Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRailbelt Intertie Reconnaaissance Study Vol. 5 Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie Project 1987 RAILBELT INTERTIE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY Volume 5 Anchorage - Kenai Transmission Intertie Project Power Engineers Inc. Hart-Crowser Inc. i Alaska Power Authority siting RAILBELT INTERTIE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY VOLUME 5 ANCHORAGE~KENAI TRANSMISSION INTERTIE PROJECT Prepared by Power Engineers Incorporated Hart-Crowser Incorporated May 1987 RAILBELT INTERTIE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY VOLUME NUMBER i 10 11 LIST OF VOLUMES VOLUME TITLE Economic and Demographic Projections for the Alaska Railbelt: 1988-2010 Forecast of Electricity Demand in the Alaska Railbelt Region: 1988-2010 Analysis of Electrical End Use Efficiency Programs for the Alaskan Railbelt Fuel Price Outlooks: Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Fuel Oil Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie Project Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie Expansion and Upgrade Project Railbelt Stability Study Northeast Transmission Intertie Project Estimated Costs and Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Plants in the Alaska Railbelt Region Estimated Costs and Environmental Impacts of a Natural Gas Pipeline System Linking Fairbanks with the Cook Inlet Area Benefit/Cost Analysis EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This final report presents the results of a comprehensive feasibility study of a proposed new electrical transmission line intertie between metropolitan Anchorage and the central Kenai Peninsula by POWER Engineers under APA Contract No. 2800033. The study addresses the need for a new intertie; evaluates upgrading the existing intertie; presents findings of a transmission route and facilities selection study; recommends a preferred route based upon results of electrical studies, reliability considerations, environmental and permitting requirements, and cost estimates; and presents environmental and permitting requirements and cost estimates for the preferred route. The seven Railbelt Utilities consisting of Fairbanks Municipal Utility System (FMUS), Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), Matanuska Electric Association (MEA), Chugach Electric Association (CEA), Anchorage Municipal Light and Power (AML&P), Homer Electric Association (HEA), and Seward Electric Association (SEA) and APA participated in this study by providing data, attending agency meetings, attending study project meeting and reviewing and providing comment on the Preliminary Report of the Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study. The Preliminary Report has been incorporated in this final report with the inclusion of the comments received from APA and the Railbelt Utilities review. SUMMARY OF RESULTS With additional generation being developed on the Kenai Peninsula (the Kenai) by the year 1991, the Railbelt Utilities plan to increase generation transfers from the Kenai to Anchorage to 125 MW by the year 2000. The increased power transfers from the Kenai is primarily the result of THO S1 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 1 hydroelectric generation developed at Bradley Lake by the Alaska Power Authority (APA) scheduled for completion in 1991 and also gas fired thermal generation developed at Soldotna and Bernice Lake by HEA and CEA. These generation sources replace scheduled generation retirements in the CEA, AML&P, GVEA and FMUS systems. The hydroelectric and gas fired generation on the Kenai will be utilized for both capacity and economic dispatch to replace more expensive generation in the Railbelt Utilities system. The existing 115kV Anchorage-Kenai Intertie has a conductor thermal capability of 70 MW which falls far short of the desired 125 MW of intertie transfer capability. Upgrading the existing route to 138kV or 230kV does provide the ability to transfer power but is not considered to be a reliable alternative due to avalanche and wind hazards along the route. The existing 115kV line experiences 12 to 100 outages a year due to the environmental hazards. Reliability is a primary requirement for the intertie in order to minimize consumer outages on the intertied Railbelt system. : Three alternate routes were considered for a new Anchorage-Kenai Intertie. These were: 1. A transmission line route originating at Soldotna Substation on the Kenai, and paralleling the Enstar Pipeline with an undersea crossing of the Turnagain Arm at Potter Marsh and continuing to either Huffman or International Substations in Anchorage. 2. A transmission line route originating at Soldotna Substation and paralleling the Tesoro Pipeline with an undersea crossing from Point Possession to Point Campbell, then continuing to International Substation in Anchorage. 3. A transmission line route originating at Soldotna Substation with an undersea crossing from East to West Foreland and continuing to Beluga Substation. *&O 51 1064 Part #2 (5/1487) 2 Electrical system studies, route evaluations, environmental concerns, permitting requirements and cost evaluations were performed for the existing route upgrade and the three alternate routes. Both 138kV and 230kV transmission line voltages were considered with 230kV being preferred for lower losses and greater power transfer capability for improved stability, emergency power transfer requirements and future growth. From an evaluation of the routes, the preferred route is Enstar with the advantages over the other routes being: 1) the shortest length, 2) least project cost, 3) most benign climate and geologic conditions, and therefore the most reliable, 4) permitting the route and obtaining the rights-of-way has not been preciuded by any existing policy or statute. The Enstar route at 230kV transmission voltage was presented as the preferred route to APA and the Railbelt Utilities in the preliminary report of the Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study dated March, 1987. Following a review of the Preliminary Report, APA and the Railbelt Utilities were in agreement that the Enstar route at a transmission voltage of 230kV was the preferred alternative. Following the preferred alternative selection, additional geotechnical, environmental, permitting, routing, electrical stability costing and scheduling analysis was performed on the Enstar route. The results of this additional analysis are: Geotechnical A more detailed geotechnical study has been conducted for the Enstar route. This study supports the use of pile foundations for steel X-towers in the Soldotna area and embedded wood pole structures across the Wildlife Refuge. Conventional foundations for single steel pole structures in the Anchorage area will be suitable. “&O 51 1064 Part €2 (51487) 3 Environmental The environmental impacts of the Enstar route have been addressed in some detail. Most impacts can be mitigated with the exception of the impact of the right-of-way on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge lands. This impact, although difficult to quantify, relates to the compatibility of the current management objective of Refuge lands with constraints and operations of the transmission facility. The need for an Environmental Impact Statement is clearly mandated.. Permitting The project could have over 30 individual permits from field studies to actual construction. The principal permitting activity relate to the need for a right-of-way permit through the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Corps of Engineers permits, Coastal Zone Consistency and Alaska Department of Fish and Game Permits. It is likely that the lead agency will be the Fish and Wildlife Service with the Corps of Engineers acting as a cooperating agency for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. Routing Some refinement has been made in the routing in the Soldotna area particularly in response to ownership studies and a more detailed reconnaissance of the alternatives. In the Wildlife Refuge the right-of- way parallels the Enstar gas pipeline corridor separated from that right - of-way by 500 feet for 15.25 miles and then follows immediately adjacent to the pipeline corridor for nearly 23 miles except for the buried section which deviates to the West of Burnt Island. Since no suitable site could be found for the terminal station without conflicting with the Potter Section house plus right-of-way problems on Old Seward Highway, the railroad alternative was selected but the submarine crossing was moved northward so that only 0.5 miles of buried line are required along the railroad. ROS! 1064 Part #2 (5/1487) 4 Electrical Stability The 230kV Enstar Anchorage-Kenai Intertie will enhance the railbelt intertied system stability in both the Kenai and Anchorage. Stability studies indicated minimal impact to Anchorage or the Kenai due to system disturbances. Fairbanks is susceptible to system disturbances on the intertied system due to heavy importing of power from Anchorage. It is important that the Anchorage-Kenai Intertie be a highly reliable line to minimize consumer outage on the Railbelt intertied system. Costing The Huffman Substation alternative of the Enstar route is the least cost _ of all the alternatives studied. The costs are summarized below. The estimate includes construction costs for substations, terminal stations, transmission line as well as design, environmental, permitting, construction administration and contingency costs. Transmission Facilities $63,001,000 Station Facilities 13,170,802 Right-of-Way Cost 3,660,000 Mitigation Cost 575,000 Permitting and Right-of-Way Acquisition 1,250,000 Total $81,656,802 T&D 51 1064 Pare #2 (5/1487) 5 Scheduling Because of the need to coordinate the completion of the Anchorage to Kenai Intertie with the completion of the Bradley Lake Hydro Project it will be necessary to initiate the permit process by August, 1987. The permit process will require an Environmental impact Statement and combined with right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to be completed by September 1989. The final design activities and construction is slated for completion by September 1, 1991 with energization to take place July 1, 1991. This schedule allows for Presidential and Congressional approval for the Environmental Impact Statement and depicts reasonable time frames to complete the tasks necessary to bring the Enstar route intertie on line in conjunction with the completion of Bradley Lake Hydro Project. 78O 51 1064 Part 02 (5.14.87) 6 ANCHORAGE-KENAI FEASIBILITY STUDY PART ONE TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. ROUTE EVALUATION SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED 1-2 1.3. POWER TRANSFER SUMMARY 1-3 1.4 TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 1-5 1.5 PREFERRED ROUTE SELECTION 1-10 2. ELECTRICAL SYSTEM STUDIES 2.1 GENERAL 2-1 2.2 SYSTEM STUDIES, DEFINITIONS, AND ASSUMPTIONS 2-2 2.3 LOAD FLOW STUDIES - HEAVY WINTER 2000 2-10 2.4 LOAD FLOW SUMMARY - HEAVY WINTER 2000 2-17 2.5 LOAD FLOW STUDIES OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVES 2-21 3. RELIABILITY 3.1 GENERAL 3-1 3.2 ROUTE COMPARISON 3-2 3.3 SUMMARY 3-3 4. TRANSMISSION LINE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 4.1 GENERAL 4-1 4.2 EXISTING ROUTE 4-4 4.3, ENSTAR ROUTE 4-8 4.4 TESORO ROUTE 4-12 4.5 BELUGA ROUTE 4-16 4.6 COST SUMMARY 4-17 "GOS! 1064 (5/14/87) TABLE OF CONTENTS ( cont'd) 5. STATION DESIGN REQUIREMENTS Si 5.2 5.3 5.4 525 5.6 GENERAL EXISTING ROUTE ENSTAR ROUTE TESORO ROUTE BELUGA ROUTE STATION REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 6. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES GEOLOGIC HAZARDS UNIQUE LANDFORMS CLIMATIC CONCERNS SUBMARINE CROSSINGS RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITIONS PERMITTING SUMMARY 7. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION del 72 73 74 TABLES 1.5-1 1.5-2 1.5-3 2.2-1 2.2-2 2.4-1 2.4-2 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR AGENCY COMMENTS SUMMARY ROUTE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY SUMMARY OF COSTS - PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ROUTE SELECTION TABLE RAILROAD UTILITIES LOAD GROWTH PROJECTION INTERCHANGE SCHEDULE IN MW TRANSFERS ROUTE ALTERNATIVE LOAD FLOW ANALYSIS SUMMARY ROUTE ALTERNATIVE LOAD FLOW ANALYSIS RATING T&O S1 1064 (5/1487) 6-1 6-6 6-12 6-13 6-13 6-15 6-19 7-1 7-36 7-45 1-11 1-14 1-19 2-3 2-10 2-20 2-21 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLES ( cont'd) 3.3-1 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE RELIABILITY TABLE 3-4 4.2-1 SNOW AVALANCHE AREA REFERENCES 4-4 4.6-1 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION LINE SUMMARY 4-18 4.6-2. ROUTE ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION LINE COST SUMMARY 4-19 4.6-3 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION LINE RATING 4-19 4.6-4 STRUCTURE COST COMPARISON end of Section 4 5.6-1 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE STATION SUMMARY 5-40 5.6-2 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE STATION COST SUMMARY 5-41 5.6-3 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE STATION RATING 5-41 6.3-1 ENSTAR ROUTE (HUFFMAN SUBSTATION ALTERNATIVE) LAND TYPE SUMMARY 6-9 6.3-2. TESORO ROUTE ALTERNATIVE LAND TYPE SUMMARY 6-10 6.3-3 BELUGA ROUTE ALTERNATIVE LAND TYPE SUMMARY 6-11 6.8-1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS RATING 6-20 6.8-2. RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION, ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, AND PERMITTING COST SUMMARY 6-20 7.2-1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS DATA SUMMARY 7-28 7.2-2. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS SUMMARY 7-34 7.3-1 AGENCY COMMENTS 7-44 MAPS AND FIGURES 1.3-1 WINTER INTERCHANGE SCHEDULE FIGURE 1-4 1.4-1 ANCHORAGE-KENAI INTERTIE ROUTE ALTERNATIVES MAP - 2.2-1. LIGHT SUMMER 1991 FIGURE 2-6 2.2-2. HEAVY WINTER 1991 FIGURE 2-7 2.2-3 LIGHT SUMMER 2000 FIGURE 2-8 2.2-4 HEAVY WINTER 2000 FIGURE 2-9 ~&O 51 1064 (514.87) TABLE OF CONTENTS MAPS AND FIGURES, ( cont'd ) 4.1-1. ALTERNATE ROUTE LINKS MAP 4.1-2 ANCHORAGE AREA LINK ROUTE ALTERNATIVES MAP “&D 51 1064 (5:14.87) 1. ROUTE EVALUATION SUMMARY ie 7&O S1 1064 (5/14:87) 1. ROUTE EVALUATION SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Because of the capacity limits and reliability problems associated with the transmission line intertie between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula, the Alaska Power Authority and the Railbelt Utilities (Fairbanks Municipal Utility System (FMUS), Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), Matanuska Electric Association (MEA), Chugach Electric Association (CEA), Anchorage Municipal Light and Power (AML&P), Homer Electric Association (HEA), and Seward Electric Association (SEA)], have requested that a feasibility study be conducted to provide the basic information needed to determine the desirability of constructing a new intertie and/or upgrading the existing intertie. This preliminary report of the Anchorage-Kenai Feasibility Study is a document that sets forth the findings of the Feasibility Study to (1) determine the need for a new transmission line between metropolitan Anchorage and the central Kenai Peninsula and determine options opened for such a transmission line if it is needed; (2) assess upgrading the existing 115kV Chugach Electric Association and Homer Electric Association Anchorage-Kenai Transmission lines; (3) conduct a transmission route selection study for a new transmission line; (4) determine environmental and permitting requirements for recommended routes; and (5) prepare cost estimates for the transmission line options. The need for a transmission line with more capacity between Anchorage and the Kenai was determined during the initial phases of the feasibility study through review of existing studies prepared for APA and the Railbelt Utilities, review of current power requirements studies, through preliminary system studies conducted by POWER through meetings held with APA and the Railbelt Utilities. Transmission line route alternatives were also considered during the 1-1 1.2 “&O 51 1064 (5/1487) utility meetings and during government agency meetings, which were held in Anchorage during the initial phase of the feasibility study. Appendices A and E contain correspondence from the Railbelt Utilities and government agencies, respectively. Of the transmission line route alternatives set forth in this report, one has been selected as a preferred alternative based upon results of electrical studies, reliability considerations, environmental and permitting requirements, and cost estimates. This report includes all information and assumptions that were used in making the recommendation. Following review of this preliminary report, APA and the Railbelt Utilities will select one of the transmission line alternatives for more detailed study. A final report of the Anchorage-Kenai Feasibility Study will be prepared following completion of the detailed study. The Anchorage-Kenai Feasibility Study Preliminary Report has been prepared by Power Engineers, Inc. of Hailey, Idaho, and Hart-Crowser, Inc. of Anchorage, Alaska, to satisfy the requirements of APA contract No. 2800033. PURPOSE AND NEED Presently, the interconnection between the Anchorage area and the Kenai Peninsula consists of a single 115kV transmission line owned by Chugach Electric Association (CEA), between Anchorage and Quartz Creek (Kenai), and Homer Electric Association (HEA), between Quartz Creek and Soldotna with a nominal capacity of 55 MW. Besides being capacity limited, the existing transmission link between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula (the Kenai) is subject to extended outages caused by avalanches and wind damage. These outages occur during the winter months when the interconnected system experiences its peak load. As a consequence, CEA and, more recently, 1-2 1.3 T&O St 1068 (5/14/87) HEA have installed generation capacity on the Kenai Peninsula capable of meeting the peak load on the peninsula to avoid lengthy interruptions in the event the 115kV line is out of service for an extended period. Under normal conditions, the bulk of the load on the Kenai Peninsula is supplied from generation in the Anchorage area. In 1991, the Bradley Lake Project, owned by the Alaska Power Authority and located in the Homer area, is scheduled to commence operation, adding another 90 plus megawatts to the Kenai generation capacity. This addition will result in the Kenai being capable of supplying substantial generation capacity to the Anchorage Area. It is the intent of the Railbelt Utilities to transfer the excess Kenai generation capacity to the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas to supplement existing generation. A transmission line with sufficient capacity for power transfer from the Kenai to the Anchorage and Fairbanks area will be required for this purpose. POWER TRANSFER SUMMARY APA and the Railbelt Utilities plan to develop electric generation on the Kenai Peninsula (the Kenai) for use by electric consumers in the planned generation interchange transfer requirements between the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas. The Kenai, Anchorage and Fairbanks interchange schedules were determined by considering future load growth, future generation requirements, proposed generation development and generation scheduling. Target years of 1991 and 2000 were used to develop interchange requirement for the Railbelt interconnected transmission system. It was assumed that in 1991, Bradley Lake hydrogeneration would be on line and that the total winter generation capability of the Kenai would be 225 MW. In the year 2000, it was assumed that 270 MW of winter generation would be available on the Kenai. Since the maximum generation capability occurs in the winter due to Bradley Lake hydrogeneration, it follows that the maximum interchange of power will occur in the winter. The 1-3 planned winter interchange schedule between geographic areas is shown in the figure below. An interchange of 125 MW is planned between the Kenai and Anchorage and 145MW between Anchorage and Fairbanks by the year 2000. The new transmission intertie between the Kenai and Anchorage must be capable of the 125MW planned interchange as a minimum - requirement for the year 2000 and be capable of 120MW of interchange by the year 1991. FAIRBANKS AREA FAIRBANKS AREA ANCHORAGE AREA ANCHORAGE AREA 120 MW 125 MW KENAI KENAI AREA AREA Winter 1991 Winter 2000 Figure 1.3-1Winter Interchange schedule 7&O 51 1068 (5:14.87) 1-4 B25:.¢ BAA Interti Route Alternat Anchorage Kena Ives hway Ig ing Hi ing) Route st Seward/Sterl (Ex Tesoro Products Line Route ipeline Route mcm Enstar Gas P West Forelands-Beluga an ion Route Stat 8 Miles 1 Scale 1.4 TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE ALTERNATIVES To meet the Anchorage-Kenai transmission line requirements for power transfer from the Kenai to Anchorage, four route alternatives have been defined. These route alternatives are: (1) Upgrade the existing 115kV transmission to 138kV or 230kV; (2) Construct a new transmission line from Soldotna to Anchorage following the Enstar pipeline; (3) Construct a new transmission line from Soldotna to Anchorage following the Tesoro Pipeline; (4) Construct a new transmission line from Soldotna to Beluga Generation station using existing transmission line capacity from Beluga to Anchorage. Figure 1.4-1 is a map of the Anchorage-Kenai area showing the four Anchorage-Kenai Transmission line route alternatives. A geographic description of each route alternative is given in the following sections. 1.4.1 Existing Route The existing 115kV transmission line between the Soldotna Substation and the University Substation is approximately 141 miles long. The proposed route for an upgrade to a 230kV line would be 134 miles long due to rerouting at the Soldotna end. Between the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge boundary (about 20 miles east of the Soldotna Substation) and the Quartz Creek Substation, the 115kV line parallels the 69kV line. Each line is in a 100-foot right-of-way, but some overlap may exist. The right-of-way between the Quartz Creek Substation and the University Substation is 100 feet wide, as authorized by Federal Power Commission License 2170 in 1957. Up to 25 feet of additional right-of- way would be required to replace the existing line with new 230kV conductor and structures. The existing transmission line west of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge is On private property on 100-foot-wide perpetual easements. The T&O S1 1064 (5/14/87) 1-5 1.4.2 transmission line crosses about 24 miles of the Refuge, and enters the Chugach National Forest at the Russian River. The crossings at.the Kenai River and Kenai Lake are in the Kenai River Special Management Area, administered by the Alaska Department of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. As shown on Figure 1.4-1, the major portion of the 64 miles of transmission line between the Russian River and Girdwood is in the National Forest, but there are short segments that traverse state and private property. It crosses municipal land in Girdwood for about 2 miles. North of Girdwood, the transmission line enters Chugach State Park for about 26 miles, traversing short segments of private property. It leaves the State Park at the eastern boundary of the Campbell Tract (Municipal land), just south of the Fort Richardson Military Reservation. It parallels the Campbell Tract/Military Reservation boundary north for 2 miles, and then parallels the Tudor Road to the University Substation 2 1/2 miles to the west. Enstar Route A transmission line route adjacent to the Enstar pipeline right-of-way, with a submarine crossing north of the buried pipeline, would be 64.34 miles long between the Soldotna Substation and the north end of Potter Marsh. A maximum right-of-way width of 125 feet would be required, and existing transmission line right-of-way would be used wherever possible. Starting at the Soldotna Substation, the line would follow the existing 115kV transmission line right-of-way north for about a mile, crossing Soldotna Creek. Then it would continue east for 1.5 miles in new right- of-way and intersect the existing pipeline right-of-way. It would follow the existing pipeline right-of-way northeast for 2.75 miles, and then head north for 1.25 miles in new right-of-way to the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge boundary. It would head east for about .5 miles to the existing 115kV right-of-way, and follow it 9.5 miles to the intersection of the pipeline right-of-way. It would follow the pipeline right-of-way on the northwest (Cook Inlet side) .5 miles to the Refuge boundary. After TRO 51 1064 (5/14/87) 1-6 1.4.3 entering the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, it would follow the pipeline right-of-way for about 36 miles to the southeast shore of Chickaloon Bay. It would remain on the northwest side of the pipeline right-of-way, except for short crossings to avoid interference with 3 landing strips in the following locations: north of the Chickaloon River, northeast of Trapper Joe Lake, and east of Big Indian Creek. The line would be buried for 4 miles south of Chickaloon Bay. The submarine crossing to the south end of Potter Marsh would be about 8.5 miles long. Four cables would be buried across Turnagain Arm on the west side of the buried pipelines. There would be approximately 1/4 mile separation between the buried pipelines and the closest cable. The line could then be buried in the west (Turnagain Arm) side of the Alaska Railroad right-of-way for about 2.1 miles. Alternatively, it could be constructed overhead on the east side of Potter Marsh along the Old Seward Highway which requires only .25 miles of underground to the terminal/pump station site from the beaches. There are two alternatives from the north end of Potter Marsh. An overhead line could extend 1 mile east from the railroad right-of-way along the section line north of Ptarmigan Terrace to Elmore Street, and then 2 miles north on the east side of Elmore and Bragraw Streets to the Huffman Substation. Under the second alternative, an overhead line could extend about 1/2 mile east along the same section line to the existing right-of-way on the east side of the Old Seward Highway. It would follow the existing right-of-way north to O'Malley Road, then head west and north along Minnesota By-Pass to the existing right-of- way north of Dowling Road into the International Substation (about 8.6 miles). The alternative route with overhead construction along the old Seward Highway to the Ptarmigan section line would extend 1.9 miles then east and north 2.5 miles to the Huffman Substation. Tesoro Route A transmission line route from the Soldotna Substation to the Bernice Lake Substation, then following the Tesoro pipeline right-of-way to T&O 51 1064 (514.87) 1-7 1.4.4 Point Possession, with a submarine crossing to Point Campbell and continuing to the Airport Substation at Point Woronzof would be 83.55 miles long. A maximum right-of-way width of 125 feet would be required, and existing transmission line right-of-way would be used wherever possible. Starting at the Soldotna Substation, the line would be adjacent to the existing 115kV transmission line for 24.2 miles to the Bernice Lake Substation and would traverse the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge for approximately 4 miles. From the Bernice Lake Substation, the line would follow North Kenai Road about 12.5 miles to the Captain Cook State Recreation Area. It would traverse the Recreation Area for approximately 4 miles. It would exit the Recreation Area on the northwest (Cook Inlet) side of the pipeline right-of-way and follow the pipeline right-of-way to Point Possession for about 24.75 miles. Just to the west of the Refuge, the line would turn north to the submarine crossing. The submarine crossing to Point Campbell would be 13.5 miles long. Four cables would be buried across the end of Turnagain Arm. As the Tesoro pipeline is buried in a “dogleg” configuration, bending toward Turnagain Arm, it would be approximately 1/4 mile from the nearest cable at Point Campbell. The line would continue about 4.6 miles to Airport Substation. From the shore, it would be buried next to the bluff in Kincaid Park to the northeast for about a mile, and then it would be buried under the runway and vicinity (State airport property) for about a mile. It would continue north to the substation in the woods east of the proposed Municipal coastal trail extension. Beluga Route A transmission line route from the Soldotna Substation to the Bernice Lake Substation, with a submarine crossing to the West Foreland and then following an existing oil pipeline right-of-way to Trading Bay State Game Refuge, traversing the Game Refuge and following the existing 69kV transmission line right-of-way from Trading Bay to the Beluga Substation would be 87.9 miles long. A maximum right-of-way width of T&O 5) 1064 (5/14/87) 1-8 125 feet would be required, and existing transmission line right-of-way ' would be followed wherever possible. Starting at the Soldotna Substation, the line would be adjacent to the existing 115kV transmission line for 24.2 miles to the Bernice Lake Substation and would traverse the Kenai National Refuge for approximately 4 miles. The submarine crossing would be located about 1/2 mile west of the Bernice Lake Substation. The submarine crossing to West Foreland would be 13 miles long, and four cables would be buried across the Inlet. At West Foreland, the cables would cross the east side of the tidal flats at the mouth of the Kustatan River. The line would head north and northwest about 9 miles to the existing pipeline right-of-way southeast of Bunitlana Lake, crossing about 1 mile of Trading Bay State Game Refuge. It would continue northeast for about 4 miles, re-enter the Game Refuge south of the McArthur River, and follow the pipeline right-of-way for about 14.5 miles. After leaving the Game Refuge on the east side of Nikolai Creek, it would head about 2.5 miles to the existing right-of-way near Granite Point and continue northeast 20 miles to the Beluga Substation. T&O 51 1064 (5/14/87) 1-9 1.5 PREFERRED ROUTE SELECTION The selection of the preferred alternative is based upon results of electrical studies, reliability considerations, environmental and permitting requirements, and cost estimates. The following sections of this document discuss in detail the investigations into each of the areas that required study. For each area that has been studied, conclusions have been made as to the preferred route(s) with respect to the specific criteria applicable for that area of study. For instance, the Enstar Route is the preferred route when considering transmission line design requirements such as system performance, reliability, operations, maintenance and costs. On the other hand, the Tesoro Route is the preferred route when the difficulty and time requirement for permitting are the only criteria used for selecting the preferred route. The results of studying all the factors associated with the four alternate routes have been analyzed and summarized. From this process, a preferred route has been selected based on the findings of this study. Following approval of the preferred route by APA and the Railbelt Utilities, a detailed analysis will be performed on the preferred route. The following sections address the selection of the preferred route in both qualitative and quantitative terms. Outlined inTable 1.5-1 is a summary of the advantages and disadvantages for each of the alternative routes. “&O 51 1064 (5/14/87) 1-10 1.5.1. Project Cost Summary The following (Table 1.5-2) is a Project Cost Summary of all the route alternatives. The cost summary is a tabulation of total costs estimated for each of the route alternatives including construction costs for substations, terminal stations and transmission lines as well as design, construction management, administration and contingency. The estimates are considered in the accuracy range after contingency of +15% for all except the installation of the submarine cable where the accuracy is considered to be + 30%. The Huffman Substation alternative of the Enstar Route is the least-cost option at $76,606,000, with the Tesoro Route (Pt. Woronzof option) the highest-cost option at $99,383,000, resulting in a difference of $22,777,000. T&O S1 1064 (5/14/87) 1-11 Route EXISTING Route ENSTAR Route T&O 51 1064 (5/14/87) Table 1.5-1 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY Disadvantage Longest line length Most UG construction (9.4 miles). Least reliabie of options due to high winds and avalanche. Additionally line length and number of stations contribute to low reliability rating. Permitting will require extensive mitigation in Chugach State Park. Significant impact to the environment because of the additional 25-foot R-O-W. See crossing Public Use Lands. Significant impact to the environment. Environmental impact statement required with both Congressional and Presidential approval Access to Chickaloon Flats terminai/Pump Station difficult for operations & maintenance. Submarine crossing more difficult than Tesoro route due to tidal currents and resultant ice scouring. Urban construction complexities for both alternatives in the Anchorage area 1-12 Advantage No submarine crossing. Lowest cost in terms of ROW permitting and ROW acquisition Considered equally as reliable as the Tesoro route. Shortest line length Least project cost. The most benign climatic and geologic conaitions Shortest submarine crossing Route TESORO Route BELUGA Route “80 51 1064 (5:14.87) Table 1.5-1 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY Disadvantage Longest of the three proposed line routes. Line segment from Bernice Lake to Pt. Possession susceptible to high winds and icing conditions. Both the International alternate and Pt. Woronzof alternate are the most expensive of ail the options. Significant impact to the environment in that it would traverse Captain Cook State Recreation Area requiring underground construction for approximately four (4) miles. R-O-W acquisition would be difficult because of the mix of land ownership. Urban construction complexities for the International alternative Nearly impossible submarine crossing. Severe permitting constraints Above-ground construction 's not permitted in Trading Bay State Game Refuge (Approximate distance of fifteen (15) miles). 1-13 Advantage The best location for a submarine crossing because of adequate water depth to minimize probiems due to ice formation and scouring Considered equally as reliable as Enstar None TABLE 1.5-2 SUMMARY OF COSTS-PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Route Alternatives Enstar Route (Huffman Substation Alternative) Transmission Facilities Station Facilities R-O-W Cost Permitting & R-O-W Acquisition TOTAL Enstar Route (International Alternative) Transmission Facilities Station Facilities R-O-W Cost Permitting & R-O-W Acquisition TOTAL Existing Route Transmission Facilities Station Facilities R-O-W Cost Permitting & R-O-W Acquisition TOTAL Tesoro Route (International Alternative) Transmission Facilities Station Facilities R-O-W Cost Permitting & R-O-W Acquisition TOTAL Tesoro Route (Pt. Woronzof Alternative) Transmission Facilities Station Facilities R-O-W Cost Permitting & R-O-W Acquisition TOTAL T&D 51 1064 (5/14/87) 1-14 Estimated Costs $ 58,323,000 $ 12,628,00 $ 4,405,000 $1,250,000 $76,606,000 $ 60,726,000 $ 12,628,000 $ 4,405,000 $1,205,000 $ 79,009,000 $ 60,552,000 $ 27,537,000 $ 3,594,000 $ 750,000 $ 92,433,000 $ 71,218,000 $ 19,729,000 $ 5,202,000 $1,000,000 $97,149,000 $ 74,424,000 $ 18,807,000 $ 5,152,000 $1,000,000 $99,383,000 1.512 Preferred Route The study team has made a concerted effort to analyze each of the four routes to determine as early in the process as possible if any of the routes are fatally flawed. A fatal flaw may consist of impossible mitigation measures in terms of cost that have to be met as a result of an agency review. Other factors contributing to a fatal flaw designation for a particular route may include such considerations as: difficult or impossible terrain, poor electrical system performance, poor reliability, inability to obtain permitting, and prohibitively expensive ROW acquisition . Of the four routes that have been studied, only one route has been determined to be fatally flawed, and that is the Beluga Route. The Beluga Route is not considered a workable route because of the complexities associated with the submarine crossing between the Forelands. POWER’s subcontractor for this study, Pirelli Cable Corporation (Pirelli), has addressed the problems associated with all three submarine crossings and their findings regarding the Beluga Route is quoted as follows. “West Forelands - Beluga Station Route This route, of the three submarine crossings investigated, is considered most difficult and presents the highest degree of risk for submarine cable installation/operation for the following reasons: e@ The current flow in the Cook Inlet in the vicinity of the proposed crossing between East and West Forelands is very swift. @ The fast flowing water and extremely quick tidal movements with resultant scouring action would act to unearth embedded cable. @ There is a build up of ice and heavy jamming of ice at the shore ends. @ There is heavy fishing activity on the west coast of the inlet. In view of the above adverse conditions, it is not considered practical to install and operate a submarine cable in this route.” (Reference Appendix B for Pirelli’s correspondence to POWER on this subject.) &D 51 1064 (51487) 1-15 Another significant problem associated with the Beluga Route is that it traverses the Trading Bay State Game Refuge and may require mitigation since underground construction may have to occur for a distance of approximately fifteen miles. Significant and complex environmental, permitting and construction problems are inherent to this route. Because of the stated concerns regarding the Beluga Route, it is the study team’s recommendation that the Beluga route not be considered further in this study. The three remaining routes, Existing, Enstar and Tesoro, all have significant problems associated with each route. Each of these routes, given the design requirements specified for the transmission line and station facilities specific to their respective routes, have the ability to meet the generation transfer requirements of the railbelt activities. However, there is a considerable degree of difference between the routes as far as reliability and cost is concerned. It is imperative that the Kenai Anchorage Transmission Line Intertie be a highly reliable facility to ensure continuity of service to the consumers of the entire Railbelt Interconnected System. A cascading power outage effect would be extremely disruptive and costly to the consumers of the Railbelt Utilities. The desired reliability for a line as important as the Kenai Intertie is measured as no more than one forced outage or interruption a year due to weather and equipment-related factors. It is POWER’s opinion that both the Tesoro and Enstar Routes can be designed to meet this criteria and that the facilities for these routes can be constructed at a reasonable cost. The Existing Route, on the other hand, is considered highly unreliable due to the climatic and geologic conditions inherent to that route. Outage records indicate that 12 to 100 breaker operations occur annually due primarily to high winds and avalanches. By undergrounding through known major avalanche chutes and optimizing structure locations to span smaller avalanches chutes, it is "&O S! 1064 (5/14/87) 1-16 felt that the outage frequency could be reduced, but not reduced to an acceptable reliability level. ' Another consideration for the Existing Route’s reliability is the electrical exposure of the line due to its great length and the six (6) distribution substation taps along the 134-mile route from Soldotna to University Substation. Therefore, the Existing Route, with its exposure and its outage problems from wind and avalanches, is not considered to be acceptable from a reliability standpoint. Enstar and Tesoro Routes are rated equally for reliability. The Tesoro submarine crossing is considered to be more reliable than the Enstar crossing since the cable will be installed along a submarine route that has less reliability concerns. However, the Tesoro Route is longer thereby increasing the electrical exposure of the line. In addition, the Tesoro - Route has more complex facilities, such as substations and terminal stations, than the Enstar Route, thus also increasing the number of potential problems with the system. Furthermore, the Tesoro overhead line routing between Bernice Lake and Pt. Possession is exposed to severe wind and icing problems. When considering all of the variables associated with reliability, both routes are weighted equally. Right-of-way acquisition is another significant factor in this study. Right- of-way acquisition for the Tesoro Route is expected to be difficult. The mix of land ownership makes the right-of-way acquisition a complex, but not impossible task. It is estimated that it will take from 18 months to 2 years to permit this alternative. Construction of a new transmission line along the Enstar Route would result in a significant impact when traversing an area in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge that is under wilderness management. Issuance of the necessary permits would probably require preparation of an environmental impact statement and both Presidential and Congressional approval. Substantial mitigative measures, including burial for 4 miles under Chickaloon Flats, would be required. It would take from 2 1/2 to 3 years to permit this alternative. Even though both the Tesoro and Enstar Routes would be difficult to permit and acquire T&D 51 1064 (5/14/87) 1217 right-of-ways, no fatal flaws have been identified with either route. Therefore, both the Emstar and Tesoro Routes are considered workable while the Existing Route, by not meeting the reliability criteria specified for this transmission line intertie, is not rated as high as the Enstar and Tesoro Routes. As stated earlier, because of the technical and practical problems associated with the submarine crossing between the West Forelands, the Beluga Route is fatally flawed and should not be considered as a possible route. The preferred route, when considering all the factors that have been . evaluated to date, is the Enstar Route. The Enstar Route meets all the system requirements including reliability, and is not known to be fatally flawed in terms of construction and permitting. It is also the lowest cost alternative. The Huffman Substation alternative of the Enstar Route is $15,827,000 less expensive than the Existing Route, and $20,543,000 less expensive than the least-cost Tesoro Route alternative, International Substation. A quantitative representation of the four alternative routes is presented in a rating table that rates the major factors affecting the project route alternatives on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the most favorable. From this table, the Enstar Route (Huffman Substation Alternative) is the preferred route. “80 S51 1064 (5/14/87) 1-18 ROUTE SELECTION TABLE TABLE 1.5-3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS SYSTEM PERFOR- TIME- DIFFICULTY POINT ROUTE MANCE* ~— RELIABILITY gactoR FACTOR COSTS TOTAL EXISTING a 1 7 8 8 26 ENSTAR 10 9 5 5 10 39 (Huffman) ENSTAR 9 9 5 5 3 37 (International) TESORO 6 9 8 6 6 35 (Pt. Woronzof) TESORO 6 9 8 6 7 36 (International) BELUGA 0 0 0 0 0 0 Points 1-10; 10 most favorable *System performance rates lines losses and intertie between load centers. ** Rating 1-5; 1 is preferred route. "&O 51 1064 (514/87) 1-19 RATING** SCALE 1.5.3 Conclusions and Recommendations The ratings of the alternative routes studied are listed as follows: 1). Enstar route (Huffman Substation Alternative) - preferred route 2). Enstar route (International Substation Alternative) 3). Tesoro route (International Substation Alternative) 4). Tesoro route (Pt.. Woronzof Substation Alternative) 5). Existing route - least preferred 6). Beluga route - Nota feasible route. POWER’s study team recommends that a more detailed investigation of the Enstar route commence upon completion of the APA‘s and the Railbelt Utilities’ review of this preliminary report. If the Railbelt Utilities and APA concur with POWER’s recommendation that the Enstar route be studied as the preferred route, then POWER will commence with the detailed analysis. POWER’s team will focus their direction on determining whether there are any fatal flaws associated with this route that have not been identified to date, especially in the area of permitting. Also, a major emphasis will be placed on determining the preferred alternative sublinks within the Anchorage area. Careful consideration will be given to the submarine crossing since this is a vital link of the preferred route. Because of the concerns regarding the time to acquire permitting, which could take up to three years, POWER recommends that the application process for the ROW commence no later than this summer of 1987. If the transmission line intertie is to be completed at the same time the Bradley Lake Hydro Project is scheduled for completion, which is in 1991, the permit process as stated above needs to be initiated by July 1987. 7&O 51 1068 (5:14 87) 1-20 2. ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS STUDIES Zeit 2. ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS STUDIES GENERAL With additional generation being developed on the Kenai Peninsula (the Kenai) by the year 1991, the Railbelt Utilities [Fairbanks Municipal Utility System (FMUS), Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), Matanuska Electric Association (MEA), Chugach Electric Association (CEA), Anchorage Municipal Light and Power (AML&P), Homer Electric Association (HEA), and Seward Electric Association (SEA)], plan to increase generation transfers from the Kenai to Anchorage via a new transmission line intertie. The increased power transfers from the Kenai are the result of hydroelectric generation developed at Bradley Lake by the Alaska Power Authority (APA) and gas fired thermal generation developed at Soldotna and Bernice Lake by HEA and CEA. These generation sources replace scheduled generation retirements in the CEA, AML&P, GVEA and FMUS systems. The hydroelectric and gas fired generation on the Kenai will be utilized for both capacity and economic dispatch to replace more expensive generation in the Railbelt Utilities system. This study analyzes four alternative routes for meeting the Railbelt Utilities’ requirements for transferring power between the Kenai and Anchorage. The alternative routes are: Upgrade of the existing 115kV route Development of a new route following the Enstar pipeline. Development of a new route following the Tesoro pipeline. Development of a new route on the west side of the Cook inlet to Beluga generation plant. These four alternatives were studied based upon projected loads and generation schedules through the year 2000. Two specific study years, 1991 and 2000 were selected. The year 1991 was selected as the target T&O S1 1068 (5/14/87) 2-1 year for Bradley Lake hydrogeneration being available. The year 2000 was selected as a future year for study purposes with additional developed generation on the Kenai. Both light load and heavy load cases were studied for 1991 and 2000. Light load occurs in the early summer and represents the lightest loads the system will experience, whereas heavy loads occur in the coldest part of the winter and represent the heaviest loads the system will experience. The electrical system studies evaluated the ability of the four Kenai- Anchorage intertie routes to meet the generation transfer requirements of the Railbelt Utilities. Two system standard voltage levels, 138kV and 230kV were considered for the intertie. Performance criteria analyzed were voltage stability, line loading, support facilities, losses and system operating considerations. All system data and operating scenarios were supplied by the Railbelt Utilities. 2.2 SYSTEM STUDIES, DEFINITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS The basic railbelt utility system load flow analysis data was supplied via the University of Alaska (U of A) computer system data base. This data base consisted of all major transmission lines, substations, loads and generation facilities. The Railbelt Utilities reviewed and updated the U of A data base prior to making it available for this study. The data base was reviewed by POWER to ensure that the railbelt utility system was properly represented. Load projections for the years 1991 and 2000 were obtained from the Railbelt Utilities most recent power requirements studies. These projected loads were adjusted for a 0.98 system coincidence factor to arrive at a system peak load model. The following graph depicts the projected heavy winter and light summer load growth for the Railbelt Utilities interconnected system through the year 2000. T&O $1 1064 (5:14.87) 2-2 1000 900 S3'°0P0rF ZmaAux<un - wn a I oo o o °o oO o oO Oo oO oO oO w oO oO 200 TABLE 2.2-1 RAILROAD UTILITIES LOAD GROWTH PROJECTION Winter Summer 1985 1990 1995 2000 YEAR Planned transmission system upgrades through the year 2000 were supplied by the Railbelt Utilities for inclusion in the future system data bases. The planned transmission system upgrades are: @ Completion of the 345kV transmission line upgrade between Anchorage and Fairbanks including operation at 345kV from Teeland to Goldhill substations. T&O S1 1064 (5/14/87) 2-3 Conversion of the 138kV transmission line to 230kV between Beluga generation plant and Point MacKenzie undersea terminal. Addition of a 138kV transmission tie line between Huffman and International substations. Upgrade of Huffman substation to 138kV. Upgrade of the transmission line between Huffman and University substations to 138kV. Capacitor bank additions at International, Soldotna and Fort Wainwright substations. Addition of a 138kV transmission line tie between Gold Hill and Fort Wainwright substations. Addition of a 138kV transmission line between North Pole and Carney substations. Scheduled system generation development and retirement were supplied by the Railbeit Utilities. These schedules were integrated into the data base for the 1991 and 2000 cases. Generation power scheduling and power transfer schedules were supplied by the Railbelt Utilities for the 1991 and 2000 year systems. These generation and power transfer schedules were based upon the following assumptions. @ GVEA and FMUS would schedule their Healey and Chena 5 steam T&O 5S) 1064 (514-87) turbine generators at rated capacity. All other thermal generation in the Fairbanks area would not be scheduled on line. Generation requirements for the Fairbanks area would be made up by transfer purchases from Anchorage and the Kenai. 2-4 "BOS! APA Eklutna generation would be scheduled at capacity in the winter only. No output would be scheduled during summer light load. CEA would schedule Beluga generation as required to supplement purchases from Eklutna and the Kenai and to supply Fairbank’s needs in excess of Kenai purchases. Bernice Lake generation would be scheduled as required. AML&P would schedule generation at plant 2 as required to supplement purchases from Eklutna and the Kenai and to supply Fairbank’s need in excess of Kenai purchases. MEA would purchase from CEA, AGE&T and the Kenai. HEA would schedule Soldotna generation at capacity in the winter only. Summer transfer purchases would be from Anchorage. @ APA Bradley Lake would be scheduled at capacity of the two generating units in the winter only. No output would be scheduled during summer light load. The resulting power transfer by geographic area with associated generation schedules are shown in the following figures for the years 1064 (5/14/87) 1991 and 2000. 2-5 FIGURE 2.2-1 LIGHT SUMMER 1991 FAIRBANKS i 41 MW AREA Fairbanks Anchorage 239 MW ANCHORAGE AREA Kenai 4MW AREA TRANSFERS AND GENERATION SCHEDULE * * Generation schedule ee Plant names are assigned for the purpose of scheduling power for this study only. T&D 51 1064 (5/14/87) 2-6 FIGURE 2.2-2 HEAVY WINTER 1991 FAIRBANKS Fairbanks 42 MW AREA Anchorage 471 MW ANCHORAGE AREA Kenai 224 MW AREA TRANSFERS AND GENERATION SCHEDULE * *Generation schedule is generic. T&D $1 1064 (5/14/87) 2-7 FIGURE 2.2-3 LIGHT SUMMER 2000 FAIRBANKS Fairbanks 41 MW AREA Anchorage 291 MW ANCHORAGE AREA Kenai 5 MW AREA TRANSFERS AND GENERATION SCHEDULE* *Generation schedule is generic. T&O S1 1064 (5/14/87) 2-8 FIGURE 2.2-4 HEAVY WINTER 2000 FAIRBANKS Fairbanks 46 MW AREA Anchorage 589 MW ANCHORAGE AREA Kenai 251 MW AREA TRANSFERS AND GENERATION SCHEDULE* Generation schedule is generic. T&O 51 1064 (5/14/87) 2-9 2.3 For the system load flow studies, the railbelt intertied transmission system was divided into areas defined as Kenai which consisted of the HEA and SES systems with the Kenai generation as depicted in the preceding figures, CEA with Beluga as the generation, AML&P with Plant 2 as the generation, MEA with Eklutna as the generation, and Fairbanks which consisted of the GVEA and FMUS systems with generation as depicted in the preceding figures. Swing buses for the areas were defined as Bernice Lake 2 for Kenai, Beluga for CEA, Plant 2 for AML&P, Eklutna 2 for MEA, and Chena 5 for Fairbanks. The division of the Kenai and CEA systems was defined as being between Daves and Hope on the 115kV transmission line. The interchange schedule in MW transfers between areas was defined, for the purpose of this study only, as follows: TABLE 2.2-2 INTERCHANGE SCHEDULE IN MW TRANSFERS LS 1991 HW 1991 LS 2000 HW 2000 Kenai -44 120 -49 125 CEA 79 TA 74. 93 AML&P 0 , -18 28 6 MEA -25 -73 -26 -77 Fairbanks -7 -97 -24 -145 The area swing buses were allowed to make up for system losses with the interchange schedule being the controlling generation dispatch function. LOAD FLOW STUDIES - HEAVY WINTER 2000 The Railbelt Utilities plan maximum transfer of generation from the Kenai to Anchorage during the winter. The anticipated winter transfers from the Kenai during the years 1991 to 2000 are similar being 120 MW and 125 MW respectively at peak load. Our analysis of the transmission line transfer capability from the Kenai is based upon these transfers as a minimum realizing that a load factor of 0.75 on the Kenai will result in T&D $1 1064 (5/14/87) : 2-10 the possibility of additional generation available for transfer from the Kenai. The largest available transfer for the study period is the year 2000. This peak load transfer of 125 MW was used as the basis for studying the load flow capabilities of the different transmission line alternatives. Studies are based upon the year 2000 system configuration and peak winter loads. The transmission line alternatives studied were: @ The existing 115kV Kenai Intertie line upgraded to 138kV between Soldotna and University Substations. @ The existing 115kV Kenai Intertie line rebuilt at 230kV between Soldotna and University Substations. @ The Enstar Route at 138kV and 230kV constructed between Soldotna and Huffman Substations. @ The Tesoro Route at 138kV and 230kV constructed between Soldotna and International Substations and an alternative route to Point Woronzof cable termination station. @ The Beluga Route at 138kV and 230kV constructed between Soldotna Substation and Beluga generation station. Load flow studies of the Kenai Intertie alternatives were conducted to determine system performance for the scheduled interchange. System characteristics used to judge performance were voltage, conductor thermal rating, losses and power flows. Load flow diagrams of the Railbelt Utilities interconnected system for each of the cases studied are included in Appendix C. T&O $1 1064 (5/14/87) 2-1 1 2.3.1 Existing Route Existing 115kV Kenai Intertie The existing 115kV Kenai Intertie consists primarily of Dove conductor, 140.5 miles, with a short section of Bramah conductor, 4.5 miles. The rated ampacities are 730 and 360 amps respectively. This is equivalent to a power flow of 145 MVA and 72 MVA for the Dove and Bramah conductors. For the existing Kenai Intertie to transfer 125 MW to Anchorage, approximately 140 mVA of transfer capacity minimum would be required to accommodate losses and var flow. This type of power transfer would not be practical on the 115kV Dove conductor and therefore was not investigated further. Existing Kenai Intertie at 138kV Upgrading the existing 145-mile Kenai Intertie to 138kV with replacement of the Bramah conductor will allow approximately 75 MW of power to be transferred from the Kenai. Transfers of power above 75 MW will result in unacceptable low voltage conditions at Indian, Gridwood, Portage, Hope Daves, and Quartz. Thermal limit of the conductor is 145 MVA. A 115kV to 138kV substation is required at Soldotna. At University, the transmission line would terminate at the University 138kV bus. 138kV step down transformers would be required at all distribution substation along the route. Existing Kenai Intertie at 138kV with two static var systems Upgrading the existing Kenai Intertie to 138kV and the addition of 50 MVAR Static Var System (SVS) at both Portage and Quartz Creek will allow approximately 118 MW of power to be transferred from the Kenai to University Substation in Anchorage. Losses on the 138kV intertie from Soldotna to University are 22 MW with maximum line loading of the Dove conductor being 91% between Quartz Creek and Daves. T&O S! 1064 (5.1487) 2-12 Reconductoring the Bramah conductor to Lark between Indian and Gridwood gives maximum line loading of the Lark conductor at 80%. Lark conductor rated ampacity is 640 amps. A 20 MVAR capacitor bank at Indian improves voltage and reduces the var flow from Anchorage. With the Portage SVS out of service and 125 MW of power transferred from the Kenai, low voltage will occur at Hope, Portage, Gridwood and Indian. A 20 MVAR capacitor bank installed at Indian will correct the low voltage. Losses on the 138kV line from Soldotna to University are 22 MW with 105 MW delivered to University Substation in Anchorage. With the Quartz Creek SVS out of service and 125 MW of power transferred from Kenai, low voltage will occur at Quartz Creek, Daves and Hope. A 20 MVAR capacitor bank installed at Indian will correct the low voltage. Losses and power flow are the same as with Portage SVS out of service. For the proposed improved reliability 138kV intertie, approximately 7.5 miles of 138kV transmission line would be buried to avoid avalanche chutes. The capacitance of this buried transmission line will eliminate the need for the fixed capacitor bank at Indian. Existing Kenai Intertie at 230kV A new 145-mile, 230kV Drake conductor, Kenai Intertie replacing the existing 115kV transmission line was modeled from Soldotna to University substation 230kV bus with a 230kV step down substation at Soldotna. 125 MW was scheduled from Kenai with 114 MW delivered to University Substation in Anchorage. Losses on the Kenai Intertie are 4 MW with maximum line loading of the Drake conductor being 38% based upon a rated ampacity of 900 amps. Voltages within the system are normal. No reactive voltage support in the form of fixed capacitors or SVS are required on the 230kV intertie. The 9.5 miles of buried 230kV transmission line, for improved reliability (to avoid avalanche chutes and mitigate visual concerns in Chugach State &O S1 1064 (5/14/87) 2-13 2.3.2 Park), will require reactors to neutralize the capacitance of the buried transmission line. 230kV step down transformers will be required at each distribution substation on the route. Enstar Route Enstar Route 138kV A 138kV Dove conductor Kenai Intertie with an undersea crossing to Potter Marsh was modeled from Soldotna to the Huffman 138kV bus following the Enstar pipeline route. The line consists of approximately 56 miles of overhead transmission line, 8.2 miles of undersea transmission cable and 4.3 miles of underground transmission cable for a total intertie length of 68.5 miles. Reactive compensation is required on the undersea/underground cable during peak transfer condition and during light load conditions to limit var flow and prevent high voltages. A 115kV to 138kV step up substation is required at Soldotna. 125 MW was delivered from the Kenai to Huffman Substation in Anchorage. Losses on the Kenai Intertie are 11 MW with maximum line loading of the Dove conductor being 78%. Loading of the 138kV Dove conductor from Huffman to University and International is 39%. Voltages within the system are normal. Enstar Route 230kV A 230kV Drake conductor Kenai Intertie with an undersea crossing to Potter Marsh was modeled from Soldotna to Huffman 138kV bus. The transmission line conductor lengths are the same as the 138kV case. Reactive compensation of the undersea/underground cable capacitance is required to prevent high voltage and excessive var flow. A 115kV to 230kV step up substation is required at Soldotna and a 230kV to 138kV step down substation is required at Huffman. 125 MW was delivered from the Kenai to Huffman Substation in Anchorage. Losses on the Kenai Intertie are 3 MW with maximum line loading of the Drake conductor being 35%. Voltages within the system are normal. An alternate 230kV Enstar route case was modeled to the University 230kV T&O S1 106s (5/14/87) 2-14 2.3.3 bus. The overhead transmission line length was 10 miles longer. The results of this case were essentially equivalent to the Huffman case. Tesoro Route Tesoro Route 138kV A 138kV Dove conductor Kenai Intertie with an undersea crossing at Point Possession was modeled from Soldotna to the 138kV bus at International substation following the Tesoro pipeline route. The line consisted of approximately 72 miles of overhead transmission line (including 24 miles from Soldotna to Bernice Lake), 13.5 miles of undersea transmission cable and 1.0 miles of underground transmission cable for a total length of 86.5 miles. Reactive compensation was required on the undersea/underground cable during peak transfer conditions and during light load conditions to control var flow and prevent high voltages. A 115kV to 138kV step up substation is required at Bernice Lake and Soldotna. 125 MW were delivered from the Kenai to International Substation in Anchorage. Losses on the Kenai Intertie are 12 MW with maximum line loading of the Dove conductor being 78%. Loading of the Dove conductor from International to University is 28%. Voltages within the system are normal. Tesoro Route 230kV A 230kV Drake conductor Kenai Intertie with an undersea crossing at Point Possession was modeled from Soldotna to International Substation. The transmission line conductor lengths are the same as the 138kV case. Reactive compensation of the undersea cable capacitance is required to prevent high voltage and excessive var flow. A 115kV to 230kV step up substation is required at Bernice Lake and Soldotna and a 230kV to 138kV step down substation is required at International. 125 MW were delivered from the Kenai to International Substation in Anchorage. Losses on the Kenai Intertie are 3 MW with maximum line loading of the Drake conductor being 35%. Voltages within the system are normal. 7&O S51 1064 (5/14/87) 2-15 2.3.4 An alternate 230kV Tesoro route case was modeled to Point Woronzof cable termination station. The transmission line configuration is approximately 69 miles of overhead transmission line, 13.5 miles of undersea transmission cable and 1.0 miles of underground transmission cable for a total length of 83.5 miles. The results of this case were essentially the same as the International case with the exception that the 138kV underground cables between Point Woronzof and International are loaded to 74% of maximum. Beluga Route Beluga Route 138kV A 138kV conductor Kenai Intertie with an undersea crossing from East to West Foreland was modeled from Bernice Lake to the Beluga 138kV bus. The line consists of approximately 50 miles of overhead transmission line, 13 miles of undersea cable and 1 mile of underground cable for a total length of 64 miles. Reactive compensation of the undersea cable is required to prevent over voltage and reduce var flow. A 115kV to 138kV step up substation is required at Bernice Lake. 125 MW was delivered from the Kenai to Beluga. Losses on the Kenai Intertie are 10 MW with maximum line loading of the Dove conductor being 71%. Maximum line loading of the Point MacKenzie to Point Woronzof 138kV undersea cables is 77%. Voltages within the system are normal. Beluga Route 230kV A 230kV Drake conductor Kenai Intertie with an undersea crossing from East to West Foreland was modeled from Soldotna to the Beluga 230kV bus. The transmission line conductor lengths are the same as the 138kV case with the exception of the additional 24 miles of overhead transmission line between Soldotna and Bernice Lake giving a total line length of 88 miles. A 115kV to 230kV step up substation is required at Bernice Lake and Soldotna. 125 MW was delivered from the Kenai to Beluga. Losses on the Kenai Intertie are 3 MW with maximum line loading of the Drake conductor being 34%. Maximum line loading of T&D 51 1064 (5/1487) 2-16 2.4 the Point MacKenzie to Point Woronzof 138kV undersea cables is 76%. Voltages within the system are normal. LOAD FLOW SUMMARY - HEAVY WINTER 2000 The ability to transfer the interchange schedule of 125 MW was demonstrated by each Kenai Intertie alternative. The existing 115kV transmission line upgrade to 138kV will require static var compensation at Portage and Quartz Creek to maintain voltage with 125 MW of transfer to Anchorage. With one SVS off line, 125 MW can be transferred from Kenai but due to losses of 22 MW and loads, only 105 MW is delivered to Anchorage. At 138kV, maximum line loadings are 80% to 90% of the thermal limit of the conductor at power transfers of 125 MW. Considering voltage support required at substations along the intertie and thermal capacity of the Dove conductor, 125 MW is the maximum transfer capability of the existing Kenai Intertie upgraded to 138kV. Constructing the existing Kenai Intertie route at 230kV using Drake conductor, transfers 125 MW from the Kenai to Anchorage with losses of 4 MW and normal voltage conditions at the substations along the intertie. The Drake conductor is operating at 38% of thermal capacity with 125 MW transfer. Transfers from Kenai to Anchorage above 125 MW may be desired during light load conditions on the Kenai. The existing Kenai Intertie route at 138kV will not meet this condition. A 230kV intertie can meet transfers above 125 MW without SVS support and losses are substantially reduced. Considering the three alternate routes of Beluga, Tesoro and Enstar, 125 MW can be transferred from the Kenai to Anchorage at 138kV or 230kV. At 138kV the intertie is at 71% of conductor thermal rating and at 230kV the intertie is at 34% of conductor thermal rating. Losses at 138kV are 7 to 8 MW higher than 230kV. From the standpoint of losses and conductor thermal rating, 230kV would provide a more efficient intertie T&D S1 1064 (5/1487) 2-17 with the ability to transfer above 125 MW from the Kenai to Anchorage during light load conditions on the Kenai. The Beluga route has a definite disadvantage when the Point MacKenzie to Point Woronzof undersea link is considered. At a transfer of 125 MW from the Kenai, the Point MacKenzie to Point Woronzof undersea link is at 76% of capacity. If additional power is to be transferred from the Kenai during light load conditions, this undersea link capacity may be exceeded. An additional 138kV undersea circuit will be required from Point MacKenzie to point Woronzof for the Beluga alternative. Also, the 138kV underground cables between Point Woronzof and International were loaded to 74% of capacity. Additional 138kV underground circuits would also be required for the Beluga route. The Tesoro route alternative to Point Woronzof resulted in loading the 138kV underground cables between Point Woronzof and International to 74% of capacity. Additional 138kV underground circuits would be required for this Tesoro route alternative. Both the Beluga and Tesoro routes use the Bernice to Soldotna transmission line. During light load conditions on the Kenai, this line may be required to transfer over 140 MVA which will exceed the existing Dove conductor thermal limit at 115kV. This line must be upgraded to 138 or 230kV for the Beluga or Tesoro alternatives. During the load flow analysis it was found that additional leading reactive vars were required at Soldotna. For all cases, 10 MVARS were added to the Soldotna 115kV bus at maximum power transfer to Anchorage. With proper reactive compensation of the Kenai Intertie alternatives, normal voltages and power transfers were maintained in the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas. The intertie alternatives are not detrimental to the existing system from the standpoint of load flow. T&O S$! 1064 (5/14/87) 2-18 The following is a tabular summary of the load flow analysis results for the Kenai Intertie alternate routes. The transmission line surge impedance loading (SIL) level is included as a quantitative measure of line capacity. At 230kV the transmission line SIL is 2.7 times that at 138kV. This indicates that the intertie at 230kV has roughly 2.7 times the capability of 138kV to transfer power. 7&O S1 1064 (514-87) 2-19 TABLE 2.4-1 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE LOAD FLOW ANALYSIS SUMMARY ROUTE Existing at 138kV Existing at 230kV Enstar 138kV - Enstar 230kV Tesoro 138kV International Tesoro 230kV International Beluga 138kV Beluga 230kV Tesoro 230kV Woronzof PERCENT OF CONDUCT OR RATING 91 38 78 35 78 35 71 34 35 LOSSES MW 22 11 12 10 LENGTH MILES 145 145 68.5 68.5 86.5 86.5 88 83.5 2-20 SIL MW 50 137 bt) 137 50 137) 50 137 137 DISADVANTAGES Losses are very high, line is very long, SVS required at Portage and Quartz Creek. Conductor rating near capacity. 