Habitat in Cumulative Study Area and KNWR = Developed/Future Development 40 percent = Protected 60 percent Issues = Value of devil’s club in closed mixed and white spruce forests Potential increase in human/black bear encounters Topic No Action Alternative/Affected Areas and Issues Tesoro Route Options Enstar Route Options PREDATORS Canada Lynx Southern Intertie Study Area = Loss of potential denning habitat, and increased harvest as a result of = Loss of potential denning habitat. Increased harvest as the result of Canadian Lynx Relative Abundance in Cumulative Study Area improved access is expected to be minimal due to low lynx abundance. improved access likely to be minimal because of low-moderate lynx High Improved habitat for prey species abundance. Improved habitat for prey species = Developed/Future Development 99 percent (KNWR 99 percent) = Potential for disruption based on Moose Point and Gray Cliffs subdivision, = Protected >1 percent (KNWR >1 percent) and oil and gas development on the KNWR Moderate = Developed/Future Development 30 percent (KNWR 16 percent) = Protected 70 percent (KNWR 84 percent) Low = Developed/Future Development 43 percent (KNWR 23 percent) = Protected 57 percent (K NWR 77 percent) = Hunting and Trapping issues Railbelt Area = No cumulative impact identified = No cumulative impact identified = Direct impacts to Lynx for clearing of right-of-way and disturbance to individual animals during construction associated with the Northern Intertie Project. Summary Due to the small loss of low-moderate habitat and disturbance during construction, cumulative impacts are not expected. Gray Wolf Southern Intertie Study Area = Low wolf abundance and no pack area crossed where access may be = Potential for increased hunting and trapping of wolves Wolf Abundance in Cumulative Study Area improved at the northern portion of Route Option A—not a cumulative = Increased human/wolf conflicts High effect = Benefits from habitat improvements providing improved winter range = Developed/Future Development 99 percent (KNWR 99 percent) = Wolf abundance is low, but route crosses the middle of Big Indian Wolf = Protected >1 percent (K NWR >! percent) Pack Moderate = Cumulative effects on KNWR = Developed/Future Development 28 percent (KNWR 15 percent) = Protected 75 percent (KNWR 85 percent) Low = Developed/Future Development 45 percent (K NWR 26 percent) = Protected 55 percent (KNWR 74 percent) Railbelt Area = No cumulative impact identified = No cumulative impact identified = Temporary disturbance during construction and operation activities and loss of habitat from clearing within the right-of-way will be short-term, and is not expected to be have an impact on wolves. L Summary "Temporary habitat disturbance is not expected to be significant, and cumulative impacts have not been identified. LARGE MAMMALS Black Bear Southern Intertie Study Area = Potential loss of devil’s club = Potential loss of devil’s club Potential increase in human/black bear encounters Railbelt = Disturbance to black bear denning during winter construction, however ,a the number of bears disturbed would likely be low No cumulative impacts No cumulative impact Summary = Cumulative impacts based on habitat loss and disturbance are not expected due to the availability of habitat and food sources for black bears, wide spread occurrence and timing of construction activities. There is the potential for cumulative impacts due to increased human/black bear encounters. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-294 Chapter 3 - Afffected Environment and Environmental Consequences September 2001 TABLE 3-37 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS Topic No Action Alternative/Affected Areas and Issues Tesoro Route Options Enstar Route Options Brown Bear Southern Intertie Study Area General Habitat in Cumulative Study Area Developed/Future Development 36 percent (KNWR 23 percent) Protected 64 percent (K NWR 77 percent) Riparian Habitat in Cumulative Area Developed/Future Development 45 percent (KNWR 29 percent) Protected 55 percent (KNWR 71 percent) = Brown bear are limited along coastal portion of study area due to - human disturbance - distance from high-quality foraging and denning habitats to the east = Disturbance to riparian corridors - Route Option A — 153 acres - limited valued habitat for brown bears = Not acumulative effect = Increased risk of human/brown bear conflicts = Disturbance to riparian corridors - Route Option E north and Option F — 366 acres - Route Option F — 310 acres (no clearing on Option B south) * Significant cumulative impacts within KNWR Kenai Peninsula General No recent population estimate for brown bears on the Kenai Peninsula is available, however it is assumed to be between 250-300 animals (S. Farley, ADF&G, personal communication). In order to maintain a population of 250 bears, the harvest of female bears should not exceed 40% or a 3-year mean of 6 “female units”. External effects of expanding human activities across the Kenai Peninsula will likely increase bear-human contact inevitably resulting in the increased direct mortality of bears through legal hunting, defense of life and property (DLP) mortality, and poaching. With defense of life or property killings and other human caused mortality taking most if not all of the female units, any increase in this mortality could result in the population level effect. This has resulted in the closure of the fall hunting season for the last 4 years because further loses would result in female mortality greater than the mean of 6 female units The Interagency Brown Bear Study Team (IBBST) and several Alaska conservation groups requested that the Department of Fish and Game list the Kenai brown bear population as an Alaska “Species of Special Concern”. The Department announced that listing in November 1998. Management Strategy for Kenai Peninsula Brown Bears (1989) Retain large area of continuous suitable habitat Eliminate or minimize disturbances Set conservative harvest Reduce destruction of life and property conflicts Seasonal road closures and prohibiting No roads through riparian areas = Cumulative effects to the Kenai Peninsula Brown Bears would not be increased as a result of this route option = Additional cumulative impacts are anticipated as a result of the presence of increased access and potential for increased mortality through DLP. These effects are expected to be significant on the KNWR, and on the Kenai Peninsula Railbelt Area Brown bears occur in low densities in the northern foothills of the Alaska Range, and are much less common on the Tanana Flats, therefore, the number of bears to be disturbed is likely to be low for the Northern Intertie Project. = No additional cumulative impacts are expected as a result to the Northern Intertie Project and other parts of the Railbelt system —__| = No additional cumulative impacts are expected as a result of the Northern Intertie Project and other parts of the Railbelt system Summary Significant cumulative impacts to brown bears would result due to the increase in access and associated bear/human conflicts along the Enstar alternative within the KNWR in an area where the bears move seasonally between upland and lowland areas Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-295 Chapter 3 - Afffected Environment and Environmental Consequences September 2001 TABLE 3-37 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS Relative Abundance in Study Area — Winter Moose Distribution Super High = Developed/Future Development 89 percent (KNWR 81 percent) = Protected 11 percent (KNWR 19 percent) High = Developed/Future Development 57 percent (KNWR 39 percent) = Protected 43 percent (KNWR 61 percent) Moderate = Developed/Future Development 59 percent (K NWR 33 percent) = Protected 41 percent (KNWR 67 percent) Low = Developed/Future Development 23 percent (KNWR 17 percent) = Protected 77 percent (KNWR 83 percent) = The patterns of abundance would change due to KNWR prescribed fire management or natural fire = Much of the moderate to super high abundance in existing or future development = Maintaining healthy moose populations within protected KNWR lands will depend on improving currently low abundance Study Area— Anchorage = Moose population in Kincaid Park A) Loss or modification to habitat - Route Option A — 478 acres Route located in North Kenai Spur Road right-of-way and planned transportation corridor through Gray Cliffs and Moose Point subdivisions Foreseeable reduction in general habitat quality due to planned residential development Potential to improve habitat from right-of-way clearing No cumulative impacts are expected as a result to the Northern Intertie Project Topic No Action Alternative/Affected Areas and Issues [ Tesoro Route Options Enstar Route Options Moose Southern Intertie Study Area = Possible increase in harvest of moose north of Moose Point (Route Option = Potential disruption to Moose/Habitat Management Plan and Fire Management Plans within KNWR (Route Option F) could conflict with plans for habitat improvement in low abundance areas = Possible increase in harvest of moose = Loss or modification to habitat - Route Option E north and Option F — 774 acres (65 percent in low abundance) - Route Option F — 676 acres (69 percent in low abundance) - Route Option E south — no change = Potential to improve habitat from right-of-way clearing = Significant cumulative impacts to KNWR = No cumulative impacts are expected as a result to the Northern Intertie Project Railbelt Area = Construction and operation of the Northern Intertie may disturb and displace moose for short duration, and clearing will result in some habitat loss = Concerns have been raised about potential conflicts of transmission lines and prescribed fires and fire suppression. One objective is to remove fuel sources near the line with the intent of allowing fires to burn through the right- of — way. = Indirect impacts of any increased access to certain areas for hunting could result in lower population numbers and management practices to restrict harvest. No cumulative impacts are expected as a result to the Northern Intertie Project and other parts of the Railbelt system = No additional cumulative impacts are expected as a result to the Northern Intertie Project and other parts of the Railbelt system Summary = Significant cumulative impacts could occur to moose populations within the KNWR if the Enstar Route conflicted with the planned Moose/Habitat and Fir e Management Plans. Caribou Southern Intertie Study Area KLH in Cumulative Study Area = Developed/Future Development 47 percent (K NWR 15 percent) = Protected 53 percent (KNWR 85 percent) KMH in Cumulative Area = Developed/Future Development 0 percent (KNWR 0 percent) = Protected 100 percent (KNWR 100 percent) Issues = Continued development in Soldotna area is likely to result in KLH herd remaining on the KNWR The Tesoro does not traverse the KLH habitat = Potential increase in accessibility to KMH from pipeline trail/road. This is a reintroduced herd, the KNWR is concerned for any increased impact to the KLH Railbelt Area = Loss of caribou habitat is not expected as a result of the Northern Intertie. = There are no caribou calving areas, and indirect impacts will likely not affect the Delta Caribou herd population No cumulative impacts are expected as a result to the Northern Intertie Project and other parts of the Railbelt system ® No cumulative impacts are expected as a result to the Northern Intertie Project and other parts of the Railbelt system Summary = No cumulative impacts are expected, as a result of the construction, operation and maintenance of the Southern and Northern Interties. However, there are concerns for the management of the KLH within the KNWR. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-296 Chapter 3 - Afffected Environment and Environmental Consequences September 2001 TABLE 3-37 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS Topic__| ANADROMOUS FISH No Action Alternative/Affected Areas and Issues Tesoro Route Options Enstar Route Options Anadromous Fish Southern Intertie Study Area Special Values of the KNWR (Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1985) = Kenai River, together with its tributaries is the largest drainage on the Kenai Peninsula, and is important to the entire refuge ecosystem and the Cook Inlet salmon fishery. = There are approximately 450 miles of anadromous fish streams on the KNWR = The Kenai and Chickaloon drainage systems are among the 150 miles of streams on the KNWR that are known to support the King salmon. = The Enstar pipeline crosses the Chickaloon watershed. Four anadromo us fish streams are crossed including Bishop Creek, Swanson River, Otter Creek and Seven Egg Creek. The Swanson River is the largest producer of salmon on the northwest side of the Kenai Peninsula. No long- term cumulative effects to fisheries are expected including Bishop Creek and the Swanson River in the Nikiski area. Bishop Creek is generally an undeveloped watershed primarily within the KPB. The Swanson River is protected within the KNWR and Captain Cook SRA and the route would be bored under the River. Anadromous fish streams crossed include East Fork Moose River, Mystery Creek, North Fork Chickaloon River, Chickaloon River, East Fork Chickaloon River, Big and Little Indian Creeks. The Chickaloon River system is the largest producer of salmon on the northern portion of the Kenai Peninsula. Long- term cumulative effects to fisheries are unknown. Potential erosion from right-of-way clearing will be minimized as a result of winter construction and erosion control mitigation. Unknown long-term cumulative effects to the protected watersheds on the KNWR, including the Kenai and Chickaloon watersheds are anticipated. Railbelt Area = The Tenana and Nenana, Rivers all support salmon populations that are crossed by the Northern Intertie project. = Direct impacts to fish habitat and aquatic resources are primarily related to ground clearing activities, and are expected to be minimal. = Construction activities near salmon fisheries will be timed to avoid salmon runs. = Transmission right-of-way may be used as access by some, however it is not expected to substantially increase use in the area, and is not expected to have a substantial impact on rivers and streams No cumulative impacts are expected as a result to the Northern Intertie Project, and other parts of the Railbelt system No cumulative impacts are expected as a result to the Northern Intertie Project, and other parts of the Railbelt system Summary = _ Several anadromous streams are crossed by the Southern and Northern Interties. Cumulative effects due to the spanning of rivers and streams, construction and best management practices are unknown. BELUGA WHALE Beluga Whale Southern Intertie Study Area —Turnagain Arm = No loss or degradation of habitat or mortality is expected. Temporary ® Issues — Disturbance during calving season (mid-June to mid-July) in Chickaloon Bay disturbance during construction may occur, however this route does not cross any suspected calving areas or specific river mouths associated with spring feeding as identified in the FAAMR DEIS. No cumulative effects in the study area are expected. No loss or degradation of habitat or mortality is expected. Chickaloon Bay is a suspected calving area and the Chickaloon River is characterized as a feeding area. Calving and feeding seasons will be avoided during construction. Cumulative impacts are unknown. Cook Inlet = The most isolated population of Beluga Whales is the Cook Inlet Stock, separated from the others by the Alaska Peninsula. The geographic and genetic isolation of the whales in Cook Inlet in combination with their strong site fidelity, makes this stock vulnerable to impacts from large or persistent harvests = In Cook Inlet, beluga concentrates near river mouths during spring and early summer across the nethermost portion of upper Cook Inlet, especially in the Susitna Delta, Knik Arm, and Chickaloon Bay. Calving areas include the northern side of Kachemak Bay in April and May, off the mouths of the Beluga and Susitna Rivers in May, and in the Chickaloon Bay and Turnagain Arm during the summer. These whales also congregate at the mouths of several large river systems during the early spring, feeding on salmon, and may reside in and near the Susitna River, the Little Susitna River, Turnagain Arm and several streams to the west of the Susitna River = The Federal Actions Associated with Management and Recovery of Cook Inlet Beluga Whales (FAAMR), Draft Environmental Impact Statement (October, 2000) concludes that subsistence harvest is the most likely cause of the decline in this population, has proposed an annual harvest level at two (2) strikes, until the stock had recovered to a minimum population level of 780 animals (preferred alternative). No loss or degradation of habitat or mortality is expected. Temporary disturbance during construction may occur, however this route does not cross any suspected calving areas or specific river mouths associated with spring feeding as identified in the FAAMR DEIS. No cumulative effects in the study area are expected. No loss or degradation of habitat or mortality is expected. Chickaloon Bay is a suspected calving area and the Chickaloon River is characterized as a feeding area. Calving and feeding seasons will be avoided during construction. Cumulative impacts are unknown. Summary Cumulative effects as a result of the construction, operation, or maintenance of the Southern Intertie Project are unknown. The major impact associated with the Cook Inlet stock is the subsistence harvest, which is currently under review by NOAA. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-297 Chapter 3 - Afffected Environment and Environmental Consequences September 2001 TABLE 3-37 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS LAND USE No Action Alternative/Affected Areas and Issues Southern Intertie Study Area Development patterns include: = Developed 7 percent (KNWR 3 percent) = Potential future development 33 percent (KNWR 22 percent) = Parks and open space 1.0 percent = Protected lands — 59 percent (KNWR 75 percent) = Development types within the Kenai Peninsula Borough include the communities of Kenai, Soldotna, Sterling, and Nikiski and associated industrial uses; planned development is associated with the Moose Point and Gray Cliff subdivisions north of Nikiski = Development within the KNWR includes state roads and highways, access roads, transmission lines, telephone lines, buried pipelines, seismic exploration lines, communication towers, sand and gravel sites, airstrips, and oil and gas fields = KNWR Wildland Fire Management Plan = Aviation safety = Each of the alternative route options in Anchorage are located along rights- of-way adjacent to developed or developing areas Railbelt Area = Impacts to residential, commercial and industrial land uses. Potential impacts to private and state lands. Tesoro Route Options Enstar Route Options = Impacts to adjacent land uses and parcels would be mitigated on Route Option A by utilizing existing rights-of-way including North Kenai Road, the planned transportation corridor in Moose Point/Gray Cliffs subdivisions = Impacts to adjacent land uses and parcels in Anchorage would be minimal to none. = Impacts to aviation uses would be mitigated by undergrounding line and wire markers. No cumulative effects in the study area are expected. = No long-term cumulative effects. Impacts on Route Option E South would be mitigated by rebuilding within an existing transmission right-of-way Local cumulative effects would occur along Route Option E north resulting from paralleling an existing transmission right-of-way Cumulative effects would occur along Route Option F by paralleling the Enstar Pipeline through the KNWR Impacts to aviation uses would be mitigated by undergrounding line and wire markers. No cumulative effects in the study area are exp ected. Cumulative effects would occur to KNWR wildland fire management plan. Proposed line is incompatible with plan and prescriptions. Impacts to adjacent land uses and parcels would be mitigated by utilizing existing rights-of-way, including Minnesota Drive/O’Malley Road, Old Seward Highway/International Road, Klatt Road, and the Alaska Railroad for Route Options J-N Significant cumulative impacts to KNWR due to conflicts with management plans. No long-term cumulative effects. Summary Construction and operation of a transmission line displaces uses and creates additional access in remote areas. Most direct impacts can be mitigated, but cumulativ e effects are expected. SOCIOECONOMI Southern Intertie Study Area = Conflicts with recreation uses - Route Option A — Captain Cook Recreation Area - Route Option E south — Kenai River Crossings/Bings Landing - Route Option F— KNWR, Mystery Creek Road/Enstar Pipeline Road = Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge = Kincaid Park Ocean View Park Picnic Site = Cumulative effects along Route Option A to Captain Cook SRA will be mitigated by undergrounding along road edge Cumulative effects to Kincaid Park will result from right-of-way widening/clearing adjacent to Tesoro Pipeline Cumulative effects would be mitigated along the Kenai River by replacing an existing transmission line along Route Option E south Cumulative effects would result along Route Option F from right-of-way widening and clearing along the Enstar Pipeline thus increasing access for hunters, trappers, snow machines and other recreationists. Impacts to ACWR and Ocean View Park will be mitigated by direction boring and undergrounding Significant cumulative impacts to KNWR due to conflicts with comprehensive conservation plan Rainbelt Area = Impacts to dispersed recreation = No long term cumulative effects No long term cumulative effects Summary Introduction of an industrial man-made structure into natural and wilderness-settings results in altering views, displacing wildlife and increasing access for recreation activities. TOURISM, AND RATE IMPACTS Southern Intertie Study Area = Disruption to general tourism = Effects on dollars generated through recreation and tourism = Concurrent projects See Recreation and Visual Impacts = General impacts to tourism will be mitigated by winter construction for Route Option A * Local projects will not be of sufficient magnitude to impose significant pressure on the communities social and economic balance, with or without the SIP. See Recreation and Visual Impacts Local projects will not be of sufficient magnitude to impose significant pressure on the communities social and economic balance, with or without the SIP. Railbelt Area = Cost savings to customers = Power purchases = Aggregate cost savings to Railbelt customers - $11.7 million = Average savings per customer = $61.70/year = Increments to purchasing power, while beneficial, are too small to have a discernible impact on the region’s economic performance Aggregate cost savings to Railbelt customers = $9.0 million Average savings per customer = $47.50/year Increments to purchasing power, while beneficial, are too small to have a discernible impact on the region’s economic performance Summary The Southern Intertie Project, in conjunction with the Northern Interties will provide minor positive cumulative effects to Railbelt customers. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-298 Chapter 3 - Afffected Environment and Environmental Consequences September 2001 TABLE 3-37 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS No Action Alternative/Affected Areas and Issues Tesoro Route Options Enstar Route Options Southern Intertie Study Area = _No federal or state subsistence communities reside within study area No cumulative impacts identified No cumulative impacts identified Railbelt Area = Construction and operation of the line is not expected to have a substantial impact on subsistence resources. Occasional temporary disturbance to localized wildlife. No long term cumulative effects No long term cumulative effects Summary No long-term cumulative effects to subsistence resources are expected. Southern Intertie Study Area = More than 600 archaeological and historical sites are listed in Alaska Heritage Resource Survey for study area. Only 16 known sites within two- mile study corridor for alternative routes. = Concern for impacts to Native interests and resources Unknown cumulative effects —e VISUAL _ Se eS a oe : Se : ; : 3 Southern Intertie Study Area = Cumulative impacts along the North Kenai Spur Road in the Nikiski area = Cumulative visual impacts to residences adjacent to the Soldotna Route = Views from recreation, residential, and roadway areas would occur where Route Option A is across the road from the existing Option E/North route option would occur due to the effects of two parallel = Maintenance of scenic quality 34kV transmission line transmission lines = Residential and recreation views = The use of the planned transportation corridor in Moose Point and Gray = Replacement of an existing transmission line along Route Option E/South = Impacts to wilderness qualities in KNWR Cliffs developments is consistent with planned uses, although the line would avoid cumulative impacts = Concerns for preservation of landscape character and panoramic viewsheds would be the first use of the new corridor. Vegetation screening should = Cumulative effects to Route Option F would occur within the KNWR due throughout study area mitigate local impacts to residences to additional vegetation clearing along Enstar Pipeline from both ground = Cumulative impact concerns for widening the right-of-way of the Tesoro and aerial views Pipeline in Kincaid Park. = Emphasis on aesthetics in long-range planning in Anchorage, there is a concern about additional overhead transmission lines Railbelt Area = Long-term cumulative impact on scenic quality and views from residences, | " Long term cumulative impact on scenic quality and views from residences, = Right-of-way, clearing, and presence of structures associated with the highways, and national forest lands highways, and national forest lands Northern Intertie Project = Views from recreation, residential, and roadway areas = Maintenance of scenic quality Summary Long-term cumulative impacts to scenic quality and views from residences, highways, and national forest lands CULTURAL RESOURCES _ : : : 28 Unknown cumulative effects Railbelt Area = Route has potential for site discovery over a portion of its length = Significance of sites is unknown = Mitigation developed in consultation with the SHPO would reduce impacts to sites. No long-term cumulative effects No long-term cumulative effects Summary No long-term cumulative effects expected for cultural resources. Mitigation developed in consultation with the SHPO would reduce impacts to sites. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-299 Chapter 3 - Afffected Environment and Environmental Consequences September 2001 3.13 - SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 3.13 SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY For the purposes of this discussion, short term has been defined as the period during construction and shortly thereafter (two or three years), and is focused on the immediate effects of constructive activities and disturbance. Long term is defined as the life of the project (50 years) and beyond and includes consideration for the presence of the line and associated facilities, and operation and maintenance requirements. During the life of the proposed project, the construction phase would represent the period of greatest impact on the environment due to the disturbance associated with the construction of access roads, tower pad sites and transition facilities, right-of-way clearing, and the placement of underground and submarine cables. Depending upon the route constructed, however, impacts during and following construction of the Enstar Route or the Tesoro Route could vary significantly due to the difference in the location of these route in the study area. Following is a summary of short- and long-term impacts associated with the Enstar and Tesoro routes in the Anchorage area, Turnagain Arm, and Kenai Peninsula. Specific short- and long- term impacts are presented in Table 3-38. 