138kV step down transformers required at ail distribution substations on the intertie. 230kV step down trans- formers required at ail distribution substations on Intertie. Line is very long. Conductor rating high. Losses are high. None. Conductor rating high. Losses are high. None. Losses are high. Conductor rating high. Pt. McKenzie to Pt. Woronzof undersea cable loaded to 77%. Pt. McKenzie to Pt Woronzof undersea cable loaded to 76%. Pt. Woronzof to Internat- ional underground cable loaded to 74%. . 2.5 Based upon the results of the load flow analysis of the heavy winter 2000 case, either the Tesoro or Enstar 230kV Kenai Intertie alternatives are acceptable. A rating schedule for the alternatives based on a preference point scale of 1 to 5, 5 being most preferred, is given as, TABLE 2.4-2 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE LOAD FLOW ANALYSIS RATING ROUTE RATING Existing 138kV Existing 230kV Enstar 138kV Enstar 230kV Tesoro 138kV (International) Tesoro 138kV (Pt. Woronzof) Tesoro 230kV (International) Tesoro 230kV (Pt. Woronzof) Beluga 138kV Beluga 230kV NN PUN WNWDN = LOAD FLOW STUDIES OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVES The Tesoro and Enstar routes utilizing 230kV have been determined to be acceptable Kenai Intertie routes from the standpoint of heavy winter 2000 load flow studies. Additional load flow studies of these two alternatives were conducted to determine system performance under the scheduled interchanges for light summer 1991, heavy winter 1991 and light summer 2000 loads. Heavy winter 1991 loads were determined from the Railbelt Utilities power requirements studies. Light summer 1991 and 2000 loads were obtained from each of the Railbeit Utilities as the historical ratio of heavy winter to light summer loads. The resulting loads for all cases were adjusted by 0.98 to account for coincidental system peak. Load flow diagrams for each of the study cases is included in Appendix C. "SO 51 1064 (5, 14/87) 2-21 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 Light Summer 2000 Both the Tesoro and Enstar Kenai Intertie 230kV alternatives produced the same load flow results. At the light load condition, all capacitor banks were removed from the system and the East Terminal Reactor was switched in to reduce high voltage. Beluga generation and Soldotna generation were used to absorb var’s and reduce voltage. At 50 MW transfer from Anchorage to the Kenai and light summer loads, all voltages and transfers in the Anchorage and Kenai areas were normal. High voltages occurred in the Fairbanks area due to the charging var’s of the 345kV line interconnecting the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas. Reactive compensation will be required on this line to reduce voltages and control var flow. Heavy Winter 1991 Results of the heavy winter 1991 load flows are similar to the heavy winter 2000 cases for Tesoro and Enstar 230kV Kenai Intertie alternatives. System improvements incorporated in the heavy winter 2000 case are also included in the heavy winter 1991 case. Capacitor banks at Soldotna, International, University, and Fort Wainwright are on line. The East Terminal Reactor is off line. The underground cables between Point Woronzof and International are loaded to 67% of capacity for the case of the Tesoro route terminating at Point Woronzof. All voltages and power flows within the interconnected system were normal. Light Summer 1991 Results of the light summer 1991 load flows are similar to the light summer 2000 results for the Tesoro and Enstar 230kV Kenai Intertie alternatives. All capacitor banks were removed from the system and the East Terminal reactor was switched in to reduce high voltage. Beluga and Soldotna generation was used to absorb var’s and reduce voltage. All voltages and line loading in the Anchorage and Kenai areas were normal. High voltage occurred on the 345kV Anchorage to Fairbanks T&O 51 1064 (5/14/87) 2-22 Intertie and in the Fairbanks area due to charging var's of the 345kV line. Reactive compensation will be required on this line to reduce voltages and control var flow. T&O S1 1068 (5) 14/87) 2-23 3. RELIABILITY 3.1 3. RELIABILITY GENERAL By the year 1991, the Railbelt Utilities plan to construct a new Kenai- Anchorage Transmission line Intertie that will allow the transfer of 125 MW of power from the Kenai to Anchorage. At the same time, the Intertie system will be transferring 100 MW of power from Anchorage to Fairbanks, which is planned to increase to 145 MW by the year 2000. An interruption of the Kenai-Anchorage Transmission Line Intertie will disrupt power transfer between Anchorage and the Kenai. During the period of heavy power transfers from the Kenai, an interruption of the Kenai Intertie will cause power outages in Anchorage and will undoubtedly cause power outages in Fairbanks. It is then imperative that the Kenai-Anchorage Transmission Line Intertie be a highly reliable facility to insure continuity of service to the consumers of the entire Railbelt interconnected system. A cascading power outage effect would be extremely disruptive and costly to the consumers of the Railbelt Utilities. Maximum transfers of power are scheduled for the winter season when major storms occur. It is therefore of extreme importance that the Kenai- Anchorage Transmission Intertie route be selected with emphasis on minimizing storm and weather related exposure. Other factors affecting reliability of the transmission intertie are loading, electrical equipment complexity and electrical exposure of the transmission line. The most reliable line will be the least loaded, simplest from an electrical equipment standpoint and have the least tap points for exposure. The desired reliability for a line as important as the Kenai Intertie is not more than one forced outage or interruption a year due to weather and equipment related factors. , T&O S1 1064 (5/'4.87) 3-1 3.2 3.2.1 ROUTE COMPARISON Existing Route The reliability of the existing 115kV Kenai Intertie was addressed in a report prepared by Dryden & LaRue Consulting Engineers dated January 23, 1984. In the Dryden and LaRue Study, it was reported that 12 to 100 breaker operations occur annually due primarily to high winds and avalanches. Avalanches were found to account for 75% of the outage hours. Based upon these findings, the existing Kenai Intertie would not be considered very reliable. Improving the avalanche problem by burying or rebuilding in avalanche prone areas should greatly improve outage hours and reliability, but the major number of breaker operations were attributed to high wind. A breaker operation of the intertie during maximum transfer of 125 MW would more than likely cause a separation of the Kenai, resulting in power outages cascading through Anchorage to Fairbanks. Therefore, for reliable transfer capability, the number of breaker operations due to wind must also be reduced if the existing route is to be utilized. At 138kV, the existing Kenai Intertie must utilize an SVS at Portage and Quartz Creek. Reliability information suppled by G.E. indicates 95 to 99% availability for an SVS. Loss of one SVS will reduce the maximum transfer capability roughly 20%, with loss of both SVS'‘s causing 50% or more reduction in transfer capability. Due to the complexity of the SVS's, the 138kV line with SVS is considered not as reliable as a line not requiring static var for support of power transfer. The electrical exposure of the line would be high due to its length and the six distribution substation taps. At 230kV, the existing route would be more reliable due to a lower conductor loading and the absence of SVS requirements. The electrical exposure of the line, though, is very great due to its length and the six distribution substation taps along the 134 mile route from Soldotna to University substations. T&O 51 106d (5/14/87) 3-2 3.2.2 The existing route has 42 identified avalanche chutes. Undergrounding sections of the transmission line will bypass 12 of the chutes. The remaining chutes must be spanned overhead which then becomes susceptible to wind. The length of the line and the number of avalanche chutes make access to the line for winter maintenance and repair difficult. Designing a new line on the existing route with the desired reliability of not more than one forced outage or interruption a year is not considered to be realistic. Beluga-Tesoro-Enstar Routes The construction of the Beluga, Tesoro and Enstar routes are similar in that there are both overhead and undersea sections and are of similar overall length. The overhead portions of the lines are similar and are expected to have similar reliabilities. There are no avalanche chutes on these three routes. Homer Electric has indicated that the coastal routes, Beluga and Tesoro, are more susceptible to ice and wind than the inland Enstar route. From a winter access standpoint, Tesoro has better access than Enstar and the Beluga route has poor access. The greatest difference between these three routes from a reliability standpoint is the undersea cables. We have been informed by the undersea manufacturer, Pirelli, that both the Beluga undersea crossing and, to a lesser extent, the Enstar undersea crossing are subject to severe tidal currents and ice flows and are therefore not considered to be of the same reliability as the Tesoro undersea crossing. Pirelli feels the Tesoro undersea crossing will be very reliable. Refer to appendix B for Pirelli correspondence on this subject. : SUMMARY 3.3 A quantitative reliability representation of the four alternative routes is presented in a rating table that rates the major factors affecting reliability on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being most reliable. From this table, the Tesoro and Enstar routes are considered to be potentially the most reliable with the Beluga route less reliable due to the undersea crossing hazards. The existing route is considered to be least reliable due to wind and avalanche conditions. Neither the existing route or the Beluga route are considered to be acceptable from a reliability standpoint. THOS! 1064 (5/14/87) 3-3 ROUTE EXISTING ENSTAR TESORO BELUGA TABLE 3.3-1 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE RELIABILITY TABLE UNDER- NORMALIZED SEA POINT 1-5 AVALANCHE WIND ICE ACCESS LENGTH CABLE TOTAL SCALE 1 1 2 1 1 5 i 2 5 4 4 3 4 3 23 5 5 3 2 4 4 5 23 5 5 3 2 1 4 1 16 3 Point Scale 1-5 5-Most Reliable An additional reliability benefit in having a route other than the existing route is that the Kenai would then have two interties. The existing 115kV intertie would not have the capacity for large transfers of power but the line could be used in emergencies and scheduled outages of the major Kenai Intertie to improve continuity of service to consumers thereby improving reliability of the system. Other reliability considerations are that both Tesoro and Enstar routes terminate near the Anchorage load center. Anchorage presently relies heavily on the Beluga Plant which is a remote source of power. Having another source of power to the Anchorage load center will increase the system reliability by decreasing the heavy dependence on Beluga. T&D $1 1064 (5/1487) 3-4 4. TRANSMISSION LINE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ga Generating Station ~ -o, TESORO RT-3-2" ee be Mls wt 44 _ 4: rit. ENSTAR RT.-2-. 97 A Sen OR, Se Pes fh! nee AY Anchorage Kenai Intertie Route Alternatives mmunme OCWard/Sterling Highway (Existing) Route cms Tesoro Products Line Route maumm Enstar Gas Pipeline Route mwrram West Forelands-Beluga Station Route Scale: 1°=8 Miles = [MAP 4.1-1 | I 20 Above Ground Buried Land Ownership (See Map Key - General Land Ownership) Scale: 1”=1 Mile _ I - Link Route. Alternatives 4.1 4. TRANSMISSION LINE REQUIREMENTS GENERAL The following sections address the transmission line requirements for each Transmission Line route. A map (Map 4.1-1) is included in this section that depicts the alternate routes being studied. The map is organized so that each route is broken into links and each link represents a line segment consisting of a specific type of line facility as defined by this study. The following alternate route sections discuss in detail each of the links. 1 POWER’s evaluation of the transmission line requirements for each alternative route consists of developing the line design parameters for both the overhead and submarine Lines. Consideration was given to wind, icing and geologic conditions of each route. This information was used to help determine the extreme load conditions for the overhead lines. Existing data was evaluated to determine the underwater topography, bottom conditions, water depth, currents, tidal effect and ice scouring for each of the submarine crossings. Included in the back of this section is a Structure Cost Comparison Sheet that addresses a number of different structure types. The structures are typical structure types used throughout Alaska including guyed tubular X-Frames (Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie), wood pole H-frame (Kenai Peninsula), and single pole tube steel structures (Anchorage Area). The ruling spans for these structure types were derived from existing data that was available for the steel structures and from maximum allowable span calculations run for the wood pole structures. Assumptions used for the overhead line facilities for all the routes are: @ NESC Heavy Loading District @ 795 kcmil “Drake” ACSR Conductor T&O 51 1064 (5.1487) 4-1 The submarine and underground cables, addressed in this evaluation are self-contained oil-filled (SCOF) 230kV cables designed for 230kV operations at 180 MVA, 90% load factor. The submarine single conductor SCOF cable is comprised of an annular conductor, oil impregnated paper insulation, lead sheath suitable mechanical reinforcement, polyethylene jacket, anti-teredo-tape and metallic armor (Double Flat galvanized steel wire armor). The cable is oil- filled and pressurized by means of an oil pumping plant. The oil pressure is adjusted such that the cable is under positive oil pressure for all operating conditions and such that in the event of any mechanical disturbance, the oil pressure in the cable at any location will be greater than the external water pressure. The underground cable is comprised of an oil impregnated paper insulation, lead alloy sheath, copper tape reinforcement and polyethylene jacket. Assumptions for the submarine and underground facilities for all alternative routes are: @ Allsubmarine cable would be 230kV self-contained oil-filled (SCOF) single conductor cable. Four (4) cables would be laid, one being a spare. @ Allsubmarine cable would be buried. @ All underground cable would be 230kV except between Pt. Woronzof and International Substations, which will be 138kV self- contained oil-filled (SCOF) single conductor cable operating at 138kV. @ Four (4) underground cables will be laid where the underground cable is coupled to the submarine cable. TRO 51 1064 (5/14/87) 4-2 @ Three (3) underground cables will be laid for the underground applications that do not require connection with the submarine cable. ‘ The cost estimates were partially developed based on information supplied by the Railbelt Utilities, APA, Hart Crowser and Pirelli Cable Corporation (Pirelli). POWER and Pirelli performed preliminary design functions to develop the line design parameters. POWER identified the structure types that best suit the terrain for each of the route alternatives considering the extreme loading due to climate and geologic conditions. Vendors and steel pole fabricators were contacted for price information for steel poles,wood poles, conductor, hardware, etc. The costs estimated for the overhead facilities are calculated to be within +15%. The material for the underground and submarine cable are estimated to be + 15%. The labor for.the installation of the submarine portions is estimated to be + 30%. The cost comparison sheet at the back of this section is used as the basis for developing the costs for the overhead facilities for each route alternative link. At this level of study the number of angle structures for the routes are not known.The cost comparison sheet assumes that each type of structure was calculated using an average of one (1) angle structure for every four (4) miles. A difficulty factor was applied to the base case cost if it was determined that a link required more angle structures per mile than the base case. Also, consideration was given to construction difficulties such as poor soils and construction access in applying the difficulty factor. This is discussed in greater detail in the following sections. The total estimated cost for each route alternative is carried forward to the Summary Section. The advantages and disadvantages of the routes along with a ranking of the routes with a preferred route in respect to line requirements are included in the Summary. “8D 51 1068 (5.14/87) 4-3 4.2 Location EXISTING ROUTE The costs for this route would include the removal of the existing 115kV wood line and 4.55 miles of STT-1 steel lattice towers. The existing ROW would need to be increased from 100’ to 125’. Because of long spans in the mountainous areas due to avalanche areas and canyons, a difficulty multiplier of 1.5 was included in the cost estimate for these identified links. A total of 9.5 miles of underground is included in this route. The reliability of the existing facility could be increased by avoiding or minimizing the outages caused by avalanches and/or high winds. The effects of avalanches on transmission lines that are located in the avalanche zone tracks can be avoided or minimized by undergrounding or, if the track is narrow enough, by spanning the track. There are approximately 42-identified avalanche chutes that impact the transmission line ROW to some degree. There are three major avalanche areas identified that require undergrounding. The fourth area identified for undergrounding is located in Powerline Pass and this was done to mitigate visual concerns that the Chugach State Park has for this stretch of line. They are referenced in the Snow Avalanche Atlas as follows: TABLE 4.2-1 SNOW AVALANCHE AREA REFERENCES Reference Mile Name Miles of UG Between Daves 3.4 44.5 Summit Lake 155 Cr. and Hope Between Portage 5.1-2,5.1-1 83.4, 83.7 Peterson No. 1 15 and Girdwood Peterson No. 2 Between Girdwood 6.1 to 6.6-3 Super Scoopers 45 and Indian Whiskey Gulch Superman’s Climax Cottonwood In Powerline Pass by Flat Top Mt. o-- a Flat Top Mt. a TSO S1 106s (514.87) 4-4 The other avalanche chutes (approximately 30) would be spanned where possible. Optimization of structure locations to take advantage of the terrain would have to occur. Link 1.1 is 29.8 miles of guyed tubular to the Mystery Hills area. This section would include the common link 2.1 with Route 2 at the start of the line near Soldotna. Link 1.2 consists of 29.7 miles of wood H-frame with X-bracing. A difficulty factor of 1.5 was included because of 1) the special span requirements for avalanche chutes and canyons, and 2) for the relatively rough terrain that would make access and construction more difficult. Link 1.3 consists of 1.5 miles of 3 conductor underground cable. A separate cost for joints for the underground is listed in a cost for all joints for the route. Link 1.4 consists of 26.4 miles of wood H-frame X-braced with a difficulty multiplier of 1.5 applied to the costs due to spanning of canyons and small avalanche chutes. Line 1.5 consists of 8.9 miles of guyed tubular X-braced, galvanized. A difficulty multiplier of 1.5 was included because of the access and the marsh areas around the bay. Link 1.6 consists of 1.5 miles of 3 conductor underground needing two splices for joining 3-1/C cables. Link 1.7 consists of 6.5 miles of guyed tubular X-braced galvanized structures. A difficulty factor of 1.5 was included in the costs because of the difficult terrain, marsh areas and avalanche chutes. Link 1.8 consists of 4.5 miles of 3 conductor underground 230kV needing 7 splices each consisting of 3-1/C cables. T&O 51 106d (5/1487) 4-5 Link 1.9 consists of 18.2 miles of 230 H-frame X-braces with a construction factor of 1.5 included because of the mountain construction. Link 1.10 is 3 cable underground for 2 miles in the area of Flat Top Mountain needing 2 splices consisting of 3-1/C cables at each splice. Link 1.11 consists of 5.5 miles of H-frame X-braces. A difficulty multiplier of 1.5is applied because of mountain terrain and many small avalanche chutes. "$0 51 1064 (5. 14:87) 4-6 4.2.1 Cost Summary - Existing Route unk Length | 29.8 21 29.7 3) 1s 14 26.4 11S 8.9 6 18 17, 65 18 4s 19) 18.2 710 2 eur $5 Total Miles = 1340 Configuration Estimatec Costs Guyed Tubuiar «-braced weathered stee! H-frame x-braced wood TH230 Underground Cabie mat. 3 conductors ins. H-frame x-braced wood TH230 Guyed Tubular x-braced galvanized Underground 230kV mat. Cable 3 conductors Ins. Guyed tubular x-braced galvanized Underground 230kV mat. Cable 3 conductors ins. H-frame x-braced wood TH230 Underground mat. Cable 230kV, 3 cables ins. Wood H-frame x-braced TH230 Removal of 4 55 of stee/ structure in the bay labor Removal of 135.5 miles of wood H-frame 13 joints for underground sections 3 conductor Mobilization - Oemobilization R-O-W Clearing - Access Road Subtotal Design @ 10% CM @7% Admin @5% Subtotal Contingency @ 15% TOTAL EXISTING ROUTE TO UNIVERSITY SUBSTATION Annual operating and maintenance costs @ 1 5% THOS! 1068 (5 14/87) 4-7 29 8x 166,000 120.400 x 29.7x15 15 %5.280x3x29 700,000 x15 26.4x15x 120,400 8.9% 15x 168,200 15x 5,280x3x29 700,000 x 1.5 6.5 x 168,200x15 45x 5,.280x3x29 700,000 x 4.5 18.2% 120.400 x15 25,280 x 3x29 700,000 x 2.0 5.5 x 120.400 x1 5 205,000 x 4.55 135.5 x 21,000 48,000 x 13 $4,947,000 3.363.000 689,000 $1,050,000 4.768.000 2.245.000 689.000 1.050.000 1.639.000 2.067.000 3,150,000 3,287,000 919,000 1,400,000 993,000 933,000 2.846.000 624,000 1.500.000 3.000.000 43.159.00 4.316.000 3,021,000 2,158,000 §2.654.000 7,398,000 $60,552,000 $908.000 4.3 ENSTAR ROUTE Approximately 125’ of ROW would be needed for the overhead land construction. The submarine cable crossing of the Turnagain Arm would be difficult and expensive. Because of the strong tidal currents, ice flow and resultant scouring, bottom conditions, and the riveriets that are formed, this crossing would be a difficult. Since the Enstar pipeline is already in place it is reasonable to assume that a submarine cable could be installed also. Furthermore, the conditions that would influence laying a submarine cable in the Turnagain Arm would not be that dissimilar to laying a submarine cable in the Knik arm. As there are presently five circuits of submarine cable in place in the Knik Arm, it would be highly probable that an installation could be successfully accomplished in Turnagain Arm. The land forms for the Enstar route, on the Kenai Peninsula, are such that excavation and backfilling for wood pole and guyed tubular construction would not be a significant problem. However, some frost jacking is expected to occur in some areas. Mitigation methods would have to be implemented to eliminate or minimize the frost jacking on the poles. Link 2.1 will consist of 18.1 miles of weathered steel guyed tubular pole. With easy access and consistent terrain, no difficulty multiplier was used for this segment. Link 2.2 consists of 31.6 miles of TH230 wood H-frame with X-bracing. A difficulty factor of 1.2 was used on this section because of possible frost jacking and canyon crossing spans. Link 2.3 consist of 4 miles of 4 conductor underground in the Chickaloon Bay Flats area with 7 splices consisting of 3-1C cables for each splice area. Link 2.4 consists of 8.5 miles of 4 conductor submarine. "BO S$! 1064151387) 4-8 Link 2.5 is at Potter Marsh and .25 miles long with 4 conductor underground. Link 2.6 goes along old Seward Highway to Ptarmigan section. The line consists of 1.9 miles of single steel pole with bolt cluster foundations for the angle structures. A difficulty multiplier of 1.5 was included for problems inherent along highways and urban areas. Link 2.7 is single steel pole with bolt cluster foundations for all angle structures with a length of 2.5 miles. Link 2.8 will be the single steel pole structure with concrete bolt clusters for the angle structure, for a distance of 8.6 miles, with a difficulty factor of 1.5 for problems inherent in urban area construction. There is an alternate route for Link 2.6, which would run 2.1 miles of underground from the water up the railroad ROW to the section line north of Ptarmigan Terrace. From this point about 0.4 mile of overhead single steel poles would be needed to reach the point where the line would meet the old Seward Highway route. If this route was to be used the cost would run $2,007,000 more than the old Seward Highway and the Ptarmigan Terrace section line. This extra cost would be true for both the Huffman substation route and the International substation route. &O 5! 1064 (5/12/87) 4-9 4.3.1 Link Length 21 18.1 m1 2.2 316m 23 am 24 8.5m 25) 25m 2.6 19 Total Miles 64.35 mi Cost Summary - Enstar Route Configuration Guyed tubular weathered steel Wood H-Frame x oraces TH230 Underground cabie mat. 4 conductors ins Submarine cable mat. 4 conductors ins. Underground cable mat. 4 conductors ins Single pole concrete bolt clusters for angies Soldotna - Railroad R-O-W and Ptarmigan Sec Line Subtotal Huffman Substation Alternate Qed 25 Total Miles = 66.85 TOTAL ENSTAR ROUTE Huffman Substation Alternate Single pole with concrete boit clusters for angie poles 7 joints for underground south side of bay 1 jornt for underground cable to suomarine cabie north side of bay Mobilization - demobilization R-O-W Clearing - Access Roads Subtotal Design @ 10% CM @7% Admin. @ 5% Subtotal Contigency @ 15% Annual operating and maintenance costs @ 1 5% T&O S) 106s (5/14/87) 4-10 Estimated Costs 18.1 x 166.000 x10 316x120,400x12 4x4x5,280 x 29 4x 580.000 8.5x4x 5,280 x 56 8.5 x 1,706,000 25x 4x 5,280 x 29 700,000 x 25 15x19 187,200 187,200x2.5x 15 labor & ins 64,000 x 7 labor & ins 64,000 x1 = $ 3,005,000 2 4.566.000 = 2.450.000 = 2.320.000 = 10,053.000 = 14501000 = 153.000 = 175.000 = 533.000 $37,756,000 = $ 702.000 = 448,000 = 64.000 1 100,000 1.300.000 $41.570.000 4.157.000 2.910.000 2,079,000 $0.716.000 7,607,000 = $58,323,000 —-———— = $875,000 International - Substation Alternate Link Length Soldotna - Railroad R-O-W Subtotal 28 8.6m Total Miles = 73.45 TOTAL ENSTAR ROUTE international Substation Alternate Configuration Single Pole with concrete bolt clusters for angie poles 7 joints for underground south side of bay 1 ,o1nt for underground to submarine cable north side of bay Mobilization - demobilization R-O-W Clearing - Access Roads Subtotal Design @ 10% cM @7% Admin. @5% Subtotal Contigency @ 15% Annuai Operating and Maintenance Costs @ 1 5% 7 &O $1 1068 (514.87) 4-11 Estimated Costs 187,200x15x86 labor & ins. $37,756.00 2.415.000 448,000 64.000 1,100,000 1.500.000 $43,283.000 4,328,000 3.030.000 2.764 000 52.305.900 7 921,000 $60.726.000 $ 911.000 4.4 "aos! TESORO ROUTE The existing overhead line from Soldotna to Bernice Lake Power Plant would be removed and replaced with a new 230kV facility on or adjacent to the existing centerline. An additional 25’ of ROW would be needed, outside the refuge area for the new 230kV transmission line. It is assumed that the old line could be removed and the new line constructed without any additional generation or that shoeflies would have to be constructed. The existing 69kV line would be able to carry the power needed for the area during construction. Starting at Link 3.1, the new line would be constructed of wood H-frame with X-bracing and with a length of about 24.2 miles. Link 3.2 would be single pole steel structures with bolt clusters for the angle poles. These structures were chosen to keep the line within the existing Kenai Road ROW to the end of the Captain Cook State Recreation Area. The link would be 16.5 miles in length and has a difficulty factor put in of 1.2 because of frost jacking. Link 3.3 would consist of 24.75 miles of guyed tubular galvanized X- frame structures, a difficulty factor of 1.2 was multiplied into the costs, because of poor access for the sites, and the large amount of angle structures that may be needed. Link 3.4 consists of 13.65 miles of submarine cable consisting of 4 conductors. This route is the preferred crossing for Pirelli; the water depth is adequate to minimize problems due to ice and movement. The soil stability is good as determined from pipeline construction experience and current flow and tidal action are within working limits. Link 3.5 consists of .75 miles of underground, 4 conductors from the bay toward the airport runways. 064 (5) 14.87) 4-12 Link 3.6 consists of 2.60 miles of wood H-frame X-braced TH230 running to the south of the Airport to within 1/2 mile of a line from the north south runways. Link 3.7 would consist of underground for about 1 mile for the airport north south runways. Link 3.8 would consist of 3 miles of single pole with concrete and bolt clusters for the angle structures. Because of problems inherent in urban construction a difficulty factor of 1.5 was factored into the costs. Link 3.9 consists of 2.2 miles of underground including Link 3.5 (.75 miles) going to the west of the airport in a northeast direction until clearing the runways from the airports. This underground cable would consist of 3 conductors and 3 joint areas each consisting of 3-1/C cables. Link 3.10 consists of 2.40 miles of wood H-frame X-braced structures ending at the Point Woronzof Substation. Link 3.11 consists of replacing 6 miles of 138kV underground cable to the International Substation from Point Woronzof Substation. "&O $1 1064 (5/14/87) 4-13 4.4.1 Cost Summary-Tesoro Route ald Length Configuration 3.1 242m: Wood H-Frame x braced TH230 L&aM 3.2 165m Single pole with concrete bolt clusters for angie poles L&M 33 24.75m Guyed tubular x frame galvanized L&M 3.4 13.5m Submarine Cabie Mat. 4 conductors Ins. TotalMiles = 78.95 Soldotna - Point Campbell Subtotal Point Woronzof Substation Alternate 3.9) 2.20 mi. Underground cabie Mat. 4 conductors Ins. 3:10 2.40 mi Wood H-Frame x braced TH230 TotaiMiles = 83.55 3.11 100 Changeout of 138kV cable Mat. 2 circuits Ins. 242m Removal of Existing 115kV from Soldotna to Bernice Lake 1-jo1nt northside of bay submarine to underground 4 conductors 2-joints on underground 4 conductor 2-jo1nts on underground changeout 3 conductors Mobilization - demobilization R-O-W Clearing - Access Roads Subtotal Design @ 10% CM @7% Admin @S5% Subtotal Contingency @ 15% TOTAL TESORO ROUTE Point Woronzof Alternate Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs @1 5% TRO SI 1068 (5/14/87) 4-14 120.400 x 24 2 187,200 x 16.5x12 168,200 x 24 75x12 $.280x4x 13556 1,296,000 x 13.5 2.2x4x 29x 5,280 600.000 x 2.2 120,400 x 2.4 10x6x 5,280 x24 600,000 x 2 24.2x 21,000 64,000 x1 64,000 x 2 48,000 x2 Estimated Costs $2.914,000 3.707.000 4 163,000 15,996,000 17 496.000 $44 276,000 $1,348,000 1.320.000 288.000 760,000 1.200.000 308.000 64.000 128,000 96,000 $1.250.000 2.000.000 $3.046.000 5.305.000 3.713.000 2.652.000 64.716.000 9.707.000 $74,424 000 $1,116,000 international Substation Alternate Soldotna - Point Campbell Subtotal 25 75 36 2.60 37 10 38 3.0 Total Miles = 86.25 TOTAL TESORO ROUTE Underground Mat. 4 conductors Ins. Wood H-Frame x braced TH230 Underground cabie Mat. 3 conductors Ins. Single pole, concrete boit cluster for angie poles 1-O1Int submarine to underground northside of bay - 4 conductors 1-jo1nt underground by airport 3 conductors Mobilization - demobilization R-O-W Clearing - Access Roads Subtotal Design @ 10% cM @7% Admin. @5% Subtotal Contingency @ 15% international Substation Alternate Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs @ 15% *&O $1 1064 (5/1487) 4-15 75 x 4x5,280 x 29 600,000 x .75 120,400 x 2.60 3 «x 5,280 x 29 600,000 x1 3.0 x 187,200x15 64,000 x1 48,000 x 1 $44 276,000 $459,000 450.000 313.000 459.000 600,000 842,000 64,000 48,000 1,250,000 2.900.090 50.761.000 5,076,000 3.553.000 2.538.000 61,928,000 9.289.000 $21218,000 $1,068,000 4.5 BELUGA ROUTE The Beluga Route should not be considered further in this study because of the expected complexities and expense that would be associated with the submarine crossing between the Forelands. It is a poor location for a submarine cable crossing because of the tidal currents, ice flows, and resultant scouring that would be expected to occur. The overland route from West Foreland to Beluga would be extremely difficult to construct because of the environmental mitigation measures that would have to be implemented. Also, the unique land forms such as flood plains, outwashes and tidal flats would cause complex and expensive construction methodologies to be employed Additionally, the line routing through Trading Bay State Game Refuge would in all probability have been underground, for a distance or approximately fifteen (15) miles. Cost estimates would have been prepared for the Beluga route if costs could have been generated for the submarine portion. As a result of Pirelli’s evaluation, it was determined that a submarine crossing not be attempted at this location because the submarine route presents a high degree of risk, for both installation of the cable and subsequent operations. In summary, Pirelli did not think this route was viable (reference Appendix B) and therefore POWER did not cost it out. T&O S51 1064 (5/1487) 4- 1 6 4.6 LINE REQUIREMENT SUMMARY The Tesoro Route has a 13.5-mile submarine crossing, which is longer than the Enstar submarine crossing by 5 miles, but the installation of the cable would be less difficult than the Enstar Route. The overland route from Bernice Lake to Point Possession is exposed to the coastal climate which would present high winds and icing conditions. The line segment from Point Campbell to Point Woronzof has the advantage of not requiring construction in the urban areas of Anchorage. The Enstar Route has the shortest submarine crossing of the three alternatives but the crossing is expected to be more difficult than the Tesoro Route. The overland reroute from the Soldotna Substation to Chickaloon Bay is the best alternative of the three for construction of a new facility because of the relatively good soils and flat terrain. The alternate line segments from Potter Marsh to the substations have the disadvantage of having to be constructed in an urban setting. The Existing Route upgrade to 230kV is the longest of all the routes considered. It has no submarine crossing but 9.5 miles are considered for undergrounding. It has the advantage of paralleling the Seward/Sterling Highway which allows reasonable access to the powerline. Construction on this route for the overhead facilities would be more difficult than on the Enstar and Tesoro Routes because of the ruggedness of the terrain. The route has proven to be susceptible to avalanche and high wind hazards. The Beluga Route is not considered a feasible route for a transmission line facility. "BO 51 1064 (514/87) 4-17 The following is a tabulation of advantages and disadvantages of the different routes from the transmission line perspective. Consideration is given to economic factors as well as operations and maintenance. The routes are placed in the same order that they were presented in the previous sections. Table 4.6 -1 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION LINE SUMMARY ROUTE Existing Route Enstar Route Tesoro Route Beluga Route T&O $1 1064 (5/1487) ADVANTAGES Good access. No submarine cable. Lowest cost route alternative. Climatic and geologic concerns are favorable for this route. Shortest submarine cable length. Most viable submarine cable route. Reasonable access. None 4-18 DISADVANTAGES Longest line length. Subject to high winds & avalanches. Second highest cost. 9.4 miles of underground cable. Difficult submarine crossing. 4.25 miles of underground cable. Access to the Kenai refuge area is difficult. Longest submarine crossing. Subject to high winds and icing. along the Kenai coast. Most expensive route alternative. Submarine crossing is not considered feasible. Potentially fifteen miles of underground at Trader Bay The following is a cost summary of each of the transmission line alternatives. The Enstar Route (Huffman Alternative) is the least expensive with the Tesoro Route (Pt. Woronzof Alternative) being the most expensive. Table 4.6-2 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION LINE COST SUMMARY ROUTE COST Enstar (Huffman Alternative) $58,323,000 Existing Route 60,522,000 Enstar (International Alternative) 60,726,000 Tesoro (International Alternative) 71,218,000 Tesoro (Pt. Woronzof Alternative) 74,424,000 A quantitative line requirement representation of the four alternative routes is presented in a rating table that rates the major factors affecting line requirements on a point scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being most favorable. Table 4.6 -3 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION LINE RATING MAINTENANCE Rating ROUTE RELIABILITY & OPERATION cost POINT TOAL SCALE Existing 2 4 3 9 3 Enstar 5 4 5 14 1 Tesoro 5 4 2 8] 74 Beluga 0 0 0 0 0 Rating scale 1-3; 1 preferred 7&O 5S! 1064 (5/14/87) 4-19 H-Frame Wood H-Frame Wood 1H230 X-Brace Single Pole Direct Embedded Galvanized Steel Guyed Angles Single Pole Direct Embedded Weathered Steel Guyed Angles Single Pole Direct Embedded Galvanized Concrete Backfill Guyed Angles Steel Pole 98" 18° Buned Table 4.6-4 ANCHORAGE - KENAI TRANSMISSION LINE INTERTIE STRUCTURE COST COMPARISON Mati Cost $3,275 $9,275 $12,275 $92,590 $3,525 $10,525 Steel Pole 98° 18° Burned $13,525 Conductor $31,500 Mat'l Cosumi $17,500 $17,500 Total Cosumi $49,500 $49,000 $120,400 $31,750 $31,750 $17,500 $17,500 $49,250 $49,250 $49,250 $161,450 $164,750 Direct Embedded Tangent Steel 800° R/S Concrete Foundations Pole 98° $20,900 | $137,940 $17,500 | $49,250] $187,200 Bolt Cluster Angle Poles, Tangents (No Guys) 80’ Self Standing Angles Poles Guyed Steel 1200" RvS Tubular Pole 8.5004 $6,100 $9,500] $15,600] $8,500 $1,800 $1,200 $3,000] $27,100} 119,240 $31,500] $17,500] $49,000] $168 200 X-Frame Galvam zed 8 Guyed 1 | Weather 1 s Tubular ed 68,5004 $6,100 $9,000] $15,100] $6,500 $1,800 $1,200 $3,000] $26,600] % 0 | $31,500} $17,500] $49,000} $1b6 O00 X Frame \ / 5. STATION DESIGN REQUIREMENTS , 5. STATION REQUIREMENTS Sst GENERAL The following sections present the expected station requirements for each alternate route. A brief explanation of the individual station additions is followed by a diagram representing the major components of the stations in their relative positions and a tabulation of the estimated costs for each station. At the end of each section is a summary of the station costs for that route. More detailed one-line diagrams of the individual stations and/or modifications to stations are. provided in Appendix D for reference. The station costs are broken down by structures and equipment. Also, estimates for labor to install structures, to install equipment and to install foundations are provided. The estimate to furnish and install all other electrical work includes costs for fence, grounding, buswork, cable and conduit. These cost estimates are based partially on average bids for this type of work on a recent 230kV addition at Chugach Electric Association's Beluga Station. The reactor estimates are based on a 230kV installation . in Idaho with appropriate adders for labor rates in Alaska. The terminal/pumping stations and the terminal/reservoir stations were estimated using information supplied by Pirelli (refer to Appendix B). These estimates are within fifteen percent (+15%),based on POWER’s experience in dealing with competitive bids. If a specific manufacturer is preferred however, regardless of price, these estimates, may have a greater variation. Also the complexity of the protective relaying and communications systems may result in an increase from these estimates. TRO S1 1066 (5/14/87) 5-1 TSO S$! The total estimated cost for each station is shown in this section and is carried forward to the summary of costs at the end of each route section. The advantages and disadvantages of the routes along with a ranking of the routes as to which is the preferred route with respect to stations are included in the Summary section for Station Requirements. Assumptions @ Except for a couple of known problems, it has been assumed there is 064 (5, 14.87) adequate space available for modifications to existing stations either in or adjacent to the station. It has also been assumed that SCADA and communications would be required at all new station facilities and that SCADA equipment at existing facilities could accept additional requirements without major modifications. It has been assumed that UHF radio will provide satisfactory communications to all new sites for SCADA. A new substation at Soldotna will be required regardless of the route selected. This is due to lack of additional room at the existing station. This new station will be designed to the minimum required for this application. Any other considerations will add to the cost but would be the same for each route. 5-2 5.2 EXISTING ROUTE AT 230KV The existing route would be upgraded to 230kV to handle the load requirements. By installing three sections of underground cable in avalanche areas, there will be improvement in the reliability of the existing line. There will be two reactors required; one at each of two terminal/reservoir stations. For this discussion they will be located as shown in the diagram. The following station additions and/or modifications would be required: @ Anew 115-230kV substation at Soldotna @ Voltage Upgrades to 230kV at six (6) existing stations @ Six (6) terminal/reservoir stations at avalanche areas (one with a reactor) @ Two (2) terminal/reservoir stations at a State Park (one with a reactor) @ Anew 230kV substation at University Substation The voltage upgrades at Hope, Portage, Girdwood and Indian are fairly straightforward. The power transformers will be a minimum of SMVA at 230kV. At Quartz Creek, an additional breaker is required to retain the same operating philosophy as the present station. At Dave's Creek, four (4) 230kV breakers and two (2) transformers are required. For this study it has been assumed that the breakers will be arranged in a ring bus. The underground cable sections will be installed in three avalanche areas and in a State Park. The one section of underground in Powerline Pass is required to mitigate visual concerns. The cable section between Girdwood and Indian will require a midpoint reservoir station due to its 4.5 mile length. The two (2) 22 MVAR reactors required could be placed at several locations and still provide the compensation for the underground cable capacitance. The important thing is to identify the cost associated with this requirement and, if this route is selected, their location can be clearly specified. "&O S51 ‘064 (514.87) 5-3 230KV INDIAN UNIVERSITY UNDERGROUND “me 115KV—.230KV aus At 22 MVAR Y UNDERGROUND CABLE , (MIDPOINT RESERVOIR STATIC GIRDWOOD 230KV € UNDERGROUND : CABLE PORTAGE 230KV HOPE 230KV + UNDERGROUND : CABLE 230-115KV 33MVA 22MVAR ‘ DAVES CREEK 230-24.9KV 10MVA QUARTZ CREEK SOLDOTNA 115KV BUS 230-69KV » 1SMVA 115-230KV 250MVA oN poe EXISTING ROUTE +t (ADDED TO EXISTING 30 MVAR) EXISTING ROV'® 5.4 AUS 1068 (8/1487) 5.2.1Existing Route at 230kV - Estimated Costs New Soldotna Substation (115-230kV) Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 1 25,000 $ 25,000 230kV Switch Structure 2 8,000 16,000 230kV Voltage XFMR Str. 3 1,000 3,000 115kV Dead End Structure 1 16,800 16,800 EQUIPMENT 230kV Circuit Breaker 1 110,000 110,000 230kV 39 Switch 3 12,000 36,000 230kV Voltage XFMR 3 12,000 36,000 115-230kV, 250 MVA XFMR 1 900,000 900,000 115kV Capacitor Bank, 10 MVAR 1 40,000 40,000 115kV Circuit Switcher 1 36,000 36,000 115kV Circuit Breaker 1 60,000 60,000 115kV 39 Switch 3 9,000 27,000 Control Switchboard 1 75,000 75,000 SCADA & Communications 1 12,500 12,500 Control Building 1 29,000 29,000 Station Service 1 46,000 46,000 Install Structures LES. 38,000 38,000 Install Equipment ES: 367,200 367,200 Foundations LS. 232,800 232,800 Furnish and install all other electrical work LS: 350,000 350,000 Testing L.S. 10,000 10,000 Mobilization & Site Prep. L.S. 72,000 72,000 (Site = 120 x 200) —— Subtotal $2,538,300 Design (10%) 253,830 CM (7%) 177,681 Administration (5%) TOTAL - NEW SOLDOTNA SUBSTATION *L.S.: Lump Sum THOS! 1064 (5/14/87) 5-5 126,915 3,096,726 Quartz Creek Substation Unit STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 230kV Switch Structure 230kV Bus Support Structure 115kV Dead End Structure EQUIPMENT 230kV Circuit Breaker 230kV 30 Switch 230-69kV, 15 MVA Auto XFMR Control Switchboard SCADA and Communications Control Building Station Service Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and install all other electrical equipment Testing Mobilization and Site Prep (Site = 150 x 100) Design (10%) CM (7%) Administration (5%) Quantity - Oonmnn uw =) =) Ss LES: LS: LES: ES: LS: [ES TOTAL - QUARTZ CREEK SUBSTATION 7&O $1 1064 (5/1487) 5-6 Unit Cost 25,000 8,000 1,000 16,800 110,000 12,000 230,000 12,000 12,500 19,000 6,600 39,000 133,200 173,200 211,000 4,500 45,000 Subtotal Extended Cost $ 50,000 40,000 6,000 16,800 220,000 60,000 230,000 48,000 12,500 19,000 19,800 39,000 133,200 173,200 211,000 4,500 45,000 $1,328,000 132,800 92,960 66,400 —— $1,620,160 Daves Creek Substation 7&O S1 1064 (51487) 5-7 Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 2 25,000 $ 50,000 230kV Switch Structure 10 8,000 80,000 230kV Bus Support Structure 20 1,000 20,000 115kV Dead End Structure 1 16,800 16,800 EQUIPMENT 230kV Circuit Breaker 4 110,000 440,000 230kV 3 Switch 10 12,000 120,000 230-24.9kV, 10 MVA XFMR w/LTC 1 300,000 300,000 230-115kV 33 MVA XFMR w/LTC 1 350,000 350,000 115kV Circuit Breaker 1 60,000 60,000 115kV 3 Switch 3 9,000 27,000 Control Switchboard 8 12,000 96,000 SCADA and Communications 12,500 12,500 Control Building 1 19,000 19,000 Station Service 2 39,600 39,600 Install Structures LS: 77,200 77,200 Install Equipment 1=S3 283,900 283,900 Foundations LES: 369,600 369,600 Furnish and install all other electrical equipment LES: 481,000 481,000 Testing LESS 105,000 105,000 Mobilization and Site Prep LS: 60,000 60,000 (Site = 200 x 100) ——— Subtotal $3,007,600 Design (10%) 300,760 CM (7%) 210,532 Administration (5%) 150,380 TOTAL - DAVES CREEK SUBSTATION $3,669,272 Terminal/Reservoir Station (230kV) w/Reactor Cc nit STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 230kV 19 Switch Structure 230kV Terminator Str. 230kV Arrester Str. 230kV Bus Support Str. EQUIPMENT 230kV Terminator 230kV Surge Arrester 230kV 18 MOD Switch 230kV Reactor, 22 MVAR 230kV Circuit Switcher Reservoir Plant Control Building SCADA & Communications Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and install all other electrical work Testing Mobilization & Site Prep. (Site = 120 x 170) Design (10%) CM (7%) Administration (5%) Quantity ao rk - on — - @or-- DP ESS EES® Less ES: L.S. ES: Total - TERMINAU/RESERVOIR STATION "BOS! 1064 (5/14/87) Unit Cost 25,000 1,600 15,000 1,200 1,200 21,500 6,000 7,000 375,000 60,000 3,500 12,000 12,500 34,000 132,500 192,300 350,000 10,000 86,700 Subtotal Extended Cost $ 25,000 9,600 15,000 4,800 7,200 86,000 24,000 42,000 375,000 60,000 28,000 12,000 12,500 34,000 132,500 192,300 350,000 10,000 86,700 $1,506,600 150,660 105,462 75,330 $1,838,052 Terminal/Reservoir Station w/o Reactor Unit STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 230kV 19 Switch Structure 230kV Terminator Str. 230kV Arrester Str. 230kV Bus Support Str. EQUIPMENT 230kV Terminator 230kV Surge Arrester 230kV 18 MOD Switch Reservoir Plant Control Building SCADA & Communications Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and install all other electrical work Testing Mobilization & Site Prep. (Site = 120 x 170) Design (10%) CM (7%) Administration (5%) Total - TERMINAL/RESERVOIR STATION "SOS! 1064 15/1487) Quantity ao rk - HD = - Onn LES? LESS Es: L.S. ES: ES. Unit Cost 25,000 1,600 15,000 1,200 1,200 21,500 6,000 7,000 3,500 12,000 12,500 34,000 92,500 129,300 300,000 10,000 61,200 Subtotal 5-9 Extended Cost $ 25,000 9,600 15,000 4,800 7,200 86,000 24,000 42,000 28,000 12,000 12,500 34,000 92,500 129,300 300,000 10,000 61,200 $ 893,100 89,310 62,517 44,655 —— $1,089,582 Hope Substation Cc nit STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 230kV Switch Structure EQUIPMENT 230kV Circuit Breaker 230kV 39 Switch 230-24.9kV, 5 MVA XFMR Control Switchboard SCADA & Communications Control Building Station Service Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and install all other electrical equipment Testing Mobilization and Site Prep (Site = 100 x 100) Design (10%) CM (7%) Administration (5%) TOTAL - HOPE SUBSTATION T&O $1 1064 (5, 14/87) Quantity Nee NY LES: LS. EES: eS: LS: LES® Unit Cost 5-10 25,000 8,000 110,000 12,000 250,000 12,000 12,500 12,000 6,600 40,000 88,300 157,200 100,200 4,500 30,000 Subtotal Extended Cost $ 50,000 16,000 110,000 24,000 250,000 24,000 12,500 12,000 13,200 40,000 88,300 157,200 100,200 4,500 30,000 $ 931,900 93,190 65,183 46,595 — $1,136,868 Portage Substation Unit STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 230kV Switch Structure EQUIPMENT 230kV Circuit Breaker 230kV 30 Switch 230-24.9kV, 5 MVA XFMR Control Switchboard SCADA and Communications Control Building Station Service Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and install all other electrical equipment Testing Mobilization and Site Prep (Site = 100 x 100) Design (10%) CM (7%) Administration (5%) TOTAL - PORTAGE SUBSTATION 7&O S! 1064 (5/14/87) Quantity NSA N LS: LES: ES: LS: LESS ES 5-11 Unit Cost 25,000 8,000 110,000 12,000 250,000 12,000 12,500 12,000 6,600 40,000 88,300 157,200 100,200 4,500 30,000 Subtotal Extended Cost $ 50,000 16,000 110,000 24,000 250,000 24,000 12,500 12,000 13,200 40,000 88,300 157,200 100,200 4,500 30,000 $ 931,900 93,190 65,183 46,595 $1,136,868 Terminal/Reservoir Station (230kV) w/o Reactor [two (2) locations Unit STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 230kV 19 Switch Structure 230kV Terminator Str. 230kV Arrester Str. 230kV Bus Support Str. EQUIPMENT 230kV Terminator 230kV Surge Arrester 230kV 18 MOD Switch Reservoir Plant Control Building SCADA & Communications Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and install all other electrical work Testing Mobilization & Site Prep. (Site = 120 x 170) Design (10%) CM (7%) Administration (5%) Total - TERMINAU/RESERVOIR STATION TSO $1 1064 (5.14.87) Quantity ao fF - nD — - oOanr LEY LS. ES: ES. ES; eS Unit Cost 25,000 1,600 15,000 1,200 1,200 21,500 6,000 7,000 3,500 12,000 12,500 34,000 92,500 129,300 300,000 10,000 61,200 Subtotal 5-12 Extended Cost $ 25,000 9,600 15,000 4,800 7,200 86,000 24,000 42,000 28,000 12,000 12,500 34,000 92,500 129,300 300,000 10,000 61,200 $ 893,100 89,310 62,517 44,655 one $1,089,582 Girdwood Substation Unit STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 230kV Switch Structure EQUIPMENT 230kV Circuit Breaker 230kV 39 Switch 230-24.9kV, 11.2 MVA XFMR w/LTC Control Switchboard SCADA and Communications Control Building Station Service Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and install all other electrical equipment — Testing Mobilization and Site Prep (Site = 100 x 100) Design (10%) CM (7%) Administration (5%) TOTAL - GIRDWOOD SUBSTATION 7&O S! 1066 (514/87) Quantity L.S. ES: ES: CS: LES: [ES: Unit Cost 5-13 25,000 8,000 110,000 12,000 300,000 12,000 12,500 12,000 6,600 40,000 88,300 157,200 100,200 4,500 30,000 Subtotal Extended Cost $ 50,000 16,000 110,000 24,000 300,000 24,000 12,500 12,000 13,200 40,000 88,300 157,200 100,200 4,500 30,000 $ 981,900 98,190 68,733 49,095 — $1,197,918 Terminal/Reservoir Station (230kV) w/o Reactor [two (2) locations Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 1 25,000 $ 25,000 230kV 19 Switch Structure 6 1,600 9,600 230kV Terminator Str. 1 15,000 15,000 230kV Arrester Str. 4 1,200 4,800 230kV Bus Support Str. 6 1,200 7,200 EQUIPMENT 230kV Terminator 4 21,500 86,000 230kV Surge Arrester 4 6,000 24,000 230kV 18 MOD Switch 6 : 7,000 42,000 Reservoir Plant 8 3,500 28,000 Control Building 1 12,000 12,000 SCADA & Communications 1 12,500 12,500 Install Structures IES: 34,000 34,000 Install Equipment ES; 92,500 : 92,500 Foundations LS. 129,300 129,300 Furnish and install all other electrical work LS. 300,000 300,000 Testing SS: 10,000 10,000 Mobilization & Site Prep. LES: 61,200 61,200 (Site = 120 x 170) Subtotal $ 893,100 Design (10%) 89,310 CM (7%) 62,517 Administration (5%) 44,655 Total - TERMINAL/RESERVOIR STATION $1,089,582 TSO S! 1064 (5/1487) 5-14 Midpoint Reservoir Station Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost Reservoirs w/Str. 8 6,000 $ 48,000 Surge Diverter and Link Box 1 3,000 3,000 Jointing Material LS: 60,000 60,000 Installation cS: 24,000 24,000 Mobilization & Site Work eS: 10,000 10,000 Subtotal $ 145,000 Design (10%) 14,500 CM (7%) 10,150 Administration (5%) 75250 TOTAL - MIDPOINT SUBSTATION $176,900 7&O 5S! 064 (5/1487) 5-15 Indian Substation Unit STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 230kV Switch Structure EQUIPMENT 230kV Circuit Breaker 230kV 39 Switch 230-24.9kV, 5MVA XFMR W/LTC Control Switchboard SCADA and Communications Control Building Station Service Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and install all other electrical equipment Testing Mobilization and Site Prep (Site = 100 x 100) Design (10%) CM (7%) Administration (5%) TOTAL - INDIAN SUBSTATION T&O 51 1064 (5/14/87) Quantity LS: LES: LS: LESS LES: ES: Unit Cost 5-16 25,000 8,000 110,000 12,000 280,000 12,000 12,500 12,000 6,600 40,000 88,300 157,200 100,200 4,500 30,000 Subtotal Extended Cost $ 50,000 16,000 110,000 24,000 280,000 24,000 12,500 12,000 13,200 40,000 88,300 157,200 100,200 4,500 30,000 $ 961,900 96,190 67,333 48,095 — $1,173,518 Terminal/Reservoir Station (230kV) w/o Reactor Unit STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 230kV 19 Switch Structure 230kV Terminator Str. 230kV Arrester Str. 230kV Bus Support Str. EQUIPMENT 230kV Terminator 230kV Surge Arrester 230kV 18 MOD Switch Reservoir Plant Control Building SCADA & Communications Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and install all other electrical work Testing Mobilization & Site Prep. (Site = 120 x 170) Design (10%) CM (7%) Administration (5%) Quantity OP - DH = - Onr fF LS: LS; L.S. LS: ES: ES: Total - TERMINAL/RESERVOIR STATION T&O 51 106d (5, 14/87) Unit Cost 25,000 1,600 15,000 1,200 1,200 21,500 6,000 7,000 3,500 12,000 12,500 34,000 92,500 129,300 300,000 10,000 61,200 Subtotal 5-17 Extended Cost $ 25,000 9,600 15,000 4,800 7,200 86,000 24,000 42,000 28,000 12,000 12,500 34,000 92,500 129,300 300,000 10,000 61,200 $ 893,100 89,310 62,517 44,655 1,089,582 Terminal/Reservoir Station (230kV) w/Reactor Unit STRUCTURES ‘ 230kV Dead End Structure 230kV 19 Switch Structure 230kV Terminator Str. 230kV Arrester Str. 230kV Bus Support Str. EQUIPMENT 230kV Terminator 230kV Surge Arrester 230kV 18 MOD Switch 230kV Reactor, 22 MVAR 230kV Circuit Switcher Reservoir Plant Control Building SCADA & Communications Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and install all other electrical work Testing Mobilization & Site Prep. (Site = 150 x 170) Design (10%) CM (7%) Administration (5%) Total - TERMINAL/RESERVOIR STATION "&O 51 1064 (5/14/87) Quantity ao rF- oO = =-@O- 2A DAL LS. LES: ES) ES: ES: ES: 5-18 Unit Cost 25,000 1,600 15,000 1,200 1,200 21,500 6,000 7,000 375,000 60,000 3,500 12,000 12,500 34,000 132,500 192,300 350,000 10,000 86,700 Subtotal Extended Cost $ 25,000 9,600 15,000 4,800 7,200 86,000 24,000 42,000 375,000 60,000 28,000 12,000 12,500 34,000 132,500 192,300 350,000 10,000 86,700 $1,506,600 150,660 105,462 75,330 $1,838,052 University Substation Unit Quantity STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 230kV 19 Switch Structure EQUIPMENT 230kV Circuit Breaker 230kV 30 Switch Control Switchboard Control Building SCADA and Communications Station Service Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and install all other electrical equipment Testing Mobilization and Site Prep (Site = 100 x 100) Design (10%) CM (7%) Administration (5%) TOTAL - UNIVERSITY SUBSTATION T&O 51 1064 (5/14/87) LS: Ss ES: LES: ES: U's" Unit Cost 25,000 8,000 110,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,500 6,600 20,000 46,400 70,400 62,000 2,000 30,000 Subtotal 5-19 Extended Cost $ 25,000 8,000 110,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,500 6,600 20,000 46,400 70,400 62,000 2,000 30,000 $ 428,900 42,890 30,023 21,445 —_— $523,258 Summary of Station Costs - Existing Route at 230kV Station Estimated Cost * New Soldotna Substation $ 3,097,000 Quartz Creek Substation 1,620,000 Daves Creek Substation 3,669,000 Hope Substation 1,137,000 Portage Substation 1,137,000 Girdwood Substation 1,198,000 Six (6) Terminal/Reservoir Stations 6,537,000 Two (2) Terminal/Reservoir Station w/Reactor (22 MVAR) 3,676,000 Midpoint Reservoir Station 177,000 Indian Substation 1,174,000 University Substation 523,000 Subtotal $23,945,000 Contingency 15% 3,592,000 TOTAL - EXISTING ROUTE AT 230KV $27,537,000 Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs 4.5% 1,239,000 * Estimates are rounded to the nearest $1,000. T&O 5S! 1064 (5/14/87) 5-20 5:3 ENSTAR ROUTE The Enstar Route would require the following station additions and/or modifications: Anew 115-230kV substation at Soldotna A terminal/pumping station four (4) miles south of Chickaloon Bay A terminal/pumping station at Potter Marsh A new 230kV substation at International or Huffman Substation The Terminal/Pumping Station south of Chickaloon Bay is four (4) miles from the water due to environmental restrictions. There will be a 45 MVAR reactor associated with this station. The Terminal/Pumping Station at Potter Marsh has some site limitations, so the other 45 MVAR reactor will be located at the terminal station (either Huffman or International). Due to the landscaping ordinance for substations in the Anchorage Bowl, an extra $50,000 has been added to this site preparation cost for both Huffman and International Substations. Without more detailed information, there appears to be no significant difference between the modifications required at either Huffman Substation or International Substation. "&O 5! 1064 (5. 12°87) 5-21 HUFFMAN UK INIEXNAIIOUNAL 138KV BUS 138-230KV 250 MVA 230KV BUS 45 MVAR POTTER’S MARSH UNDERSEA CABLE BURNT ISLAND 45 MVAR 230KV BUS 115-230KV AYXW 350 MVA SOLDOTNA 115KV BUS a 10 MVAR + (ADDED TO EXISTING 30 MVAR) ENSTAR ROUTE #31 1066 (5/14/87) 5-22 5.3.1 Enstar Route - Estimated Costs New Soldotna Substation (115-230kV) Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 1 25,000 $ 25,000 230kV Switch Structure 2 8,000 16,000 230kV Voltage XFMR Str. 3 1,000 3,000 115kV Dead End Structure 1 16,800 16,800 EQUIPMENT 230kV Circuit Breaker 1 110,000 110,000 230kV 39 Switch 3 12,000 36,000 230kV Voltage XFMR 3 12,000 36,000 115-230kV, 250 MVA XFMR 1 900,000 900,000 115kV Capacitor Bank, 10 MVAR 1 40,000 40,000 115kV Circuit Switcher 1 36,000 36,000 115kV Circuit Breaker 1 60,000 60,000 115kV 39 Switch 3 9,000 27,000 Control Switchboard 1 75,000 75,000 SCADA & Communications 1 12,500 12,500 Control Building 1 29,000 29,000 Station Service 1 46,000 46,000 Install Structures [Se 38,000 38,000 Install Equipment Ls: 367,200 367,200 Foundations LS. 232,800 232,800 Furnish and install all other electrical work Ss 350,000 350,000 Testing LS: 10,000 10,000 Mobilization & Site Prep. S: 72,000 72,000 (Site = 120 x 200) Subtotal $2,538,300 Design (10%) 253,830 CM (7%) 177,681 Administration (5%) 126,915 TOTAL - NEW SOLDOTNA SUBSTATION $3,096,726 * LS: Lump Sum T&O S$! 1068 (5 14/87) 5-23 Terminal/Pumping Station (230kV) w/Reactor Cc nit STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 230kV 19 Switch Structure 230kV Terminator Str. 230kV Arrester Str. 230kV Bus Support Str. EQUIPMENT 230kV Terminator 230kV Surge Arrester 230kV 18 MOD Switch 230kV Reactor, 45 MVAR 230kV Circuit Switcher Pumping Plant Control Building SCADA & Communications Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and install all other electrical work Testing Mobilization & Site Prep. (Site = 150 x 170) Design (10%) CM (7%) Administration (5%) Quantity a f&- an =o) ah ab (eon) | L.S. LS. LES: ES: LES: ES: Total - TERMINAL/PUMPING STATION 7 &O S51 1064 (5/14/87) Unit Cost 25,000 1,600 15,000 1,200 1,200 21,500 6,000 7,000 500,000 60,000 420,000 12,000 12,500 34,000 174,500 212,300 375,000 10,000 86,700 Subtotal 5-24 Extended Cost $ 25,000 9,600 15,000 4,800 7,200 86,000 24,000 42,000 500,000 60,000 420,000 12,000 12,500 34,000 174,500 212,300 375,000 10,000 86,700 $2,110,600 211,060 147,742 105,530 $2,574,932 Terminal/Pumping Station (230kV) w/o Reactor Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 1 25,000 $ 25,000 230kV 19 Switch Structure 6 1,600 9,600 230kV Terminator Str. 1 15,000 15,000 230kV Arrester Str. 4 1,200 4,800 230kV Bus Support Str. 6 1,200 7,200 EQUIPMENT 230kV Terminator 4 21,500 86,000 230kV Surge Arrester 4 6,000 24,000 230kV 10 MOD Switch 6 7,000 42,000 Pumping Plant 1 420,000 420,000 Control Building 1 12,000 12,000 SCADA & Communications 1 12,500 12,500 Install Structures ES: 34,000 34,000 Install Equipment L.S. 134,500 134,500 Foundations LES: 149,300 149,300 Furnish and install all , other electrical work L.S. 300,000 300,000 Testing LS. 10,000 10,000 Mobilization & Site Prep. ES? 61,200 61,200 (Site = 120 x 170) Subtotal $1,347,100 Design (10%) 134,710 CM (7%) 94,297 Administration (5%) 67,355 Total - TERMINAL/PUMPING STATION $1,643,462 ~ 40 S$) 1068 (5/14.87) 5-25 Huffman Substation (138-230kV) (Alternative 1) Unit STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 230kV Switch Structure 230kV Voltage XFMR Str. 138kV Dead End Structure EQUIPMENT 230kV Circuit Breaker 230kV 39 Switch 230kV Voltage XFMR 138-230kV, 250 MVA XFMR 230kV Reactor, 45 MVAR 230kV Circuit Switcher 138kV Circuit Breaker 138kV 39 Switch Control Switchboards SCADA & Communications Control Building Station Service Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and install all other electrical work Testing Mobilization & Site Prep. (Site = 150 x 200) Design (10%) CM (7%) Administration (5%) TOTAL - HUFFMAN SUBSTATION MODIFICATION "SO S$! 1066 (5.1487) Quantity - WN = os) pas Ps Pe oe) oe CP oe LS: LES: ESS LES: LESS Ls: Unit Cost 25,000 8,000 1,000 19,500 110,000 12,000 12,000 950,000 450,000 60,000 70,000 10,000 60,000 12,500 29,000 46,000 38,000 271,500 242,800 350,000 10,000 140,000 Subtotal 5-26 Extended Cost $ 25,000 16,000 3,000 19,500 110,000 36,000 36,000 950,000 450,000 60,000 70,000 30,000 60,000 12,500 29,000 46,000 38,000 271,500 242,800 350,000 10,000 140,000 $3,005,300 300,530 210,371 150,265 $3,666,466 New International Substation (138-230kV) (Alternative 2 Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 1 25,000 $ 25,000 230kV Switch Structure 2 8,000 16,000 230kV Voltage XFMR Str. 3 1,000 3,000 138kV Dead End Structure 1 19,500 19,500 EQUIPMENT 230kV Circuit Breaker 1 110,000 110,000 230kV 39 Switch 3 12,000 36,000 230kV Voltage XFMR 3 12,000 36,000 138-230kV, 250 MVA XFMR 1 950,000 950,000 230kV Reactor, 45 MVAR 1 450,000 450,000 230kV Circuit Switcher 1 60,000 60,000 138kV Circuit Breaker 1 70,000 70,000 138kV 30 Switch 3 10,000 30,000 Control Switchboards 1 60,000 60,000 SCADA & Communications 1 12,500 12,500 Control Building 1 29,000 29,000 Station Service 1 46,000 46,000 Install Structures ES: 38,000 38,000 install Equipment LS; 271,500 271,500 Foundations ES: 242,800 242,800 Furnish and install all other electrical work ES: 350,000 350,000 Testing ES: 10,000 10,000 Mobilization & Site Prep. LS: 140,000 140,000 (Site = 150 x 200) Subtotal $3,005,300 Design (10%) 300,530 CM (7%) 210,371 Administration (5%) 150,265 TOTAL - NEW INTERNATIONAL SUBSTATION — $3,666,466 "&O $1 1064(5/1487) 5-27 Summary of Station Costs - Enstar Route Station New Soldotna Substation Terminal/Pumping Station w/Reactor Terminal/Pumping Station w/o Reactor Subtotal Huffman Substation (Alternative 1) Huffman Substation Subtotal 15% Contingency TOTAL - ENSTAR ROUTE (Alternative 1) Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs 4.5% New International Substation (Alternative 2) Stations Subtotal International Substation Subtotal 15% Contingency TOTAL - ENSTAR ROUTE (Alternative 2) Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs 4.5% 7 &O S$! 1064 (51487) 5-28 Estimated Cost $ 3,097,000 2,575,000 1,643,000 $ 7,315,000 3,666,000 $10,981,000 1,647,000 $12,628,000 $568,000 7,315,000 ——— 3,666,000 $10,981,000 1,647,000 es $12,628,000 $ 568,000 5.4 TESORO ROUTE The Tesoro Route would require the following station additions and/or modifications: A new 115-230kV substation at Soldotna A terminal/pumping station at Point Possession A terminal/pumping station at Point Campbell A terminal/reservoir station at two (2) locations near the south end of the airport (Alternative 2). A new 230kV substation at Point Woronzof Substation . (Alternative 1) Underground cable additions at Airport East and Airport West (Alternative 1) @ Anew 230kV substation at International Substation (Alternative 2) The new substation requirement at Bernice Lake involves three 230kV breakers. There may be some advantages to placing these breakers in a ring bus, but for this study, the arrangement is assumed to be as shown in the diagram for simplicity. There is a potential for significant error in the estimate for costs associated with the addition of six (6) new underground cables between Airport West and Airport East. It is assumed that this modification to the existing station can be done by installing terminator structures and terminators next to existing structures. If this is physically not possible, the estimate for these two stations could be $2,000,000 low. TRO S$! 1064151487) 5-29 INTERNATIONAL 138KV BUS 138-230KV 250 MVA 230KV BUS UNDERGROUND CABLE AIRPORT POINT CAMPBELL + UNDERSEA CABLE 60 MVAR . POINT POSSESSION 60 MVAR 230KV BUS 230KV BUS CAlA », 115-230KV 115-230kV Pent ~~ isomva SOLDOTNA 115KV BUS BERNICE LAKE 115KV BUS 10 MVAR ft (ADDED TO EXISTING 30 MVAR) TESORO ROUTE 40 51 1064 (5/1487) 5-30 5.4.1 Tesoro Route - Estimated Costs New Soldotna Substation (115-230kV) ‘ Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 1 25,000 $ 25,000 230kV Switch Structure 2 8,000 16,000 230kV Voltage XFMR Str. 3 1,000 3,000 115kV Dead End Structure 1 16,800 16,800 EQUIPMENT 230kV Circuit Breaker 1 110,000 110,000 230kV 39 Switch 3 12,000 36,000 230kV Voltage XFMR 3 12,000 36,000 115-230kV, 250 MVA XFMR 1 900,000 900,000 115kV Capacitor Bank, 10 MVAR 1 40,000 40,000 115kV Circuit Switcher 1 36,000 36,000 115kV Circuit Breaker 1 60,000 60,000 115kV 39 Switch 3 9,000 27,000 Control Switchboard 1 75,000 75,000 SCADA & Communications q 12,500 12,500 Control Building 1 29,000 29,000 Station Service 1 46,000 l 46,000 Install Structures L.S.* 38,000 38,000 Install Equipment ES: 367,200 367,200 Foundations LS; 232,800 232,800 Furnish and install all other electrical work eS: 350,000 350,000 Testing L.S. 10,000 10,000 Mobilization & Site Prep. LSSs 72,000 72,000 (Site = 120 x 200) po el Subtotal $2,538,300 Design (10%) 253,830 CM (7%) 177,681 Administration (5%) 126,915 TOTAL - NEW SOLDOTNA SUBSTATION $3,096,726 * LS: Lump Sum 7 &O 51 1068 (5/14/87) 5-31 Bernice Lake Substation (115-230kV) Quantity Unit STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 230kV Switch Structure 230kV Voltage XFMR Str. 115kV Dead End Structure EQUIPMENT 230kV Circuit Breaker 230kV 39 Switch 230kV Voltage XFMR 115-230kV, 250 MVA XFMR 115kV Circuit Breaker 115kV 3 Switch Control Switchboard SCADA & Communications Control Building Station Service Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and install all other electrical work Testing Mobilization & Site Prep. (Site = 180 x 180) Design (10%) CM (7%) Administration (5%) - Wan —- = |= ow w= a Mw WwW LES: US: LS: CS: LS: ES! TOTAL - BERNICE LAKE SUBSTATION ~&O 51 1064 (5/1487) 5-32 Unit Cost 25,000 8,000 1,000 16,800 110,000 12,000 12,000 900,000 60,000 9,000 90,000 12,500 29,000 56,000 119,700 264,000 298,800 400,000 20,000 151,200 Subtotal Extended Cost $ 50,000 48,000 3,000 16,800 330,000 108,000 72,000 900,000 60,000 27,000 90,000 12,500 29,000 56,000 119,700 264,000 298,800 400,000 20,000 151,200 $3,036,200 303,620 212,534 151,810 3,704,164 Terminal/Pumping Station (230kV) w/Reactor [two (2) locations Unit STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 230kV 10 Switch Structure 230kV Terminator Str. 230kV Arrester Str. 230kV Bus Support Str. EQUIPMENT 230kV Terminator 230kV Surge Arrester 230kV 10 MOD Switch 230kV Reactor, 60 MVAR 230kV Circuit Switcher Pumping Plant Control Building SCADA & Communications Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and install all other electrical work Testing Mobilization & Site Prep. (Site = 150 x 170) Design (10%) CM (7%) Administration (5%) Quantity Oo fF - Oa — os, yeast) oa] as SN) eos: | Bs ES: L.S. ES: ESE LES: LS: Total - TERMINAL/PUMPING STATION 7&O 5! 