3.13.1 Kenai Peninsula The differences between short- and long-term impacts between the Enstar Route and Tesoro Route in the study area are the most pronounced on the Kenai Peninsula. While construction activities, operation, and maintenance practices are similar for both routes; both short-term and long-term impacts result from the construction of the Enstar Route and the Tesoro Route. The Enstar Route (Option F) would parallel the Enstar pipeline as it crosses the KNWR. Construction of this route including right-of-way clearing and improved or new access, combined with the presence of the line could result in long-term and significant impacts to wildlife, vegetation, biology, recreation, and visual resources. The Enstar Route would conflict with the prescribed burn program, as well as increasing access in brown bear habitat. Any conflicts between the ability to diversify the habitat while protecting critical species, and the presence of the proposed transmission line in this area would be considered a significant long- term effect. The Tesoro Route is located within a planned strip of land that was withdrawn from the KNWR in order to provide transportation access between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. Short- and long-term impacts to wildlife, biology, and recreation resources have been minimized through the location of the line and under grounding of facilities through Captain Cook SRA. Land use conflicts, including disruption to existing and planned development, will be minimized or avoided by utilizing the rights-of-way of the North Kenai Spur Road, the planned transportation corridor, and the Tesoro pipeline right-of-way. Long-term visual impacts on existing and planned residents could, however, be significant. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.13 - Short-Term Uses Versus Long-Term Productivity 3-300 September 2001 3.13.2 Turnagain Arm Short-term impacts associated with the Turnagain Arm vary between the Enstar and Tesoro routes based on the placement of the underwater cable. The Enstar Route will be embedded in the mud, while the Tesoro alternatives (exclusive of Fire Island) are placed on the bottom of the marine floor. Short-term surface and marine disturbance will be more pronounced on the Enstar Route due to the trenching and drilling activities associated with construction across the tidal mudflats and the Turnagain Arm. Exposure of any submarine cable to the extreme tidal conditions in Turnagain Arm creates risk of cable failures resulting in potential short-term impacts for the Project prior to cable replacement. The Tesoro Route alternatives exhibit numerous hazard areas with hard scoured bottom areas and boulder fields, while the Enstar Route farther up the Turnagain Arm is composed primarily of mud with no hard bottom or boulder areas. Bottom conditions along the Tesoro Route precludes economically embedding the cables in the hard bottom and boulder areas and therefore increases the risk of cable failure and short-term impacts, while along the Enstar Route the cable can be embedded in the mud bottom for the entire distance reducing the risk of failure. Embedding the cable increases reliability, but cable failures due to shifting sea bottom conditions or other hazards must still be anticipated. Cable replacement is projected twice during the project life of the Tesoro Route, and once for the Enstar Route. Replacement of the Tesoro Route would require laying the cables again on the bottom, while replacement of the Enstar Route would result in the construction activities associated with embedding yet another line in the mud across the Turnagain Arm. 3.13.3 Anchorage Area The Applicant’s proposal (Route Options H and K [Applicant’s Proposal]) traverses an area in Anchorage that is developed including the submarine cable landing at Oceanview Park, and sections of this route that parallel the Alaska Railroad into the International Substation. Short- term impacts in this area related to construction of underground and overhead segments of the transmission line and the transition facility are primarily related to the disruption to existing land use throughout this area. As a majority of the Enstar Route is underground, long-term effects would be primarily limited to the visual impacts of the overhead portions of the line. Two of the Tesoro alternatives completely avoid developed areas in Anchorage by using submarine cable landings at Pt. Woronzof (Options B and C). The third alternative, Option N, primarily crosses through portions of open space lands associated with Kincaid Park (underground) from the landing at Pt. Campbell to the Pt. Woronzof Substation. Short-term and construction-related disturbance associated with these alternatives is extremely limited due to their remote location. Long-term impacts would be minimal due to the submarine or underground configuration of the transmission line. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.13 - Short-Term Uses Versus Long-Term Productivity 3-301 September 2001 TABLE 3-38 SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Tesoro Route Enstar Route Resource Issues Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term Air Quality Degradation of air | Mainly localized and None Same as Tesoro Route Same as Tesoro Route based on vehicle largely the result of emissions and construction and dust abandonment activities that would create fugitive dust and gaseous emissions from ground transport Geologic Soil loss and Mainly localized and Minimal based on flat to Largely the result of Potential for accelerated erosion due Resources compaction largely the result of rolling terrain and winter improvements to existing to the presence of new access, and improvements to construction access required along the right-of-way clearing in selective existing access and Enstar Pipeline trail and the steep sloped areas along the foothills areas of new access construction of new access of the Chugach Mountains north of Captain Cook and the grading for tower pad SRA sites in selective steep sloped areas along the foothills of the Chugach Mountains Drainage Loss of vegetation | Mainly localized and Minimal based on flat to Largely the result of Slightly increased due to the Basins cover, soil erosion | largely the result of rolling terrain and winter improvements to existing presence of upgraded and new and Watersheds | and resulting improvements to construction access along the Enstar access, and right-of-way clearing in sedimentation in streams existing access north of Captain Cook SRA and vegetation clearing Pipeline trail and the construction of new access and the grading for tower pad sites in the vicinity of Mystery Creek, North Fork of the Chickaloon River, Chickaloon River, and Big and Little Indian Creeks selective areas in the vicinity of Mystery Creek, North Fork of the Chickaloon River, Chickaloon River, and Big and Little Indian Creeks Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-302 Chapter 3.13 - Short-Term Uses Versus Long-Term Productivity September 2001 TABLE 3-38 SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Tesoro Route Enstar Route access, clearing for the right-of-way and at tower sites. Spanning of wetlands, winter construction, and horizontal drilling for underground cables will minimize impacts, especially to wetlands (bogs and meadows) within the right-of- way (approximately 78 acres) and at tower sites. Spanning of wetlands, winter construction, and horizontal drilling for underground cables will minimize impacts, especially to wetlands (bogs and meadows) within the right-of- way (approximately 142 acres) Resource Issues Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term Marine Degradation of Minor disturbance Numerous hazard areas Construction disturbance Embedding the cable increases the Environment marine during the laying of including hard scoured associated with placement of | reliability, but leads to greater environment and | cables across the bottom areas and boulder submarine cables that will be | disturbance should cable replacement the potential for Turnagain Arm, and fields preclude embedding embedded in mud at the be required (projected once over the damage to selective trenching or | and lead to increased risk of | bottom of the seafloor and life of the project) underwater cables | drilling of tidal cable failure. The loss of a bored under vegetated tidal leading to mudflat areas cable could take the project | flats as opposed to laying on replacement of out of service for as much as | the bottom facilities two years for replacement which is projected twice over the life of the project Biology | Vegetation and Loss of vegetative | Vegetation clearing to | Approximately 453 acres of | Vegetation clearing to occur Approximately 530 acres of upland Wetlands cover and occur during upland vegetation removed | during construction of vegetation removed for the life of the disturbance to construction of for the life of the project upgraded and new access, project wetlands upgraded and new clearing for the right-of-way Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-303 Chapter 3.13 - Short-Term Uses Versus Long-Term Productivity September 2001 TABLE 3-38 SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Tesoro Route Enstar Route Resource Issues Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term Birds Disturbance, loss of habitat, and mortality Trumpeter Swan Approximately 32.6 miles are within 19 known trumpeter swan nesting areas; however, potential disturbance would be avoided through late summer/fall or winter construction Approximately 41.6 miles are within | mile of open water in areas that present a potential collision hazard. Potential for increase in mortality due to the presence of the lines in these areas (mitigation includes marking of wires at river crossings and within 1,312 feet of open water) 14 historic records of trumpeter swan pairs present; however, only three nests are within | mile. Potential disturbance would be avoided through late summer/fall or winter construction Approximately 33.5 miles are within 1 mile of open water, in areas that present a potential collision hazard. Potential for increase in mortality due to the presence of the lines in these areas (mitigation includes marking of wires at river crossings and within 1,312 feet of open water) Disturbance, loss of habitat, and mortality General Waterfowl Disturbance to waterfowl during nesting, brood rearing, and staging is avoided through late summer/fall or winter construction Approximately 41.6 miles of the route contain stream crossings or are within | mile of open water. Potential for increase in mortality due to the presence of the lines in these areas (mitigation includes marking of wires at river crossings and within 1,312 feet of open water). Habitat loss from right-of- way clearing would be minimized by spanning streams, winter construction, and not widening or upgrading existing roads in wetland habitats or adjacent Disturbance to waterfowl during nesting; brood rearing and staging are avoided through late summer/fall or winter construction Approximately 35.5 miles of the route contain stream crossings or are within | mile of open water. Potential for increase in mortality due to the presence of the lines in these areas (mitigation includes marking of wires at river crossings and within 1,312 feet of open water). Habitat loss from right-of-way clearing would be minimized by spanning streams, winter construction, and not widening or upgrading existing roads in wetland habitats or adjacent Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-304 Chapter 3.13 - Short-Term Uses Versus Long-Term Productivity September 2001 TABLE 3-38 SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Tesoro Route Enstar Route Resource Issues Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term Bald Eagles Disturbance, loss of habitat, and mortality Disturbance to bald eagles during nesting is avoided through late summer/fall or winter construction Right-of-way clearing would result in reduction of vegetative cover and potential nest and roost sites in nesting areas. The route is within 0.25 mile of three documented bald eagle nests, within 0.5 mile of two other nest sites, and within 1.0 mile of 9 nesting areas. Identifying and avoiding bald eagle nest trees, selective vegetation removal, and marking of wires along and near water features would minimize impacts Disturbance to bald eagles during nesting is avoided through late summer/fall or winter construction Right-of-way clearing would result in reduction of vegetative cover and potential nest and roost sites in nesting areas. The route is within 0.25 mile of two documented bald eagle nests, within 0.5 mile of two other nest sites, and within 1.0 mile of 9 nesting areas. Impacts of clearing would be minimized by identifying and avoiding bald eagle nest trees, selective vegetation removal, and marking of wires along and near water features Large Mammals Black Bear Disturbance, loss of habitat, and mortality Disturbance to denning bears and bears foraging at Point Possession Clearing (approximately 444 to 466 acres) of forest types that support important food sources for black bears. Allowing low- growing vegetation to persist in the right-of-way would minimize impacts of clearing. Improved access may result in an increase in legal and illegal harvest Disturbance to denning bears and to bears foraging at Chickaloon Flats Clearing (approximately 530 acres) of forest types that support important food sources for black bears. Allowing low-growing vegetation to persist in the right-of-way would minimize impacts of clearing. Improved access may result in an increase in legal and illegal harvest Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-305 Chapter 3.13 - Short-Term Uses Versus Long-Term Productivity September 2001 TABLE 3-38 SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Tesoro Route Enstar Route Resource Issues Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term Brown Bear Disturbance, loss | Disturbance to Limited loss of foraging Potential for disturbance to Limited loss of foraging habitats. of habitat, and denning bears is habitats. Brown bear use of | denning bears Increased human access to bear mortality unlikely because no coastal areas is limited, but travel corridors and feeding areas brown bears are increased human access along anadromous streams would known to den near the | would result in increased result in increased risk of human- coast risk of human-bear conflicts bear conflicts (and bear mortality) (and bear mortality) within within the KNWR existing and planned coastal development Moose Disturbance, loss _| Temporary Loss of thermal cover. Temporary displacement Loss of thermal cover. Allowing of habitat, and displacement during Allowing shrubby during construction, reduction | shrubby vegetation to grow in the mortality construction, reduction | vegetation to grow in the in preferred winter browse right-of-way would increase in preferred winter right-of-way would increase preferred winter browse. Restricted browse preferred winter browse ability to create or maintain moose winter range through fire management plan within the KNWR Caribou Disturbance, loss | None — the route does__| Reduction in vegetative Temporary displacement Reduction in vegetative cover in of habitat, and not traverse areas cover in areas of potential during construction areas used by caribou mortality currently used by future use by caribou caribou Predators Canada Lynx Disturbance, loss of habitat, and mortality Temporary displacement during construction Loss of potential denning habitat. Increased harvest as the result of improved human access likely to be minimal because of low lynx abundance and potential future development. Improved habitat for prey species Temporary displacement during construction Loss of potential denning habitat. Increased harvest as the result of improved human access likely to be minimal because of low - moderate lynx abundance. Improved habitat for prey species Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-306 Chapter 3.13 - Short-Term Uses Versus Long-Term Productivity September 2001 TABLE 3-38 SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Tesoro Route Enstar Route Resource Issues Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term Gray Wolf Disturbance, loss | Temporary Increased harvest as the Temporary displacement Increased harvest as the result of of habitat, and displacement during result of improved human during construction improved human access likely to be mortality construction access likely to be minimal minimal because of low-moderate because of low wolf wolf abundance in area of improved abundance in area of access. Improved habitat for prey improved access and species potential future development. Improved habitat for prey species Fish Anadromous Disturbance, loss Short-term siltation Long-term increases in Short-term siltation would be Long-term increases in sedimentation Fish of habitat, and would be minimized sedimentation unlikely minimized at all stream may occur in Big and Little Indian mortality by winter construction at Miller and Scaup creeks, by directional drilling at Swanson River; and at all streams by placing towers at least 200 feet from the stream crossing, selective clearing within 200 feet of the stream, and not improving access roads because of mild to moderate slopes crossings by winter construction, placing towers at least 200 feet from the stream, and not improving access roads creeks because of steep slopes and loss of dense overstory cover in the right-of-way. Sedimentation may interfere with development of anadromous fish eggs and fry Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-307 Chapter 3.13 - Short-Term Uses Versus Long-Term Productivity September 2001 TABLE 3-38 SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Tesoro Route Enstar Route Resource Issues Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term Marine Mammals Beluga Whale Disturbance, loss_| Temporary Temporary disturbance Temporary disturbance during | Temporary disturbance during any of habitat, and disturbance during during any repairs resulting | construction. Disturbance to repairs resulting from cable failure mortality construction. Route from cable failure (projected | suspected calving whales (projected to happen once over the does not cross any to occur twice over the life would be avoided by life of the project) suspected calving of the project) construction in late summer areas Land Use and Disturbance, Increased traffic and Effects to land use Increased traffic and Provides increased access for Recreation displacement of disturbance during minimized or avoided disturbance during facilities recreational use along the Enstar use(s) and facilities construction | through selective alignments | construction, including pipeline north of the Mystery Creek potential conflicts | including underground | in private lands, and underground segments near Road. Potential conflicts with the with management | segments in Captain utilizing rights-of-way of Oceanview Bluff Park, and KNWR Moose/Habitat Management plans Cook SRA and the North Kenai Spur Road, | adjacent to the Alaska Plan and the Fire Management Plan Kincaid Park (Route the planned Railroad (prescribed burning). Qualification Option D), Route transportation/utility criteria for wilderness designation Options B and C avoid | corridor established by the under the minimal management class Kincaid Park through KPB, and the Tesoro would be jeopardized submarine crossings to | Pipeline right-of-way Pt. Woronzof substation Socioeconomics | Regional and local | Local and regional Results in lower electric Local and regional economies | Results in lower electric rates overall employment, economies expected to | rates overall due to expected to experience due to increased reliability, power stability in experience benefits increased reliability, power | benefits from project-related transfer capacity, improved economic region’s power from project-related transfer capacity, improved | expenditures during generation, system stability, supply expenditures during economic generation, construction increased spinning reserves, and construction system stability, increased reduced line losses. Average spinning reserves, and reduction (savings) over the 2004 to reduced line losses. 2043 life would be 0.21 cents per Average reduction (savings) kWh over the 2004 to 2043 life would be 0.16 cents per kWh Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-308 Chapter 3.13 - Short-Term Uses Versus Long-Term Productivity September 2001 TABLE 3-38 SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Tesoro Route Enstar Route Resource Issues Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term Subsistence Disturbance to Potential for disruption | Public accessibility is Potential for disruption to Public accessibility is anticipated to wildlife, increased | to subsistence hunting | anticipated to increase, subsistence hunting and increase, however, due to the low access for hunting | and trapping as a however, due to the low trapping as a function of level of subsistence use in the area, and trapping function of level of subsistence use in construction activities and no impacts, or only minimal impacts construction activities | the area, no impacts, or only | disturbance are anticipated and disturbance minimal impacts are : anticipated Visual Degradation of Short-term disruption Presence of structures, Short-term disruption based on | Presence of structures, conductors, natural scenic based on construction | conductors, and transition construction activities and transition facilities visible from quality and visual | activities facilities visible from residential (Soldotna and intrusion residential (Nikiski and Anchorage), recreational (KNWR) Moose Point), recreational and transportation viewers along the (underground at Captain Enstar Pipeline trail Cook SRA and Kincaid Park) and transportation viewers along the Kenai Spur Road Cultural Disturbance or Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Resources removal of sites or fossils Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-309 Chapter 3.13 - Short-Term Uses Versus Long-Term Productivity September 2001 3.14 - IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 3.14 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Resources committed to the proposed project would be material and nonmaterial, including financial. Irreversible commitment of resources for purposes of this section has been interpreted to mean those resources once committed to the project that would continue to be committed throughout the life of the project. Irretrievable commitment of resources has been interpreted to mean that those resources used, consumed, destroyed, or degraded during construction, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of the proposed project could not be retrieved or replaced for the life of the project or beyond. Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources is summarized in the table below. A “yes” implies that impacts are irreversible or irretrievable, whereas a “no” signifies that impacts are not irreversible or irretrievable (Table 3-39). TABLE 3-39 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Tesoro Route Options Enstar Route Options Type of Commitment/Reason Resource for Commitment Irreversible | Irretrievable | Irreversible | __Irretrievable Air Quality Degradation of air based no yes - no yes - construction on vehicle emissions and construction phase dust during construction phase Geologic Soil loss, erosion and no no yes yes — construction Resources compaction based on phase with clearing and development potential lingering of access and tower sites. effects Drainage Loss of vegetation cover, | no no no yes — construction Basins and soil erosion and resulting phase with Watersheds sedimentation in streams potential lingering based on vegetative effects clearing, development of access and tower sites. Marine Degradation of marine no no no no Environment environment during laying, trenching, or drilling for cables during construction, and potential maintenance and repair activities Biological Vegetation and | Loss of vegetative cover yes yes - project yes yes - project life Wetlands and disturbance to life wetlands based on vegetative clearing for right-of-way, access, and tower sites during construction and tree trimming for maintenance Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.14 - Irreversible and Irretrievable 3-310 Commitment of Resources September 2001 TABLE 3-39 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Tesoro Route Options Enstar Route Options Resource Type of Commitment/Reason for Commitment Irreversible | Irretrievable Irreversible Irretrievable Birds General Waterfowl Disturbance during construction, loss of habitat, increased access, and potential increase in mortality due to presence of the line yes yes - project life yes yes - project life Trumpeter Swan Disturbance during construction, loss of habitat, and potential increase in mortality due to presence of the line yes yes - project life yes yes - project life Bald Eagles Disturbance during construction, loss of habitat, and potential increase in mortality due to presence of the line unknown unknown - project life unknown unknown - project life Large Mammals Black Bear Disturbance during construction, habitat loss due to clearing and potential increase for mortality based on access improvements no no no no Brown Bear Disturbance during construction, habitat loss due to clearing and potential increase for mortality based on access improvements no no yes yes - project life Moose Disturbance during construction and potential conflicts with habitat improvements associated with the KNWR Fire Management Plan no no yes yes - project life Caribou Disturbance during construction no no no yes - construction phase Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.14 - Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 3-311 September 2001 TABLE 3-39 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Tesoro Route Options Enstar Route Options Type of Commitment/Reason Resource for Commitment Irreversible | Irretrievable | Irreversible | _Irretrievable Predators Canada Lynx Disturbance during unknown unknown - unknown unknown - project construction and potential for increased mortality based on access improvements project life life Gray Wolf Disturbance during construction and potential for increased mortality based on access improvements no no no no Anadromous Fish Loss of vegetation cover, soil erosion and resulting sedimentation in streams based on vegetative clearing and development of access and tower sites no no no yes — construction phase Beluga Whales Degradation of marine environment during laying, trenching, or drilling for cables, during construction, and potential maintenance and repair activities no unknown — construction phase no unknown — construction phase Land Use and Recreation Disturbance during construction, displacement of use(s) and potential conflicts with management plans based on the presence and operation of the line no yes — construction phase yes yes - project life Socioeconomics Increased regional and local employment during construction, increased stability in region’s power supply during operations yes yes - project life yes yes - project life Tourism Effects on tourism no no yes yes — project life Subsistence Disturbance to wildlife during construction and increased access for hunting and trapping no no no no Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.14 - Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 3-312 September 2001 TABLE 3-39 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Tesoro Route Options Enstar Route Options Type of Commitment/Reason Resource for Commitment Irreversible | Irretrievable | Irreversible |__Irretrievable Visual Degradation of natural yes yes - project yes yes - project life scenic quality and life viewshed intrusion based on presence of the line Cultural Disturbance or removal of | unknown unknown - unknown unknown - project Resources artifacts or sites during project life and life and beyond construction beyond Construction Use of: Materials and aggregate yes yes yes yes fuels water yes yes yes yes steel yes no yes no aluminum yes no yes no concrete yes yes yes yes wood yes no yes no fossil fuels yes yes yes yes Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3-313 Chapter 3.14 - Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources September 2001 3.15 - SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 3.15 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Significant unavoidable adverse impacts are defined as those project impacts that could not be reduced to less than significant levels through mitigation measures or utilization of another alternative. Significant unavoidable adverse impacts are expected for biology, land use and recreation, and visual resources on the KNWR. Biological impacts on the KNWR would be considered both regionally and nationally significant. Significant unavoidable adverse impacts are expected for visual resources on private lands, Native lands, KPB lands, and in the Municipality of Anchorage. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts were identified for air, geologic, water, marine environment, socioeconomic and tourism, subsistence, cultural or noise resources for the proposed Project. It should be noted that the potential for significant impacts to biological or cultural resources and the effectiveness of available mitigation measures cannot be fully determined until detailed surveys are conducted for the proposed project right-of-way and substation sites, and the ESA Section 7 consultation process with USFWS and Section 106 Consultation is completed with the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 3.15 - Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3-314 September 2001 CHAPTER 4 SCOPING, CONSULTATION, AND COORDINATION CHAPTER 4 SCOPING, CONSULTATION, AND COORDINATION 4.1 INTRODUCTION An integral part of the environmental compliance process for this project has been a comprehensive effort to consult and coordinate with relevant agencies and the public. The intent throughout the process has been to communicate with the public and agencies, identify and incorporate their issues into the planning and decision-making process, and address the issues in appropriate documentation. This comprehensive effort of consultation and coordination has been accomplished through three primary means: (1) agency and public scoping, (2) direct agency contact to obtain technical information, and (3) CWG. 4.2 FEDERAL SCOPING PROCESS 4.2.1 Notification The NEPA process for the Southern Intertie Project began with the publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register by the RUS on October 9, 1996. The notice announced RUS’ intent to prepare an EIS for the Project and the schedule for the three public scoping meetings. Newsletters were mailed to individuals and organizations on the Project mailing list. The intent of the notification process was to inform all potentially affected Alaska residents. Approximately 66,500 utility bill inserts were mailed to all electric consumers within the HEA and AML&P service areas. CEA customers were notified twice through notifications placed in the Chugach Outlet included in their monthly billing statements. Advertisements were placed in newspapers throughout the state, including the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska Journal of Commerce, Alaska Star, Frontiersman, Homer News, Homer Tribune, Peninsula Clarion, and Seward Phoenix Log. Poster-sized notices were placed in libraries, post offices, and in the community halls where the public meetings were held. The results of scoping are summarized below. More detail is provided in the Southern Intertie Project Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Report (Power Engineers, September 1997c). 4.2.2 Public and Agency Meetings Three public scoping meetings were conducted in 1996—Anchorage on November 12, Cooper Landing on November 13, and Soldotna on November 14. A total of 81 people attended the meetings. The meetings were recorded and transcripts are available at RUS and Chugach for public inspection. Written comments on the Project were solicited at the public meetings; a total of 84 written comment forms were received containing approximately 400 individual comments. A summary Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination 4-1 September 2001 of letters received from agencies, communities, and special-interest groups is presented in Table 4-1. Copies of all original correspondence are on file at RUS. In addition to the public scoping meetings, RUS conducted an interagency meeting on November 6, 1996 in Anchorage. The purpose of the meeting was to (1) invite the participation of other federal, state, and local agencies; and (2) solicit comments and/or concerns regarding issues that should be addressed in the EIS. In addition to RUS representatives, personnel representing the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, USFWS, Alaska Energy Authority, Municipality of Anchorage, KPB, Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, and USACE attended the meeting. 4.3 APPLICANT INITIATED ACTIVITIES In November 1995, the Applicant initiated a Route Selection Study. To assist in determining issues and concerns during route selection, agency and interagency meetings as well as two public meetings were conducted. The public was informed of the project through direct mailing of newsletters, billing statement inserts, paid advertisements in local newspapers, and news releases, which were distributed to local radio and television stations in the Anchorage and Kenai areas. These materials provided general information on the project and announced the two public meetings. The public meetings were held in Anchorage and Soldotna on January 31, 1996, and February 1, 1996, respectively, and were attended by a total of 46 individuals. Through the Route Selection Study and associated public comments, three alternative corridors were identified and are documented in the Southern Intertie Project Route Selection Study Phase 1 - Environmental Section Report (Power Engineers, June 1996a). Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination 4-2 September 2001 TABLE 4-1 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS RECEIVED FROM AGENCIES, COMMUNITIES, AND SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS 2 Environmental Issues 2 5 .| £1 ¢| #12 g| S| z 3 g) 2] £| | 2 Z| 3.5| 5 o a =| ] S| 3 a og | £3) = oS] eel see} 1 3) o) 238 #| £2) Be| -| 2) §2| Bel S| BE) =) 2) 2 2) $8) 5) §| se] > S| 2S) S| a BE] 2 5 B 2%) @3) | 2] 28] Se] $$] 2] 2/8 = AGENCY/ E| ol £2] 2/3/38] 58] Z| 8| 2] = z ORGANIZATION _| *| # ®| >| < | # | #4] = 4/ >| 8) 0 | «| 28 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS U.S. Army vo v Avoid Ft. Richardson along Quartz Creek transmission line. Army strongly objects. Environmental Protection | W v viv Clearly defined purpose and need essential in @ | Agency developing a range of alternatives. Strongly 8 recommend the use of existing transmission 2 line and pipeline corridors. Federal Aviation v Fire Island —- VORTAC facility interference Administration concern. Coast Guard No formal comments or recommendations. Department of Fish and v v v v v v Use existing corridors — Pt. Campbell/Pt. Game Woronzof possibilities. Other landings would not be authorized across the ACWR. DNR -— Division of Parks v v v v Division of Parks would not support a o conversion of use under LWCFA. Incompatible S with purposes of the Chugach State Park. | Department of v v viv Concerned with use of ADOT roadways. Transportation and Public Facilities DNR - Division of Land v v v v Concerned with scenic and recreation resources on state lands. Municipality of v v viv v Overhead lines considered incompatible within Anchorage municipality subject to local ordinances. 3 Compliance/compatibility with Anchorage 3 Bowl Comprehensive Plan is required. Kenai Peninsula Borough Data and coordination provided; and participated in meetings. Alaska Center for the v v v v Consideration of other alternatives, economic, Environment biological, recreation, scenic impacts. Oceanview/Old Seward v v viv v Not convinced of purpose and need; concerned o Community Council about safety, aesthetics, airplane interference, S earthquakes, EMF, and effects on tourism. © | Kenai Watershed Forum viv v v Consideration of other alternatives: % construction techniques, biological impacts. & | Friends of Cooper v v v v Effects to scenic resources, avalanche hazards, = | Landing purpose and need requirements, land use ‘3 conflicts. 3 | Cooper Landing Game v v v Effects of construction and right-of-way a and Fish Advisory requirements on watersheds and biological 2 | Committee resources in the KNWR. 3 Wilderness Society v v v viv Impacts to wildlife, recreation, visual —E resources, purpose and need justification. E Pt. Possession, Inc. v v v v Impacts to traditional use, visual, aviation, Co cultural resources: opposed to line across or near allotment and corporate land. Flying Crown v v Question purpose and need, airspace Homeowners Association interference. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 43 Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination September 2001 4.3.1 Agency and Organization Contacts Agencies and organizations having jurisdiction and/or specific interest in the Project were contacted at the beginning of the process by the Applicant’s consultants. The purpose was to inform them about the Project, verify the status and availability of existing environmental data, request data and comments, and solicit input on the Route Selection Study. Additional contacts were made to obtain information on plans or projects near the alternative transmission line routes. In April 2001, letters were sent to nine Native American groups inviting them to participate in the Project by offering comments or input on traditional cultural properties that they may identify near the alternative transmission line routes. A list of the agencies and organizations contacted is provided in Table 4-2. 4.3.2 Community Participation Community participation has been conducted throughout the Project in order to identify and respond to specific issues of concern expressed by the agencies, public, and communities in the Project area. Two CWGs were assembled—one on the Kenai Peninsula and the other in Anchorage. Representation included residents, property owners, realtors, municipal and borough government, special-interest groups, representatives from community councils, area school districts, and Native American groups (Table 4-3). Throughout the planning process the CWGs have reviewed information presented in group meetings. The CWGs’ knowledge of localized issues and concerns were important in identifying alternatives to be evaluated for detailed environmental studies. Each group met five times at key milestones during the process. They received detailed presentations on the purpose and need for the Project, description of the Project, siting criteria, baseline inventory studies, approach for the impact assessment process and mitigation measures, and process for screening alternative routes. A list of the issues discussed at each meeting is provided in Table 4-4. 4.3.3 Native American, Indigenous, and Tribal Involvement Each of the five Native American groups whose landholdings would be potentially traversed by the Project’s alternative routes were invited to participate in a CWG in order to communicate their concerns and knowledge of traditional cultural places. These groups are the Cook Inlet Regional Corporation, Pt. Possession Group, Salamatof Native Association, Tyonek Native Corporation, and Kenai Native Association. The Kenaitze Indian Tribe was also a participating member of the Kenai CWG. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination 4-4 September 2001 TABLE 4-2 CONTACTS WITH AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS Federal Agencies Local Agencies Municipality of Anchorage DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Forest Service Bureau of Land Management Chugach National Forest Fish and Wildlife Service Seward Ranger District Division of Realty Glacier Ranger District Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Rural Utilities Service U.S. Geological Survey DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Water Resources National Marine Fisheries Service ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Region X Department of the Army-Fort Richardson FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Planning Department Air Traffic Division Environmental Resource Department U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Alaska District U.S. Coast Guard State Agencies ALASKA Department of Commerce Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Alaska Railroad Corporation Anchorage International Airport Department of Community and Regional Affairs Planning Department Department of Environmental Conservation Planning Division Department of Fish & Game Office of the Governor Department of Governmental Coordination State Senate Department of Labor Department of Natural Resources Land Resource Assessment & Development Section Parks & Outdoor Recreation Chugach State Park Local Agencies CITY OF KENAI MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE Kenai Community Library Anchorage School District CITY OF SEWARD Beautification Task Force Seward Chamber of Commerce Community Planning & Development CITY O F SOLDOTNA Federation of Community Councils City Manager's Office Abbott Loop Public Works Bayshore/Klatt Soldotna Public Library Campbell Park KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH Eagle River Cooper Landing Public Library Huffman/O’ Malley Kenai School District Old Seward/Oceanview Planning Department Rabbit Creek Sand Lake Taku/Campbell Turnagain University Area Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination 4-5 September 2001 TABLE 4-2 CONTACTS WITH AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS Girdwood Board of Supervisors Mayor's Office Office of Fiscal Budget Management Parks & Recreation Transportation Planning Department Turnagain Arm Board of Supervisors ZJ Loussac Public Library POSTMASTER Cooper Landing, Chugiak, Eagle River, Hope, Kenai, Nikiski, Soldotna, Sterling, Tyonek Native Agencies Alexander Creek, Inc. Caswell Native Association Chickaloon-Moose Creek Native Association, Inc. Knikatnu, Inc. Native Village of Georgetown Native Village of Tyonek Chugachmiut Ninilchik Native Association, Inc. Cook Inlet Region, Inc. Pt. Possession Inc. Eklutna, Inc. Salamatof Native Association, Inc. Endi’ina Ya Ida’ina Committee Seldovia Native Association, Inc. Kaguyak Village Tyonek Native Corporation Kenai Natives Association, Inc. Ugashik Village Kenaitze Indian Tribe, IRA Organizations Alaska Airmen’s Association Inc. Alaska Rural Electric Co-Op Association Alaska TREES Inc. Alcan Electrical & Engineering Anchorage Economic Development Corporation ARCO Alaska Inc. Arktos Associates BP Exploration Capital Resource Associates Carr-Gotstein Properties City Electric, Inc. Civil Air Patrol Cultural Resource Consultants D’Ewart Representatives Dynamic Properties Empire North, Inc. ERA-North Kenai Era Aviation, Inc. First National Bank of Anchorage John P. Bagoy & Associates, Inc. Kenai Merit Inn Kenai Princess Lodge Kenai River Sportfishing, Inc. Kenai Visitors & Convention Bureau, Inc. Knik Canoers & Kayakers, Inc. Lang Consulting Legislative Research Agency Marathon Oil Company National Bank of Alaska Norcon, Inc. Peninsula Clarion Phillips Petroleum Company R.A. Kreig & Associates Redi Electric, Inc. REMAX of the Peninsula Seward Animal Clinic Shell Western E&P Inc. Tesoro Alaska Refinery UNOCAL Oil & Gas Operations Special Interest Groups Alaska Association of Realtors Alaska Center for the Environment Alaska Citizens for Responsible Energy Dev. Alaska Conservation Foundation Alaska Federal Credit Union Alaska Marine Pilots Association Alaska Rainforest Campaign Alaska Sportfishing Association Kachemak Resource Institute Kenai Chamber of Commerce Kenai Elks Lodge No. 2425 Kenai Peninsula Builders Association Kenai Peninsula Fisherman's Association Kenai Peninsula Outdoor Coalition Kenai Peninsula Tourism Marketing Council Kenai Senior Citizens Center Southern Intertie Project DEIS 4-6 Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination September 2001 TABLE 4-2 CONTACTS WITH AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS Alaska Visitors Association Alaska Wildland Adventures Alaska Wildlife Alliance Alaskan Aviation Safety Foundation American Legion Post 20 Amvets Post No. 4 Anchorage Audubon Society Anchorage Chamber of Commerce Associated General Contractors of Alaska Chugach State Park Advisory Board Commercial Fisherman’s Association Cook Inlet Keeper Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Council Cooper Landing Fish & Game Advisory Committee Cooper Landing Land Advisory Committee David Rhode Photography Eastern Kenai Peninsula Eastern Kenai Peninsula Environmental Action Association Flying Crown Homeowners Association Fraternal Order of the Eagles Friends of Cooper Landing Greenpeace HEREU, Local 878 Hillside Area Land Owners Homer Chamber of Commerce Institute for Policy Research Kachemak Bay Conservation Society King Salmon Fund Kenai River Watershed Forum League of Women Voters Moose Lodge Peninsula National Audubon Society National Electrical Contractors Association National Parks & Conservation Association National Wildlife Federation Nikiski Senior Center North Peninsula Chamber of Commerce North Peninsula Recreation Department Regional Citizens Advisory Council Ron’s AK Lodge Seward Chamber of Commerce Sierra Club Soldotna Chamber of Commerce Soldotna Elks Lodge No. 2706 Soldotna Senior Citizens Center Southpark Homeowners Association Southwest Pilots Association Sterling Senior Citizens Center The Nature Conservancy The Wilderness Society Trailside Discovery Camp Trout Unlimited Trustees for Alaska United Cook Inlet Drift Association VFW Post No. 10046 Wildlife Federation of Alaska Utilities Anchorage Municipal Light & Power Chugach Electric Association City of Seward Golden Valley Electric Association Homer Electric Association, Inc. Matanuska Electric Association Southern Intertie Project DEIS 4-7 Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination September 2001 TABLE 4-3 CWG REPRESENTATION Kenai CWG Anchorage CWG Kenai Peninsula Borough Kenai Natives Association Salamatof Native Association Kenaitze Indian Tribe Kenai School District Soldotna Chamber of Commerce Friends of Cooper Landing Alaska Association of Realtors Municipality of Anchorage, Community Planning & Development Municipality of Anchorage, Division of Parks and Recreation Anchorage area residents Anchorage School District Abbott Loop Community Council Bayshore/Klatt Community Council Girdwood Supervisory Board 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 Southern Intertie Project DEIS 4-8 Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination : September 2001 ISSUES RAISED BY CWG MEMBERS TABLE 4-4 Meeting Topics Kenai CWG Anchorage CWG January 1997 @ effects on archaeological sites = purpose and need Meeting #1 - Purpose and need, @ utilization of existing line = influences on utility rates project description @ needs in the future @ reliability of lines @ reliability questions = = generation options @ alternative technologies available |™ costs and efficiency = costs and efficiency March 1997 = cost of power to Railbelt ™ project description, facilities Meeting #2 - Purpose and need, consumers ™ impacts on wetlands impact assessment process, @ residential conflicts = impacts on waterfowl sensitivity criteria @ right-of-way requirements m@ resource sensitivity = EMF effects April 1997 ™ watershed impacts = right-of-way requirements Meeting #3 - Assessment process, @ right-of-way requirements = impacts on scenic views types and significance of impacts, = effects on fire management plans |™ overhead versus underground alternative routes ™ property values lines ™ impacts on fisheries ™ erosion potential = impacts on future land uses = compatibility with management ™ engineering and reliability of line plan through avalanche zones = cumulative impacts ™ impacts on scenic highway = identified Pt. Woronozof ™ impacts on conveyed Native lands Alternative as the group’s = identified the Tesoro Alternative preference as the group’s preference July 1997 = public input for EIS ™ = qualifications of third-party Meeting #4 - Alternative route @ qualifications of third-party contractor screening process contractor m= ~— right-of-way requirements ™ access and mitigation ™ == vegetation removal @ right-of-way requirements m federal decision process September/October 1997 @ land use impacts along Kenai ™ status of cost benefit study Meeting #5 - Alternative route coastline = identification of preferred comparison = brown bear impacts on the landfall points in Anchorage KNWR m= federal decision process ™ impacts on views along north = requested incorporation of CWG Kenai Spur Highway compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act input to EIS Southern Intertie Project DEIS 4-9 Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination September 2001 4.4 ACCESS TO INFORMATION The project area encompasses a large geographic region, which includes the private allotments and conveyed lands of Native American groups. Considering the magnitude of the Project, it was important that information reached and was understood by people residing throughout the Project area. To encourage public partnerships and communication with the low income and minority populations in the Project area, the public involvement program was designed to be comprehensive, and to respect and incorporate the different socio-cultural perspectives into the environmental analysis criteria. Specifically, the program involved the following: = holding numerous additional meetings to accommodate dispersed populations in remote areas = involving appropriate Native corporations in planning, implementing, and reviewing environmental studies = working to ensure that graphic displays were understandable across different cultures = distributing informational materials throughout the Project Throughout the Project, numerous presentations were made at CWG, Native corporation, and cultural preservation group meetings. Visual display boards prepared for meetings were specifically designed to consider the cultural differences of the audiences and issues previously expressed. Although the process was carefully planned at the beginning of the Project, each step of the process was preceded by critical assessment to increase the Project team’s awareness and sensitivity, promote continued responsiveness, and improve methods and_ techniques. Cooperating agencies provided regular input to the process and Project progress was reviewed at periodic interagency meetings. Generally, this interaction focused on developing criteria, identifying and eliminating alternatives, and reviewing technical and environmental data, as well as the preferred alternatives. This planning process provided opportunities for public participation in and access to information on health and the environment as it relates to the Project. Attention to all public comments enhanced the outcome of the process. 4.5 ISSUES AND CONCERNS Issues and concerns raised during the scoping process were analyzed. Special technical studies were recommended where published information on a topic was considered inadequate or unavailable. Suggested mitigation measures were identified and considered as well. Laws, authorities, and related statutes and executive orders applicable to the Project were identified. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination 4-10 September 2001 Fourteen issues were identified that focused the environmental analyses and formed the basis for preparation of this EIS. These issues are described in this section. A summary table of the comments concerning each issue is presented in Table 4-5. Issue | - Purpose of and Need for the Project Issue 2 - Urban and Rural Land Use Issue 3 - Aviation Safety Issue 4 - Recreation and Tourism Issue 5 - Management Plans Issue 6 - Watershed Management and Soil Erosion Issue 7 - Visual Resources Issue 8 - Biology Issue 9 - Cultural Resources Issue 10 - Right-of-Way Limitations Issue 11 - Health and Safety Issue 12 - Avalanche Hazards Issue 13 - Socioeconomics Issue 14 - Alternatives to the Proposed Project 4.5.1 Issue 1 - Purpose of and Need for the Project Although the purpose and need for the project has been established through studies initiated by the AEA and the Railbelt Utilities, the proposed Project has been questioned for a variety of reasons. Concerns focus on whether or not benefits of the Project warrant the impacts on the environment, how the Project will financially impact customers, to what degree the reliability of the electrical system will improve, and what the energy transfer requirements will be. In addition to the proposed Project, rigorous analysis of alternatives has been suggested, including consideration of energy conservation; DSM; BESSs; and other generation sources such as new generation, wind generation, and fuel cells. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination 4-11 September 2001 TABLE 4-5 ISSUES IDENTIFIED Issue Comments Received Purpose and 1 Need for the Project Underlying Need = Unable to determine the underlying need for the transmission line. Need should be clearly defined and a reasonable range of alternatives for the project should be evaluated, such as energy conservation, local generation, system, and transmission alternatives. = The need for the project is not justified by the potential significant environmental impacts and questionable economic justification. Reliability = The purpose and need would not be met by constructing a transmission line parallel to the Quartz Creek transmission line due to avalanche risks. = Is reliability of power the main reason for the project? = What increase in reliability would construction of the new transmission line provide? = Current reliability of service from the existing transmission line system is acceptable in the Anchorage and Kenai areas. Residents are willing to put up with occasional power outages instead of the potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project. m= What is the difference between historical outages and present risk of outages (especially related to avalanches) after modifications have been included to the existing transmission line? = What is the cost and extent of current unreliability? Reliability and efficiency would not be met by routing the transmission line through avalanche areas. Energy Transfer = What is the status of existing energy transfer between Kenai and Anchorage? Benefits = The proposed Project would only benefit Anchorage (or only Kenai). m The Kenai and Anchorage areas independently have enough generation capacity. m= Would expanded power service from the route be available for local residents to utilize? (principally Moose Point, Grey Cliffs, and Fire Island.) Use Urban and 2 Rural Land ® Quartz Creek would have the least amount of environmental impacts and minimize impacts on residential neighborhoods. = The possibility of lawsuits from diminished property values is associated with Enstar. = The transmission line crossing residential lots would result in diminished property value. Does Alaska Railroad and Chugach Electric have the right to route a line along the railroad right-of-way? Avoid highly developed residential areas. Do not construct overhead transmission lines in residential areas. How would the proposed Project affect property owners? Proposed Project routing should consider potential zoning conflicts and land use changes as a result of the revision to the Anchorage Comprehensive Plan. Transmission lines should be planned in advance of residential and commercial development. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination 4-12 September 2001 TABLE 4-5 ISSUES IDENTIFIED Issue Comments Received = Right-of-way encroachment is a possibility with New Seward Highway and North Kenai Road. = Route lines through industrial areas (more compatible land use). = The western coast of the Kenai Peninsula is desirable for development; the transmission line could be a conflict. = North Kenai schools could be in close proximity; this would not be acceptable. 3 Aviation Safety Compliance with Federal Aviation Administration Regulations m= The FAA would need to conduct a hazard determination, which would identify potential problems (flight hazards, electrical interference) and any necessary mitigation measures (marker balls, lighting). = Project must comply with FAA navigation facilities standards. Potential Conflicts with Aircraft Use = The Tesoro Route presents a particular hazard for low flying aircraft that frequent the area during inclement weather. = Underground transmission lines would mitigate flight hazards near airports, float plane lakes, or beach strips, and avoid conflicts with planned expansion at Anchorage International Airport. = Flying Crown Airstrip in Oceanview would be shut down; transmission line would create flying hazard. 4 Recreation and Tourism Potter Marsh and Quartz Creek are heavily used for recreation. Project would alter the landscape and eliminate the wilderness values. Potential conflict with proposed Tony Knowles Coastal Trail. Current policy is to underground all transmission lines. Avoid impacts on Chugach State Park. Sixmile Creek drainage is sensitive because of recreational use. Avoid impacts on trails including Resurrection Trail. Can transmission line right-of-way be used for recreation trails? Would submarine routes affect sport fishing in Cook Inlet? Management Plans Conservation easement at mouth of Sixmile Creek. Project would require an amendment to the KNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan. How would Chugach National Forest administration incorporate this Project into the updated Forest Plan? = Right-of-way along Enstar Route would be incompatible with the KNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan. m= The 1992 recommendations in the Kenai Peninsula Borough Plan include “Maintain scenic quality and unique and rural setting of Cooper Landing.” = To what extent would implementation of the proposed Project require additional efforts by land management staff (such as increased patrols for trespassers)? = Both New Seward Highway and Minnesota Drive are controlled access rights- of-way, which restrict the ability to construct or maintain the Project from the road. m Land and Water Conservation Funds have been used in Captain Cook SRA and Chugach State Park providing limitations to additional development within the park boundaries. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 4-13 Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination September 2001 TABLE 4-5 ISSUES IDENTIFIED Issue Comments Received @ The Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan is currently being revised and the municipal planning department anticipates that changes may directly relate to siting the proposed Project. A cooperative effort with the plan update should be considered. @ State tidelands and other lands managed by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources must comply with the Alaska Coastal Management Plan. The Municipality of Anchorage utility corridor plan is not designed for this type of project. Project must comply with the Kenai River Special Management Plan. Watershed 6 Management and Soil Erosion Potter Marsh is vulnerable to silt input from any construction in the vicinity. Minimize change to bluffs along Kenai River and the Cook Inlet coastline. Minimize right-of-way clearing requirements to the maximum extent possible. 7 Visual Resources Residential and Recreational Viewsheds = What would the proposed transmission line look like? = Overhead lines along roadways within the Anchorage Bowl would adversely affect local neighborhoods. = Visual impacts on residential areas need to be evaluated in terms of loss of property value and sense of place (specifically, Cooper Landing, Kenai, south Anchorage, Moose Point, Grey Cliffs, and Pt. Possession). Cooper Landing recently completed a community planning effort that identified preservation of aesthetics as a desired attribute. @ The proposed Project should avoid the KNWR due to the high scenic value. Design Considerations = Recommend the use of the existing route to minimize aesthetic impacts. Possibly construct a new line and remove the old facilities. = Project alternatives should include design elements that would eliminate or minimize adverse effects on aesthetic qualities of the area. Suggest undergrounding the line when crossing visually sensitive areas. Viewsheds from Travelways = Visual impacts may affect residents and tourists who travel the Seward Highway National Scenic Byway, Sterling Highway, and Turnagain Pass, or who visit Summit Lake, Stormy Lake, Cooper Landing, Swan Lake, and Sixmile River (Quartz Creek Route). = Recommend undergrounding the lines through urban areas. = Enstar seems to minimize disturbance and visual issues on the Peninsula. 8 Biology Wetlands = Draft EIS should identify wetland types, acreage, and location, and assess wetland functions and values. All construction activities should avoid high resource wetlands A and B in Anchorage and wetlands in the KNWR to the maximum extent practicable. = If wetlands cannot be avoided, implementation of Best Management Practices should be used to minimize effects. The draft EIS should include a discussion of the Best Management Practices. = Additional clearing would have impacts on wetlands that are already compromised. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination 4-14 September 2001 TABLE 4-5 ISSUES IDENTIFIED Issue Comments Received Management m= ADF&G requires burial of transmission line through ACWR. = ADF&G recommends boring underneath the vegetated portions of the refuge. = Chickaloon Bay is a state critical habitat area. m Is there a possibility of spruce bark beetle increase? Sensitive Species = Avoid disturbance to sensitive wildlife species, including brown bear, lynx, wolf, trumpeter swan, and bald eagle. m There is a high density of brown bears on the Chickaloon River. = Enstar Route would disrupt critical brown bear habitat. = Caribou wintering and calving grounds are along the Enstar Route. Wildlife Habitat m Project would irretrievably alter the landscape reducing wildlife habitat (hydraulic alterations would impact wildlife and habitat). m= Minimize adverse effects on fish and wildlife habitat. = Cumulative impacts on wildlife and habitat need to be addressed. = Proposed Project may improve some types of wildlife habitat. Waterfowl = Effects on waterfowl from overhead lines should be mitigated. = Chickaloon Bay is a migration staging area. = The Environmental Analysis (EVAL) and EIS should have a discussion on Potter Marsh waterfowl. Fisheries = Would fish be impacted by damaged submarine cables? @ Siltation as a result of construction would adversely impact fish. Cultural Resources Concerns Expressed by Kenai Native Association = Archaeological resources need to be addressed in the EIS. m Areas surrounding Cooper Landing and Kenai River have high densities of cultural sites. m Increased access may result in damage to unknown archaeological and historical properties. Native groups should be allowed to participate in survey work. Proposed Project may hamper traditional usage. Avoid disturbance to burial grounds at Pt. Possession. Avoid use of Native lands for proposed project, specifically the Pt. Possession Native Group. Right-of-Way 10 | Limitations Use of Right-of-Way m= The ADOT/PF has restricted access along most of their rights-of-way. = Expansion of Enstar Pipeline right-of-way conflicts with the KNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan. = Would public access be available along the right-of-way for the proposed Project? = Would an easement or right-of-way be required on adjoining properties for maintenance access? m The proposed Project would increase the chance of trespassers because of the 150-foot right-of-way that would invite usage. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination 4-15 September 2001 TABLE 4-5 ISSUES IDENTIFIED Issue Comments Received = Can the right-of-way accommodate recreational trails? = Suggest consolidating right-of-way with other projects; comprehensive planning should be considered instead of piece-by-piece planning. @ Use existing right-of-way, even if it must be widened. Right-of-Way Requirements = Minimize right-of-way width. = Would the right-of-way be 150 feet wide in residential areas and how would that affect property owners? = The only mitigation that should be required by the utilities for this action should be funds required to reclaim the land at the end of the Project. 11 Health and Safety Effects of EMF need to be addressed in the draft EIS. Potential hazards of the transmission line include EMF negatively affecting nearby residents and systems in homes. = Transmission lines and schools are not compatible due to the potential health effects (along North Kenai Road). Physical Hazards = Can gas lines be located close to electrical transmission lines without danger of explosion or fire? = Transmission lines should be buried to protect human safety. @ Falling lines can be a hazard to people or property. = Request information on the magnitude of the electrical hazard to humans and wildlife and the effects of a spill from insulating oil. 12 Avalanche Hazards = Need to weigh consequences of building additional line along right-of-way known for avalanche problems. = Designing an additional line through 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. 13 Socioeconomics Utility Rates What effect would construction costs have on utility rates? Would the new line reduce the cost of power in the future? No individual should carry the burden for all rate payers. Would utility rates increase? What is the current and projected cost of electricity? Quality of Life = Quality of life would suffer if the proposed Project is introduced into an area not currently used as a utility corridor. = What impact would the Tesoro Route have on people and how many would be affected by the Quartz Creek Route? = Impacts on local communities should be considered. Project Cost = Concerned with cost comparisons of options. a Is the main difference in route costs associated with the submarine cables? = How much (percentage-wise) would it cost to bury the route? Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination 4-16 September 2001 TABLE 4-5 ISSUES IDENTIFIED Issue Comments Received m= Are submarine alternatives economically feasible? Cost Benefit Analysis = Cost benefit analysis needs to be updated to reflect current market conditions. When would the benefits accrue? Where are the benefits coming from? How much taxpayer money is going into this Project? Where is the money coming from to fund this Project? Effect of the Proposed Project = Would landowners directly affected by the right-of-way be compensated? = Economic savings versus losses to Peninsula communities should be considered. Development m= What are the economic benefits to the communities in the Project area? = What are the electrical benefits to the communities in the Project area and the Railbelt? Environmental Justice = Consider environmental justice for the residents of the trailer park at Minnesota Drive and Dimond Boulevard. Alternatives to a New Line m= Evaluate alternative means of constructing, operating, and maintaining transmission lines to minimize environmental impacts. = The full range of reasonable and feasible alternatives should be evaluated, including energy conservation, local generation, system, fuel cells, wind generation, and transmission alternatives. m= System selected for final approval should be the most efficient, cost effective, and easiest to maintain and operate. = More information needs to be presented in terms of why alternatives such as energy conservation are not feasible solutions to the proposed Project. The EVAL should also discuss which energy conservation measures were considered and why they were rejected, what could be done instead of building the intertie. = Corridor should incorporate an access road along the coast (Tesoro alternative). There is potential to incorporate a causeway across Turnagain Arm. = Avoid a submarine crossing from Pt. Possession to Pt. Woronzof by running a route along the north shore of the Kenai Peninsula to Chickaloon Bay, then cross Turnagain Arm to South Anchorage. m Use existing transmission line corridor and tie into existing substations. Suggest removal of old 115kV and 69kV transmission lines, thus improving the aesthetic value of the area. = Consider routing a submarine cable along Quartz Creek to Sixmile to Hope and across Turnagain Arm to Potter Marsh. Alternatives to 14 the Proposed Project Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination 4-17 September 2001 TABLE 4-5 ISSUES IDENTIFIED Issue Comments Received Alternative Feasibility = Route selection should be flexible to allow avoidance of sensitive areas. = What options have been considered for various environmentally sensitive areas and avalanche zones? @ Rationale and criteria for the elimination of alternatives should be documented and presented clearly in the EVAL and EIS. = Alternatives that do not increase reliable and efficient energy transfer (the purpose and need for the Project) should not be considered in the EVAL. = Consider a range of alternative construction techniques to minimize environmental impacts (burying substantial portions of the route, using modified tower designs, etc.). = Discourage use of existing Quartz Creek Route because the same “natural menaces” would be doubled. m= Overhead and underground lines are more accessible and safer than submarine lines. Submarine crossings are not practical due to cost and engineering feasibility. If Project follows railroad, it should be placed underground. Resolutions have been passed by Bayshore, Klatt, and Oceanview community councils against locating the Project within their communities. = Routing should be different than current line and should have substations to provide local power. 4.5.2 Issue 2 - Urban and Rural Land Use While the study corridors are dominated by federal and state managed lands, concentrations of private lands occur within the Municipality of Anchorage and the KPB, 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. Issues identified for land use impacts include possible displacement of homes and buildings, right-of-way restrictions and limitations, 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. 4.5.3 Issue 3 - Aviation Safety Alaska leads the nation in private aircraft use per capita. Various types of aircraft are used extensively for both private and commercial interests including float planes and small single- and twin-engine planes. Aviation facilities include airstrips, lakes, beaches, airports, demarcation devices, and navigation aids. Low altitude air traffic occurs through mountain passes and along coastlines during inclement weather, raising a question about potential aviation hazards within navigable airspace. In addition, private individuals, organizations, and the FAA have indicated that the proximity of the transmission line to aviation facilities could be a hazard, if not appropriately mitigated. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination 4-18 September 2001 Two main topics of concern related to aviation were identified and include compliance with FAA regulations and possible conflicts with aircraft use. 4.5.4 Issue 4 - Recreation and Tourism Recreation activities occur in the region year-round and 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, and more. Commercial recreation plays a large part in this area as well with guides, outfitters, and air/water taxiing services catering to tourists and residents. 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. Concerns regarding recreation and tourism include potential changes to landscape and potential impacts to the wildlife involved in recreational viewing, fishing, or hunting. 4.5.5 Issue 5 - Management Plans Federal, state, and local agencies and the public have expressed concerns regarding compliance with existing management plans. Several planning efforts are underway to update management plans within the project area. Specifically, the Municipality of Anchorage Comprehensive Plan, Chugach National Forest Plan, KNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan, and several site- specific plans are undergoing revisions. Concern has been expressed that the proposed Project may conflict with certain planning and management areas. 4.5.6 Issue 6 - Watershed Management and Soil Erosion A large portion of the study area lies within the Kenai River watershed, one of the most valuable resources in south-central Alaska. Given the proximity of the proposed Project, several agencies and special interest groups have indicated concerns related to water quality, fisheries, and degradation of important watershed resources, including vegetation clearing, potential soil erosion on slopes, and potential siltation of streams. 4.5.7 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 aesthetic visual value. Various federal, state, and local agencies advocate protection and enhancement of visual resources as part of their management plans, and advocate maintenance of visual resources in the study area. Comments emphasize preservation of the landscape character and panoramic viewsheds from residences, travel routes, vistas, recreation sites, trails, rivers, lakes, and use Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination 4-19 September 2001 areas found throughout the study area. Other comments addressed design considerations to minimize negative effects and included requests for visual simulations of the Project facilities. 4.5.8 Issue 8 - Biology The region encompassing the Kenai Peninsula, Turnagain Arm, and Chugach Mountains is rich in diversity and abundance of animal species. Public lands in the study area are mandated to manage fish and wildlife populations. This issue centers on effects of the Project on wildlife habitat, the presence of sensitive species, and vegetation clearing. Concern has been expressed by the public and agencies about construction of the transmission line through sensitive habitats and ground disturbing activities that could impact vegetation or habitat and disrupt wildlife behavior. In addition, increased access to remote areas and the resulting effect on wildlife populations (brown and grizzly bears) has been questioned. Comments have also been made concerning effects of Project construction and maintenance on wetland 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, especially anadromous fish streams, is also a concern identified by the agencies and public. Comments about migratory birds and raptors (trumpeter swans and bald eagles) focus on bird strikes, electrocution, impacts on nesting sites, impacts on shorebird and waterfowl habitats, and the proximity and effect of the Project on raptors. Other issues related to biological resources include cumulative effects on the KNWR, wetlands, sensitive species, habitat, waterfowl, fisheries, and management goals. 4.5.9 Issue 9 - Cultural Resources Although cultural resources have been identified in the area, the potential exists for unidentified resources to be present, and this is confirmed by 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 Native Association has expressed concern that the Project may impact Native interests and resources. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination 4-20 September 2001 4.5.10 Issue 10 - 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. 4.5.11 Issue 11 - Health and Safety The concerns voiced by the public and agencies on this issue relate to EMF and physical hazards of overhead transmission lines. 4.5.12 Issue 12 — 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 locations, for an average of once every 1.6 years or more frequently. The largest period of time without interruption was 8 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. 4.5.13 Issue 13 - Socioeconomics The Project area encompasses a varied socioeconomic base ranging from largely undeveloped lands with small towns and cities to large metropolitan areas such as the Anchorage Bowl. Lifestyles range from remote, subsistence-based residents to urban residents who rely on employment to support their needs. The main topics identified through a review of all comments received include potential effects on utility rates, impacts to the quality of life, Projects costs, the result of the cost/benefit analysis, local effects of the proposed Project and development concerns, and compliance with Executive Order 12898 Environmental Justice. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination 4-21 September 2001 4.5.14 Issue 14 - Alternatives to the Proposed Project The public and agency personnel have questioned whether or not alternative means of electrical generation were feasible and alternative routes could be considered. In addition, recommendations and questions regarding the economic and technical feasibility of the routes were raised. Rigorous analyses of alternatives were suggested, including consideration of energy conservation, DSM, BESSs, and other generation sources such as new generation, wind generation, and fuel cells. 4.6 AUTHORIZATIONS AND PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS As part of the scoping process, applicable laws, authorities, related statutes, and executive orders were identified for the Project. The anticipated permitting requirements and authorizations are similar for all of the alternatives under consideration. These authorizations are listed in Table 4-6 and are summarized below for the Tesoro and Enstar routes. = Tesoro — The Tesoro alternative corridor may require a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration to the FAA because of the location of aviation navigation equipment on Fire Island. The LWCFA requires the approval of the NPS 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. The Bureau of Indian Affairs would oversee any permitting issues on Native allotments potentially crossed near Pt. Possession. In addition, Title XI and Section 22(g) of the ANCSA permitting and regulatory requirements will also need to be considered for lands within the KNWR. Section 22(g) of ANCSA regulates uses on certain Native-owned lands within the KNWR, in that they remain subject to the laws and regulations governing use and development of the refuge. = Enstar — The majority of the Enstar alternative is within the KNWR and would require compliance with Title XI of ANILCA and consultation with the USFWS for final approval. Title XI regulates transportation and utility systems within the conservation system units in Alaska, including the KNWR. In addition, local permits would be required within the Soldotna and Municipality of Anchorage areas. This corridor also potentially affects three wildlife habitat areaa—ACWR, Potter Marsh, and Chickaloon Bay—at the marine crossing. This crossing would require consultation with the ADF&G, USFWS, and USACE Alaska District. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination September 2001 TABLE 4-6 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 7 CFR Part 1794 RUS Environmental Policies and Procedures 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. 668 dd - 668 ee et. seq., National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 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. 1131-1136 Wilderness 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. 403, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., Clean Water Act of 1977 33 U.S.C. 1241 et seq., Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 33 U.S.C. 1344, Section 404 of the Clean Water 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 1191, 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 Presidential EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination 4-23 September 2001 4.6.1 Regulatory Background Federal Lands Jurisdiction Of the current alternative routes under study between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage, the Enstar Route crosses the KNWR, which is under the jurisdiction of the USFWS. Improvements to Dave’s Creek Substation will occur on a parcel of state land that is located within the boundaries of the Chugach National Forest. As a result, the role of the U.S. Forest Service is primarily in a review capacity to track the Project and comment on any indirect impacts on the forest. ANILCA Application The KNWR is a designated conservation system unit that is managed by the USFWS under ANILCA (P.L. 96-487). Therefore, regulations implementing Title XI of ANILCA apply to the entire Project (43 CFR Part 36). Because the Enstar alternative route was selected as its preferred alternative, the IPG filed a Title XI Transportation/Utility Systems Application on August 5, 1999. Following the planned transportation corridor along the Tesoro Pipeline would involve crossing a corner of a section of the KNWR. In general, criteria application for the approval of the Enstar Route under ANILCA Title XI require that (1) this alternative must be found “compatible with the purposes for which the Unit (KNWR) was established” and (2) there must be no “economically feasible and prudent alternative route for the system.” These two criteria imply separate factors that are described below. Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act The Tesoro Route crosses a 4,500-acre property at Pt. Possession that was owned by the Pt. Possession, Inc. (a Native group). This property was transferred from the KNWR through the authorization of ANCSA. The process for such a conveyance of lands is discussed in 22(f) of ANCSA. The property, located within the boundaries of the KNWR, was recently sold to a private developer. The developer has since defaulted, and the land has been returned to Pt. Possession, Inc. Section 22(g) of ANCSA explains that lands such as the Pt. Possession property “remain subject to the laws and regulations governing the use and development of such Refuge.” While Title XI of ANILCA does not apply to Pt. Possession conveyed lands, Section 22(g) of ANCSA requires that projects constructed on these lands be found compatible with surrounding refuge lands. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination 4-24 September 2001 4.6.2 Permits Several different permits will be required prior to construction of the transmission line. These permits are listed and summarized in Table 4-7. Chapter 4 - Scoping, Consultation, and Coordination Southern Intertie Project DEIS 4-25 17 September 2001 Issue Action Requiring Permit Approval or Review Permit Approval or Review Corridor Affected Comment Contact Federal Wetlands/ A Section 404 Permit is required when wetlands are affected by the discharge | Section 404 Permit All alternative corridors | The Enstar Route initially USAEDA Regulatory Branch Waterways of dredge or fill material, or transmission line construction activities. under consideration appears to cross more P.O. Box 898 wetlands than other routes Anchorage, AK 99506-0899 Wetlands/ A Section 10 Permit is required for the construction or placement of any Section 10 All submarine crossings USAEDA Regulatory Branch Waterways structures in or above navigable waters of the United States. and the aerial crossing at P.O. Box 898 Bird Point Anchorage, AK 99506-0899 Submarine Permit required for discharge of wastewater from a point source into federal- National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System All alternative corridors | Applies specifically to EPA Crossing and state-owned waters. The permit is also required for storm water runoff. A__| Permit for Storm Water Discharges under consideration substation/switching stations | Alaska Operations Office Facilities/ Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan is required for construction activities 222 W. 7th Ave #19 Substations in order to be covered under the EPA’s General Permit for storm water Anchorage, AK 99513-7588 discharges. Submarine Plans are required for oil storage facilities storing in excess of 660 gallons ina | Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans All alternative corridors | Applies specifically to EPA Crossing single container above ground; in excess of 1,320 gallons in aggregate in tanks under consideration cooling fluid reservoirs for Alaska Operations Office Facilities/ above ground; or in excess of 42,000 gallons below ground. submarine cable crossing. 222 W. 7th Ave #19 Substations This permit could potentially | Anchorage, AK 99513-7588 be avoided by placing the storage tanks underground. Sensitive Plant | A Section 7 consultation is required to assure protection of endangered or Section 7 consultation (in conjunction with Section All alternative corridors | No threatened and USFWS Ecological Services and/or Wildlife | threatened species and wildlife. 404 or 10 Permitting) under consideration endangered species have 605 W. 4th Ave, Rm 62 Species been identified within the Anchorage, AK 99501 study area Aviation A notice to the FAA, for the review and approval, will be required to address Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration and a Potentially the Tesoro A hazard determination will | Air Traffic Division AAL 532 concerns and effects of the proposed project on the safe and efficient use of Hazard Determination (Form 7460-1) Route pending require public review of the 222 W. 7th Ave, Box 14 navigable air space. identification of exact proposed project Anchorage, AK 99513 transmission line location Right-of-Way Right-of-Way Permit would be required for obtaining right-of-way within a Right-of Way Permit All corridors The Tesoro Route crosses USFWS Div. of Realty National Wildlife Refuge. KNWR <1 mile 1011 E. Tudor Rd Anchorage, AK 99503 Right-of-Way Special Use Permit would be required for obtaining right-of-way on National Special Use Permit for use of Forest Lands Existing Quartz Creek USFS Forest land. Transmission Line and Chugach National Forest, Supervisor’s Office Bird Point alternative 3301 “C” Street, Suite 300 Anchorage, AK 99503-3998 Right-of-Way Non-recreation use in a LWCF recreation area requires “Conversion of Use” “Conversion of Use” approval Tesoro Route and Applies to Captain Cook DNR/Parks & Outdoor Recreation approval. Nonprohibited conversions of use are approved by the NPS and the potentially the existing State Park. Regulations 3601 “C” Street, Suite 1200 Department of the Interior. Quartz Creek Route prohibit overhead power Anchorage, AK 99503-5921 lines in LWCF areas; buried power lines are permitted Right-of-Way Right-of-Way Grant and temporary Use Permit would be required for Grant Right-of-Way and Temporary Use Permit Tesoro Route Grant Right-of-Way would BLM Division of Lands Anchorage District Office (041) obtaining right-of-way on Bureau of Land Management-, Bureau of Indian Affairs-, and ANCSA-selected lands. require concurrence by ANCSA allottee 6881 Abbott Loop Rd Anchorage, AK 99507 TABLE 4-7 PERMITS AND APPROVALS Southern Intertie Project PDEIS 4-26 Chapter 4 - Public Involvement September 2001 Issue Action Requiring Permit Approval or Review Permit Approval or Review Corridor Affected Comment Contact State of Alaska Wetlands/ Permitting of projects requiring more than one state agency permit or federal Coastal Consistency Review/Determination All alternative corridors Office of Management and Budget Waterways permit (requiring state concurrence) must be coordinated by Division of under consideration Division of Governmental Coordination Governmental Coordination for the state’s review. 550 W. 7" Avenue, Suite 1660 Anchorage, AK 99501 Wetlands/ Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) must issue a 401 Certificate of Reasonable Assurance (401) All - It is assumed 401 DEC/Southcentral Regional Office Waterways Certificate to accompany any federal permit issued under the Federal Clean certification would be 555 Cordova Street Water Act. For example, a USACE Section 404 Permit would trigger the need complete pending Anchorage, AK 99501 for a State certificate. issuance of a Section 404 Permit Cultural State Historic Preservation Office will provide a recommendation regarding a | Concurrence that proposed actions do not adversely All alternative corridors | Potential to identify sites is DNR/SHPO Resources project's potential impacts on known cultural resources. impact National Register and eligible properties under consideration equal among all alternatives 3601 C Street, Suite 1278 Anchorage, AK 99510-7001 State Parks A Special Use Permit is required for park lands along the right-of-way. Parks Special Use Permit All alternative corridors | Applies to Captain Cook, DNR/Parks & Outdoor Recreation under consideration Chugach, Kenai River, and Frontier Building Potters Marsh State Parks. 3601 “C” Street, Suite 1200 Quartz Creek Corridor would | Anchorage, AK 99503-5921 require review by the Chugach State Park Board of Supervisors Right-of-Way A Land Use Permit is required for use of state lands along the proposed right- Land Use Permit, Tideland Use or Lease, Right-of- All alternative corridors Regional Office, DNR/Land of-way. A right-of-way permit is required for construction of transmission Way under consideration Frontier Building lines or other improvements that cross state lands. Southcentral District Office 3601 “C” Street, Suite 1080 Anchorage, AK 99503-5937 Existing Approval is required before construction on ADOT/PF managed state lands or | Utility Permit on State Right-of-Way Enstar and Quartz Creek | Potentially more DOT&PF Design & Construction Facilities for structures crossing ADOT/PF rights-of-way. involvement along Quartz 4111 Aviation Dr. Creek Corridor Anchorage, AK 99502 Construction ADEC must authorize plans and specifications for construction that would be Air Quality Permit All alternative corridors DEC/Southcentral Regional Office undertaken and must assess emission standards and possible air contamination under consideration 555 Cordova Street resulting from that construction. Road dust, wind-blown contaminants, Anchorage, AK 99501 emissions from generators could cause this permit to be required. Construction Control of road dust. To control and legalize surface oiling in order to prevent | Surface Oiling Permit All alternative corridors | Applies to access roads DEC/Southcentral Regional Office water pollution. under consideration 555 Cordova Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Construction A General Waterway/Waterbody Application must be submitted to ADF&G if | Fish Habitat Permit heavy equipment usage or construction activities disturb the natural flow or bed of any stream, river, or lake. These permits also stipulate how stream water withdrawals may be conducted. All alternative corridors under consideration Construction access ADF&G/Habitat and Restoration Division 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 9958-1599 Sensitive Plant and/or Wildlife Species A Special Areas Permit Application must be submitted for activities conducted in legislatively designated state game refuges, critical habitat areas, and state game sanctuaries. Special Areas Permit Potentially the Tesoro and Enstar routes Applies to the ACWR ADF&G/Habitat and Restoration Division 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 9958-1599 TABLE 4-7 PERMITS AND APPROVALS Southern Intertie Project PDEIS 4-27 Chapter 4 - Public Involvement September 2001 Issue Action Requiring Permit Approval or Review Permit Approval or Review Corridor Affected Comment Contact Construction ADNR must approve any plan to burn materials during fire season. The permit | Burn Permit All alternative corridors | Applies to potential burning DNR /Forestry is issued by the State Forester or local rangers after review of burn plan. under consideration of slash in cleared right-of- Kenai-Kodiak Area Office way HC 1 Box 107 Soldotna AK 99669 Construction This permit is required if water withdrawals will occur during construction. Water Rights or Temporary Water Use All alternative corridors | Applies during construction | DNR/Water The permit lasts for the length of a temporary project. under consideration 3601 “C” Street, Suite 822 Anchorage, AK 99503 Municipality of Anchorage Right-of-Way The Municipality of Anchorage will require Conditional Use Permits, Land Use Permit All alternative corridors | Specific permitting Municipality of Anchorage concurrence with Section 404 Permits and platting requirements for right-of- Conditional Use Permit under consideration requirements will be Department of Community Planning & Development way easements. Zoning Changes determined once a route is P.O. Box 196650 selected for construction Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 Kenai Peninsula Borough Right-of-Way The KPB will require Conditional Use Permits, concurrence with Section 404 | Right-of-Way All alternative corridors | Specific permitting Kenai Peninsula Borough Permits and platting requirements for right-of-way easements. Platting under consideration requirements will be 144 N. Binkley Street Conditional Use Permit determined once a route is Soldotna, AK 99669 selected for construction Other Right-of-Way Approval would be required to locate a transmission line within, cross, or Leasing of Alaska Railroad Corporation lands, Alaska | All alternative corridors Alaska Railroad Corporation parallel to a railroad right-of-way. Railroad Permit and Construction under consideration 327 W. Ship Creek Ave Anchorage, AK 99501 Right-of-Way Approval would be required to locate a transmission line across Cook Inlet Leasing of Right-of-Way Tesoro Corridor Region, Inc. lands. Cook Inlet Region, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 500 Anchorage, AK 99509 TABLE 4-7 PERMITS AND APPROVALS Southern Intertie Project PDEIS 4-28 Chapter 4 - Public Involvement September 2001 CHAPTER 5 PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS CHAPTER 5 PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS The individuals listed below prepared or contributed to the preparation of this DEIS. Name Education/Experience Involvement Rural Utilities Service Larry Wolfe MS, Resource Management = 27 years of experience m= Lead Agency Representative Dennis Rankin MS, Biology = 25 years of experience m Lead Agency Representative Nurul Islam PhD, Agriculture = 30 years of experience = = Scoping Charles Philpott BS, Electrical Engineering = Engineering Review, Purpose and m= 37 years of experience Need Carl Morgan BS, Aerospace Engineering = Engineering Review, Purpose and = 23 years of experience Need U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Brian Anderson BS, Wildlife Biology m 18 years of experience m= Agency Representative Power Engineers Randy Pollock, P.E., P. ENG. BS, Electrical Engineering m= 29 years of experience = = Project Director, Purpose and Need, Project Facilities Descriptions Mike Walbert, P.E. BS, Electrical Engineering = 16 years of experience = = Electrical Studies U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Jack Hewitt [ BS, Forestry m Agency Representative _Environmental Planning Group, Inc. Garlyn Bergdale MLA, Landscape Architecture BS, Geography m 26 years of experience = Project Director, Environmental Studies Randall Palmer MLA, Landscape Architecture BSLA, Outdoor Recreation/Landscape Architecture m__ 17 years of experience = = Project Coordinator, Visual Resources BA, Physics = 9 years of experience Michael Doyle MLA, Landscape Architecture = Project Coordination, Land Use, BS, Environmental Design Recreation, Visual Resources 8 years of experience Amy Jerome MBA, 1998, Business = Project Coordination Administration BS, 1996, Environmental Science m 6 years of experience Lyndy Long BA, English Literature = Project Assistant, Public m2 years of experience Involvement E. Linwood Smith PhD, Zoology = Biology MS, Zoology BS, Zoology m= 28 years of experience Mary Anne McLeod MS, Wildlife Conservation = Biology Southern Intertie Project DEIS 5-1 Chapter 5 - Preparers and Contributors September 2001 Name Education/Experience Involvement Glenn Darrington PhD, History (anticipated 2001) MA, Anthropology BA, Anthropology = 15 years of experience Cultural Resources Newton DeBardeleben BS, Environmental Science = 2 years of experience Land Use Joe Merkel BSLA, Landscape Architecture @ 12 years of experience Visual Simulations Scott Woods BS, Geography, Urban/Environmental Planning = 10 years of experience GIS Ryan Miller MS, Environmental Resources BS, Philosophy = 5 years of experience GIS Shirley Wiley Business Management = 34 years of experience Editor Kristie James Document Management = 21 years of experience Electronic Documentation JF Sato and Associates Tim Tetherow MLA, Landscape Architecture BA, Landscape Architecture = 28 years of experience Project Manager, Environmental Studies Teresa O'Neil BS, Landscape Architecture = 10 years of experience Visual Resources and Simulations URS Corporation Robert Mott MA, Economics BA, Economics = 36 years of experience Socioeconomics David Erickson MS, Biology BS, Wildlife Biology = 30 years of experience Biological Resources A.E. (Gene) Rogge PhD, Anthropology MA, Anthropology BA, Anthropology = 28 years of experience Cultural Resources BA, Anthropology = 25 years of experience Nancy Darigo MS, Geology Marine Environment/Geology BS, Geology = 16 years of experience Mike Yarborough PhD, Coursework Cultural Resources MA, Archaeology Niklas O. Ranta MS, Multi-Resource Management BS, Forestry = 8 years of experience Environmental Studies, Project Coordinator/Public Involvement Randy Simpson BSLA, Landscape Architecture BS, Environmental Design = 10 years of experience Visual Resources Enertech Consultants Mike Silva BS, Engineering MS, Engineering = 30 years of experience Electrical Effects Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 5 - Preparers and Contributors September 2001 Name Education/Experience Involvement Mangi Environmental Group, Inc. Phil Sczerzenie PhD, Wildlife Biology = 20 years of experience =~ = Team Director Bud Watson JD, Environmental Law m 18 years of experience = = = Cumulative Impacts Kara Meckley MS, Marine Science = 6 years of experience = Biology Sarah Magruder MS, Land Planning and Policy = Land Use, Infrastructure, m__5 years of experience Recreation and Tourism Rick Heffner MA, Sociology = Socioeconomics and Subsistence = 20 years of experience Kathleen Schamel MA, Anthropology = 16 years of experience =~ =Cultural Resources Brian Ray MA, Landscape Architecture = = Visual Impacts = 6 years of experience Power Comp Associates, Ltd. Roy Billinton PhD, Professional Engineer = Purpose and Need, Alternatives = 25 years of experience Sargent & Lundy, LLC Kenneth Simpson Professional Engineer m 15 years of experience m= Purpose and Need, Alternatives Intertie Participants Grou Professional Engineer Dora Gropp, Chugach Electric : = Project Manager Association = 30 years of experience Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Jim Hall ™ Deputy Refuge Manager Ted Bailey 7 = Fish and Wildlife Biologist Ed Berg 2 = Ecologist Rick Ernst z = Wildlife Biologist/Pilot Richard Johnston = = Ranger/Pilot Liz Jozwiak 7 = Wildlife Biologist Vicki J. Davis a ™ Fish and Wildlife Biologist Stephanie Rickabaugh 7 ™ Biological Science Technician (Wildlife) Todd Eskelin ib ™ Biological Science Technician (Wildlife) Doug Newbould ill = Fire Management Officer Samantha Bartling - m= Refuge Manager Trainee (Student) Southern Intertie Project DEIS Chapter 5 - Preparers and Contributors 5-3 September 2001 REFERENCES The following list of numbered references is referred to in Table 1-2. ' Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study, Power Engineers, Inc. and Hart Crowser. May 1987. Two volumes. ?Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study, Alaska Power Authority. 1989. Eleven Volumes and Addendum. List of Volumes: Volume Number Volume Title 1 Economic and Demographic Projections for the Alaska Railbelt: 1988-2010 2 Forecast of Electricity Demand in the Alaska Railbelt Region: 1988-2010 8 Analysis of Electrical End Use Efficiency Programs for the Alaskan Railbelt 4 Fuel Price Outlooks: Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Fuel Oil > Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie Project 6 Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie Expansion and Upgrade Project 7 Railbelt Stability Study, Power Technologies, Inc. 8 Northeast Transmission Intertie Project 9 Estimated Cost and Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Plants in the Alaska Railbelt Region 10 Estimated Cost and Environmental Impacts of a Natural Gas Pipeline System Linking Fairbanks with the Cook Inlet Area ll Benefit/Cost Analysis Addendum* Economic Feasibility of the Proposed 138kV Transmission Line in the Railbelt *This volume includes revised benefit/cost analysis and critiques by independent reviewers. >Benefit/Cost Analysis, Decision Focus, Inc. June 1989. ‘Economic Feasibility of the Proposed 138kV Lines in the Railbelt, Decision Focus, Inc. December 1989. This document is an addendum to the June 1989 Decision Focus, Inc. Benefit/Cost Analysis. >Reliability Assessment of the Railbelt Interconnected Electric Utility Systems, North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC), 1990. °Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study, Final Report, Alaska Energy Authority, March 1991. ’Cost Estimate, Kenai/Anchorage and Healy/Fairbanks 138kV Transmission Line Interties. March 1991. Dryden and LaRue. Southern Intertie Project, Route Selection Study, Phase I, Power Engineers, Inc. and Dames & Moore. 1996. In five separate reports. ° Southern Intertie Route Selection Study Phase 1B, Studies Section Report, Power Engineers, Inc. September 1997. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-1 References September 2001 Update and Reevaluation of the Economic Benefits of the Southern Intertie Project, Decision Focus, Inc. March 1998. ‘Southern Intertie Project, Cost Estimate Summary Report, Power Engineers, Inc. January 1998. "North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). 1998. Reliability Assessment of the Railbelt Interconnected Electric Utility Systems of the Alaska Systems Coordinating Council, 1997-2006. August. Southern Intertie Environmental Analysis, Final, Dames & Moore and Power Engineers, Inc., July 1999. Listed below are all of the references used in this report. AAA. 1997. Tour Book for Western Canada and Alaska. American Automobile Association. Heathrow, Florida. Alaska Biological Research, Inc. 1991. Alaska Over-the-Horizon Backscatter Radar System: A synthesis of the avian research program, 1987-1990. Final Report Prepared for the Artic Environmental Information and Data Center and U.S. Air Force. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) “Community Database” (data on visitor accommodations and other facilities from DCRA Internet website 1998— htt://www.comregaf.state.ak.us\CF BLOCK.cfm). , Municipal and Regional Assistance Division. 1996. Community Database. Juneau, Alaska. , Research and Analysis Section (DCRA). 1997a. Copper Valley Intertie Feasibility Study, Vols. I and 2. ___. 1997b. Anchorage, Community Information Summaries, Juneau. . 1997c. Kenai, Community Information Summaries, June 1997. . 1997d. Nikiski, Community Information Summaries, June 1997. . 1997e. Soldotna, Community Information Summaries, June 1997. ___. 1994. Copper Valley Intertie Feasibility Study, Vols. 1 and 2, April 1994. Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). 1999. Unpublished brown bear data. . 1998. Anadromous Fish Stream Catalogue database. Unpublished data. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-2 References September 2001 Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). 1997. Division of Subsistence. Community Profile Data Base - 3/17/97. . 1996a. Alaska’s Threatened and Endangered Species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Bureau of Land Management, and USDA Forest Service. Juneau, Alaska. . 1996b. Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai Nonsubsistence Areas, Draft. . 1994. Alaska’s Threatened and Endangered Species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Bureau of Land Management, and USDA Forest Service. Juneau, Alaska. . 1991. Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge Management Plan. . 1990. Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge Management Plan. Public Review Draft. Division of Habitat and Wildlife Conservation. Anchorage, Alaska. 65 pp. . 1985. Alaska Habitat Management Guide. South-Central Region, Map Atlas Division of Habitat and Wildlife Conservation. . 1978. Alaska’s Fisheries Atlas, Vols. 1 and 2. . 1976. Alaska’s Wildlife and Habitat. Division of Habitat and Wildlife Conservation. Anchorage, Alaska. . 1973. Alaska’s Wildlife and Habitat Division of Habitat and Wildlife Conservation. Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Department of Highways. 1972. Basic Research, Analysis, and Exploratory Investigations, Knik Arm Highway Crossing. Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Department of Highways, Engineering Geology Section, Materials Division. 1969. Engineering geology and foundation report: field and laboratory soils data, Turnagain Arm Crossing, Project No. F-021-2(10), Anchorage District. Alaska Department of Labor, Demographics Unit. 1996. Alaska Population Overview: 1996 Estimates. Table 4.2 Population of Places by Borough and Census Area 1990-1996. Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Section, Demographics Unit. 1997. Alaska Population Overview: 1996 Estimates. . 1991. Alaska Population Overview - 1990 Census and Estimates. Juneau, Alaska. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-3 References September 2001 Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Section (ADOL). 1997a. Annual Rental Market Survey, Juneau. . 1997b. Personal communication with Neil Fried. . 1996a. Alaska’s Median Household Income Number One Nationwide, News Release No. 97-26, dated November 7, 1996. . 1996b. Kenai Soldotna Area Employment: 1980-1995, September 1996. . 1995. Employment and Earnings Summary Report. . 1994. Employment and Earnings Summary Report. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land. 1998. Kenai Area Plan — Public Review Draft. ___. 1994a. Kenai Area Plan, Public Review Draft. _____. 1994b. Turnagain Arm Management Plan for State Lands. ___. 1994¢. Kenai Area Plan, Vol. 1 - Public Review Draft. ____. 1994d. Kenai Area Plan, Vol. 2 - Background Information. ___. 1994e. Kenai Area Plan, Vol. 3 - Fish and Wildlife Habitat Information. ___. 1993. Kenai Easement Atlas. . 1993, 1980. Public Interest Land in the Kenai Peninsula Borough, Parcel by Parcel Descriptions. Updated 1993. . 1986. Chugach State Park Trail Plan. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas. 1999. Preliminary Best Finding Proposed Cook Inlet Area Wide Oil and Gas Lease Sale. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. 1994a. Catalog of the Alaska State Park System. . 1994b. Turnagain Arm Management Plan. . 1993-1996, 1999. Recreation data for Captain Cook SRA and Bing’s Landing SRS. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-4 References September 2001 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. 1980. Chugach State Park Master Plan. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Kenai Peninsula Borough. 1998. Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan. . 1986. Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT). 1998. Alaska. Surface Transportation Implementation Plan (STIP) for 1998-2000. ____. 1997. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Kenai River Crossing. December. . 1996. Seward Highway MP 53 to MP 59.3, Section 4(f). . 1995. Airport Layout Plan for Anchorage International Airport. . 1994a. Bird Point Scenic Overlook and Pedestrian Facilities. . 1994b. Sterling Highway MP 37 to 60 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. . 1994c. Sterling Highway MP 37 to 60 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. . 1989. Seward Highway MP 50 to MP 65.5, Final Environmental Assessment. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, and Federal Highway Administration. 1991a. Environmental Assessment and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation, Seward Highway, Bird Point to Girdwood. F-031-2(50). . 1991b. Revised Environmental Assessment. Sterling Highway MP 157 to MP 174, Anchor Point to Homer, F-021-1-(34). Alaska Division of Tourism. 1997. Alaska Tourism, August 12, 1997. Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 1991. Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study, Final Report. March ____. 1990. Economic Feasibility of the Proposed 138kV Transmission Lines in the Railbelt. Alaska Geological Society. 1987. A Field Guide to the Geologic Hazards of Anchorage and Turnagain Arm, Alaska. Jim McCaslin Brown, Kristine J. Crossen, Jacqueline Holzman, eds. Alaska Geological Society, P.O. Box 101288, Anchorage, Alaska 99510. . 1985. Guide to the Geology of the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Includes 3 Maps. Alexander Sisson, ed. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-5 References September 2001 Alaska Legal Services. 1992. Statements of Ninilchik Tribal Council Members Regarding Subsistence Hunting and Fishing. Eleven interviews conducted during October 1992. USFWS 1993. Alaska Mountain Safety Center, Inc. 1991. Comprehensive Avalanche Atlas. Alaska, Pacific-Northwest Laboratory. 1980. Preliminary Evaluation of Wind Energy Potential Cook Inlet Area. May. Alaska Power Authority. 1989. Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study. Eleven Volumes and Addendum. Alaska Tidebook Co. 1997. Thompson's Tide Table, South-Central Alaska Edition. Pioneer Publishing, Kenai, Alaska. 111 pp. Alonso, J.C.D., J.A. Alonso and R. Munoz-Pulido. 