1064151487) Unit Cost 25,000 1,600 15,000 1,200 1,200 21,500 6,000 7,000 600,000 60,000 420,000 12,000 12,500 34,000 174,500 212,300 375,000 10,000 86,700 Subtotal 5-33 Extended Cost $ 25,000 9,600 15,000 4,800 7,200 86,000 24,000 42,000 600,000 60,000 420,000 12,000 12,500 34,000 174,500 212,300 375,000 10,000 86,700 $2,210,600 221,060 154,742 110,530 2,696,932 New Point Woronzof Substation (138-230kV) (Alternative 1) Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 1 25,000 $ 25,000 230kV Switch Structure 2 8,000 16,000 230kV Voltage XFMR Str. 3 1,000 3,000 138kV Dead End Structure 2 19,500 39,000 138kV Switch Structure 6 6,500 39,000 EQUIPMENT 230kV Circuit Breaker 1 110,000 110,000 230kV 39 Switch 3 12,000 36,000 230kV Voltage XFMR 3 12,000 36,000 138-230kV, 250 MVA XFMR 1 950,000 950,000 138kV Circuit Breaker 3 70,000 210,000 138kV 39 Switch 9 10,000 90,000 Control Switchboards 1 90,000 90,000 SCADA & Communications 1 12,500 - 12,500 Control Building 1 29,000 29,000 Station Service 1 56,000 56,000 Install Structures LS; 70,300 70,300 Install Equipment [ESy 249,500 249,500 Foundations ES: 261,600 261,600 Furnish and install all other electrical work LES: 448,000 448,000 Testing ESE 20,000 20,000 Mobilization & Site Prep. LEESs 151,200 151,200 (Site = 180 x 280) Subtotal $2,942,100 Design (10%) 294,210 CM (7%) 205,947 Administration (5%) 147,105 TOTAL - NEW POINT WORONZOF SUBSTATION $3,589,362 T&O 51 1064 (5/1487) 5-34 Airport East & Airport West Underground Cable Addition (Alternative 1) Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost STRUCTURES 1 Terminator Structure 7 2,000 $ 14,000 EQUIPMENT 138kV Terminators 7 10,000 70,000 Reservoir Plants 14 3,500 49,000 Install Structures L.S. 5,500 5,500 Install Equipment LES? 35,000 35,000 Foundations ES: 10,000 10,000 Furnish and install all other electrical work Ss | 50,000 50,000 Subtotal $233,500 Design (10%) 23,350 CM (7%) 16,345 Administration (5%) 11,675 TOTAL - UNDERGROUND CABLE ADDITION $284,870 7 &O $1 1064 (5) 14/87) 5-35 Terminal/Reservoir Station (230kV) w/o Reactor [two (2) locations (Alternative 2) Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 1 25,000 $ 25,000 230kV 19 Switch Structure 6 1,600 9,600 230kV Terminator Str. 1 15,000 15,000 230kV Arrester Str. 4 1,200 4,800 230kV Bus Support Str. 6 1,200 7,200 EQUIPMENT 230kV Terminator 4 21,500 86,000 230kV Surge Arrester 4 6,000 24,000 230kV 18 MOD Switch 6 7,000 42,000 Reservoir Plant 8 3,500 28,000 Control Building 1 12,000 12,000 SCADA & Communications 1 12,500 12,500 Install Structures ES; 34,000 34,000 Install Equipment ES: 92,500 92,500 Foundations LES: 129,300 129,300 Furnish and install all other electrical work LS; 300,000 300,000 Testing ES: - 10,000 10,000 Mobilization & Site Prep. LES? 61,200 61,200 (Site = 120 x 170) Subtotal $ 893,100 Design (10%) 89,310 CM (7%) 62,517 Administration (5%) 44,655 Total - TERMINAL/RESERVOIR STATION $1,089,582 TRO S51 '068(5/14.87) 5-36 New International Substation (138-230kV) (Alternative 2 Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 1 25,000 $ 25,000 230kV Switch Structure 2 8,000 16,000 -i0kV Voltage XFMR Str. 3 1,000 3,000 138kV Dead End Structure 1 19,500 19,500 EQUIPMENT 230kV Circuit Breaker 1 110,000 110,000 230kV 39 Switch 3 12,000 36,000 230kV Voltage XFMR 3 12,000 36,000 138-230kV, 250 MVA XFMR 1 950,000 ~ 950,000 138kV Circuit Breaker 1 70,000 70,000 138kV 30 Switch 3 10,000 30,000 Control Switchboards 1 60,000 60,000 SCADA & Communications 1 12,500 12,500 Control Building 1 29,000 29,000 Station Service 1 46,000 46,000 Install Structures LS: 38,000 38,000 Install Equipment ES: 231,500 231,500 Foundations ES: 185,800 185,800 Furnish and install all other electrical work LESS 300,000 300,000 Testing US. / 10,000 10,000 Mobilization & Site Prep. IES; 72,000 72,000 (Site = 120 x 200) Subtotal $2,280,300 Design (10%) 228,030 CM (7%) 159,621 Administration (5%) 114,015 TOTAL - NEW INTERNATIONAL SUBSTATION $2,781,966 T&D $1 1066 (5/1387) 5-37 Summary of Station Costs - Tesoro Route Stations New Soldotna Substation New substation at Bernice Lake Terminal/Pumping Station w/Reactor Subtotal Point Woronzof Substation (Alternative 1) Point Woronzof Substation Airport West Airport East Subtotal 15% Contingency TOTAL - TESORO ROUTE (ALTERNATIVE 1 ) Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs 4.5% New International Substation (Alternative 2) 2 - Terminal/Reservoir stations International Substation Stations Subtotal Subtotal 15% Contingency TOTAL - TESORO ROUTE (Alternative 2) Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs 4.5% 7" &O S$! 1064 (5/14/87) 5-38 Estimated Cost $3,097,000 3,704,000 5,394,000 $12,195,000 3,589,000 285,000 285,000 $16,354,000 2,453,000 $18,807,000 $ 846,000 2,179,000 2,782,000 a 12,195,00 $17,156,000 2,573,000 Se $19,729,000 $ 888,000 5:5 BELUGA ROUTE The Beluga Route should not be considered further in this study because of the expected complexities and expense that would be associated with the submarine crossing between the Forelands. It is a poor location for a submarine cable crossing because of the tidal currents, ice flows, and resultant scouring that would be expected to occur. The overland route from West Foreland to Beluga would be extremely difficult to construct because of the environmental mitigation measures that would have to implemented. Also, the unique land forms such as flood plains, outwashes and tidal flats would cause complex and expensive construction methodologies to be employed. Additionally, the line routing through Trading Bay State Game Refuge would in all probability have to be underground for a distance or approximately fifteen (15) miles. Cost estimates would have been prepared for the Beluga route if costs could have been generated for the submarine portion. As a result of Pirelli’s evaluation it was determined that a submarine crossing not be attempted at this location because the submarine route presents a high degree of risk for both installation of the cable and subsequent operations. In summarization, Pirelli (refer to Appendix B) did not think this route was feasible and therefore POWER did not cost it out. "&O 5S! 1064 (5/14/87) 5-39 5.6 STATION REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY The following is a tabulation of advantages and disadvantages of the different routes from the station perspective. Consideration is given to economic factors as well as operations and maintenance. The routes are placed in the same order that they were presented in the Station Requirements Section. Table 5.6-1 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE STATION SUMMARY ROUTE AOVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Existing route at 230kV None Major modifications to seven (7) existing stations Increased maintenance due to addition of six (6) underground terminal stations and reactors. High cost Potential difficulties with SCADA in some stations. Enstar route Lowest Cost Access to Burnt Island Terminal Station for maintenance is difficult. Modification to only one Site at Potter's Marsh is small existing station and will require extensive landscaping. No difficulties with communications for SCADA Tesoro Route Modification to only one Underground terminal stations existing station. required near the airport. Access to Point Possession for No difficulties with maintenance is difficult. communications for SCADA. Point Woronzof modifications may be physically difficult. Beluga Route None Not a feasible route due to submarine crossing complexities rene sneaieraan 5-40 The following is a cost summary of each of the transmission line alternatives. The Enstar Route (Huffman Alternative) is the least expensive with the Existing Route at-230kV being the most expensive. Table 5.6-2 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE STATION COST SUMMARY ROUTE STATION COST ENSTAR $12,628,000 TESORO (Pt. Woronzof Alternative) $18,807,000 TESORO ( International Alternative) $19,729,000 EXISTING at 230 kV $27,537,000 A quantitative station requirement representation of the four alternative routes is presented in a rating table that rates the major factors affecting station requirements on a point scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being most favorable. Table 5.6-3 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE STATION RATING MAINTENANCE RATING ROUTE RELIABILITY eenanne cost POINT TOAL nee EXISTING 2 4 2 8 3 ENSTAR 4 3 5 12 1 TESORO 4 4 3 "1 2 BELUGA 0 0 0 0 0 Rating scale: 1-3; 1 preferred eonadavewaen 5-41 6. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS 6.1 6.1.1 6.1.2 6. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ROUTE ALTERNATIVES This section describes each of the routes with respect to environmental constraints that are parameters of the physical environment. Also refer to Appendix F, Land Ownership Maps. Existing Route - The existing route from Soldotna Substation to University Substation is 141 miles long. With some realignments at the Soldotna end, the 230kV line would be 134 miles long. The first 30 miles cross relatively flat terrain, initially passing north of the boundary of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, and then along the refuge boundary past Sterling, routing to the south to the Sterling Highway and following the highway to Quartz Creek Substation. From the 30-mile point to Portage, the line passes through rugged, mountainous terrain. At mile point 90, the line crosses low-lying, swampy areas at the upper end of Turnagain Arm and then along the Seward Highway from Girdwood to Bird Point. The line follows the edge of the arm closely until Indian, where it again enters the mountains, finally emerging at Anchorage in a broad valley to the east of the City. Upgrading the line would require widening the right-of-way by 25 feet throughout its length, as well as some new right-of-way in the first 5 miles from Soldotna in predominantly private ownership. There are few physical constraints to right-of-way widening other than those that might be imposed due to institutional constraints. Enstar Route The route which follows closely along the Enstar Pipeline route leaves the Soldotna Substation and proceeds north and northeast for 5 miles. It T&O $1 1064 (5. 14/87) 6-1 6.1.3 6.1.4 then parallels the Refuge boundary until it intersects the existing transmission line and follows it to the pipeline corridor. The new transmission line right-of-way would be 125 feet wide on the northwest side of the pipeline corridor. All of the Enstar Route is in gently rolling terrain with very little change in elevation. In Anchorage, the route will initially be either buried on the west side of the Alaska Railroad right-of-way or follow the Old Seward Highway. Two alternatives are shown on the maps included in this report (Map 1.4-1 in Section 1, Map 4.1-2 in Section 4, and the land ownership maps-in Appendix F), one to the Huffman Substation, the other to the International Substation. Tesoro Route The Tesoro Route initially follows the existing 115kV route from Soldotna to Bernice Lake across relatively flat terrain. From Bernice Lake to Captain Cook State Recreation Area, the route follows the roadway and would be constructed in the roadway right-of-way. After passing through the Recreation Area, the new right-of-way would follow along the west side of the Tesoro Pipeline corridor. The entire route, from Bernice Lake to near Point Possession, is without any major changes in topography. The route crosses 13.5 miles to Point Campbell and would be buried through the lowland area at Kincaid Park, from which point two alternatives exist - one to the north to Point Woronzof and the other to the east to International Substation. Beluga Route The Beluga route traverses the same initial 24.2 miles between the Soldotna Substation and Bernice Lake as followed by the Tesoro Route. Leaving Bernice Lake, the route goes directly to Cook Inlet and crosses the 13.5 miles to the West Forelands. The route follows a northward THOS! 1064 (5/14/87) 6-2 6.2 6.2.1 path to the Beluga Plant across relatively low-lying terrain with no significant elevation changes. ' GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The four proposed transmission line routes cross through areas of known, inferred, or suspected geologic hazards. These geologic hazards consist of fault zones, areas of seismically-induced ground failure, areas susceptible to mass wasting (rock slides, landslides, snow avalanches), areas of coastal flooding and erosion, outburst flooding, and volcanic related hazards (ashfall, tsunamis). The majority of these geologic hazards are not considered to be constraints to transmission line construction and can be mitigated through proper engineering design, avoidance by detailed route selection, spanning of areas or zones of mass wasting, protection of the conductor by deep burial or cover, and by proper structural foundation design for areas of site-specific anticipated geologic hazards. Existing Route The major geologic hazards of concern that are encountered by the existing route are the areas of mass wasting/avalanche and rock slides within the steep-sloped terrain of the Chugach Mountains. These areas are quite well-known and have been mapped by a number of studies (Alaska Dept. of Transportation 1984; Municipality of Anchorage 1979). Other potential geologic hazards that occur along the existing route are areas of seismically-induced ground failure within the Turnagain Arm route section. These areas are primarily found along coastal bluffs and in the low-lying portions of glacial stream valleys and intertidal areas. While not considered a geologic hazard, there is some moderate to high potential for encountering isolated permafrost conditions in the low- lying valley floor areas. At least two fault zones are crossed by the existing route as it enters and exits the Chugach Mountains. These fault zones have been mapped (Alaska Department of Natural Resources 1983 78O 51 '064 (5/1487) 6-3 6.2.2 6.2.3 and the Municipality of Anchorage 1979) and have an unknown potential for surface rupture. Enstar Route The major geologic hazard of concern along the Enstar Pipeline Route is the potential for seismically-induced ground failure. Seismically-induced ground failure can be expected in the coastal areas near Turnagain Arm where the proposed transmission line becomes transitional from overland to the submarine mode. Within the Anchorage Bowl area, the proposed route crosses areas of moderate to high ground failure potential where the surficial and underlying materials consist of organic deposits or fine-grained materials, including the Bootlegger Cove Clay formation. These areas may experience ground cracking, liquefaction, and localized settlement and/or consolidation, and in the high risk, steep slope areas, horizontal or translation land sliding (Municipality of Anchorage 1979). These hazards are not considered constraints with proper engineering design and current construction practices. The Enstar Route does cross and run parallel to two inferred fault zones on the Kenai Peninsula which are mapped with an unknown potential for surface rupture. These fault zones are not considered constraints to transmission line routing design or construction. Those segments of the Enstar Route within the intertidal zone are in areas of low coastal erosion potential and within the 100-year tidal flood-tsunami run-up limits. Again, design consideration, such as burial and protection, are expected to minimize the impacts of these potential geologic hazards. Tesoro Pipeline Route The major geologic hazard of concern along the Tesoro Route is the potential for seismically-induced ground failure near the coastal bluff/transitional areas at Point Possession and Point Campbell. Moderate to high ground failure potential has been mapped "HO $1 1064 (5:14.87) 6-4 6.2.4 (Municipality of Anchorage 1979) in the Point Campbell area and similar conditions may exist at the Point Possession transition. Ground failure can consist of minor ground cracking, localized settlement, and/or consolidation to major horizontal or translational landslides in steeper areas. The majority of the Tesoro Route from Mile 0 to Mile 66 parallels the east side of Upper Cook Inlet and is set well back from the bluff line as to avoid the steep terrain. Some low-lying areas containing mixtures of fine-grained soils and organic deposits are crossed and may be susceptible to localized seismically-induced failure. The transition areas at Point Possession and Point Campbell are most likely subjected to moderate coastal erosion hazards and are within the 100-year tidal flood/tsunami run-up zone. These geologic hazards are not considered constraints to transmission line routing, design, or construction methods anticipated for this project. Beluga Route The Beluga Route encounters a number of potential geologic hazards as it crosses from the East to West Forelands and northwest to the Beluga Generating Station. These hazards include at least two known fault zones with an unknown potential for possible surface rupture. One inferred fault zone intersects the submarine crossing within the narrow Forelands Crossing area of Cook Inlet. The other inferred fault zone, the Castle Mountain fault, intersects the Beluga Route on the West Forelands peninsula, progresses and bifurcates in the southern portion of Trading Bay and intersects the overland portion of the Beluga Route near the Trading Bay airstrip. Other potential geologic hazards expected along this route include seismically-induced ground failure in those areas underlain by organic and fine-grained liquefiable soils and flooding in low-lying areas, such as McArthur Flats. This area may be subjected to coastal flooding, tsunami run-up and outburst flooding within the drainage from glacially damned Lake Chakachamna. Some areas along the route may be underlain by isolated pockets of permafrost, but data on distribution and occurrence is sparse. These anticipated geologic T&O $1 1066 (5/1487) 6-5 hazards are not considered constraints to the proposed transmission line routing, design, or construction. 6.3 UNIQUE LANDFORMS This section describes the unique landforms and surficial geology encountered by the three proposed new transmission line routes. This data was obtained from the Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys Integrate Terrain Unit Maps prepared under the 1983 Alaska Land and Resource Mapping Program (ALARM) for the Kenai and Tyonek quadrangles at 1:250,000 scale. Additional information was obtained from the Anchorage Coastal Resources Atlas (1980) for Anchorage Bowl and the Turnagain Arm areas. The Alaska DNR-DGGS Land and Resource Mapping Program (1983) defines landforms in the following way: “Landforms are elements of the natural landscape which are characterized by a distinctive surface expression and internal structure. These characteristics can include topographic form, drainage pattern, and gully morphology. Landform as used here, is a special purpose term used to describe the land surface form and the geologic materials expected to occur from the surface to a depth of 15 to 25 feet. The landforms were grouped into classes based on common modes of origin because similar geologic processes usually produce similar topography, soil properties and engineering characteristics”. Route overlay maps of the three new proposed transmission lines were prepared and examined in conjunction with the ALARM Program and Anchorage Coastal Resources Atlas Unique Landform Terrain Unit Maps. Summary tables (6.3-1, 6.3-2 and 6.3-3) were prepared showing the type of landform encountered by each transmission line route and the length and percentage of the overland portion of that route within each landform. Based on the landform descriptions and the conceptual design for each line, a foundation assessment was conducted and alternatives to conventionally constructed structures were identified. TRO S$! 1064 (5/14/87) 6.3.1 6.3.2 Enstar Route The proposed Enstar Route is approximately 67.3 miles in total length with 58.8 miles of overland route (87.4%) and an 8.5-mile section of submarine crossing (12.6%) within Turnagain Arm. Table 6.3-1 summarizes the encountered landforms and areas requiring special foundations for the proposed transmission line structures. Approximately 79.3% of the Enstar route crosses glacial (moraine, till sheet), glacio-fluvial and outwash deposits anticipated to require conventional structure foundations. Approximately 6.3% of the route cross through landforms containing organic deposits of unknown thicknesses which may require either pile or crib type foundations. Buried or submarine type construction methods are anticipated for approximately 14.5% of the route within the tidal flat areas adjacent to the Turnagain Arm crossing. Tesoro Route The proposed Tesoro Route is approximately 83.4 miles in total length with 70.4 miles of overland route (84.4%) and a 13-mile section of submarine crossing (15.6%) within the mouth of Turnagain Arm. Table 6.3.2 summarizes the encountered landforms and areas requiring special foundations for the proposed transmission line structures. Approximately 85.6% of the Tesoro Route crosses glacial (till sheet, moraine), glacio-fluvial and outwash deposits anticipated to require conventional structure foundations. Approximately 12.3% of the route crosses landforms containing organic deposits of unknown thicknesses which may require pile or crib type foundations. Tidal flat areas account for approximately 2.1% of the overland route, specially within the Turnagain Arm submarine crossing transitional zone and may require buried cable installation. "SO 51 1064 (514.87) 6-7 6.3.3 Beluga Route The proposed Beluga Route is approximately 87.8 miles in total length with 74.8 miles of overland route (85.2%) and a 13-mile section of submarine crossing (14.8%) between the East and West Forelands across Cook Inlet. Table 6.3-3 summarizes the encountered landforms and areas requiring special foundations for the proposed transmission line structures. Approximately 64.5% of the route crosses glacial (till sheet) and fluvial deposits anticipated to require conventional structure foundations. Approximately 34.2% of the route crosses through landforms containing organic deposits of unknown thicknesses and possible sporadic permafrost distribution which most likely will require pile type foundations. Approximately 1.3% of the route crosses recently emerged tidal flats and will most likely be buried or constructed in the submarine mode. T&O 5! 1064 (514/87) 6-8 TABLE 6.3-1 ENSTAR ROUTE (HUFFMAN SUBSTATION ALTERNATIVE) LAND TYPE SUMMARY Approx. Total Overland Length = 58.80 miles Approx. Submarine Length = 8.50 miles Approx. TOTAL LENGTH = 67.30 miles Unique Land Forms % Submarine = 12.6% % of Overland Code # Type Length Route 25 Floodplain 1.75 miles 3.0% 40 Moraine 9.50 miles 16.2% 42 Till Sheet 8.50 miles 145% 50 Lowiand 0.25 mie 0.4% Glacio-fluvial 48 Glacio-fluvial 6.50 miles 110% 52 Outwash-oider 11.25 miles 19.1% 38 Tidai Fiat 8.50 miles 145% 62 Organic Deposits 1.50 miles 2.6% 119) Lowland Till & 1.00 mile 1.7% Moraine . 123 Lowland Till & 2.50 miles 43% Organic Deposits 149 Organic Deposits 0.25 mile 0.4% & Moraine 185 Organic Deposits 0.50 mile 0.8% & Lowland Glacio-fluvial 172 Braided Floodolain/ 90 mile 1.5% Outwash-older 232 Organic Deposits/ 0.50 mile 08% Floodplain 308 Organic Deposits/ 1.00 mile 17% Braided Floodplain & Braided Floodplain 388 Floodplain & Glacio-fluvial Glaciomarine T&O S! 1064 (5, 14/87) 1.50 miles 2.6% 2.90miles 4g 58.80 miles 100.0% Proposed Foundation Type Submarine Piles or cribs Piles or cribs Piles or cribs Piles or cribs Piles or cribs TESORO ROUTE ALTERNATIVE LAND TYPE SUMMARY TABLE 6.3-2 Approx. Total Overiand Length = 70.38 miles (Pt. Campoell) Approx. Submarine Length Approx. TOTAL LENGTH Unique Land Forms Code # 49 50 52 58 95 110 119 123 180 1§2 :$5 231 469 Note: Includes 24.2 miles of Soldotna Substation to Bernice Lake R-O-W TSO S! 1064 (514.87) = 13.00 miles = 83.38 miles yoe Moraine Till Sheet Giacio-fluvial Lowland Giacio- fluvial Outwasn-older Tidal Flat Glaciai Deposit & Glacio-fluvial Till Sheet & Lowland Till Till Sheet & Organic Deposits Lowland Till & Moraine Lowiand Till & Organic Deposits Organic Deposits & Till Sheet Organic & Lowland Till Organic & Lowiand Glacio- Fluvial Deposits Organic Sandy Delta Organic & Floodpiain/ Sandy Deita Length 7 30 miles 26.40 miles 3.50 miles 0.20 mile 3 85 miles 1.50 mies 17 00 miles 30 mile 0.05 miles 0.75 miles 90 mile 2.50 miles 1 80 miles 2.00 miles 1 40 miles 0.50 miie 73.38 miles 6-10 % Submarine = 15 6% % of Overiand Route 10.4% 375% 5.0% 0.3% 5.5% 2.1% 24.2% 0.4% 0.7% 1.1% 13% 3.6% 2.6% 2.8% 19% io ~~ 100.1% °roposed Foundation “yoe Submarine Piles orcrios Piles or cribs Piles or cribs Piles or cribs Piles or cribs Piles or cribs TABLE 6.3-3 BELUGA ROUTE ALTERNATIVE LAND TYPE SUMMARY Approx. Total Overiand Length = 7485 miles % Submarine = 15.0% Approx. Submarine Length = 1300 miles Approx. TOTAL LENGTH = 87 85 miles % of Overland Proposed Code # Type Length Route Foundation “yoe 19 Fluvial Deposits 6.40 miles 85% 32 Terrace 2.90 miles 3.9% 40 Moraine 5 6 miles 75% 42 Till Sheet 25 30 miles 33.8% ag Glacio-fluvial 0.90 mile r2%. so Lowland-Glacio-fluvial 1 70 miles 2.3% 52 Outwash-Old 3:75 miles 5.0%- 39 Recently Emerged Tidai Fiat 0.10 mie 13% Suomarine 62 Organic Deposits 0.50 mie 0.7% Piles 65 Pond/Lake 030 mile 0.4% Piles ng Till Sheet & Organic Deoosits 3.50 miles 47% Piles 119 Lowland Till & Moraine 0.75 mile 1.0% 123 Lowiand Till & Organic Deposits 0.90 mile 12% Piles 144 Organic Deposits & Fiuviai Deposits 0.40 mile 05% Piles 150 Organic Deposits & Tiil Sheet 1.50 miles 2.0% Piles 182 Organic Deposits & Lowiand Till 1 60 miles 2.1% Pies 1s5 Organic Deposits 2.00 miles 2.7% Piles & Lowland Glacio-fluvial 178 Braided Floodplain /Outwash-Active 105 miles 14% 231 Organic Deposits/Sandy Delta 1.40 miles 19% Piles 234 Organic/Braided Floodpiain 025 mile 03% Piles 238 Organic Oeposits/& Outwash-active 0.80 mie 11% Piles 241 Organic Deposits Coastal & Coastal 10.09 miles 146% Piles Plain Deposits 312 Organic Deposits Recently Emerged/ 0.35 mile 0.5% Piles Tidal Flat & Floodplain 469 Organic Deposits & 0.50 mile 0.7% Piles Floodplain/Sandy Oeita 471 Organic & Braided 260 mile 0.8% Piles Floodplain/Outwash-active 7485 miles 100 1% Note: Approximately 242 miles of transmission iine are in existing Soldotna Substation-8ernice Lake Power Plant R-O-W THO S1 1064 (5) 14.87) 6-1 1 6.4 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3 6.4.4 CLIMATIC CONCERNS Existing Route The principal climatic concerns on the existing route are the high wind areas from Portage to Anchorage. The wind in the Portage area generally flows from the glaciers north toward Turnagain Arm or through the mountain passes between the arm and the city. Wind data is contained in the Municipality of Anchorage Geotechnical Hazards Assessment Study (1979). In addition to winds over a large area, there are considerable risks to the line due to avalanche-induced winds, which are local and occur just ahead of the avalanche. Enstar Route The Enstar Route has relatively few areas of concern for climatic reasons. High wind will still be a factor on the route to the Huffman Substation. Tesoro Route Although the data does not suggest excessively high wind problems for the Tesoro Route, the line along Cook Inlet could be subjected to severe icing problems due to the prevailing wind direction over the open water of Cook Inlet. Beluga Route There is very little known data on this route. It is not likely that wind or ice conditions would be as severe as the existing route or the Tesoro Route, with the possible exception of icing near the West Forelands. T&O S) 1068 (514-87) 6-12 6.5 SUBMARINE CROSSINGS Three crossings are addressed in this study and have been studied in detail elsewhere in the report. These crossings are 8.5 miles across Turnagain Arm on the Enstar Route, 13.5 miles across the entrance to the Turnagain Arm on the Tesoro Route, and 13 miles across Cook Inlet on the Beluga Route. It is felt that bottom conditions and currents would be least severe on the Tesoro Route. 6.6 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION 6.6.1 Existing Route The right-of-way for the existing route with modifications on the Soldotna end would involve following the existing right-of-way north for 1 mile, then a new right-of-way east for 1.5 miles, 2.75 miles northeast and 1.25 miles north, all on predominantly private land. There are also some State lands and lands conveyed to Native organizations in this area. The route then follows the Kenai National Refuge for 10 miles turning southeast across private and Borough land until it intersects the Refuge. The line is in the Refuge until mile 40 at which point it crosses into the Chugach National Forest. In the area close to Kenai Lake, the route passes through State land, some of which has been conveyed to private ownership, and finally back into the National Forest, which it remains until the Portage area where it crosses 7.5 miles of private land. At Gridwood, it similarly crosses 3 miles of private lands, after which it Passes into Chugach State Park. There are several private parcels along Turnagain Arm between mile 110 and 120, and the line remains in Chugach State Park until it crosses into Municipality of Anchorage land southeast of the University Substation and remains on Municipality land until it reaches the Substation. The new 230kV line would require an additional 25 feet of right-of-way over the entire length. It is anticipated that this would be difficult to obtain in the Chugach National Forest and the Chugach State Park. In “SO S51 1064 (514/87) 6-13 6.6.2 6.6.3 the Chugach State Park, this may be achieved by burying significant segments of the line and providing replacement lar ds for those acquired. Enstar Route Up to the boundary with the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, the first 17.5 miles of the Enstar route are identical to the existing route with the exception that if the existing route is to remain, the new corridor along the Refuge will have to be 125 feet wide and continue at 125 feet through the short segment of Borough and private land back into the Refuge. The new right-of-way along the northwest side of the existing Enstar Pipeline right-of-way would be 125 feet wide. All of the routing within Anchorage follows within existing railway, roadway, and highway right-of-ways. Tesoro Pipeline Route The Tesoro route would begin at the Soldotna Substation and be constructed within the existing right-of-way to Bernice Lake. Leaving Bernice Lake to the Captain Cook State Park, it would be constructed within roadway right-of-way a distance of 11.5 miles. The route then crosses the Park for 4 miles and is located on the west side of the Tesoro pipeline right-of-way on Borough land 22 miles. There is a parcel of Borough selected State land and a Native parcel near Point Possession. After crossing Turnagain Arm, the route crosses the end of Kincaid Park and then is on Municipality of Anchorage land until it reaches the Point Woronzof Substation. The alternate route to International Substation crosses to the north of Kincaid Park and follows street right-of-way until it reaches Municipality land at Conner’s Bog where it crosses to Minnesota Drive and into the Substation. "SO 5! 1964 (5/1487) 6-14 6.6.4 6.7 6.7.1 6.7.2 Beluga Route The initial 24.2 miles of this route follow the existing right-of-way between Soldotna Substation and Bernice Lake. The Beluga Route then crosses a very short segment of private land to Cook Inlet from the Bernice Lake plant. It then crosses a mixture of Borough, State, and Native land between the west Forelands and the Beluga plant. PERMITTING Introduction Detailed analyses of permit requirements will be conducted in Phase II. To complete the examination of constraints, permits most likely to require the greatest amount of time for application preparation processing, review, and approval are described for each alternative. If applications are required for deficiencies, time requirements will increase. Existing Route Chugach State Park (Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation) Obtaining permission to acquire additional right-of-way and construct a new transmission line would require substantial mitigation in the form of burial and rerouting. In addition, funds must be allocated for the purchase of replacement lands of equal value, and the process requires National Park Service approval per the Federal Land and Water Conservation Act. Estimated Time: 2 years "&O $1 1064 (5/14/87) 6-1 5 6.7.3 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) The existing 100-foot right-of-way is surrounded by designated wilderness in an area west of Chugach National Forest. Preparation of an environmental impact statement may be required. Mitigation would include utilizing the existing right-of-way to avoid the wilderness area. Estimated Time: 18 months - 2 1/2 years Kenai River Special Management Area (Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation) Special stipulations have been developed for utility construction across the Kenai River and Kenai Lake. In addition, the area is utilized by intering and nesting bald eagles, so mitigation would include timing construction to avoid critical periods. Estimated Time: 18 months Enstar Route Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) Obtaining permission to acquire right-of-way next to the pipeline right- of-way and construct a transmission line will probably require preparation of an environmental impact statement to amend the existing management plan for the area. Overhead lines are not currently allowed outside the existing 50-foot right-of-way or across Chickaloon Flats. Presidential and Congressional approval would be required. Mitigation would be substantial, and includes burial for 4 miles under Chickaloon Flats. Estimated Time: 2 1/2 - 3 years "&O $1 1064 (5) 14-87) 6-16 6.7.4 Tesoro Route Captain Cook State Recreation Area (Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation) Obtaining permission to acquire right-of-way and construct a new transmission line would require allocation of funds for the purchase of replacement lands of equal value. This process requires National Park Service approval per the Federal Land and Water Conservation Act. Estimated Time: 18 months Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Preparation of an environmental impact statement may be required, Mitigation could include routing within the existing 200-foot right-of- way. Estimated Time: 18 months Municipal Parks and Open Space (Municipality of Anchorage). Obtaining the right-of-way in Kincaid Park and east of the coastal trail extension would probably require input from several municipal commissions as well as public hearings. Mitigation would include burial in Kincaid Park. Estimated Time: 18 months - 2 years T&O 51 1064 (5.14.87) 6-17 6.7.5 Beluga Route Trading Bay State Game Refuge (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). Permission may not be granted for an overhead line. An application would have to contain substantial documentation on probably effects of the line on the Refuge. Estimated Time: 18 months Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Preparation of an environmental impact statement may be required. Mitigation could include routing within the existing 200-foot right-of- way. Estimated Time: 18 months 6.7.6 Summary Existing Route: 18 months - 2 1/2 years Enstar Route: 2 1/2 - 3 years Tesoro Route: 18 months - 2 years Beluga Route: 18 months T&O 51 106d (5/14/87) 6-18 6.8 SUMMARY The climatic concerns and geologic hazards are the greatest for the existing route, which is also the longest. Permitting will require extensive mitigation in Chugach State Park. The Enstar route is the shortest and most direct with the submarine crossing likely to be more difficult than the Tesoro route. Permitting will likely require an environmental impact statement and will be the longest process of all routes. This could present difficulties since permitting and construction time could make it more difficult to have the line energized by mid-1991, and only if the process is begun by July 1987. The Tesoro route has some climatic concerns, is longer than the Enstar route and has a mix of landownership making the right-of-way acquisition a complex, but not impossible, task. The Beluga route has a nearly impossible submarine crossing, severe permitting constraints, and is the second longest of all the alternatives. Table 6.8.1 summarizes the routes according to the various criteria on a scale 1 to 5. The comparison makes the Enstar and Tesoro routes approximately equal. Right-of-way costs and permitting, environmental studies, and right-of- way acquisition costs have been estimated for three of the routes on Table 6.8.2 The right-of-way costs assume a value on replacement lands for public lands where required. "SO S! 1064 (5) 14-87) 6-19 TABLE 6.8-1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PREFERENCE RATING R.O.W. Geologic Submarine Foundation Climatic ROUTE Acquisition Hazards Crossing Length Difficulty Topography Concerns TOTALS EXISTING 230kV 3 it s 1 3 1 1 1§ ENSTAR 2 4 3 5 4 4 3 ZS) TESORO 4 3 4 4 3 4 2 24 BELUGA 1 3 1 3 1 3 3 15 Note: Onascale of 1-5; 5 is best. TABLE 6.8-2 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION, ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, AND PERMITTING COST SUMMARY PERMITTING AND ROUTE ROW COST ROW ACQUISITION TOTAL EXISTING $3,593,751 $ 750.000 $4,343.75) ENSTAR $4,404,925 $1,250,000 $5,654,925 TESORO to $5,151,762 $1,000,000 $6,157 162 Pt. Woronzof TESORO to $5,202,162 $1,000,000 $6.202.162 Huffman T&O 5! 1064 (5.14.87) 6-20 BIBLIOGRAPHY Municipality of Anchorage, Geotechnical Hazards Assessment Study 1979. Anchorage Coastal Resource Atlas 1980. Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska Land and Resource Mapping Program (ALARM Program), Final Report, 1983. State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys Snow Avalanche Atlas, Seward Highway, Southcentral Alaska. TSO S51 1064 (5/14/87) 6-21 7. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION aa delat 7.1.2 7. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS Construction and operation of the proposed Anchorage - Kenai Transmission Line Intertie would affect various aspects of the natural and human environment. For purposes of comparing such effects among the 4 alternative routes, 12 environmental factors were selected for consideration. A description of each factor and the type of environmental resources potentially affected are presented below. Water Quality Marine and freshwater systems can be adversely affected both directly (via cable stringing, dredging, filling, and foundation construction), and indirectly (via runoff and siltation from vegetation removal, access road construction, and other upgradient construction activities). Localized increases in turbidity and decreases in dissolved oxygen commonly result. The duration of these effects depends on soil and sediment characteristics, revegetation and recolonization rates, and other factors. Floodplains Although transmission lines generally follow natural contours along shorelines and valleys, floodplain crossings can occur. If any transmission facilities are located in a regulatory floodplain, structures must not impede maximum flood flows (100-year or 500-year). T&O 5! 1064 (5/14/87) 7-1 TA3 7.1.4 7.1.5 Land Cover Transmission line construction may involve removal of vegetation within all or part of a right-of-way. During maintenance over the life of the project, vegetative growth must be controlled. In addition to the direct loss of a particular vegetative type, terrestrial habitat for birds and mammals may be altered, and certain species may be adversely affected. Other species that utilize more open habitats and the ecotone (transition between habitats) may benefit. Wetlands Wetlands are a specific land cover type that are protected by federal regulation. Marine or freshwater wetlands can be adversely affected by dredging and filling activities, cable stringing, construction tower foundations, and upgradient land disturbance. Fish and Wildlife As noted above, aquatic and terrestrial habitats can be altered as a result of transmission line construction. Population effects depend on the value of lost habitat, the ability of adjacent areas to support displaced fauna, and the ability of the habitat to replace itself. Effects are generally more pronounced in previously undisturbed areas. There is a potential for loss of birds due to collision with towers or conductors. There is also a potential for electrocution, however, the wide spacing of the conductors on 230 kV (19 feet) and 138 kV (14 feet) transmission lines virtually eliminates the possibility of a bird contacting two wires simultaneously. This environmental factor focuses on species that are especially sensitive to human disturbance (such as caribou) or have sport or commercial value (such as salmon). Timing of use relative to the construction schedule is also important. "&O S! 06415, 14.87) 7-2 7.1.6 TAG 7.1.8 Threatened and Endangered Species Construction activities can adversely affect endangered or threatened species, or species of special concern. Although these effects can usually be mitigated by pre-construction surveys and design modifications (including rerouting, as necessary), the mitigation process becomes more lengthy and costly as the potential for encountering these species increases. Archeological/Historic Sites The construction of transmission lines in undeveloped areas can adversely affect important archeological and historic sites and can interfere with cultural and religious uses of the environment. The magnitude of potential effects is related to the number and importance of such resources and activities in the route vicinity. However, specific impacts can generally be avoided or mitigated through appropriate pre- construction surveys and consultation with affected groups. Land Use The alteration of existing and planned land uses is one of the most important environmental factors in transmission line route selection. To the extent that facilities can be placed in an existing right-of-way and additional right-of-way acquisition can be avoided, land use impacts can be minimized. This environmental factor focuses on public use lands (such as designated federal, state, and municipal parks, refuges, and forests) for which transmission line routing presents land use conflicts. It also addresses recreational and subsistence uses (fishing, hunting, boating, hiking, etc.) and designated wilderness areas and coastal zones. TSO S! 1064 (5) 14/87) 7-3 7.1.9 7.1.10 Teal Aesthetics The presence of transmission facilities in undeveloped areas can adversely affect natural aesthetic values and scenic views. These impacts are unique because of the height of transmission towers and the lineal nature of alignments. The magnitude of the impacts are a function of the number of viewers and sensitivity of the environment. Particularly sensitive vantage points include scenic highway, lookouts, and waterways. Common mitigation measures include rerouting, design changes, and screening. Beneficial effects can result if a project results in the relocation of an existing transmission line away from a visually sensitive location. Transportation Transmission line construction can interfere with ground, air, and water transportation. Effects are most significant in congested urban areas, near airports, and in busy waterways. Construction Effects Although a number of the above factors address construction-related effects, this factor focuses on air quality, waste disposal, and traffic disruption - all of which disturb the natural and human environment near the alignment. Dust from right-of-way clearing and emissions and noise from vehicles and equipment occur during construction. Timber and slash from right-of-way clearing and excavated soils must be disposed of. Traffic disruption can be minimized. The effects are generally temporary and local. T&O S! 1064 (5/14/87) 7-4 Fails Ue 12 Operational Effects This factor focuses on electromagnetic interference, human health and safety, maintenance, and right-of-way interference. Electromagnetic interference from operation of 138kV and 230kV transmission line facilities is usually minor or insignificant. For voltages of 230kV and smaller, ozone and noise generation during operation is not expected to be significant (Boies et al. 1979). These facilities can generate some noise and radio/TV interference in the immediate right-of-way , but the effects are not expected to be noticeable beyond 50 feet from the right-of-way (U.S. Dept. of Energy 1980). Human health was initially considered as a potential environmental factor. However, review of the literature indicates that electric field, magnetic field, and corona effects from transmission lines present no adverse health hazards. A U.S. Department of Energy (1982) review reported, “the overall results of this research and the operating experience continues to indicate there is little reason for concern about potential long-term health effects from transmission lines”. Ground level maintenance (facility inspection and mechanical vegetation control) can result in minor effects on wildlife populations. Finally, this factor considers the potential for increased accessibility to otherwise undisturbed areas and the resultant damage to vegetation, increased erosion, and harassment of wildlife. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS Environmental factors affected by the proposed alternatives are presented in the following section. Data are summarized in Table 7.2-1 and impacts are summarized in the Table 7.2-2. “&O 51 1064 (5:14.87) 7-5 T2a1 7.2.2 Water Quality The existing line crosses 60 streams, and approximately 6 tributaries at the head of Turnagain Arm. The Enstar route would cross 24 streams, and the Tesoro route would cross 10 streams. The Beluga route would cross about 30 streams and sloughs if the existing pipeline were followed through Trading Bay State Game Refuge. If the existing line were reconstructed, 3 segments totalling 7 miles would be buried to avoid avalanche areas. In addition, mitigation would require some burial in Chugach State Park. The Enstar route would be buried for about 2.5 miles in the Potter Marsh area, and 4 miles in Chickaloon Flats. The Tesoro route would be buried under the end of Kincaid Park, Anchorage International Airport (about 2 miles). The Enstar route would require 8.5 miles of submarine cable; the Tesoro route, 13.5 miles; and the Beluga route, 13 miles. Clearing for the additional 25 feet of right-of-way required for upgrading the existing line could have a significant impact on water quality, due to the steep terrain, whereas clearing additional right-of-way for the other alternatives would occur primarily on flat terrain. Floodplains The existing line crosses floodplains at the head of Turnagain Arm (Burns 1982). The Beluga route would cross extensive floodplains in the McArthur/Chakachatna drainage basin. Supporting structures would not impede flood flows. Regulatory floodplains are limited to Rabbit Creek and Campbell Creek in Anchorage (Municipality of Anchorage 1980). The existing route crosses Campbell Creek, the Enstar route to Huffman Substation would cross Rabbit Creek, and to International Substation, Rabbit Creek and Campbell Creek. Structures would be placed on either side of the designated maximum flood flow area as Rabbit and Campbell Creeks could be crossed with a single span. "SO 51 1064 (5:14.87) 7-6 W223 Land Cover Vegetation Types The following general descriptions for each route were developed from vegetation maps (scale 1: 1,000,000) in the Southcentral Regional Profile (Univ. of Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center 1974). Detailed vegetation maps (scale 1:250,000) prepared by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources were used to examine major types of land cover crossed by the Enstar, Tesoro, and Beluga routes. Data are summarized in Table 7.2-1. The existing route was not evaluated, because data for the Seward quadrangle are not available. However, estimates for length of right-of-way requiring timber removal are listed below. Existing Route The existing route from the Soldotna Substation to the University Substation follows the highway through the Chugach Mountains from Soldotna to Indian, and it then traverses the Chugach Mountains through Powerline Pass into Anchorage. From the Soldotna Substation to the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge boundary, the route passes through an area generally described as a bottomland spruce-poplar forest; and from the Refuge boundary to the Chugach National Forest boundary, it transitions to an upland spruce-hardwood forest. In the National Forest, the route is within the coastal western hemlock-sitka spruce forest, which continues into the Chugach State Park to Indian. From there, the route climbs to an elevation of about 3,400 feet, passing through alpine tundra in Powerline Pass. It descends into spruce- hardwood forest in Anchorage. Widening the existing right-of-way for 140 miles would require timber removal, except in the alpine area around Powerline Pass. T&O 51 1068 (5/1487) 7-7 Enstar Route A route paralleling the Enstar pipeline right-of-way from the Soldotna Substation to Anchorage would be within the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge on the western slope of the Chugach Mountains, at an elevation of approximately 400 feet. From the Soldotna Substation on the existing right-of-way to the Refuge boundary, the route would pass through a bottomland spruce-poplar forest. Within the Refuge, the route would pass through areas of low brush bog and muskeg, and transition into the upland spruce-hardwood forest to the submarine crossing at Chickaloon Bay. From the beach north of Potter Marsh, it would ascend into spruce- hardwood forest in Anchorage. Timber removal would be required on half of the 58.5-mile right-of-way. The existing right-of-way would be widened 25 feet, and 36 miles of new right-of-way would be required in the Refuge, of which about 24 miles are forested. Tesoro Route A route paralleling the Tesoro pipeline right-of-way from the Soldotna Substation to Anchorage would follow the coast at an elevation of approximately 100 feet. From the Soldotna Substation to the Bernice Lake Substation on the existing right-of-way, the route would pass through a bottomland spruce-poplar forest. From the Bernice Lake Substation to the submarine crossing at Point Possession, the route would transition to a lowland spruce-hardwood forest. From the beach at Point Campbell, it would ascend into spruce-hardwood forest in Anchorage. About 70 percent of the 69.9-mile right-of-way passes through forested areas. Portions of the existing right-of-way, which are wider than 125 feet, may not require clearing. The 30 miles of new right- of-way through Captain Cook State Recreation Area to Point Possession are predominantly forested. “80 51 1060 (5:14.87) 7-8 7.2.4 7.2.5 Beluga Route A route crossing at the Forelands from the Soldotna Substation to the Beluga Substation would follow the coast at an elevation of less than 100 feet. From the Soldotna Substation to the Bernice Lake Substation, the route would pass through a bottomland spruce-poplar forest. Between West Foreland and the Beluga Substation, the route. would cross wet tundra alternating with upland spruce-hardwood forests. The route would also cross drainage basins of a number of rivers and streams, including the McArthur, Chakachatna, and Chuitna. About 60 percent of the 74.9-mile right-of-way passes through forested areas. Portions of the existing right-of-way, which are wider than 125 feet, may not require clearing. About 75 percent of the 15 miles of new right-of-way outside Trading Bay State Game Refuge is forested. Wetlands Based on information derived from the 1:250,000 vegetation maps, the Enstar Route contains less than 5 miles of wetlands, the Tesoro Route less than 3 miles of wetlands, and the Beluga Route over 20 miles. The minimum mapping resolution is 640 acres. At that scale, no predominantly wetland areas were mapped on the Enstar route in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, whereas the new right-of-way through Trading Bay State Game Refuge is almost entirely wetlands. Fish and Wildlife Introduction All of the routes cross anadromous fish streams. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game will generally permit stream crossings between May 15 and June 15, and after freeze-up. The open water “construction T&O 51 1064 (5/14/87) 7-9 window” may be restricted in some areas, such as the Moose River and Chickaloon Flats, due to the presence of nesting trumpeter swan, geese, and ducks. The following descriptions of significant fish and wildlife species present along each route were developed from maps and information prepared by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's Habitat Division (1985a, 1985b, 1985c). Existing Route The Kenai River drainage contains all five species of salmon and char/varden. The presence of several or all five salmon species and char/varden has been documented in the following drainages entering Turnagain Arm: Six Mile Creek (drainage from the Hope cut-off of the Seward Highway) on the south side; Placer River, Portage Creek, and Twentymile River at the head of Turnagain Arm; Glacier and California Creeks at Girdwood; Bird Creek: and Indian Creek. In Anchorage, the Campbell Creek drainage contains coho, king, pink, and sockeye salmon. Resident species in the Kenai River drainage include rainbow trout, lake trout, and grayling. Rainbow trout are also present in drainage basins on the north side of Turnagain Arm and in Campbell Creek. The Six Mile Creek drainage contains rainbow trout and grayling. Ducks and geese are present on the Kenai Peninsula between Cook Inlet and the Chugach Mountains along the Kenai River to Quartz Creek, and at the head of Turnagain Arm. Spring and fall concentrations of ducks occur on a portion of the Moose River adjacent to the Sterling Highway. Spring concentrations and nesting areas of duck also occur in the Seven Lakes area on either side of the Sterling Highway. Spring concentrations of ducks and geese are documented at Portage Creek, and fall concentrations of both occur throughout drainages at the head of Turnagain Arm. The potential for collisions would be the same as currently exists. Moose are present along the entire right-of-way. There is a concentration of calving in the Powerline Pass area. Wintering areas are "RO 51 1064 (5/14/87) 7-10 concentrated along the Sterling Highway near Soldotna, around Hidden ' Lake, and in the Juneau Creek, Russian River, and Quartz Creek drainages; along the Seward Highway, north of Lower Summit Lake and around the Granite Creek Campground; and in Powerline Pass. Rutting areas are concentrated near Soldotna in the Juneau Creek and Quartz Creek drainages, and in Powerline Pass. Caribou are present on the Kenai Peninsula and are generally distributed around the Seven Lakes area on either side of the Sterling Highway. Dall sheep are present in the Chugach Mountains. On the Kenai Peninsula, they are not generally present in the vicinity of the right-of- way, however, they are distributed throughout Chugach State Park and are present in the Powerline Pass area. Enstar Route The Kenai River and Chickaloon River drainages contain all five species of salmon and char/varden. The presence of most of these species has been documented in Potter Creek, Rabbit Creek, and Campbell Creek. The Moose River drainage, the Chickaloon River drainage, and Campbell Creek contain rainbow trout, a resident species. Ducks and geese are present on the Kenai Peninsula between Cook Inlet and the Chugach Mountains. Spring and fall concentrations of ducks occur on a portion of the Moose River adjacent to the Sterling Highway. Nesting and spring and fall concentration areas for both ducks and geese are documented adjacent to Chickaloon Bay and in Potter Marsh. Duck molting is also concentrated at Chickaloon Bay. The potential for collisions would be low as the route would not cross major flyways. Moose are present along the entire right-of-way. There are no known concentrations of calving areas within the right-of-way. There is a known area of concentration of rutting and wintering near Soldotna. "HO S1 1064 (5.14.87) 7-1 1 Caribou are present on the Kenai Peninsula. They are generally distributed along the right-of-way in an area between the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge boundary near the east fork of the Moose River and Mystery Creek. The right-of-way is adjacent to a known wintering area. Tesoro Route The Kenai River drainage contains all five species of salmon, and char/varden. The presence of coho, pink, and silver salmon and char/varden has been documented in several or all of the following drainages along Cook Inlet: Bishop Creek, Swanson River, Otter Creek, and Seven Egg Creek. The Beaver Creek drainage and drainages along Cook Inlet contain rainbow trout, a resident species. Ducks and geese are present on the Kenai Peninsula between Cook Inlet and the Chugach Mountains. Point Possession is an area of concentrated nesting and molting activity. The potential for collisions would be moderate to high as the route along Cook Inlet intersects a major flyway. Moose are present along the entire right-of-way. There are no known concentrations of calving areas within the right-of-way. There is a known area of concentration of rutting and wintering near Soldotna. Caribou are present on the Kenai Peninsula. The Soldotna Substation/Bernice Lake Substation right-of-way crosses an area of general distribution in the Beaver Creek drainage basin. Beluga Route The Kenai River drainage contains all five species of salmon and char/varden. The presence of several or all five salmon species and char/varden has been documented in the following drainages entering the west side of Cook Inlet: McArthur River, Chakachatna River, Nikolai T&O 5! 1064 (5/14/87) 7-12 7.2.6 Creek, Old Tyonek Creek, Tyonek Creek, Chuitna River, and Three Mile Creek. The Beaver Creek drainage and drainages on the west side of Cook Inlet contain rainbow trout, a resident species. Ducks and geese are present on the Kenai Peninsula between Cook Inlet and the Chugach Mountains, and on the west side of Cook Inlet. They concentrate in the McArthur/Chakachatna estuary in spring and fall, and during nesting and molting. The potential for collisions would be high as the route would intersect a major flyway across Trading Bay State Game Refuge. Moose are present along the entire right-of-way. There are no known concentrations of calving areas within the right-of-way. There are concentrations of wintering areas near Soldotna and within McArthur Flats. There is a rutting concentration area near Soldotna. Caribou are present on the Kenai Peninsula. The Soldotna Substation/Bernice Lake Substation right-of-way crosses an area of general distribution in the Beaver Creek drainage basin. Threatened and Endangered Species Introduction There are no threatened and endangered species on any route, however, bald eagles and trumpeter swans are considered to be “species of concern”. All routes contain eagle nests, and exact nesting sites would have to be avoided. The potential for collisions of migrating birds with transmission lines is another concern. The Enstar route, due to its proximity to the mountains, has a lower potential for this problem than the Tesoro or Beluga routes, which would intersect migration routes. The following descriptions of trumpeter swan and bald eagles were derived from maps and information prepared by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's Habitat Division (19856, 1985c). T&O S1 1064 (5, 14/87) 7-1 3 Existing Route Bald eagles are present on the Kenai Peninsula and along Turnagain Arm. They are concentrated at the head of Turnagain Arm and along the Twentymile River. Five known nesting sites are documented in the area where the Sterling Highway parallels the Kenai River (approximately 14 miles). Eagle wintering on the Kenai River in this area appears to be second only to that along the Chilkat River in southeast Alaska, and up to 600 wintering eagles have been observed (Bailey et al. no date). Trumpeter swan are present on the Kenai Peninsula between Cook Inlet and the Chugach Mountains and in drainages at the head of Turnagain Arm. Swan concentrate on a portion of the Moose River north of Sterling and in the Portage Creek area in spring and fall. Enstar Route Bald eagles are present on the Kenai Peninsula. There is one known nesting site about 3 miles south of Chickaloon Bay, approximately a mile from the pipeline right-of-way. Trumpeter swan are present on the Kenai Peninsula between Cook Inlet and the Chugach Mountains and in Potter Marsh. Swan concentrate ona portion of the Moose River north of Sterling, and in Chickaloon Flats in spring and fall. Tesoro Route Bald eagles are present on the Kenai Peninsula. There is 1 documented eagle nesting area near Salamatof Lake, approximately a mile south of the existing right-of-way between the Soldotna Substation and the Bernice Lake Substation. There are 7 documented eagle nests along the coast. “B&O S$! 1064 (514/87) 7-14 7.2.7 Trumpeter swan are present on the Kenai Peninsula between the Cook Inlet and the Chugach Mountains. Beluga Route Bald eagles are present on the Kenai Peninsula and on the west side of Cook Inlet. There is 1 documented eagle nest near Salamatof Lake, approximately a mile south of the existing right-of-way between the Soldotna Substation and the Bernice Lake Substation. On the west side of Cook Inlet, there are 6 known eagle nests in McArthur Flats, 1 nest about 2 miles east of Nikolai Creek, 2 nests approximately 4 and 5 miles from the mouth of Nikolai Creek, and 4 nests within a 3-mile segment from the mouth of the Chuitna River. Trumpeter swan are present on the Kenai Peninsula between Cook Inlet and the Chugach Mountains, and on the west side of Cook Inlet. There are spring and fall concentrations at the mouths of the McArthur/Chakachatna drainages. Archeological and Historic Sites There is a National Historic Register Site around Cooper Landing adjacent to the existing route. An Indian Village site exists on the Tesoro route north of Anchorage International Airport adjacent to the coastal trail extension. All routes contain potential sites; and an archeological survey of the selected alternative would have to be conducted. Once sites are identified, the potential for further impact would be minimized, as these areas could be avoided. “O51 1064 (5.14.87) 7-15 7.2.8 Land Use Introduction The existing route traverses or is adjacent to areas of high recreational use, and portions of the Enstar and Tesoro routes would be constructed in recreational areas. The Beluga route would cross the McArthur/Chakachatna drainage, which is used for subsistence purposes by residents of Tyonek. The Tesoro route has been rerouted to avoid the designated wilderness area at Point Possession in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. All routes are in the designated coastal zone, and all but the Beluga route would fall under both State of Alaska and Municipality of Anchorage coastal management program guidelines. A major factor is public use lands, that is, the impact of a proposed route on the purpose for which a public use area was established. The most significant factor encountered in the environmental evaluation appears to be the potential impact of constructing and operating a transmission line across public lands. A brief description of ‘each of the public use lands is presented. Public land ownership within each route is then discussed. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (All Alternative Routes) As described in the Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985), the Kenai National Moose Range was established in 1941 to protect the natural moose breeding and feeding range on the Kenai Peninsula. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 changed the name to the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, modified the boundaries by adding about 250,000 acres, designated 1.35 million of the 1.97 million acres as wilderness, and broadened the purpose to protection and conservation of fish, wildlife, habitats, and other resources, and to provision of educational and recreational opportunities. T&O 5! 1064 (5/14/87) 7-16 The development of the comprehensive conservation plan was mandated by ANILCA for management of the Refuge. Under the approved management plan (Alternative C), Chickaloon Flats and the area on either side of the 50-foot Enstar pipeline right-of-way northeast of Mystery Creek are designated for minimal management and will be managed to protect existing wilderness values. Overhead transmission lines are not allowed. The existing Soldotna-to-Quartz Creek transmission line right-of-way is bordered on the North by Mystery Creek Wilderness Unit, which is adjacent to the Chugach National Forest. In existing right-of-ways in the Refuge (Soldotna-to-Quartz Creek,150 to 200 feet wide; Enstar pipeline, 50 feet wide; Soldotna-to-Bernice Lake, 200 feet wide), transmission lines are allowed subject to restrictions on road access and methods of placement. If major changes to the management plan are proposed (i.e. construction of an overhead transmission line across Chickaloon Flats or outside of the 50-foot pipeline right-of-way, or expansion of the North boundary of the Soldotna-to-quartz Creek right-of-way into the Mystery Creek Wilderness Unit), a new environmental impact statement and Presidential and Congressional approval would be necessary. Chugach National Forest (Existing Route) The Chugach National Forest was established in 1907 and is managed for multiple uses of renewable surface resources. As required by the National Forest Management Act of 1976, the U.S. Forest Service has developed a forest land and resource management plan (1984a, 1984b). Upgrading or rebuilding the existing transmission line would be compatible with the management plan. Chugach State Park (Existing Route) Chugach State Park was established in 1970 for the purposes of protecting and supplying water, providing recreational opportunities, “&O 51 1068 (5) 14.87) 7-17 protecting areas of unique and exceptional scenic value, providing areas for the public display of wildlife, and protecting existing wilderness characteristics. The master plan (Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Parks 1980) establishes guidelines for current and future park use and development. The existing right-of-way traverses a zone classified as natural environment to correspond with the park’s enabling legislation, which states that the zone shall be operated as a scenic area. A management objective is to reduce the visual impact of the existing powerline right-of- way. Measures include burial, revegetation, re-routing, and screening. Since Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds have been invested, right-of-way applications or conversions of land use must be consistent with the purpose of Chugach State Park and approved by the National Park Service. Kenai River Special Management Area (Existing Route) The Kenai River Special Management Area was established in 1984 and designates State lands and waters within the Kenai River drainage basin as a unit of the state park system. The existing right-of-way traverses designated waters - the Kenai River and Kenai Lake. The Comprehensive Management Plan (Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources 1986) recommends that “airspace intrusions” be permitted when “compelling and broad public interest is clearly served”. It further recommends that the Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation consider whether the proposed structure would provide desirable public access, adversely affect air or river navigation, affect public recreational activities, enhance public safety, reduce aesthetic value, and impact physical, biological, or aquatic resources. Design, construction, and maintenance must also be considered. Furthermore, special guidelines include a provision that the conductor will sag to a minimum of 50 feet above open high water. T&O 51 1066 (5/14/87) 7-18 Campbell Tract (Existing Route) Within the Municipality of Anchorage, the recently acquired Campbell Tract is designated for public lands and institutions. The Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Development Plan states under the energy component that structures should be concentrated in particular areas so that other land uses such as open space in environmentally sensitive areas can be preserved (Municipality of Anchorage 1982). Potter Section House State Historic Site (Enstar Route) The Potter Section House was recently obtained from the Alaska Railroad and is part of the Chugach State Park. The purpose for the designation is to preserve and commemorate a structure of historical value representing an era of Alaska’s history, and any development should have minimal impact on its historical value (Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Parks, Park Planning Section 1982b). Potter Point State Game Refuge (Enstar Route) Potter Point State Game Refuge was established in 1971 to protect natural habitats and game populations, especially waterfowl (Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Habitat Division 1983). Rabbit Creek Rifle Range (Enstar Route) Rabbit Creek Rifle Range was extablished in 1953 and was operated by the Alaska Range Association, a sportsmen’s organization, until its purchase in 1980 by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc. 1981). TAO 51 1066 (5/14/87) 7-19 Captain Cook State Recreation Area (Tesoro Route) Captain Cook State Recreation Area was established in 1969. The purpose of state recreation areas is to provide “a maximum level of outdoor recreation opportunities based on the natural values of the unit and its ability to sustain use without significant adverse effects on natural systems (Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Parks, Park Planning Section 1982). Since Federal Land and Water Conservation : Funds have been invested, right-of-way applications must be approved by the National Park Service. Municipality of Anchorage Parks and Open Space (Tesoro Route) Within the Municipality of Anchorage, Kincaid Park has recently been expanded west to Point Campbell. The area north of Anchorage International Airport to Woronzof Substation is designated for public lands and institutions. The existing coastal trail will be extended south to Point Campbell. A nature center and a motorized sports area are proposed in the area north of the airport. The Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Development Plan states under the energy component that structures should be concentrated in particular areas so that other land uses such as open space in environmentally sensitive areas can be preserved (Municipality of Anchorage 1982). Trading Bay State Game Refuge (Beluga Route) Trading Bay State Game Refuge was established in 1976 to protect fish and wildlife habitat and populations; waterfowl nesting, feeding, and ‘migration; moose calving areas; spring and fall bear feeding areas; and salmon spawning and rearing habitats; and to provide use of fish and wildlife habitat (waterfowl, moose, and bear hunting); viewing; T&O $1 1064 (5/14/87) 7-20 photography; and general public recreation (Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Habitat Division 1983). Existing Route The existing 115kV transmission line between the Soldotna Substation and the University Substation is approximately 140 mileslong. Between the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge boundary (about 20 miles east of the Soldotna Substation) and the Quartz Creek Substation, the 115kV line parallels the 69kV line. Each line is in a 100-foot right-of-way, but some overlap may exist. The right-of-way between the Quartz Creek Substation and the University Substation is 100 feet wide, as authorized by Federal Power Commission License 2170 in 1957. Up to 25 feet of additional right-of-way would be required if the existing line were replaced with new 230kV conductor and structures. The transmission line crosses about 24 miles of the Refuge, and enters the Chugach National Forest at the Russian River. The crossings at the Kenai River and Kenai Lake are in the Kenai River Special Management Area, administered by the Alaska Department of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. As shown on the land ownership maps in Appendix F, the major portion of the 64 miles of transmission line between the Russian River and Girdwood is in the National Forest, but there are short segments that traverse state and private property. It crosses municipal land in Girdwood for about 2 miles. North of Girdwood, the transmission line enters Chugach State Park for about 26 miles, traversing short segments of private property. It leaves the State Park at the eastern boundary of the Campbell Tract (municipal land), just south of the Fort Richardson Military Reservation. It parallels the Campbell Tract/Military Reservation boundary north for 2 miles, and then parallels Tudor Road to the University Substation 2 1/2 miles to the west. T&O S1 1064 (5/14/87) 7-21 Enstar Route A transmission line route adjacent to the Enstar pipeline right-of-way, with a submarine crossing north of the buried pipeline, would be 63.7 miles long between the Soldotna Substation and the north end of Potter Marsh. A maximum right-of-way width of 125 feet would be required, and existing right-of-way would be used wherever possible. After entering the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, the line would follow the pipeline right-of-way for about 36 miles to the southeast shore of Chickaloon Bay. It would remain on the northwest (Cook Inlet) side of the pipeline right-of-way, except for short crossings to avoid interference with 3 landing strips in the following locations: north of the Chickaloon River, northeast of Trapper Joe Lake, and east of Bid Indian Creek. The line would be buried for 4 miles south of Chickaloon Bay. The line would then be buried in the west (Turnagain Arm) side of the Alaska Railroad right-of-way to avoid the Potter Section House State Historic Site, Potter Point State Game Refuge, and Rabbit Creek Rifle Range. Tesoro Route A transmission line route from the Soldotna Substation to the Bernice Lake Substation, then following the Tesoro pipeline right-of-way to Point Possession, with a submarine crossing to Point Campbell and continuing to the Airport Substation at Point Woronzof would be 83.4 miles long. A maximum right-of-way width of 125 feet would be required, and existing transmission line right-of-way would be used wherever possible. Starting at the Soldotna Substation, the line would be adjacent to the existing 115kV transmission line for 24.2 miles to the Bernice Lake Substation and would traverse the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge for approximately 4 miles. From the Bernice Lake Substation, the line would follow North Kenai Road about 12.5 miles to the Captain Cook State Recreation Area. It would traverse the Recreation Area for T&O S1 1064 (5/14/87) 7-22 7.2.9 approximately 4 miles. In Anchorage, it would be buried across the end of Kincaid Park to the northeast for 0.65 mile, then traverse .45 mile east, and then it would be buried across the end of the runway and vicinity (State airport property) for about a mile. It would continue north to the substation in the woods east of the proposed Municipal coastal trail extension. The alternative route would go overhead after the initial 0.65 mile and route to the east with a buried section across the north-south runway for 1 mile. This route follows Raspberry Road to Jewel Lake and eventually across Connor's Bog to the International Substation. Beluga Route A transmission line route from the Soldotna Substation to the Bernice Lake Substation, with a submarine crossing to the West Foreland and then following an existing oil pipeline right-of-way to Trading Bay State Game Refuge, traversing the Game Refuge and following the existing 69kV transmission line right-of-way from Trading Bay to the Beluga Substation would be 87.9 miles long. A maximum right-of-way width of 125 feet would be required, and existing transmission line right-of-way would be used wherever possible. Starting at the Soldotna Substation, the line would be adjacent to the existing 115kV transmission line for 24.2 miles to the Bernice Lake Substation and would traverse the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge for approximately 4 miles. On the west side of Cook Inlet, the line would traverse Trading Bay State Game Refuge for 15 miles. Aesthetics Introduction The visual appearance of each alternative is presented below. Visual impacts would be greatest on the Enstar Route in terms of new construction in new right-of-way on public use lands, but are greatest on TRO S1 1064 (5/14/87) 7-23 the existing route in terms of conflict with management objectives in Chugach State Park. Existing Route Wood pole H-frame structures (total length of 75 feet, burial depth of 9.5 feet, structural height of 65.5 feet above ground) and guyed tubular X- frame structures (height 85 feet above ground) would be used on the Kenai Peninsula. The 3 conductors would be spaced 19.5 feet apart, and spans would be approximately 750 feet long for the wood pole H-frame structures. The guyed tubular structures would span approximately 1,200 feet. In comparison, the existing line consists of wood pole H- frame structures, 75 feet high, and 3 conductors spaced 14 feet apart with spans of approximately 750 feet. Single pole all weather steel structures would be used in the Anchorage area. Some burial and rerouting would occur in Chugach State Park. The existing line crosses 42 identified avalanche chutes, and burial in 3 areas could avoid 12 chutes. The line would be buried for 4 miles south of Bird Point, for 1.5 miles between Girdwood and Portage, and for 1.5 miles north of Dave's Creek in the Lake Creek/Summit area. A Seward Highway scenic corridor plan has been prepared (Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc. 1981) for the 40-mile area from Potter Marsh south. Although not approved by the Anchorage Assembly, the plan is being used as a guide by the Municipality of Anchorage. Burial east of Bird Point would improve aesthetic values. Enstar Route A new substation would be constructed at Soldotna. From the Soldotna Substation to the intersection of the pipeline right-of-way, 85-foot high guyed tubular X-frame structures, with 1,200- to 1,400-foot spans, would be used, replacing the existing wood pole H-frame structures supporting the 115kV line. Along the pipeline right-of-way in Kenai National T&O 51 1064 (5/14/87) 7-24 Wildlife Refuge, wood pole H-frame structures and conductor spacing and spans, as described for the existing route, would be used. An 18-foot high terminal pumping station would be required for each end of the submarine cable. Each station would occupy 1 acre of land. The southern terminal would be constructed 4 miles from Chickaloon Bay, and the line would be buried to the shore. Single pole all-weather steel structures would be used in Anchorage. New overhead line would total 32 miles in the Refuge. Tesoro Route New substations would be constructed at Soldotna and Bernice Lake. Wood pole H-frame structures and conductor spacing and spans, as described for the existing route, would be used on the Soldotna Substation to Bernice Lake Substation portion, replacing the existing wood pole H-frame structures supporting the 115kV line. From Bernice Lake Substation along North Kenai Road through Captain Cook State Recreation Area, single wood pole structures would be used. From the Recreation Area to Point Possession, 85-foot high, guyed tubular X-frame poles would be used. Spans would be 1,200 to 1,400 feet long. An 18- foot high terminal pumping station would be required for each end of the submarine cable. Each station would occupy 1 acre of land. The Point Woronzof Alternative would be constructed with wood pole H- frame structures from the north end of the airport runway to Point Woronzo: Substation. The International Alternative would be constructed with wood pole H-frame structures from Point Campbell to an underground section and then with single pole weathed steel structures into International Substation. New overhead line would total over 30 miles, of which 4 miles would be in Captain Cook State Recreation Area, 25.5 miles between the Recreation Area and Point Possession, and about 1 mile east of the proposed Municipality of Anchorage coastal trail extension. T&O ST 1064 (5/14/87) 7-25 7.2.10 7.2.11 Beluga Route New substations would be constructed at Soldotna and Bernice Lake. The Soldotna Substation to Bernice Lake Substation portion would be the same as that required for the Tesoro Route. The 85-foot high, guyed tubular X-frame poles, with spans of 1,200 to 1,400 feet, would be used between West Foreland and Beluga Substation. New overhead line would total about 30 miles, of which 15 miles would be in the Trading Bay State Game Refuge. Transportation The existing route is delineated on air navigation charts. New construction in the existing route or construction of the Enstar, Tesoro, or Beluga routes would require installation of air navigation markers and updating of air navigation charts. The Enstar route would be realigned off the pipeline right-of-way to avoid 3 airstrips in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. The Tesoro route would be buried under the end of the Anchorage International Airport. Submarine crossings for the Enstar, Tesoro, and Beluga routes would have to be delineated on marine navigation charts. Turnagain Arm receives limited marine traffic, whereas all traffic bound for Anchorage and the Kenai/Nikiski area must pass through the Forelands. Construction It is not anticipated that brush would be burned. Most construction would occur under winter conditions, so production of dust should be minimal. Emissions and noise would be generated by vehicles and construction equipment. Helicopter construction would be used for the Beluga route. Slash from right-of-way clearing that cannot be utilized and excavated materials that cannot be used as fill would be disposed of in approved sites. The effects of construction on road traffic disruption "$0 S! '064(5/ 14.87) 7-26 T2N2 would be greatest along the existing route, and railroad traffic could be disrupted on either the existing or the Enstar routes. Marine traffic would be disrupted during construction of the Beluga route, but disruption would be minimal for either the Enstar or Tesoro routes. Operation As discussed in the description in 7.1 above, electromagnetic interference is usually minor or insignificant, and there are generally no health hazards. Maintenance generally involves one inspection each year. When right-of-way maintenance requires vegetation control, there may be a minor impact on wildlife utilizing the cleared right-of-way. Limiting right-of-way access is a potential problem. Portions of the existing right-of-way receive extensive public use. The Enstar right-of- way through the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge is opened to the public on a seasonal basis, but maintenance, including placement of gates, is Enstar’s responsibility. As the proposed alternatives generally follow existing right-of-ways, the potential for increased public use is greatest in areas where no right-of-way currently exists. “&O S1 1064 (5, 14/87) 7-27 Environmental Factor 1. Water Quality Stream Crossings Excavation-Buried Cable Excavation-Submarine Cable Clearing Floodplains Floodplain Crossings Regulatory Floodplains TABLE 7.2-1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS DATA SUMMARY Existing 66 7 miles to avoid avalanche zones, burial in Chugach State Park N/A Widen ROW 25 ft. for 134 miles, steep terrain Placer River/ Portage Creek/ Twentymile Creek floodplain, about 5 miles. Glacier Creek floodplain, about 2 mi. Campbell Creek Enstar 24 2 miles in Alaska Railroad right-of- way, 4 miles in Chickaloon Flats 8.5 miles, Turnagain Arm New ROW for 36 miles, flat terrain None Rabbit Creek (Huffman Sbstn ) (Rabbit Creek &Campbell Creek) (Intn'l Sbstn ) Tesoro 10 1 mile under eas west runway, (Anchorage Int Airport) 13.5 miles, Turnagain Arm New ROW for 30 miles, flat terrain None None Beluga 30 None 13 miles, Cook Inlet New ROW for 30 miles, flat terrain McArthur/ Chakachatna floodplain, about 10 miles None in Abbreviations SiC. spring concentrations og: fall concentrations s &fc: spring & fall concentrations Wa. wintering area Table 7.2-1 Environmental Factors, cont'd. Environmental Factor 3. Land Cover 4. Wetlands 5. Fish & Wildlife Fish Birds Foret h babel 187) Existing 134 miles Detailed data not available predominantly forest Data not available Anadromous species 10 drainages Resident species 7 drainages Ducks & geese s.c., Portage Ck. f.c., head of Turnagain Arm Ducks-s &f.c, Moose River nesting &s. & fc, Seven Lakes area collision potential, same as present Enstar 58.5 miles . (Huffman Sbstn ) forest 50% shrub 28% wetlands 8% shrub/urban 4% urban 10% Less than 5 miles, none in Kenai Nat'l Wildlife Refuge Anadromous species 5 drainages Resident species 3 drainages Ducks & geese nesting &s. &fc., Chickaloon Bay, Potter Marsh Ducks-s. &f.c, Moose River molting, Chicka- loon Bay collision potential, low 729 Tesoro 69.9 miles (Woronzof Sbstn ) forest 70% shrub 2% wetlands 4% foresUurban 17% urban 7% Less than 3 miles Anadromous species 5 drainages Resident species 5 drainages Ducks & geese nesting & molting, Point Possession collision potential, moderate to high Beluga 74.9 miles forest 59% shrub 4% wetlands 28% foresVurban 8% urban 1% More than 20 miles, about 15 miles in Trading Bay State Game Refuge Anadromous species 8 drainages Resident species 8 drainages Ducks & geese nesting & molting s. & fc, McArthur/Chaka- chatna estuary collision poten- ual, high Table 7.2-1 Environmental Factors, cont'd. Environmental Factor Wildlife Existing Moose - w.a., Sterling Hwy. near Soldotna, Hidden Lake, Juneau Creek, Russian River, Quartz Creek, Lower Summit Lake, Granite Creek, Powerline Pass calving concentra- tion area, Power- line Pass; rutting concentration areas, Juneau Creek, Quartz Creek, Caribou distribution Seven Lakes area Dall sheep distribution, Powerline Pass area Powerline Pass Enstar Moose - w.a. & rutting concentration area, near Soldotna Caribou distribution, ROW from east fork of Moose River to Mystery Creek Tesoro Moose - w.a. & rutting concentration area, near Soldotna Caribou distribution, Beaver Creek area Beluga Moose - w.a., Soldotna, McArthur Flats rutting concen- tration area, near Soldotna Caribou distribution, Beaver Creek area Table 7.2-1 Environmental Factors, cont'd. Environmental Factor 6. Endangered Species T & E Species Present Species of Concern 7. Archeological/ Historic Sites 18151 1049 (d 14 Bd) Existing None Bald eagle 5 nests (Sterling Highway) concentrations, head of Turnagain Arm, Twentymile Crk wintering, Kenai Rvr. Trumpeter Swan 8. & fc, Moose River, Portage Creek Present - National Historic Register Site around Cooper Landing surveys conducted on parts of highway Enstar None Bald eagle 1 nest (Chickaloon Bay) Trumpeter Swan s. & fc, Moose River Chickaloon Bay Present 7-31 Tesoro None Bald eagle 1 nest (Salamatof Lake) 7 nests (east side Cook inlet) Trumpeter Swan present Present - Indian Village site north of Anchorage Airport adjacent to coastal trail Beluga None Bald eagle 1 nest (Salamatof Lake) 6 nests (McArthur Flats) 3 nests (Nikolai Crk) 4 nests (Chuitna Rvr) Trumpeter Swan Lite, McArthur/Chaka- chatna drainage Present Table 7.2-1 Environmental Factors, cont'd. Environmental Factor 8. Land Use Recreation Subsistance Designated Wilderness Coastal Zone Public Use Lands 9. Aesthetics tm eo Existing High use None None (existing route adjacent to Mystery Creek Wilderness Unit) State MOA Kenai National Wild- life Refuge, 24 miles Chugach Nat'l Forest, c. 60 miles Chugach State Park c. 24 miles Kenai River SMA - Kenai River & Kenai Lake, Campbell Tract, 4.5 mi Improved with burial and rerouting in Chugach State Park & burial in avalanche areas Enstar Moderate use None None State MOA Kenai National Wild- life Refuge, 36 miles New overhead line 32 milesin Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Tesoro Moderate use None None (Chickaloon Flats under wilder- ness management State MOA Kenai National Wild- life Refuge, 4 miles Captain Cook SRA, 4 miles Coastal Trail, c. 1 mile New overhead line 4 milesin Captain Cook SRA, 25.5 miles along coast to Pt. Possession, ¢ 1 mile next to Coastal Trail Beluga Limited use Documented in McArthur/Chaka- chatna drainage None State Kenai National Wildlife Refuge 4miles Trading Bay State Game Refuge, 15 miles New overhead line 30 miles total, with 15 milesin Trading Bay State Game Refuge Table 7.2-1 Environmental Factors, cont'd. Environmental Factor 10. Transportation i: 12: Aviation Navigation Construction Impacts Air Quality Noise Waste Disposal Road Traffic Railroad Traffic Marine Traffic Operational Effects Electromagnetic Interference Health & Safety Maintenance ROW Interference Pens Wea 1B) Existing No change N/A Dust Drilling equipment Spoils, brush Some disruption Minimal disruption N/A None No effect 1 inspection/year No change Enstar New aerial line Limited marine traffic Dust Drilling equipment Spoils, brush Minimal disruption Some disruption Minimal disruption None No effect 1 inspection/year No change, gates required on Kenai National Wildlife Refuge 7-33 Tesoro New aerial line Limited marine traffic Dust Drilling equipment Spoils, brush Minimal disruption N/A Minimal disruption None Noeffect « 1 inspection/year No change Beluga New aerial line Extensive marine traffic Dust Helicopters, drilling equip- ment Spoils, brush Minimal disruption N/A Some disruption None No effect 1 inspection/year Possible encroachment in Trading Bay SGR TABLE 7.2-2 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS SUMMARY ALTERNATIVE ROUTES ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR EXISTING ENSTAR TESORO BELUGA 1. Water Quality Stream Crossings N N N ¥ Excavation - Buried Cable N N N oO Excavation - Submarine Cable O° N N Y Clearing 4 N N N 2. Floodplains Floodplain Crossing N ° O N Regulatory Floodplains N N O° (e) 3. Land Cover ¥ Y; Y Y. 4 Wetlands N N N Y, 5. Fish & Wildlife Fish N N N i Birds (Collisions) N N ry; Y. Wildlife N N N N 6. Threatened & Endangered Species T & E Species Present ° ° O° ° Species of Concern Y N N N Te Archeological/Historic Sites N N N N 8. Land Use Recreation N N N N Subsistence ° ° ° ¥ Designated Wilderness ° °O ° O° Coastal Zones N N N N Public Use Lands Y Y y. Ye 9. Aesthetics N Y Y Y O = No Impact (Mode of construction not applicable, or no change from present conditions) N = No significant Impact (Mitigative measures can minimize impacts) Y = Significant Impact (Changes would occur, or substantial mitigation required) "SOS! 064 (5. 14/87) 7-34 Table 7.2-2, cont'd. ALTERNATE ROUTES ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR EXISTING ENSTAR TESORO BELUGA 10. Transportation Aviation N N N N Navigation ° N N Y 11. Construction Effects Air Quality N N N N Noise N N N N Waste Disposal N N N N Road Traffic N N N N Railroad Traffic N N O° O° Marine Traffic ° N N Y 12. Operational Effects Electromagnetic Interference ° Oo °O ° Health & Safety oO ° ° °O Maintenance N N N N R-O-W Interference ° N N Y O = No Impact (Mode of construction not applicable, or no change from present conditions) N = No significant Impact (Mitigative measures can minimize impacts) Y = Significant Impact (Changes would occur, or substantial mitigation required) "&O 51 1064 (5/14/87) 7-35 7.3, AGENCY COMMENTS 7.3.1 Comments have been obtained from agencies and organizations at meetings conducted at the Alaska Power Authority on December 15, 1986, and February 17, 1987; in written response to meeting summaries and information packages; and in personal communications. All written comments are included in Appendix E. Input has been used to modify route design, such as burial in the vicinity of the Potter Section House (existing route) and Chickaloon Flats (Enstar route), and traversing Captain Cook State Recreation Area instead of Kenai National Wildlife Refuge lands behind the Recreation Area (Tesoro route). Those comments pertaining to environmental concerns are listed below for each route. Existing Route U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Requlatory Branch Use of the existing right-of-way would minimize impacts to the aquatic environment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Use of the existing route is the third-ranked alternative. It is adjacent to a designated wilderness area in an 8-mile stretch west of the Chugach National Forest boundary, and up to 600 bald eagles overwinter in the Kenai River drainage in that area. The “Kenai River Special Management Area Bald Eagle Management Plan”, currently being drafted, will contain recommendations for construction of new powerline crossings and modifications of existing facilities. One recommendation states that existing facilities that cannot be relocated should have “armless construction or modified crossarms with 43-inch vertical separation "SOS! 106415. 4.87) 7-36 between the center conductor and two outside conductors” (Bailey et al. No Date). Any required clearing would affect aesthetics by further scarring, especially along the Jean Lake hillside where there are mature forests, and would only be permitted immediately adjacent to the exsting right-of-way. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service Use of the existing right-of-way would minimize impacts at or near tidewater. Alaska Department of Fish & Game Construction would require crossing numerous anadromous fish streams, and timing would have to be coordinated to avoid impacts. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation New construction in the existing right-of-way would require a new special park use permit and land replacement with lands of equal value, in accordance with the Land and Water Conservation Fund agreement. Mitigation measures would also require rerouting and burial, as the existing line is considered to have a major adverse visual and physical impact on Chugach State Park. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Officer Use of the existing right-of-way probably would have the least potential for impacting cultural resources. A pre-construction survey would be T&O SI 1064 (514/87) 7-37 7.3.2 required, but portions have already been surveyed for highway realignments. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities The Seward Highway between Bird Point and Girdwoood is scheduled for widening and realignment during 1991-1992. Installing an underground cable would reduce the displacement of the railroad and the amount of excavation required. Cook Inlet Region, Inc. Prior to the February 17 meeting, CIRI stated that use of the existing right-of-way would have the least impact on recreational values of CIRI property in the Soldotna area and would not impact historical. and cultural land selections along the Russian River. Based on information received at the meeting, CIRI concurs that geologic hazards on the existing route cause frequent interruptions of service, and this route is not preferable. Enstar Route U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service This alternative is the least desirable and would significantly impact Kenai National Wildlife Refuge lands. The approved “Kenai Comprehensive Conservation Plan” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985) does not allow construction or use of facilities outside the existing 50- foot right-of-way, or construction of above-ground facilities in the Chickaloon Flats area. Bald eagle nesting, trumpeter swan nesting, and fisheries resources would be impacted. T&O 51 1064 (5/14/87) 7-38 4.333 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Potter Point State Game Refuge and the Rabbit Creek rifle range would be impacted. An aerial line along the Old Seward Highway, screened from Potter Marsh, would be more acceptable. Construction would have to be timed to avoid impacting wetlands and wildlife populations. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation This alternative would be acceptable if the line is buried by the Potter Section House Historical Site. Cook Inlet Region, Inc. CIRI supports this alternative, as it would have less impact to CIRI lands, the shortest route length, minimal geologic hazards, and insignificant impacts to habitat. Tesoro Route U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service This proposed route is the second-ranked alternative (at the time alternatives were ranked, the proposed route crossed Point Possession, a designated wilderness area). Utilizing the existing 200-foot right-of-way in the Beaver Creek drainage would be preferable to widening the right- of-way by additional clearing. If a new right-of-way were required behind Captain Cook State Recreation Area (an option discussed at the TRO S! 1064 (5:14:87) 7-39 February 17 meeting), the compatibility of the route with the purpose of the Refuge would have to be established. Alaska Department of Fish and Game This alternative is acceptable as impacts to Potter Point State Game Refuge (which currently extends to Point Campbell and is proposed for extension to Point Woronzof) would be minimized. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation This alternative would require mitigation and replacement with land of equal value, in accordance with the Land and Water Conservation Fund Agreement. The agency would also prefer that the route through the Park to be buried. Municipality of Anchorage Community Planning This agency voiced the opinion that the Tesoro Route Alternative to International Substation is probably not feasible across Connor's Bog. Kenai Peninsula Borough This route is recommended for consideration as the preferred alternative, as it is the most environmentally sound route of ail the alternatives. T&O 51 1066 (5/14/87) 7-40 7.3.4 Beluga Route U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch Effects of this alternative on navigation should be considered. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service This proposed route is the preferred alternative. Utilizing the existing 200-foot right-of-way in Beaver Creek drainage would be preferable to widening the right-of- way by additional clearing. Alaska Department of Fish and Game This proposed route should be deleted from further consideration due to potential impacts to Trading Bay State Game Refuge and several major anadromous fish streams. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation This proposed route is preferable. T&O S) 1064 (5/1487) 7-41 7.3.5 All Proposed Routes U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch Crossing or placing fill in sensitive biological areas and wetlands should be avoided. Poles and towers should be located on uplands where practical. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land and Water Management Each alternative should be evaluated to determine its appropriateness to land management priorities of the current land owners. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Officer A pre-construction archeological survey would be required. "&O $1 1064 (5/14/87) 7-42 7.3.6 Summary Existing Enstar Tesoro Beluga U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (No Preference Specified) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 3 4 2 1 U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service Preferable Acceptable Acceptable ot Preferaoie Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game (No Preference Specified) Acceptabie Unacceotabie Alaska Div. of Parks & Outdoor Rec. 4 3 2 1 Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (No Preference Specified) Alaska Dept. of Trans. & Public Fac. (No Preference Specifiea) Cook Inlet Region, inc. Not Preferable 1 No Comment No Comment T&O S1 1064 (5/14/87) 7-43 TABLE 7.3-1 AGENCY COMMENTS ON PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES U.S. Army Corps of Engineers January 6, 1987 January 26, 1987 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service February 17, 1987 March 4, 1987 U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service February 23, 1987 Alaska Department of Fish and Game February 9, 1987 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, February 3, 1987 Division of Land and Water Management Alaska Department of Natural Resources, February 17, 1987 Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Alaska Department of Natural Resources, January 27, 1987 State Historic Preservation Officer Alaska Department of Transportation and March 13, 1987 Public Facilities March 24, 1987 Cook Inlet Region, Inc. January 29, 1987 March 4, 1987 Keani Pennisula Borough March 11, 1987 Appendix E includes correspondence copies. T&O 12 1064 (3-16-87) 7-44 7.4 7.4.1 7.4.2 SUMMARY Table 7.2-2 presents a summary of the evaluation of the proposed alternatives on the environment. Each alternative is listed as having no impact, no significant impact, or significant impact on. environmental factors. No impact is used when the mode of construction is not applicable (i.e. the existing line would not require submarine crossings) or construction and operation would not result in a change from present conditions. No significant impact is used when mitigative measures for routing and timing and mode of construction can minimize impacts. Significant impact is used when changes would occur to the environmental factor listed or when substantial mitigative measures would be required. Existing Route Construction of a new transmission line would result in significant impact in that 134 miles of additional 25-foot right-of-way would be required primarily on public use lands. In addition to burial and rerouting required in Chugach State Park, construction in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge and the Kenai River Special Management Area would require special mitigative measures. Construction would be timed to avoid water quality degredation or loss of fish habitat in the numerous stream crossings, and to minimize disruption to road and railroad traffic. Enstar Route Construction of a new transmission line along the Enstar route would result in significant impact in that it would traverse an area in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge that is under wilderness management. Issuance of the necessary permit would probably require preparation of an environmental impact statement and both Presidential and 7 &O 12 1064 (3-16-87) 7-45 7.4.3 7.4.4 7.4.5 Congressional approval. Substantial mitigative measures, including burial for 4 miles under Chickaloon Flats, would be required. Aesthetics would be impacted with the addition of 32 miles of above-ground line in the Refuge. Construction would be timed to avoid water quality degradation, loss of fish habitat, or disturbance to nesting areas. Tesoro Route Construction of a new transmission line along the Tesoro route would result in significant impact in that it would traverse Captain Cook State Recreation Area. Moreover, the crossing is only 4 miles. Aesthetics would be impacted by the addition of 29.5 miles of above-ground transmission line through the Recreation Area to Point Possession. Construction would be timed to avoid water quality degradation, loss of fish habitat, or disturbance to nesting areas. Beluga Route Construction of this alternative would significantly impact water quality, wetlands, fish and waterfowl habitat, subsistence, aesthetics, and navigation. Above-ground construction is not permitted in Trading Bay State Game Refuge. Conclusions Major mitigation measures would be required to obtain a permit in Chugach State Park for construction in the existing right-of-way or to obtain a permit in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge for the Enstar route. The Tesoro alternative would result in the least impact to the environment. 7 &O 12 1064 (3-16-87) 7-46 BIBLIOGRAPHY Acres American Inc. 1982. Transmission line corridor screening. Closeout report. Task 8-transmission final report. Alaska Power Authority Susitna Hydroelectric Project. 1vol. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Habitat Div. 1983. State of Alaska game refuges, critical habitat areas and game sanctuaries. 24pp. 1985a. Alaska habitat management guide. Reference maps. Southcentral region volume 1: Distribution and human use of mammals. Juneau, AK. 1 vol. _ 1985b. Alaska habitat management guide. Reference maps. Southcentral region volume II: Distribution and human use of birds and fish. Juneau, AK. 1 vol. . 1985¢. Alaska habitat management guide. Southcentral region. Map atlas. Juneau, AK. 1 vol. Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources. 1986. Kenai River comprehensive management plan. Anchorage, AK. 384 pp. Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Parks. 1980. Chugach State Park master plan. 89 pp. Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Parks, Park Planning Section. 1982a. Alaska state park system: Southcentral region plan. 153 pp. Bailey, T.N., etal. No date. Wintering bald eagles along the Kenai River. Preliminary draft. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Soldotna, AK. 4 Pp. Boies, 8. B., etal. 1979. Environmental impact assessment guidelines for new source fossil fueled steam electric generating stations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report EPA-130/6-79-001. 144 pp. Burns, T.,ed. 1982. Anchorage coastal resource atlas. Volume three. Turnagain Arm. Municipality of Anchorage. 1 vol. Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc. 1981. Seward highway scenic corridor. Report for Municipality of Anchorage. 55 pp. Municipality of Anchorage. 1980. Anchorage coastal resource altas. * Vol. I: The Anchorage bowl. 1 vol. . 1982a. Anchorage bowl comprehensive development plan. 79 pp. . 1982b. Anchorage wetlands map. 110 maps. . 1986. Turnagain Arm comprehensive plan. Draft. 1 vol. £ SO 12 1064 (3-16-87) 7-47 Municipality of Anchorage, Dept. of Community Planning. 1982. Anchorage wetlands management plan. 1 vol. Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. 1981. Preliminary environmental screening of alternative transmission corridors. Report for Acres American Inc. Alaska Power Authority Susitna Hydroelectric Project. 1 vol. U.S. Dept. of Energy. 1980. 230kV international transmission line. San Diego County, California to Tijuana, Mexico. Draft environmental impact statement. Report DOE/EIS-0067. 1 vol. U.S. Dept. of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Biological Studies Task Team. 1982. Electrical and biological effects of transmission lines: Areview. Portland, OR. 79 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Final comprehensive conservation plan, environmental impact statement, wilderness review. Anchorage, AK. 195 pp. U.S. Forest Service, Alaska Region. 1984a. Chugach National Forest. Land and resource and management plan. Juneau, AK. Administrative Document No. 1278. 1 vol. 1984b. Chugach National Forest land and resource management plan. Final environmental impact statement. Juneau, AK. Administrative Document No. 127A. 1 vol. Univ. of Alaska, Artic Environmental Information and Data Center. 1974 Alaska regional profiles. Southcentral region. 255 pp. * &O !2 1064 (3-16-87) 7-48 ANCHORAGE-KENAI FEASIBILITY STUDY PART TWO TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. ENSTAR ROUTE SUMMARY 1.1 GENERAL 1-1 1.2 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM STUDIES 1-1 1.3 ENSTAR ROUTE DESCRIPTION 1-3 1.4 PERMITTING AND ROUTING CONCERNS 1-5 1.5 COST AND SCHEDULING 1-8 2. ENSTAR STABILITY ANALYSIS 2.1 GENERAL 2-1 2.2 SYSTEM STUDIES, DEFINITIONS, AND ASSUMPTIONS - 2-20 2.3 SUMMARY 2-12 2.4 RECOMMENDATIONS 2-14 3. ENSTAR LINE REQUIREMENTS 3.1 LINE DESIGN CRITERIA 3-1 3.2 MAPPING 3-3 3.3. ENSTAR ROUTE AND COST SUMMARY 3-4 LINK COST ESTIMATES 3-9 MAPS 3-10 4. | ENSTAR STATION REQUIREMENTS 4.1 GENERAL 4-1 5. | ENSTAR PERMITS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY 5.1 PERMITS 5-1 PERMIT SAMPLES 5-7 5.2 RIGHT-OF-WAY 5-8 LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH / 5-9 T&O S! 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) TABLE OF CONTENTS, cont'd. 6. ENSTAR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 6.1 GENERAL GENERALIZED TERRAIN UNIT MAPS 1-5 6.2 GENERALIZED TERRAIN UNIT MAP KEY TEST HOLE LOCATION MAP BORING LOGS 87-1 through 87-12 7. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION-PREFERRED ROUTE 7.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 7.2. MITIGATION PLANNING T&O S1 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) PAGE 7-1 7-16 1. ENSTAR ROUTE SUMMARY LEGEND STEEL x- BRACE WOOD H-FRAME UNDERGROUND SUBMERGED STEEL POLE 1.1 1.2 1.2.1 1. ENSTAR ROUTE SUMMARY GENERAL As aresult of the alternate route evaluation studies the Enstar route ( Huffman Substation Alternative ) was selected as the preferred route. After receiving approval to perform a detailed analysis of the preferred route from APA and the Railbelt Utilities, POWER’s study team commenced with a detailed study of the Enstar route. The results of the detailed analysis of the Enstar route is included in this part (Part 2) of the Final Report. The Enstar route when considering all the factors evaluated in this detailed analysis is the preferred route. The Enstar route provides a significantly lower initial and long term cost and is the most reliable without having an adverse environmental impact. ELECTRICAL SYSTEM STUDIES Load Flow Analysis Load flow studies were performed on the existing system to validate base case data, and on future systems for the years 1991 and 2000. Projected loads for Heavy Winter (HW) 1991 and 2000 and Light Summer (LS) 1991 and 2000 were provided by the Railbelt Utilities. The Railbelt Utilities also provided major facilities upgrade and retirement and interchange and generation schedules for inclusion in the years 1991 and 2000 system. Based upon the load flow studies performed utilizing the data and schedules provided by the Railbelt Utilities, the Enstar route operating at 230kV transmission voltage best meets the requirements of the Anchorage-Kenai Intertie. The 230kV Enstar route provides the Railbelt Utilities with the shortest connection between load centers resulting in the most efficient intertie. Results of the load flow study are used as an initial starting point for the stability study. T&O S1 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 1 =il 1.2.2 1.2.3 Stability Analysis The stability analysis was performed on the Heavy Winter 2000 and Light Summer 2000 systems with the Enstar 230kV transmission line intertie between Anchorage and the Kenai. Results of the analysis indicate that for major disturbances, the Anchorage-Kenai system is stable with the Enstar 230kV intertie and the scheduled year 2000 interchange. Some underfrequency load shedding will occur in the Anchorage and Kenai area due to loss of the Anchorage-Kenai intertie. This will result in short consumer outages. The Fairbanks area will be impacted the greatest by a loss of the Anchorage-Kenai intertie. The Fairbanks area will experience over 50% consumer outage due to underfrequency load shedding caused by an interruption of the Anchorage-Kenai intertie during heavy winter transfers. Therefore, reliability is a major concern in the design of the Anchorage-Kenai intertie to prevent consumer outages. The reliability of the intertie can be enhanced by utilizing single pole tripping for clearing line to ground faults (the most frequent fault). System stability will be improved and consumer outage time due to faults on the. Anchorage-Kenai intertie will be substantially reduced. Utilizing single pole tripping on the Anchorage-Kenai 230kV Enstar route intertie would eliminate the need for a second intertie for stability such as upgrading and utilizing the existing 115kV Anchorage-Kenai intertie as a second intertie. Transmission Line Voltage Alternatives Both 138kV and 230kV transmission line voltages were evaluated in the load flow study for the Kenai intertie. Although both voltage levels are capable of meeting the basic power transfer requirements of the Heavy Winter 2000, there is a considerable difference between the two voltage levels with regard to capacity, losses and capability. Utilizing 795 MCM ACSR conductor, 138kV transmission voltage is a 78% or greater of rated capacity at 125 MW transfer to Anchorage. At 230kV the same conductor is at approximately 35% of rated capacity. Losses at 138kV are approximately four times those at 230kV. From the standpoint T&O $1 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 1-2 1.2.4 1.3 of planning it is not considered good practice to plan a system intertie that is approximately 80% utilized within thirteen years. The useful life of a transmission line is 30 to 50 years. Considering the high losses, available capacity and the fact that 138kV will require additional reactive compensation such as SVC systems to achieve maximum power transfer, 138kV is not considered to be an acceptable planning voltage for the Anchorage-Kenai transmission line intertie. 230kV transmission voltage affords a very reliable transmission voltage with adequate capacity for future growth of the intertie railbelt utility system. Undersea Cable Capacity Design of the undersea cable capacity is based upon reliability and planned system power needs. The voltage level of 230kV was selected for power transfer capability and low losses between Anchorage and the Kenai. The planned transfer of 125 MW required an undersea cable with this capacity plus some reserve capacity for growth and emergencies. To meet these requirements, a capacity of 180 MW at 90% load factor has been selected. At maximum planned transfer the undersea cable is at 69% of rated capacity allowing room for modest growth and increased power transfers from the Kenai. ENSTAR ROUTE DESCRIPTION Beginning at the Soldotna Substation the new 230kV line will initially go north, crossing the highway and follow parallel to the existing transmission line right of way. In this area the existing lines are located between small lots on either side restricting the ability to widen the right-of-way particularly to the east. For the purpose of the feasibility study the new 230kV line has been routed to the west of the existing line for 3/4 mile in property that has not been improved. At this point the 230kV line turns 90 ° to the west, crossing the existing lines and goes east for 1/4 mile, then turns to the north east, for 1/2 mile and joins the section line at a point slightly less than 3/4 mile from the north-south alignment. The route then follows along the north edge of sections 23 and 24 for 3/4 mile before turning north east. The line follows a north T&O $1 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) las easterly path roughly parallel to Soldotna Creek until it meets the existing transmission line right-of-way then follows on the south side of the existing 115kV line for 12.5 miles, The total length of this segment is 16.9 miles. From the boundary of the refuge until a point near Mystery Creek the line follows along the north west side of the Enstar natural gas pipeline with the transmission line corridor by a distance of 500 feet. Near ~ Mystery Creek the transmission line corridor moves adjacent to the pipeline and continues in this way until the airstrip which is located approximately 5 miles south of Turnagain Arm. From the airstrip area the line will be buried adjacent to the pipeline corridor. This section is adjacent to the Chickaloon Flats water fowl area. The Turnagain Arm crossing will leave the south side of Turnagain Arm west of Burnt Island and arrive on the other side adjacent to the Alaska Railroad approximately 1/2 mile south of the Rabbit Creek Rifle Range. The line will remain buried in the railroad right-of-way until it reaches a point north of Potter Marsh where is crosses the highway. There exists a gas pipeline buried on the Turnagain Arm side of the railroad right-of- way and conflict with this pipeline will have to be avoided. A terminal station will be located on the east side of the Seward Highway from which point the line will be constructed on single steel pole structures. The route will begin on State Land east of the New Seward Highway and continue on State Land until it reaches the Old Seward Highway. East at the Old Seward Highway the route will be on municipality of Anchorage land. In both cases the line will follow closely to the private land to the north to avoid conflict with future land use of the State and Municipal land. Total length from the terminal station to the 90° turn to the north is 0.8 miles. The first lot as the line proceeds north does not have a utility easement. All lots along Elmore Road have an easement on the west side of the section line for the first 1/2 mile. This easement is 33 feet wide. After 1/2 T&D S1 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 1-4 1.4 1.4.1 mile the line crosses over to the east side of the'section line and follows in the 50 foot right-of-way to De Armoun Road from De Armoun Road north, the line remains in a 50 foot easement on the west side of the section line until it reaches the extension of Bragaw Street which ends 330 feet south of East 135th Street. The line continues along the east side of Bragaw until it reaches Huffman road and makes the connection to the Huffman Substation. PERMITTING AND ROUTING CONCERNS Permitting The Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Manager has expressed concerns about the potential for environmental damage and conflict with the Kenai Comprehensive Conservation Plan with regard to the Enstar route for the Anchorage Kenai Transmission Intertie. The construction of the 230kV line across refuge lands adjacent and parallel to the Enstar Natural Gas Pipeline corridor will require an application for the right-of-way to the Fish & Wildlife Service which demonstrates that it is the most prudent alternative. Once the application is accepted by the Fish and Wildlife Service a determination will be made whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required. All of the foregoing will be required to initiate a change in the management plan established under Congressional mandate for the Refuge. Once the process is completed Congressional and Presidential approval of the right-of-way may be required. A significant number of other permits are required for the project some of which are related to issues outside of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. These can be handled separately from the refuge location. The time period for the Refuge application process varies from 1 1/2 years to 2 1/2 years depending on whether Presidential and Congressional approval is required. This also assumes 7 months for an application to be accepted and 11 months for a full EIS process. The project schedule has to allowed 1 1/2 years for the application and EIS process and a final year for Presidential and Congressional approval. The actual decision to proceed T&D 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 1-5 1.4.2 with construction would be made when final approval is granted. Sufficient lead time has been allowed between final approval and construction. ENSTAR Gas Pipeline ENSTAR Natural Gas Company (ENSTAR) has concerns regarding the proposed Enstar route where it moves adjacent to their fifty (50) foot right-of-way. ENSTAR preference is to maintain at least a one thousand (1,000) foot separation between the two facilities where they parallel each other on the overhead route. ENSTAR would require that sufficient clearance be maintained between their submarine pipelines and the submarine cable. They would prefer the submarine cable be routed well away from Burnt Island and Potter Marsh. ENSTAR requirements are based on operational, personnel safety and corrosion concerns. POWER’s position is that sufficient separation should be maintained where possible since both ESTAR and the electrical utilities share the same concerns. However, where a large separation is not possible because of geologic or permitting constraints, it is feasable to minimize the concerns to an acceptable level. It must be recognized that there are many examples of co-existence between pipelines and high voltage and extra high voltage lines in common corridors. There are cases where the high voltage lines are directly overhead the buried pipelines without any known adverse effects. For example, San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) has a major pipeline and transmission line corridor from La Costa to San Diego (southern California) for a distance of approximately thirty (30) miles. As discussed with SDG&E, a two hundred fifty (250) foot corridor width encompasses three (3) buried pipeline, 15” and 10” oil and a 30” natural gas pipeline, one (1) 230kV line and one (1) 138kV line as well as two (2) 69kV lines. The 230kV towers are ‘ocated approximately ten (10) feet away from the underground 30” pipeline. The pipeline has been in T&O S1 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 1-6 place since the early 1950's and the 230kV line has been in place since the mid 1960’s with no known adverse effects. The original life of the pipeline when installed was estimated to be fifty (50) years. According to SDG&E, recent tests have increased the life expectancy of that pipeline for an additional fifty (50) years. Another contact was made with a pipeline company (Northwest Pipe Line Company) for their comments. They are presently proposing a natural gas pipeline to be installed in a four hundred (400) foot wide corridor which includes a 500kV DC line, 230kV AC line and two other high voltage lines located in the Mojave desert area between Bakersfield and Los Angeles, California. The pipeline will be located anywhere from fifty (50) feet to one hundred (100) feet from the 230kV line. These are just a couple of the examples to demonstrate that with proper design of the facilities including cathodic protection and grounding a safe and reliable co-existence can be maintained between buried pipelines and high voltage transmission lines that are located within close proximity of each other. Most of the problems that result from the close placement of different facilities can be minimized or mitigated by a comprehensive design process which recognizes and assimilates the needs, requirements and responsibilities of both the electrical and pipeline entities. Recognizing that a detail design would have to be performed to determine how close one facility could be in relation to the other it was found in a literature search that the National Association of Corrosion Engineers, in a publication (NACE Standard RP-01-69, 1983 Revision) state the following: A minimum separation of 3 m (10 feet) should be maintained between pipelines and transmission tower footings, ground cables, and counterpoise. Regardless of separation, consideration should always be given to lightning and fault current protection of pipeline(s) and safety of personnel (see NACE Standard RP-01-77, Lates Revision) ersaan 1.7 1.5 1.5.1 The proposed routing from Soldotna to the Mystery Creek area maintains a minimum of five hundred (500) feet of separation where the transmission line parallels the pipeline. The submarine cable crossing has been rerouted to the west of Burnt Island and reaches further north- west along Potter Marsh Beach than originally proposed. This mitigate or minimizes potential hazards to Enstar’s pipeline and the powerline. The proposed routing right-of-way from the Mystery Creek area to the Chickaloon Flats terminal/pump station parallels and remains adjacent to the Enstar pipeline. The centerline of the powerline would be approximately located eighty seven (87) feet away from the centerline of the pipeline. It is POWER’s study team opinion that with proper design the concerns of both the electrical and gas entities would be minimized to an acceptable level. COST AND SCHEDULING Cost Summary The Enstar route cost summary is listed on the next page. The cost summary is a tabulation of total costs estimated for the Enstar route (Huffman and International Substation alternatives) construction costs for substations, terminal stations, transmission line, as well as design, construction management, administration and contingency costs. The estimates are considered in the accuracy range after contingency of + 15% for all except the installation of the submarine cable where the accuracy is considered to be +30%. The cost estimates are in 1987 dollars. T&O S1 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 1 -8 ENSTAR ROUTE (Huffman Substation Alternative) Transmission Facilities $63,001,000 Station Facilities 13,170,802 Right-Of-Way and Mitigation Cost 4,235,000 Permitting and Right-Of-Way Acquisition 1,250,000 TOTAL $81,656,802 ENSTAR ROUTE (International Alternative) Transmission Facilities $65,190,000 Station Facilities 13,170,802 Right-Of-Way and Mitigation Cost 4,235,000 Permitting and Right-Of-Way Acquisition 1,250,000 TOTAL $83,845,802 The Enstar route costs have increased since the Preliminary Report was issued. The Huffman Substation alternative or the Enstar route is now estimated to cost $81,656,802 which is over the amount estimated in the Preliminary Report. This increase is due to a number of factors discussed in this report including the need to specify single pole breakers and rerouting the submarine cable crossing. It is important to note that the cost increase would not necessarily be confined to the preferred route. The other alternative route cost could considerably increase as a result of a detailed analysis for instance it is know that the Tesoro route cost would increase because of the State Park’s requirement to underground Captain Cook State Park for a distance of four (4) miles. The Preliminary Report cost estimate did not include costs for undergrounding in the Park area. This requirement was not known until until after the Preliminary Report was issued. 1.5.2 Schedule and Cash Flow The schedule and cash flow chart included at the back of this section outlines the time frames and cash requirements by quarter for each major task required to complete the project. The schedule and costs for the project are based on the following assumptions: T&O $1 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) A field study program will be initiated in late summer 1987 and will begin with a meeting with the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge to establish their specific requirements. The submittal of the application for the right-of-way will be made seven (7) months after the beginning of the project and four (4) months after the field program has been completed. The schedule allows for a sixty (60) day review period by the Fish and Wildlife Service followed by a request for additional information. A thirty (30) day period for submittal of the additional information is required. The Fish and Wildlife Service has a nine (9)-month period to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement which is followed by a one hundred-twenty (120) day review period by the agencies. The entire EIS process is therefore completed by January 30, 1989. If Presidential and Congressional approval of the application are needed they can occur following January 30, 1989. Given the mandatory time period, this will be completed by March 1, 1990. The final design activities will commence after the completion of the final EIS. The final design is scheduled to be completed by March 1, 1990. Energization of the Anchorage Kenai Intertie is scheduled for July 1, 1991. It is anticipated that a thirteen (13) month construction 1-10 window will be required. This construction window includes Post Construction tasks such as restoration and close out. @ Construction of the project is scheduled to begin May 15, 1990, following contractor selection. e@ All costs are in 1987 dollars and contingency is included. The costs are based on the cost estimates prepared in Part 2 of the Final Report. T&O 5S! 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 1-1 1 ENSTAR ROUTE (HUFFMAN ALTERNATIVE) ENVIRONMENTAL & PERMITTING HELD STUDY PERMITS t NVIRONMENTAL FIELD WORK HiTLE XI PERMITS: HIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION GEOTECHNICAL PERMITS ALL OTHER PRE-CONSTRUC TION PERMITS COST ($1000) ——: SCHEDULE AND CASH FLOW CHART 1989 = o o x TOTALS ($1000) eae 2 eo o f GEOTECHNICAL & SURVEY GEOTECHNICAL PROGRAM SURVEYS BATHYMETRIC SURVEYS: HINAL GEOTECH DESIGN COST ($1000) p2 fa fa | 250 ‘ 105 1,250 300 230 30 70 650 GE a Ha ) ! | | ER PLUMS Ug LEVEN LEU R-O-W COST LAND ACQUISITION 3.660 MITIGATION COSTS —_— s7s Ce _ an 4.235 ENGINEERING DESIGN TRANSMISSION LINE — 4 4 SUB/TERMINAL STATION ae ee COST ($1000) cord — J 2.399 _ = PRECONSTRUCTION t QUIPMENT PROCUREMENT || $90 MATERIAL PROCUREMENT 450 CONTRACTOR SELECTION 650 STAKING/MOBILIZATION 535 COST ($1000) CONSTRUCTION I HANSMISSION LINE SUB/ TERMINAL STATION i lz 3 Owe CONTRACT ADMINISTRA TIONANSPEC TION | Leen COST ($1000) = 2.185 = 4.620 __ ADMINISTRATION AVMINIS TRATION COST ($1000) ” ry ry rr » » oy ro www 3,122 TOTAL COST ($1000) BY QUARTER visas Pasras Pasras Pasras | soras ous wae Pizseas | 100 81.657 TOTAL COST ($1000) BY YEAR oe Serer asaya 81,657 2. ENSTAR STABILITY ANALYSIS 2.1 2. ENSTAR STABILITY ANALYSIS GENERAL Transient stability studies were performed on the Heavy Winter 2000 and Light Summer 2000 systems for the Kenai Intertie Enstar preferred route. The study consisted of modeling the system generation, SVC systems and underfrequency load shedding, utilizing the load flow study results as an initial starting point and applying a system disturbance. The response of the system to a disturbance was plotted for the period of the study being 150 cycles (2.5 sec.). Generator prime mover governors were not modeled being that they were assumed to respond after 120 cycles. System parameters plotted were machine speed, generation bus angle, voltage and frequency. Criteria for system stability are that the generation bus angles do not diverge following a disturbance and that voltage remain within acceptable limits. The results of the transient stability analysis were utilized to predict the ability of the system to adequately serve consumers following a disturbance. From the results generator and line outage conditions can be predicted with the resultant loss of consumer load. System improvements for the purpose of improving system reliability can also be proposed from a review stability analysis. Such improvements as major transmission line additions, load shedding and single pole tripping on transmission lines are methods of improving system transient stability and system reliability. The purpose of the transient stability study is to analyze the Interconnector Railbelt Utility System with the 230kV Enstar intertie. From the system performance analysis, additional system modifications upgrades or studies can be planned if the desired degree of reliability is not obtained. T&O $1 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 2-1 2.2 SYSTEM STUDIES, DEFINITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS The basic data for the stability analysis was supplied by the railbelt utilities. The basic data consisted of all data, definitions and assumptions utilized in the load flow study plus generator and SVC data for the transient stability analysis. A transient stability study period of 150 cycles was determined to be adequate in analyzing the proposed Kenai intertie. This time period was selected because instability will be - indicated within two seconds following a disturbance. Generator prime mover response is not a factor in the determination of stability within this time period, and was therefore not modeled for this study. The stability analysis was performed on the 230kV Enstar route which was selected by the railbelt utilities to be the preferred route. The study conditions of Heavy Winter 2000 and Light Summer 2000 were selected because these conditions represent the most severe system performance requirements. Maximum transfers from the Kenai and maximum loads are represented by HW 2000 case with minimum transfers to the Kenai and minimum loads being represented by LS 2000 case. Six system disturbance conditions were analyzed to determine the response of the system with the 230kV Kenai intertie. These disturbances were: T&O S1 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) A fault at Healy 345kV bus - open the Healy/Douglas Line. A fault at Pt. Mackenzie 230kV bus - open the Beluga/Pt. Mackenzie Line 1. A fault at Soldotna 115kV bus - open the Soldotna/Quartz Creek Line. A fault at Bradley Junction 115kV bus - open the Bradley Junction/Soldotna Line. A fault a AML&P 230kV bus - open the AML&P 230kV/University Line. A fault at Burnt Island 230kV bus - open the Burnt Island/Soldotna Line. 2-2 2.2.1 This disturbance selection allows the'’system to be analyzed for a disturbance and separation of the Anchorage-Fairbanks 345kV transmission line with maximum and minimum transfers from Anchorage to Fairbanks (disturbance 1); two different disturbances of the Anchorage 230kV transmission system, one near Beluga (disturbance 2), and one near AML&P Plant 2 (disturbance 5); two disturbances on the Kenai 115kV system, one near Soldotna (disturbance 3), and one near Bradley Lake (disturbance 4); and a disturbance of the 230kV Enstar route Kenai intertie with maximum transfer from the Kenai and maximum transfer to the Kenai (disturbance 6). Faults were maintained for 4 cycles prior to clearing. Fault impedance modeled was approximately one ohm. Only three phase faults were applied. Specific models utilized for the generators and SVC system with a tabulation of parameters are included in this section. Two basic generator models were utilized, one being a salient pole machine representing hydro units and the other being a solid rotor machine representing gas turbine units. Generator exciter models were a continuously acting rotating system representing the older units and a solid state model representing the latter model units. Faults were maintained for 4 cycles prior to clearing. The SVC model represents the G.E. thyristor control as modeled by the University of Alaska based upon data supplied by G.E. Case | - HW 2000 Three phase fault at Healy 345kV bus. Fault occurs at 3 cycles and is cleared by opening the Healy-Douglas 345kV transmission line after 4 cycles of elapsed time. 150 cycles of total time were run in the stability analysis. Results - Generator speeds at Beluga and AML&P swing following the fault due to differences in machine inertias. The swings are slight but they result in a asynchronous operation of the machines until T&O 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 2-3 synchronism is obtained. Loss of field generation protection relaying could trip machines at Beluga and AML&P before the machines reach synchronism. This would not be detrimental to system stability since there is an excess of generation due to separation of the Fairbanks system. In the analysis, generator machine speeds in Anchorage and the Kenai reach 102.4% after 150 cycles caused by an excess of generation to load. A major separation in generator angle occurs between Anchorage and Fairbanks with the intertie open. The generators immediately begin to separate following the fault ruling out any chance to reciose the Anchorage-Fairbanks intertie transmission line. After 33 cycles following the fault, Beluga is separated over 100 degrees from Healy and Chena generators. For reclosing the 345kV transmission line approximately 49 cycles of elapsed time is required following the fault. Voltage on the Anchorage and Kenai remains slightly high but acceptable during the 150 cycles of the stability analysis. Voltage in the Fairbanks system collapses due to the generation-load mismatch. This voltage collapse leads to an increase in generator speed and therefore frequency. The increased frequency does not allow the underfrequency load shedding relaying to operate which adds to the collapse of the Fairbanks system. A complete blackout will occur in Fairbanks until the system can be picked up either from Anchorage or by utilizing local generation. Generation in Anchorage and on the Kenai remain in step and capable of recovering. System frequency reaches 61.44 Hz after 150 cycles. If prime mover governors can respond to reduce the speed before overspeed shutdown occurs the Anchorage-Kenai system will remain stable. The majority of faults that are expected to occur on the Anchorage- Fairbanks transmission line are single phase (line to ground) faults. These faults could be cleared with single-pole 345kV breakers allowing synchronization to be maintained between Anchorage and Fairbanks T&O 5S! 