1994. Mitigation of Bird Collisions with Transmission Lines Through Groundwire Marking. Biological Conservation 67(1994):129-134. Ambrose, S. 1997. Personal communication between Dave Erikson, Dames & Moore, and Skip Ambrose, Raptor Biologist, USFWS, Fairbanks, Alaska. American Automobile Association. 1977. Tour Book for Western Canada and Alaska. Anchorage Yellow Pages. 1997. Anchorage & Mat-Su Valley Regional Phone Directory 1996- 1997. Phone Directories Company, Inc. Anderson, B.A. and S.M. Murphy. 1988. Lisburne terrestrial monitoring program — 1986 and 1987. Effects of the Lisburne power line on Birds. Prepared for Arco, Alaska. Anderson, G.S. and S.H. Jones. 1972. Water Resources of the Kenai-Soldotna Area, Alaska. USGS Water Resources Division, Alaska District Open-File Report. Anderson, S.H., K. Mann, and H.H. Shugart, Jr. 1977. The Effect of Transmission-line Corridors on Bird Populations. The American Midland Naturalist. 97(1): 216-22. Anderson, W.L. 1978. Waterfowl Collisions with Power Lines at a Coal-fired Power Plant. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 6:77-83. Anderson. S. 1997. Personal communication between Geoff Pool, Dames & Moore, and Sandra Anderson, Scenic Byways Coordinator, ADOT&PF. September. Andres, B. 1999. Personal communication between Dave Erikson, Dames & Moore, and Brad Andres, USFWS, Anchorage, Alaska. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-6 References September 2001 Armstrong, R.H. 1995. Guide to the Birds of Alaska. Northwest Publishing Company, Anchorage, Alaska. . 1983. Guide to the Birds of Alaska. Northwest Publishing Company, Anchorage, Alaska. Avery, M.L., P.F. Springer, and N.S. Dailey. 1978. Avian Mortality at Man-made Structures: Annotated Bibliography. USFWS Biological Services Program. FWS/OBS-78-58. Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: the State-of-the-Art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute. Washington, D.C. Bailey, Bonnie J. and Jacqueline A. McIntire. 1993. Levels of Lakes in the North Kenai Area, Alaska 1970 to 1992. USGS Open-File Report 93-644. Bailey, T. 1999. Personal communication between Tim Tetherow, Dames & Moore, and Ted Bailey, Wildlife Biologist, KNWR. . 1997. Personal communication between Dave Erikson, Dames & Moore, and Ted Bailey, Wildlife Biologist, KNWR. Soldotna, Alaska. . 1996. Personal communication between Dave Erikson, Dames & Moore, and Ted Bailey, Wildlife Biologist, KNWR. Soldotna, Alaska. Bailey, T.N. 1984. Terrestrial Habitats and Wildlife Species. Technical Supplement to Kenai Comprehensive Conservation Plan, EIS and Wildlife Review. Prepared for USFWS, Region 7, January, 1984. USFWS, Anchorage, Alaska. 72 pp. . 1978. Moose Populations on the Kenai National Moose Range. Fourteenth North American Moose Conference. 20 pp. Bailey, T.N. and E.E. Bangs. 1980. Moose Calving and Use on the Kenai National Moose Range, Alaska. Proceedings of 16th North American Moose Conference and Workshop, Prince Albert, Canada. USFWS. 21 pp. Bailey, T.N. and A. Fischbach. 1995. Characteristics, Patterns of Use, and Management of Territories of Nesting Trumpeter Swans on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, 1957-1994. Draft Report. Prepared for USFWS, Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Soldotna, Alaska. June 1, 1995. Not for Publication. Bailey, T.N., E.E. Bangs, J.C. Malloy and MF. Portner. 1983. Feasibility of Studying Lynx (Lynx canadensis) on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Refuge Management Project. Annual Progress Report. Prepared by USFWS, Soldotna, Alaska. 12 pp. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-7 References September 2001 Bailey, T.N., E.E. Bangs, M.F. Portner, J.C. Malloy and R.J. McAvinchey. 1986. An Apparent Overexploited Lynx Population on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management. 50(2):279-290. Bakus, G., M. Orys and J. Hendrick. 1979. The Marine Biology and Oceanography of the Anchorage Region, Upper Cook Inlet. Astarte 12 (1):13-20. Bancroft, Hubert H. 1970. History of Alaska, 1730-1885. Hafner, Darien, Connecticut. Originally published 1886. Bangs, E.E. and T.N. Bailey. 1982. Interrelationships of Weather, Fire, and Moose on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Proc. North American Moose Conference and Workshop 16:255-274. Bangs, E.E., S.A. Duff, and T.N. Bailey. 1985. Habitat Differences and Moose Use of Two Large Burns on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Alces. 21: 17-35. Bangs, E.E., T.H. Spraker, T.N. Bailey and V.D. Berns. 1982a. Ecology of Nesting Bald Eagles on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Proceedings of the First Annual Raptor Management Symposium, Anchorage, Alaska. Prepared by USFWS, Soldotna, Alaska. 8 Pp. . 1982b. Effects of Increased Human Population on Wildlife Resources of the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Transactions of the 47th American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Washington, D.C. 605-616 pp. Barry, Mary J. 1973. A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula. Alaska Northwest Publishing, Anchorage, Alaska. Bartsch-Winkler, Susan (ed). 1985a. Physiography, Texture, and Bedforms During June-July 1981 in Turnagain Arm Estuary, Upper Cook Inlet, Alaska. USGS Open File Report 85- 503. . 1985b. The United States Geological Survey in Alaska: Accomplishments During 1984. USGS Circular 967. . 1985c. Tidal Bores in Turnagain Arm. In Sission, A., ed., Guide to the geology of the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Alaska Geological Society field trip guidebook, prep. In conjunction with 60" annual meeting, Pacific Sect., American Assoc. Petroleum Geologists, Anchorage, Alaska. May 22-24. 138 pp. and 2 plates. Bartsch-Winkler, Susan and Henry L. Schmoll. 1984. Guide to the Late Pleistocene and Holocene Deposits of Turnagain Arm. Alaska Geological Society field trip guidebook, prep. In conjunction with 80" annual meeting, Cordilleran Sect., Geological Society of America, Anchorage, Alaska. May 30 -June 1. 70 pp. and 2 maps, Scale 1” = | mile. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-8 References September 2001 Batten, A.R., D.F Murray and S. Murphy. 1980. Definition of Alaskan Coastal Wetlands by Floristic Criteria. Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. Beaulaurier, D.L. 1980. Mitigation of Bird Collisions with Transmission Lines. Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Portland, Oregon. 82 pp. Bevanger, K. 1994. Bird Interactions with Utility Structures: Collision and Electrocution, Causes and Mitigating Measures. Ibis 136: 412-425. Boraas, Alan. 1978. Archaeological Survey of Alaska Pipeline Company Pipeline Right-of-Way, Trapper Joe Lake to Burnt Island, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Submitted to Alaska Pipeline Company, Anchorage. Man & Earth Alaska, Soldotna. . 1975. Archaeological Survey Report, Proposed Tesoro Pipeline, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Submitted to Gulf Interstate Engineering Company, Houston. Man & Earth Alaska, Soldotna. Bower, D. 1998. Personal communication between Bob Mott, Dames & Moore, and Dick Bower, City of Soldotna. December. Brabets and Wittenberg. 1983. Surface-Water Quality in the Campbell Creek Basin, Anchorage, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resource Investigations Report 83-4096. Bradley, Dwight C. and Timothy M. Kusky. 1989. Geologic Studies in Alaska by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1989. USGS Bulletin 1946. Braund, S.R. and S.R. Benke. 1980. Lower Cook Inlet Petroleum Development Scenarios Sociocultural Systems Analysis. Stephen R. Braund & Associates. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office. Technical Report No. 47. Braund, Stephen R. & Associates. 1994. Whittier Access Project Subsistence Technical Report. Prepared for HDR Engineering, Inc. Brown, W.M. and R. Drewian. 1995. Evaluation of Two Power Line Markers to Reduce Crane and Waterfowl Collision Mortality. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 23(2):217-227. Carberry, Michael E. 1979. Patterns of the Past: An Inventory of Anchorage’s Historic Resources. Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission, Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska. Caulkins, D.G. 1989. Status of Beluga Whales in Cook Inlet. Pages 109-112 In The Gulf of Alaska, Cook Inlet, and North Aleutian Basin Information Update Meeting, L.E. Jarvela and L.K. Thorsteinson, ed. Anchorage, Alaska. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-9 References September 2001 Cederstrom, D.J., Frank W. Trainer and Roger M. Waller. Geology and Ground-water Resources of the Anchorage Area, Alaska. USGS Water-Supply Paper 1773. Chase, M. 1997. Personal communication between Mike Doyle, Dames & Moore, and Mark Chase, Deputy Refuge Manager, KNWR. July. Christopher, L. 1998. Personal communication between Bob Mott, Dames & Moore, and Ms. Linda Christopher, Best Western King Salmon Motel and RV Park, Soldotna, Alaska. December . Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (CEA). 1997. Manager of Power Control. . 1996a. Color stereo aerial photographs of Southern Intertie Project corridors. Flight Lines 1 through 31. Scale 1” = 2,000”. May 6-10. . 1996b. Southern Intertie Route Selection Study—Phase I, Draft Environmental Summary Report. . 1996c. Southern Intertie Route Selection Study—Phase I, Draft Economic Section Report. . 1996d. 138kV Submarine Cables Description and History of the Field. October. . 1992. Chugach Transmission Long Range Planning Study — Final Report. December. 1990. Borrower’s Environmental Report, 138kV Submarine Cables. Department of Environmental Engineering and Hazardous Material. . 1989. Environmental Report, 138kV Submarine Cables. Department of Environmental Engineering and Hazardous Material. 53 pp. Chugach Electric Association, Resource Planning Department. 1993. Girdwood Community Impact Study, August 1993. City of Soldotna. 1995. Soldotna Comprehensive Plan. Clark, S.H.B. 1973. The McHugh Complex of South-Central Alaska. Contributions to Stratigraphy, U.S. Geological Survey Bull. 1372-D. 11 p. Cobb, Edward H. 1984. Map showing occurrences of lode gold and silver in Alaska. USGS Mineral Investigations resource map MR-84. Cobb, J.N. 1911. The Salmon Fisheries of the Pacific Coast. Bureau of Fisheries. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Document No. 751. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-10 References September 2001 Colson & Associates. 1994. Alturas 345 kV Transmission Line Project; Preliminary Report on Bird Electrocution/Collison potential. Prepared for: Woodward-Clyde Consultants. Compton, Donna, T.N. Bailey, M.F. Portner, E.E. Bangs, W.W. Larned, R.A. Richey, and R.L. Delaney. 1988. Proceedings and Papers of the Eleventh Trumpeter Swan Society Converence. Summer and Migratory Movements of Trumpeter Swans Using the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Everett, Washington. Connant, B., J.1. Hodges, D.J. Groves and J.G. King. 1991. Alaska Trumpeter Swan Status Report, 1990. USFWS, Migratory Bird Management, Juneau, Alaska. Cook Inlet Region, Inc. 1982. Map: Regional and Village Lands. Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet and E. Laroe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. USFWS, Biological Services Program, Report FWS/OBS- 79/31. Cowger, J.R., Steven C. Bottemiller, MAI, and James M. Cahill. Right-of-Way. 1996. Transmission Line Impact on Residential Property Values: A Study of Three Pacific Northwest Metropolitan Areas. September/October 1996, Pages 13-17. Cyr. P. 1999. Personal communication between Dave Erikson, Dames & Moore, and Paul Cyr, Fishery Biologist, ADF&G. Anchorage, Alaska. Dames & Moore. 1995. Report, Slope Stability and Contaminant Risk Assessment, Cook Inlet Bluff Site, Kenai, Alaska. Prepared for Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co., Dames & Moore Job No. 06792-030-005. 46 pp. with app. . 1984. Knik Arm Crossing: Technical Memorandum No. 16, Freshwater and Terrestrial Habitat Studies. Prepared for U.S. Department. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. . 1983. Knik Arm Crossing Technical Memorandum No. 15, Marine Biological Studies. Prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highways Administration, Alaska. Davis, V. 1997. Personal communication between E.L. Smith, Dames & Moore, to V. Davis, KNWR. November. Decision Focus, Inc. (DFI). 1989a. Benefit/Cost Analysis. June . 1989b. Economic Feasibility of the Proposed 138kV Lines in the Railbelt. December 1989. Addendum to the June 1989 Decision Focus, Inc. Benefit/Cost Analysis. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-11 References September 2001 Decision Focus, Inc. - Aeronomics. 1998. Update and Reevaluation of the Economic Benefits of Southern Intertie Project. March. . 1997. Utility Rates Impact Analysis. November. Degernes, Chris. 1996. Personal communication between Mike Doyle and Geoff Pool, Dames & Moore, to Chris Degernes, Kenai Area Superintendent, Alaska State Parks. August. Del Frate, G.G. 2001. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Area Wildlife Biologist, Interagency Brown Bear Study Team, Personal communication with Tara Bellion, URS Corporation, June 2001. . 1994. Brown Bear Survey-Inventory Activities, Units 7 and 15, Kenai Peninsula. ADF&G Fed. Aid. in Wildl. Restor. Project W-23-4. Dixon, George. 1968. A Voyage Round the World. De Capo, New York. Originally published 1789, G. Goulding, London. Dobrovolny, E. and H.R. Schmoll. 1974. Slope-stability Map of Anchorage and Vicinity, Alaska. In Folio of the Anchorage and vicinity area. USGS publication, Map 1-787-E. Scale 1:24,000. Dowl Engineers. 1983. Environmental Assessment for Sterling Highway to Soldotna to Mile Post 79 F-021-2 (19) F-021-2 (16). Prepared for the State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Dryden and LaRue. 1991. Cost Estimate, Kenai/Anchorage and Healy/Fairbanks 138kV Transmission Line Interties. March. Dumond, Don E. and Robert L. Mace. 1968. An Archaeological Survey Along Knik Arm. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 14(1):1-21. Dutile, Denise. 1998. “Visitor Use Counts for Kenai Peninsula State Parks” (monthly statistics for 1997, by park). Sterling, Alaska. Personal communication and FAX, 24 November 1998. Eldridge, W.D. 1997. Waterbird Utilization of Upper Cook Inlet: August-October 1996. Unpublished report prepared for USFWS. February 25, 1997. 4 pp. ENERTECH Consultants. 1997. Southern Intertie Project 138kV Transmission Line. Evaluation of Electrical Effects. Campbell, California. July 10. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Concerns in EPA’S NEPA Compliance Analysis. April. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-12 References September 2001 Environmental Systems Research Institute. 1982. Final Report: Turnagain Arm Integrated Terrain Unit Mapping, Automation and Analysis. Erickson, A.W. 1965. The Brown/Grizzly Bear in Alaska: its Ecology and Management. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. Emst, R. 2001. Personal communication with Rick Ernst, KNWR, June 2001. Information provided in comments on May 2001 PDEIS. . 2001. Personal communication. Moose Population, Swan and Bald Eagle Nesting Information, refer to 2000 data. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. 1998. Personal communication on status of bird species with Dave Erickson, Dames & Moore. Faanes, C.A. 1987. Bird Behavior and Mortality in Relation to Power Lines in Prairie Habitat. USFWS, Fish and Wildlife Tech. Rep. 7. 24 pp. Farley, Sean. 2001. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Biologist. Interagency Brown Bear Study Team, Chairman. Personal communication with Tara Bellion, URS Corporation, June 2001. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 1991. Advisory Circular 70/7460-1G. . 1989. Standard for Determining Obstruction. 14 CFR, Part 77. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1990. Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska. Anchorage Division. Panels 235, 240, 241, 243, and Index. Revised March 15. . 1988. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska. Map Index Revised June 3. . 1987. Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska, Anchorage Division. Panels 230, 242, 360, 370, 400, 500, 505, 510, 520, and 600. Revised September 18. . 1983. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska. Panel 2045. Revised July 5. . 1981. Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska. Panels 1125, 2030, 2035, 2040, 2065, 2070, 2090, 2125, 2150, and 2175. Revised May 19. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-13 References September 2001 Federal Subsistence Board. n.d. Subsistence Management Regulations For the Harvest of Fish and Wildlife on Federal Public Lands in Alaska. USFWS, Office of Subsistence Management. Anchorage, Alaska. Fesler, Doug and Jill Fredston. 1991. Comprehensive Avalanche Atlas: University-Quartz Ck. 115 KV Transmission Lines, Daves Ck. - Lawing 69 KV Transmission Line, Indian- Girdwood 24.9 KV Distribution Line, and Hope 24.9 KV Distribution Line. Prepared for Chugach Electric Assoc., Inc. by Alaska Mountain Safety Center, Inc. Fink, D. and H. Beaty. 1993. Handbook for Electrical Engineers, 13" edition. McGraw-Hill. Gardner, D. 1999. Personal communication between Mike Doyle, Dames & Moore, and Dave Gardner, Director of Parks and Recreation Department, Municipality of Anchorage. April. . 1997. Personal communication between Mike Doyle, Dames & Moore, and Dave Gardner, Director of Parks and Recreation Department, Municipality of Anchorage. October. Gatto, Lawrence W. 1976. Baseline Data on the Oceanography of Cook Inlet, Alaska, CRREL Report 76-25. Golder Associates, Inc. 1996. Results of Reconnaissance Geophysical Survey, Turnagain Arm, Alaska. Report prepared for Power Engineers, Inc., Golder Reference No. 963-65298. 7 pp. and 9 dwg. sheets. September. Gregory, M. 1998. Personal communication between Bob Mott, Dames & Moore, and Mark Gregory, Kenai Peninsula Borough Economic District. December. Haeussler, P.J. 1996. Personal communication: discussion regarding location of Little Susitna River fault, and activity of folding and buried reverse faults in Upper Cook Inlet Basin. USGS. October 16. Haeussler, Peter J. and Ronald L. Bruhn. 1995. Js There Significant Earthquake Hazard in the Upper Cook Inlet Basin, Alaska. Geological Society of America. Abstracts with Programs, V.27, No.5, p. 23. Hansen, Wallace R., Edwin B. Eckel, William E. Schaem, Robert E. Lyle, Warren George and Genie Chance. n.d. The Alaska Earthquake March 27, 1964: Field investigations and reconstruction effort. USGS Professional Paper 541. Harding-Lawson Associates (HLA). 1979. Geotechnical Hazards Assessment, Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska. Report prepared for Municipality of Anchorage. 102 pp. and 15 plates, Scale | inch = 1.5 miles. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-14 References September 2001 Harris, C. 1991. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, 3” edition. McGraw-Hill. Hazard, K. 1988. Beluga Whale. Pages 195-235 In J.W. Lentfer, ed., Selected Marine Mammals of Alaska: Species Accounts with Research and Management Recommendations. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. Hilderbrand, G.V. 1998. Studies of the Nutritional Ecology of Coastal Brown Bears. Ph.D. Thesis, Washington State University. Pullman. Holvert, Marilyn. 1998. Personal communication with Bob Mott, Dames & Moore, to Marilyn Holvert, Alaska Department of Public Assistance. September. Homer Electric Association. 1993. Long Range Plan — 1993. April. Holtz, R.D. and W.D. Kovacs. 1981. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering. Prentice — Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 733 pp. Hulten, E. 1968. Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories. Stanford University Press. Stanford, California. Jacobs, Michael J. 1989a. An Initial Population Analysis and Management Strategy for Kenai Peninsula Brown Bears. M.S. Thesis, West Virginia University, Division of Forestry. . 1989b. A Management Strategy for Kenai Peninsula Brown Bears. Interagency Brown Bear Study Team. Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. 110 pp. James, B.W. and Bruce A. Haak. 1979. Factors Affecting Avian Flight Behavior and Collision Mortality at Transmission Lines. Bonneville Power Administration. Portland, Oregon. 109 pp. Johnston, R. 1998. Personal communication between Tim Tetherow, Dames & Moore, and Danielle Stearns, Dames & Moore, and Rick Johnston, KNWR. September. . 1997a. Personal communication between Niklas Ranta, Dames & Moore, and Rick Johnston, KNWR. October. . 1997b. Personal communication between Geoff Pool, Dames & Moore, and Rick Johnston, KNWR. June. Jozwiak, E.A. 1997. Wolf Pack Dynamics and Movements in Response to Harvest on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 1982-1993 and Accuracy of Aerial Telemetry. Master of Science Thesis, Colorado State University. Fort Collins, Colorado. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-15 References September 2001 Karlstrom, Thor N.V. 1964. Quaternary Geology of the Kenai Lowland and Glacial History of the Cook Inlet Region, Alaska. USGS Professional Paper 443. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Land Status Map — Northern Section, Kenai. . 2000. Unpublished data on trumpeter swan nest locations 1999 and 2000 and bald eagle nest locations in 2000. . 1998a. Unpublished bird-power line strikes data. . 1998b. Unpublished swan data. . 1998c. Unpublished bald eagle survey data. . 1998. The Economic Analysis of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. . 1997. Unpublished bald eagle survey data. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. . 1996a. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Mystery Creek III Prescribed Burn. 1996b. Final Moose/Habitat Management Plan. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Soldotna, Alaska. . 1995a. Land Protection Plan for Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Soldotna, Alaska. . 1995b. Fishery Management Plan, Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, FY 1996-2000. 89 pp. June. . 1990. Control Management Program, Final Document. June. . 1988a. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Fire Management Plan . 1988b. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. . 1988c. Wolf Management Operational Plan, Game Management Unit 15A, Northern Portion of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. 1988d. Final Environmental Assessment for the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Furbearer Management Plan. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Soldotna, Alaska. . 1985a. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, Wilderness Review. Vols. | and 2. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-16 References September 2001 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985b. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement. . 1984. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Technical Supplement - Terrestrial Habitats and Wildlife Species. Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, Wilderness Review. Kenai Peninsula Borough Economic Development Department. Kenai, Alaska. “The Visitor Industry” (report by KPBEDD, August 1998), Ms. Becky Hultberg. Personal communication and FAX, 23 November 1998. Kenai Peninsula Borough Economic Development Department (KPBEDD). 1997a. “The Visitor Industry: Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska.” July 1997. . 1997b. Economic Analysis of Primary Borough Industries, 1997. Kenai. Kenai Peninsula Borough, Cooper Landing Advisory Planning Commission. 1998. Land Use Classification Recommendations for Borough Selected Lands, Draft. . 1996. Land Use Classification Recommendations for Borough Selected Lands, Draft. . 1992. Community Recommendations on a Land Use Plan for Borough Lands. Kenai Peninsula Borough, Department of Finance. 1995. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995. Kenai Peninsula Borough, Hope/Sunrise Advisory Planning Commission. 1995. GIS Land Use Data. ___. 1992. Community Recommendations on a Land Use Plan for Borough Lands. ___. 1988. Community Recommendations on a Land Use Plan for Borough Lands in Sunrise. Kenai Peninsula Borough, Planning Department. 1999, 1997, 1996. GIS Land Use Data. ___. 1992. Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan. ___. 1990. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program. Kent, Ronald J., Roland D. Navarro and Peter M. Bowers. 1996. Data Synthesis and Mapping of ANCSA 14(h)(1) Application AA-11096, Located near the Confluence of the Russian and Kenai Rivers, Alaska. Prepared for Bureau of Indian Affairs, ANCSA Office. Anchorage. Northern Land Use Research, Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-17 References September 2001 Kesterson M.B. 1988. Lynx Home Range and Spatial Organization in Relation to Population Density and Prey Abundance. Master of Science Thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. Klinkhart, E.G. 1966. The Beluga Whale in Alaska. Prepared by ADF&G, Juneau, Alaska. 11 pp. Laguna, Federica de. 1976. The Archaeology of Cook Inlet, Alaska. Reprinted. Alaska Historic Society, Anchorage. Originally published 1934, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Lewis, J.C. 1993. The USFWS and Bird-Power Line Interactions. In Proceedings of International Workshop on Avian Interaction with Utility Structures. EPRI Tech. Rep. 1032668, Palo Alto, California. Madison, R.J., T.J. McElhone and Chester Zenone. 1987. Alaska Ground-Water Quality. USGS Open-File Report 87-0712. Magoon, L.B., W.L. Adkison and R.M. Egbert. 1976. Map Showing Geology, Wildcat Wells, Tertiary Plant Fossil Localities, K-A, Age Dates, and Petroleum Operations, Cook Inlet Area, Alaska. USGS Misc. Investigations Series. Map I-1019. Mahoney, B., NMFS. 1998. Personal communication via telephone between Barbara Mahoney, NMEFS, and Danielle Stearns, Dames and Moore. December. Malcolm, J.M. 1982. Bird Collisions with a Power Transmission Line and Their Relation to Botulism at a Montana Wetland. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10. 297-304 pp. March, G.D. and L.G. Robertson. 1982. Snow Avalanche Atlas, Seward Highway, South-Central Alaska. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, Professional Report 81. McCarty, S. 1981. Survey of Effects of Outercontinental Shelf Platforms on Cetacean Behavior. Appendix C, Vol. II In R.S. Gales, ed. Effects of noise of offshore oil and as operations on marine mammals. An introductory assessment. Naval Oceans Systems Center, San Diego, California, Tech. Rep. 844:C1-C31. McCulloch, D.S. and M.G. Bonilla. 1969a. Maps and Aerial Photographs of Ground Cracking in the Portage Area, Alaska, That Resulted from the Marcy 27 Earthquake. In Effects on the Alaska Railroad. USGS Publication, Plate 4, Scale 1:4,800. . 1969b. Topographic Map, Bore-Hole Data, and Features of the Potter Hill Slide Area, Alaska. In Effects on the Alaska Railroad. USGS Publication, Plate 3, Scale | inch = 25 feet. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-18 References September 2001 Mears, Arthur I. 1998. Avalanche Stagnation Pressure Calculations — Chugach Electric Association Summit Lake Transmission Line. Prepared for Dryden & LaRue, Inc. Mears, Arthur L, P.E., Inc. 1982. Anchorage Snow Avalanche Zoning Analysis. Prepared for Municipality of Anchorage. Mears, A.I. and D. Fesler. 1989. Avalanche Dynamics and Exposure Analysis in the Ptarmigan Creek Area: A Response to the School Bus Avalanche of 1988. Meiners, Al. 1997. Personal communication between Geoff Pool, Dames & Moore, and Al Meiners, Chugach State Parks Superintendent, Alaska State Parks. January. Meyer, J.R. 1978. Effect of Transmission Lines on Bird Flight Behavior and Collision Mortality. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Portland, Oregon. 220 pp. Meyer. J.R. and J.M. Lee, Jr. 1981. Effects of Transmission Lines on Flight Behavior of Waterfowl and Other Birds. In Proceedings of a second symposium, environmental concerns of right-of-way management. October 16-18, 1979. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electric Power Research Institute. Palo Alto, California Pub. No. WS 78-141. Middendorf, Tom. 1999. Personal communication between Mike Doyle, Dames & Moore, and Tom Middendorf, Airport Manager, Anchorage International Airport. April. . 1997. Personal communication between Mike Doyle, Dames & Moore, and Tom Middendorf, Airport Manager, Anchorage International Airport. September. Miller, Robert D. and Ernest Dobrovolny. 1959. Surficial Geology of Anchorage and Vicinity, Alaska. USGS Bulletin 1093. Morkill, A.E. and S.H. Anderson. 1993. Effectiveness of Yellow Aviation Balls in Reducing Sandhill Crane Collisions with Power Lines. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Avian Interactions with Utility Structures. EPRI Tech. Rep. 1032668, Palo Alto, California. Morris, R.J. 1992. Status Report on Cook Inlet Belugas (Delphinapterus leucas). Prepared by the Alaska Region of the NMFS, Anchorage, Alaska. 22 pp. Municipality of Anchorage, Department of Community Planning and Development. 1999 and 1994. GIS Land Use Data. . 1998. South Coastal Trail Facility Concept Report Draft. . 1997. Anchorage Indicators 1997, Volume 1, May 1997. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-19 References September 2001 Municipality of Anchorage, Department of Community Planning and Development. 1996a. Area Wide Trails Plan, Draft. ____. 1996b. Transportation Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 1996 to 1998. . 1995. Girdwood Area Plan. . 1994. GIS Land Use Data. . 1993. Girdwood Community Impact Study. . 1991. Anchorage Bowl Long-Range Transportation Plan. . 1990. Utility Corridor Plan. . 1986. Tudor Road Public Lands and Institutions Plan (PLI). . 1982. Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Development Plan. Municipality of Anchorage, Department of Finance. 1996a. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, December 31, 1996. National Academy of Science. 1997. Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential and Magnetic Fields. 4-215 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2000. Aerial surveys of Beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska. June. . 2000. Beluga whales in Cook Inlet. October-December. . 2000. Draft EIS — Federal actions associated with management and recovery of Cook Inlet Beluga whales. October. . 1996a. Cook Inlet, Approaches to Anchorage, Alaska, 5" Edition, Nautical Chart No. 16665, Scale 1:50,000. February 3. . 1996b. Cook Inlet, East Foreland to Anchorage, Alaska, 4'" Edition, Nautical Chart No. 16663, Scale 1:100,000. April 6. . 1994. Cook Inlet, Northern Part, 26" Edition, Nautical Chart No. 16660, Scale 1:194, 154. January 22. North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). 1998. Reliability Assessment of the Railbelt Interconnected Electric Utility Systems of the Alaska Systems Coordinating Council, 1997-2006. August. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-20 References September 2001 North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). 1996. Glossary of Terms. Prepared by the Glossary of Terms Task Force. August. . 1990. Reliability Assessment of the Railbelt Interconnected Electric Utility Systems of the Alaska Systems Coordinating Council. Oldemeyer, J.D., A.W. Franzmann, A.L. Brundage, P.D. Arneson and A. Flynn. 1977. Browse Quality and the Kenai Moose Population. Journal of Wildlife Management, 41(3):533- 42. Oldemeyer, J.L. and W.L. Regelin. 1984. Forest Succession, Habitat Management, and the Moose on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Prepared by Denver Wildlife Research Center for USFWS. Denver Wildlife Research Center. 23 pp. Orth, Donald J. 1967. Dictionary of Alaska Place Names. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 567. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Osgood, Cornelius. 1966. The Ethnography of the Tanaina. Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 16. Reprinted. Human Relations Area Files, New Haven. Originally published 1937, Yale University, New Haven. Parker, Lisa. 1999. Personal communication between Mike Doyle, Dames & Moore, and Lisa Parker, Planning Director, Kenai Peninsula Borough. April. . 1998. Memorandum (Revised Environmental Analysis Comments. July 21, 1998) from Lisa Parker, Planning Director, Kenai Peninsula Borough, to Tim Tetherow, Dames & Moore. . 1997. Personal communication between Mike Doyle, Dames & Moore, and Lisa Parker, Planning Director, Kenai Peninsula Borough. August. Payne, Thomas G. and J. Thomas Dutro, Jr. 1958. Mineral Resources of Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. USGS Bulletin 1094. Plates 1-5. Pearson, D.C. 1993. Avifauna Collision Study in the San Jacinto Valley of Southern California. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Avian Interactions with Utility Structures. EPRI Technical Report 103268. Palo Alto, California. Peterson, David L. and Associates. 1971. A Comprehensive Plan for Water Resource Management. The Cook Inlet Basin/Kenai Peninsula Region. Vols. 1 and 2. Prepared for the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Peterson, R.O., J.D. Woolington and T.N. Bailey. 1984. Wolves of the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Wildlife Monographs, 88: 1-52. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-21 References September 2001 Plafker, G., J.C. Moore and G.R. Winkler. 1994. Geology of the Southern Alaska Margin. In G. Plafker and H.C. Berg, eds., The Geology of Alaska, Vol. G-1 of The Geology of North America (The Decade of North American Geology (DNAG)). Geological Society of America. 389-449 pp. Plafker, George, L.M. Gilpin and J.C. Lahr. 1994. Neotectonic Map of Alaska. In Plafker, G., H.C. Berg, eds., The Geology of Alaska: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, The Geology of North America, v.G1, pl. 12, with 3 tables and text. Price, K. 1998. Personal communication between Bob Mott, Dames & Moore, and Kathy Price, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. September. Pittenger, M. Dean, and Elizabeth A. Thomas. 1980. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance in the Chignik Village Area. In Archaeological Survey Projects, 1978, edited by Timothy L. Dilliplane, pp. 24-31. Miscellaneous Publications, History and Archaeology Series No. 22. Office of History and Archaeology, Alaska Division of Parks, Anchorage, Alaska. Pollock, R. 1997. Personal communication between Bob Mott, Dames & Moore, and Randy Pollock, Power Engineers. October. Poole, K.G. 1994. Characteristics of an Unharvested Lynx Population During a Snowshoe Hare Decline. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:608-618. Portlock, Nathaniel. 1789. Voyage Around the World, 1785-1788. London. Post, A. and L.R. Mayo. 1971. Glacier Dammed Lakes and Outburst Floods in Alaska. USGS Hydrologic Investigations, Atlas HA-455 (3 map sheets). Scale 1:1,000,000. Power Engineers, Inc. 1998. Southern Intertie Project, Cost Summary Report Phase 1-B. ___. 1997a. Southern Intertie Project, Cost Summary Report. January. . 1997b. Southern Intertie Project, Phase 1-B. . 1997c. Southern Intertie Route Selection Study Phase 1B, Studies Section Report. . 1996a. Southern Intertie Project, Route Selection Study, Phase I. . 1996b. Southern Intertie Project, Route Selection Study, Phase I. Final Studies Section Report. Power Engineers, Inc. and Dames & Moore. 1999. Southern Intertie Project Final Environmental Analysis, and associated Map Volume. . 1996. In five separate reports. Southern Intertie Project, Route Selection Study, Phase I. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-22 References September 2001 Power Engineers, Inc. and Hart-Crowser. 1987. Anchorage - Kenai Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study. Vols. ] and 2. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority. Quimby, R.L. 1972. Waterbird Habitat and Use of Chickaloon Flats. University of Alaska, College, Alaska. Master Thesis. 86 pp. Rural Electric Association (REA). 1978. Design Guide for Rural Substations. REA Bulletin 65- 1. June. R&M Consultants, Inc. 1982. Turnagain Arm Landform (Terrain Unit) Mapping. Prepared for the Municipality of Anchorage. Rappeport, M.L. 1982. An Analysis of Oceanographic and Meteorological Conditions for Central Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska. USGS Open-File Report 82-128. Reed, C. 1985. The Role of Wild Resource Use in Communities of the Central Kenai Peninsula and Kachemak Bay, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Technical Report No. 106. Reger, D. 1997. Personal communication: discussion regarding Quaternary paleontologic resources of Anchorage and Kenai lowlands. Alaska Office of History and Archaeology. June 9. Reger, Douglas R. 1996. Archaeology of the Northern Kenai Peninsula and Upper Cook Inlet. Office of History and Archaeology, Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Anchorage, Alaska. . 1980. Report of Archaeological Field Survey in the Willow-Wasilla Area, 1978. In Archaeological Survey Projects, 1978, Timothy L. Dilliplane, ed. Pages 1-23. Miscellaneous Publications, History and Archaeology Series No. 22. Office of History and Archaeology, Alaska Division of Parks, Anchorage, Alaska. Reger, Douglas R. and Joan M. Antonson. 1977. Girdwood Archaeological and Historic Site Survey. In Archaeological Survey Projects, 1976, Pages 1-13. Miscellaneous Publications, History and Archaeology Series No. 16. Office of History and Archaeology, Alaska Division of Parks, Anchorage, Alaska. Reynolds, P., H. Reynolds, and E. Follmann. 1986. Responses of Grizzly Bears to Seismic Surveys in Northern Alaska. In Bears-Their Biology and Management. Sixth International Conference on Bear Research and Management. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-23 References September 2001 Richardson, W.J. and C.R. Greene. 1987. Noise and Marine Mammals. Pages 271-282 in P.R. Becker, ed. Proceedings of a synthesis meeting: the Diapir Field environment and possible consequences of planned offshore oil and gas development; Chena Hot Springs, Alaska 25-28 January 1983. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Serv., Ocean Assess. Division, Alaska Office, Anchorage, Alaska. Richardson, W.J., C.R. Green Jr., C.I. Nalme and D.H. Thompson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press. San Diego, California. Rigg, Diana. 1998. Personal communication between Mike Doyle, Dames & Moore, and Diana Rigg, Anchorage Area Planner, ADOT&PF. April. . 1997. Personal communication with Geoff Pool, Dames & Moore, and Diana Rigg, Anchorage Area Planner, ADOT&PF. Rollins, A.M. 1978. Census Alaska: Number of Inhabitants 1792-1970. University of Alaska, Anchorage Library. Anchorage, Alaska. Rosenberg, D.H. 1986. Wetland Types and Bird Use of Kenai Lowlands. Special Studies, USFWS - Region 7. Anchorage, Alaska. Rusz, P.J., H.H. Prince, R.D. Rusz, G.A. Dawson. 1986. Near a Power Plant Cooling Pond. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 14:441-444. Schommer, Jack. 1998. Personal communication between Niklas Ranta, Dames & Moore, and Jack Schommer, Airspace and Procedures, Federal Aviation Administration. April. . 1997. Personal communication between Geoff Pool, Dames & Moore, and Jack Schommer, Airspace and Procedures, Federal Aviation Administration. June. Schwartz, C.C. 1997. Personal communication between E. Linwood Smith, Dames & Moore, and Charles C. Schwartz, USFWS. October. Schwartz, C.C. and A.W. Franzmann. 1991. Interrelationship of Black Bears to Moose and Forest Succession in the Northern Coniferous Forest. Wildlife Monographs No. 113. pp. 1-58. . 1980. Black Bear Predation on Moose. Prepared for ADF&G. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Research Annual Report - Project W-17-11 and W-21-1. 82 pp. Schwartz, C.C. and S.M. Arthur. 1996. Cumulative Effects Model Verification, Sustained Yield Estimation, and Population Viability Management of the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska Brown Bear. Prepared for ADF&G. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Research Progress Report July 1, 1994 - June 30, 1996. 9 pp. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-24 References September 2001 Schwartz, C.C., A.W. Franzmann and D.C. Johnson. 1985. Population Ecology of the Kenai Peninsula Black Bear. Prepared by ADF&G, Juneau, Alaska. 15 pp. Scott, K.M. 1982. Erosion and Sedimentation in the Kenai River, Alaska. USGS Professional Paper 1235. Seitz, J., L. Tomrdle and J. Fall. 1994. The Use of Fish and Wildlife in the Upper Kenai Peninsula Communities of Hope, Whittier, and Cooper Landing. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska. January 20, 1994 Draft Technical Report No. 219. . 1992. The Use of Fish and Wildlife in the Upper Kenai Peninsula Communities of Hope, Whittier, and Cooper Landing. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska. Draft Technical Report No. 219. Selkregg, L.L. 1974. Alaska Regional Profiles, South-Central Region. State of Alaska, Office of the Governor, in cooperation with Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission. 255 pp. Sellmeyer, Scott. 1995. A Diversified Economy - The Kenai Peninsula in Alaska Economic Trends. ADOL, Research and Analysis Section. February. Shepard, F.P. 1973. Submarine Geology, Third Edition. Simmons, L. 1998. Personal communication between Bob Mott, Dames & Moore, and Larry Simmons, Finance Director, City of Soldotna. December. Sinclair, Jack. 1996. Personal communication between Mike Doyle and Geoff Pool, Dames & Moore, to Jack Sinclair, District Ranger-Captain Cook SRA, Alaska State Parks. August. Sinnot, Rick. 1999. Personal communication between Mike Doyle, Dames & Moore, to Rick Sinnot, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. April. . 1996. Personal communication between Mike Doyle, Dames & Moore, and Rick Sinnot, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. September. Sinnott, R. 1996. Personal communication between Mark Vania, Dames & Moore, and Rich Sinnott, Wildlife Biologist, ADF&G. Anchorage, Alaska. Smith, E.L. 1981. Effects of Canoeing on Common Loon Production and Survival on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Masters Thesis submitted to Colorado State University. May 1981. Fort Collins, Colorado. 40 pp. Smith, R. 1998. Personal communication between Bob Mott, Dames & Moore, and Randy Smith, Soldotna Chamber of Commerce. December. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-25 References September 2001 Sokolowski, T. 1996. Personal communication: discussion regarding tsunami potential in upper Cook Inlet. Director, Alaska Tsunami Warning Center. Spalding, John. 1996. Personal communication between Mike Doyle and Geoff Pool, Dames & Moore, and John Spalding, Alaska Airmen’s Association. December. Spraker, T., 1996. Personal communication between Mark Vania, Dames & Moore, and Ted Spraker, Wildlife Biologist, ADF&G, Soldotna, Alaska. Stanley, Kirk W. 1968. The Alaska earthquake, March 27, 1964: Regional Effects; Effects of the Alaska Earthquake of March 27, 1964 on Shore Processes and Beach Morphology. USGS Professional Paper 543-J. Staples, W.R., III. 1995. Lynx and Coyote Diet and Habitat Relationships During a Low Hare Population on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Master's Thesis. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. Staples, W. and T. Bailey. 1998. Disturbance of, and a Human Fatality Related to, Brown Bears in Dens During Winter Seismic Exploration on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. USFWS, KNWR, Soldotna, Alaska. Unpublished report. Stout, LJ. and G.W. Cornwell. 1976. Nonhunting Mortality of Fledged North American Waterfowl. Journal of Wildlife Management. 40:68 1-693. Stratton, B. and P. Cyr. 1997. Annual Management Report for the Anchorage Area, 1995. Prepared by ADF&G, Division of Sport Fish. Fishery Management Report, March 1997. Anchorage, Alaska. 60 pp. Suring, L.H., K.R. Barber, C.C. Schwartz, T.N. Bailey, W.C. Shuster and M.D. Tetreau. 1997. Analysis of Cumulative Effects on Brown Bears on the Kenai Peninsula. South-Central Alaska International Conference, Bear Resources and Management. Volume 10. Tai, Bill. 1996. Personal communication between Mike Doyle and Geoff Pool, Dames & Moore, and Bill Tai, Land Manager, Cook Inlet Region, Inc. August. Thompson’s Tide Table. 1997. South-Central Alaska Edition. Thurber, J.M., R.O. Peterson, T.D. Drummer and S.A. Thomasma. 1994. Gray Wolf Response to Refuge Boundaries and Roads in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 22: 61-8. Tikhmeney, Petr A. 1978. A History of the Russian-American Company. Translated and edited by Richard A. Pierce and Alton S. Donnelly. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Tobish, Thede. 1999. Personal communication between Mike Doyle, Dames & Moore, and Thede Tobish, Planner, Municipality of Anchorage. April. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-26 References September 2001 Tobish, Thede. 1997. Personal communication between Geoff Pool, Dames & Moore, and Thede Tobish, Planner, Municipality of Anchorage. June. Tysdal, R.G. and J.E. Case. 1979. Geologic Map of the Seward and Blying Sound Quadrangles, Alaska. Misc. Investigations Series Map I-1150. U.S. Census Bureau. 1993. U.S. Census of Population and Housing. . 1991. U.S. Census of Population Housing. - “1990 U.S. Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3A,” Using 1990 Census Lookup; <http://venus.census.gov/cdrom/lookup> (October 1997). . 1980. U.S. Census of Population and Housing. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics — A Handbook for Scenery Management. Handbook 701. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Chugach National Forest. 1996. Sixmile Salvage Sales Environmental Assessment, June 1996. ___. 1995. Resource Information Data Dictionary, March 1995. . 1993. Seward Highway Scenic Byway Interpretative Plan, November 1993. . 1984a. Land and Resource Management Plan. . 1984b. Land and Resource Management Plan, ROD, July 1984. . 1984c. Land and Resource Management Plan, Summary. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1979. Exploratory Soil Survey of Alaska. . 1979. Metropolitan Anchorage Urban Study Final Report. Volume 7: Soils of the Anchorage Area, Alaska. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District and the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska. . 1962. Soil Survey: Kenai-Kasilof Area, Alaska. Series 1958, No. 20. . 1963. Report of Reconnaissance Soil Survey, Kenai National Moose Range. Soil survey by Bobby B. Hinton, Norman B. Hulbert, C. Erwin Rice, and Eugene P. Davis. Report by Samuel Rieger. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-27 References September 2001 U.S. Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers. 1979. Water Quality, Knik Arm - Upper Cook Inlet Volume 3. Prepared in conjunction with the Municipality of Anchorage. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Economic Information System. 1998. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service. 1981. Sea Ice Conditions in the Cook Inlet, Alaska During the 1978-79 Winter. Francis W. Poole, NWS Forecast Office. NOAA Tech. Memo. NWS AR 30. . 1972. Sea Ice Conditions in the Cook Inlet, Alaska During the 1970-71 Winter. Richard J. Hutcheon, Marine meteorologist. NOAA Tech. Memo. AR 7. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Letter from Brian Anderson, USFWS Division of Realty, to Tim Tetherow, Dames & Moore. June 23, 1999. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Office of Subsistence Management. 1997. Daily mean discharge data for Rabbit Creek at New Seward Highway at Anchorage, Alaska from 10/01/1983 - 03/31/1986, streamflow gauging station 15273105. USGS Internet Address http://www-water-ak.usgs.gov. . 1997. Daily mean discharge data for Little Rabbit Creek at Anchorage, Alaska from 05/01/1979 - 09/30/1998, streamflow gauging station 15273102. USGS Internet Address http://www-water-ak.usgs.gov. 1996. Water resources data for Alaska, water year 1995: streamflow gauging station 15266300, Kenai River near Soldotna. USGS Water Data Report AK-95-1. 278 pp. . 1995. Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concerns in the United States: The 1995 List. USFWS, Washington, D.C. . 1994. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Maps for Anchorage Quadrangles, 1:24,000. Anchorage, Alaska. . 1994. Water resources data for Alaska, water year 1993: streamflow gauging station 15274600, Campbell Creek near Spenard. USGS Water Data Report AK-93-1. 373 pp. . 1993. Bald Eagle Basics — Alaska. USFWS, Alaska Region. 1993. Draft Kenai Peninsula Units 7 and 15 Customary and Traditional Use Determination Report. Anchorage, Alaska. December 8, 1993. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-28 References September 2001 U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Office of Subsistence Management. 1988a. Wolf Management Operational Plan, Game Management Unit 15A, Northern Portion of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. 1988b. Final Environmental Assessment for the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Furbearer Management Plan. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Soldotna, Alaska. . 1986. Survey of Waterfowl Staging Areas in Upper Cook Inlet. Unpublished report. Migratory Birds, USFWS, Anchorage, Alaska. . 1985. Comprehensive Conservation Plan. . 1982. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Maps for Anchorage, Kenai, Seward and Tyonic Quadrangles. Anchorage, Alaska. . 1980. Terrestrial Habitat Evaluation Criteria Handbook - Alaska. Division of Ecological Services. . 1971. Map of Hydrologic Investigations. Atlas HA-455 (3 Sheets). . n.d. The Next Big Earthquake in Southern Alaska May Come Sooner Than You Think. Are You Prepared? USGS/Alaska Division of Emergency Services/Alaska Geological and Geophysical Surveys. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region. 1996. Cook Inlet Planning Area, Oil and Gas Lease Sale 149. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vols. 1 and 2. MMS 95-0066. OCS EIS/EA. January 1996. . 1995. Cook Inlet Planning Area, Oil and Gas Lease Sale 149, Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Vols. 1 and 2. OCS EIS/EA MMS 94-0066. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. 1996. Alaska Supplement, August 15, 1996 - October 10, 1996. . Aeronautical Maps of South-Central Region and Anchorage. U.S. Geological Survey. 1997a. Daily mean discharge data for Bishop Creek near Kenai, Alaska from 03/01/1977 - 09/30/1979, streamflow gauging station 15267000. USGS Internet Address http://222-water-ak.usgs.gov. . 1985. Topographic Maps: Tyonek, Anchorage, Seward, Kenai. Scale 1:250,000 and 1:63,360. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-29 References September 2001 Updike, Randall G., Harold W. Olsen, Henry R. Schmoll, Yousif K. Kharaka and Kenneth H. Stokoe, Il. 1988. Geologic and Geotechnical Conditions Adjacent to the Turnagain Heights Landslide, Anchorage, AK. USGS Survey Bulletin 1817. Includes Plates 1-5. Updike, Randall G., Nagisa Yamamoto and Peter W. Glaesman. 1984. Alaska Report of Investigations 84-20. Moisture-density and Textural Analyses of Modern Tidal-Flat Sediments, Upper Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska. Prepared for Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys. Vancouver, George. 1967. A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean and Round the World, Vol. 3. De Capo, New York. Originally published 1798, G.G. and J. Robinson, London. Viereck, L.A., C.T. Dyrness, A.R. Batten and KJ. Wenzlick. 1992. The Alaska Vegetation Classification. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report No. 286. 278 pp. Viereck, L.A., Schandelmeier. 1980. Effects of Fire and Alaska and Adjacent Canada — literature review. USDOL, BLM, Alaska Technical Report No. 286. 278 pp. Wardleigh, Thomas. 1997. Personal communication between Geoff Pool, Dames & Moore, and Thomas Wardleigh, Chairman Alaska Aviation Safety Foundation. January. West, G. 1994. Bird Finders Guide to the Kenai Peninsula. Birchside Studios, Homer, Alaska. West, Robin. 1996. Personal communication between Mike Doyle and Geoff Pool, Dames & Moore, and Robin West, Refuge Manager, KNWR. August. Winkler, G.R. 1992. Geologic Map and Summary Geochronology of the Anchorage 1° x 3° Quadrangle, Southern Alaska. USGS Misc. Investigation Series, Map I-2283. Scale 1:250,000. Wood, Katie. 1998. Personal communication with Kathy Tarr, Executive Director of the Kenai Visitors and Convention Bureau. Woodall. 1996. Woodall’s Western Campground Directory. Woodall Publications Corporation, Lake Forest, Illinois. Zenone, Chester and Gary S. Anderson. 1978. Summary Appraisals of the Nation’s Ground- Water Resources-Alaska. USGS Professional Paper 813-P. Zenone, Chester. 