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 2-4 2.2.2 while clearing the fault. With successful single pole tripping, Fairbanks would not experience an outage. The results of the stability analysis indicate that the Healy and Chena 5 generator should be protected with overspeed (over frequency) and undervoltage protection to take the generators off line. During the heavy import conditions to Fairbanks, a trip of the intertie line causes a collapse of voltage and associated speed increase of the Healy and Chena 5 generators. Appropriate relaying will be required to trip the units off line. Case 2 - HW 2000 Three phase fault at Point Mackenzie 230kV bus. Fault occurs at 3 cycles and is cleared by opening the Beluga - Point Mackenzie circuit 1 transmission line after 4 cycles elapsed fault time. Results - The Beluga and AML&P Plant 2 generator speeds swing slightly following the fault due to differences in machine inertias. All machines are beginning to pull back into synchronism at 150 cycles. Generator tripping due to asynchronous conditions could occur depending upon settings of the loss of field generator protective relays. All generation on the system remains in step which would allow the Beluga - Point Mackenzie transmission line to be reclosed following clearing of the fault The 230kV transmission line could be reclosed in approximately 39 cycles following the fault. Provided that Beluga and AML&P Plant 2 generation did not trip off due to loss of synchronism, the system would recover from the fault and line trip. If generation tripping occured it would result in a reduction in system frequency and possible loss of load due to underfrequency load shedding. T&O S1 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 2-5 2.2.3 2.2.4 Case 3 - HW 2000 Three phase fault at Soldotna 115kV bus. Fault occurs at 3 cycles and is cleared after 4 cycles have elapsed. The Soldotna-Quartz Creek 115kV transmission line is opened to clear the fault. The 115kV line is normally open between Daves and Hope. Results - Generation remains instep in the system with Cooper Lake generation and Seward and vicinity islanded. Voltage is within acceptable limits for the remaining system. No outages other than the islanded system would be expected. The ability of Cooper Lake to maintain the islanded system will depend solely on the generation - load match at the time or fault. Bernice Lake generators swing following the fault due to differences in machine inertias. Loss of field generator protection relaying due to loss of synchronism could occur resulting in the loss of generation. This would not cause a stability problem in the system but could lead to underfrequency load shedding if the load exceeded the generation for a prolonged period. Automatic reclose of the 115kV transmission line can be accomplished to restore the islanded system when the angle and voltage between the islanded system and remaining system are acceptable. Operating the existing 115kV transmission line closed loop between Anchorage and Soldotna would possibly improve the reclose situation and maintain or allow rapid restoration of the Seward load. Case 4 - HW 2000 Three phase fault at Bradley Junction 115kV bus. Fault occurs at 3 cycles and is cleared after 4 cycles have elapsed. The Bradley Junction to Soldotna 115kV transmission line is opened to clear the fault. Results - Bradley Lake hydrogenerator begins to immediately separate in angle with Soldotna and the remaining system preventing reclosing of T&O S1 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 2-6 2.2.5 2.2.6 the 115kV transmission line. Bradley Lake generation should shutdown on over speed/over frequency. The remaining interconnected system maintains voltage and angle stability. Individual generators at Bernice Lake, ML & P Plant 2 and Beluga may trip off due to loss of synchronism but this will not result in system instability. If generation trips off, load shedding due to underfrequency will occur in the system resulting in consumer outages until the system can recover generation and load balance. Case 5 - HW 2000 Three phase fault at the AML&P - Chugach 230kV Station 2 bus. Fault occurs at 3 cycles and is cleared after 4 cycles have elapsed. The fault is cleared by opening the Station 2 to University 230kV transmission line. Results - Generator speed at AML&P and Beluga swings immediately following the fault, but begins to pull in during the period of the analysis. System generation buses remain in step indicating that the system will remain stable. System voltages is acceptable following fault clearing and system frequency increases slightly. The 230kV line should be capable of being reclosed within 35 cycles following fault clearing to restore the system. The only possible problem that may occur is generation at AML&P Plant 2 or Beluga tripping off due to a loss of synchronism condition on the generation bus. This could result in underfrequency load shedding causing consumer outages until generation-load balance is obtained within the interconnected system. Case 6 - HW 2000 Three phase fault at the Burnt Island 230kV undersea cable termination bus. Fault occurs at 3 cycles and is cleared after 4 cycles have elapsed. The fault is cleared by opening the Soldotna to Huffman 230kV T&O 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 2-7 transmission line. The 115kV University to Soldotna line is open between Hope and Quartz Creek. Results - Generation angle in the Kenai immediately begins to separate from the Anchorage system precluding any reclosing of the 230kV transmission line. The islanding of the Kenai results in high voltage and overspeed of the Kenai generators which will result in shutdown of the generators and complete loss of power on the Kenai. In the Anchorage and Fairbanks systems, low frequency occurs due to loss of Kenai generation (approximately 130 MW) resulting in underfrequency load shedding. System stability appears to be maintained. The problem that occurs is high voltage in Fairbanks due to the line charging of 345kV transmission line. Additional reactors will be required to maintain acceptable system voltage during load underfrequency shedding. Swing of the Beluga generation occurs immediately following the Kenai separation. This swing may result in loss of a Beluga generator which would lead to additional load shedding. The Anchorage and Fairbanks systems would still remain in synchronism. Load could be restored following load-generation balance. Tripping of the Kenai Intertie will lead to widespread power outages in the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas. The majority of the outages could be eliminated by utilizing single pole tripping on the 230kV transmission line between Soldotna and the Anchorage terminating substations. Most faults will be single line-to-ground faults which can be cleared by single pole tripping without losing sychronization between Anchorage and the Kenai. The fault can be cleared and the transmission line recioses without loss of power to consumers. T&O 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 2-8 2.207 2.2.8 Case 7 - LS 2000 Three phase fault at Healy 345kV bus. Fault occurs at 3 cycles and is cleared by opening the Healy-Douglas 345kV transmission line after 4 cycles of elapsed time. 150 cycles of total time were run, in the stability analysis. Results - Generator speeds at Beluga and AML&P swing following the fault due to differences in machine inertias. The swings are slight but they result in asynchronous operation of the machines until synchronism is obtained. Loss of field relaying could trip machines at Beluga and AML&P before the machines reach synchronism. This would not be detrimental to system stability since there is an excess of generation due to separation of the Fairbanks system. In the analysis, generator machine speeds in Anchorage and the Kenai reach 100.5% after 150 cycles, caused by an excess of generation to load. Without generation in the Fairbanks area, the Fairbanks system is without power until the 345kV transmission line can be reclosed or until local generation can pickup the load. Voltage on the Anchorage and Kenai remains slightly high but acceptable during the 150 cycles of the analysis. Generation in Anchorage and on the Kenai remain in step and capable of recovering. System frequency reaches 60.3 Hz after 150 cycles. If prime mover governors can respond to reduce the speed before overspeed shutdown occurs the Anchorage-Kenai system will remain stable. Case 8 - LS 2000 Three phase fault at Point Mackenzie 230kV bus. Fault occurs at 3 cycles and is cleared by opening the Beluga - Point Mackenzie circuit 1 transmission line after 4 cycles elapsed fault time. 2.2.9 Results - The Beluga and AML&P Plant 2 generator speeds swing slightly following the fault due to differences in machine inertias. All machines are beginning to pull back into synchronism at 150 cycles. Generator tripping due to asynchronous conditions could occur depending upon settings of the loss of field generator protective relays. All generation on the system remains in step which would allow the line to be reclosed following clearing of the fault The 230kV transmission line could be reclosed in approximately 39 cycles following the fault. Provided that Beluga and AML&P Plant 2 generation did not trip off due to loss of synchronism, the system would recover from the fault and line trip. If generation tripping occurred it would result in a reduction in system frequency and possible loss of load due to underfrequency load shedding. Case 9 - LS 2000 Three phase fault at Soldotna 115kV bus. Fault occurs at 3 cycles and is cleared after 4 cycles have elapsed. The Soldotna-Quartz Creek 115kV transmission line is opened to clear the fault. The 115kV line is normally open between Quartz Creek and Hope. Results - Generation remains instep in the system with voltage within acceptable limits. No outages other than Seward and vicinity would be expected. Cooper Lake power is not scheduled for this case. Following clearing of the fault, the 115kV transmission line could be immediately reclosed restoring power to Seward and vicinity. Bernice Lake generators swing following the fault due to differences in machine inertias. Loss of field relaying due to loss of synchronism could occur resulting in the loss of generation. This would not cause a stability T&O $1 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 2-10 2.2.10 2.2.11 problem in the system but could lead to underfrequency load shedding if the load exceeded the generation for a prolonged period. Case 10 - LS 2000 Three phase fault at Bradley Junction 115kV bus. Fault occurs at 3 cycles and is cleared after 4 cycles have elapsed. The Bradley Junction to Soldotna 115kV transmission line is opened to clear the fault. Results - Bradley Lake hydrogenerator power is not scheduled for this case. Bradley Lake is only providing a small amount of system VAR support. The remaining system maintains synchronization and acceptable voltage stability. Consumer outages would not be expected unless individual generators at Bernice Lake, Beluga or AML&P Plant 2 tripped off due to loss of field relaying resulting in underfrequency load shedding. Case 11 - LS 2000 Three phase fault at the AML&P - Chugach 230kV Station 2 bus. Fault occurs at 3 cycles and is cleared after 4 cycles have elapsed. The fault is cleared by opening the Station 2 to University 230kV transmission line. Results - Generator speed at AML&P and Beluga swings immediately following the fault, but begins to pull in during the period of the analysis. System generation buses remain in step indicating that the system will remain stable. System voltages is acceptable following fault clearing and system frequency increases slightly. The 230kV line should be capable of being reclosed within 35 cycles following fault clearing to restore the system. The only possible problem that may occur is generation at AML&P Plant 2 or Beluga tripping off due to a loss of synchronism condition on the generation bus. This could result in T&O S! 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 2-1 1 2.2.12 2.3 underfrequency load shedding causing consumer outages until the generation-load balance is obtained within the interconnected system. Case 12 - LS 2000 Three phase fault at the Burnt Island 230kV undersea cable termination bus. Fault occurs at 3 cycles and is cleared after 4 cycles have elapsed. The fault is cleared by opening the Soldotna to Huffman 230kV transmission line. The 115kV University to Soldotna line is open between Hope and Quartz Creek. Results - Generation angle in the Kenai immediately begins to separate from the Anchorage system precluding any reclosing of the 230kV transmission line. The Anchorage-Fairbanks systems remain in step and stable. Separation of the Kenai results in a loss of generation to the Kenai and underfrequency load shedding. Some consumer load will be lost until a generation - load match can be obtained and the intertie line recloses. Generation of the Kenai is not expected to trip off due to underfrequency protective relaying. Individual generators at Beluga and AML & P Plant 2 may trip off due to loss of synchronism. This will not impact system stability since a generation excess results in the Anchorage-Fairbanks area when the Kenai is separated. If excessive generation were to trip off, some consumer outages would occur due to underfrequency load shedding. SUMMARY From an analysis of the stability plots it is apparent that the 230kV Enstar route provides a stable intertie between the Kenai and Anchorage for disturbances other than a complete separation of the Kenai from Anchorage. In the event of a separation of the Kenai from Anchorage, the Kenai is capable of successfully islanding for the HW 2000 case T&O 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 2-12 without loss of load, provided generation does not trip-off due to overspeed or over frequency prior to governor action. For LS 2000, the Kenai is capable of successfully islanding thru underfrequency load shedding. The Anchorage utility system consisting of CEA, AML&P and MEA systems remains stable for all disturbance conditions analyzed. Asynchronous generator conditions exist within Beluga and AML&P Plant 2 following disturbance due to differences in machine inertias. The machines begin to pull into synchronism during the period of the analysis. There is a possibility that the machines with the smallest inertias will trip-off due to loss of field relay operation. This is not considered to be a system stability problem because generation within the system remains stable. Loss of an individual generator within Beluga or AML&P Plant 2 will at most result in controlled consumer outage caused by underfrequency load shedding. This condition will occur when Anchorage is insufficient in generation such as HW 2000 when the Kenai is separated from Anchorage. The Fairbanks area imports power in both HW 2000 and LS 2000 cases. Separation of the Kenai in HW 2000 results in underfrequency load shedding to maintain stability with over 50% of the Fairbanks load shed during heavy winter import. Separation of the Anchorage-Kenai Intertie in LS 2000 results in a slight voltage and frequency rise in the Fairbanks area. It is apparent from this analysis that the Fairbanks area, which is scheduled to import heavily, is very susceptible to disturbances on the Kenai and Anchorage Interties. Anchorage and the Kenai are much less susceptible and would not be expected to experience complete power outages. The reliability of the interties are therefore considered to be extremely important to the performance of the intertie system. T&O S1 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 2-13 2.4 RECOMMENDATIONS For system stability improvement several recommendations are appropriate. The interties to Fairbanks and the Kenai are critical, especially to the Fairbanks consumers. Continuity of the interties can be greatly improved by utilization of single pole tripping. The majority of faults are line-to-ground. These faults can be cleared and reclosed in less than one second utilizing single pole tripping, maintaining system stability and resulting in little or no noticeable disturbance to the consumers. Operation of the existing 115kV Anchorage-Kenai Intertie in parallel with the 230kV Enstar intertie may improve reliability for consumers on the Kenai. This possibility should be investigated through further stability and load flow studies. If the 115kV intertie is operated closed loop, additional relaying and control such as transfer trip, directional comparison blocking, sync check and closing logic would need to be incorporated. If single pole tripping is utilized on the Enstar Intertie transmission line, then reliability will be extremely high and the advantage of utilizing the 115kV existing intertie closed loop will be minimal. The results of the stability analysis indicate that generator protection requirements and individual generator relay setting will impact consumer outage following a system disturbance. It is necessary to maintain generators on line, following a disturbance, as long as possible for system stability. Settings of loss of excitation relays, overspeed protection, under/over frequency relays and under voltage relays should be evaluated based upon transient stability analysis results and operational limits of the generators. A system wide generation retention and protection plan should be formulated from such a study. T&D 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 2-14 SE 1- HW 2000 2 - HW 2000 3 - HW 2000 4- HW 2000 5 - HW 2000 6 - HW 2000 7 - LS 2000 8-LS 2000 9-LS 2000 10 - LS 2000 11-LS 2000 12 -LS 2000 LIST OF STABILITY CASES Fault at Healy 345kV bus - open the Healy/Douglas Line. Fault at Pt. Mackenzie 230kV bus - open the Beluga/Pt. Mackenzie Line 1. Fault at Soldotna 115kV bus - open the Soldotna/Quartz Creek Line. Fault at Bradley Junction 115kV bus - open the Bradley Junction/Soldotna Line. Fault at AML&P 230kV bus - open the AML&P 230kV/University Line. Fault at Burnt Island 230kV bus - open the Burnt Island/Soldotna Line. Fault at Healy 345kV bus - open the Healy/Douglas Line. Fault at Pt. Mackenzie 230kV bus - open the Beluga/Pt. Mackenzie Line 1. Fault at Soldotna 115kV bus - open the Soldotna/Quartz Creek Line. Fault at Bradley Junction 115kV bus - open the Bradley Junction/Soldotna Line. Fault at AML&P 230kV bus - open the AML&P 230kV/University Line. Fault at Burnt Island 230kV bus - open the Burnt Island/Soldotna Line. 3. ENSTAR LINE REQUIREMENTS TPIS) DP) ene Oe oe Ng 2g ino sve fork: ef Sst Cz. ENSTAR ROUTE mmwemees STEEL © KEY MAP Loe 3. ENSTAR LINE REQUIREMENTS 3.1 LINE DESIGN CRITERIA This section addresses the transmission line requirements for the preferred Enstar Route. The line routing for the Enstar Route has been further defined, since the Preliminary Report was approved, and is depicted on the routing maps that are included at the end of this section. The maps are organized so that the Enstar Route is broken into links and each link represents a line segment consisting of a specific type of line facility: wood pole H-frame, single pole tube steel, guyed tubular X- frame, underground and submarine cable. Also, both the Huffman and International Substation route alternatives are discussed. The assumptions used for the line analysis of all the alternate routes are the same used in the analysis of the preferred. The assumptions are: @ NESC heavy loading district @ 795 kcmil”Drake” ACSR conductor @ 100 MPH fastest mile wind © Self-contained oil-filled (SCOF) 230kV cables designed for 230kV at 180 MVA, 90% load factor. @ All submarine cable would be SCOF 230kV single conductor cable. Four (4) cables would be laid, one being a spare. @ All submarine cable would be buried. @ Four (4) underground cables will be laid where the underground cable is coupled to the submarine cable. POWER’s evaluation of the transmission line requirements for the Enstar Route followed along the same lines that were conducted for the alternate routes. However, a detailed line design analysis was conducted to establish and confirm ruling spans, maximum allowable spans, and structure heights for the wood pole structures and the single pole tube steel structures. Existing data was utilized in developing the ruling span selected for the guyed tubular X-frame section. T&O S1 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 3-1 Included in Appendix H are the preliminary calculations prepared for the Enstar Line. These have been developed for cost analysis purposes and may vary slightly in the final design phase. Sag and tension data is included for the 795 Drake transmission conductor for ruling spans-of 400, 800, 1000 , and 1200 foot. It is anticipated that the single pole structures without underbuild will support a ruling span between 400 and 800 feet, the wood pole H-Frame structures a 1000 foot ruling span and the guyed steel X-Frame a 1200 foot ruling span. Sag and tension data is also included for 266.8 Waxwing conductor for a 400 foot ruling span, the assumed ruling span for the underbuilt that may be required in the single pole section. Conductor loading data is included for both conductor types. These loads were generated for the Nesc heavy load zone as well as a high wind of 100 MPH, one-inch heavy ice, galloping and insulator swing conditions. These loads were then used to calculate structure loadings. Allowable span tables indicate maximum span lengths for various wood pole heights and classes for single and double crossbraced H-frame structures. This data indicates that all of the anticipated spans should be supported by class 2 and class 3 poles. Also included are separate analysis for the single tubular steel poles for 400 foot ruling span without UB, with UB offset to one side for ROW considerations, and with two phases of the UB on each side of the pole. An 800 foot ruling span is analyzed without UB. Anticipated structure weights are 1440 Ibs., 2303 Ibs., 1737 Ibs., and 2541 Ibs, respectively. All weights are for the structure above ground. Existing data was evaluated in determining the requirements for the submarine crossings. Any additional data required for evaluating the submarine crossing between the Chickaloon Bay and the Anchorage area T&D 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 3-2 3.2 would have to be derived from bathymetric surveys. Because of the difficulty associated with the Enstar crossing it is recommended that these submarine surveys be conducted as early as possible in the next phase of the project to determine the actual bottom conditions and underwater topography of the proposed route. The data derived from these surveys would be used in the preliminary design of the submarine crossing and would identify, if any additional problems associated with the Enstar route that may not have been addressed in this report. MAPPING The mapping included at the end of this section depicts the preferred line route. The mapping of the Kenai is made up of 1:63 360 series USGS quadrangle maps (quads) with contour intervals and the mapping scale of Anchorage is 1:25,000 with contour intervals. POWER’s study team aligned the preferred route based on land ownership data and the planimetric and topographic information supplied by the quads. POWER’s study team has revised its routing and line segments since the Preliminary Report was issued, which has affected the number of the different type of overhead structures required as well as the link segment lengths of the underground and submarine portions. POWER performed some test spotting to determine approximate structure requirements that was used for selecting the optimum ruling span. Structure requirements were based on span units dictated by conductor sag and tension data, hot curve ground clearance, and geologic and terrain constraints along the preferred route. The foundation systems considered for the overhead structures include: pile foundations for the guyed tubular X-frame, direct imbedment of wood pole H-frame, direct imbedment of tangent single pole steel and drilled piers for the single pole tube steel angle structures specified for the Anchorage area. These foundation types are based on the soils data generated during the geotechnical investigation. T&O 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 3-3 3.3 ENSTAR ROUTE AND COST SUMMARY Due to the rerouting of the Enstar route the link descriptions have been changed since the Preliminary Report was issued. The line segment just north of Soldotna (Map 1) has been rerouted to mitigate land use concerns and to avoid a landing strip. Also, the underground portion of the Chickaloon flats area has been extended to avoid a landing strip and to stay parallel with the pipeline, for a distance of 1.125 miles for a total underground length of 5.125 miles. The submarine crossing has increased in length from 8.5 miles to 9.10 miles because of the need to avoid Enstar’s pipeline at both the Chicxaloon bay and Potter Marsh beaching areas. There is also an added advantage to move the Potter Marsh beaching location and that is to avoid constructing an overhead facility along the east side of old Seward Highway which would be a difficult area to acquire easements. Because of the reroute, the underground in the Potter Marsh area has been increased from .25 miles to .65 miles and will parallel the existing railroad. The cost estimates for the Enstar route have been reformatted as a result of the additional analysis conducted on the route. The link segment lengths have been scaled off the quads and a more detailed count of the type and quantity of angle structures has been performed. Each of the different link segments are represented by a specific transmission facility type, i.e., overhead transmission structure, underground cable or submarine cable. In the previous cost estimate prepared for the Preliminary Report a difficulty factor was applied to a base cost for a given line seqment within each of the route alternates. This has not been done in preparing the cost estimate in this section since one route is being addressed. The costs generated for each link segment factor in the known difficulties such as access, terrain related construction problems, climatic, geologic, tidal and environmental mitigations. T&O 5S! 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 3-4 Link Segments Link 1 consist of 16.10 miles of weathered steel guyed tubular poles. Based on the soils data, it was determined that this line segment will require pile foundations. Due to the significant frost tracking anticipated to take place an “adjustable” structure such as a guyed tubular X-frame with pile foundations would be the most economical structure and foundation type for this line segment. Link 2 consists of 33.75 miles of TH 230 wood H-frame with X-bracing. Much of this line segment crosses glacial (moraine, till sheet, glacio- fluvial and outwash deposits) and these type of landforms are suitable for conventional direct imbedment of wood pole H-frame structures. Link 3 consists of 5.125 miles of underground construction in the Chickaloon Bay Flats area. Four (4) underground cables would be laid for this line segment that would couple with the four (4) submarine cables. Link 4 consists of 9.10 miles of four (4) buried SCOF 230kV submarine cables. Link 5 is within the Potter Marsh area and is .65 miles long with four (4) buried conductors underground. The underground would be coupled with the submarine cable and be buried in the railroad right-of-way up to the Potter Marsh terminal station. Link 6 consists of 2.95 miles of weathered single pole steel structures. This line segment emanates from the Potter Marsh terminal station and terminates at the Huffman Substation. Tangent structures are direct imbedded with angle structures to be constructed with bolt-cluster foundations. Because of the narrow right-of-way anticipated for this route, a vertical structure configuration with horizontal post insualtors, all located on same side (street side), is considered in this cost estimate for this link. Also, because of the possiblity that underbuilt may be required, the costs associated with underbuilding are included with this line segment. T&O 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 3-5 Link 7 consists of 8.4 miles of weathered single pole steel structures. This line segment emanates from the Potter Marsh terminal station and terminates at the International Substation. Tangent and angle structures would be the same as for Link 6. T&O 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 3-6 3-351 Cost Summary - Enstar Route link Length Confiquration 1 16.10 mi Guyed tubular weathered steel 2 33.75 mi Wood H-Frame x braces TH230 3 5.125 mi Underground cable 4 conductors 4 9.10mi. Submarine cable 4 conductors 5 65 mi Underground cable - 4 conductors Total Miles 64.725 mi. Soldotna - Railroad R-O-W and Ptarmigan Sec Line Subtotal Huffman Substation Alternate 6 2.95 Single pole with concrete boit clusters for angie poies Mobilization - demobilization R-O-W Clearing - Access Roads Subtotal Design @ 10% CM @7% Admin. @ 5% Total Miles = 67.675 Subtotal Contingency @ 15% Huffman Substation Alternate Annual operating and maintenance costs @ 1.5% TAO $1 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 3-7 Estimated Costs = $ 2,718,000 = 4,840.000 = 6,658,000 = 26,345,000 = 917,000 $41,478,000 = 827,000 1,100,000 1,500,000 $44,905,000 4,490,000 3,143,000 2,245,000 54,784,000 8,217,000 = $63,001,000 = $945,000 International-Substation Alternate link Length Configuration Estimated Costs Soldotna - Railroad R-O-W Subtotal $41,478,000 7 8.4m. Single Pole with concrete 2,387,000 boit clusters for angie poles Mobilization - demobilization 1,100,000 R-O-W Clearing - Access Roads 1,500,000 Subtotal $46,465,000 Design @ 10% 4,646,000 cM @7% 3,252,000 Admin. @5% ; 2,323,000 Total Miles = 73.125 Subtotal 56,687,000 Contingency @ 15% 8,503,000 TOTAL ENSTAR ROUTE International Substation Alternate = $65,190,000 Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs @ 1.5% $ 977,000 T&OS1 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 3-8 3-9 LINK COST ESTIMATES aaee core wedi va QUOKY TRANSMISSION LINE SPA ENSTSR SGUTE LINK : SUYED TUBLLAR X-FRAME MATE LABOR MATERIAL LABOR AND MATERIAL UNIT SESCRIFTION QUANTITY UNIT = SUBTOTA QNIT SUBTOTAL UNIT | SUBTOTAL : 39 5,609 530,400 8.490 495,600 = 14,000 1 7,500 7,500 = 10,200 i9,29 27,790 TUM ANGLE) 4 3,000 32,000 = 19,790 $2,809 1.790 BULAR (HEAVY ANGLE? 4 §.200 32,800 = 11,200 $4,800 £5,409 TUBULAR ‘ZEAD END) 4 8,800 35,200 = 12,200 $8,200 20,890 ING, (PER STRUCTURE) 72 7,200 518,400 1,390 93,609 3,500 HARDWARE AND INSULATORS (TANGENT) 9 1,400 82,800 1,000 37,000 2,400 SORDWARE AND INSULATORS (LIGHT ANGLE? NGADWARE AND INSULATORS (MEDIUM ANGLE? 1,700 1,700 1,306 1,500 3,000 1,900 7,600 4.300 3.200 3,200 HARDWARE AND INSULATSRS ‘HEAVY ANGLE) 9,200 1,500 6,00 7,800 HARDWARE AND INSi S(DEAO END) 3,200 12,800 2,200 3,300 3,400 CONDUCTOR ASSEMBLY (DRAKE 795 ACSR) 259 2,020 523,180 1,195 286,195 3,123 809,375 iNG ASSEMBLY 72 2 15,120 110 7,929 320 23,040 = eee ra a 2 > TOTAL COST FOR 16.10 MILES $2,718,028 COST /MILE $143,320 UNIT DESCRIPTION AFRAME WOOD X-BRACE {TANGENT 2-POLE, 75-41) a-FRAME WOOD(LIGHT ANGLE 3-PCLE) H-PRAME WCODIMEDIUM SNSLE 3-P9LE) 4-FRAME WOQD(HEAVY ANGLE 3-FOLE) H=FRANE WOOD {EAD END 2-PSLE? FTA, TH2T0 (TANGENT? (LISHT SNELE! (MEDIUM ANGLE) (HEAVY ANGLE) f (DEAD END) TONDUCTOR ASSEMBLY (DRAKE 795 ACSR) SROUNDING ASSEMBLY COST ESTIMATE ZTOKY TRANSMISSION U1 NE APA ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 2 HeFRAME. WOOD LABOR QUANTITY UNIT SUBTOTAL 150 5,400 810,000 5 6,800 4,000 9 8008.20 $ 8001, 200 & 6,800 40,800 150 4,000 600,000 5 4,100 20,500 9 4100 78, 900 9 4400-38, 900 6 5000 33,800 53S 2,400 1,284,000 179 180 32,220 MATES IAL UNIT SUBTOTAL 2.600 390,000 3,700 18,500 2,700 00 3,700 33,30 1,700 22,200 3,100 465,900 3,300 14,800 3,300 29,700 3,600 32,400 5,500 33,000 1,200 675,500 110 19,690 TOTAL COST FOR 33.75 MILES COST/MILE LABGR AND MATERIAL UNIT SUBTOTAL 3.098 ss 7,190 7.8003 7,400 6.609 7,700 4,560 11.100 66,600 3,700 1,979,500 790 «51,919 $4,540,000 $14,407 cog £371 ZTOKV TRANSMISSION LINE APSE ROUTE LINK 2 (SCOP) 2I0KY UNDERGROUND LagGR MATERIAL LABES AND MATES! UNIT DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT =: SUBTOTAL UNIT SUBTOTAL UNIT NOid TONDUCTORS §.1 MILES} S.1 580,006 2,958,900 612,480 3,127,548 1.192.880 S581. 588 {4 CONDUCTORS PER SPLICE) § 45,000 405,900 19,000 i71,009 od 09 S7a.086 TOTAL COST FOR 5.10 NILES $6,658,000 ST/MILE LISS, 456 2 a COST ESTIMATE 230KV TRANSMISSION LINE APA ENSTAR ROUTE LINK & (SCOF} 239KV SUBMARINE LABOR MATERIAL LABOR AND MATERIAL UNIT DESCRIPTION GUANTITY UNIT SUBTOTAL UNIT = SUBTOTAL UNIT = SUBTOTAL SUBMARINE (4 CONDUCTORS 9.10 SELES) 9.4 1,708,000 15,528,600 1,182,000 10,755,200 2,882,090 26,2 SPLICES{4 CONDUCTERS PER SPLICE) { 45,900 45,000 19,000 19,000 $4,500 TOTAL COST FOR 9.10 MILES $26,345,200 COST/MILE SRESHESSEMATy wos ESTIMATE ZZOKV TRANSMISSION LINE SPO ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 5 (SCOF} IIOKY UNDERGROUND ad R UNIT SUBTOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION EWS S$ CONDUCTORS 263 MILES & TON} } G7 700,000 455,000 «612,880 398.412 1.012.580 1 45,200 $5,200 17,900 19,0600) Ba TOTAL COST FOR .70 MILES $917,000 COST/MILE wer UNIT DESCRIPTION TANGENT? BEL PILECLIGHT ANGLE? TEL COLEWNEDIUM SNELE? zi 4EAVY ANGLE: EL PGLE(DEAD END! CONCRETE FOUNDATICN (ANGLE POLES) HARGWARE AND [NSULATORS (TANGENT) HARDWARE AND INSULATORS (LIGHT ANGLE) AORDWARE AND INSULATORS (MEDIUM ANGLE) HARDWARE AND INSULATORS (HEAVY ANGLE) ARDWARE AND INSULATORS (DEAD END) CONDUCTOR ASSEMBLY (DRAKE 795 ACSR) SROUNDING ASSEMBLY 0 a 4 ae On COST ESTIMATE 230KV TRANSMISSION LINE APA ENSTOR ROUTE LINK 6 SINGLE STEEL POLE LABOR QUANTITY «UNIT «= SUBTOTAL : 2 7,500 292,500 9 9 a 2 9,700 17,400 9 9 0 3 14,500 34,500 3 6,000 18,200 17 2,800 47,600 9 0 0 9 9 Q 9 9 9 3 5,900 17,700 7 3,600 = 167,200 20 180 3,600 COST/MILE MATERIAL UNIT = SUBTOTAL 6,500 175,50 0 9 9,500 18.600 $ p) 12,000 78,060 2,500 7,500 1,100 18.700 0 ) 0 Q 0 9 2,200 4,600 1,100 51,790 119 2,290 TOTAL COST FOR 7.95 MILES LABGR AND MATERIAL UNIT SUBTOTAL 22.500 +590 7,700 9 9 3,100 24,306 4,700 220,990 290 5,800 S827, $240,575 COST ESTIMATE 250KV TRANSMISSION LINE APA ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 7 SINGLE STEEL POLE LABCR MATERIAL LABOR AND MATERISL UNIT DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT = SUBTOTAL UNIT = SUBTOTAL UNIT SUBTOTAL ‘TANGENT) 3 aa 516,000 = 11,000 = 473,900 = 22,900 POLE(LIGHT ANGLE? 1 12,79 {2,700 2,900 12,900 24,769 PRLE!MEDIUM ANGLE) 3 100 39,000 12,500 37,500 = 75,590 STEEL POLE HEAVY ANGLE) { 14,000 14,000 13,000 13,000 27,006 STEEL SOLE(DEAD END) 8 15,000 120,900 16,000 = 128.900» 31,000 248,00 CONCRETE FOUNDATION(ANGLE POLES) 13 6,000 78,000 3,700 $8,100 9,700 aot YAROWARE AND INSULATORS (TANGENT) 83 2,800 = 120, 400 1,100 47,500 3,900 = 167,700 HAREWARE SND INSULATORS (LIGHT ANGLE) ! 3,000 3,000 neh 1,200 4,200 4,200 HARDWARE OND INSULATORS (NEDIUM ANGLE) 5 100 9,300 +000 3,900 4,400 13,200 HARDWARE AND INSULATORS<HEAVY ANGLE) 1 3,100 3,100 1300 1,200 4,400 4,400 HARDWARE AND INSULATORS(DEAD END) § 5,700 47,200 2,200 7,800 8,100 64,300 CONDUCTOR ASSEMBLY (DRAKE 795 ACSR) ins 3,600 $78,800 1,100 144,300 4,700 625,100 SROUNDING ASSEMBLY 56 180 10,080 110 6,160 290 16,289 TOTAL COST FOR 8.$0 MILES $2,287,000 rene COST/MILE $284, i457 MAPS T &O 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 3-10 : SUBSTATION a \ Ne jie SS ae ee ee = | t 7 a I a § we Po tA eee 1 lew ea | |? : ! - | 2 ih aT ----- 44----- | ao fs ls of ie m ot He 3 Ss Y % | 5. : iS = \ ; > 4 Se ef — —— < eee Afonas Lak 4 S € a> Oy f-—-—- 1 \ | \ ! ts F pneers IRCODO we i La A a et VAIN JINTERNATIONAL ____ SUBSTATION 4. ENSTAR STATION REQUIREMENTS 4 ENSTAR STATION REQUIREMENTS 4.1 GENERAL Station requirements for the preferred route include a few minor modifications from those identified in the earlier Enstar Route section in the Preliminary Report. These modifications are explained below: @ The 230kV breakers at the New Soldotna Station and at the station in Anchorage are required to be single-pole breakers instead of the expected three-pole breakers. This requirement was not known until the stability study was completed.recently. The cost of the breakers in single-pole operation is estimated to be $140,000 instead of the previous estimate of $110,000 for three-pole operation. This increase would apply to all of the routes in this study. @ The requirements for landscaping and site preparation were reviewed as a result of comments from CEA and AML&P. Increases were made in the area required, and cost estimates for the New Soldotna Station, the Potter Marsh Station and the two stations in Anchorage. There is a possibility that the Huffman Substation Alternative will not be possible if a new landscaping ordinance is passed due to lack of space to comply with the ordinance. @ The stability study also showed that the reactors at the Southern Terminal/Pumping Station will need to be single-phase units instead of the three-phase units used in the original estimate. @ There is a possibility that additional reactors will be required at the New Soldotna Station depending on the actual line design. If the line design results in enough capacitive coupling that a line to ground fault can not be extinguished, then the reactors would be required. This would add, approximately, an additional $450,000 to the estimated cost of the New Soldotna Station. The revised cost estimates are included on the following pages. TRO 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 4-1 HUFFMAN OR INTERNATIONAL 138KV BUS CALA 138-230KV 250 MVA 230KV BUS 45 MVAR POTTER MARSH UNDERSEA CABLE BURNT ISLAND 45 MVAR 230KV BUS 115-230KV LAW 250 MVA SOLDOTNA 115KV BUS 1 10 MVAR aL (ADDED TO EXISTING 30 MVAR) ENSTAR ROUTE Enstar Route - Estimated Costs T&O 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 4-2 Summary of Station Costs - Enstar Route Station New Soldotna Substation Terminal/Pumping Station w/Reactor Terminal/Pumping Station w/oReactor Subtotal Huffman Substation (Alternative 1) Huffman Substation Subtotal 15% Contigency TOTAL - ENSTAR ROUTE (Alternative 1) Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs 4.5% New International Substation (Alternative 2) Stations Subtotal International Substation Subtotal 15% Contigency TOTAL - ENSTAR ROUTE (Alternative 2) Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs 4.5% T&O 5S) 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 4-3 Estimated Cost $ 3,304,736 2,513,932 1,796,938 $7,615,606 3,837,266 $11,452,872 1,717,930 13,170,802 $592,686 7,615,606 3,837,266 $11,452,872 1,717,930 $13,170,802 $ 592,686 New Soldotna Substation (115-230kV) Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 1 25,000 $ 25,000 230kV Switch Structure 2 8,000 16,000 230kV Voltage XFMR Str. 3 1,000 3,000 115kV Dead End Structure 1 16,800 16,800 EQUIPMENT 230kV Circuit Breaker 1 140,000 140,000 230kV 39 Switch 3 12,000 36,000 230kV Voltage XFMR 3 12,000 36,000 115-230kV, 250 MVA XFMR 1 900,000 900,000 115kV Capacitor Bank, 10 MVAR 1 40,000 40,000 115kV Circuit Switcher 1 36,000 36,000 115kV Circuit Breaker 1 60,000 60,000 115kV 39 Switch 3 9,000 27,000 Control Switchboard 1 75,000 75,000 SCADA & Communications 1 12,500 12,500 Control Building 1 29,000 29,000 Station Service 1 46,000 46,000 Install Structures L.Ss.* 38,000 38,000 Install Equipment LESe 367,200 367,200 Foundations Les: 232,800 232,800 Furnish and install all other electrical work LES: 350,000 350,000 Testing us: 10,000 10,000 Mobilization & Site Prep. LS; 212,500 212,500 (Site = 170 x 250) Subtotal $2,708,800 Design (10%) 270,880 CM (7%) 189,616 Administration (5%) 135,440 TOTAL - NEW SOLDOTNA SUBSTATION $3,304,736 * LS: Lump Sum T&O S1 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 4-4 Terminal/Pumping Station (230kV) w/Reactor Unit STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 230kV 19 Switch Structure 230kV Terminator Str. 230kV Arrester Str. 230kV Bus Support Str. EQUIPMENT 230kV Terminator 230kV Surge Arrester 230kV 19 MOD Switch 230kV Reactor, 45 MVAR 230kV Circuit Switcher Pumping Plant Control Building SCADA & Communications Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and install all other electrical work Testing Mobilization & Site Prep. (Site = 150 x 170) Design (10%) CM (7%) Administration (5%) Quantity Or =| OD — —~ = eo oa Hr LS: LES: [ES ES: LS; ES: Total - TERMINAL/PUMPING STATION T&O 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) Unit Cost 25,000 1,600 15,000 1,200 1,200 21,500 6,000 7,000 450,000 60,000 420,000 12,000 12,500 34,000 174,500 212,300 375,000 10,000 86,700 Subtotal Extended Cost $ 25,000 9,600 15,000 4,800 7,200 86,000 24,000 42,000 450,000 60,000 420,000 12,000 12,500 34,000 174,500 212,300 375,000 10,000 86,700 $2,060,600 206,060 144,242 103,030 $2,513,932 Terminal/Pumping Station (230kV) w/o Reactor Unit STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 230kV 19 Switch Structure 230kV Terminator Str. 230kV Arrester Str. 230kV Bus Support Str. EQUIPMENT 230kV Terminator 230kV Surge Arrester 230kV 19 MOD Switch Pumping Plant Control Building SCADA & Communications Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and install all other electrical work Testing Mobilization & Site Prep. (Site = 170 x 220) Design (10%) CM (7%) Administration (5%) Quantity OR = m= - - AFP LES: ES: L.S. ES; L.S. IES: Total - TERMINAL/PUMPING STATION T&D 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) Unit Cost 25,000 1,600 15,000 1,200 1,200 21,500 6,000 7,000 420,000 12,000 12,500 34,000 134,500 149,300 300,000 10,000 187,000 Subtotal Extended Cost $ 25,000 9,600 15,000 4,800 7,200 86,000 24,000 42,000 420,000 12,000 12,500 34,000 134,500 149,300 300,000 10,000 187,000 $1,472,900 147,290 103,103 73,645 $1,796,938 Huffman Substation (138-230kV) (Alternative 1) Unit STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 230kV Switch Structure 230kV Voltage XFMR Str. 138kV Dead End Structure EQUIPMENT 230kV Circuit Breaker 230kV 39 Switch 230kV Voltage XFMR 138-230kV, 250 MVA XFMR 230kV Reactor, 45 MVAR 230kV Circuit Switcher 138kV Circuit Breaker 138kV 39 Switch Control Switchboards SCADA & Communications Control Building Station Service Install Structures Install Equipment Foundations Furnish and install all other electrical work Testing Mobilization & Site Prep. (Site = 200 x 250) Design (10%) CM (7%) Administration (5%) TOTAL - HUFFMAN SUBSTATION MODIFICATION T&O S51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) Quantity - WN = = oe a GS ee) os LS: LS: L.S. Ls: L.S. L.S. 4-7 Unit Cost 25,000 8,000 1,000 19,500 140,000 12,000 12,000 950,000 450,000 60,000 70,000 10,000 60,000 12,500 29,000 46,000 38,000 271,500 242,800 350,000 10,000 250,000 Subtotal Extended Cost $ 25,000 16,000 3,000 19,500 140,000 36,000 36,000 950,000 450,000 60,000 70,000 30,000 60,000 12,500 29,000 46,000 38,000 271,500 242,800 350,000 10,000 250,000 $3,145,300 314,530 220,171 157,265 — $3,837,266 New International Substation (138-230kV) (Alternative 2 Unit Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost STRUCTURES 230kV Dead End Structure 1 25,000 $ 25,000 230kV Switch Structure 2 8,000 16,000 230kV Voltage XFMR Str. 3 1,000 3,000 138kV Dead End Structure 1 19,500 19,500 EQUIPMENT 230kV Circuit Breaker 1 140,000 140,000 230kV 39 Switch 3 12,000 36,000 230kV Voltage XFMR 3 12,000 36,000 138-230kV, 250 MVA XFMR 1 950,000 950,000 230kV Reactor, 45 MVAR 1 450,000 450,000 230kV Circuit Switcher 1 60,000 60,000 138kV Circuit Breaker 1 70,000 70,000 138kV 39 Switch 3 10,000 30,000 Control Switchboards 1 60,000 60,000 SCADA & Communications 1 12,500 12,500 Control Building 1 29,000 29,000 Station Service 1 46,000 46,000 Install Structures LS: 38,000 38,000 Install Equipment LS: 271,500 271,500 Foundations LES: 242,800 242,800 Furnish and install all other electrical work L.S. 350,000 350,000 Testing ES? 10,000 10,000 Mobilization & Site Prep. Ls: 240,000 240,000 (Site = 200 x 250) Subtotal $3,145,300 Design (10%) 314,530 CM (7%) 220,171 Administration (5%) 157,265 TOTAL - NEW INTERNATIONAL SUBSTATION $3,837,266 T&D 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 4-8 5. ENSTAR PERMITS & RIGHT-OF-WAY 5. ENSTAR PERMITS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY 5.1 PERMITS The final design, right-of-way procurements, and construction of the Anchorage to Kenai Transmission Line Intertie will require a number of Federal, State, and local permits as well as an application for the right-of- way across the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. The permitting process will also require Certification of Consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program. In addition to the government agencies involved, the project will require agreements with private concerns, specifically ENSTAR and CIRI. Following is a list of specific permits and their application: Permit Remarks Field Studies Permits Land Use Permit This permit will be required for any State of Alaska on-site investigation on State land. Department of Natural Resources Field Archeology Permit Required for any field studies. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Antiquities Permit Required if any objects of antiquity National Park Service are gathered on Federal lands during field studies. Cultural Resource Use Permit Assures that qualified persons are Bureau of Land Management allowed to use public lands for archeological and historical investigations. T&O S1 1066 Part #2 (5/1487) 5-1 T&O 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) Permit National Wildlife Refuge Special Use Permit Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Scientific Collecting Permit Alaska Department of Fish & Game Permits for Permanent Facilities Title IX Permit - Application for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities on Federal Lands Fish & Wildlife Service Alaska Coastal Management ProgramCertificate of Consistency & Coastal Project Questionnaire Right-of-Way Easement and Tide Lands Lease Department of Natural Resources Division of Land & Water Management Utility Permit State of Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities 5-2 Remarks Required for surveying, geotechnical, and environmental field studies. Required if any environmental studies require the collection of species Will have to demonstrate NEPA compliance. An EIS will probably be required. This application should be submitted concurrently with the U.S. Department of the Army application. Required for the actual construction of a line across State land. Required to locate line in State right-of-way. T&D 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) Permit Encroachment Permit State of Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities Discharge of Dredged or Fill Materials into U.S. Waters Structures or Works In or Affecting Navigable Waters of the U.S. Department of the Army Alaska Railroad . State of Alaska Structures Which May Interfere with Airplane Flight Paths Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration Federal Aviation Administration Conditional Use Permit Municipality of Anchorage Life and Fire Safety Check Plan for the Construction and Occupancy of Buildings State of Alaska Department of Public Safety Cook Inlet Region, Inc. 5-3 Remarks Required for any encroachment across or along a highway. This permit applies to all tidal influenced waters shoreward to the to the extreme high tide and their and adjacent wetlands. Primarily for subsea crossings. Permits to construct in or cross railroad right-of-way. Required to determine whether or not a structure will be a hazard to air navigation. Required for substations in the Municipality of Anchorage. Required for all buildings outside of the Municipality of Anchorage. A letter of non-objection to the wildlife refuge right-of-way T&O S1 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) Permit Fired and Unfired Pressure Vessels Inspections Alaska Department of Labor Building Permit Municipality of Anchorage Certificate of Reasonable Assurance (Water Quality Certification) Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Critical Habitat Area Permit State of Alaska Department of Fish & Game Anadromous Fish Protection Permit State of Alaska Department of Fish & Game Fishways for Obstruction to Fish Passage State of Alaska Department of Fish & Game Conditional Use Permit and Variances Alaska Department of Natural Resources Remarks For any construction or installation of pressure vessels. Required for all buildings within the Municipality of Anchorage. In compliance with Section 401. Issued in conjunction with coastal consistency determination. Could be required in areas adjacent to Potter's Marsh. To protect and conserve fish habitat in the State. in the State. For any bridge to crossing of stream. May be required outside of existing Municipality or Borough. Division of Land & Water Management 5-4 Permits for Permanent and Construction Facilities Permit Oil Storage Facilities - Oil Spill Prevention Containment & Countermeasure (SPEC) Plans Environmental Protection Agency National Pollution Discharge Elimination System - Permit to Discharge into Water Construction Related Permits Solid Waste Disposal Permit Food Services Permit Permit Foreign Labor Requirements Alaska Department of Labor U.S. Department of Labor Burning Permit Certificate of Fitness Journeyman Linemen T&O S1 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 5-5 Remarks Required for permanent facilities as well as during construction. From either construction camps or permanent facilities. For any construction camp. Construction camp. Remarks Required for the hiring of aliens. For disposal of cleared material. Required for persons engaged in construction of power transmission line work. Other permits which are not identified on the foregoing may be required as the project develops. This list isnot intended to be comprehensive. The application forms for Title Xl, ADF&G, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits are included in the following section. The coastal project questionnaire is also included. T&O 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 5-6 5-7 PERMIT SAMPLES ©*ANDARD FORM 299(11-83) recnped by DOW/USDA/DOT APPLICATION FOR TRANSPORTATION AND eqiater Notice 6=3— es eee ee PCRS FORM APPROVED OMB NO. 1004-0060 Expires: May 31, 1986 FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Application Number -OTE: Before completing and filing the application, the applicant should completely review this pack- age and schedule a preapplication meeting with representatives of the agency responsible for Processing the application. Each agency may have specific and unique requirements to be met in preparing and processing the application. Many times, with the help of the agency represen- tative, the application can be completed at the preapplication meeting. Date filed 3. 1. Name and address of applicant (include zip code) 2. Name, title, and address of authorized if different from Item 1 (include zip code TELEPHONE (area code) Applicant Authorized Agent (check one) As applicant are you” Specify what application is for: (check one) a. | New authorization b. Ee Renew existing authorization No. c. (_} Amend existing authorization No. d. & Assign existing authorization No. a. __ Individual b. Corporation * Partnership/ Association * JEL d. __'| State Government/State Agency e. LI Local Government f. ee Federal Agency e. eS Existing use for which no authorization has been received * oO Other * *I/ checked, complete supplemental page * If checked, proutde detatls under litem 7 3. If an individual, or partnership are you a citizen(s) of the United States? =! Yes =) No 7. Project description (describe in detail): ) Type of m or facility, (e.g., canal, pipeline, road); (b) related structures and facili- ties; (c) physical specifications (length, width, grading, etc.); (d) term of years needed; (e) time of year of use or operation; (f) Vol- ume or amount of product to be transported; (g) duration-and timing of construction; and (h) temporary work areas needed for construc- tion. (Attach additional sheets, t/ additional space is needed.) e < 3. Attach map covering area and show location of project proposal 9. State or local government approval: = Attached fe Applied for OO) Not required 2. Nonreturnable application fee: el Attached | Not required 11. Does project cross international boundary or affect international waterways? (| Yes (=, No (I/ ‘‘yes,’’ indicate on map) 2. Give statement of your technical and financial capability to construct, operate, maintain, and terminate system for which authorization is being requested. —_—_——————$— —_ eee (Continued on reverse) ze- 162 NOM TS40-01- 143-7017 l3a. Describe other reasonable alternative routes and modes considered. b. Why were these alternatives not selected? c. Give explanation as to why it is necessary to cross Federal lands. i4. Lust authorizations and pending applications filed for similar projects which may provide information to the authorizing agency. (Soec- t/y number, date, code, or name.) 1S. Provide statement of need for project, including the economic f ibility and items such as: (a) cost of proposal (construction, over. ation, und maintenance); (b) estimated cost of next best alternative; and (c) expected public benefits. 16. Describe probable effects on the population in the area, including the social and economic aspects, and the rural lifestyles. 17. Describe likely environmental effects that the proposed project will have on: (a) air quality; (b) visual impact; (c) surface and ground quality and quantity; (d) the control or structural change on any stream or other body of water; (e) existing noise levels; and (f) the surface of the land, including vegetation, permafrost, soil, and soil stability. 18. Describe the probable effects that the proposed project will have on: (a) populations of fish, plant, wildlife, and marine life, including threatened and endangered species; and (b) marine mammals, including hunting, capturing, collecting, or killing these animals. 19. Name all the Department(s)/Agency(ies) where this application is being filed. I HEREBY CERTIFY. That [ am of legal age and authorized to do business in the State and that I have personally examined the information contained in the application and believe that the information submitted is correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Applicant Title 18, U.S.C. Section 1001, ma it a crime for any person knowingly and willfully to make to any department or agency of the United St any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations as to any matter within its jurisdiction. oO)? 0 OO APPLICATION FOR TRANSPORTATION ANDO UTILITY SYSTEMS ANC FACILITIES ON FEDERAL LANOS GENERAL INFORMATION ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANOS This application will be used when applying for a right-of-way, permit, license, lease, or certificate for the use of Federal lands which lie within conservation system units and National Recreation or Conservation Areas as defined in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Conservation sysi units include the National Park System, National Wildlife Re: System, National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, National Trails System, National Wilderness Preservation System, and National Forest Monuments. Transportation and utility systems and facility uses for which the application may be used are: l. Canals, ditches, flumes, laterals, pipes, pipelines, tunnels, and other systems for the transportation of water. 2. Pipelines and other systems for the transportation of liquids other than water, including oil, natural gas, synthetic liquid and gaseous fuels, and any refined product produced therefrom. 3. Pipelines, slurry and emulsion systems, and conveyor belts for transportation of solid materials. - 4. Systems for the transmission and distribution of electric energy. S. Systems for transmission or reception of radio, television, telephone, telegraph, and other electronic signals, and other means of communications. 6. Improved rights-of-way for snow machines, air cushion vehicles, and all-terrain vehicles. 7. Roads, highways, railroads, tunnels, tramways, airports, landing strips, docks, and other systems of general transportation. This application must be filed simultaneously with each Federal department or agency requiring authorization to establish and operate your proposal. In Alaska, the following agencies will help the applicant file an application and identify the other agencies the applicant should contact and possibly file with: Department of Agriculture Regional Forester, Forest Service (USFS) ederal Office Building, P.O. Box 1628 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Telephone: (907) 588-7247 (or a local Forest Service Office) Oepartment of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs (BLA) Juneau Area Office, P.O. Box 3-8000 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 701 C St . Box 13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Telephone: (907) 271—S0SS (or a local BLM Office) National Park Service (NPS) Alaska Regional Office, 540 West Sth Avenue, Room 202 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 271-4196 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) Office of the Regional Director 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 (907) 276-3800 Note-Filings with any Interior agency may be filed with any office noted above or with the: Office of the Secretary of the Interior, Regional Environmental Officer, Box 120, 1675 C Street, Anchor- age, Alaska 99513. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Alaska Region AAL-4, P.O. 14 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 NOTE = The Department of Transportation has established the above central filing point for agencies within that Department. Affected agencies are: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Coast Guard (USCG), Fe Federal Railroad Administ al Highway Administration (FI WA), on (FRA). QTHER THAN ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANOS Use of this form is not limited to National Interest Conservation Lands of Alaska, Individual departments/agencies may authorize the use of this form by applicants for transportation and utility systems and facilities on other Federal lands outside those areas described above. For proposals located outside of Alaska, applications will be filed at the local agency office or at a location specified by the respon- sible Federal agency. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS (ltems not listed are sel/-explanatory) Item 7 ~~ Attach preliminary site and facility construction plans. The responsible agency will provide instructions whenever spec:- fic plans are required. 8 Generally, the map must show the section(s), township(s), and range(s) within which the project is to be located. Show the proposed location of the project on the map as accurately as possible. Some agencies require detailed survey maps. The responsible agency will provide additional instructions. 9, 10, and 12 — The responsible agency will provide additional instructions. 13. Providing information on alternate routes and modes in as much detail as possible, discussing why certain routes or modes were rejected and why.it is necessary to cross Federal lands will assist the agency(ies) in processing your application and reaching a final decision. Include only reasonable alternate routes and modes as related to current techaology and economics. 14 The responsible agency will provide instructions. 1S Generally, a simple statement of the purpose of the proposal will be sufficient. However, major proposals located in critical or sensitive are: may require a full analysis with additional specific information. The responsible agency will provide additional instructions. 16 through 18 — Providing this information in as much detail as possible will assist the Federal agency(ies) in processing the application and reaching a decision. When completing these items, you should use sound judgment in furnishing relevant information. For example, if the project is not near @ stream or other body of water, do not address this subject. The responsible agency will provide additional instructions. Application must be signed by the applicant or applicant’s authorized representati ut the ontin- If additional space is needed to complete any item, plea information on a separate sheet of paper and identify itas vation of Item’’ eee SS S—————s—aoqor (For supplemental, see reverse) SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE: The responsible agency(ies) will provide additional instructions. CHECK APPROPRIATE BLOCK I = PRIVATE CORPORATIONS ATTACHED FILED® a. Articles of Incorporation CI ay b. Corporation Bylaws oO fay A certification from the State showing the corporation is in good standing and is entitled to operate within the [al ome * State. LJ Ls d. Copy of resolution authorizing filing CO Cc) e. The name and address of each shareholder owning 3 percent or more of the shares, together with the number and percentage of any class of voting shares of the entity which such shareholder is authorized to vote and the name and address of each affiliate of the entity together with, in the case of an affiliate controlled by the ‘car | “| —- —- entity, the number of shares and the percentage of any class of voting stock of that affiliate owned, directly or indirectly, by that entity, and in the case of an affiliate which controls that entity, the number of shares and the percentage of any class of voting stock of that entity owned, directly or indirectly, by the affiliate. If application is for an oil or gas pipeline, describe any related right-of-way or temporary use permit appli- f cations, and identify previous applications. Oo Ci @. If application is for an oil and gas pipeline, identify all Federal lands by agency impacted by proposal. | (a 11 - PUBLIC CORPORATIONS a. Copy of law forming corporation oO (= b. Proof of organization oO c. Copy of Bylaws Cj C) d. Copy of resolution authorizing filing | oO Cc If application is for an oil or gas pipeline, provide information required by Item ‘‘I-f’’ and ‘‘I-g’’ above. C I - PARTNERSHIP OR OTHER UNINCORPORATED ENTITY . Articles of association, if any b. If one partner is authorized to sign, resolution authorizing action is c. Name and address of each participant, partner, association, or other CHO as If application is for an oil or gas pipeline, provide information required by Item ‘‘I-f”’ and ‘‘I-g’’ above. O “If the required information is already filed with the agency processing this application and is current, check block entitled ‘‘Filed.’’ Provide the file identification information (e.g., number, date, code, name). If not on file or current, attach the requested information. TE UE ena an nse es NOTICE The Privacy Act of 1974 provides that you be furnished the following information in connection with information required hy this application for an authorization. AUTHORITY: 16 U.S.C. 310; § U.S.C. 301. PRINCIPLE PURPOSE: The information is to be used to process the application. ROUTINE USES: (1) The processing of the applicant’s request for an authorization. (2) Documentation for public information. (3) Transfer to appropriate Federal agencies when concurrence is required prior to granting a right in public lands or resources. (4)(S) Information from the record and/or the record will be trans- ferred to appropriate Federal, State, local or foreign agencie when relevant to civil, criminal or regulatory inv: gations or prosecutions. EFFECT OF NOT PROVIDING INFORMATION: Disclosure of the information is voluntary. If all the information is not provided, the application may be rejected. DATA COLLECTION STATEMENT The Federal agencies collect this information from applicants requesting right-of-w: permit, license, le: , of certification for the use of Federal lands. The Federal agencies use this information to evaluate the ap- plicant’s proposal. The public is obligated to respond to this information request if they wish to obtain permission to use Federal lands. OOO —4 TITLE XI PERMITS 1. APPLICATION FEES, PROCESSING COSTS AND RENT CHARCED ACCORDING TO 50 CFR 29.21. EXCEPTION: COST RECOVERY FOR EIS WILL BE ACCORDING TO BLM COST RECOVERY PROCEDURES. i 2. REASONABLE PREAPPLICATION ACTIVITIES MAY BE PERMITTED IF DETERMINED NECESSARY BY APPROPRIATE FEDERAL ACENCY (EXCEPTIONS FOR DISTANCE). 3. LEAD AGENCY - AGENCY HAVING MANAGEMENT JURISDICTION OVER LONGEST LINEAL PORTION OF ROW REQUESTED. LEAD AGENCY COORDINATES ACTIONS IN REVIEW AND REVIEW AND PROCESSING OF SF2998 NEPA COMPLIANCE. 4. LEAD AGENCY NOTIFIES APPLICANT WITHIN 60 DAYS OF SUFFICIENCY OF APPLICATION. © 5. APPLICANT HAS 30 DAYS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION. 6. EXTENSION MAY BE GRANTED IF APPLICANT AGREES TO FILING DATE CHANGE. IF APPLICANT FAILS TO RESPOND WITHIN 30 DAYS SF299 RETURNED WITHOUT FURTHER PROCESSING. 7. AGENCY HAS 30 DAYS TO REVIEW AND NOTIFY APPLICANT OF SUFFICIENCY OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. IF APPLICANT FAILS TO PROVIDE ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION APPLICATION WILL BE RETURNED. | 9. APPLICATION CAN BE REINSTATED WHEN ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED. wwe wt: sayy ves Viel qseay ‘A Bed in 8 WE ees Sfp a Wo Wea! DECISION PROCESS FOR WILDERNESS SYSTEM WITHIN 4 MONTHS OF DATE OF PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF FINAL EIS OR FONSI EACH APPROPRIATE FEDERAL ACENCY WILL DETERMINE WHETHER TO TENTATIVELY APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE EACH ROW PERMIT WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1106(b) OF ANILCA. EACH FEDERAL ACENCY SHALL PROMPTLY SUBMIT TO THE PRESIDENT NOTIFICATION WHETHER ACENCY APPROVES OR DISAPPROVED AUTHORIZATION. PRESIDENT, SHALL APPROVE/DISAPPROVE WITHI® 4 MONTHS. © IF DISAPPROVED ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES EXHAUSTED SUIT MAY BE FILED IN FEDERAL COURT. IF PRESIDENT APPROVES HE SUBMITS RECOMMENDATION TO CONGRESS. CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL - TO APPROVE - SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MUST APPROVE A RESOLUTION WITHIN THE FIRST PERIOD OF 120 CALENDAR DAYS OF CONTINUOUS SESSION OF THE CONGRESS BEGI(NNING ON THE DATE AFTER THE DATE OF RECEIPT BY SENATE AND HOUSE OF SUCH RECOMMENDATION. AFTER APPROVAL APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES ISSUE AUTHORIZATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEPA COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS OF NEPA AND COUNCIL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REGULATIONS (40 CFR PARTS 1500-1508) WILL BE APPLIED TO DETERMINE WHETHER EA OR EIS NEEDED OR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION APPLIES. LEAD ACENCY WITH COOPERATION OF ALL FEDERAL ACENCIES WILL COMPLETE EA OR DRAFT EIS WITHIN 9 MONTHS OF DATE SF 299 WAS FILED. MAY BE EXTENDED FOR A REASONABLE SPECIFIC TIME ° . NOTIFICATION OF EXTENSION - AT LEAST 30 DAYS PRIOR TO END OF 9 MONTH PERIOD. IF EIS NOT NEEDED FONSI WILL BE PREPARED IF EIS NECESSARY - LEAD ACENCY SHALL HOLD PUBLIC HEARING ON JOINT DEIS IN WASHINGTON, D.C. AND AT LEAST ONE LOCATION IN ALASKA. ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME FG # ——— General Waterway/Waterbtody Aoolication - Soecific Instructions NOTE: Provide as much information as possible. If you need assistance, please contact the nearest ADF&G Habitat Division Office. The AOF&G reserves the right to require additional information for the proper protection of fish and game. Step A: Provide your name, address, and telephone number and the name, address, and telephone number of the contractor who will be doing the work, if known. Step 8: 1. Name of the waterbody in or adjacent to which the project will occur. 2. For Anadromous Stream numbers, refer to the Atlas to Catalog of Waters Important to the Soawning, Rearing or Migration of Anaaromous Fisn. a See 3. a. Provide plans (or field sketch) showing the following as a minimum: Access to the site, plan view showing all projec= features and dimensions, or crossing/fording sites; Material removal plans should also include, at a minimum, the following: §50' contour lines; nearby watercourses and Jakes; location of facilities (i.e., screening, washing, and crushing plants, and commercial and private buildings); aliquot parts identified in order they are to be mined;. site where fuel will be stored; a cross section view of the material site showing current land and water elevations and bank slopes and also, final excavation grades and slopes; and project expansion sites (scale no greater than 1 in. = 400 ft.) b. Provide specifications, if available; and c. Pravide a current aerial photcgrapn, if available. Step C: Ceseribe the type of project (e.g. bridge, culvert utility line placement, impoundment structure, bank stabilization, channelization, Tow water crossing, log removal, etc.) and the purpose of the project. A brief description of altarnatives considered would be useful but is not required. Step 0: Indicate the time of year when project construction will occur. Is the project temporary or permanent? Step E: What precautions will be taken to insure that fish and other aquatic _.. Organisms are protected from adverse impacts? Outline plan for restoring, rehabilitating, or revegetating the site if channel or bank alterations occur. What precautions will be taken to maintain State Water Quality Standards? Step F: Provide the waterbody characteristics at the site of the project. Step G: Provide available hydraulic information for the types of projects indicated. For information on selecting a culvert size that will ensure fish passage, consult AOFG permitters or references available at AOFG Habitat Division offices. 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, Alaska 99502 : Office Use Only FG # GENERAL WATERWAY/WATERBOOY APPLICATION a ALASKA DEPARTMENT CF FISH ANO GAME A, APPLICANT 1. Name: 2. Address: Telephone: 3. Project Contractor: Name Address Telephone: B. TYPE AND PURPOSE OF PROJECT: C. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE 1. Name of River, Stream, or Lake: or Anadromous Stream # 2. Legal Description: Township Range Meridian Section USGS Quad Map 3. Plans, Specifications and Aerial Photograph (See specific instructions) 0. TIME FRAME FOR PROJECT: to (dates) E. CONSTRUCTION METHCOS: Yes No 1. Will the stream be diverted? ~ How will the stream be diverted? How long? 2. Will stream channelization occur? Yes No Will the banks of the stream be altered or modified? Describe: List all tracked or wheeled equipment (type and size) that will be used in the stream (in the water, on ice, or in the floodplain) Hew long will equipment be in the stream? a. Will material be removed from the floodplain or bed or the stream or lake? Type Amount b. Will material be removed from below the water table? If so, to what-deoth? Is a pumping operation planned? Will material (including spoils, debris, or overburden) be deposited in the floodplain or in the stream or lake? If so, type Amount Disposal Site Location(s) Will blasting be performed? Weight of charges Type of substrate Will temporary fills in the stream or lake be required during construction (e.g. for construction traffic around construction site)? Will {ce bridges be required? F, SITE REHABILITATION/RESTORATION PLAN: On a separate sheet present a site renaollitacion/restoracion plan (see specific instructions), G. WATERBODY CHARACTERISTICS: Width of stream Depth of Stream or Lake a UT EEITEIEEEEEEEEE Type of Stream or Lake Bottom (e.g. Sand, Gravel, Mud) Stream Gradient H. Hydraulic Evaluation: Yes Ho It. Will a structure (e.g. culvert, bridge support, dike) be placed below ordinary high water of the stream? If yes, attach engineering drawings or a field sketch, as described in Step 8. For culverts, attach stream discharge data for a mean annual flood (Q22.3), if available. Oescribe potential for channel changes or increased bank erosion, if applicable. 2. Will more than 25,000 cubic yards of material be removed? If yes, attach a written hydraulic evaluation including, at a minimum, the following: potential for channel changes; assessment of increased aufeis (glaciering) potential; assessment of potential for increased bank erostfon. . I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL INFORMATION MADE ON OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. Signature ot Applicant ate FG# Office Use Only ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME SPECIAL AREAS PERMIT APPLICATION (For approval of a project or activity within a state game refuge, game sanctuary or critical habitat area) Pursuant to 5 AAC 95 This application must be completely filled out in order for the department to consider approval of a proposed project or activity. Please type or print clearly in ink. If a question is not applicable to your project, or you do not know the answer, please so indicate on the appropriate line. A. APPLICANT Name: Company: Address: Phone (day): Name of Responsible Party in the Field: B. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE Name of Special Area Specific project location Township Range Meridian Section Quarter Section USGS Map Is the project on: private land state land federal land municipal land ownership unknown Waterbodies crossed or otherwise affected: Is the project in the coastal zone?* Yes No If yes, attach a completed Coastal Project Questionnaire to this application. Cc. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT OR ACTIVITY On separate, attached sheets provide complete plans and specifications and all other details necessary to fully describe the scope of the proposed project or activity. Include, at a minimum, the following information: The purpose of the project or activity. *If you are uncertain as to whether your proposed project lies within the coastal zone please contact a Habitat Division office. The timeframe for the project or activity, including the specific time periods for any inwater work or other activities which may disturb fish or wildlife. A description of construction methods, types and quantities of equipment and number of people involved. A description of water use including methods of withdrawal, rate of withdrawal, and the total quantity of water required. A list of fill and excavation quantities including the types of material and the source. A map and description showing how access will be gained to the project area (use USGS 1:63,360 scale maps where available). A detailed map or plan view, drawn to scale, and any cross-sectional views necessary to show project features and local topography including the location of all facilities and project dimensions. A current aerial photograph of the project location (if available). D. OTHER PERMITS Identify other state or federal permits or authorizations obtained or applied for: ‘ MITIGATION: As a condition of project approval, applicants will be required to compensate fully for damage to fish and wildlife and their habitat by employing the most appropriate techniques. Where determined necessary by the department, a mitigation plan pursuant to 5 AAC 95 will be required. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED ON OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. Signature of Applicant Date Name of Applicant (please print) SUBMIT APPLICATION BY MAIL OR IN PERSON TO THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME HABITAT DIVISION OFFICE. Habitat Division Addresses: JUNEAU (Southeast Alaska - Region I) P.O. Box 20, Douglas, AK 99824-0020 (465-4290) ANCHORAGE (Southcentral, Southwest and Western Alaska - Regions II and IV) 333 Raspberry Rd., Anchorage, AK 99518-1599 (344-0541) FAIRBANKS (Interior and Arctic Alaska - Region III) 1565 University Avenue, Fairbanks, AK 99701 (479-3104) Form prepared 3/86 APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0702-0036 L (33 CFR 325) Expires 30 June 986 The Department of the Army permit program is authorized by Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 103 of the Marine, Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. These laws require permits authorizing activities in or affecting navigable waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, | and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Information in this application is made a matter of public record through issuance ofa public notice. Disclosure of the information requested is voluntary; however, the data requested are necessary in order to communicate with the applicant and to evaluate the permit application. If necessary information is not provided, the permit application cannot be | Processed nor can a permit be issued. One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over | the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned. APPLICATION NUMBER (To be assigned by Corps) 3. NAME, AOORESS, ANO TITLE OF AUTHORIZED AGENT . NAME ANO AOORESS OF APPLICANT Telepnone no. during Ousiness hours Alc ( ) (Residence) alc ( ) (Office) | Statement of Authorization: | hereby designate and authorize tO act in my Denaif as my Teleonone no. during business hours agent .n the processing of this permit application end to ‘urnish, upon request, | supolemental information in sugport of the application, Aa/e( ) (Residence) SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OATE a/c ( ) (Office) 3 4. OETAILED OESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY nl a. ACTIVITY Da pe 0, PURPOSE be, OISCHARGE OF OREOGED OR FILL MATERIAL — NG FORM 4345, Apr 83 EDITION OF 1 OCT 77 1S OBSOLETE (Proponent: OAEN-CWO-N 5. NAMES ANO AQORESSES OF AQJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, LESSEES, ETC. WHOSE PROPERTY ALSO AQJOINS THE WATERWAY —_— ee 6. WATERBODY ANO LOCATION ON WATERBODY WHERE ACTIVITY EXISTS OR IS PROPOSED | 7. LOCATION ON LANO WHERE ACTIVITY EXISTS OR IS PROPOSED — ACORESS: STREET, ROAO, ROUTE OR OTHER OESCRIPTIVE LOCATION COUNTY STATE ziP COOE LOCAL GOVERNING BOOY WITH JURISDICTION OVER SITE 8. Is any portion of tne activity for which autnorization is sougnt now complete? OCyres ONo If answer is "Yes" give reasons, month and year the activity wes completed. indicate the existing work on the drawings. 9. List all approvals or certifications and Ceniais received from otner federal, interstate, state or local agencies for any structures, construction, Giscnarges or other ectivities described in this application. ISSUING AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL IOENTIFICATION NO.” ~ CATE OF APPLICATION DATE OF APPROVAL OATE OF OEN'*', 10, Agotication is hereby made for « permit of permits to authorize the activities described nerein. | certify that | am familier with the information contained in this application, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, complete, end accurate, | further certify that | possess tne authority to undertake the proposed activities or | em ecting as the duly sutnorized agent of the applicant. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OaTE SIGNATURE OF AGENT OaTE The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement in Block 3 has been [filled out and signed. 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of The United Sta _ « knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shail be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Do not send a permit processing fee with this application. The appropriate fee will be assessed when a permit is issued. $/30/86 COASTAL PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE The State of Alaska has a system for reviewing and processing all the resource-related permits, leases, and approvals which are required for proposed projects in coastal areas of Alaska. As a project applicant you are required to complete this questionnaire. The questionnaire will help you identify if approvals are required for your project (or a specific phase of your project) from the Departments of Fish and Game, Natural Resources, and Environmental Conservation. Attached is a list of regional agency contacts and a map of the coastal area with the regions delineated. We urge you to contact the appropriate agency staff when you are answering that agency's questions. Once you have completed the questionnaire and attached the required applications you must submit this packet to the appropriate state agency in the region where the proposed project is to occur. YOUR PROJECT CANNOT BE REVIEWED UNTIL ALL APPLICATIONS ARE RECEIVED. Please use the following instructions for submittal. All packets must be submitted to the Division of Governmental Coordination, with the following exceptions: Ls If a fee is required, submit the entire packet to the state resource agency with the fee requirement. ; es If confidential information is contained, submit the entire packet to the state resource agency with that requirement. Si. If it is a placer mining activity, submit the Annual Placer Mining Application, instead of the questionnaire, to the Department of Natural Resources. 4. If you only need permits from one state resource agency and no federal agencies, submit the entire packet to the state resource agency requiring the permits. If one or more federal permits are required, submit the original federal permit application(s) to the federal agency and send a copy of those federal applications to the appropriate state agency along with your packet of other applications. If you have any questions concerning the process, please contact the Office of Management and Budget, Division of Governmental Coordination. If you have general questions about local, State or federal permits, both in and outside the coastal area, you may wish to contact the Department of Environmental Conservation Permit Information Centers in Fairbanks (452-2340), Anchorage (279-0254) or Juneau (465-2615). Collect calls are accepted. IF YOUR ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE NOT CORSECT OR COMPLETE AND AN_AGENCY DETERMINES THAT YOU DO NEED ONE OF THEIR APPROVALS, THEY WILL NOTIFY YOU AND YOU WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OSTAINING THAT APPROVAL, HOWEVER, THIS IS LIKELY TO CAUSE_A DELAY IN THE REVIEW OF YOUR PROJECT, TO AVOID THIS DELAY, WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO SEEK ASSISTANCE FROM AGENCY STAFF IN COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE. * * * * * * = * * * * * * * * * * * * * PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS. PLEASE INCLUDE MAPS OR PLAN DRAWINGS WITH YOUR PACKET. AN INCOMPLETE QUESTIONNAIRE MAY BE RETURNED AND WILL DELAY THE REVIEW OF YOUR PROJECT. PART A Applicant: Contact Person: Address: Address: Phone (day): Phone (day): Brief description of project or activity, including associated facilities Starting date for project Ending date for project Location of Project (include nearest community or identifiable land or water body): Meridian Township Range Section Aliquot Parts USGS Map Is the project on: private land state land federal land municipal land ownership not known Identify which region of the State the project is in (see attached map): northern southcentral southeast PART 8 Yes No 1. Do you currently have any State or federal approvals/permits for this project? If yes, please list below. Permit/Approval Type Permit/Approval # Expiration Date 2. Will you be placing structures, or placing fills in any of the following: tidal waters, streams, lakes, wetlands*? If you are uncertain whether your proposed project area is in a wetland, contact the Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch at (907) 753-2720 for a wetlands determination. If you are outside the Anchorage area call toll free 1-800-478-2712. -2- Yes No If yes, have you applied for or do you intend to apply for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) permit? (The COE has jurisdiction over activities described above.) Please indicate in Question No. 3 below, when you applied to the COE or when you intend to apply. Have you applied or do you intend to apply for other permits from any federal agency? If yes, list below. Date you submitted or Agency Permit/Approval Type plan to submit application * - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PART C DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Ne Is the proposed project on State-owned land or will you need to cross State lands for access? (Note: In addition to State owned uplands, the State has jurisdiction over most lands below the ordinary high water line of streams, rivers, lakes, and line of mean high tide of the tidelands seaward for three miles.) Is any portion of your project placed below the ordinary high water line of a stream, river, lake or other water body? Will you be dredging? If yes, location of dredging: Meridian (M) Township (T) Range (R) Section (Sec) Location of disposal site for dredged material: M T R Sec Will you be filling with rock, sand or gravel? If yes, amount? Location of source: M T R Sec Location of area to be filled: M T R Sec Do you plan to use any of the following state-owned resources? Timber If yes, amount? Location of source: M T R . Sec Yes Other Materials If yes, what material? (peat, but ding stone, silt, overburden, etc. ) Location of source: M T R Sec ————--— 5. Are you planning to use any water? If yes, amount? Source? 7. Will you be building or altering a dam? 8. Do you plan to drill a geothermal well? 9. Will you be exploring for or extracting coal? 10. Will you be exploring for or extracting minerals on state-owned land? ll. Will you be exploring for or extracting oil and gas on state-owned land? 12. Will you be harvesting timber from 10 or more acres? 13. Will you be investigating or removing historic or archeological resources on State-owned lands? 14. Will the project be located in a unit of the State Park System (including the Kenai River Special Management Area, State Recreation Areas, State Historic Sites, State Preserves, etc.)? IF YOU CORRECTLY ANSWERED NO TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS, YOU DO NOT NEED APPROVAL FROM THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR). GO TO PART D. IF YOU ANSWERED YES TO ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS, CONTACT ONR TO IDENTIFY AND OBTAIN ANY NECESSARY APPLICATION FORMS. If you have already contacted ONR, are you now submitting application(s) for permits or approvals? If yes, list ONR approvals for which you are now applying: Have you paid the filing fees required for the ONR permits? If you are not applying for permits, indicate the reason below: = as (DNR contact) told me on (date) that no ONR approvals or permits were required for this project. ___ 6. Other. wee ee eee ee eee eee eee ke eee ee ee ee PART D DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME —— 1. Will you be working in a stream, river, or lake (this includes running water or on ice, within the active floodplain, on islands, the face of the banks, or the stream tideflats down to mean low tide)? Name of stream or river Name of lake If no, go to question number 3. 2. If yes, will you be doing any of the following: a) Building of a dam, river training structure or instream impoundment? b) Using the water? c) Diverting or altering the natural channel stream? d) Blocking or damming the stream (temporarily or permanently)? e) Changing the flow of the water or changing the bed? f) Pumping water out of the stream or lake? g) Introducing silt, gravel, rock, petroleum products, debris, chemicals, or wastes of any type into the water? h) Using the stream as a road (even when frozen), or crossing the stream with tracked or wheeled vehicles, log-dragging or excavation equipment (backhoes, bulldozers, etc.)? i) Altering or stabilizing the banks? j) Mining or digging in the beds or banks? k) Using explosives? 1) Building a bridge (including an ice bridge)? m) Installing a culvert or other drainage structure? n) Constructing a weir? 3. Is your project located in a State Game Refuge, Critical Habitat Area, or State Game Sanctuary? 4. Does your project include the construction and operation of a salmon hatchery? 5. Does your project affect or is it related to a previously permitted salmon hatchery? IF YOU CORRECTLY ANSWERED NO TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS, YOU DO NOT NEED A PERMIT FROM THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH ANO GAME (DFG). GO TO PART E. IF YOU ANSWERED YES TO QUESTIONS 1-3, CONTACT THE REGIONAL HABITAT DIVISION OFFICE TO IDENTIFY AND OBTAIN ANY NECESSARY APPLICATION FORMS. 5 Yes No IF YOU ANSWERED YES TO QUESTIONS 4-5, CONTACT THE PRIVATE NONPROFIT HATCHERY OFFICE AT F.R.E.0. DIVISION HEADQUARTERS TO OBTAIN INFORMATION AND ANY NECESSARY APPLICATION FORMS. If you have already contacted OFG, are you now submitting an application for permit(s)? If yes, list OFG approvals for which you are now applying: If you are not applying for permits, indicate the reason below: __ a. (DFG contact) told me on (date) that no OFa approvals or permits were required for this project. b. Other. wee eee eke ee RR ke ee eee Ke eee ee eke ee ee PART E DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 1. Will a discharge of wastewater from industrial or commercial operations occur? 2. Will your project generate air emissions from the following: a) Diesel generators totaling more than 10,000 hp? b) Other fossil fuel-fired electric generator, furnace, or boiler totaling greater than 10,000 hp, or 9,000kw, or 100,000,000 btu/hr? c) Asphalt plant? d) Incinerator burning. more than 1000 lbs. per hour? e) Industrial process? 3. Will a drinking water supply be developed that serves more than a single-family residence? 4. Will you be processing seafood? 5. Will food service be provided to the public or workers? 6. Will the project result in dredging or disposal of fill in wetlands or placement of a structure in waterways? (Note: If you are applying to the Corps of Engineers for a permit for this activity, the Corps will automatically request certification from DEC.) 7. Is on-lot sewage or greywater disposal involved or necessary? 8. Will your project result in the development of a currently unpermitted facility for the disposal of domestic or industrial solid waste? 9. Will your project require offshore drilling or vessel transport of oil, or other petroleum products as cargo, or include onshore facilities with an effective storage capacity of greater than 10,000 barrels of such products? 5 Yes No Yes No 10. Will your project require the application of oi! or pesticides to the surface of the land? IF YOU CORRECTLY ANSWERED NO TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS, YOU 00 NOT NEED A PERMIT OR OTHER APPROVAL FROM THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC). GO TO PART F. IF YOU ANSWERED YES TO ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS (SEE CLARIFYING NOTE IN NO. 6, ABOVE) CONTACT THE DEC REGIONAL OFFICE TO IDENTIFY ANO OBTAIN ANY NECESSARY APPLICATION FORMS. If you have already contacted the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, are you now submitting an application for permit(s)? If yes, list the permits for which you are now applying: If you are not applying for permits, indicate the reason below: ita a (DEC contact) told me on (date) that no Dec approvals or permits were required for this project. b. Other. PART F To the best of my knowledge, this information is accurate and complete. Signed Date APPLICATIONS TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR PACKET AS INDICATED ON PAGE ONE. cp questionnaire/PERMIT +, INTERIM COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARIES OF ALASKA WHEN ON STATE AND PRIVATE LAND NOT SUBJECT TO AN ADOPTED LOCAL COASTAL PLAN —~—— tL aenne sonmany 7 MAGARD BONDAMT (ematy 3 atte teen) Const Lond “ue ee OFPKE OF COMBI mamasenmEnT ares ere 5/86 SOUTHEAST RECIONAL CONTACTS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES O11 _& Cas Activities ONR/O11 and Gas 400 Willoughby Ave. Juneau, AK 99801 (907) 465-2400 CONTACT: Bob Butts Mining Activities ONR/Mi ning Box 7016 Anchorage, AK 99510 (907) 762-4222 CONTACT: Jerry Gallagher Forestry Activities ONR/Forestry 400 Willoughby Avenue Juneau, AK 99801 (907) 762-4500 CONTACT: Jim McAllister Agriculture Activities ONR/Agriculture 915 S. Bailey P.0. Box 949 Palmer, AK 99645 (907) 745-7200 CONTACT: Dean Brown Activities on State Park Lands ONR/Parks 400 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 500 Juneau, AK 99801 (907) 465-4563 CONTACT: Linda Kruger All_Other Activities Southeast District Office ONR/Land and Water Management 400 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 400 Juneau, AK 99801 (907) 465-3400 CONTACT: Bob Merry *Street Address: 3601 "C” Street Frontier Building po/permit OEPARTMENT OF FISH ANO CAME OFC/Habitat Division P.O. Box 20 Douglas, AK 99824 (907) 465-4290, 465-4291 CONTACTS: Rick Reed or Janet Hall Area Offices Department of Fish and Came P.0. Box 667 Petersburg, AK 99833 (907) 772-3801 CONTACT: Oon Cornelius Oepartment of Fish and Came 425 Main Street, Room 208 Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-2027 CONTACT: Jack Custafson Department of Fish and Game State Office Building P.O. Box 510 Sitka, AK 99835 (907) 747-5828 CONTACT: Dave Hardy Hatchery Permits OFG/FRED Division 1255 West Eighth Street P.0. Box 3-2000 Juneau, AK 99802 (907) 465-4160 CONTACT: Jerry Madden or Kevin Duffy OEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVAT! ON DEC/Southeast Office P.O. Box 2420 9000 Old Glacier Highway Juneau, AK 99803 (907) 789-3151 CONTACT: Dick Stokes OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT ANO SUOCET Division of Covernmental Coordination Pouch AW 431 ,N. Franklin Street Juneau, AK 99811-0165 (907) 465-3562 CONTACT: Ofane Mayer Lorraine Marshall 5/86 SOUTHCENTRAL RECIONAL CONTACTS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Oil _& Cas Activities ONR/O11 and Gas Box 7034 Anchorage, AK 99510 (907) $61-2020 CONTACT: 8111 Van Dyke Mining Activities ONR/Mining® Box 7016 Anchorage, AK 99510 (907) 762-4222 CONTACT: Jerry Callagher Forestry Activities ONR/Forestry*® Bex 7005 Anchorage, AK 99510 (907) 762-2123 CONTACT: Oan Ketchum Agriculture Activities ONR/Agriculture 915 S. Bailey P.0. Box 949 Palmer, AK 99645 (907) 745-7200 CONTACT: Dean Brown Activities on State Park Lands ONR/Parks*® Box 7001 Anchorage, AK 99510 (907) 762-4565 CONTACT: Michel 0. Lee All_ Other Activities Public Information® Southcentral Oistrict Office ONR/Land and Water Management Box 7005 Anchorage, AK 99510 (907) 762-2207 CONTACT: Elaine Neilson *Street Address: 3601 “C” Street Frontier Building po/permit OEPARTMENT OF FISH ANO CAME OFC/Habitat Division 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518-1599 CONTACT: (Southcentral): Phil Sena Cary Liepitz Karen Oakley (907) 267-2284 (Southwest and Western): Denby Lloyd Kim Sundberg (907) 267-2346 Hatchery Permits OFG/FRED Division 1285 West Eighth Street P.0. Box 3-2000 Juneau, AK 99802 (907) 465-4160 CONTACT: Jerry Madden or Kevin Ouffy OEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVAT! ON OEC/Southcentral Office 437 E Street, Second Floor Anchorage, AK 99501 278-2533 CONTACT: 806 Flint Tim Rumfelt OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT ANO 8UDCET Division of Covernmental Coordination 2600 Denali Street, Suite 700 Anchorage, AK 99503-2798 (907) 274-1581 CONTACT: Patty Bielawski Louisa Rand 5/86 NORTHERN REGIONAL CONTACTS OEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Oil _& Gas Activities ONR/O11 and Gas 794 University Way Fairbanks, AK 99701 (907) %7%-6085 CONTACT: Ted Bond Mining Activities ONR/Mi ning*® Box 7016 Anchorage, AK 99510 (907) 762-4222 CONTACT: Jerry Gallagher Forestry Activities ONR/Forestry® Box 7005 Anchorage, AK 99510 (907) 762-4500 CONTACT: Craig Olson Agriculture Activities ONR/Agriculture 915 S. Bailey P.0. Box 949 Palmer, AK 99645 (907) 745-7200 CONTACT: Dean Srown Activities on State Park Lands ONR/Parks 4418 Airport Way Fairbanks, AK 99701 (907) 479-4136 CONTACT: Al Meiners or Dave Snarski All Other Activities North Central District Office ONR/Land and Water Management 4420 Airport Way Fairbanks, AK 99709 (907) 479-2283 CONTACT: Gayle Serger *Street Address: 3601 "C” Street Frontier Building po/permit OEPARTMENT OF FISH ANO CAME OFC/Habitat Division 1300 College Road Fairbanks, AK 99701 CONTACT: (Arctic) Carl Hemming (907) 479-0882 (interior) Al Townsend (907)479-0883 Hatchery Permits OFG/FRED Division 1255 West Eighth Street P.0. Box 3-2000 Juneau, AK 99802 (907) 465-4160 CONTACT: Jerry Madden or Kevin Ouffy OEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION OEC/Northern Office 675 Seventh Avenue, Pouch 1601 Fairbanks, AK 99707 (907) 452-1714 CONTACT: Paul Bateman (Arctic) Joyce Beeiman (interior) OFFICE OF MANACEMENT ANO 8UDCET Division of Covernmental Coordination 675 Seventh Avenue, Station H Fairbanks, AK 99701-4596 (907) 456-3084 CONTACT: Jan Sorice Patti Wightman STATE OF ALASKA / ees OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR POUCH Aw GOVERNOR JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-0165 PHONE. (907) 465-3562 OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT ANO BUDGET DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE NORTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE 431 NORTH FRANKLIN 2600 DENALI STREET 675 SEVENTH AVENUE POUCH AW. SUITE 101 SUITE 700 STATION H JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-0165 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99503-2798 FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701-4596 PHONE. (907) 465-3562 PHONE: (907) 274-1581 PHONE. (907) 456-3084 Certification of Consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program Section 307(c) (3) (A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended by 16 USC 1456(c) (3) requires that appli- cants for federal permits to conduct activities affecting land or water uses in Alaska's coastal area must provide certification that the activities will comply with the standards of the Alaska Coastal Management Program. The proposed activity described in your federal permit application may require certification. By filling out the attached coastal project questionnaire you, together with the State's resource agencies, will not only determine the necessity for this certification, but you will also find out if other State approvals are needed before your proposed activity can proceed. This will also assist you in filling out your federal permit application. Upon receipt of the signed, dated certification, a public notice can be issued and review of your project can begin. For additional information on the Alaska Coastal Manage- ment Program and project review procedures, contact one of the offices indicated on this letterhead. Please submit a signed certification and applicable State permit applications to the appropriate State agency indicated in the questionnaire. You must also submit a signed certification to the Corps of Engineers along with your Corps permit application. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the proposed activity described in the Corps of Engineers permit application complies with the approved Alaska Coastal Management Program, and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such program. Attached is a copy of a completed coastal project questionnaire. Signature of Applicant Date fc/permit/coe Attachment -A3SLH ern ae eRe ct a let ae ‘| | STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR > : eg aE Ba hth pe Se ete ee AG pees Rey, U sees CENTRAL OFFICE PHONE. (907) 465-3562 POUCH AW OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR / UNEAGRALA SEA G08 TOTES OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT ANO BUDGET / DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE NORTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE 431 NORTH FRANKLIN 2600 DENALI STREET 675 SEVENTH AVENUE POUCH AW, SUITE 101 SUITE 700 STATION 4 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-0165 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503-2798 FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701-4596 PHONE: (907) 465-3562 PHONE. (907) 274-1581 PHONE: (907) 456-3084 Certification of Consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program Section 307(c) (3) (A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended by 16 USC 1456(c) (3) requires that appli- cants for federal permits to conduct activities affecting land or water uses in Alaska's coastal area must provide certification that the activities will comply with the standards of the Alaska Coastal Management Program. The proposed activity described in your federal permit application may require certification. By filling out the attached coastal project questionnaire you, together with the State's resource agencies, will not only determine the necessity for this certification, but you will also find out if other State approvals are needed before your proposed activity can proceed. This will also assist you in filling out your federal permit application. Upon receipt of the signed, dated certification, a public notice can be issued and review of your project can begin. For additional information on the Alaska Coastal Manage- ment Program and project review procedures, contact one of the offices indicated on this letterhead. Please submit a signed certification and applicable State permit applications to the appropriate State agency indicated in the questionnaire. You must also submit a signed certification to the along with your federal permit application. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the proposed activity described in the application complies with the approved Alaska Coastal Management Program, and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such program. Attached is a copy ofa completed coastal project questionnaire. Signature of Applicant Date fc/permit/blank Attachment 5.2 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION A study has been made of the landowners affected by the proposed construction from the Soldotna Substation to the Huffman Substation. The alternative route to the International Substation would follow existing street and highway right-of-way. In the following section, a listing of all landowners are identified in three groups, Soldotna area, Kenai National Wildlife Refuge and Anchorage Area. The ownership listing identified all owners on either side of the proposed right-of-way when the right-of-way followed a section line. The actual right -of -way chosen may only affect these owners on one side of the section line. This is particularly true in the Soldotna are. In Anchorage, because it was not known of the time the ownership was determined, the owners on both sides of a roadway right-of-way or easement were determined. In some cases, utility easements exist and the line is routed on the utility easement. The ownership listing identified the affected owners through which the right-of-way passes. All other owners will therefore be immediately adjacent owners or have property along the street right of way along which the line will be constructed. T&O 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 5-8 T&O 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 5-9 LANDOWNER RESEARCH SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH (Wildlife Refuge) Legal Description T.5N.,R.7W.,S.M. Section 6 ALL Section 5 ALL T.6N.,R.7W.,S.M. Section 32: ALL Section 33: ALL Section 34: ALL Section 27: ALL Section 26: ALL Section 25: ALL Section 24: ALL T.6N.,R.6W.,S.M. Section 19: ALL Section 20: ALL Section 17: ALL Section 16: ALL Section 9: ALL Section 10: ALL Section 3: ALL Section 2: ALL T.7N.,R.6W.,S.M. Section 25: ALL Section 35: ALL Section 36: ALL T.7N.,R.SW.,S.M. Section 30: ALL Section 19: ALL Section 20: ALL Section 17: ALL Section 16: ALL Section 9: ALL Section 10: ALL Section 3: ALL Section 2: ALL Section : ALL T.8N.,R.SW.,S.M. Section 36: ALL Section 25: ALL Owner Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (Subject to Region. Selection AA-11153-26 by Cook Inlet Region Inc.) Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (Subject to Region. Selection AA-11153-26 by Cook Inlet Region Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (Subject to Region. Selection AA-11153-26 by Cook Inlet Region Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (Subject to Region. Selection AA-11153-26 by Cook Inlet Region Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (Subject to Region. Selection AA-11153-26 by Cook Inlet Region Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (Subject to Region. Selection Inc.) Inc.) Inc.) Inc.) AA-11153-26 by Cook Inlet Region Inc.) Soldotna to Anchorage Intertie Land Ownership Research Page 2 (Wildlife Refuge) Legal Description Owner T.8N.,R.4W.,S.M. Section 4: ALL Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Section 5: ALL (Subject to Region. Selection Section 8: ALL AA-11153-26 by Cook Inlet Region Inc.) Section 17: ALL Section 18: ALL Section 19: ALL Section 30: All T.9ON.,R.4W.,S.M. Section 33: ALL Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Section 28: ALL (Subject to Region. Selection Section 21: ALL AA-11153-26 by Cook Inlet Region Inc. Section 22: ALL as to Sections 33 and 28) Section 15: ALL Section 14: ALL Section 11: ALL Section 2: ALL T.10N.,R.4W.,S.M. Section 35: ALL Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Section 36: ALL Section 25: ALL Section 24: ALL NOTE: All sections subject to Rights-of-Way granted to Alaska Pipeline Company under A-051647 dated August 24, 1961, and AA-016453 dated July 27, 19785 SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH (Anchorage Area) Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. i T.12N.,R.3W.,S.M. Section 27 Knik Heights Subd., West Addn. Lot 1,Blk 1 017-03-5-20 Chugach Elec- Exempt None tric Assoc. Lot 1A,Bl1k 1 017-03-5-21 Chugach Elec- Exempt None tric Assoc. Lot 2,Blk 1 017-03-5-25 Merlin & Improved None Marilyn Anderson Lots, Blea tl 017-03-5-24 Harvey & Ver- Improved None nita Vestal Lot.47BLkaL 017-03-5-23 Leo A. & Janice Improved None Miller Lot 5,Bilk 1 017-03-5-22 Chas. J. & Improved None Charlotte Lloyd Lot 1,B1k.2 017-37-1-35 Wallace Lord Improved None Lot 2, Blk 2 017-37-1-34 Norman J. Neuls Improved None Otis, BLea2 017-37-1-33 Lenord W. Lewis Improved None Lot 4,Blk 2 017-37-1-32 Louis L. Kralick Improved None Lot 5,Blk 2 017-37-1-31 Merlyn Erickson Improved None & Gay Miller LOU 6, BLK ie 017-37-1-30 Christopher L. Improved None Rackliff Loti 7b Lk 2 017-37-1-29 John R. Delapp Improved None Lot) 18), Blki2 017-37-1-28 Rich. G. Melms Improved None SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 2 (Anchorage Area) Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.12N.,R.3W.,S.M. Cont. Section 27 Cont. McCabe Subd. West Lot 1 018-23-1-27 Gene R. Janigo Vacant None Lot 2 018-23-1-28 Wm. L. Fritcher Improved None Lot 3 018-23-1-29 Bethard Const. Vacant None Inc. Lot 4 018-23-1-30 Steven Minatani Improved None Olson Heights Subd. Lot 1,Blk 1 018-23-1-02 Harry D. McIn- Improved None tire Lot 1,Blk 2 018-23-1-17 John S. Powell Improved None Section 27 Cont. Lot 20 018-09-2-01 Morcelle Regina Improved 30°-8, Cox Line Lot 21 018-09-2-24 Geo. C. Boster Improved 50' W. Line Lot 52 018-09-2-25 Maves J. Lyons Improved 50 # Wie Line Lot, 53 018-09-2-49 Harold F. Sieg- Improved S0c2 Wr mann Line McMahon Subd. Lot 10,Blk 4 017-04-1-01 Chas. D. Went- Improved None worth SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 3 (Anchorage Area) Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.12N.,R.3W.,S.M. Cont. Section 28 McMahon Subd. Cont. Lot 9,Blk 4 017-04-1-02 Eric R.; Improved None Stephens Lot 8,Blk 4 017-04-1-03 David L. Improved None Spencer Lot 7,Blk 4 017-04-1-04 Donald G. Improved None Calkins Lot 6,Blk 4 017-04-1-05 Roy E. Pick- Improved None worth Lot 20,Blk 3 017-04-2-20 Robt. K. Baus Improved None McMahon Subd., First Addition Lot 21,Blk 3 017-36-1-01 William Cc. Improved None Heogy Lot 1,Blk 5 017-36-1-37 Dennis B. Improved None Marrion McMahon Subd., Second Addition Lot 2,Blk 5 017-36-1-36 Glenn D. Improved None Harding Lot 3,Blk 5 017-36-1-35 SueAnn Wiese Improved None Lot 4,Blk 5 017-36-1-34 John H. Kress Improved None Lot 5,Blk 5 017-36-1-33 Josephine Dagon Improved None Lot 7,Blk 8 017-36-1-48 Welton L. Improved None Laurence SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 4 (Anchorage Area) Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.12N.,R.3W.,S.M. Cont. Section 28 Cont. McMahon Subd., Second Addition Cont. Lot 8,Blk 8 017-36-1-49 Elmer Deford Improved None Turnagain View East Subd. Tract B 018-10-1-55 Municipality Vacant None of Anchorage DeArmoun Subd. Lot 9 018-10-1-08 Larry V. Improved None Carpenter Lot 10 018-10-1-07 Stanley Pickles Improved None Lot 11 018-10-1-06 Terry L. Camp- Improved None bell Lot 12 018-10-1-05 Melvin Couture Vacant None Lot 13 018-10-1-04 Samuel Marshall Improved None Lot 14 018-10-1-03 L. E. Williams Improved None Lot 15 018-10-1-02 Jack C. Mannuel Improved None Lot 16 018-10-1-01 Wm. H. Mattice Improved None Section 34 Elmore Subd. Lot 1,Blk 1 018-17-1-01 Tom E. Hughes Improved None Lot 10,Blk 1 018-17-1-26 Raymond J. Improved None Eastlack SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 5 (Anchorage Area) Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.12N.,R.3W.,S.M. Cont. Section 34 Cont. Elmore Subd., Addn. No. 1 Lot 1,Blk 3 018-17-1-27 Dan W. Skinner Improved None Lot 18,Blk 3 018-17-1-52 Daniel Ostrawski Improved None Lot |i, Bik 5 018-17-2-01 Daniel L. Ayers Improved None Lot 12,Blk 5 018-17-2-26 Allen Daniel Improved None Elmore Subd., Addn. No. 2 Lot 1, Blk 7 018-17-2-28 Robt. M. Henson Improved None Lot 12,Blk 7 018-17-2-51 Littlton F. Vacant None Buxton Jr. Lot 1,Blk 9 018-17-3-01 Bradley B. Berg Improved None Lot 12,Blk 9 018-17-3-24 Bradley B. Berg Vacant None Lot 1,Blk 11 018-17-3-25 Kathryn E. Improved None Elmore Timberlux Subd., Addn. No. 3 Lot 14,B1k G 018-27-1-67 Warren V. Vacant None Phillips Lot 13,Blk G 018-27-1-68 Warren V. Improved None Phillips Lot 1,Blk J 018-27-1-70 John P. Brandt Improved None Lot 2,Blk J 018-27-1-69 Jack W. Fay Vacant None SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 6 (Anchorage Area) ee ee Legal Tax Description Lot T.12N.,R.3W.,S.M. Cont. Section 34 Cont. King's Subd. Lot 4 018-27-2-04 Lot 3 018-27-2-03 Lot 2 018-27-2-02 Timberlux Subd., Unit No. 1 Lot 1A,Blk A 018-27-1-26 Lot 13A,Blk A 018-27-1-32 Lot 1A,Blk C 018-27-1-01 Ptn. SWSWy 018-27-1-02 SW Section 33 Lot 1 018-18-1-08 Lot 32(A) 018-18-1-18 Lot 32(B) 018-18-1-19 Lot 33 018-18-2-09 Lot 64 018-18-2-10 Owner Chas. & Jimmie King Chas. & Jimmie King Chas. & Jimmie King Sigurd E. Murphy Mary Ellen Shea Robt. V. Wolfe Lillian Smith Leslie McClellan Geo. Tillman Geo. J. Cannelos Calvin L. Haggard Truman W. Watkins Vacant/ Improved Vacant Vacant Vacant Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved Sec. Line Ease. None None None None None None None None 33) Ue Ei Line 33! E, Line 33° E. Line 33" Es Line SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 7 (Anchorage Area) Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.12N.,R.3W.,S.M. Cont. Section 33 Cont. Paulson Subd. Lot 65A 018-26-1-23 Michael L. Improved 33'! EB. Mulligan Line Lot 65B 018-26-1-24 Kenneth H. Improved 33° E. Berlin Line Section 33 Cont. Lot 96 018-26-1-09 Earl A. Robinson Improved 33" E. & Don Fabiszewski Line Lot 97 018-26-2-10 Richard M. Stone Improved None Ptn. Lot 128 018-26-2-11 Chas. T. Improved 33" Es : Masterson Line Ptn. Lot 128 018-26-2-13 Michael D. Ohms Improved aa 6. Line Ptn. Lot 128 018-26-2-12 Mary Jane Call Improved a3* &. Line Lot 129 018-28-1-08 Allen R. Tigert Improved 33 £E. Line Lot 161 018-28-1-09 Waldo M. Johnson Improved a3° £. Line Lot 162 018-28-2-09 Geneva Peterson Improved 338° Ee Line Lot 191 018-28-2-10 Rose S. Palm- Vacant 33° E, quist Line Lot 192 018-33-1-10 Michael L. Improved 33" BE. Gogger Line SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 8 (Anchorage Area) Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.12N.,R.3W.,S.M. Cont. Section 33 Cont. Lot 220 018-33-1-11 James D. Holt Improved 33° E. Line Lot 221 018-33-2-13 John D. Riley Vacant ag* ¥. Line Lot 251 018-33-2-14 John D. Riley Improved None Lot 250 018-33-2-15 Anthony W. Reetz Improved None Lot 249 018-33-2-16 Chas. N. Corey Improved 33" S. Line Mansfield Subd. Lot 2 018-33-2-28 Stephen Ss. Improved ss" Ss Talbot Line Section 33 Cont. Lot 247 018-33-2-18 Patrick R. Improved None Maitland Lot 246 018-33-2-19 Hubert Carlson Improved a3" Ss. Line Lot 245 018-33-2-20 Hubert Carlson Improved 33' Ss. Line Lot 244 018-33-2-21 Chris Walters Improved None Lot 243A 018-32-2-36 Millie Salvadore Improved None Lot 243 018-32-2-15 Millie Salvadore Improved a3" 8. Line Lot 242 018-32-2-17 R & L Inc. Improved 33' s. Line SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 9 (Anchorage Area) Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.12N.,R.3W.,S.M. Cont. Section 33 Cont. Lot 241 018-32-2-18 Marguerite K. Improved ss "Si. Nystrom Line Lot 240 018-32-2-19 Alaska Mutual Improved 33' S. Bank Line Lot 239 018-32-2-20 Vern Mahoney Improved 33' Ss. Line Lot 238 018-32-2-21 Vern Mahoney Vacant SSUouS is Line Lot 237 018-32-3-03 State of Alaska Vacant 35) Sie Line T.11N.,R.3W.,S.M. Section 3 Southpark Subd., Addn. No. 2 Tract A 020-05-2-17 Southpark Home- Vacant None owners Assoc. Section 4 N4NEYNEX 020-06-1-19 Municipality Vacant None of Anchorage Parks & Rec. Lot 2 020-06-1-19 Municipality Vacant None of Anchorage Parks & Rec. Lot 3 020-06-1-19 Municipality Vacant None of Anchorage Parks & Rec. SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 10 (Anchorage Area) Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.11N.,R.3W.,S.M. Cont. Section 4 Cont. Lot 4 020-06-1-19 Municipality Vacant None of Anchorage Parks & Rec. Lot 6 State of Alaska Vacant None Lot 7 State of Alaska Vacant None Lot 8 State of Alaska Vacant None Section 4 Cont. NSNEXNW State of Alaska Vacant None SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH (Soldotna Area) Audrey A. Whedbee Jr. Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.5N.,R.10W.,S.M. Section 26 Floyd R. Kramer Subd. Lot 1A 58-21-5860 Homer Electric Vacant None Assoc. Inc. Lot 1B 58-21-5960 Alaska Electric Vacant None Gen. & Trans. Corp. Lot 1C 58-21-6060 Homer Electric Vacant None Assoc. Inc. Shady Grove Est. Subd. Lot i, 58-21-01 Homer Electric Vacant None Blk 1 Assoc. Inc. Section 27 Golf Acres Subd., Addn. Lot 8,Blk 1 59-430-02 Gail A. Peter- Vacant None son Tract A 59-430-01 Gordon S. Best Vacant None Ptn. NE%, 59-430-11 Thomas R. & Improved None South of Gail Smith Hwy. Ptn. NE, 59-323-7 Edward J. & Improved None North of Junetta F. Call Hwy. Section 22 Ss SE SEX 58-031-26 John L. & Vacant None SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 2 (Soldotna Area) Miller Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.5N.,R.10W.,S.M. Cont. Section 22 Cont. Carolwood Est. Cont. Lot 3,Blk 2 58-33-23 W. J. Boles & Vacant None c. A. Cunningham Lot 4,Blk 2 58-33-24 W. J. Boles & Vacant None c. A. Cunningham Lot 7,Blk 2 58-33-27 W. J. Boles & Vacant None c. A. Cunningham Lot 8,Blk 2 58-33-28 W. J. Boles &. Vacant None c. A. Cunningham Lot 9,Blk 2 58-33-29 Jim & Audrey Vacant None Porter Lot 23,Blk 2 58-33-43 W. J. Boles & Vacant None c. A. Cunningham Lot 22,Blk 2. 58-33-42 W. J. Boles & Vacant None Cc. A. Cunningham Lot 21,Blk 2 58-33-41 W. J. Boles & Vacant None c. A. Cunningham Lot 20,Blk 2 58-33-40 W. J. Boles & Vacant None c. A. Cunningham Stout Subd. Tract B 58-31-10 Keith L. Stout Vacant None Tract A 58-31-9 Keith L. Stout Vacant None EXNEXNEXNE% 58-31-8 Boyd J. & Audrey Improved None SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 3 (Soldotna Area) Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.5N.,R.10W.,S.M. Cont. Section 23 Soldotna Heights Est. Subd. Lot 7,Blk 1 58-26-27 H. R. & Arlene Improved None Halldorson Lot 5;,B1lk 1 58-26-26 Donald E. & Improved None Patricia L. Orsborn Lot 4,Blk 1 58-26-25 Steven L. & Vacant None Tracey R. Crabtree Lot 3,Blk 1 58-26-24 Steven L. & Improved None Tracey R. Crabtree Lot 2,Blk 1 58-26-23 Kenneth A. & Vacant None Edith Nommensen Lot 1,Blk 1 58-26-22 Peggy J. Arm- Vacant None strong Lot 7,Blk 2 58-26-21 Don & Irene Vacant None Hegwer Lot 6,Blk 2 58-26-20 Frank B. & Ruth Improved None A. Sharp Lot. 5, Bik 2 58-26-19 Don & Irene Vacant None Hegwer Lot 4,Blk 2 58-26-18 Don & Irene Vacant None Hegwer Lot 3,Blk 2 58-26-17 Robert J. Improved None Heidel SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 4 (Soldotna Area) Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.5N.,R.10W.,S.M. Cont. Section 23 Cont. Soldotna Heights Est. Subd. Cont. Lot 2,Blk 2 58-26-16 Don L. & Jesse Vacant None R. Hewger Lot 1,Blk 2 58-26-15 Darcey McClary Improved None Soldotna Creek Subd. Tract 13D 58-15-14 Edward J. & Vacant None Junetta F. Call Tract 9A 58-15-12 Steve & Sandra Vacant None Goodwin Tract 1 58-15-1 Calvin J. Improved None Gerrard Tract 2 58-15-2 Stephen W. & Improved None Sandra L. Goodwin Tract 3A 58-15-21 Bill S. & Mary Improved None T. Congdon Tract 3B 58-15-20 Neal J. & Improved None Sheila B. Murray ‘ Tract 4A 58-15-23 Noel C. Edmison Vacant None Tract 4B 58-15-22 Noel C. Edmison Improved None Tract SA 58-15-24 Noel C. Edmison Vacant None Tract 5B 58-15-25 Noel C. Edmison Vacant None Tract 6 58-15-18 Randy Tkachenko Vacant None Tract 6A 58-15-54 Heselius & Improved None Lettis etal SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 5 (Soldotna Area) Legal Tax Description Lot T.5N.,R.10W.,S.M. Cont. Section 23 Cont. Soldotna Creek Subd. Cont. Tract 7B 58-15-55 Tract 7A 58-15-56 Tract 7C 58-15-50 Tract 8B 58-15-57 Tract 8A 58-15-58 Tract 8C 58-15-49 Section 23 Cont. N4, NEX 58-032-3140 Section 24 N4 NW, 58-032-2250 NWy NEX EX NEX 58-032-21 Section 15 Gibbons Subd. Tract A 58-12-22 Owner David & Robin Younger David & Robin Younger Heselius & Lettis etal Heselius & Lettis etal Heselius & Lettis etal Heselius & Lettis etal Kenai Peninsula Borough Cook Inlet Region Inc. Mary E. Miller John M. McKenna Vacant/ Improved Vacant Vacant Vacant Improved Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Improved Sec. Line Ease. None None None None None None None None None None SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 6 (Soldotna Area) Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.5N.,R.10W.,S.M. Cont. Section 14 Ptn. SWi SW 58-05-22 Charles E. Improved None - North of MacInnes - Denise Lake Rd. Ptn. SW SWx 58-05-23 John D. Improved None South of Amundsen Denise Lake Rd. Aksala Subd. Lot 1 58-05-24 Quacky C. Tucker Vacant None Lot 2 58-05-27 Quacky C. Tucker Vacant None Lot 3 58-05-28 Quacky C. Tucker Vacant None Lot 4 58-05-26 Larry & Susan Vacant None Semmens Lot 5 58-05-25 Quacky C. Tucker Vacant None Section 14 Cont. Ptn. Lot 10 58-05-30 Richard & Improved None Mildred A. Musgrove SW SEX 58-301-06 Gene J. & Vacant None George V. Freindshuh SE SE 58-301-05 Gene J. & Vacant None George V. Freindshuh SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 7 (Soldotna Area) : Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.5N.,R.10W.,S.M. Cont. Section 13 Derk's Lake Subd. Lot 1 58-301-02 Gene J. & Vacant None George V. Freindshuh Lot 4 58-301-01 Gene J. & Vacant None George V. Freindshuh Section 13 Cont. SEx SW, 58-032-47 G. J. & George Improved None SW SEX Freindshuh EX ES 58-032-25 Mary E. Miller Improved None Section 24 ES NE 58-032-21 James W. Harris Vacant None Section 12 Es SEX, 58-01-2550 Cook Inlet Vacant None EX Ws SEX Region Inc. NEx 58-01-1950 Cook Inlet Vacant None Region Inc. Section 1 SEX 58-01-1950 Cook Inlet Vacant None Region Inc. SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 8 (Soldotna Area) Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.5N.,R.9W.,S.M. Section 19 Lot 1 63-091-10 Mary E. Miller Vacant None Section 18 Lots 7,6 & 3 63-091-10 Mary E. Miller Vacant None Lot 2 63-091-09 Moose Range Vacant None Ridge Corp. Section 7 Moose Range Ridge Est. Lot 3,Blk 4 63-76-37 Moose Range Vacant None Ridge Corp. Lot 2,Blk 4 63-76-36 Moose Range Vacant None Ridge Corp. Lot 1,Blk 4 63-76-35 Moose Range Vacant None Ridge Corp. Lot 3,Blk 3 63-76-34 Moose Range Vacant None Ridge Corp. Section 7 Cont. Ptn. Lot 4 63-76-28 Theodore E. & Vacant None Valerie J. McKenney Lots 2&1 63-012-0150 Cook Inlet Vacant None Region Inc. Section 6 Lot 7,6 & 5 63-011-0250 Cook Inlet Vacant None SW NExX, .« Region Inc. EX SWi, SEX SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 9 (Soldotna Area) Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.5N.,R.9W.,S.M. Cont. Section 6 Cont. Lot 4 63-011-01 Spooner & Vacant None Condit etal Lot 1 63-017-78 Leroy G. & Oma Vacant None J. Hartman Sterling Crystal Estates Subd. Lot 1,Blk 4 63-017-64 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 2,Blk 4 63-017-65 John R. Miller Vacant None Lot 3,Blk 4 63-017-66 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 4,Blk 4 63-017-67 Mark L. Vacant None Chamberlain Lot 5,Blk 4 63-017-68 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 6,Blk 4 63-017-69 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 7,Blk 4 63-017-70 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 8,Blk 4 63-017-71 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 9,Blk 4 63-017-76 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 11,Blk 4 63-017-75 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 13,Blk 4 63-017-74 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 10 (Soldotna Area) Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.5N.,R.9W.,S.M. Cont. Section 5 Sterling Crystal Estates Subd. Lot 13,Blk 1 63-017-51 Sharon A. Deboer Vacant None Lot 14,Blk 1 63-017-50 Timothy J. Vacant None Sullivan Lot 15,Blk 1 63-017-49 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 16,Bl1k 1 63-017-48 Debra L. Claus Vacant None Lot 17,Blk 1 63-017-47 Mardi R. Lusk Vacant None Lot 18,Blk 1 63-017-46 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 19,Blk 1 63-017-45 Dwight A. Egemo Vacant None Lot 20,Blk 1 63-017-44 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 21,Blk 1 63-017-43 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 24,Blk 1 63-017-40 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 25,Blk 1 63-017-39 Terry F. Mc- Vacant None Dedrmott Lot 26,Blk 1 63-017-38 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 27,Blk 1 63-017-37 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 28,Blk 1 63-017-36 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page ll (Soldotna Area) Services Inc. Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.5N.,R.9W.,S.M. Cont. Section 5 Cont. Sterling Crystal Estates Subd. Cont. Lot 29,Blk 1 63-017-35 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 1, Blk 2 63-017-1 George C. & Vacant None Anita I. Gormsen Lot 2,Blk 2 63-017-2 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot-3;,Blk-2 63-017-3 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 4,Blk 2 63-017-4 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 5,Blk 2 63-017-5 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 6,Blk 2 63-017-6 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 8,Blk 2 63-017-9 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 9,Blk 2 63-017-10 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 10,Blk 2 63-017-11 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 11,Blk 2 63-017-12 Financial Vacant None Services Inc. Lot 12,Blk 2 63-017-13 Lloyd Stroucel Vacant None Lot 13,Blk 2 63-017-14 Financial Vacant None SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 12 (Soldotna Area) Legal Tax Description Lot Owner T.5N.,R.9W.,S.M. Cont. Section 5 Cont. Sterling Crystal Estates Subd. Cont. Lot 1,Blk 3 63-017-20 Maxim Inc. Lot 2,Blk 3 63-017-21 Financial Services Inc. Lot 3,Blk 3 63-017-22 Financial Services Inc. Lot 4,Blk 3 63-017-23 Financial Services Inc. Lot 5,Blk 3 63-017-24 Financial Services Inc. Section 5 Cont. Lots 2 & l, 63-011-0520 State of Alaska Sk NEX Kent Subd. Tract 3 63-011-59 Kent & Shirley Bibbens Section 5 Cont. NE SW% 63-016-06 Frank P. Mont- gomery Ptn. Ws SEX 63-016-14 Laverne F. & Beverly A. Wahl Section 4 Lots 4 & 3 63-011-4890 Alaska Baptist Assoc. Vacant/ Improved Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Improved Vacant Sec. Line Ease. None None None None None None None None None None SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 13 (Soldotna Area) | Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.5N.,R.9W.,S.M. Cont. Section 4 Cont. Lot 2 63-011-08 Kenneth R. Vacant None Schaefer Puckett Acres Subd. Lot 1 63-011-51 Randy D. & Vacant None Sandra K. Puckett Lot 2 63-011-52 Randy D. & Improved None Sandra K. Puckett Lot 3 63-011-53 Randy D. & Vacant None Sandra K. Puckett Lot 4 63-011-54 Randy D. & Vacant None Sandra K. Puckett T.6N.,R.9W.,S.M. Section 32,33, 25-14-1050 Kenai Natives Vacant None 34,35,36 Assoc. Inc. T.5N.,R.9W.,S.M. Section 3 Ptn. Lot 4 63-043-01 Jerald L. Henke Vacant None Ptn. Lot 4 63-043-42 Louis & Inez V. Vacant None & Lot 3 Henke Lot 2 63-043-41 Charles H. Vacant None Michel Lot 1 63-73-16 Wild Bill's Improved None SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 14 (Soldotna Area) Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.5N.,R.9W.,S.M. Cont. Section 2 WNW 63-73-21 Paul G. & Donna Vacant None M. Rumley Schlereth Subd. Lot 1 63-73-13 Walter H. & Improved None Billie Yoder Jacobsen Subd.,No. 2 Lot 3 63-73-01 Clark A. Improved None Jacobsen Jacobsen Subd. Tract 1 63-73-02 James R. & Vacant None Glenycee Hansen Section 2 Cont. Ptn. Lot 2 63-043-32 Rev. Trust of Vacant None Paul D. Huske Swanson River Road Subd. Tract 1 63-043-14 Virgil B. & Vacant None Nyladine J. Redmond Tract 2A 63-043-39 Leonard B. & Improved None Mary T. Pohl Tract 2B 63-043-40 Paul D. & Improved None Andrenia Harvey Section 1 Lot 4 63-043-18 Merle W. & Improved — None Betty A. Eiben SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 15 (Soldotna Area) Legal Tax Description Lot T.5N.,R.9W.,S.M. Cont. Section 1 Cont. Lot 3 63-043-1940 Lots 2 & 1 63-043-2050 T.6N.,R.8W.,S.M. Section 31 & 32 25-15-0250 T.5N.,R.8W.,S.M. Section 6 Lots 4 & 3 65-011-4850 Lot 2 65-011-0150 GOtCSi21 7). 16), 65-011-4950 15,14 Section 5 Ptn. Lot 4 65-48-06 Vail O-Mist Subd. Tract 1 65-48-07 Tract 2 65-48-08 Owner Kenai Peninsula Borough Cook Inlet Region Inc. Kenai Natives Assoc. Inc. Cook Inlet Region Inc. Cook Inlet Region Inc. Cook Inlet Region Inc. David T. & Janet W. McCabe James A. & Jane B. Fellman Ronald H. & Janet K. Moore Vacant/ Improved Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Improved Improved Sec. Line Ease. None None None None None None None None None SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 16 (Soldotna Area) Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.5N.,R.8W.,S.M. Cont. Section 5 Cont. Fiske Subd. Tract 1 65-481-27 Robert D. & Improved None Pamela Hansen Tract 2 65-481-26 Robert D. & Vacant None Pamela Hansen Section 5 Cont. NW4NWYNEX 65-481-22 Charles R. Ash Vacant None NEXNW3NEX 65-481-21 Robert J. & Improved None Linda R. Kuiper Lot 1 65-011-2450 Cook Inlet Vacant None Region Inc. Section 4 ALL 65-011-2350 Cook Inlet Vacant None Region Inc. Section 9 NEXNEX 65-012-2020 State of Alaska Vacant None Section 3 SSW, SEX 65-07-8050 Cook Inlet Vacant None Region Inc. Section 2 SW SW 65-37-1640 Kenai Peninsula Vacant None Borough SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 17 (Soldotna Area) Sec. Legal Tax Vacant/ Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.5N.,R.8W.,S.M. Cont. Section 2 Cont. SEX SW 65-37-1740 Kenai Peninsula Vacant None Borough SWh SEX 65-37-1840 Kenai Peninsula Vacant None Borough SE SEX 65-37-1940 Kenai Peninsula Vacant None Borough Section 1 SWiSW4SWa 65-072-0540 Kenai Peninsula Vacant None Borough SEXSWSW 65-072-0440 Kenai Peninsula Vacant None Borough SESW 65-072-0340 Kenai Peninsula Vacant None Borough SWiSE% 65-071-0440 Kenai Peninsula Vacant None Borough SEXSEX 65-071-0340 Kenai Peninsula Vacant None Borough NEXSEX 65-071-0240 Kenai Peninsula Vacant None Borough Section 10 NWi NW 65-07-9040 Kenai Peninsula Vacant None Borough NEYNW 65-07-8940 Kenai Peninsula Vacant None Borough NW4NEX 65-07-8840 Kenai Peninsula Vacant None Borough SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE LAND OWNERSHIP RESEARCH Page 18 (Soldotna Area) Sec. Legal Tax Vacant / Line Description Lot Owner Improved Ease. T.5N.,R.8W.,S.M. Cont. Section 10 Cont. NENEX 65-07-8740 Kenai Peninsula Vacant None Borough Section 11 NW NW 65-073-0140 Kenai Peninsula Vacant None Borough NENW 65-073-0240 Kenai Peninsula Vacant None Borough NSNSNEX 65-07-46 Sam E. & A. Vacant None Joyce McDowell Section 12 Stoneburr Subd. Tract 1 65-07-53 Mary E. Hall Vacant None Tract 2 65-07-54 Mary E. Hall Vacant None Tract 3 65-07-57 Mary E. Hall Vacant None Tract 4 65-07-58 Mary E. Hall Vacant None Section 12 Cont. W4sNEX 65-07-43 Joseph W. & Vacant None Magdalena Wayer 6. ENSTAR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 6.1 6. ENSTAR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION GENERAL The preferred alternative route along the Enstar Gas Pipeline crosses and follows the periphery of the Nikishka Lowlands sub-unit of the Kenai Lowlands geologic province south of Turnagain Arm. On the north side of Turnagain Arm, the route crosses a portion of the Anchorage Plain and terminates in the Lower Chugach Foothills. Geotechnical analysis of the route included a literature review of pertinent geologic reports, terrain unit analysis using color infrared, 1 inch to 1 mile stereo photographs, aerial reconnaissance and a series of test holes drilled in the public right-of-way in the Soldotna-Sterling area. Data from this analysis are presented in this Section. Beginning at the Soldotna Substation, the route traverses 4 miles of glacio-fluvial and morainal deposits, overlain locally by organic deposits. Boring 87-12, drilled in these deposits encountered silt overlying coarser granular materials. Pile foundations will likely be required in this area. The next 6 miles to the Moose River Valley cross older moraine and till sheet deposits. Borings 87-1, 87-8, 87-9, 87-10, and 87-11 are located in this segment. Borings 87-8 and 87-9 encountered fine to medium loose to medium dense sand, typically occurring in low rounded hills. Borings 87-10 and 87-11 were drilled in lower-lying areas between morainal hills. Soils encountered were typically organic overlying clay deposits. Boring 87-1 was drilled at the top of the morainal hill and encountered medium dense sands and gravels. Road cuts along the route between Borings 87- 10 and 87-11 indicated that gravelly materials were also present in the low hills in this segment. Piling or shallow spread footings situated on the hills would be reasonable foundation alternatives for this segment. Numerous eratics, some of considerable size, are present in this area and boulders may limit the depth of pile embedments at some location. Soils in the 3.5-mile segment crossing the Moose River are older outwash and lowland till deposits. Borings 87-3, 87-4, and 87-5 are located in this segment. Boring 87-3 is located in the Moose River floodplain. Beneath TAO 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 6-1 the surficial sandy silt, alternating layers of coarse sand and fine silt were encountered in this boring. Borings 87-4 and 87-5 encountered fine silt and organics over coarse, medium dense, granular materials. Wooden poles supporting the existing transmission line in this area show signs of severe frost jacking. Pile foundations are recommended for this segment. The next 12-mile segment, beginning approximately 3 miles west of the Refuge boundary and continuing east to Jean Lake Valley cross a terminal glacial moraine, with till sheet adjacent to the southeast. Borings 87-6 and 87-7 are located in this segment, to the west of the refuge boundary. Dense till comprised of silty sandy gravels and containing numerous cobbles and boulders was encountered in these borings. Organic and fine-grained soil deposits were indicated in the low-lying inter-morainal valleys, however, the morainal hills and ridges are adequately spaced to allow spanning these deposits. Shallow foundations, embedded poles or piling are recommended for these moraine deposits. Pile embedments may be limited by the high concentration of cobbles and boulders observed at depth in these soils. The Jean Lake Valley is approximately 1 mile wide. Older outwash deposits to the east of the proposed route terminate in an alluvial fan immediately to the west of the proposed route. From the Jean Lake Valley, outwash and glacio fluvial deposits are indicated for the next 11.5 miles east. Soils in this segment appear to be relatively well drained granular materials. Floodplain materials, appearing finer in texture, are present locally near stream crossings. Cobbles and boulders are present in most stream beds. Embedded poles are recommended in this segment, however, same piling may be required in areas of finer-grained soils. The next 12-mile segment ending at Big Indian Creek crosses a till sheet which abuts the mountain front. Soil overburden deposits decrease in thickness proceeding northwest along the line, with exposed bedrock in the vicinity of Big Indian Creek and northward. Soils in this segment are anticipated to be heterogeneous deposits of unstratified, unsorted materials ranging in size from clay to boulders. Locally well-sorted T&O S51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 6-2 granular materials appear to be present in floodplain deposits adjacent ~ creek beds in this segment. Use of embedded poles, piling or shallow anchored foundations should be considered for this segment. From Big Indian Creek to tidewater, approximately 5 miles, the line is anticipated to be buried cable. Approximately 4 miles are anticipated to be till deposits thinly mantled over bedrock. Soils are anticipated to be relatively dense containing numerous boulders. The final mile to tidewater is anticipated to be tidal deposits consisting primarily of saturated silts. North of Turnagain Arm, the initial mile from tidewater is anticipated to be tidal silts. The line is anticipated to be buried cable in this segment. The line proceeds inland at the Seward Highway north of Potter Marsh. The first mile inland crosses a coalescing alluvial fan at the mouths of Rabbit and Little Rabbit Creeks.. Sandy soils with some cobbles and boulders are anticipated in this area. The remaining 2 miles to the Huffman Substation cross a section of glacio-marine sediments, typically dense fine-grained soils containing some, but few, boulders. Appropriate foundations for this segment include, embedded poles or piling. Cast-in-place concrete caissons will be adequate for single steel pole structures. T&O 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 6-3 Generalized Terrain Units GMo . 2 e 3 Retuge Bound , joundar es eo Regs one GFI/Gto GMo i ‘Ge Enstar Gas Pipeline Za de | aerate | ce ree wees meet oem ls ; \ GM a’ GF/Gto Sterling Highway = Fpb Gu Gt .) GM AN ) Soldotna ¢ Substation é QS Go GF/G@to Gr < _Fpb Scale In Miles ve ————_—_ as 1 = Generalized Terrain Units Map 2 a“ $ 5 ie 3 a yh Fp A GFo ll ir | GFI/Gto N es \ X \ seccesl 98L) le i S cae UI B s/ y GM i GF/Gto 2 | ec A’ Gt Skilak\Loop Stg vo “ey Scale in Miles rm “ey —— | aa ' 0 1 ‘HARTCROWSER L O A-6087 May 1967 Generalized Terrain Units Map 3 O/Fp s Fp GF GF/Gto 4 GF j Trapper ( - - South Gas Line <j a) Landing Field Joe La ; - bel Ni j a Cu) eon Gt \% __GFo —, I et Gt ; ne 8 . Ye \ oem Cc’ Gt/N Cov ‘(HaRTCROWSER A-80867 May 1967 Generalized Terrain Units Map 4 Scale in Miles Burnt Island, HARTCROWSER A-8067 May 1967 Generalized Terrain Units Map 5 Turnagain Acm W2 ae te Scale in Miles 0 w2 Huffman Substation "Py URW)INH Bragaw St. 6.2 GENERALIZED TERRAIN UNIT MAP KEY* Metamorphic Bedrock (N). Metamorphic rocks are those which are formed by the alteration in composition, texture, or internal structure of pre-existing consolidated rocks which are subjected to heat, pressure, and the introduction of new chemical substances. The alterations in composition generally result in the development of a new suite of minerals for the rock. This class is utilized when the metamorphic bedrock includes two or more specific landform types which are too intimately associated to be separated, or when the bedrock type is not defined more specifically than being metamorphic. Delta (Fd). A delta is an alluvial deposit formed at the mouth of a river or stream which flows into a standing body of water, such as a lake or ocean. Deltas tend to form triangular-shaped salients of sediments into the water bodies. The forward margin of a delta extending into the ocean may also be subject to tidal influences, and thus, may have associated tidal flats. Delta deposits primarily consist of sandy silt. Alluvial Fan (Ff). An alluvial fan is a gently sloping cone-shaped deposit of alluvium formed where a stream course extends onto a relatively level plain such as where streams issue from mountains onto a lowland. Alluvial fans are composed predominantly of granular materials but also have varying quantities of silt. The primary depositional agent of this landform is running water, while a solifluction fan is primarily colluvial in origin. However, this class does include varying proportions of avalanche and mudflow deposits, especially in mountainous regions. T&D 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 6-4 Floodplain (Fp). A floodplain is comprised of deposits laid down by a river or stream and flooded during periods of highest water in the present stream regimen. Floodplains are composed of two major types of alluvium - lateral accretion deposits and vertical accretion deposits. In detailed subsurface profiling, it is sometimes possible to differentiate point bar deposits. These deposits are laid down on the inside of meander loops during floods which are lower than bank overflow stage and are intermediate in soil texture between cover deposits and riverbed deposits. This class is used when the precise floodplain type is not apparent due to mapping scale and resolution, and the relative size of the floodplain is in question. Braided Floodplain (Fpb). This class is utilized for floodplain materials deposited in a river or stream with branching, anastomizing channels, which are caused by the sediments within the stream acting as obstructions to the flow of the stream. This condition is the result of the stream possessing a much higher sediment load than the energy level of the stream can transport. Braided floodplains are generally composed of coarse-grained detritus, but the lateral and vertical accretion subdivisions of floodplain sediments still apply. The braided floodplain is generally unfrozen or is sporadically frozen in permafrost areas. Meander Floodplain (Fpm). A meander floodplain is one that winds freely in rather regular, well-developed, S-shaped curves. This characteristic is generally considered a standard habit of mature rivers. The meander floodplain, unlike the braided. floodplain, does not suffer the wide disparity between sediment load and the load the stream is capable of transporting, although at flood stages, the meander floodplain loses sufficient energy to lose not only the bed load, but the majority of the suspension load. This class is also divided into the vertical and lateral T&D 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 6-5 accretion deposits. Meander floodplains are generally unfrozen or sporadically frozen in permafrost areas. Moraine (GM). This class is composed entirely of glacial till deposited at the terminal or lateral margins of a glacier which has since receded or disappeared. Ground moraine deposits form till sheets, as described below. Lateral moraines form along the lateral margin of a glacier and are composed chiefly of materials contributed from valley walls by weathering, landslides, avalanches, and other forms of mass movement. Lateral moraines often join to form medial moraines, but these are commonly removed by stream erosion following glaciation. Lateral moraines usually appear as ridges of till on valley walls. Terminal moraines result from the recession and advancement of glaciers, but their size.and relative conspicuousness are determined by the duration of the glacial front's stay at that position, the sediment load of the stream, and the load-carrying capacity of melt-water streams emerging from the glacier. Slight oscillations during the recession of an ice front may result in an irregular belt of knolls and basins, often described as knob and basin topography. This class is usually utilized to identify these areas of irregular topography in till of discontinuous ridges, knolls, and hummocks surrounding closed depressions. These depressions may contain “lowland” till and organic deposits. However, the class is also used to identify erosional remnants of lateral moraines, particularly on valley walls. Moraines have also been divided into younger and older moraines, as described. Older Moraine (GMo). This deposit consists of relatively older moraine with a somewhat more subdued topography and morphology, and has more advanced basin-filling present than younger moraines. Older moraine deposits have a more integrated drainage network and a higher ground- ice content than younger moraines. This class tends to have fewer active TRO 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 6-6 organic deposits accumulating on the moraine due to the more well- developed drainage network. Till Sheet (Gt). This class consists of heterogeneous deposits of unsorted, unstratified sediments ranging in size from clay to boulders, which are transported and deposited by a glacier. These sediments may locally consist of poorly to moderately sorted sand and gravel with some boulders. A "till sheet" originates as ground moraine which is deposited in sheets over the landscape as basal or superglacial till. The ground moraine tends to be thin and relatively scarce in glacial troughs due to glacial-scouring and post-glacial stream erosion, but thick till sheets may accumulate on glacial plains to appear as a swell and swale topography. Some till sheets may be preserved on valley sidewalls and on glacial terraces near valley floors. This class includes erosional remnant moraines which do not display characteristic moraine topography, till layers left on valley sideslopes, and till plains with associated moraines and glaciofluvial deposits of similar age/event. Older Till (Gto). This variety of till sheet is distinguished by a subdued swell and swale topography, advanced basin filling, and possesses a more integrated drainage network than younger till sheets. Older till may have a higher ground-ice content than younger till sheets. Otherwise, older till sheets retain all the traits which characterize till sheets. Glaciofluvial Deposits (GF). This class consists of sediments which have been transported and deposited by glacial melt-water streams which flow within or beyond the terminal margin of an ice sheet or glacier. Sediments deposited by melt-water on, under, or within the ice are defined as ice-contact deposits. Glaciofluvial sediments also include detritus deposited by melt-water beyond the terminal margin of an ice sheet or glacier. T&O 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 6-7 Meltwater concentrates beyond the ice margin and accompanying deposition produces a thick fill of proglacial sediments known as outwash. These deposits may fill a valley leading to a glacier or moraine, and are termed a valley train. "Lowland" Glaciofluvial Deposits (GFI). This class is reserved for the more poorly drained phases of glaciofluvial deposits that occur on nearly level surfaces in depressions and in broad lowland areas. This unit is generally covered with open or dense black spruce and ground vegetation sited to seasonally wet ground conditions. "Lowland" glaciofluvial deposits are commonly associated with organic deposits, which may dominate the surface. They are frequently frozen and ice-rich and are subject to frost action. Outwash - older (GFo). This class of outwash consists of glacial drift which was deposited by melt-water streams beyond the terminal: margin of a glacier. It includes outwash fans, deltas, and aprons, valley trains, and both pitted and nonpitted outwash plains. These sediments are characteristically well-stratified and locally forest bedded, and are composed of moderately to well-sorted, clean-washed bedload sand and gravel with some boulders. This class is comprised of inactive outwash deposits; that is, the active processes within the area no longer include melt-water deposition. Tidal Flat (Mt). This class includes areas of nearly flat, barren mud or sand which alternates between periodic inundations by tidal waters and subaerial conditions. Tidal flats may occur on the oceanward margin of deltaic estuarine and alluvial fan deposits; in the quieter, leeward portions of bays and inlets; along predominantly depositional coasts; at the mouths of rivers; and in sheltered areas protected by reefs, rock promontories, T&O 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 6-8 rock thresholds, sand bars, spits, barrier islands and barrier island chains, mudbanks, and deltas. Tidal flats are frequently found in association with lagoons and estuaries. Tidal flats all contain salt-tolerant lifeforms, but tidal flats may vary widely in actual salinity depending on how open the flat is to saltwater incursion and the rate of influx of fresh water. This class is essentially barren of vegetation or only slightly vegetated, and is subject to frequent tidal inundation. Recently Emerged Tidal Flat (Mte). This class is essentially the same as Mt except that this variety has experienced recent uplift, and thus is much more vegetated and somewhat less subject to tidal inundation. Glaciomarine Deposits (MG). This class is utilized to represent complex areas comprised of marine, glacial, and lacustrine deposits in which the individual components cannot be mapped independently due to mapping resolution restrictions or in which the origin of the detrital sediments are not adequately described as marine, glacial, or lacustrine. This would include situations such as sediments deposited in shallow marine or estuarine waters in an aereal complex of submarine till sheets, ice-rafted materials, and quiescent water deposits. These deposits tend to be quite fine, generally consisting of silt and clay with some sand but few boulders. Organic Deposits (O). This class is comprised of generally thin deposits of decaying vegetable matter, humus, muck, and peat with varying amounts of fine- grained detritus (silt and clay) in swamps, bogs, marshes, muskegs, and fens. These deposits frequently occur in association with "lowland" deposits of all types and are generally frozen and ice-rich, and thereby subject to frost action. | T&D 51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 6-9 Fill and Embankments (Hf). This class involves all forms of artificial fill or embankment materials, including road and foundation embankments, dikes, and other artificial earth fills. Fill materials are usually obtained from a nearby source, and although composition may vary somewhat, artificial fill generally is controlled for all engineering parameters, and is often comprised largely of sand and/or gravel. Pond/Lake (WI). This class consists of any standing body of inland water of virtually any size. This water is chiefly fresh, but it may also be brackish. A pond or lake may be fed by a stream, or may simply constitute a rise in the ground water table, and lake waters may also occasionally flow into an external drainage system. Ocean (Wo). This class refers to any or all of the open bodies of saltwater which girdle the globe. The ocean includes all depth ranges from abyssal to littoral, although bays, estuaries, and fjords tend to restrict the areas mapped as ocean to the deeper and more open portions of the ocean. *Excerpts from "Alaska Land Resource Mapping Program Database Users’ Guide", December, 1983. State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys. T&O S51 1064 Part #2 (5/14/87) 6-10 Mackey Lakes st Hole Location Map Gagara Lake LeQenD Sterling Highway Enstar Natural Gas Line Existing Homer Electric R.O.W Kenal National Wildlife Refuge Boundary Local Secondary Roads Test Hole Location woe dadecccccce —es HARTCROWSER A-6067-01 1967 Boring Log 87-1 z g SOM INTERPRETATION g 3 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation in Feet Gray SILTY GRAVBLLY SAND, SP-SM Wet tray STLTY SANDY GRAVEL, GP-CH. Mo with 2"+ diameter gravels becoming depen. Cobbly Drilling $.5' to 8.5° Gray GRAVELLY SAND, SP Ory co moist, gravels to 3/4" diameter rounded Bottom of Boring - 15.5 feet No Water Observed ATD Completed 4/29/87 Boring Log 87-2 3 3 SOW INTERPRETATION 3 Aoproximate Ground Surfece Elevation in Feet 8 & Brown SAND, SP-SM Dry to moist, very fine Sile occurring in laye thickness. with trace to some silt. fry + typically 1/2” in ¥ Brown SILTY CLAY, CL-ML Moist, slightly plastic, trace to some sand, trace gravel. ALLL Bottom of Boring - 21.5 feet No free water observed ATD Completed 4/29/87 Thermal State Soll Group Depth in Feet Soll Group 10 18 PPes.5 1. Soil descriptions are interpretive and actua! changes may be gradual. 2. Water coments not determined on very small sampies nor Moles with significant gravel content. 3. Water level, if indicated, Is for tne date specified and may very with the time of the year. 4. Refer to Figure A-1 for exptaination of symbois. SS-2 SS-3 $s-2 ss-3 ss-4 Ss-5 ss-6 PENETRATION RESISTANCE Reesietance in Blows per Foot 0140-1@, wetgnt, 30-inen 14° 1.0. (SPT) 9200-1. wetent. 30-inen arop 2.8" 1.0. ($8) 1 5 10 20 50 100 Recovery (%) @ Natural Water Content (%) PENETRATION RESISTANCE Resistance in Blows per Foot O 140-1, weight, 30-inch drop 14° CT. (SPT) 2300-1. weignt, 30-inen drop 2.5" 1.0. (SS) 1 5s 10 20 so 100 | | @ Newral Water Coment (%) [| Recovery (%) nnn < A-8087-01 May 1987 Hart-Crowser & associates inc. Figure Boring Log 87-3 SOR INTERPRETATION Approximate Ground Surface Elevation in Feet Soll Group Graptic Log Dark brown to brown SANDY SIL™, ML Frozen to vet with numerous roots 0.9" and 2.0' Alternating layer 2" to 6” in thickness fr Brown GRAVELLY SAND, SP Vet Olive SILT, ML Moist to wet Srown SANDY GRAVEL, GP, saturated Bottom of Boring - 12.5 feet Auger refused on boulder Pree water observed at !0.5 ATD Completed 4/30/87 . s es Boring Log 87-4 fog s& ° SOK INTERPRETATION 2 - s Approximate Ground Surface Elevation in Feet a a Q Organic mac - 12" Gray SILTY SAND, SM Wet, with silt lenses at approx. 3" intervals s brown SANDY GRAVRI, GP. er to Gray SAND, SP Saturated, trace gravel 10 Bottom of boring - '4.0 feet Pree water at 7.5 feet while drilling, hole 16 collapsed to 3,0 feet upon removal of auger Completed 4/30/87 20 26 30 Notes: 1, Sot descriptions are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 2. Water contents not determined on very small samoies nor samples with significam grevei content. 3. Water level, if indicated, is for tne date specified and may very with the time of the year. 4. Reter to Figure A-1 for expiaination of symbols. = = e © PENETRATION RESISTANCE Resistance in Blows per Foot a wei@nt, 30-inen arog 1.4" 1.0. (SPT) or”. weignt, 30-inch drop 2.8° 1.0. (SS) 1 5 10 20 $0 100 Sample Recovery (%) Gel SS-2 ss-3 Ss-4 @ Natural Water Content (%) . 2. PENETRATION RESISTANCE 5 Resistance in Blows per Foot = 3 0 140-10, werent, 30-inen droo 1.4° DO. (SPT) 3 -4300-m. weignt, 30-inen drop 2.8" 1.0. (38) a 1 5 10 «20 $0 100 G-1 SS-2 Fs) SS-4 @ Newel Water Content (%) A- 8087-01 May 1987 Hart-Crowser & associates inc. Figure Boring Log 87-5 25 gai 3 ts 8 ; SOK INTERPRETATION 3 ; € = 2 3 Aporoximete Ground Surtace Elevation in Feet oF 3 ° a © a Organic SILT, OL, frozen to 6 inches N Gray SILTY CLAY, CL N G-1 Frozen to wec, slightly plastic N N 5 PP=2.8 © SS-2 Gray SILT GRA’ LY SAND, SM. Moise to wee with . rounded gravels SS-3 4 1 3 Ss-4 Z 18 $8-5 Gray GRAVELLY SAND, SP R 7: Saturated 20 S$S-6 Bottom of Boring - 21. Pree vater observed at feet ATD Standing water at 5.0 yet AB Completed 4/30/87 256 30 . se Boring Log 87-6 ga 4 2 SOK, INTERPRETATION 3 2 S -» 3 s Approximate Ground Surtace Elevation in Feet 3 é 6 3 © a 0 Gray SANDY SILT, ML Dry, trace gravel a= y SILTY GRAVELLY SAND, SM ~B 5 Dry to damp, with numerous cobbles and boulders, $8-2 increasing in frequency with depth 10 SS-3 18 Bottom of Boring - 15.0 feet Auger stopped on boulder No free vater observed ATD Completed 4/30/87 20 25 30 Notes: 1. Sot descriptions are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 2. Water contents not determined on very smail sampies nor samoles with significant gravel content. 3. Water level, if indicated, is for the date specified and may very with the tne of ine year. 4. Reter to Figure A-1 for explaination of symbols. PENETRATION RESISTANCE Resistance in Blows per Foot Recovery (%) O140-1@, weignt, 30-inen ar: "1.0. (SPT) $200-*. wet@nt, 30-inen drop 2.8° 1.0. (88) 1 5 10 20 $0 100 @ Netural Water Content (%) PENETRATION RESISTANCE Resistance in Blows per Foot 0 140-10, weignt, 30-inen drop 1.4° D. (SPT) 4300-1. weignt, 20-inah drop 2.6° 1.0. (SS) 1 5 10 20 $0 100 Recovery (%) @ Nature! Water Comment (%) A-8087-01 May 1987 Hart-Crowser & associates inc. Figure Boring Log 87-7 SOK INTERPRETATION Aooroximate Ground Surface Elevation in Feet Gray SILTY SAND, SM Dry to damp, trace grave) Gray SILTY SANDY GRAVEL. GM Dry to damp, numerous cobbles and boulders increasing in frequency vith depth (Grab sample taken at auger Sit) Bottom of Boring - 20.0 feet No free water observed ATD Completed 4/30/87 Boring Log 87-8 SOW INTERPRETATION Approximate Ground Surface Elevation in Feet Brown SANDY SILT, ML Vee Brown SANDY, SP Moist, with occasional fine silt ‘enses Gravel layer, 2" thick at 4 feet, rust orange stained layering below 9 feec Bottom of Boring - 20 feet No free water observed ATD Completed 5/1/87 Notes: Graphic Log Thermal State Depth in Feet ° 30 Soll Group 1, Sot descriptions are interpretive and ectual changes may be gradual. 2. Water contents not determined on very smail sampies nor samoles with significant gravel content. 3. Water level. i! indicated. is for tne date specified and may very with the time of the yeer. 4. Reter 10 Figure A-1 for explaination of symbols. Ss-3 ss-4 $$-2 $S-3 SS-4 S$-5 SS-6 Resistance in Blows per Foot O140-1. weignt, 20-inen Groep 1.4" 1D. (SPT) 9 200-%. weient, 20-1nen aroe 2.5" 1.0. ($8) 1 5 10 «20 $0 100 2 ; PENETRATION RESISTANCE ° 3 <c ° ja ° jo ° @ Natural Water Content (%) PENETRATION RESISTANCE Resistance in Blows per Foot O 140-1, weight, 30-inen drop 1.4° DO. (SPT) 4300-1. weight, 30-inen aroo 2.5° 1.0. (SS) 5 10 «20 Recovery (%) $0 100 @ Natural Water Content (%) A- 8087-01 May 1987 Hart-Crowser & associates inc. Figure Boring Log 87-9 SOK INTERPRETATION Aporoximate Ground Surtece Elevation in Feet Brown SILTY SAND, SM Damp to moist, with some gravels Gray SAND, SP Moise with trace silt, ocrurring ‘n fine lenses — ——. Gray SILTY SAND, SM Moist Bottom of Boring - 20.5 feet No free water observed, ATD Completed 5/1/87 Boring Log 87-10 SOM INTERPRETATION Aoproximate Ground Surtace Elevetion in Feet Graphic Log Gray SANDY SILT, ML "et to moist, slightly plastic, with trace to some fine gravel (Pushed oversized grave! at 5 feet) — Gray SILTY GRAVELLY SAND, SM Moist Gray SANDY SILTY CLAY, CL-ML Moist, trace gravel Bottom of Boring - 16.0 feet No free water observed ATD Completed 5/1/87 3 - s i ‘0 8 10 16 20 25 Soli Group 1. Sott descriptions are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 2. Water contents not determined on very small sampies nor samoies with significant gravel content. 3. Water level, if indicated, is for tne di may very with the time of the yeer. 4. Reter to Figure A-1 for expiaination of symbols. specified and Tests Tests Sample Ss-3 Ss-4 SS-6 SS-2 SS-3 ss-4 Resistance in Blows per Foot 3 O140-1B, weight, 30-inen grow 1.4" 1.0. (SPT) e 200-8. weignt, 30-inen drop 2.5" 1.0. (SS) 1 5 10 20 $0 100 5 PENETRATION RESISTANCE ee >< = @ Natural Water Content (%) PENETRATION RESISTANCE Resistance in Blows per Foot 0 140-1, weigmt, 30-inen arop 14° D. (SPT) 4300-1, weight, 30-inon drop 2.5° 1.0. (SS) 4 5 10 20 $0 100 Recovery (%) A-8087-01 May 1987 Hart-Crowser & associates inc. Figure Boring Log 87-11 SOK INTERPRETATION Aporoximate Ground Surtace Elevation in Feet Brown SANDY, CLAYEY SILT, ML Wet to saturated Brown SILTY SAND, SM Moist, rust stained layering Brown to olive SILTY CLAY, CL Moist to wet, plastic with trace to some grave! bite LLL Bottom of Boring - 16.5 feet. No free water observed ATD. Completed 5/1/87. Boring Log 87-12 SOM INTERPRETATION Approximate Ground Surface Elevation in Feet Brown to gray SANDY SILT, ML Saturated to wet, slight!y organic to 2 feet Rust mottling with some gravel at 5 feet Brown SILTY SANDY GRAYSL, G?-GH Saturated Brown SILTY SAND, SM Saturated, containing numerous fine layers of sandy silt Bottom of Boring - 20.5 feet Pree water observed at 8.5 feat ATD Completed 5/2/87 Notes: Graphic Log Thermal State Depth in Fi 30 Tests S$S-2 AL ss-3 PP*1.8 ss-4 ss-s Soll Group SS-2 $s-3 ss-« 1. Sotl descriptions ere interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 2. Water contents not determined on very small sempies nor samples with significant gravel content. 3. Water level, if indicated, is for the date specified and may vary with the time of the yeer. 4. Reter to Figure A-1 for explaination of symbdois. I > PENETRATION RESISTANCE 5 Resistance in Blows per Foot 3 O140-1@. weignt, 30-inen drop 1.4" 1.0. (SPT) é o70e*- weignt, 30-inen drop 2.5° 1.0. ($S) 1 5 10 «20 $0 100 @ Natural Water Content (%) PENETRATION RESISTANCE Resistance in Blows per Foot 0 140-1. weight, 30-inen drop 1.4° E. (SPT) £200-. weignt, 30-imen crop 2.5° 1.0. (SS) 1 s 10 «20 $0 100 qT FF} Recovery (%) A-8087-01 May 1987 Hart-Crowser & associates inc. Figure 7. ENSTAR ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 7. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION-PREFERRED ROUTE 7.1 7.1.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT Information on each environmental factor presented in Section Seven (7) of Part One (1) is discussed in more detail for the Enstar route in the following sections, and the potential impact of constructing and operating the Enstar route is assessed. Where applicable, the assessment considers construction and other practices identified to date that will minimize impacts. Water Quality Stream Crossings Based on examination of 1:63,360 maps and site visits, 20 stream crossings have been identified. Between the Soldotna substation and the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge boundary, the line would cross Soldotna Creek twice, and the Moose River. Within the Refuge, there would be 15 crossings from the southwest boundary toward Chickaloon Flats, as follows: East Fork Moose River Two unnamed tributaries to the Moose River Two forks of an unnamed tributary to Bear Lake Mystery Creek Two unnamed tributaries between Mystery Creek and the Chickaloon River Two unnamed tributaries to the Chickaloon River Unnamed tributary to Trapper Joe Lake Two unnamed tributaries to the Chickaloon River Big Indian Creek Inthe Municipality of Anchorage, the line would cross Rabbit Creek twice overhead and once buried. Within the Refuge, the existing road in the “MC 51 06d Sart e2 (S °2.87) 7-1 Enstar pipeline right-of-way would be utilized for surveying, soil sampling, and installation of poles. Bridges or culverts would be constructed at all stream crossings as needed during the time window May 12th to June 15th. There is currently a bridge at Chickaloon Creek that would probably have to be upgraded, and at least 7 more bridges would be required. Road repair as necessary and bridge and culvert construction could reduce erosion and assist Refuge management objectives to increase maintenance efforts (1985b). Between the Soldotna substation and the Refuge boundary, and in the Anchorage area, the new right-of-way can be accessed from the existing road system, and no maintenance road would be constructed. ° For all stream crossings, poles would be located with adequate setbacks from either side of stream banks, and a minimum of 150 feet from either side of the East Fork of the Moose River, in accordance with Refuge stipulations. Within the Refuge, each of the three conductors would be strung after freeze up utilizing track-mounted cable stringing equipment, and the stream bed would be protected by the ice cover. Outside the Refuge, cable stringing operations would be timed to avoid stream crossings during periods critical for fish utilization, as prescribed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. In general, for the 3 streams in the Anchorage bowl and on the Kenai Peninsula, streams may be crossed between May 15 and June 15, and after freeze up. If the streams were not frozen, there would be some disturbance of bottom sediments and temporary degradation of water quality. Excavation - Buried Cable About 5 miles of excavation would be required to bury cable across Chickaloon Flats from the south end of the airstrip, and about .5 miles of excavation would be required to bury cable in the west side of the Alaska Railroad right-of-way. The terrain is relatively flat in both areas. Excavated material would be used as backfill. Sediments would be prevented from washing into adjacent streams or ponds. Protective berms would be utilized outside of the Alaska Railroad right-of-way to prevent material from washing onto wetlands and tidal flats. "SO Si 1068 Fart #2 (5.14.87) 7-2 The line would be buried under Little Indian Creek and Burnt Island Creek in the Refuge and Rabbit Creek in Anchorage to a depth below the stream scour depth. The work would be completed between May 15 and June 15th. Equipment would be brought in prior to breakup. This would cause a short-term increase in sedimentation. Excavation - Submarine Cable Approximately 9.1 miles of excavation would be required for placing the submarine cable across Turnagain Arm. There would be a short-term increase in sedimentation as the line is buried. Since Turnagain Arm carries a very heavy suspended sediment load, the short-term increase in sedimentation would be insignificant. Backfilling would be required in near shore areas. Clearing Clearing along the entire right-of-way would be limited to the cutting of and removal of large trees below the conductors. Tree stumps would be leftin place. Once trees are felled and removed other vegetation would be allowed to reestablish. Site clearing would be required for the new substation in Soldotna, the terminal pumping stations in Anchorage and near Chickaloon Flats, and the expansion of the Huffman substation. As the right-of-way and project facilities would be located on relatively flat terrain, clearing operations would not result in significant erosion or sediment flow into streams. Summary Although there would be a short-term increase in sedimentation resulting from installation of submarine cable, from burying cable beneath Little Indian Creek and Burnt Island Creek, and from stringing cable across streams outside the Refuge, (if strung during the open water "4051 (26a Part #2 15 1487) 7-3 7.1.2 7.1.3 season), impacts on water quality are expected to be minor and temporary Floodplains There are no floodplains along the Enstar route. The portion of Rabbit Creek crossed by the route has been designated as a regulatory floodplain (Municipality of Anchorage 1980) for federal flood hazard insurance purposes. To avoid impeding flood flows, structures would be placed on either side of the designated maximum flood flow area, and Rabbit Creek would be crossed with a single span at each of the two overhead crossings. Land Cover Vegetation maps (scale 1:250,000) prepared by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources were used to examine the types of land cover crossed by the Enstar route. The minimum mapping resolution is 640 acres. Between the Soldotna substation and the Refuge boundary, a distance of about 16.9 miles the route would require new right-of-way. From the Soldotna substation for about three quarters of a mile north, a complete rebuilding of the existing 115kV line would be required in order to remain partially within the existing 125 foot wide right-of-way. According to the widths on HEA's maps the 115kV is in a 125 foot right- of-way and the 69kV in a 100 foot right-of-way for the first half mile, and these may overlap. After the lines split, the 115kV is in a 125 foot right-of-way. A new 125 foot wide right-of-way would be required for the next 4 miles east and north, and the transmission line would then be located in a new 125 foot wide right-of-way on the southern boundary of the existing 100 foot wide right-of-way for the 115kV line south of the Refuge. A half mile from the Refuge boundary, it would cross the existing 115kV line into a new 125 foot wide right-of-way located 500 feet west of the gas pipeline right-of-way. Approximately seven (7) miles are forested, and five and one-half (5 1/2) miles are covered with scrub. TRC 51 16d Part #2 (5 1287) 7-4 Ts 5 Within the Refuge, a new right-of-way approximately thirty-eight (38) miles long and a maximum of 125 feet wide would be required. Between the Refuge boundary and Mystery Creek area, the new right-of-way would be located 500 feet west of the gas pipeline right-of-way for about 15 1/4 miles. Northeast of the Mystery Creek area (where the 50 foot wide gas pipeline right-of-way enters the minimal management area) to the shore of Chickaloon Bay, the new right-of-way would be located on the west boundary of the gas pipeline right-of-way for almost 23 miles. It would contain 17.75 miles of overhead line and 5.125 miles of buried line. Approximately 24 miles along the existing right-of-way are forested. For the 33 miles in which the overhead line would be located, clearing would be limited to the cutting of trees. From the Refuge boundary to the Mystery Creek area, the vegetation is predominately low brush bog and muskeg, so clearing would be minimal. North of Mystery Creek, it transitions into blackspruce and spruce hardwood forest. Trees would probably be felled by hand, and stumps would be left in place. Due to the severity of spruce bark beetle infestations on the Kenai Peninsula, felled trees would be removed from the right-of-way. For the 5 miles in which the line would be buried, an approximate 50 foot area would be totally cleared prior to excavation. It would be contoured, seeded, and fertilized upon completion of construction. The terminal pumping station, which would be located near the south end of the airstrip, would require an area that would remain totally within the 125 foot right-of- way. Within the Refuge as in other areas of the line near Soldotna at least 50 feet of forest habitat would be permanently lost, as periodic clearing would be required to protect the overhead line and no trees could be established over the buried cable. There are two airstrips that have been closed. The airstrip area within the new right-of-way could be seeded and fertilized, and other portions of the airstrip could be revegetated. SOs Fart e215 °387) 7-5 7.1.4 Mitigation plans (see section 7.2) discuss feathering of the clearing adjacent to the 50 foot clearing area below the line. The line would be buried for about half a mile within the Turnagain Arm side of the Alaska Railroad right-of-way and transition to overhead line along the section line north between New and Old Seward Highways and north of Old Seward Highway. It would follow the section line east for 1 mile in a 125 foot wide right-of-way to Elmore Street, where it would turn north, and follow Elmore and Bragaw Streets to the Huffman Substation. Although the area is urbanized, most of the lots are large and treed very limited clearing is anticipated. The route north also requires a clearing for the terminal station and a 125 foot right-of-way. In summary clearing required for the new right-of-way will have an impact on land cover. However no new maintenance roads would be constructed, so once trees are removed and cable stringing operations were complete, the remaining vegetation will be able to reestablish itself. Periodic clearing would be required. Wetlands Based on the Alaska Department of Natural Resource's classification system, less than five miles of wetlands would be crossed by the Enstar route, all of which is outside the Refuge. Wetlands maps (scale 1:63,360) prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service use a different classification system and are more detailed. Within the Refuge, the Enstar route would cross wetlands, but most areas can be avoided, as they can be crossed by a single span. Approximately five (5) miles crossed by the Enstar route has yet to be mapped by Fish and Wildlife Service. Ground truthing will be required. As mentioned elsewhere cable stringing would be done in the winter an no new access road will be constructed so impacts on wetlands will be minimal. "@O 51 1068 Part e2 15 °3.87) 7-6 7.1.5 Fish and Wildlife Fish The Alaska Department of Fish and Game's Habitat Division has identified the presence of anadromous fish in 7 streams crossed by the Enstar route, and resident species in 4 streams (1985a). The Moose River, East Fork Moose River, Mystery Creek,and Chickaloon River contain all 5 species of salmon (chum, coho, king, pink, and sockeye), dolly varden and arctic char. Big Indian Creek contains coho, king, pink, and sockeye salmon, and Little Indian Creek contains coho (which utilize the creek for both spawning and rearing) and pink salmon. Rabbit Creek contains coho, king, and pink salmon, and dolly varden and arctic char. The Moose River, East Fork Moose River, Mystery Creek, and the Chickaloon River contain rainbow trout, a resident species. Documentation on the presence or absence of anadromous fish species was not available in the area crossed by the Enstar route between the East Fork Moose River and Mystery Creek and between the Chickaloon River and Big Indian Creek. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game designated these areas as unsurveyed on the maps (1985a). There would be no significant construction impacts during cable stringing operations on fish within the Refuge, as stream crossings would be made when ice is present. The excavation and cable installation under Little Indian Creek and Burnt Island Creek would occur between May 15th and June 15th and stream beds would be restored by June 15th. Coho and pink salmon habitat, disturbed in Little Indian Creek would have to be restored. For all other activities,the existing road, with bridges at stream crossings, would be utilized. Outside the Refuge, the existing road system could be utilized for all activities except cable stringing. If cable stringing is conducted during the open water season, it will be within the construction window prescribed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, which generally occurs between May 15 and June 15 for streams on the Kenai Peninsula and in the Anchorage “SCS! O68 Part o2 (5 '297) 7-7 “acs bowl. Due to the heavy suspended sediment load in Turnagain Arm, submarine cable excavating and laying would not impact migrating fish. Birds The distribution of ducks and geese, as documented by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's Habitat Division (1985b), was presented in Chapter 7 Part 1 for the Enstar route. A portion of the Moose River adjacent to the Sterling Highway is utilized by ducks during spring and fall concentrations, and Chickaloon Bay and Potter Marsh are utilized by ducks and geese for nesting and spring and fall concentrations. A checklist of birds in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge includes 146 regular species, of which 100 nest in the Refuge, and 22 accidental species (U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service 1985a). The Enstar route would not interfere with major flyways between Turnagain Arm and Chickaloon Flats or Potter Marsh, or between Chickaloon Flats and Cook Inlet because the line would be buried in these area. The potential for collisions would be low, however, bird use along streams in the Refuge draining the Chugach Mountains is not well documented, and collisions would probably occur. Wildlife The distribution of moose and caribou, as documented by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's Habitat Division (1985a), was presented in Chapter 7 Part 1 for the Enstar route. Moose are present along the entire right-of-way, and there is a rutting and wintering concentration area near Soldotna. There is a calving area between Mystery Creek and the Chickaloon River, and moose move between the lowlands and the Chugach Mountains. Caribou are present along the route in the Refuge between the east fork of the Moose River and Mystery Creek. The area between the Refuge boundary and the Mystery Creek area contains intermediate stage forests (dominated by trees 20 to 40 years old), which support 47 terrestrial species, and the area north of Mystery Creek to Chickaloon Flats contains mature forests (dominated by trees 70 to 200 "064 Part #2 (5.14.87) 7-8 7.1.6 years old), which support 68 terrestrial species,including habitat important for brown bear, black bear, and wolf (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985b). The Refuge was originally established to protect moose habitat. Refuge land between the Refuge boundary and Mystery Creek and within the 50-foot wide pipeline right-of-way 4 miles south of the shore of Chickaloon Bay to the Mystery Creek area has been designated as a moderate management area. Forests in early successional stages (less than 50 years old), which are generally located between the Refuge boundary and the Mystery Creek area, will be manipulated via burning or timber harvesting to increase moose habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985b). Right-of-way clearing may increase moose habitat, and there should be no impact on caribou habitat. Any black bear habitat in the right-of-way would be lost by vegetation clearing. Threatened and Endangered Species There are no threatened or endangered species within the vicinity of the Enstar route, however, the bald eagle and the trumpeter swan are considered “species of concern." Distribution of bald eagles and trumpeter swan, as documented by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's Habitat Division (1985a), was presented for the Enstar route in Chapter 7. An eagle nest was documented about 2 miles south of the shore of Chickaloon Bay, approximately a mile to the west of the pipeline right-of-way. A field survey would have to be conducted to identify additional locations. An "off-limits" protective perimeter could be established for each eagle nest. A portion of the Moose River north of Sterling and Chickaloon Flats are utilized by trumpeter swan for spring and fall concentrations. Nesting areas would be avoided, and no construction activities would occur in the Moose River or in Chickaloon Flats during nesting periods. "ROS! 26d Part #2 (5 °387) 7-9 Tole 7.1.8 Archeological/Historic Sites To determine whether there are sites present within the vicinity of the Enstar right-of-way and an archeological survey would have to be conducted. The most recent survey was conducted prior to the construction of the Enstar gas pipeline from Trapper Joe Lake in the Refuge to Burnt Island (Boraas 1978). No prehistoric sites were discovered, but a historic site (trapper's cabin) was documented on the north side of Little Indian Creek, east of the gas pipeline right-of-way. If any sites were identified, pole locations would be adjusted as necessary, and cable stringing equipment would be restricted to avoid sensitive areas. Personnel would be instructed not to vandalize or remove artifacts from the historic cabin or any other site. Land Use Recreation Within the Refuge, the Mystery Creek road in the gas pipeline right-of- way is closed to the public except during moose hunting season from August 25 until early October. This area is within State Game. Management Unit 15A, which is open to non-aircraft hunting, and more moose are harvested from this unit than from any other unit on the Refuge. Under the current management plan, habitat is being managed to increase the moose population, primarily for the benefit of hunters (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985b). Pre-construction and construction activities would be timed to minimize conflict with moose hunting season, and personnel would not be permitted to hunt while employed. As no new road would be constructed in the Refuge there would be no significant increase in recreational use. Elsewhere, the Enstar route would be adjacent to existing road systems. There is some potential for recreational use of the new right-of-way. Fencing and gates may be required in certain areas if increased recreational adversely affects the available resources. “£0 $1 (063 Part 2 15 1287) 7-10 "sc Subsistence No subsistence uses have been documented along the Enstar route by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's Habitat Division (1985a,b). Designated Wilderness The Enstar route would not cross any lands currently designated as wilderness areas. However, under the approved comprehensive conservation plan for the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985b), Chickaloon Flats and the area on either side of the 50-foot gas pipeline right-of-way northeast of Mystery Creek are designated for minimal management and will be managed to protect existing wilderness values. Furthermore, although this area is currently considered a transportation corridor (p.78), it could qualify as wilderness for inclusion in the Wilderness Preservation System. Coastal Zones The Enstar route is within the designated coastal zone, and would be subject to State of Alaska and Municipality of Anchorage coastal management program guidelines. Burial of the line on the Chickaloon Flats area and avoiding the Potter Point State Game Refuge will reduce impacts to coastal areas. Public Use Lands In the environmental evaluation of the four alternative routes presented in Chapter 7, the most significant factor encountered was the potential impact of constructing and operating a transmission line across public use lands, that is, the impact on the purpose for which a public use area was established. The following public use lands were identified in the vicinity of the Enstar route: the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Potter Section House State Historic Site (Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Chugach State Park), Potter Point State Game Refuge 3! "26a Part @2 (5 1287) 7-11 "ac (Alaska Department of Fish and Game), and the Rabbit Creek Rifle Range (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). As a result of input received at meetings and in writing on various alignment alternatives, the proposed alignment avoids the Rifle Range, the Game Refuge, and the Section House. However, the Enstar route would traverse 38 miles of the Refuge; 33 miles would be overhead, and 5 miles would be buried. As described in the Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985b), the Kenai National Moose Range was established in 1941 to protect the natural moose breeding and feeding range on the Kenai Peninsula. In 1964, the Refuge boundary was moved back from the shore of Cook Inlet to allow space for corridors for transportation and utility purposes (p.105) passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act resulted in a number of studies on federal lands. In February 1974 the joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission (UFSLUPC) completed a review of the Kenai National Moose Range. Commission staff determined that it would not be necessary to withdraw lands or alter the boundary further to meet requirements of the State of Alaska, communities, and Native organizations. In November 1974, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) completed a multimodal transportation and utility corridor easement study for the UFSLUPC. A corridor crossing the Refuge in the vicinity of the Enstar pipeline right-of- way was identified for the Anchorage Homer Power Grid, and no other alternatives were proposed. BLM concluded that a detailed evaluation would have to be conducted if a request to construct a utility within a corridor were received. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 changed the name to the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, modified the boundaries by adding about 250,000 acres, designated 1.35 million of the 1.97 million acres as wilderness,and broadened the purpose to protection and conservation of fish, wildlife, habitats, and other resources, and to provision of educational and recreational opportunities. The development of a comprehensive conservation plan was mandated by ANILCA for management of the Refuge. The planning process considered public transportation and utility needs on the Kenai 3! "06d Part e2 (5. 14-87) 7-1 2 7.1.9 Peninsula. Locating new utility systems outside the Refuge would be preferable, but if systems must be constructed on the Refuge, use of existing corridors would minimize adverse effects (p 104.) As stated above under designated wilderness, under the approved management plan (Alternative C), Chickaloon Flats and the area on either side of the 50-foot gas pipeline right-of-way northeast of Mystery Creek are designated for minimal management and are being managed to protect existing wilderness values. Overhead transmission lines are not allowed outside the existing right-of-way in these areas. Within the existing right-of-way, overhead transmission lines are allowed subject to restrictions on road access and methods of placement. A major change to the management plan, such as that proposed by the construction of an overhead transmission line for 17.75 miles adjacent to the gas pipeline right-of-way north of Mystery Creek, will require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. Aesthetics The transmission line and associated structures would have the following visual appearance. From Soldotna to the Refuge boundary, 85-foot high weathered steel guyed tubular X-frame structures, with 1,200’ to 1,400- foot spans, would be used. In the Refuge, 65.5-foot high wood pole H- frame structures, with 750-foot spans, would be used with conductor spacings of 19.5 feet. In Anchorage, 70 foot high single pole weathered steel structures would be used with vertical conductor spacing at 12.0 feet. A new substation would be constructed at Soldotna, just north of the existing substation on the other side of the Sterling Highway. Two terminal pumping stations would be constructed, one about 5 miles south of the shore of Chickaloon Bay near the airstrip, and one east of the New Seward Highway and the Rabbit Creek Rifle Range. The Huffman substation would be expanded. Outside of the Refuge, visual impacts would be low, as the new right-of- Way is not located in viewsheds and is generally a mile from major highways. The submarine crossing would be aligned to avoid the Potter Section House State Historic Site. The line would remain buried to the "BO S* 963 Part e2 (5.°287) 7-13 7.1.10 north end of Potter Marsh to avoid interference with the Seward Highway scenic corridor. There would be a major impact in the Refuge. Of the 33 miles of overhead line, 17.75 would be adjacent to the area being managed for wilderness values. The new right-of-way does not follow ridges, and the wooden H-poles would have a low profile. For safety reasons, orange balls would probably have to be placed on the line in the vicinity of the two closed air strips. Transportation The new transmission line and submarine crossing would have to be delineated on air and marine navigation charts. Although 2 of the 3 airstrips in the Refuge are closed, orange balls would be placed on the transmission line at those locations. Impacts to air traffic would not be significant, as the northern airstrip on the Refuge would remain open, and marine traffic would be minimal, due to the limited use of Turnagain Arm. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining and Geological and Geophysical Surveys has issued its final best interest finding and decision to open upper Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm to offshore prospecting for mineral exploration. Permit applications for exploration in the vicinity of the proposed Enstar and Tesoro routes will be conditioned similar to other Chugach corridors as follows: No exploration or mining will be allowed within Chugach Electric Associations’s cable field rights-of-way. No mining or dredging will be allowed within 500 feet of Chugach Electric Association's cable fields as depicted in the records of the utility owner. Exploration will be allowed within 500 feet of the cables only if the operator shows that exploration can take place without undue risk to the cable field. Meaures to protect the cables must be addressed in the plan of operations. “305: “6a Pre #2 (512.87) 7-14 7.1.11. Construction Effects The long term impacts of construction can be minimized if procedures described in the previous sections are implemented. Several short term impacts would result from construction activities. There would be a temporary increase in dust and noise from vehicle traffic and vehicle operations, such as soils sampling, pole setting, and cable stringing. However, no burning would occur in the Refuge, and spoils and brush would be removed to approved disposal sites. During construction, there would be temporary disruptions of road and railroad traffic in the Anchorage area and road traffic in the Soldotna area. As no marine traffic exists in Turnagain arm is limited, construction impacts are not anticipated. 7.1.12 Operational Effects For reasons presented in Section 7, Part 1, electromagnetic interference and health hazards were determined not to be problems. However, safety procedures should be developed for gas pipeline, transmission line, and Refuge personnel who would be conducting routine inspections in the adjoining right-of-ways, and if necessary, public notices should be issued during hunting season. Gas pipeline and transmission line personnel would normally conduct 1 inspection each year. Right-of-way access on the Refuge, will be necessary. The road is currently open to the public for a limited time during moose hunting season. At present, Enstar Gas Company is wholly responsible for right- of-way maintenance, including posting and locked gates, for the life of the gas pipeline. No new gates or access roads would be constructed, but the presence of additional personnel in the area during construction and the road improvements (bridges and culverts) could result in increased use when the road is open and unauthorized use after completion if _access is not restricted. Outside the Refuge, all but 4 miles of new right-of-way would be constructed immediately adjacent to existing right-of-way. North of TRC 3) 10Gb Part #2 (5.14.87) 7-15 7.2 Soldotna, the 4 miles of new right-of-way may have to be restricted to avoid becoming “attrattive nuisance", in that the public may attempt to utilize portions that cross private property where no access was previously available. In the remaining areas where the existing maintenance road would be used after construction, public use is less likely to expand into the new right-of-way. MITIGATION PLANNING Measures that could reduce impacts, such as timing and mode of construction, personnel regulations (no hunting, no collecting artifacts, etc.), and habitat restoration have been discussed in the previous sections.Mitigation measures to compensate for unavoidable or irreplaceable habitat losses and for indirect or secondary effects, such as additional Refuge staff time required to patrol the new right-of-way, are addressed in this section. Additionally the following mitigation can be implemented for the project. @ The areal limits of construction activities will be pre-determined, with activity restricted to and confirmed within these limits. @ The tower finishes can all be weathered steel to minimize visibility. © Clearing of trees can be accomplished by feathering where by the noticed effect of the right-of-way is minimized by leaving smaller vegetation under the conductors and gradually increasing the height of the retained vegetation nearer the edge of the rights-of-way. "BOS! “060 Part e2 (§ '487) 7-16 7.2.1 Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed a mitigation policy, which was published in the Federal Register on January 23, 1981. The policy focuses on mitigating losses of habitat value, rather than acre for acre loss replacement. Their source categories and mitigation planning goals are summarized as follows: RESOURCE CATEGORY MITIGATION PLANNING GOAL AND DESIGNATION CRITERIA Te High value for evaluation species No loss of existing habitat value. and unique and irreplaceable. 2. High value for evaluation species No net loss of in-kind habitat value. and scarce or becoming scarce. 3. High to medium value for evaluation No net loss of habitat value while species and abundant. minimizing loss of in-kind habitat value. 4. Medium to low value for evaluation Minimize loss of habitat value. species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with other resource agencies, determines which resources categories are involved in the Proposed project and develops recommendations as part of the mitigation planning process. Measures can include, but are not limited to, the following: avoid the impact, minimize the impact, rectify the impact, reduce or eliminate the impact over time, and compensate for the impact. Compensation can range from management techniques to increase habitat value to acquisition of lands for habitat replacement. "RO S1 068 Part e2 (5 14.87) 7-1 7 7.2.2 7.2.3 Land acquisition is generally not considered until all other options have been examined. Mitigation Measures There are a number of mitigation measures available to address secondary impacts, and these could include the following: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reimbursement - EIS and permit preparation; pre-construction, construction, and post-construction inspection and enforcement activities; pre- and post-construction environmental monitoring activities; payment for “merchantable” timber construction, personnel, education, and training - protection of fish, wildlife, and cultural resources; safety annual road maintenance - maintain Mystery Creek Road and bridges in accordance with Refuge standards. Agency Comments Written comments were received on the Preliminary Report from 7 agencies, and are included in Appendix E. The U.S. Forest Service will not be involved unless the existing route (which crosses Forest Service land) receives further consideration. Cook Inlet Region, Inc. provided information on easements that would be required from CIRI for the existing and Enstar routes. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities concurs with the selection of the Enstar route as the preferred alternative and supports the Huffman substation option, but recommended that the final report include a detailed analysis of the two alignment options in the Potter Marsh area, as well as further analysis of the Huffman and International substation options this is addressed elsewhere in this report. F&C 51 106d Part e2 (5 14,87) 7-18 Since no suitable site could be found for the terminal station without conflicting with the Potter Section house plus right-of-way problems on Old Seward Highway, the railroad alternative was selected but the submarine crossing was moved northward so that only 0.5 miles of buried line are required along the railroad. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game noted that the Preliminary Report did not address that the line be located on towers east of Potter Marsh, which would minimize wetlands losses and avoid a crossing of Rabbit Creek (that is, burial under the outlet from Potter Marsh). The Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation will require that the transmission line and all associated structure be located so that there is no visual impact to Potter Section House State Historic Site. This has been accomplished due to the rerouting of the crossing. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers commented that consideration should be given to complete burying of cable within the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. The Corps of Engineers identified a fifth alternative reroute and suggested that it be evaluated. This route basically following the existing route but crossing Turnagain Arm using the six mile Creek drainage. This option was identified by the study team early in the project but was eliminated because it is not feasible to lay a submarine cable with barge equipment this far up Turnagain Arm. The potential of excessive scour problems further helped to rule out this option from detailed consideration. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also does not consider costs differences for the proposed alternative presented in the Preliminary Report to be significant. The time anticipated to obtain permits for the Enstar route could alter costs, and building a more expensive alternative earlier may be less expensive than building a less expensive alternative route. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game did not identify serious deficiencies in the findings of the Preliminary Report, but believes that the Tesoro route would be preferable from a fish and wildlife perspective. 7&OS! '064 Part #2 (5.14.87) 7-19 7.2.4 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommends that the Tesoro route be utilized for the intertie for a number of reason, including the following: The Enstar route conflicts with the Congressionally mandated Kenai Comprehensive Conservation Plan, approved in June1985; The Enstar route would impact 23 miles of minimal management area recommended for wilderness designation, and construction would result in the area being unsuitable for designation; and Preparation of an application under Title XI of ANILCA and of an EIS will require a demonstration that no other economically feasible or prudent alternative exists outside the conservation unit. The Tesoro route provides this alternative. Summary Construction and operation of the Enstar route would result in significant impact to the following land cover, public use lands, and aesthetics. Adverse changes in these environmental characteristics along the route would occur, and substantial mitigation would be required. Construction and operation would not have a significant impact on the environmental factors evaluated, either because the project-induced changes would be minor or because either impacts would be minimized through the timing and mode of construction, and other mitigating measures. Public use lands would be most adverse affected by the proposed project. An application to construct and operate a transmission line on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge through a minimal use management area will require extensive preparation and will receive considerable public scrutiny. Unless the applicant demonstrates that no economically and prudently feasible alternative is available to the satisfaction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, other resource agencies, and the public, a right- of-way permit in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge is not likely to be issued. “BO 51 1064 Part #2 (5:12.87) 7-20 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Habitat Div. 1985a. Alaska habitat management guide. Reference maps. Southcentral region volume: Distribution and human use of mammals. Juneau, AK. 1vol. . 1985b. Alaska habitat management guide. Reference maps.Southcentral region volume Il: Distribution and human use of birds and fish. Juneau, AK. 1 vol. Boraas, A. 1978. Archaeological survey of Alaska Pipeline Company _ right-of-way. Trapper Joe Lake to Burnt Island, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Report for Alaska Pipeline Co.,Anchorage, AK. 1 vol Joint Federal-State Land use planning commissioner, Staff. 1974. Review of the Kenai National Moose Range. 74pp. Municipality of Anchorage. 1980. Anchorage coastal resource atlas Vol |: The Anchorage bowl. 1 vol. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1974. Multimodal Transportation and Utility Corridor Systems in Alaska. A preliminary, conceptual analysis. Report for Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission. 1 vol. 1974, Multimodal Transportation and Utility Corridor Systems in Alaska. Generalized Description of the 40 primary corridors: Locations, modes, identifying agencies, purpose, environmental impacts, and status of lands crossed. A preliminary conceptual analysis. Report for joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission. 184 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985a. Birds of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. (checklist) . 1985b. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Final comprehensive TRO S51 106d Part e2 (5.14.87) 7-21 conservation plan, environmental impact statement,wilderness review. Anchorage, AK. 195 pp. AGENCY COMMENTS ON PRELIMINARY REPORT U.S. Army Corps of Engineers May 8, 1987 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service May 6, 1987 U.S. Forest Service April 16, 1987 Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game April 28, 1987 Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, May 5, 1987 Div. of Parks & Outdoor Rec. Alaska Dept. of Trans. & Public Fac. April 29, 1987 Cook Inlet Region, Inc. May 7, 1987 Appendix “E” includes correspondence copies "SOS? ‘06a Part @2 (Ss 287) 7-22 RAILBELT UTILITIES CORRESPONDENCE (included in Preliminary Report) Municipal Light & Power i 1200 EAST FiRST AVENUE — ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99591-1685 S TELEPRONE (907) 279-7671 ony Anowles. Mayor TELECOPIER (907) 276-2961 ‘Sebo March 2, 1987 Don Shira Alaska Power Authority 701 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, AK 99503 Dear Don: We have reviewed the Preliminary Report on the Feasibility Study of the Anchorage-Kenai Intertie presented by Power Engineers, Inc. on February 17, 1987. We feel both that they did a very good job on the study and that the presentation was professional and infor- mative. Our comments relate to the preferred route selection and how we feel the study should proceed. First, we feel that any upgrade of ‘the existing line between Anchorage and Kenai would not provide acceptable reliability for the interconnected system. This, combined with the significant line loss and line loading problems identified by PEI at 138 kV, and with the fact that the estimated cost for upgrade of the existing line to 230 kV exceeds the estimated cost to construct a new line in two of the remaining scenarious, leads us to recommend that all scenarios having to do with upgrade of the existing line be eliminated from further consideration. Second, we feel that the Beluga Alternative should also be elimi- nated from further consideration due to technical difficulties associated with the underwater crossing and potential power flow problems between Beluga and Anchorage. In addition, PEI's environmental consultant has indicated that they feel there may be significant permitting problems associated with routing this alternative. It would appear that any one of the four remaining alternative line routings would satisfy the requirements that we have iden- tified from a technical perspective, and that none of the four has any indication that significant environmental or routing problems are expected to be encountered. We, therefore, recommend that one of the lines following the Enstar routing be pursued for further study at this time. If, in the course of further atudy, it is determined either that this alternative is not technically suf- ficient, that environmental concerns are present that are expected to be fatal, or that this alternative is expected to be signifi- cantly more expensive than one or more of the remaining three, we would recommend that the Tesoro routes be pursued. We see no PROVIDE FOR TOMORROW, SAVE ENERGY TODAY. u = mu u 1 1 u ' March 2, 1987 Don Shira Page 2 problems associated with termination of the line at Huffman substation and initial operation at 138 kV, but would Like to stress that we feel that all construction should be 230 kV for future operation. Further, we would like to suggest that the estimates associated with the Enstar route in particular reflect reasonable costs to thoroughly develop the Potter Terminal Station for maximum aesthetic consideration through proper landscaping. Finally, it is our recommendation that the study proceed as origi- nally outlined, with a preferred alternative identified by the utilities and the Power Authority and studied further by PEI. We would, however, like to see the work that has been done to date on all alternatives included in the Final Report so that if there are questions about the alternatives not selected as the preferred routing, the background information can be easily provided. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments, and once again, our compliments to PEI for a job well done. MLM oom Mike Massin Chief Engineer Municipal Light & Power MEM/TL/csn a ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION. INC. 5601 MINNESOTA ORIVE * PO BOX 196300 ¢ ANCKORAGE. ALASKA 995'9-63CC * PHCNE 3C7 7 TELEX: CRUGAC March 9, 1987 Don Shira : Director, Program Development Alaska Power Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, AK 99519-0869 Subject: Anchorage-Kenai Intertie Feasibility Study February 17, 1987, Meeting Summary Dear Mr. Shira: The following are the comments of Chugach Electric Association Inc. on the content and written summary of the meeting on morning of February 17, 1987, between Power Engineers, Har Crowser and the Railbeit utilities. eh t(D s i. Cn Page 2 of the meeting summary, cost matrix development is mentioned for ranking the routes with a capacity ranking included. We are not aware of what is meant by capacity ranking and ask that it be defined further. Chugach's concern with capacity is to identify the costs associated with construction at 230 KV for any new routes, although 138 KV may be determined as adequate for transfers during the time frame of the study. The cost savings of initial energization at 138 KV may not be justified if the incremental cost of 230 KV energization is small. Furthermore, if 138 KV is ultimately chosen, a difference in upgrade costs between routes may be a factor in selection. 2. A difficulty and time requirement factor for both permitting and right-of-way acquisition should be included in the ratings. As the meeting summary stands now, only difficulty is mentioned. 36 With regard to the lack of estimates on the Cook fInlet crossing from Xenai to Beluga, a detailed discussion of the recommendation against such a crossing by Pirelli ane CSacobsen should be included in the report, along with all analysis performed to date by Power Engineers and Hart Crowser. 4. Regarding the Huffman Substation, Chugach stated at ‘he meeting that room for a breaker and transformer at the site MAR 19 138 ALASKA PCWER Aum™ Don § I pleas Z nara -2- March 3 may be available at the 138 KV level, but that Power Engineers should plan on extensive site work that weuld be required for such installation. Recent developments in ordinances on substation landscape requirements in ‘the Anchorage Bowl may preclude the use of Huffman for the Intertie or any other expansion, however, and must se considered. Hart Crowser has been notified of the proposed landscape ordinance. Any Intertie construction at International will require a new substation, requiring extensive site preparaticn in addition to the landscaping requirements. It was requested by Chugach that minimum load transfer cases be investigated to establish the amount of reactive compen- sation required at the cable terminals. This was apparently omitted in the original studies. Chugach also suggested that close attention be paid to cable terminals as it is possible that very compact terminals will be required due to environmental or aesthetic concerns, Chugach had asked Power Engineers to evaluate the capability of the existing substation at Bernice Lake to hold a 1393 kV or 230 KV substation as the existing location may recu:re extensive reconstruction and land acquisition. £ you require any additional information on these comments, e let me know. rely, UCL - Thomas A. Lovas Manager, Planning TL/pkd4/104 u Homer Electric Association, Inc. SONTRAL Qeeu rn ' . +a ‘ e : a « e Hart Crowser. Inc. ‘ COPY “$50 Lenali street, suite yuu amenorage. Ak y9Su3 Attention : James U0. Gili Regarcing : AmcNsraze-Kenai intertie study tear Mr. Gill? We Nave received and reviewed the route selection inrormation forwarded to Homer Electric. No one route of those suggested stands out as the best tor Homer Electric. We thererore orrer the following brier comments on eacn route and will be present at tne meeting on Feb. 1/7 to discuss them with vou. 1. Existing Route domer Electric has considered this route to be undesirable because or the reliability experienced on the present line. [his route is over rough, mountainous terrain and would be in our opinion the most difficult route to construct a new line. «. Enstar Pipeline Route This is considered a desirable route by Homer Electric as it traverses a area aiready being used by a pipeline. is not subject to adverse weather conditions and would require the shortest submarine crossing This route will. if selected, tie the ends of both the existing and new line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage together thereby not ortering the highest degree of rvlability. Tesora Pipeline Route This route 1s not considered a desirable route because of the extreme weather conditions experienced by Homer Electric along the route and because or the long submarine crossing coming up in the area or the airport. In regards to the extreme weather, this area is one of the few areas were lines designed ror heavy loading conditions have actually experienced such conditions. uw 4. Forelands/Beluga Substation Route The increased realibility by connecting this new intertie line with the Beluga Station makes this route desirable to Homer Electric. This route would however require the crossing of the Cook Inlet in an area known tor extreme tidal conditions and may make the submarine very difficult. In summatv mMemer electric would suggest tne route selection oe narrowed to the Enstar and Forelands/Heluga proposed routes. we wili be wiliing to discuss these issues at tne red. Lv meeting. Sincerely. HOMER ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION. INC. ee Se Tom Small Manager of Upoerations & Engineering ec: Afzal Kahn, Alaska Power Authority Gave Barden, Homer Electric Municipal Light & Power 1200 EAST FIRST AVENUE — ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-1685 TELEPHONE (907) 279-7671 Tony <rowiles Mayor TELECOPIER 1907) 276-2961 February 9, 1987 REC'OF EB 17 1987 Mr. James D. Gill, P.E. Project Manager Hart Crowser, Inc. 2550 Denali Street Suite 900 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Reference: Anchorage/Kenai Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study-Preliminary Route Options Dear Mr. Gill: Municipal Light and Power has reviewed each of the four possible transmission line routes; Existing, Enstar, Tesoro and Beluga, and finds no reason at this time to recommend exclusion of any single one from further consideration. The Beluga route, which received little attention during preliminary discussions prior to commencement of this study, appears to be one in which consideration should be sustained pending further underwater analysis and power flow analysis. We are obviously concerned about a new underwater route not previously used. The Tesoro route has us concerned from the standpoint of having the longest sub- marine route plus the difficulties Likely in going through the Anchorage Airport area with additional underground cables. We also understand that the overland route of the Tesoro alignment is one which currently experiences weather related problems. Even so, the route is a viable one. The Enstar route will be facing problems with the Potter Marsh crossing as well as problems on the Moose Range, but still appears to be the leading contender in our mind. The Existing route should remain in the running, but we have concern both from the standpoinc of ending up with a single transmission line to the Kenai as well as problems with this circuit being out of service for extending periods of time during any type of reconstruction. We would continue to urge you to thoroughly document your review process par- ticularly as options are narrowed to three alternatives and then selection of the preferred route. We Look forward to meeting on the 17th of February to further discuss your progress. Sincerely, Mike Massin Chief Engineer cc: T. Stahr,ML&P D. Shira, A.P.A. J. McGrew,P.E.1.,Hailey, Idaho File PROVIDE FOR TOMORROW, SAVE ENERGY TODAY. MEM/csa RAILBELT UTILITIES CORRESPONDENCE (included in Final Draft) w < ' u 4 & ' ws ‘ ' w 1 e ” rs 1 ‘ “ Maranuska Exectric Association, Inc. : P.O. BOX 1148 TELEPHONE PALMER, ALASKA 99645 (907) 745-3231 April 3, 1987 RECEIVED BY MASKA PGWED ON THORS ¢ ‘87 APR =7 ANI ‘59 Mr. Don Shira, Director Program Development Alaska Power Authority P. O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Dear Don: SUBJECT: Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie . Feasibility Study The following is the result of MEA's review of the Preliminary Report dated March 1987 for the above study: Section 1.3, Page 1-3 -- Second sentence is incomplete. The "Kenai, Anchorage and Fairbanks" what? Section 1.4.1, Page 1-5, first paragraph -- Change the wording in the last sentence from “replace existing the” to “replace the existing". Table 1.5-l. Page 1-ll -- Under "“Enstar Route", can the following sentence be reworded so it is not so critical: “Most significant impact to the environment of all routes." Perhaps the word "Most" should be dropped? Section 1.5.2, Page 1-15, second paragraph -- Insert the words "and cost" in the last sentence so it reads: "However, there is a considerable degree of difference between the routes as far as reliability and cost are concerned." Section 1.5.2, Page 1-17 -- It is recommended that consideration be given to moving the next to the last paragraph to the front of this section. The paragraph starts with: "The preferred route, when considering all the factors that have been evaluated to date, is the Enstar Route... ." ALASKA'S FIRST REC—INCORPORATED 1941— ENERGIZED 1942 ws m aw Mr. Don Shira, Director Page 2 April 3, 1987 Section 2.2, Page 2-5 -- In the sentence "MEA would purchase from CEA, AML&P and the Kenai“, "AML&P" should be changed to “AEGGT”. Section 3.2.2, Page 3-3 -- Next to the last sentence says, in part: ". . . both the Beluga and Enstar undersea crossings are subject to severe tidal currents and ice flows ,. , ." The Enstar crossing is not as severe as the Beluga crossing. Suggest the sentence be rewritten to convey this thought. Section 4.3, Page4-9 -=- In the fourth paragraph, eliminate the word “miles” in the phase “difficulty factor of 1.5 miles". Section 5.1, Page 5-l, last paragraph -- State the names of the manufacturers of the major equipment used in the cost estimate. Sincerely, Lie mes F. Palin General Manager WVL: bb 330.0402.1 cc: Ken Ritchey Walt Lawson Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska April 22, 1987 Mr. John McGrew Power Engineers, Inc. Airport Way P.O. Box 1066 Haily, Idaho 83333 Subject: Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study Dear John: We have reviewed the Preliminary Report and offer the following com- ments: Comments from Municipal Light and Power (ML&P): 1. ML&P recommend that the Enstar 230KV alternative be selected as the preferred route for more detailed studies leading to the construc- tion of the project. ML&P also recommend that the actual alterna- tive between Huffman and International not be selected until more study work is completed. 2. ML&P is requesting that the “area interchange" specific designa- tions as to exactly how much generation either ML&P or Chugach Electric Association (CEA) may provide, be left in the generic sense as was agreed to at the first assumptions meeting held at the Alaska Power Authority. ML&P understand that it was probably necessary to designate biased weightings to one of them for purpos- es of running certain cases, but ML&P want to make it absolutely clear that ML&P is not endorsing some type of actual method to ultimately supply generation based on these numbers. This informa- tion is on pages 2-6 through 2-10 of the report. This change from the initial assumptions meeting was made without our approval. 3. ML&P also insist that more backup be furnished from Pirelli con- cerning the reasons why Pirelli indicates that a submarine crossing is not feasible on the Beluga route alternative. It would be helpful if they would cite technical or other reports which may have been done by oil] companies or others to support their conten- tion. 8851/0020(1) PO Box AM Juneau. Alaska 99811 (907) 465-3575 PO Box 190869 701 €astTudorRoag Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 = (907) 561-7877 Mr. John McGrew April 22, 1987 Page 2 4, ML&P is concerned about the 180 MVA capacity of the submarine crossing of Turnagain Arm. Shouldn't this be more in the area of 250-300 MVA? . 5. ML&P continue to be concerned about the portions of the cost estimates specifically related to substation and switchyard site development. Also, it is absolutely critical that estimates include costs for landscaping and other aesthetic enhancements which will be required at all Anchorage area substation locations, particularly the Potter Marsh location terminal site. One sure way to lose support from the community and other concerned parties is to not provide for aesthetics. 6. If the estimates for permitting and right-of-way acauisition are at all pessimistic in nature, as far as the time elements, ML&P would encourage the consultants to be more optimistic. It would be a shame if these lengthy time frames end up being used against the Power Authority and the utilities as an excuse to delay or stop the project from coming on-line in the time frame of the related Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. ML&P's experience on this in the past has been that if you tell reviewing agencies that "consid- erable" amounts of time have been allocated, considerable amounts of time will be utilized, often times unreasonably. 