1974. Geology and Water Resources of the Girdwood-Alyeska Area, Alaska. Open-File Report. Prepared by USGS in cooperation with the Greater Anchorage Area Borough. Southern Intertie Project DEIS R-30 References September 2001 GLOSSARY A-Weighted Sound Level - Sound that is measured with a sound-level meter using the A-weighted response filter that is built into the meter circuitry. The A-weighted filter simulates the frequency response to the human ear. Anadromous - Ascending from the sea into rivers for breeding. Anticlines - An arch of stratified rock in which the layers are folded upwards. Bathymetric - A measure of underwater depths. Borough - A civil division in the State of Alaska corresponding to a county in most other states. Bus (electrical) - A conductor or assembly of conductors for collecting electric currents and distributing them to outgoing feeders. Capacity - The rated continuous load-carrying ability, expressed in MW or megavolt-amperes (MVA) of generation, transmission, or other electrical equipment. Circuit - A complete closed conducting path over which electric current may flow. Colluvial - Soil and rock detritus accumulated at the bottom of a slope. Conductor - A material, usually in the form of a wire or cable, suitable for carrying an electric current. Contrast - The effect of a striking visual difference in the form, line, or texture of an area being viewed. Corona Activity - Electrical interference and noise resulting from the partial electrical breakdown of the air next to energized conductors. Occurs when the voltage gradient surrounding the conductors or hardware exceeds the breakdown strength of the air, resulting in electrical discharge at the conductor surface. Corridor - A continuous trace of land of defined width through which a utility route passes. Cultural Resources - Any site or artifact associated with cultural activities. Cumulative Impact - Effects that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Direct Impact - Effects that are caused by the action (i.e., construction) and occur at the same time and place (see Indirect Impact). Southern Intertie Project DEIS 1 Glossary September 2001 Duct Bank - Containment system for underground transmission lines. Economy Energy - Energy produced and supplied from a more economical source in one system and substituted for that being produced or capable of being produced by a less economical source in another system. Electric Field - Electric effect resulting from the voltage on a transmission line. Measured as volts per meter (V/m) or kilovolts per meter (kV/m). Electric System Losses - Total electric energy losses in an electric system as a result of transmission, transformation, and distribution. Electric energy is lost primarily due to heating of transmission and distribution elements. Electromagnetic Field (EMF) - A space or region within which magnetic forces are present around an electrical current. Emergent (vegetation) - Aquatic plants which project above the surface of the water. Endangered Species - Any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Federally endangered species are protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Estuarine - Saltmarsh habitats that occur typically at low-lying coastal area, such as mouths of river systems or tidal areas. Ethnography - That aspect of cultural and social anthropology devoted to the first-hand description of particular cultures. Fault - A fracture or fracture zone in the earth’s surface layers along which there has been displacement of the sides relative to one another parallel to the fracture. Forest Edge Effect - The forest “edge” is the zone where different plant and animal communities and successional stages meet. Widening of the right-of-way would increase the “edge effect” by further changing the composition of the biotic communities. Frost Heave - An upthrust of ground or pavement caused by freezing on moist soil. Frost Jacking - Upward displacement of pilings or other buried structures as a result of frost heaving. Fuel Cells - Power generating systems that produce DC electricity by combining hydrogen and oxygen in an electrochemical reaction. Compared with traditional generating technologies that use combustion processes first to convert fuel to heat and mechanical energy, fuel cells convert the chemical energy of a fuel to electric energy directly. Glossary September 2001 Southern Intertie Project DEIS tN Gauss - Measurement of the magnetic flux intensity (intensity of magnetic field attraction per unit area). General Mitigation - Mitigation measures or techniques to which the Project has made a commitment on a non-specific basis. Habitat Fragmentation - A reduction in area of undisturbed, continuous habitat. Often affects interior forest species that depend on unbroken expanses of mature coniferous forest. Hydrothermal Coordination - The operation of hydro and thermal generation resources in a way that results in overall lower system operating costs. Indirect Impact - Effects that are caused by the action and occur later in time or are farther removed, but are still reasonably foreseeable (see Direct Impact). Lacustrine - Lakes and ponds more than 2 acres in surface area. Lithic Flakes - Stone chips and flakes resulting from preparation of stone tools. Load Shedding - The process of deliberately removing, either manually or automatically, preselected loads from a power system in response to an abnormal condition in order to maintain the integrity of the system and minimize overall outages. Magnetic Field - Electric effect resulting from an electric current flowing in a conductor. Unit of measurement is a Gauss. Mitigation - A means to alleviate or render less intense or severe. Moment Magnitude — A number that indicates the strength of an earthquake. It is related to the energy released during the earthquake. Muskegs - Bog dominated by sphagnum moss. Paleontology - The science that deals with the life of past geological ages through the study of the fossil remains of organisms. Permafrost - Permanently frozen layer of soil. Power Transfer Capacity - The measure of the ability of interconnected electrical systems to move or transfer power in a reliable manner from one area to another. The units of transfer capability are generally expresses in MW. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 3 Glossary September 2001 Reactive Compensation - Provides transmission system voltage stability and facilitates power transfers. Reactive compensation is provided by reactors and capacitors located within substations or transition stations. Refuse Midden - An archeological site containing a refuse or trash pile. Residual Impact - The adverse impact of an action remaining after application of all mitigation measures. Right-of-Way - Strip of land over which the transmission line, access road, and maintenance road will pass. Ring Bus - An substation arrangement of circuits and breakers whereby each breaker is shared by two circuits; therefore, two breakers must open to clear each line fault. Riverine - Relating to, or within the limits of river or stream channels. Scenery Management System - A U.S. Forest Service methodology system used to describe and analyze impacts to visual quality. Scenic Quality Classes - Class A, lands of outstanding or distinctive scenic quality; Class B, typical scenic quality; and Class C, undistinctive scenic quality. Secure Power Transfer - The maximum power transfer permissible for the system to remain stable and operational with a sudden loss of the transferred power. Seiches - Oscillations of the surface of a lake or landlocked sea that varies in period from a few minutes to several hours. Analogous to tsunamis in marine environments. Seismicity - The likelihood of an area being subject to earthquakes. The phenomenon of earth movements. Selective Mitigation - Mitigation measures or techniques to which the Project has made commitments on a case-by-case basis after impacts were identified and assessed. Significant (impacts) - Term used to describe any impact that would cause a substantial adverse change or stress to one or more environmental resources. Spinning Reserves - A portion of the operating power reserves that are maintained by utility companies in order to maintain consistent energy supply in response to consumer demand and failures of the generation and transmission system. Spinning reserves are unloaded generation, which is synchronized and ready to serve additional demand. Spinning reserves improve reliability but are expensive to maintain. Southern Intertie Project DEIS Glossary September 2001 Static Lines - Small diameter wires that are placed above the phase wires on a transmission line to intercept lightning. Subsidence (soil) - The sinking of the earth’s surface because of the withdrawal of water or mineral resources. Subsistence - The customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable resources for direct personal consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation; for the making and selling of handicraft articles out of nonedible byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption; and for customary tradel], as defined in Section 803 of ANICLA. Substation - A facility in an electrical transmission system with the capability to route and control electrical power, and to transform power to a higher or lower voltage. System Stability - That property of a power system that enables it to remain in a state of operating equilibrium under normal operating conditions and to regain an acceptable state of equilibrium after being subjected to a disturbance. Threatened Species - Any species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant part of its range. Federally threatened species are protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Tidal Bore - A solitary, tidally generated wave that typically moves up a slowly moving estuary with the incoming tide. Transition Site - Facility that changes transmission line from overhead to underground or to a submarine cable. Viewshed - The visible portion of the landscape seen from a viewpoint or viewing area. Wetlands - Those areas that are inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency sufficient to support vegetative life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 5 Glossary September 2001 INDEX SUMMARY A Air quality Alaska Railroad. Anchorage..... 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8,9, 16, 25 ANILCA.... Avalanche .. Aviation B Bald Eagle.. Bernice Lake Substation . Black Bear . Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project.. Brown Bear... Burnt Island .. ic Captain Cook State Recreation Area Caribou Chickaloon Bay. Chugach National Forest. International Substation Intertie Participants Group. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge .. 5 Kincaid Park . KNWR..1, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23525) L LYNX scsesosossecsvcsssesessasnsnsesascnsssenssssvencesesensesesenssszseesens 21 20, 22 colt LO ae, Moose Point... N National Environmental Policy Act D National Register of Historic Places 15 National Scenic Byway.. 10 IDS Mi ircccsscssccssetecssvesvsnsvsscsnsosssscesvossscessssssssssoucouscsssesss 9 NEPA... E EMR aecccsecesersecesszce-vestacoreccseesssacsasceserestessssucesenrasaseere 15 P F Potter Marsh.. Pt. Campbell . Fire Island Pt. Possession... Ons 2525 Fuel cell Q G Qartz| Cree kcrscccssescsscessseccssssstsscstesesasense 2, 4,8, 10, 11 Geologic ReSOUICES ..........sssscsscnssssesscscensccsceseceesees 18 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Index September 2001 R Railbel tssscssssoxevsctesasectrscsanscscasessrcscgstucotssesnssses 125314 Recreation... Palos 2220) Reliability ... Rural Utilities Service.. TRUS Peececeseecretacassensressstnsates srenstenscersestarsteceressrseses 125 Sixmile Creek Socioeconomics . Soldotna Submarine Cable Subsistence . Substations... Transition Stations Trumpeter Swan. Turnagain Arm... 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 17, 25 U U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . Underground... Southern Intertie Project DEIS Index September 2001 CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE AND NEED rs ear e tao a tes anes t Senet iatrat ocsst seas 35 Anchorage.....1, 2, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35 Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge ... ANILCA.. Avalanche ... Rasssenterees 35 B Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project.....2, 7, 14, 30, 31 Cc Chugach National Forest..............:sssssssessssssessssseeees 35) Chugach State Park.. Cook Inlet Grrcrsrsnseseres Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project.. Cooper Landing CWG oO Ota RES i eecsercessecctectestentecasecsscetccnteecetstcensesreteeses 16, 17 Pp Rortagenncnsntemmenttnccteenter tenes 14, 17 Q Quartz Creek.....2, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29 R Railbelt.. 1, 2, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31 Reliability . meeLON S125 145155195 20521531 Rural Utilities Service. 2 fol S99 32, 34, 35, 37 Spinning reserves. 10, 28 H Submarine Cable seesseseceeeetaraarstesree eta 33 | Homer.. 1, 257; 8,18; 22 T Hope.... Hydroelectric SINEMA SAMMLCAT MN seretescsctcetctecstarsrtucstetatecessrcecessetes 14, 35 I U TPG ra eee lier 1, 11,31, 36 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service «0... 36 UU SEW sy eessecscseteessttsessesnsnsrstensattecsstecssaeset 1, 36, 37, 38 K WwW 1, 35, 36, 37, 38 \WHLOTINESS ores ancessrsveece-cncseescreccecescaccevocsccateccsaccscsteres 87 L Line Losses ....... Load shedding.. N Southern Intertie Project DEIS Index September 2001 CHAPTER 2 —- ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL 38, 41, 42, 43 .18, 26, 58, 59 Airport.... Bey -. 26, 34, 54 Alaska Department ‘of Natural Rea mi) Alaska pce of Transportation.... 18 Alaska Railroad... p25 2032), 34, 42, 43, 58 Anchorage..... 1, 2 4, ig i) 8, OMI IS W4t 21226235 24, 25, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 50, 54, 57, 59, 61, 66, 67, 68 PANE CA tescrreresrararassatancasacconsecccussvesrerseecesta:) 34, 35, 68 Avalanche .. 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 B Beluga Transmission Corridor.. Bernice Lake Substation . Burnt Island Pe sevsccstsecsscscacessccarssastasests 25, 34, 54, 68 a Chickaloon Bay. 23, 25, 32, 34, 41, 42, 49 Chugach National Forest Chugach State Park.. Conductor .. Cook Inlet D Demand Side Management Distributed Generation F Federal Energy Regulatory Commission..............-+ 13 Fire Island..................7, 23, 24, 32, 35, 38, 54, 59, 67 eel] eee eae een eer ra trea rarsenreestasenesetatetetess 7,8 G Grind Wood ee tercetectescetesstiestececesscenseaseses 9, 13, 14, 15 H Helicopter construction H-frames . 14, 15, 16,19 21, 52 Hydroelectric . I 32, 34, 42, 43, 44, 68 Burersnsesesrsncets 1,5, 61 International Substation . Kenai National Wildlife Refuge H Kincaid Parke hiss ssecscsscccecscessceses MoALSS) KNWR..22, 23, 24, 25, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 44, 57, 67, 68 oO Operation and maintenance...........:.scseseseeeeeeeeeeeees 65 rp Point Woronzof Substation ...........::s:sesssssesseseeeeeeees 35 Portage 2h Potter Marsh.. 26 Pt. Campbell . .24, 25, 32, 35, 38, 39, 54, 67, 68 Pt. Possession....23, 24, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 52, 54, 61, 67 Q Quartz Creek.....1, 2,9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22033 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Index September 2001 R Railbeltcar.ccscteccecesetore etre eetesrtsnreeecnssesciewte 16; 7-3) Recreation... Reliability ... S) Seward ........ 5, 13, 18, 25, 26, 32, 34, 43, 44, 54, 56 Sixmile Creek donemsmemsscersrecrsceserstestectenstice 12, 19, 21 Soldotna....4, 9, 12, 24, 25, 27, 32, 34, 39, 40, 45, 49, 51, 52, 56, 57, 68 Spinning reserves.. Submarine Cable -50, 51, 54, 57, 60, 62, 63 Substations......... 51,58, 61, 66 a Transition Stations .. os «50, 51, 58, 60, 65 Turnagain Arm....1, 12, 19, 24, 27, 28, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 41, 50, 54, 57, 64, 65, 67 U 26, 37, 38, 39, 43, 49, 50, 51, 57, - 60, 61, 63 Underground... 22, 34, 35, 68 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Index September 2001 CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES A ACCESS TOA HU. cucacencsatestessevensnsesstsesnsstsensesssazesessces 310 ACWR 23, 34, 35, 36, 48, 49, 50, 52, 56, 64, 82, 85, 86, 87, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 134, 135, 136, 137, 145, 146, 153, 154, 304, 310 ADF&G40, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 73, 117, 118, 134, 13591375) 1623/1675 '219;, 220; 2225223. 224) 303 ..138, 156, 189, 313 Air quality... Airport 17, 41, 45, 67, 68, 79, 138, 139, 141, 142, 145, 147, 156, 183, 195, 236, 261, 273, 274, 275, 277, 279, 280, 281,313. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.... 40, 127, 134 Alaska Department of Natural Resources 56, 127, 132, 133 Alaska Department of Transportation................. 127 Alaska Railroad 22, 35, 36, 49, 99, 101, 110, 127, 135, 138,154, 155, 156, 272, 273, 274, 277, 278, 279, 280, 286, 287, 288, 290, 324, 332 Anadromous fish... .. 6, 105, 106 Anchorage 2, 8,9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 27, 30, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 48, 49, 50, 51, 57, 59, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, 69, 83, 84, 87, 88, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 110, 112, - 113, 117,119, 123, 124, 126, 127, 129, ° 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 144, 145, 146, 147, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158, 159, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 211, 214, 215, 217, 219, 226, 227, 228, 230, 231, 2325236) 256, 257 20l 2221S et 286, 287, 288, 290, 291, 292, 294, 297, 303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310, 313, 323, 324, 333, 338 ANILCA....5, 128, 129, 130, 167, 219, 223, 302, 309 Aviation 139, 141, 142, 144, 145, 146, 149, 150, 151, 156 B Beluga whales................sssceeseeeee0119, 120, 121, 122 Bernice Lake Substation 2, 17, 45, 79, 114, 139, 143, 144, 206, 255, 256, 258 Black Bear 60, 64, 71, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 92, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 329, 335 Brown Bear 60, 64, 65, 72, 73, 78, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 90, 92, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 303, 330, 335 Burnt Island 2, 9, 13, 20, 26, 29, 34, 35, 48, 97, 98, 116) 1117, 151, 1535/1154; 235,,273:288, 305 c Captain Cook State Recreation Area ........ 45, 80, 287 Caribou 38, 61, 67, 68, 74, 79, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 92, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 130) 22052221330; 335 Chickaloon Bay 13, 20, 21, 27, 30, 34, 35, 48, 49, 51, 71, 72, 93, 97, 98, 99, 100, 104, 109, 116, 118, 120, 121, 123, 124, 126, 129515 111525153;2104,.220; 227, 235, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 290, 303, 304, 305 Chugach National Forest 221, 222, 226, 227, 228, 305, 313 Ghugach!State Parkers secre teteee see areeens 227 Clearing 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 83, 86, 87, 89, 90, 92, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101, 102, 103, 259, 329 —S Cook Inlet 8,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 30, 40, 51, 52, 56, 65, 111, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 124, 125, 127, 128, 133, 134, 144, 159, 178, 206, 210, 220, 222, 223, 226, 227, 228, 230, 231, 234, 236, 237, 254, 256, 258, 260, 261, 283, 284, 285, 286, 302, 303, 304, 305 Cooper Landing 5, 138, 177, 178, 181, 182, 185, 187, 194, 219, 221, 222, 223, 224, 286, 309 Cumulative impact eels(2,1501, S05, Bald Eagle 53,57, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, CY Gerster aoe aeetneed eae laeabeseueesssssreresanerene 304 89, 91, 94, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 329, 335 Bathymety ..............-c-cecsssssesssseseseereresescsscnssccesacsees 26 Index Southern Intertie Project DEIS September 2001 E JEL ele (01:1 < eeee a oan EERE aE a een Me 10 EEMB oosessssvssessocscsssaserasaees 292, 294, 295, 297, 298, 300 F FA cued 140, 141, 142, 144, 145, 146, 150, 153 Cees ed 9, 10, 19, 20, 25, 34, 35 Fire Island 17, 18, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 45, 63, 68, 82, 83, 107, 112, 122, 125, 138, 142, 145, 146, 215, 227, 236, 237, 258, 259, 261, 289, 291, 305, 310, 324 Fire Management Plan.................5 130, 131, 332, 335 G 305, 326, 334 167, 172, 313 issue aaacoesaeac 2 Geologic Resources Girdwood ............ Ground disturbance. H Habitat..51, 59, 70, 71, 88, 91, 93, 130, 302, 328, 332 Homer. 204, 220, 222, 306, 313 Hope.... 223, 224, 225, 285, 288 I International Substation 2, 21, 22, 23, 36, 49, 50, 100, 101, 102, 103, 109, 110, 154, 155, 156, 177, 217, 273, 274, 275, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 310, 324 Intertic Participants Group ...s:..0:::sss0s-csnesssessnsesouss 204 IPG... 1, 204 K Kenai National Wildlife Refuge ........0.0.00.. 197, 313 Kincaid Park 66, 86, 87, 88, 126, 136, 137, 147, 148, 227, 231, 237, 261, 304, 324, 332, 333 KNWR 2,5, 7, 12, 13, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 51, 55, 56, 57, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 81, 86, 88, 89, 91, 94, 95, 96, 106, 111, 112, 113, 115, 116, 118, 125, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 138, 141, 143, 145, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 167, 197, 219, 224, 226, 228, 230, 231, 234, 235, 263, 266, 269, 270, 271, 302, 303, 305, 306, 307, 309, 310, 312, 313, 323, 330, 332, 333, 335, 338 L Landscape Scenery230, 254, 256, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 264, 265, 267, 268, 270, 272, 273, 275, 277, 278, 279, 281 Lynx 60, 62, 75, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87. 89, 92, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 305, 330, 336 M Mammals 50, 60, 63, 71, 75, 118, 120, 305, 329, 332, 335 Marine 4, 26, 31, 51, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 145, 224, 305, 327, 332, 334 Moose 13, 19, 20, 38, 41, 50, 55, 56, 57, 61, 63, 66, 67, 68, 73, 74, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 108, 109, 112, 115, 125, 129, 130, 131, 135,143, 144, 145, 148, 149, 167, 179, 193, 198, 210, 224, 231, 234, 235, 257, 262, 263, 264, 265, 269, 270, 271, 302, 303, 306, 313, 330, 332, 333, 335 Moose Point 79, 143, 144, 145, 179, 198, 210, 234, 257, 269, 303, 306, 333 Mystery Creek 13, 20, 41, 94, 95, 96, 109, 112, 116, 129, 131, 138, 151, 227, 231, 235, 269,-270, 271, 326, 332 N National Historic Preservation Act National Register of Historic Places Native American.. Native Corporation . .-82, 84, 122, 123, 292, 293, 296, 297 Northern Intertie .. ...304, 306, 312, 313 P Point Woronzof Substation - 56, 288, 313 Potter Marsh 30, 35, 50, 52, 99, 100, 102, 113, 134, 135, 136, 167, 227, 235 Pt. Campbell 18, 30, 33, 39, 46, 57, 85, 86, 87, 108, 123, 126, 135, 136, 144, 145, 147, 148, 231, 260, 261, 262, 289, 290, 324 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Index September 2001 Pt. Possession 2, 17, 18, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 44, 45, 46, 63, 73, 76, 77, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 107, 108, 114, 122, 123, 126, 127, 130, 132, 137, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 178, 210, 254, 255, 256, 258, 259, 260, 269, 270, 287, 289, 297, 305, 306 Q weee193, 269, 297 Quartz Creek.... R Railbelt... 174, 202, 203, 204, 304, 305, 306, 312, 313, . Recreation —- 127, 128, 129, 132, 133, 139, 148, 149, 182, 197, 234, 275, 305, 310, 313, 332, 336 Riparian ss it tasescseseesesestacsssosesenseszaesenzesccssssees 65, 66, 95 Ss Salamatof... vwuel27, 132,138, 148, 149, 219 Scoping .. . 301, 302. Seismicity .. Seward 22, 23, 36, 50, 102, 103, 110, 126, 136, 138, 139, 156, 157, 159, 162, 190, 192, 193, 204, 206, 222, 231, 232, 236, 272, 273, 279, 280, 281, 282, 286, 288, 290, 306, 313 Socioeconomics 5, 305, 332, 336 Soldotna2, 13, 18, 19, 20, 33, 34, 47, 88, 90, 91, 93, 108, 112, 115, 123, 128, 134, 138, 139, 143, , 148, 149, 150, 151, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 177, 178, 179, 180, . 181, 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 194, 195, 205, 206, 207, 209, 210, 219, 226, 230, 232, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 288, 289, 297, 302, 313, 333 J Special Management Area Submarine Cable 7 Subsistence 5, 120, 219, 220, 223, 224, 305, 333, 336 Substations ..+..:.-ssccereusnsurssssevsvsssussessetsovanss 90, 93, 294 i AA Wihhreatemed |....2.-0-s.-sonsunsessaessecsnessnsnsnssesseeserenssesostess 124 Tony Knowles Coastal Trail 135, 136, 147, 227, 232, 236, 261, 262 Tourism.......... 158, 159, 162, 166, 171, 174, 197, 336 Transition Stations . Trapper Joe Lake .... 94, 151, 235, 269, 270, 271 133, 134, 150 Trumpeter Swan 53, 55, 76, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 94, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 328, 335 Turnagain Arm 2, 9, 11, 18, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 4, 35, 51, 56, 106, 112, 113, 117, 118, 119, 121, 124, 125, 126, 133, 134, 147, 153, 154, 167, 168, 173, 174, 176, 177, 180, 198, 199, 200, 202, 222, 226, 227, 230, 231, 232, 235, 236, 237, 260, 272, 273, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 303, 304, 305, 310, 323, 324, 327 TeyOmek i... cscvosssesssssesessessussssesessossussesrssuescesent 127, 138 U U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .127, 128, 197 Underground assssseseecsesst 290 USFWS 7, 40, 42, 43, 55, 58, 59, 64, 65, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 125, 128, 130, 132, 153, 167, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 269, 302, 309, 310, 338 Vv 37, 38, 42, 43, 47, 252, 270, 273, 305, 327, 334 Visual 6, 209, 226, 227, 231, 232, 252, 253, 257, 259, 265, 303, 305, 333, 337 Vegetation Ww Waterfowl 51, 76, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 93, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 328, 335 Wetlands se escssvessesesrecsouens 37, 40, 41, 305, 327, 334 Wilderness -.2...cccsescsesssesssveesess 129, 130, 132, 143, 307 Wolf 60, 62, 63, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 92, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 130, 305, 313, 331, 336 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Index September 2001 CHAPTER 4 —- SCOPING, CONSULTANTION, AND COORDINATION A eo peal paeeteeset , 18, 30 Airport. o 15 Alaska ene of Natural Resources A) Alaska aa EAs 14, 31 Anchorage 1, 3, 5,6 cr 8, 10, il, 14, AS, 16, 17, 20, 21 22; 24525,.27, 29, 30, 31 ANILCA..... 26; 27, 38 | Avalanche 13,19, 24 Aviation 7, 8, 13, 15, 21, 29, 30 * ic Caribou ........ Chickaloon Ba Chugach National Forest. pose ones Chugach State Park 3, 6, 8, 10, 15, 30 Cook Inlet...... peas Sy LOLOL Cooper Landing 3, 6, 8, 10, 15, 16, 18, 21 Cumulative impact alt D DDS Vi teeseernrsnneensessstetatestacevesvaveusrerarerasecrssressrestaten 13, 24 E HW sey AU 18523) F fa ..15, 21, 25, 29” Federal Aviation Administration .. Fire Island Floodplain .--cscvsnssnesusnanninnsnnnsee eeeee : 26 G Gir wWOO Cd esmereererscrcstnetetrrettattetscrcantessecersteeretress 6, 10 H Kenai National Wildlife Refuge KNWR............ B15; 1651718322523; 25) 27529) M Marine... Moose .. Moose Point 14, 16 N National Environmental Policy Act. National Historic Preservation Act.. National Register of Historic Places National Scenic Byway Native American...... Native Corporation .. NEPA.. Ninilchik. Potter Marsh.. Pt. Campbell .. Pt. Possession... Q Recreation... Reliability .. Resurrection Trail, Rural Utilities Service. Southern Intertie Project DEIS 10 Index September 2001 Ss S alammato fitsscecscstszscosscecenssesstcss tates ssecscessrssssssors Scoping .... Seward Sixmile Creek . Socioeconomics .. Soldotna 15:2,,0;'8; 10, 21, 25, 31 Special Wse:Rermiitrs::reccscesesensaresecesesecarcerscecenre 29, 30 Subsistence .. Substations... T Mony Knowles Coastal Trail <t5<::<.c<c:scccrescccesoeeoesses 15 Tourism 3,.6, 13,:15, 21 6, 20, 22 seeJ DONT Turnagain Arm. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .. Underground... USFWS 2, 255 2152, Vv Wiistiall Sracscscssscssacetvsesstsccsstsnesetonsnesssecr 3, 12, 13, 16, 22 WwW Waterfowl ... Wetlands ..17, 26, 29, 30 NWAldOEneSs (rece scectcsscsesvcacesscceetecourcencctescensneoseees 3, 8, 26 Southern Intertie Project DEIS 11 Index September 2001 CHAPTER 5 - PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS I Intertie Participants Group <-:2:.-ccsccsccserssosesscossosnsessesse w K Kenai National Wildlife Refuge ... Recreation Rural Utilities Service. Ss Scoping Socioeconomics Subsistence U.S. Army Corp of Engineers U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .... v VaASUal eererececterererssteres ses cssatessetceseerersesetecrsecemnesners 12S Southern Intertie Project DEIS 12 Index September 2001 APPENDICES A ACWR. Airport.. Alaska Railroad.. ANGCHOT AS ee ecsccenssesesesesesass , B-25, B-26, B-42, Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge ...........::00 D-5 -28, B-45, B-49 -15, B-47, B-49 I RG eteevcs cea cecssstssresecezncsesn ctnseacseenenscnsassaeneses D-1, D-2 K IKGNCaid) Parksesmersrercncssssrerctscetcserrescsreses C-4, C-20 FRG Ye assent B-12, C-4, C-8, C-9, C-18, C-20 1 Teandscape: Scenery) ccsscsssucacscesveseesseecsasceccesereersrs C-18 M B-31, C-4, C-7 ..C-3, C-20 poke) Mystery Creek .. N National Electric Safety Code... Pp; PEW oronzof Substation! cccscccesensestssessesescrseseees C-14 Pt. Campbell .. Pt. Possession. R PRAUI Dente rece reece tereteae eee cre tee eee ee eet C-13 IRECTeAtIOM Meetesseensseecerectencenceceneaencenenectereeseerereene C-10 S Seward Socioeconomics Soil boring .. B-15, B-28, B-44, B-49 Soldotna...... C-9, C-14, C-17, C-18, C-19 Submarine Cable B-41, B-42, B-43 T Widali mudflats cstccecsrssessessesecessesserereesrensscocccesese B-31 Turnagain Arm B-42, B-43, B-44, C-3, C-14, C-15, C=17, C-18 U Underground... B-25, B-26 ..C-4, C-5, C-8 Vv NV CROtALION sresessecctceesesescacasecesnccenncccesecsteseeeress C-5, C-22 Visual C-11, C-17, C-19, C-21, C-22, C-24, C-25, C-26, C=27 WwW Wetlands tarsassmsesccce se neceececenccsncectectusreeseeecensesesrtren C-5 X POLO WETS sracenenensscsserceserevenencusnventusutnsecececeses B-2, B-13 Southern Intertie Project DEIS Index September 2001