7. ML&P wholeheartedly agree with the consultant that action on permitting and right-of-way acquisition be initiated as soon as possible to allow this project to come on-line in conjunction with Bradley Lake. 8. Attached is listing of minor “housecleaning" items involving typographical errors, etc. for your use. Golden Valley Electric Association comments on load flow is attached. Comments from Alaska Power Authority: Executive Summary needs to be a strong document. Introduction should have examination of different cases, 230KV vs. 138KV. Is there a need for second intertie? More discussion on how PEI arrived at Enstar route. Explain term "complexities" for Enstar and Tesoro route. Permitting and acquisition costs are about same between two routes. Explain the differences. Explain paralling existing line is not possible. 8851/0020(2) Mr. John McGrew April 22, 1987 Page 3 ' Describe what a feasibility type estimate is. Soldotna Substation is not expandable. Comments from Chugach Electric Association: CEA strongly feels that the PEI has to review the station cost estimate as for the accuracy. Please call with any questions at (907) 561-7877. Sincerely, . (uc +" £ ° lr Afzal H. Khan Director/Engineering Support AHK: it cc: Don Shira, Alaska Power Authority Remy Williams, Alaska Power Authority Attachment as stated 8851/0020(3) TO: MEM ‘ FROM: Taby SUBJECT: FEI Report--List of Typos and Other Minor Comments Following is a list of the typos I noticed when going through the report and the minor comments I have on the report. This list supplements the previous memo I sent you outlining the more important comments I have. Fage Line Comment 1-1 6 upgrade should be upgrading t—1 21 add ", through system studies conducted by PEI” at the end of the line i=5 9 typo 1-3 11-16 doesn’t make sense to me 3 1-3 LS substitute “an upgrade to“ for “the” before "230 kv" 1-6 14 delete first “the” 1-10 VA replace “in" with “with" bE 10-13 it appears to me that the Tesoro route is more expensive than the existing route estimate LS) 17 insure should be ensure 2-1 18 utilities should be utilities’ a 2s Cooke should be Cook aoe) 4 insert “and to supply Fairbank’s needs in excess of Kenai purchases" after “Kenai . Zao & replace “Unit" with “at Plant" and add the same phrase as above at the end of that sentence 2-6 mid add "L" to "“AM&P” 2-7 mid ditto 2-9 mid ditto 2-9 mid ditto * 2-10 3s SES not SEA 4-8 5 add period Se 19 typa 5-359 LL typo 5-39 2 change line to read “have to be underground for a...” 4 add period 6-1 ze replace “which” with “that” 6-1 7 insert “of" between “north” and “the” 6-2 LS insert “be” between "would" and “constructed” 6-3 9 replace “as" with “to be" 6-S 7 add “ing” to “contain” 6-12 17 add “in" before “which" 6-14 iS insert “for" between “-way" and "“a" 6-15 6 delete "A" 6-19 9 change to read"“process is begun” 6-20 table consider adding column of averages or ranking in addition to totals 7-1 6 “affect" should be “affected” CaS 8 add period C=S 19 | add “will” after "alternative" 7-17 S add “by” before the last “the” 720 14 delete comma 7-23 a typo All lines count text only--not titles or subtitles. In addition, I have a pet peeve: mVAR should be MVAR. We don’t have milliVARs on the system--or at least we don’t care about them if we do! Call me if you ,ynave questions. la « es vw ta cee avs mer ane ma : ens tmrearer 9 @oenu 3 Lucrs tos ° i a see, 28 ae ape 2268 & «> <em> | & ow cs ot. 1a> <4. 18> we « owe ru — - @.900 eu a.) 4 g “ ean 2 : e@vtarme sis s e.cw wu s ¥ eae 6.478 Pv , Gm atems & a euutna 168 2 ¢.e0e Fu e . Swennsem ces @.78 PUL sta e|- sI- v eee e.e1e Pu 3 enone e ” ' ese rw Sipccerna os 3 @ 38 Pu s oipem. : 4 @.993 ev POWER ENGINEERS IAC AMC HORAGE-WERMD ENTERTOE CREE wo. FUT t@ mere ses eos - ms oa) cree? 10 MHGLNE 35 wHe ja ues 68 awd Cs] on t,o we 1 333 9 > POHER ENGINEERS INC ANC HDARGE - KENHAL CREE 1. FaRtIe INTERTIE vo wn (.o80 ou © 2 a ° oom ose 6 s w t Sy feo 4 A ue APPENDIX B PIRELLI CORRESPONDENCE 49 LL CAS8LE CORPORATION 800 RAHWAY AVENUE: UNION NEW JERSEY 07083 - (201) 687-0250 March 10, 1987 Mr. John McGrew Power Engineers Incorporated Airport Way Post Office Box 1066 Haily, Idaho 83333 Alaska-Kenai Intertie Study Dear John: We are pleased to submit the following additional requested information pertaining to the subject study: Technical Feasibility of the Three Submarine Cable Routes West Forelands - Beluga Station Route This route, of the three submarine crossings investigated, is considered most difficult and presents the highest degree of risk for submarine cable installation/operation for the following reasons: ° The current flow in the Cook Inlet in the vicinity of the Proposed crossing between East and West Forelands is very swift. ° The fast flowing water and extremely quick tidal movements with resultant scouring action would act to unearth embedded cable. ° There is a build up of ice and heavy jamming of ice at the shore ends. ° There is heavy fishing activity on the west coast of the inlet. In view of the above adverse conditions, it is not considered practical to install and operate a submarine cable in this route. Tesoro Route The Tesoro Route is preferred. The water depth is adequate to minimize problems due to ice formation and movement. The soit stability is good as determined from pipeline construction experience, Current flow and tidal action are within working limi¢ee Mr. John McGrew March 10, 1987 Page Tow Enstar Route The 28 foot tides and resultant tidal water flow forces water into rivers with reverse movement as the tide subsides. The effect is exceptionally poor soil stability increasing the difficultly and cost of burial of the cable. Budgetary Costs and Physical Properties Pumping Plant The weight and dimension of each self contained pumping plant structure are as follows: Dimensions: 24.5 feet in length, 9.2 feet wide and 12 feet in height Weight Without Oil: 30,000 lbs Weight With Oil: 67,500 lbs Cost: $840,000 for two pumping plants including freight and handling to Anchorage Alaska. Terminal Structure The terminal structure defined herein is for accommodating and supporting four submarine cable terminals rated 138 kV and 230 kv. Dimensions 138 kV 24 feet long, 3 feet wide and 10 feet high 230 kv 40 feet long, 3 feet wide and 10 feet high Cost of Terminal Structure 138 kV $3,750 per structure 230 kv $7,500 per structure Mr. John McGrew March 10, 1987 Page Three Installed Cost (Foundation Material, Labor & Equipment Including Cost of Structure as above) 138 kv $25,000 for two structures 230 kV $30,000 for two structures Jointing of 138 kV_and 230 kV Land Cables 138 kV Materials for Jointing $26,000 Surge Diverter and Link Box 2,500 Labor, Equipment Rental and Miscellaneous Materials 12,1000 Total Cost for Jointing 3-1/c Cables: $40,509 230 kV Materials for Jointing $30,000 Surge Diverter and Link Box 3,990 Labor, Equipment Rental and Miscellaneous Materials 15,600 Total Cost for Jointing 3-1/c Cables: $48,000 Insofar as the number of joints required in the cable run, it can be considered that three l/c joints will be required for each 3000 foot circuit length of cable. The reservoir oil feeding system previously described for the land cables is valid for a cable run of approximately 2 miles. For a cable run of up to 4 miles, it will be necessary to install a buried oil pressurization system consisting of 6 reservoirs at the midpoint of the circuit. In order to feed oil into the cable at this location, stop joints will be required. The cost of this midpoint pressurization system including the three stop joints is as follows: 138 kV Materials for Jointing $40,009 Surge Diverter and Link Rox 27500 Reservoirs 36,009 Labor, Equipment Rental and Miscellaneous Materials 15,009 Total Cost for Midpoint Chan Taine /Preeenrization of 3-l1/c Cables: $93,500 Mr, John McGrew March 10, 1987 Page Four 230 kV Materials for Jointing $ 45,000 Surge Diverter and Link Box 3,000 Reservoirs 36,000 Labor, Equipment Rental and Miscellaneous Materials 18,009 Total Cost for Midpoint Stop Joint/Pressurization of 3-1/c Cables: $102,000 Kindly advise if any additional information is required. Yours sincerely, PIRELLI CABLE CORPORATION Y adh. ) “| CLAN . Leonard M. Bonacorsa DAS:aab REC'NFEB 20 1987 rrecu CABLE CORPORATION 800 RAHWAY AVENUE: UNION, NEW JERSEY 07083 - (201) 687-9282 February 16, 1987 Mr. John McGrew Power Engineers Incorporated Airport Way Post Office Box 1066 Haily, Idaho 83333 Anchorage-Kenai Intertie Study Dear John: This is an update to our letter of February 13th and includes information and cost data transmitted by telephone on the 16th. Submarine Cables Self Contained Oil Filled (SCOF) 138 and 230 kV Cables 180 MVA 90% Load Factor Single conductor SCOF cable is comprised of an annular conductor, oil impregnated paper insulation, lead sheath, suitable mechanical reinforcement, polyethylene jacket, anti teredo tape and metallic armor. The cable is oil filled and pressurized by means of an oil pumping plant. The oil pressure is adjusted such that the cable is under positive oil pressure for all operating conditions and such that in the event of any mechanical disturbance the oil pressure in the cable at any location will be greater than the external water pressure. 1. 138 kV _SCOF Standard Armor 1/c 630 mm? Cu conductor oil impregnated paper insulation, lead alloy sheath, bronze tape reinforcement, polyethylene jacket, antiteredo copper tape, polypropylene bedding, round galvanized steel armor wire, polypropylene serving overall O.D. 93 mm Wt. 25 kg/m Estimated cost $158/m 2. 138 kV_SCOF Ruggedized Cable \Ditto above except double flat galvanized steel wire armor. O.D. 94 mm Wt. 28 kg/m oe ee €1QN/m February 16, 1987 = \ ~ 4 Page Two Se 4. 5. Note: 230 kV _SCOF Standard Armor l/c 240 mm? Cu conductor ditto Item l O.D. 102 mm Wt. 26 kg/m Estimated cost $160/mm 230 kV _SCOF Ruggedized Armor l/c 240 mm? Cu ditto Item 1 except double flat galvanized steel wire armor. O.D. 104 mm Wt. 29 kg/m Estimated cost $183/m 230 kV _SCOF Standard Armor Operating at 138 kV l/c 630 mm* Cu conductor ditto Item 1 O.D. 108 mm Wt. 32 kg/m Estimated cost $200/m 230 kV_SCOF Ruggedized Armor Operating at 138 kV 1/e 630 mm? Cu conductor ditto Item 1 except double flat galvanized steel wire armor O.D. 110 mm Wt. 35 kg/m Estimated cost $228/m We did not receive the change in load factor to 75% in time to adjust our calculations accordingly. However, the decrease in load factor will have minimum impact on the cable design or rating for these cables. Land Cables l. 138 KV SCOF Cable l/c 630 mm? Cu conductor, oil impregnated paper insulation, lead alloy sheath, copper tape reinforcement, polyethylene jacket O.D. 65 mm Wt. 14 kg/m Estimated cost $80/m February 16, 1987 Page Three Or. 230 KV _SCOF Cable l/c 400 mm? Cu ditto Item 1 O.D. 80 mm Wt. 15 kg/m Estimated cost $95/m ae 230 KV_SCOF Cable Operating at 138 KV l/c 630 mm? Cu conductor ditto Item 1 Oo.D. 85 mm Wt. <-<<<- Estimated cost $105/m NOTE: A change from 90% to 75% load factor will result in an increase in MVA capability of approximately 8%. Installation The installation cost for the Enstar or Tesoro Route submarine cable, including a spare cable, is estimated at 8.5 million dollars. The cost includes the following items: Rigging Transportation Unloading the cable in. Seattle Prelay survey Mobilization of the laying barge Loading of the cable onto the laying barge in Seattle Movement of the laying barge to Anchorage Laying of four cables Landing of the cables to the terminal locations The cost of embedment of the four cables for the entire route in 2 to 3 m depth of soil is estimated as 6 to 9 million dollars. Although the cost will vary with local and environmental conditions it can also be considered that the higher figure would apply to the longer of the two routes. Installation of submarine cables across the Cook Inlet (Beluga Route) is not recommended due to bottom conditions, strong tidal currents, ice flows and resultant scouring. Pipeline installations in this area require continuous maintenance due to damage incurred by these conditions. The cost of installation of the land cables will depend to a large extent on local labor costs, nature of soil, environmental conditions, obstructions, i.e. pipeline crossings, rocks, etc, depth of burial and regulatory requirements. With limited February 16, 1987 ial - Page Four information presently available we estimate a cost in the range of $500,000 to $600,000 per mile for normal installation conditions. Pressurization Equipment The cost of two dual remote controlled pumping plants for the submarine cables, one located at each end of the crossing, is estimated at $750,000. These plants are free standing requiring only a suitable foundation and a source of power. For the underground sections in the overhead lines, pressurization could be provided by means of oil pressure reservoirs mounted on supporting structure. Assuming two reservoirs per phase at each end and hence a total of twelve reservoirs, the cost of the reservoirs would be in the order of $40,000. Enclosed is a drawing of a typical termination with oil pressure reservoirs mounted on the supporting structure. Terminal Equipment The budgetary cost of each 138 kV termination (three required per 39 circuit at each end for land cable and four for submarine cable installation) is $10,000. The budgetary cost of each 230 kV termination (three required per 39 circuit at each end for land cable and four for submarine cable installation) is $12,250. Enclosed are drawings of typical terminations for 138 kV and 230 kV cables. Kindly advise if we may be of further assistance in this project. Sincerely yours, PIRELLI CABLE CORPORATION Seu) @ AQ David A. Silver DAS:aab Encl/ cece T,. Bonacorsa APPENDIX C LOAD FLOW DIAGRAMS APPENDIX C List of Load Flow Diagrams Description Case No. Existing Kenai Intertie at 138kV FUT 11 SVS at Portage and Quartz Creek Page 4&5 118 MW to University Substation Existing Kenai Intertie at 138kV FUT 12 SVS at Quartz Creek Page 4&5 105 MW to University Substation Existing Kenai Intertie at 138kV FUT 13 SVS at Portage Page 4&5 104 MW to University Substation Existing Kenai Intertie at 230kV FUT 7 114 MW to University Substation Page 4&5 Enstar Route at 138kV - Heavy Winter 2000 FUT 8 125 MW to Huffman Substation Page4&5 Enstar Route at 230kV - Heavy Winter 2000 FUT 19 125 MW to Huffman Substation Page 1-5 Enstar Route at 230kV - Heavy Winter 2000 FUT 15 125 MW to University Substation Page 1-5 Tesoro Route at 138kV - Heavy Winter 2000 FUT 21 125 MW to International Substation Page 1-5 Tesoro Route at 138kV - Heavy Winter 2000 FUT 22 125 MW to Pt. Woronzof Station Page 1-5 Tesoro Route at 230kV - Heavy Winter 2000 FUT 16 125 MW to International Substation Page 1-5 Tesoro Route at 230kV - Heavy Winter 2000 FUT 20 125 MW to Pt. Woronzof Station Page 1-5 Beluga Route at 138kV - Heavy Winter 2000 FUT 4 125 MW to Beluga Substation Page 4&5 Beluga Route at 230kV - Heavy Winter 2000 FUT 2 125 MW to Beluga Substation Page 4&5 Tesoro Route at 230kV - Light Summer 2000 FUT 18 50 MW from International Substation Page 1-5 Enstar Route at 230kV - Light Summer 2000 FUT 23 50 MW from Huffman Substation Page 1-5 ~ &O 12 1064 (3-16-87) Tesoro Route at 230kV - Heavy Winter 1991 119 MW to International Substation Tesoro Route at 230kV - Heavy Winter 1991 119 MW to Pt. Woronzof Station Enstar Route at 230kV - Heavy Winter 1991 119 MW to Huffman Substation Tesoro Route at 230kV - Light Summer 1991 45 MW from International Substation Tesoro Route at 230kV - Light Summer 1991 45 MW from Pt. Woronzof Station Enstar Route at 230kV - Light Summer 1991 45 MW from Huffman Substation T &O 12 1064 (3-16-87) INT 3 Page 1-5 INT 5 Page 1-5 INT 7 Page 1-5 INT 4 Page 1-5 INT 6 Page 1-5 INT 8 Page 1-5 —€. TERM. 238 es s 2 sa y2 sa To mp2 . —> | 8 «< > romnrs Ste To mre t 8.998 PU 4 oo a s a r a a i SW TERM. 23D @ se Pu aljiQuniv anc e238 =— <38.&> 8.98% PU 4 e t Zz s \2 8 Te er. nAcC B38 INDIAN = (138 Ee a 8.998 PU 8.992 PU LA a = VUNIV ANC (138 a tae =u a Pt wWZFi tae 8.98) Pu = aie ei =e _ + > Se + <ae <ae @) a a ese —_— eis’ Ww GirRowood 1:38 + <@e.e> <zo.0> oe 40.8 a a © <is. a> a . Pu v BELUGA 238 ‘.e81 Pu 8.985 PU WY portaAse 138 6.99 Pu 39.8 | | | | | Pr. wzFe 138 L PORTAGE ie.8 BELUGA 4368 HOPE 138 POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO FuTIt TO DAVES 138 BERNICE ba QuARTz ‘38 DAVES so.ot is soLnt 138 7 ae ae 1s3 6S) pose mo * TO TESORO BS — 1 ee: G “a> Kia 5 = <2.a8> C2 Demi PR ve cue ad 294 1.8tb PU O41 <b ab> “s ® oat aee BennNice 118 sovor. 13.8 1-8 QUARTZ i2.8 “oe e.aua> | 8 s22 ©) f sa [oes 68S poe. 39.4 Loe 6) = 3 > > G4.» <4a a> 19.8 @.4a4> )<S-62> 1 C5 per <a.1b '.884 PU 4.898 PU (6) (.eaa PU e éa Mad SKI HELL wW.a alS ian, 18.1 )2.05 ee : => ApS eunarz bs <add «i4.a> U<ie.e> <i. ees Fu 1.ee4 Pu 4 1 ate Pu 1 ees Pu ott, |: na m c ea cr aie r|o Bei KASILOF 115 -|" cl: -Viv e -fy 1.803 PU y otis “ 8.998 PU |" a £ BERNICE 24.49 ala = o]o v = * ft coorer 4 BRAD UCT tts cf > a) a 1.823 PU la =the ¢. te s = cule aje Atilc ancuor is aye 21% 1.Ba PU v g s r . &) n BRAD L vs DIAnOND ba bob. 2 «ia an ‘a8 = <4. t> = = <b.22> db. bid <s.ag> Pcs.1s> be a ' es Pu —s FRITZ vis <4 b> 1 983 PU 1.018 Pu DIAMOND 115 POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO FuTtt 10 HOPE 138 6) 74S onves 8 989 PU alii a c % v A aja uy mn WS vate @ 988 Pu aille aloe « v A Za os ia OTN) AWW nine 6.988 Pu ale aie ~ Vv 2 a] mye "NY senano 8.937 PU is es bd ba € TERM. 238 S$ @s,5 OS TO mLPe SS «qs ee To mee TO TEEL PND #8 Lt |SH TERM 238 @ 38) Pu <ea.s> INDIAN 1328 ft er. MAC 238 Leena 2.9%» PU ty Vs A : = air : SypMuniv anc sae m fm PT MAC 138 v Vv a.t Pu Ye. VGIRDWOOD 138 ae ee ee ae <22.6> <38. 5) ln" bs PU 45.8 a z a a .“ Giau> | a = e398 Pu 8.986 Pu ; v BELUGA 238 | 1 or = 8.997 Pu 2 | 2.9 PU 4 | uu V PORTAGE 138 | Pl. wzFe 138 7 8.aea PU 44.9 4 [= PORTAGE 12.8 as, Z <ai> c BELUGA = «1.38 % a 8.985 PU 4 > @ 42 PU Y HOPE 138 POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO FUTIe TO DAVES 138 QUARTZ ‘328 BAves ‘38 BERNICE 6&9 sovor. ois so.orT 138 me tas TO woPE 138 a0 1e4 TO TesoRO 4a = san 'aa ‘aa "este aw <a ead |= = a2 aed Ras cana O.aa> 1.809 PU a2 <a» Ae ze a.98 Pu ~ BERNICE 115 so.or. 13.8 'e O] guantz ia.e -]a 8.es8 zo ae @.4sa> | 8 Ve TIP aves vies sti 4S pecs see [SP = (G) = ia) “ese » <43. S> alia" We Pu <a.sa> 264.95 4.95> <5. Sb) 8.997 Pu ot Bey PU at | eaa Pu ale SKI HILL 115 Ww4 gS 18.6 6.99 1.98 [= , 7 QUARTZ roy a 1.888 PU s ajo ‘ mle Sijpnmsicor ovis LAWING is a @ 9e7 Pu 1.15 PU aM s ~ s 8.992 Pu s ra x a - BERNICE 24.49 ~ : s = ro) BRAD ICT 115 We n '.pas Pu A io SHi- . 5 “ a Btls ancuor = is : 2 a v g s Cy r Aue s LAHING b4 o.904 eu aia BRAD & ws miles 44.2 Ss 6) % BIAnOND el) iene G4 <3.) 188 44.2 = 6) <b. 22> <b. 98> <e.t <$.48> Za lun> a 1 eee Pu : z|a <w 28) <e FRITZ ves <s ay Pte 1.984 PU 1.810 PU - (G) wy ceunen ba DIAMOND 115 <3.4@> 4.22 Pu POHER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE -KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO Fula AGE S$ TO THELAND BeBe €. TERM. 238 Ss .W,5 12 TO mLPe => | -- en TE ey 4 be 8.989 Pu POSE, z TERN 238 «je e980 PU ZilYusiv anc 238 6.987 Pu a T . WW Pr. mmc 238 pee Lrey @.992 PU 8.982 PU ay a 4 “ PY mAC tae Y PY wzFI tae e.492 PU = Ses pave ay a t Gia <27 a> eve a4 Ww Seas oe — — “Ss GirRowooD = <ia.4> <e1.e> i 2 a 444 a =° = — | a <is.@> Y @ 999 PU BELUGA = 2.38 | cate '.e8) PU | 8.98b PU A = o | z = 7 iC PORTAGE | 8.99 PU afilr | Pia MEEE 138 PORTAGE 12.8 EA oe .t a —— s CANT ULL <ab. a> v @ ese a = e.994 PU - a 2 wore vw POWER ENGINEERS INC eter ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO FUuTIa 1O DAVES 138 1328 138 QuARTZ 12a DAVES ‘38 BERNICE &9 sovot 10s SOT tae TO HOPE 138 me aa 13.9 m at tes TO TESORO BA = poe 133 138 '281%e29> «aw 2d |S <2.087 iw Des am FG way cee open ese 1.885 Pu ose 6 -- <5 be> <a sa> <8 .@> @.9b4 PU S tee ae BERNICE 115 so.or. 13.8 —— QUARTZ 12.8 a © “8 @ <a.as> [8 e008 ts ee [A -? wa 40.8 = -@) * = eas) ne es ne <a.42a> )<2. 88> <2. be> y B.96S PU obs PU Wo 6) = 1 eae Pu A mail coe <a, Va> SKI HELE 8tS wW.2 e © g 1. 9.3 ,2.19 ecu = Yai. s> 2 Z auaarz 9 13.6 14.5> 0 <tb.a atanatets 3 QD eee ru S | @ae Pu 1.017 Pu aft,” ale a Zz r c ae az os Bijonasicar is r We awine tis a —~ Vv @ se Pu v 1.88b PU silo es 2.998 PU Is A 2 aje a 4] o|a@ I BERNICE 24.9 als 2/4 z Vv eda a S) coorer es BRAD JCT 8h r WY S 8 989 PU a|, 1.B28 Pu o.” la =the efits ai- x : sje Atiic ancuor wis 279 2)F 4/7 =i )ex 4 '.e88 Pu g ¢ % vy, ala ata 2 ©) aie Sila —NEY LAWING ba = 8.956 PU Vv all> BRAD L es ata DIAMOND 115 = 4.2 % DIAMOND a oe > (6) Vv non & _ Gila: FRITZ sis bb 3 | 2.2m ‘o.8 aia a0 EN iat oo <a.a@> fue = = Sh = <b. 22> ® '@ BT cs.asrcs.tid EcH.an oe af ae a —_— 1+ ers PU z “ <b 22> <b 9%) <a a> oe @.998 PU eit Pu “WIN sennro ba ANCHORAGE -KENAIL POHER ENGINEERS INTERT CASE NO FUuTIa INC IE AoE $5 8 985 PU aa Ee TEAN. 228 To mPa 53.8 4 55.9 = | 25 Ciiteid-* <7 bh. t> @astt Pu HW (TERN 228 TO TEGLAND 298 er. mAC 6238 8.985 PU PT MAC 138 12.8 <a sae =. = so qia.@)> ae.8 <i. a> bb. 2 be i. aa> eee Pu BELUGA 238 (.082 PU tom UNIV ANC 2348 “ea 2 = TO mLPe = <@ as) “I> UNIV ANC 128 @ 985 PU et wzFi 138 ae “(as > 36.7 ~~ 2 <25.b> (.688 PU onTe ‘ae 6.989 PU WIFe PT. | | I | | | uu POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE -KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO FUTD = 8.998 Pu <7.81> <B.muD> =z c % 3 z 2 z ‘ae 8.987 PU <1.388> <1. a” PAGE 4 <@ @ea> Ny spies 238 8.994 Pu GIRDHOOD 2368 @ 3% PU 8.999 PU ‘es 2a> <a am <i ‘es noPE e306 1.882 PU <2 88> TO DAVES 238 BERNICE 3.7 TO TESORO &b& 4 1s =e <2 2b) 8.993 PU BERNICE 24.9 DIAnOND bs 18.8 os <p.a2> 7 18 <e 22> 1.88 Pu a n so.or 238 QUARTZ 2368 a 124 12a DAVES e238 . = > Qa te a> <1 a4) r sovor. is isa las ° — — e vey tes 25 = Ze eunxe a2 <2.81> <2.82) | cup .e> n 1 @2a PU | a e ‘ 9 BERNICE 11S 8 ar any Pu se 48.8 1.885 PU Sa au 4 ga) <4 4d = (6) a 12. b> <3.3D 48 ' Pu SKI HILL 11S 19a i.04 [es J s LAWING oes @ 989% PU = x z S ce sf, | ere Pu r cle = = “tS cooren oy ° BAAD JCT 1S Ww Tn”, ‘era Pu 1.82b PU a a cr , @ a 2 ws i LAntne (98s eu a a BRAD L 1s 44.2 © ob 31S ap <4 @> 44.2 6) = $e 8167. 22> ce. s2> 1 <5. > 3S.» 1 wee Pu <= ne FRITZ ves <s we |e 6) 1.819 Pu <3.) SEWARD 9 0.956 Fu BIANOND oes POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CASE nO FUT ape 197 TO TEELAND 258 'ee k<ks. a> te BELUGA €. TEAN. 238 8.33 ,69.33 — | — To nLPe aan <18.@> ee. Pu 2328 = <«s.53> ' <3. 55> @ 996 Pu W TERN 2238 Pu er. mac 6238 6.998 PU PT MAC aa aa.s UNIV ANC 2368 UNIV ANC 138 ess4 eu Ppl HZFi 138 ae. One ‘a8 swe 8.998 PU | | | | | | Pr. uzea tae8 = av.$ ,21.5 = <a.) ' C28. b> 1.884 PU POWER ENGINEERS ANCHORAGE-KENAI CASE NO Fure <a.83%> <a@e. > INC INTERTIE 42 4.2 ae is es94 PU HUFFMAN <m. 38> <@.95> <b .9%> -<45.0 ips meym BURNT 1S 138 = Ld ‘eta Pu UNIV ANC 1.688 Fu oes To so.DT TO MLR -6s> Vv INDIAN 1.848 Pu A a fe Vv a a Z o = Vv sirpwooo 1 ee PU <e.es> 34> 1.849 PU '.6se@ Pu is es 1s. BERNICE ba 3.7 (Co 1O TESORD BQ = soLor. 5 <2.ae> a 2ae a ) = QuARTZ is r 203 ete oT ty ma a «@ B21) «4. 7@> L" zx — BERNICE 115 1». BTS ap -|2 (G) a9.9 39.9 39.4 seston ceed | 328 — : She (6) «2.455 The a > ‘2 s> +.m2as Pu -WWY paves tis 1.8 <a.99> J<eaS> Ty esp <b. bay antted = (eas Pu whl 2 v (6) <2.83> qW.4 wlio SKI HELE tS = e *ie i“ =_ ‘8811.92 ‘.ea 2fijv quartz es v s = a <e 784 7 1.818 Pu n m (.682 Pu cle a A] a a o z a = a = NY cine oes r AHS wasicor S 1 are eu - We ella 8.992 PU ails alr x a BERNICE 24.9 ~ a 9 BAAD UCT 18S ‘e208 Pu = 1.02— PU a s r a = a ~ o s a J i) a © = HW LAYING ba t.825 Pu os ile is ujs iy v 9 DIAMOND on 2 aa 18.8 . o zs <m.22> 7 '8 @ 8 8161.20 ce. sD ' <8. 8a (6) a = — «a.@2> = hm ' g22 PU <e 22> <e ay FRITZ vis <s wp |e 1.980 PU 1.819 Pu += +® PUY ceunno La <3.82> DIAMOND 115 8.904 Pu POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO FuTB AGE 5 ZNS ba 12 45,8 22 = nos TAP ba To uAS BAO = CéTCQ}. S'S av.8 <4 9a> | <3 a@> = > | ae.0 32.3 HAS Bo > <s VD = Ene = 2 ew 2,31.3 o <4.a9> <a.sw BHt=E “ '.988 PU «Ss a4 <«s.12) <a. 3e> ad GHS 9 @ 99% PU 1.e18 Pu <4.8)D ces TAP 9 8.992 PU 28.b tbe HS ba <2 “b> <t eB 1.887 PU a 3 svs =) SMuUS CHNA bo @a9: Pu ~ = FHS ba '.808 Pu vy FHS 1328 3 ' Ord Pu HLP 2328 _ Bia Pu at ad <5.b5> ' 862 PU HLS a5 1.84e@ PU HLS 'e.8 {On 1 > ee ee u eae re POWER ENGINEERS INC CHS ' OSb PU aus ANCHORAGE KENAL INTERTIE 10 DOUGLAS ans CASE NO FUTIG PAGE 1 SHAW oes LAZELLET 615 TO Cus ans a324 a2a4 eas9 = —- | -- > -_ = TS <b 82> <b @b> | <4 3a> 43 8 : @a4 Pu o The TUATELLE 115 Tq\F pouscas 345 cs ae a3) Pu : _ ‘is @ 978 PU Se ee) EKLUTNA 11S fy ‘ a@e@ Pu s 8 TEELAND 34S Beslan seas MHS HERNING 115 138 8.984 PU EKLUTNA2 b.9 = 14 8 n => s <18% - = 1.B2b PU = : Vv 1.688 PU 1.82) Pu i YReeo sis '.eie8 Pu TEELAND 13.8 3 PARKS oes 3 a 1 @@e PU Teorme wis e198 Pu v BRIGGS 115 HCRAE ves PIPPEL tis said ial e995 PU efits @ 9% Pu 5 te a = r WSTEELAND 238 rs nice ¥ BRIGESTIP 115 a a Ifffl TEeLanD ois @ 997 PU <8. e> POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO FUTIS TO PT MAC 238 PAGE 2 tO mee ois TO 1S BRIGGSTIP ells alls alls alse fa a). al. “ “ = fe mLPI ay. s a|/o ale oa] Fle ale “w mPe oes e.9ia Pu v v v 2 ally A ® 988 PU S alll, rile “iW eite a STA. 12 165 ole eile mail oT S rc . & a +is ala 5 78.3 v v v Vv «sas 39.1> @ "82 PU stTa J) us STA mT ots 18) s8.9 $6.8 )75.8 A a w = == my el? (at. 3? 1a. s> <aa.ed | <as.a> A r rc = eas Pu ‘a m2" Bente. ms ees © o AWS SHle cate we 2 @ 98 PU <2 ne A allfy sre aa B2804) eu a @9a4 Pu 2 1e alla x ily al” APR ANCH IF s @.973 Pu bs " STR. 14 UNS aliGsta & ots 8.908 Pu 8.9407 PU a Io . N. CTS. T 01S a r = a.b1 mn — v = <o.118> , STA. B 115 STA. 1S 41S o aga.a,5.8 5 ba.e a z == = _ aie <a.aus | Cee.a> <ee.9) 28.4) 5 m =v STA. VT bts 8.918 Pu @ 972 PU o . RA 8.97 Fu <29.a> n a“ q a“ u atlia 8.973 PU ’ m a ano EE 2 ‘ -Ie Ane eS ees POWER ENGINEERS INC i. > x |] r - | = z o.ee | %q an ANCHORAGE -KENAL INTERTIE w a @ %be8 PU a a CASE NO FUTIA r r PAGE 2 € TERN 238 a 6 32 ,8.3e To mee a —- | — 2 ——— st ——- rt <4. BED <4. 68> UNTY ANC 238 @ 99% Pu wet a TO TEELAND 238 a a.s2a) 8.994 Pu W TERN 238 UNIV ANC 1tS @e,e “68 <e ad ee a> 1.849 Pu @as4 Pu r UNIY ANC 138 = HUFFHAN 238 6.98b PU &=> @a9s Pu “INDIAN iis f Pr. mac 238 1.849 PU 72> cr a 138 Vv el wzFi tae 2a 20 & a —~ a _— TO eo Cis > <2a »)> o 28.b 28.b o Ss ’ GIRDHOOD 115 <is.b> <@a.m> ~ 1 awa eu e tk ae H = a ae <1.89 | a “ ho @ae Pu 1.@@b PU v v BELUGA | | ga» eu = | NAASH 238 T aja | INT 138 oi @.9688 PU aL: a.m Pu -Werontnce 11s | 1.858 Pu lps | a BELUGA 1348 Pr. wZF2 138 % tet pu LCL. 242" 2 <a2.p |@i.w BURNT 1S 238 Ay 1.06% Pu @ 391 Pu 3 4 a TanunoweNannca : Y nore ‘os POWER ENGINEERS INC ” 1 os) PU v ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CHSE NO Furia 10 Stor WSi a 1 TESORO Ba = <e Ber “1 a 2 Ir ojr a v ' @.993 PU BERNICE ew 4 biAnono e4 ‘68 = = “eh aa> | 18 @ <b 23a) @ 99) PU ‘it so. nt aS sovoT 238 ay taavyter = =t 4} a => => ib b> <1 aed EC. a 1 ge. Pu QuARTZ vis BERNICE oes ao.9 Syaa4 e@.ase> | 4 @2e0 Pu s@> <i.e2e> SKE HELE 4 KASILOF 1.884% Pu et BRAD JCT 11S 1.828 Pu iS ANCHOR ms ot —- <2.) 444 soe 3 =| cin (6) taa | cy a> cu.a@> bo aw @ a | = 1m PU we 54216 <2 an> = <b 99> FRITZ oes 1.018 PU POHER ENGINEERS INC DIAMOND is ANCHORAGE -KEHAL THNTERTIE CASE HO funn PAGE $5 1s TO BURNT VDAVES oes | eee Pu mS —'Y LAKING mis | gee Pu a a a a = aye ~ HEV LAHING ua 1.089 PU a ia wie “ v a a “ On = WI ceunen ua ~ 8 4be Pu ZNS ba 12 4,8 22 nos TARP bt — To uas b&) OT PSS OCT STS ba 31.8 <4 9a> | <a 3@> a a2.7 a2.3 HAS a) im = sjeve aw 2,312 ~ = ee “4D <a.a4> = a 1.818 Pu $ 22> <s aed | 26. 4a> ua HS 4 aa @ 998 Pu '.8te PU ces TRAP es 28.b ,ib.2 ee oe > ba <a nar FT > '.689% Pu a svs ‘.e88 Pu <1. b> 1.8689 Pu a “ s GHS 1328 a x FHS bo x pd eis eu = i v 138 a =f ei Pu 28 , . <5 .40 ' @8s PU | 888 PU 1.8649 PU 12.8 {-®svs ; > a 2 anes) 6 POHER ENGINEERS INC CHS CT HORAGE - 1 es) Pu ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE TO DOUGLAS 34s CASE NO Furis SHAH ous LAZELLET 115 O° nWEIL os ays Lucas vis aa4 a2 8 eaa eaa = -- |= => = <e @b> | <4 a> <@ as2> 286 o.9u1 Pu =o na 8.978 Pu <'.4a> . a ea Pu os - atu VLATELLE 115 ola 74S pousLAS 345 re ane a). “ 1.038 Pu , THY pon _4ns aa Pu EKLUTNAL & & EKLUTNA ws 4 '.888 PU wie 14.8 TEGLAND 138 eh S HERNIN tos TEELAND 34S sty ns wee en tsa) 158 138 8.984 PU ERLUTNRE be. = = aia <at> | Cas al. 1.827 PU a]- <7 4a) 4@.7 o '.Bat Pu as 1.818 Pu milo a TEELAND 13.8 a]: ~ PARKS ois @.99%> Pu 2 - | @82 PU ycorme vis e939: PU @at Pu BRIGGS 115 MCRRE oes PIPPEL os 8.998 PU 2.99% PU & 6.995 Pu TEELAND 238 a 8 Shs PU BRIGGSTP is Itc reecano ois @ 998 PU CASE NO FUTIS wo PL nAc 238 ex = =|? <l@ a> alc ee @.991 Pu _ v POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE -KENAL INTERTIE b.48 Zi .e> <a asad | 8,327 TO mepe2 1s TO 1S BARIGGSTP “ils alg alla lg 9 al. al: al: “” al]: mMLPI ayu.s ee ale nm rls ale a Ss 8.914 PU v v & allk HLPe is 8 989 Pu . ally ile -Who ofits r STA. 12 11S ail «i* zt ayr rie ris aio al- ne a 8 a a s aaa {3 @.9a2a Fu vis . STA. WNT ES 4 s1.8,79.8 a <aa.s> <a2.m> | <as.a> @.att Pu aes 3 Wjeaces is s <2. 8.973 Pu 4 a Ly “ 5 : xily 8 APR ANCH 8t c oa Pu . STA. 14 41S Ss » ois 8.912 PU 6.9b7 Pu NO LTS. O05 3.by = <o.u8> STA. @ 115 STA. 18 41S aa.a,‘5.8 43.9 bB.2 = == = = <a.2a> | Cee.a> <ea.4 ten.4> bus 2 STA. 2 81s e.401 Pu 8 973 Pu = . % 8.97 Pu . <29. a> n o u @.973 Pu Zz STA. tb tsi E = “4 « 13.b ,33.2 POWER ENGINEERS INC = > —<$<$<—_—_<-|= z <1.e@ §¢@ aw ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE wo = @ She PU a a CASE NO FUTIS = iS | | | \ i TEAN. = 43.0 §<03a.0 @ 99% Pu TO TRELAND ese @ass Pu nAC 6238 8.998 Pu <i > BELUGA eee PU 'e® hes 47D BELUGA POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE To Pe : a r UNITY ANC 238 $3.8 . = <b. 1 a> a) 24 2 <1. 1. an 8.4% PU UNIV ANC 1S e449 )849 => | — <2.4t TR a “ 1.888 Pu unity anc saa Fi -~ a eo 9%— Pu n a z = a A Tr Vv a a a a Iv A a a v MARSH 238 a 2 c -iec = INTL tae FW S 2.998 PU ; 0.998 Pu 4 x v A . 2 PI. wzZFa 138 = bb. s * = =e | < <22.> BURNT 1S 23m aly al3 ' ae sis “Is aii alllY CASE NO. FuTIS trowoon see ru YPORTAGE Bee Pu 1s. BERNICE 69 a soLor. iis savor 228 z to Tesoro Ba = wy § <2.ea> van Cok a us) 8 ti2 » «a S Zi ea is © = any Pu QuARTZ 44s ro aT) . 2 <A m4 || era-as — = = mt <a 12> <3 BD a (G) au 8 BEANICE 1S ae ‘6b. 61 ap -|2 7 ait atet paris Rs > r ws so> | 2 <2 | 3!- <i.be Tye wa 1) te b 'ors Pu DAVES vis 11.8 <a.at2> 98.998) [fg aae> <o.oee » ter Pu ©1324 + ' @27 Pu alll -9@> a ; 7 SKI HILL 11s = 2 * —Ta = '@ 242. te 2.00] Ga. 2h eunarz 9 ¥ <a 784 : cae bap ced '.e0e Pu © A 5 3 RK Hamer eu = ‘ere eu 1 ars eu atte er. 3 >|" 2/8 “hie o # adi- -|4 ~UNY LAWING is r SHIV Kastor 4s es ‘ @@2 Pu “ye v Hla sapere afilr oe Pu A al® e991 Pu a a nm “” BERNICE 24.9 als c LAS g v c ATS coorer Ch! r ~ BRAD JCT 11S one aj” t.e2) Pu oF itA ow ha eta : te adi w/a “ F 21s Atic ancuor vis 2|*% _ =| a 1.689 PU o % 2 ale aie (F) mie aij — HEV CAWING ba aja tale Pu v ails BRAD L is elie 44.2 = 3'.8 =~ v DIAMOND ba <b. 40> (6) ‘8.8 44.2 = = <b. 22> <b. a4 <s.38> 1G. sup <e.41> (6) a ( Bt» PU <3.be> Jun a 4h <b 22> FRITZ vos 25 - me 8.999 PU '2 Pu @ 4 Vsewnro &4 DIAMOND 115 ese Pu @.963 Pu POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE Fures CASE NO ZNS ba @ 22 ry + (0 sts 49 To uAS mos TAP ba <4 aad <oeeee HAS a ave aa a2 8) aw i aw 2,31.2 > += = ja = de. ae | <4 18> <a92 TT <s ad |S. 4a> ‘ere Pu 8B A970 Pu GHS 1.612 Pu ui Cs 9 2 1.880 Fu @.992 PU A ie o “ x bd a s ‘.8:8 Pu oT] - — v ‘ae 158 HLS ‘38 ' 824 PU 2 any eu HLS 12.8 eo | (G)5¥ ae — 7 POWER ENGINEERS INC My cus ays $09.4? + osv Pu 6 2b PU ANCHORAGE-KENA] INTERTIE CASE NO. FuTet TO DOUBLAS 34s PAGE | SHAH es LAZELLET 615 O'wEeIe is Lucas tis TO CHS ays 2349 aaa hO = {2 22.6 “4 oB8 <e en, 4 <4.as> ES <a a3» 8.9bb Pu ¢ a <1. z a @ 364 PU os =) son nits 2 SeATeLLE o4n5 a 2 ats pi 467 PU u ) 1.938 PU 6.%s PU Wa Fr n ead EKLUTNA! b&b. EKLUTNA tts » VESENND TEELAND 138 ‘48 4 8 ise <5.38> 256 8.998 Pu MERGING 1S EKLUTNA2 &.9 A 6.979 PU 14.8 a x 1. 55> ihe REED rey = 8.998 Pu Ppieies 1.987 Pu v TEELAND 13.8 eae PARKS is VCore ois n @ 4 @.565 PU n B.94S8 PU BRI6G65 oes 8.98 PU PIPPEL ses A o B.99t PU TEELAND nCRRE is = silo easaieu @aa) Pu a BRIGESTP 11S v b.4B = IC reeLAnD ois ee 992 PU INC POWER ENGINEERS ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE jo pr NAC 238 CASE NO FuTet TO mre tts 10 BRIGGSTP tts ay.s mPa is 8.989 PU @ 985 PU STA. 12 is 78) 18.3 «ae 2 fe eas Pu STA ‘s ois 4a.) 58.9 == <at.b> § (aa.b> en 8.%b7 Pu He 5 sep Gs ne FAL 238 wa ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO. FUuTet PAGE 3 8 Aes PU 8 9@7 PU a APA OANCH 11S is n sje 8.378 Pu % . a vy 7 - STA = os 2 B.%b3 PU n nan a ® a ¢ <a.904 4 E STA. @ 0S SIA, 15 (1S ° aaa 43.8 48.4 ba.e fsa. 1 ts = = + . ¥ <a 205 | G@a.a> <aa.ad <2a. s> : 2 fA 8 Wea Pu @.9%b7 Pu @ 99 PU 8.969 Pu a ie Tr “ z a is a c Tab | 33.2 POHER ENGINEERS INC ; v -_ xz a a e l7> & TERM €. TEAM. 238 12.8,12.68 To mee e asi scaas : 343 2 <3.83) <3.83> UNIY ANC 230 @ 989 PU z TO TEELAND 238 UNITY ANC e483 ,e8 ais 49 z |Z 4 TeAn 228 @ 987 Pu UNITY ANC 138 @ .e3 Pu Zz er. mac 238 8.9@2a Pu ess 8.987 PU » B71) <b. 94> 130 iaa v s @.%82 Pu a - c .. ” 8 S _ — Y sIRDHOOD 4. @ 987 Pu Pe 8 8.997 Pu 3 na | ; re Inte. 138 Vv a & BELUGA | ercee Fu ‘.em1 Pu : 2 4 | a AIRPORT 138 a = tab ee | Pr. wzee 138 : ae. 2 - eee == Y PORTAGE <a. ®.998 PU s a a BELUGA 81:38 d @ 385 PU ' ga@ PU @sa>d<i PT. Poss.1aa@ e298 Fu al WY HOPS POWER ENGINEERS INC @.998 PU <ee.s> ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO. FuTel -<eB B> TO BERNICE 138 ous tis BERNICE 138 eT. Poss. 138 To 133 soLnrT. ‘ae SsOLDT. is ws I ws ! ws 7 = > a «eu <@ t@a> <2. 20 Pu 2a => BERNICE 113 QUARTI vs ew (slau) 1s" tee <em> 48.8 & a = (6) «3.03 1.812 PU <48.8> | Gaia '.@28 Pu BERNICE 6% 13.9 Bie PU 3 TO Tesoro bo = Ws ola <2.08) Sms woe 108 ei* aud <b. 02> oes ‘WSs » 2a aunniz 4 xx ax <1s.> TS aoe bs tees Pu -|® 1.827 PU 1.93b Pu ‘e ad? Zh. THIN Kasivor ois gy rfln | 023 Pu A s a a] es v AT coorer 9 a cL > BRAD JCT Wis 2 “Hid Pu oa a 1.028 PU ox fifa . a im > a u . 4 lets <a as 2 is ANCHOR us win “ a = a : a 6.998 Pu * ps « 1.828 PU v v 7 nie G al: aja v 0.997 Pu gAAD L is BERNICE 24.* we bb.3 (6) DIAMOND 115 =] <4.29 ap.7 “4.2 - BIANOND bo FRIIZ ms r 5 (G) ‘a.8 <'4-B? Tugs 49.9) $2.8 se] 64a = = r= <b.4a> [ane <b. 22> bD> <b.9@> § <b. 24> a (6) | @e4 Pu <4 aD <b. 22> 1.636 PU 1.889 Pu ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERT CASE NO FUuT2at POWER ENGINEERS INC 1€ 5 ; = © Thm Ste eaves vos 1.824% Pu «ite a a a ¥ “an ofr a n WS nis us 1 @te Pu a la A] cr a Vv a eS c s ae THY canine ba 1.82@b PU wile ale J v an 7 “ ~ 4! VseEWARD ba 8.908 Pu ZNS ba @ a2 ao ane Bats TO STS bo HOS TAP baw <4. 9a5 ca eee HAS 6a al.e ae q sens a2 ay 2,311.2 =~ =. — = rn Ke. wip § <4. 18> <a> 15 aa. “s lis 2S (ete Pu 6.997 PU Coes altv Gus 6S : t.@1e Pu e.ag4 Pu “ “l 5. SIDE b9 = CPS TARP) bo elae (eu 28.b),ib.2 a2 <2.ba> ta—5 1 eas Pu Yuus CHNA ba @a93 Pu a a - : “ Ayo sas 9 v 1.@@b PU 3 © a = = “ = Vv TO DOUBLAS ans 1.825 Pu MUS 12.8 PGs Ce) sFs F 8.88 ,e8 sa: @ aan ,8.be = Sa. <1.1ed VES wap «s 4@' B.19> 1.885 PU ie ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE POWER ENGINEERS INC CASE nO Fulee PRBE | 4 Pu ba mLPL ay. s ai- aie aria z au iv] a 8.987 Pu Vv v Vv v ata ria ~ vis ale eG rie r a 4 a 1.4 g v v 3a9.2> ewe fu ava. te 108 STA. 14T 115 4a.7) 50.9 sega? ae te fas. a 8.4%bb Pu aes 2s “a 7 Vv ALPI is Kau r @ %a PU @ Pu “ £ rill a APA ANCH 11S a a|e 8.44 PU Besta wy vas = 8.98 Pu sTR ry ol Ay @.4%b2 Pu a]: a “ w LTS Tuts o : 3.69 a oe v <a.9e8 sTA @ 1S) Gra. 1s ots ays aaa,4s.a@ 48.4 ba.e2 4 =) wis SHE = = 29.4 «a ad VG2.a> <2a.4 <2e. 5) @ Wwe Pu @.%bb PU @ 4be8 PU @.9%8 PU STA th tts a a = Meer naaye POWER ENGINEERS INC an lo Za aiid be ae ANCHORAGE -KENAL INTERTIE Bo Su PU (HSE NO Fulee PROE a e314 TD £ TERN 10 BRIGGSTP 115 a e a f& mPe ves @ 984 Pu 2iita rye “ al: 2 v MLPe eaa @ 9a Pu ly a v a a ~ u z a > x 2 a 6 TO TEELAND e358 ess en 3s. 5 <is.— TEAN. 238 UNIV ANC aug J w (TSAR 228 s Pu i a UNIV ANC 138 = @ se2 Pu n o a er. mac 238 <s.ID HUFFRAN 6.788 PU 6.98) PU 138 PT mAC 1ae8 er a4. ,aa.2 2a. —> | = <#8 &> <5. 54> Inte. 6.985 Pu 9.9 9 (ad. aa e3.e@ 23.1 => 2 + == <a.) <30.> PT. Pposs.1a38 @aa7 Pu POWER ENGINEERS INC HNCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE (0) () (i) (c) (6) (G) CASE NO Filed ace 4 ta 8.98) Pu a “ < 22.4 _ sa ALAPORT vy BELUGA 230 sa@> <a2 D attt> Pu 8.99% Pu ayn “4 - EN e994 Pu 0 | q a BELUGA 1 38 ln ne 1 am Pu 28s To mPe =| -- > <2. 3b) <2. 3b> @ a0 Fu UNIV ANC 2238 ois BERNICE se> 8.58> <! as> <1 15> a> @ eee <8 B5Od<) = 128 TO mLPe 6.98 Pu @ 98 Pu < o 2 S rt 5 ° 5 Y PORTAGE @.987 PU HOPE ® 98) Pu os BERNICE 1:28 vo Pept POSS 138 | tae = a aa) sovot 1328 sovnt os Sh 2 Am. t = => — <1. 33> <1.er PCr 4a QuARTZ is 1.632 Pu ew BEANICE 115 ave ara Aa = = a c a “a> % eeceres BERNICE &" (ese Pu ¥ onves ves <2.8b> - 4.82 PU 1 ars Pu a 1O TESORO ba s “ Smt mete tt . 67.9% 10.08 ‘ PY @unrrz a9 as. pees Pu 1.828 Pu . : a ~4IY LAWING HS KASILOF 115 gs iam oeul 1.084 Pu a \Y coorer BRAD SCT Wis 1.829 PU ay . ms s LAWING ba 1.828 Pu @.989 Pu BERNICE 24.9 DIAMOND 115 ap DIANOND = 6A = Faiz <14.8> 18.8 = = ‘ae rae 1G .av «a. 19> <e.aa> | 18 =. “) @es pu Vsenaro ba — =. i <b. ee? <b. b> 1.83b PU 6.968 Pu 1 ere Pu 1.@23 Pu ——— ——— POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORHGE-KENHI INTERTIE CHE NO FUTee AGE 4 an ZNS ba @ 2e HAS as tan To STS ba TO UAS bd <a a> mos TAP bt <4 aad aa.0 a2.a i = = a <s.49> 164 be <a.09) ‘> _ a 1 889 Pu he 6HsS el t.e12 Pu a.993 Pu “ A s fe 4 CPS TAP) 469 id % 20.b ,lb.2 ‘3.8 <e.bt ts Y cus ays A 1 @Sm PU - 10 DOUBLAS as “ ae + gee PU 2 = = <@.b3b> - 2 era Pu 1s te. a ace | (6)5¥ a2. <1. a> eo (ae PU hl nus 1a.5 Pes es a 2 «s ae E 3b> 8 997 PU Ss. sine oq 8.998 PU a a SmMusS CHNA bo @a2 Pu 1.825 Pu <18.8> (<9. a> 8.88 »a saa <1.) te sa) 1.864% PU INC POWER ENGINEERS ANCHORAGE KENHI INTERTIE CASE NO FUTIb ba '.e07 Pu ba ru ‘ae @ie Pu SHAH ous LAZELLET 1IS aaa To Cus ays s aa eo —~ | - <» ae) a as a 8.979 Pu Om eens c a nm @ats Pu . . pow os VEATELLE 115 fi ly sie U 0.974 PU 8.901 Pu EKLUTNAL &.o EKLUTNA 1tS TEELANB 138 re) a ‘sa a <18 s . SHEANING 11S EXLUTNRa &.9 .. . 6.985 Pu 14.8 € 14> 7 neen nis See a '.e18 PU JEELAND 13.8 PRAKS vis 2 1.882 Pu a ~ comme is = eas: Pu A a BAI8GS ‘is S 8.998 PU PIPPEL oes : = , @.995 Pu 3 TEELAND ae vo eee JUC e as Pu eaa Pu = a Vv BRIGESTP 115 tv TEELAND is e999 Pu <B> POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE HW nN To PT. WAC 238 ENSE NO-FUT IG to mre es BRIGGSTP 115 mre oes @ 7.98 Fu es 1.3 39.1> S388 Fu oes a ? mau => “4 : eat eu 2 2 mee ois @ %e Fu mPe 236 @ 995 Pu APA ANCH 115 ie . 8.973 Pu ie > a a é Vv STR oes Ly B8.%7 Pu a i a n s alr a v e sTA se oes fn aaa,4s.@ a "STR q os v f22.@> <a2 a ™ Pe 3b PU eos eu ewmareu . @.91a PU a = z é Sim im ris POHER ENGINEERS INC « : © 13.b)33.2 = = > = SE z oad 1 an ANCHORAGE -KENAL INTERTIE « 5 8 % ee PU CASE NO FUTIB PAGE 2 e . eas TO TEELAND ese BELUGA eit Pu -99t Pu -B><4.98> <s HZFi 138 sa : <a2 @) 9.3 = aes Vv <e2.a) eS Ly ty - <eB. > <18s.@> ert. “zZFe 138 as.t ,as.2 —+i- ae eee <ai. | ame PU ies inte. eas o.as4 Pu Pl. POSS.2a8 ‘eet Pu POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE KENAL INTERTIE CASE nO FUuTib ; €. TERN. 238 $3.0 p0aet ro mre —= = <s.2e9) § <3. 28> UNIV ANC 238 @ 997 PU 1.9 <1. b> a z ® Ww TERN 238 CU Ota), UNIV ANC IS Iv 6.995 Pu o.995 Pu ee feos z <a ad a“) c © (.888 PU a v) 2 UNIV ANC 1380 — a ea fu z PT. mac 238 @.9935 Pu AIRPORT 238 @.9958 Pu A or: <8 9Bs> tas » e 4 c o t 41> <B.Bsi> <1 GiReawooo ‘ ape Pu <e.ai> => VY PORTAGE '.681 PU 41> <@ BS8><) BERNICE 2238 To PT. PosSs.238 so.nt. aae soLDT. 415 fe tae 2 we 7 a —_ <0 492 Ve saa> <a=18 QuARTE ts ‘.eee Pu aw. 2u ci BERNICE 113 et <@ “32> <4 as) see 1b OIG. 2 se) = (6) <e.e28 1.817 Pu <48.8> 14.2> ' mat Pu BERNICE §=bS <3.34> 3.0 1.e2e Pu 4 TO TESORO 6a Sma woee ts eee =|% ‘@4 12 ea ‘4a 2 fp sunatz 4 '.o03 Pu 1.018 Pu ‘ My KASILOF 113 y. 1.014% Pu = BRAB ICT '.824 ois Pu ANCHOR os 1.004 Pu <8. 74—> 8.998 Pu BERNICE 24.9 BIANOND aos 38.9 _ BIAnNOND bt FRLIZ == 4.0 faye = = <e We> <b. O4> § <5. am> 2 60a Pu <3.e4> (6) 1 ea Pu Bie Pu rere POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO Full noe $s 7H a e s % Y naves ‘us 1.a07 eu = 13.8 13> <8.18> LT a WS anins is ‘ ae ru s la “~ ec . vw A s s s we = Hy LAWING ba '.e18 Pu “ilo als i] ¥ nw z “ =e — 4! VseHWARD ba e..1e8 Pu ZnS ba To uns en : <a ~~ a nos TRE BS omer) y . 20 azi8 ava si <e.ma> | <4 D> <3) 88> ze> (sa 15> ' ee fu @ 991 Pu 6ns " 1.008 Pu a.9%4 Pu 5S. Sipe BS 6.991 PU GMUS CHNR wo e938 Pu ere s ry ede “ “ * Aiic ins -s y Y, = ‘.983 fu c ¢ a Cy a “ — a v v s 1.0235 Pu nus ta.s Pes 9 es aay be <i a | <s sa> 24> (.888 Pu 1.888 Pu POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE -KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO FUuTeB PAGE | TO BOUGLAS ats =a 808 Fu FHS ba '.818 Pu fFus ‘38 1.038 Pu a es a" rT eeeres , TEELAND 138 Ss so <@ @e> cies HEANING oes 1.927 PU e.904 Pu TEELAND 13. x svs s TeoTne ts esse Pu ACARE ons TEELAND 2238 8 3% PU Aa a TEELAND 815 eoas0 Pu <25.> 10 Pr NAC 238 CASE NO FL a POWER ENGINEERS ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE ELcer tt Owen 1 SHAH ws LAZELLE 5 E} ‘s Tithe Te = oe aaa aae,2a9 aaa oe + |= = e2> (» a) <4 4e> aoe eu <@ as2> e.a Pu 3 3 0.978 Pu “a. 4 2 = a4 eu s 21" son ‘is . SeATeLLce ts e WZ oouccas ays ollly ; rie \ Vis ire o.318 Pu EXLUTNA &.G mse EKLUTINA 1th ™ @e ‘.888 Pu EKLUTNA2 b&b. a 2b) KI REED oes een) eu '.e18 PU PARKS vis 1.e82 PU BRI665 sos @.989 PU PIPPEL ois a s B.994 Pu s zie oO BRIGGESIP 11S v b.48 INC To mepe sis (G) (E) () ©) HO BRIGGSTP 115 “ills oy | al: al: at. mLPt ayn.s e 2 ajle She s mPa oes @.912 Pu v v v v A @ "88 Pu 5 a Was alt, a stn. 12 oes s r s . % a ai 7.8 448.3 8 8 £ <as.s 39.0> @.588 Pu STA. t@ 46s 4@.7 a 3 F Gia les “he ee e.1e8 Pu So r c - b= Rn a eo FWY SHS es vis a E . o 8 97 FU e.9l2 Pu 5 © mPe 2328 wills rily @ 99a Pu -|5 APA OANCH 1S ~ aia a ° . 6.973 Pu : 3 | . . Ly - . a aiiS ost# & otes al 8.%bb Pu a eit. Tr oe a v 3 stm @ 81S STA. 1S 4S | aaa ,4s.@ 45.4 be.2 Siesta. 2 115s =i = c= 29. a> . 2 =v <a ad | G2.8> <aa.9a> <ea.4> 2 a { AS See PU o.718 Pu e212 eu 6.912 Pu u a a - zx ee r « nm ‘ STA th os = eatigs 13.6 ,33-2 POWER ENGINEERS INC = > v == + = oes 1a ep ANCHORAGE -KENAL INTERTIE . : oes CASE NO. FUT2e PAGE 3 a a | €. TEAN. 238 ea. 4 to mPe ae : —- = <4. 39> § <4. sD @aas eu univ ANC 238 ae 2 TO mALPe ae eB <@ @es> <@ Ges) 8.992 PU TO TEBLAND e308 H TERN 228 UNIV ANC tS @asa Pu <8. e8s> ess LT s UNIV ANC 138 s @.a9a Pu a a al V INDIAN ons ; e HUFFHAN 6136 ry ei! @.992 Pu m ‘ae es Vv aa.s aa.s a = e <aa.o inte. re) s o.9am7 Pu Bs VY GIRBHOOD 115 e3.3 = e997 Pu ALARPORT '.888 Pu .1@> wze 6238 er. VPORTAGE 115 sayy tay 8.998 Pu <e.ssay 14 ssid es 8.999 PU z BELUGA 138 2 tut PU x A s PT. POSS. 228 a 1.eas eu = - v nore vis POWER ENGINEERS INC 8.999 PU ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO fulee BERNICE 238 to Fl Poss e238 12 8 i > sor. 238 sovnT. ots ce aL. = =|} eo <a. a» <a. saa [% saa> rant) QUARTZ o1t5 1.625 Pu aoa an = AN oe of BERMIEE J CB ses> ay LS oe 'b Ol @.em 1) = 6) ea 1.828 PU <0. @ [han ‘e238 PU BERNICE bs a @22 Pu a To Tesoro & Sud moe oes wel =|. 188.98 ' es Tau = fo SURATZ Ch! <4 18. s> aa ei eter eu '.009 PU (.@20 PU 18 WO xmsicor o4ts v 1.80 PU a i~ He ¢ * a r v > coorer = ; BRAB UCT 11S tars Pu - teas Pu ality «flp a n a|z 2 jp ancHor is eis - eee ru : 7 t.a0s PU v ¥ a a ©) alr v 8.991 Pu BEANICE 24.9 BinnonD IS 38.9 BIANONS = FAIZ ‘1.888 PU .660 Pu ous 19.8 <13.9 Tua.y 5.8, 52.1 Kb. 93> de. aa> § C5. 4D '.p28 PU BAAD L ois 44.E <3.44> ©) 44.E <3.44> (G) <5 te) Ta “> ‘.834 Fu POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO FUT2e ace 5 in . s « he Y onves oes '.018 fu ais ale a y a a ele ~ UV LAWING ois 'ei8 Pfu © lg *. cr na Vv a s s s wes AWS anine ba 1.028 PU wile als s v As zi“ =e -UVsewarn a) 8.901 Pu €. TEAM. 238 UNIV ANC FIs aes e 4 TERN 228 at 31 8 To mPe tag : = : . <2.e3 <e.e»> hi a @an3 Pu UNIV ANC 228 o z av.5 ,31.5 - « = 2 —TS s <@.69> § <a. ba s ean Pu + oa t “oe eae fu =— <4e > <a wt <2 =e> 1.018 PU a“ a UNIV ANC 1328 al 42> a Cy ews Pu i 3 s . - Zz er. mAC e358 e Voinpinn ovis s t.e0s PU 8.%bm PU w A J) x a tae a o et) ee a le Snurenan a8 a =3-—- — — -—- 3 8.9es PU = <ia 4) <as > A r 49.3 3 - 2 -—--- -3 s GimbwooD 1:3 <ia.4> <2es.9 v Ps me ers Pu @2.9 8.998 PU a ale = z _|® “ as | . Y = @ "823 PU | 3 BaLUaR ase OmTe ime c lA Sc g.980 PU | e.9%He Pu 4 « t | . ’ PORTAGE oes | 1.8m Pu s ~ | PT. wire 130 eae oe.3 ,02.3 BELUGA == = = el; <es.4> Visa x n ee a08 Pu 7 8 = ale a alll? HOPE ms POWER ENGINEERS INC ‘007 we ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CASE nO FUTY AGE 4 Ww FORE (38 tas = = <2 38> TO BELUGA 138 & FORE ‘328 BEANICE 128 tes so.nt = <49 4 <48.@> Qumrmtz 115 2.qa au <se.> Kit.e> 48 i. '.8aa PU 1 Baa PU <t.@a> <5. a> a BERNICE tt5 'e OTT ae s 1 ere eu sae 48.8 = = <3.92 i BERNICE 49 la b> ates) 1 ens PU v DAVES 3.7 '.@at PU TO TESORO 69 32.8 la e ae . i <e.ae = ° < <2.8%)> <e.sev I Gia a> <2) Pasa s te 7 “ « ae '.ea7 PU ATS aunarz a) mw (6) 1) SWI HELL Hts a te? 1.084% Pu a 114 bee . ke sis @) 216 a5 MWS mnins vis % 28> s 1.035 PU y t.e22 Pu ce © es es ave KASILOF 11S s als ( ea) PU “Tm G <a.44> “ihe s|e 5 x]: “HIS coorsa 9 Li Ste BRAD SCT WIS 108s Pu <e 784 1.832 PU ow “We 1.084 Fu a s /¢ nan a 2 - . a cl” a 4 a|7 c 9 sulla r afthy ancHor aes (E) 3 as . a -W 1.82 Pu TH CAuine 9 @.993 Pu < 162260 BERNICE 24.9 8 sik . 1s ale a a o 6S aes ©) y Dimnon FAIZ -2@> ‘eg a <aad s <8. 52> <1.@6> 11. 12> -@b> ©) ¢ = 1 pee Pu - 7 a <t 2a) <e as aap ft a 1.mt4 PU 1.826 PU = TIE scunno 9 <5. eb? @ see PU POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE-KENAIL INTERTIE CASE nO FUTY PAGE 35 To mre UNIV ANC 238 av.8 ,av.5 je elk <e. $@> & . $@> e* Pu a a| 2 Sho te bd eo TO mee @ 984% PU UNIV ANC FIs “ae TO TESLAND #88 “w 962 FU <4 > UNIV ANC 138 .$a> “a a awe eu Py i. z er. mac 6238 a " ViInNoian es & 1.829 PU 6.918 PU 7 Uhh c nw e . J = | 3 é 8 er mac tae ® g v 88 hn 4 Fe Sec as C MUFEHAN 128 x = os es 8.9708 PU s @ s> <ae @> r “ as oe c BIirpwooo iis + 6.3> <2@b.2> vy ' 29 PU “4 A : mei 3 : 1.41> = s y | % BELUGA ase ante isa 3 '.eg) PU | 8.588 FU 3 z a s | co Y YPORTARGE os | 1.829 PU | PT. Wife 138 a ee.3 3 = S BELUGA 138 = = | — +|3———. <@v.@> '<t5s.a> ee [88 FU ay Wy HOPE ves POWER ENGINEERS INC escnee ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO Fule ~ FORE 238 To W.FORE 238 €.FORE 238 12 2 so.pT e228 sov.or os sas 128 pias 126 pyoe (en = = == = 5b HS = tas | Gs (se @ Tt ce 4 ; : 4am <1.495 ae a> “4 1.e25 PU -(s0 2.1 ea: Pu <8. a25> BERNICE §=69 BERNICE 115 Beet (6) 3.9 eae a9 31 Cine sles. 7. to Seaaiagl et = 8 e = 2 3 <2 18> ip 5 1.35) e.s9 ie eats ~~ (G) 7. SKI HELE Oe 6) ae <4 a> ® = s iale = KASILOF tt — “a 1 ela PU <a. s4> file ie z - - “se s a v vy BRAB JCT 815 <a 184 1.624% Pu n a in 1.083 Pu A a : e s Tr ale a rc I s a a r a C oie 2ticancnon = ts ” “2 ae 1.813 Pu 8.992 PU z BERNICE 24.9 : BRAD L 44. BIAMOND 1S = eenepee) aes FRITZ 1s bb .3 1G. 16.8 Gaol) 38.1 am, Xe. ‘ee 9 8] ce. bad<s.9m> § 65. 1e> Z 6.089 Pu <e 22> <= 98> <4 wa> | t- 1.982 Pu 1.868 PU +5 <3. POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE -KENAI case no FUuTe INTERTIE QUARTZ 2.12 sos 4. <4.18> P= 'e 81G.aa <2. tb ‘ gee Pu a a nn WW BUARTZ es 1.003 PU te. aa> te. te> <I \> cooren 9 oi Pu ‘es «b> <I ©), is ©) 6» PRGE 3 a =| 2 ' € z, =e Daves ses ‘ers Pu aiilo a ce s v a s s r bed || WT ‘is '.087 PU . 5 alc a v a . e|oa a Ky HV LAniNnG oa '.817 Pu . he ~~ s a v a ria “ “~ THY sewnnn 9 @ se PU ZnS ba —— e “ VV ES ro sts ba To uas ba | TG oa nos TRP bf <0) om b. ab 38 HAG 9 = — o = Ss ee sen Va5 Ge.» <a. d [= == <t 88> <s aD a oB> ta Pu e.taa 1 B21 eu = 4 1 1.819 Pu es 5. SIDE 69 cPS TAP ba FHP ba 3.67 4%.34 aa =| | <1.8b Srv <8. ban> 1 ora Pu 1. Ben PU a a 2|* 2 Sins a x i ae ct «o FHS ba o eee zu '.@2@b Pu hs a] a a “de x - nus 12.5 allfy FHS tau 1 eM PU 138 PGS »s SFs 9 ea Pu aim Pu HLS 1e. 8 8 eee (6)5"5 ee a3 POWER ENGINEERS INC 8 wad Pu CHS aus 1 @be Pu ANCHORAGE KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO Fube TO BOUBLAS 34s a PAGE SHAH ics LAZELLET tis O weit vis 10 CHS ans ae * s 9 es Oe leeas ‘S|s.os | (a nan | @ a> <a wes | > rl se) eat (@. s2n> ' B23 PU e.4b A = a <ascano ,/8 ' Bey Pu 7 wlfJPenzerce sis aus '.822 PU atil> TEELAND ans EKLUTNAL TEELAND 138 ox @e @ ~ z= Pu EXLUTNA2 b&b. SHEANING 115 '.628 1.625 PU 8.e@e TEELAND 13.6 a ec svs 5 o VCOrne ois 4 @2)0 PU BRIG6S 1.8m Pu ois TEELAND ACARE oes @ 9eb PL BRIGESTP Wis “8 b is TEELAND 815 1 g2e@ PU POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE -KENAL INTERTIE NAC 238 Case NO FUTLe PAGE 2 Lucas S.b5 <@ paw EKLUTNA @ ase => 4 ee = @e3 Pu as oes t 2c) ' <8 282> <iz.5> oon @ea Pu PARKS Bet Pu PIPPEL Bee Pu taompe vis DiS is (0 BRIGGSIP Ft ays Pu mee sis + oi PU STA. 12 115 aad {2 = 2 ca <13.b> '.@tt Pu STA 1“ os 2au.4 ) 22.4 ro = <o.@> Vita +.080 PU ous Pu '.888 PU mLP2 238 | @@@ PU 4 APA ANCH 11S ~ a ©. Lol|| A v |.epe Pu ss - a stA @ ‘1S cia. is 4s ean 14,20) en2 30.8 = = a — 11 .8> 3 = <2 a bla. aw cea aad Cit a = 1.887 Pu | 888 Pu | 688 PU u ee o -———-— —__ = ie out POWER ENGINEERS INC . = ---— ia — SIG ia ANCHORAGE KENAL INTERTIE z ' 88. PU - o ao ' Cust WO butte PAGE 3 TO TEELAND e309 S <es. <@e AGE 4 to sm ot €. TeAn. 238 « To mPe a ; r UNITY ANC 238 2s. . — + <8. 25> es. = <a oo Pu UNITY ANC FIs ” TERN eas 2 e2 A | @823 PU a <a asd wa as> a 5 '.@2a Pu a v UNIY ANC 138 a - c 3 ‘es ow 7s s v ¥ Zz er. mac 238 n V INDIAN ves v 1.025 PU 2.998 PU a iS a % * « Pl mAC tae 7 z ic Pun nzevnise VHUFFMHAN 138 ad bat sos tote . ’ se Ki ty | Ct > 5 mA a) a 8 Ry Y Gimpuoon Vis = <<. 9 <1. m | B82» PU 47.7 |.e2a Pu . sé Se | S| ly * Vv <i. > SOLD aes 2 2ntrmeont 238 YpeLuGA 238 | 7 rT : tea) Pu 8.995 PU c : | by 7 T | Pr. uzFe 138 if 41.6 )40.8 E —--—-—-s Y PORTAGE oes <9.4s> bdr. de 1.927 Pu 1 @2' Pu es a ~ si a BELUGA 138 INTL. 2ae * = 8 98) Pu ‘ x a Pl. POSsS.2a8 2 1 @33 fu ee — ---—--- Vv nope ry : : a POHER ENGINEERS INE s 4) Bee Pu a ANCHORAGE KENNA INTERTIE 2 CASE NO FUTe ‘ BERNICE 238 TO BURNT 1S | 497 ~ (a — Dideutiaibeiae 3 $s 1a so_or. 2320 soupT wis =paw nN Biae wa aes Te G es Quartz 1.639 PU BERNICE 113 12. -+ — CV Bw 1.837 Pu 12@e = BERNICE bs ban Ta Tesoro 68 = <1. sa> (eae Pu Sal Meee 8s ae Ee) ie B@ <3.bD 1 aw <s @2> a4 Pu 1.8% PU KASILOF ois 1.844 PU BRAD JCT 81S 1.049 Pu <8 eee <2 ANCHOR oes '.e4t PU @.9a91 PU BERNICE 24.49 ois DIANOND BIANOND 4 ere =e " a = FRUIZ aan <1 eB? & aH 4 = 2 i = = o.en8 <a.o1> J337 9 ad] <4 aad<a.si> § <a. e@ at G) 5 —aasanananss ann EEEEee 1 ays Pu = % a <a. <o “3 | 1 83b PU '.@42 Pu —$—$—_—_——— POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE KENAI INTERTIE CASE NO Futiae AGE S$ DAVES oes 4.035 Pu VLAHING oes alll ceuano oy - eas Pu ZNS ba 4 11,2 oo nos Tae ba jo was bo OZ TO STS 84 ..@2 <i ead | wad &.a4 ».2a bo ‘6. ‘Bit Pu ons Ll 1.618 PU ces TAP 9 S.Q— »4. 32 ste S. Sines as <7.98 a4 1.8019 PU e ru <o.cad (E)svs '.8&o Pu MUS CHNA 69 1. e28 Pu 8.972 Pu a “a = a = ~~ 4 6HSs ‘28 a * “4 5 4 ins = v i¢ \2 FHS ba ‘.e13 PU a 1.8@b Pu r s e ’ : z - =) Vv nus te.s x 1.034 PU z bf cr rus ‘a8 3 oo ' aor Pu Pes es safes te! 14s 1.78 4 4-ae nor i268 P= s 1.014% PU <a 4h 7 <i8.7 u.n 54 118 PU ' Bay PU 7 ‘2.0 (G)svs 7. z eee ney POWER ENGINEERS INC a cHs aus —e or ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE 3 ~ CASE NO. FUTea Q 10 DOUGLAS 34s SHAH oes LAZELCET is moO Cus ans @.s aw s 98 = -- | -- <@ 245) <@ wad | Ce Dd 5a8> c '.825S PU a e oo n wlfiSenzerce is ® mie souscns ays | '.ea8 Pu s ¥ pow ois e 1 @24 Pu a EKLUTNAL & 9 EKLUTNA 1s ' @88 PU 8.856 _ <8 seB> TEGLAND (28 e HERNING 115 TEELAND 34S @b.t eb.t EKLUTNRe 6.4 @b.e 1.627 PU = e.8> => <ies> qris> 1.831 Pu 3.68 = : Wreeo oes <I '.e29 Pu a i“~ atlic TEELAND 12.8 <t 22 PARKS oes e990 fu ' @e PU Score tis eee Fu BRIGGS) «tt NCARE os PIPPEL ois 3 1. 8th Pu = + aa9 PU s ta '.ee8 Pu |e ” WI TEELANO 238 Sle @.e0 eu 2 BRIGESIP 115 a . ll b 18 =e WS TEGLAND 115 '.s2 [Tee = 1 229 PU <8 14s ae8 ia e 181d Pu <(5;.2> POHER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO FUTaa momepe wis to Pr omAc 238 a ae site ally alia alls S|. adr ale 4 ALPL ayu.s ai? ay, fle 4]s ‘.@22 Pu M v v v A e ahr aiilo all e STA. 18 115 zi2 oi” ee a = a . *. s v = = SS Vv v - STR mT bes ee.4 ,34.7 <tt.a Taal tas qs a sa willy APR ANCH It ‘ gee Pu STA. 14 8S gsra if eos 1.988 PU 1.60> PU N. LTS. nts 1.8 ‘ —_ y <e.esv 2 SIR. @ vis STA. 18 01s .|2 14.6 7e2e-! eae 30.8 “ake <2. 9 8.92) <a. 11 .4> aay zl Vv STA. 1 oes 1.980 PU | @@8 PU 1.88b PU <0 = 0> «t's 1.e80 ru cja — STA. to ts ala aaa POWER ENGINEERS INC = | «a.ts> Ua ad ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE ' @@e Pu CASE NO. FUuTea TO 1S BAIGGSTP A LJ ate s rik mPa oes + om Pu alls a s Tr . © Vv “a u a= aie Bue mre 2a8 + ges Pu atila- its ctr “ cl: s|aula v |v . a . " HH u iz rc « « “ > e es z “ a a a r 6 | | €. TERN. 238 To mee UNLV ANC 238 21.8 = To ee <8.a) TO THEL@ND ese UNIV ANC FNS 4 e823 fu eo c UNIV ANC 1328 & HUFFMAN 238 > + 007 eu '.032 Pu a - s i er. mac 238 8.999 PU <2. eed PT mac o1aa8 <4 a el wzFi tae aa 5 A a c » ic , 138 es = ’ GIRDHOOD 115 ' @20 Pu 29> A . Y 1.884% Pu BELUGA = 28 e155 Pu s s a . “ MARSH 236 3 ¢ INTL tae & 8 1.632 Pu ss 1.o19 PU = o'!'Vporinbe r 1.628 Pu v ‘ BELUGA 138 PT. uzFa 138 a 987 Pu a Sa <a.se> 1 <i. 9@> BUANTS LEAs ee 1.822 Pu 1 eas eu “a a ally p NE ENGI EE Cc 2 We nore OWER ENGINEERS IN 4 1.29 PU c v ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO Filled ons BERNICE Ba bar so.ot eas Ta tesoaon 49 = Soist. 86s <@.98%> las C7 49 & p49 a a> <a wien 1.838 PU Quaare us » os en os <a 14a> «ata | o5 5 Bennice 665 a @-003 1.05 1a. 12-8 pies 12.6 ) re <b. o> <4 a> <3. 53 aw + waa Pu 1 one Pu x aia °ls Sei wie ea Z Vesys ally aueatz 9 <s.a4> er Te) oe oe a 1 ea Pu alilg s sje cl s zg 8.992 Pu si K -I? s BERNICE 24.9 x & sie ss ale cooren 4 BAMB JCT 11s Vv eT a) s 1.847 PU ~ gid = s ale 1 os Zz A I z alz r v * ) cy BRAD L 0s a. DIAnOoNo = 6S oR +® «. pase a.0ae ©) <a.0i> 79 37 sali C4. 15> <a. 08, <4. 28> a. sua = + .e4a PU ae Saees FRITZ vis <a asy 4.@a4 PU 1.639 PU DIAMOND 115 <8. 3b POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE -KENAL INTERTIE CASE nO Fulea 1s TO BURNT 4 eua> a al ty paves 1.632 PU a t m sis a le SUV LAHING 1.054 PU s ao alle im 4 s s Vv a s es “ ally ceunnn 1.e32 Pu os bf rol _ ZNS ) Ss 92 rottas *, Tat = 10 sts 49 UAS b <2 a> mos TAP bo <a sed 23.4 23.2 =~ = = — <1.9a> <2.aa> a Pu a a rm) , (mre Pu 1.084 Pu CPS TAP a 4.9 et; leo ‘i eu “B. <3. a> MUS CHNA bb + e823 Pu a re c e.992 Pu a . cr a . ‘ae ~jber s = ty sas = v tee Pu 3 sa s na 54 a * = al. A v Mi 1.825 Pu mus ta.s ws 128 Pos 9 a's rs] ea4 Pu 48 @ ces ,b. 1a wat a Eli ‘0a 1.@07 Pu gia Pu ms ‘e.68 oo v — 3. POWER ENGINEERS INC 8 Bee PU ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO. INT? TO BOUSBLAS as PASE ¢ kin SHAW oes LAZELLET bts To Cus ans aaa aae,a2e = = = => <s a4) o 8.981 Pu = aan eu . n om It} olflvenzecce tis jan bee nS oouscas ays i} 1.84) PU oe ee 6.913 Pu alle EKLUTNAL &.9 EKLUTHA 48s = a TEELAND aus TEELAND 138 Ln es us a8 os a = v ‘oa elf <B.48> Kb. 15> 1.888 PU <tta> r fy Serene — ous EKLUTNA2 &.9 a 8.98 Pu '4.8 8 a <8 .48> Kb. 15> * nee tos v 1.888 PU 1.826 Pu ‘aise TEELAND 13.0 aes @ 99% Pu x PARKS vis '.e88 PU = A Teorme ws a @ss2@ Pu BRIG6S 11S 8.997 PU PIPPEL sas ACARE 1s ‘ Sime Fe [ aA TEELAND 5 2 @ Abe PU e 998 PU é v 8 TEELAND ves 8999 Pu nAC CASE NO inta POWER ENGINEERS oes INC ANCHORAGE -KENAL INTERTIE PAGE 2 to mPpe vis “Ws ail ailis Mls al” ' ; ay. s -|c ale alooele au - = - 8.982 PU Vv v v v sila Tila “| Sta. 12 105 ale si a ee 8 b3.3 % 4 «aa = le east Pu ata. Terie STA. WHT ONS aa.4 puta ao.a p82? =e Hf S <aa.a> | a4. > <au.a> | Sth a a.902 Pu aan pia a vert vs @ 3988 FU 8.982 PU ~ i. - APA ANCH 115 a cle 8.984 Pu Bysra se sas 8.983 Fu na na ot fs ~ Tr «ith S ryan s ny Le Fo tes T v s 2.93 a v <8. 203 z STA @ tS) SiR. sos acne . 28,28 ave 3st > = =| =a “sta. 7 es = : vs w@ aa bGaw «aad fee .e> HA @ 979 PU 6.982 Pu e o.993 Pu is te _ an SIA te 6s =| ae eae POWER ENGINEERS INC ee be _ js <s.as> | G@ wer ANCHORAGE -KENAL INTERTIE @ 9H@ PU tHSE NO Inta PAGE 32 <e3.a> <ee .s> £ Term e506 7c 'O BRIGGSTP <8. ge> 1 =— 8 <3. 88> Be> ete mPa tos @ 995 Pu mMLPe 238 aaa Pu <B.@ee2> TO UNIV ANC gaa eo €. TEAN. 238 n at. ,3!1.b To mPe —_ -—- = 2 <b. 49> 4 UNITY ANC e238 « @ 994% Pu 4 a = “a G r e os WS 4 TeAan 238 univ ANC 1ts eas Pu Ree ala ail- UNIV ANC 138 =Ily eo as2 Pu ut, «allja s ope = fale Mec o er. mac 238 rile mia Vv v 3 0.986 PU = a c es “ s 138 = g§ Pl. HZFI V HUFFMAN 138 mhe es e.900 Pu ia> Kia S.b is.s ae ti.e2> <ia.a> a. '.@85 PU s | INTL. 138 | 8.998 PU | | 8.993 PU 139 }<7. BD et. nzFe ea.t <21.@> <tte. a> 1 84 PU BELUGA 138 ea INTL. e368 8.9% Fu Pu el POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE -KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO inta poss 2386 soe PU -<eB &> ALAPORT 1O BERNICE 238 To = Pe . 58> V INDIAN 6.997 Pu »@> <8.838> <i GInbwooD @ a9 PU <e.es> ee> PORTAGE 8.998 Pu @.999 PU aos ons BEANICE 2328 To PT. POSS.230 | ten —: — — _— oe S 2 afi = <a 13> soLDT. 22a soror. 5 28.2 bey = «jee bev <9. sa> <4.80> = = ; Gav f co asd QuARTZ 4s 1.625 Pu i ise athe = = BEANICE 115 «4 89) ib. = <i as 1.Ba8 Pu s DAVES oes BEANICE 6% 3 1.624 Pu ee eae Pu TO TESORO BA SKE HELL 8S 1.931 Pu VLAWING is KASILOF t ieiy Pu 1.823 Pu s s v $ BRAB ICT 11S € 1.832 PU {f ancuor is Vv nn e im r - uy LAHING ba s 1.032 Pu 8.998 Pu BEANICE 24.9 BRAD L BinnonD 115 a a Bianco a PRUE ts tea = . <s.aa> Jie @ = mile = —z= <3. 88> “WW cewann Ba <3. 3) <3.93> + ead Pu 7 e.998 Pu 1.004 Pu 1.825 Pu a Le ee POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE -KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO INES AGE 5 ZNS 69 s 98 9 a }= ro STS ba To was bl TT ae MOS TARP) ba <a sed. HAS 9 au | 22-4 aaa. se tee yea. iE = - {3° — = = <1. 6 2-8 <2.aD TR. a> <9 wad > ten eu ae | eB Pu > Gus ss iceve ru +984 Pu S. SIDE bs e 2 2 ces TAP) 469 mn i '.a82 PU v 4.9 8 =| 2 <a.qe> 41s + ert Pu '.818 Pu rs TRUS CHNA bo + e8a PU a e.at Pu a a is a ge Gus 1328 ee b.t2 = ity 18s Ri J Fas B49 tent Pu ‘.e28 Pu eo a Fite S| ® a a s Vv. 1.025 PU nus > Fue tae | 828 PU Pes = ss te Swi 4 «a a {3 -4> 1.817 Pu POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO mts TO BOUBLAS ans SHAH vis LAZELLET 66s QO wee is Lucas es TO CHS ays 2a he aa) 8 ileee. Sjas «s ae) G1 <4 @e> 2. = ewe Pu <a aw Ee 4. Sb 8. 4b PU 0.9% Pu <'.bD c a @ae Pu a a = s ‘ eiictazee sis sie 7" ha a Oyj nouc.As ans = a.att pu @.9b8 Pu t.a42 Pu ~ * EKLUTNAL & a EKLUTNA oes pa TEELAND as TEELANBD (38 i” @ a ‘ea ia aa as r oe V MEANING . EKLUTNR2 ba x 8.981 Pu 14.8 oS 1.8 REED ves 1.908 eu ees eu 1.003 PU TEEL AND 13.8 a PARKS iis ~ '.88b PU = “~ Score 1s a @ 988 FU = v BRIBES «11S 8.994 Pu PIPPER o4is 999 FU ACARE is «| ( TEELAND Pu @ te BRIGSSTP 11S oo @a9s5 PU POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO ints To PT. MAC 238 PAGE 2 To mee sis mALPI ayu.s @.<49 PU STA “ ois aa.4 Mt.2 =: a <aa.a a4. 41> a @.909 Pu . Vv ALPE ois ean Pu = a al n c a Fits T 2s a Y Sg sTA s os sta. a aie,2.e8 a MSTA. 1 1S = ={ iv : ww baw cad iA 8 Wie PU o.905 Pu - es Pu . ey ree, er - 1°. STA the 86s -|a 10.0) 2b.9 POWER ENGINEERS INC - = |= _—_— <s a8 | Sb eer ANCHORAGE -KENAL INTERTIE eat) Pu CASE NO ints APA ANCH 6.998 PU sos 8.981) Pu 170 € TERM 'O BRIGGSTP ‘7D UNIV ANC @a8 ois Pe ais e TEAM. 2238 37.8 ,31.8 To mPe | — =—TS <b. 13> <b. 13> @.a7 Pu UNIV ANC 238 ma TO TEELAND eSB Ww TERN 228 UNIV ANC FIs Ve te = @ 964 fu =— @> <s8 @> = <2 te <2 s=> @.984 Pu UNIV ANC 138 e219 fu “> INDIAN os 6.984 PU er. mac 238 6.979 PU = <si V HUFFMAN 138 - 58> a - 1328 ee 4 Vv e.t ‘a. r ——-—-+ & ; @t.a> <aa.i> Inte. ‘ae Bie @.980 Pu e Y GIRDBHOOD 1:5 - @ 984 PLU an «ei. a> a a . ln wi - Us nes ALAPORT 236 v x — ss = les 52 aae Men cae a ane ell a 6.968 Pu 8.996 Pu A n c 4a Y PORTAGE oes @.98s PU aa> 0.994 Pu Pl. POSS.238 ' @ee Pu @ o4a>d<: POWER ENGINEERS INC < z S t ® sas @ 985 PU ANCHORAGE KENAL INTERTIE (u) () () (¢) () CASE NO nts ace 4 - (eB &> JO BEHNICE 2328 BERNICE 238 TO F1 POSS e238 ‘| tar -2 «< > soLntT 2328 SOLDT is ss 3 => be rs ey eee ee re f. 98 aa : Ba QuARTZ ots 1.8e4% PU os “ £2 — BERNICE sa 8 = <i a> ~ 1.819 PU Y paves sos BERNICE bs ieooalen <i. 39> ‘ens Pu 12.08 TO Tesoro B® co. Ue se> Sun eee ois - Cit 2 fy SuARTZ 9 1.019 Pu 1.038 Pu Ky s . VY LAHING os KASILOF 115 g ( @ie Pu '.e22 PU a 4 é ° . ‘ v i © 3 BRAD JCT 11S ‘mat Pu s \.pa2 Pu ia s § ancHor 6 1.822 Pu LAHWING bw '.83' Pu 6.998 Pu BEANICE 24.9 DIAMOND 115 13.8 a BIANOND he FRIIZ ‘b.2 ab.2 ae 4 @ aca.an l@.anv ajha 2.84 2.41 ° <s.3a@)> = ‘coaer eu <4 99> Wy ceunnn ua <s.93a> @.989 Pu '.e13 PU 1.824 Pu es POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE -KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO Ints ~ ZNS a a4, s 92 nes rae eS To uAS b@ OT aes <3 s@> [ (2 aed en aa.4 22.2 a <a ard | 22 se '.a»p <2.20 J = (Bit PU ta “a> Gus 9 11.6 t.Br2 Pu ces TAP 14.4 Sj 10 515 ba Svs @.992 PU <a a TS we '.81@ Pu Gus 138 “4 <is a> z “1s iae ' @24 Pu ne ‘ae 1.814 PU = es.9 =H = <8. b38> HLS ‘2.8 Oo see ++-®>=-s <a4. a> @ bose PU CHS ans ' @bi Pu 10 BOuGLAS avs a <e wed ' @62 PU 4.33) <a.4@> (<3 .a89%> <3.@8) ae4 PU <- 88> Bie PU POWER ENGINEERS ANCHORAGE -KENAI CASE NO Inti INTERTIE ba '.818 PU FHS ba Bee Pu .38 SHAH us LAZELC eT bes O mele ‘os TO Cus aus Inds i — eae eae 20 ae 7 * = |= = $19 es “4 <4 2e> aes foe < > «Ss BS) aap <4.@s> wt a ea fu <@ av 3 o.912 Pu <7 wap a 5 8.979 Pu <t.eD 3 ews eu “ : Jemrerce 113 Qf nous.as as a 8.904 PU ‘ ew eu a a aan Pu EKLUTNAL & 9 EKLUTNA 11S a eu 4.8 ~ CHERNING 115 <b. a> on oa . ™> TSELAND (38 = z < aus 2.984 Pu EKLUTNAE b.W ‘ee = mm ©+ 3-3 -Ben PU ‘ '.828 Pu REED oes 1.88 Pu aia _ TEELAND 12 2 PARKS ois e.3%b Pu a | @@8 Pu Ss: 4tftlcorme is <9. 88> eas) PU @ 923 fu BRIG6S ois HCARE es PiPpree tos 8.99% PU . e a '.801 Pu wa s Cts reecano 238 a @ 464 PU BRIGESIP 115 z ” a s STEELAND 115 fa.41> @ 999 Pu eo 32a — <& 28> pata age ey 6.997 PU a POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO Inty moO mPpe is =, n is aig alla lg a al: “ “ mLPL ayu.s hile ale aje rie 8.962 PU = Me = = ? Hg 1Mlle “iI e STA. 12 415 al‘ = lie a|” e a|e alc aia x waa pos.3 % % Y «ae. a) I <e9.2> a.s9) eu STA 18 1S STA INT 1NS 3.4 puyie 40.3 )b3.9 4 <e@3.3 ay.i> <ae.a> 8 98) FU sme ois e@ 998 Pu 3 a ale u a ily APR ANCH ft U @ se8 Pu STA. 14 118 Ssta & oes 8.983 PU 6.309 Pu MN. LTS.T OS ae. abs <o.2w> ~ STR. @ ee a a. 2{¢*—___~--|_ _# ajm s2.2 ‘ i < setae lat eae a aiilv sin. 1 vis a..81 eli <2a.s> AA @.909 Pu -We salve STA. tb tts POWER ENGIN ENGINEERS INC ¥ 60.0 , 20.9% st | is Bs ae @2> ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE @oa19 Pu CASE NO INT) PAGE 3 TO 1S BAIGGSTP “a a z - . ie mPa ois @a9s ru utile a ale 2 v a = wu] a hed mP2 238 @ 993 PU atiice Its a- a ale n ajoal].: z eS v v 2 2 s co) = u . z r a « o > 2 a x w a a a e r €. TERN. 238 s = z 23.3 ,23.3 to mee a 2 =e jis 4 a DR r z <8.32> | <a. 32> uNtY ANC 238 € $.18 a xf _ t SS wo <8. a1a> + an z asas2 fu i " 3 @.3a02 Y 4 TeAn 2a8 2.993 PU UNIV ANC 1IS e309 Pu Ve pe a = a a <2 oe <@ we> wile aio 8.997 PU mise r7]- ie : UNIV ANC 138 “ily c nurenan 238 3 essa Pu e 8.985 Pu a - 2 a ; = WS eT. wac oe3e J Vinoian ois 6.998 PU 6.984 PU PT MAC ae aa.s «Is 2 HZFI 138 <@.575a> 2 es se : Cia r s ‘Vb Ws VHUFFHAN 135 = =— — — —z ’ GIRDWOOD 115 <ie.8> <2a.0) Osan jeu a. a/é 3 eo “ ~ <3.9a> es ee Pu WN 1 BELUGA 238 | c c es Pu | i = Ld e nAASH 238 § | Inte ‘ae gn 3 8.907 Pu o.995 Pu a GORTAGE 115 | r @.998 Pu v a r BELUGA 138 I Pl. uzF2 tae 7 n 0.996 Pu (ee wel ane ? s ca.d 'Tia.» punny 1s 2am ale a Ld n @ase PU a;|T | eae Pu ily cia 3 all? a HOPE ons POWER ENGINEERS INC “ 6.999 PU v ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO Int) to so.npt AGE 4 BERNICE ba 2.8 1O Tesoro bo = <b> soL_DT. ons sov.oT ese laws ase O73 a 4s> BERNICE 115 S46 54. 33.7 a4 <1.svD <3. 86> + eae Pu SKI HELe 88s 7-95 14.88 4.05 A 6s.b8 O.%> <1 O82 Pu ‘eee Pu so wu . WY xmsicor outs 8.992 PU BERNICE 24.9 8. 485><B. 33 BAAB ICT os 1.824 PU cy <a.1s@> “3 DimnonD es tea <a .b 38.5 =_ |] - = = Ts <s.a@> <b.4a><0.44> § <8. eBa> 68198 Pu Fritz oes 1.682 PU 1.84 PU BIANOND oes 1.e32 Pu POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE KENAIL INTERTIE CASE NO INT) cooresa =7 TO BURNT tert Pu ZS aus ailo e na Vv =e ails ' @@2a PU LAWING +.007 PU SENMARD eats Pu ous os bo ba ZNS ba es) a43 }=3 ro sis 49 =a to ues bd > | Ge ess> nOS TRAP) ba awed HAS Mota 2, 8b 3.62 2esa eas 0 1s V.59> Tse == andy Gp 4 > 1% an <a ad Ue w> 1 ere Pu a.as ' Bae Pu mn cs <8.ba2> 1.est fu 1.617 eu 2 3 5. SIDE ba ba 9 . . Cee the 1.000 PU v 4.18.3 = 13.8 ete a s <a. ss> 1 o1a Pu alS s/4 '.ee Pu . ° « alt —-tt$aus cuna 69 1 ere PU s 1AS 9 7 FHS ba Bib Pu B2b PU « LJ ‘.e25 Pu nus 12.5 FHS 126 1 eve PU Pes ry Us =. §.22 ps eas 4 aa4,a-2t StS = <@. a> a> <9 BS) “> 1.819 PU 1.024 PU ei Pu nS fee 8.800 (695 ——— Sims —j POWER ENGINEERS INC aloes 8 eet PU 1 @be PU ANCHORAGE KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO Deane prAbe t Les aus 1a to Cus ans as TEELAND oer ' Wa @ TEELAND QOUGLAS Ber nAC 238 e444 Pu n ' SHAH iis LAZELVLET 1ts O mere is Micne aT a s 19 dg ees — | s.4e 348 5 = —= > <> | = ———————_—_——_-_= {8 998 4 <@ se2> [- os <@ 2aa> 0 <@ $18) | <@ sed <B.494> <a.ps4y }==—— Od = (ert eu te 2bs> z= _ e.39 1 ean Pu A <® bI2> => a '.e1@ Pu <@.idi> = 1 oie Pu a i s oon sis Sinzecce 115 3 all IY alliS 1.818 PU ~~ 1 9nd Pu GKLUTNAL &. 4 EKLUTNA ois a ease TEELAND 138 | a ais TEELAND 2238 18 <4. <® BB85> (1.669 Pu - “a ec 7]ea Vv a nm a a Scorme is + eer Pu <8. a5—a> 1 Bee Pu <3. 78_> <a 28> ts ' Bee PU POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE - KEN (HSE NO HERNING oes ACARARE oes TEELAND os Inn => = <b. 4D Kb. 23> '.088 PU EKLUTINA2 b&b. REED oes 1.Ba4 PU '.e88 Pu 1.828 PU PARKS oes '.8e% Pu BARI66S is 1.8m Pu PIPPEL wis in “a , ' ott Pu a v BRIGGSSTIP 115 4.00 <@ sand INTERTIE to mepe tis 10 BRIGGSTIP #15 mee ses <a.) Udie a> ‘e008 Pu STA ‘s ois INCH '.889 Fu sTA @ 11S GIA. 1s ots m4 te 2 tb.2 ew.e See ees esti a - ry — 2 2 20 1Gie ead <a 9a) " 1 Bee fu ' Pu '.86e@ PU ” e StA ‘* Cae ge ee z 1] - BU Oe POWER ENGINEERS INC 5 : ; : cies be ANCHORAGE KENAL INTERTIE z 1 ew) Pu CASE nO Thats pace 3 To mee UNIV ANC 236 ia -_ To Pe Xt. as> TO TEELAND e3a J ww TERN 228 UNIV ANC 1S 24 @asa Pu UNIV ANC 138 3 7 Pu a * ‘oe . 5 2 2 2 © Y a } er. mac 6238 - : INDIAN = 1.8te PU 8.989 Pu x alt. “Aw a s a s s . "ly cr PT MAC ae a v v so.4 Pl. WZFI 138 V HUFFMAN 138 3 es “e ; (.e8s PU iw e wia> <@ ow) o eo.3 28.3 3 =e ——_— —_ Y GIRBHOOD = + <8. bia> <B.4> ee ev eu a WH. 2 1.814% PU oe c s _—- — ry c <1@.@> | a rc INTL. 138 ALAPORT 238 v rv BELUGA = 2a8 | '.018 PU = @.908 Pu c | x a 2 a La | Pr. wzFe 138 r M4. . — = == Y PORTAGE <b. s@> 1.818 Pu 1 ere Pu BELUGA 138 tere 228 B38 PU 1.@2@s ru ¥. a Pr. POSS.238 2 nee + wae Pu =a Vv nore POHER ENGINEERS INC AAG CN ANCHORAGE KENAL INTERTIE (4) ©) (6) ; () (6) CASE NO INE nue -<e8 &> BERNICE 238 os aos BERNICE 238 To Pr. poss e238 44 8 — ———————_————_- --——_ —_—_— = _#£f 3 2e> sa DF 24 32.6 catenin = = 15.9> <a.ad QUARTZ o4tS a) BEANICE te os <t bi> '.@as Pu BERNICE 6% 5.43 to Tesoro ba = @29 Pu = <o.63s) Sup eee oes @ ase 4 ©+ <4. a> 1.819 Pu 1.043 Pu KASILOF 165 1.845 Pu Oo) BRAD JCI 1is eis Pu 1.049 PU ANCHOR is 1.643 PU @aat Pu BERNICE 24.9 BRAD L ms DIAMOND 115 e.g enaes DIANOND Ss == FALL os ce ai “Lo aus 61-837 I, ae b.a9 = = = @ ceo = <2.ba> [e's @ 1s 163 w><2 aD ‘> == |-© = — 1 awe PU <8. B91) <2 be <e.13> + @s@ PU 1 B39 PU toes Pu oo POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE KENT INTERTIE CAGE MO bade AOE 5 — DAVES iis '.83b Pu oes LAHING ba 1. 6bB PU alllVcewarn ua ~~ es Pu wags + <1.48) Cain Te Bob PU nos TAP ba 2.6 TO uAS ba > ~ZNS ba = TU <d b> ere Pu a Bit Pu cps TRP 4 tae 824 Pu 1am eu HLS te.o8 TO DOUBLAS aS 093 =| 12.6 a.4 ‘ea PU oF a aid es 3a 43 |= ro Sis ba (@ Bs Ka id 30a HAS a + }2 28 2 29 44.06 =| s- Se Vs c a> <9 ew «a a2) Tia .b> 2% | B28 Pu 1.007 Pu Ss. Sime bs ¢.817 Pu <8. 548> mus CHNA bo 1 ate Pu in a a im a au “ alesl. af vo WY ale a es ‘.ees eu v 9 sis 29 1 2m ,2-28 =|# <9 BY) Fea. a 1.624 PU ANCHORAGE KENAIL INC CHSE NO inte INTERTIE PAGE t ro '.82@b Pu FHS bd '.B8@b PU Fus tae TEELAND svs ss <i8 @ mo Pr to Cus ans @ TEELAND ae = nAC 238 TEELAND TEELAND athe” sae Pu “is LAZELLEF bts O Nei oes LUCAS vis so" eRe eas +12 48 s.4@8 +1 = ass <@ Se > — <@ sap | <@ aad Gay 494> cas Ce % a@us> e.3% a +.e1d PU = a ‘ee Pu Lt a wlf/Benzece wis Bow Hes 1.607 PU 1.010 Pu EXLUTNAL &.a EKLUTNA 8b 1328 e ase @ ese a = = s —— zis <b.4DKb.23> Te ise 1.688 Pu SVS nERNING 115 1.819 PU ae> <i <8 BB) comme is ' 828 PU ™ <e.attD ACRRE oes 4 @a: PU TEELAND oes ' g@e2 PU POWER ENGINEERS ANCHORAGE -KENHI (ASE NO Inte EKLUTNA2 &. 8.168 b.41> Kb. 23> REED ois '.8a4 PU PARKS ons '.8e% PU BRI66S oes PIPPEL ois '.Qte Pu 49 oia eu BRIGGSIP 115° 4.78 INC INTERTIE PREE 2 fo mee tis ee) ce. 558> <B.e4B> {<a 'O BRIGGSTP 1 a STA. 1 1158 . a n a] ' gad Fu a“ i aaa ane © & STAR te ous - Stan a ne POWER ENGINEERS INC = > = | =——_—_ > Gea | fe.4e@> ANCHORAGE -KENAL INTERTIE se 5 ft eeaee CASE NO INTE PAGE 3 2 eat Pu APA ANCH 1S 88s PU les | 3 to mp2 | a a -“ _ —_ a z c UNIV ANC 238 a m7 wo 69S ie @ 995 Pu =] <e 21> a r ‘Pu UNIV ANC 663 w TEAN 238 @ asa Pu <a ey 1.814 Pu UNIV ANC 138 er. mac 6238 @.989 PU <i. @> HUFFHAN 138 =| +.e83 PU im Pp) mac 13a et wre 138 Stik <138.3> ALRPORT 238 BELUGA e328 8.708 PU 1.615 PU 1.829 PU We 7 ican. @> ‘.Be8 Pu BELUGA 138 B Wwe PU Pl. vOss.238 s @a2 fu POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE -KENAL INTERTIE () © () ©) (6) CASE NO Inte AcE“ -<e® &> 1O BEANILE 238 Pe To A. <®. ea@> INDIAN '.8tb PU <2. 83> iBi> <1 GIRDHOOD 6a PU <e.ewm “28> PORTAGE ‘1.818 Pu 1089 PU oes os BERNICE 238 to Ft Foss ese “4 @ — — —— get en leeeeevaoral 8 as? sovor. 238 so.nr. is a2 a@b az <is.4> <a .42: ee, coe QuARTZ ots 1.039 Pu ele elas =e BERNICE 113 = -Os sau teu <@ asi>d «aay . = eeslt ua a “4.81 . <a sp 4. © 1.827 Pu = 'en ef BERNICE bw <2. tb> u <b.4s 10 Tesoro a= pao esoro & «8.851 Sur HELE ES 28a - es jiae "aah aa BuARTZ es A <s.7m 1 sad <s.a)> 1.828 PU 2 1.0% Pu 4.047 Pu alll wasicor otis '.8%b PU “ ils a « <8. ao8> os 4 a a can " BRAD JCT 11S ais eu = ale 1.058 Pu alin ow > 6 a'f- a <e aa alffZancuon is - ses 8.9% PU e ni a 1.844 PU % alt, s a r el v e.ant Pu BEANICE 24.9 DiAnmoND 115 4 2.80 ae DIAMOND & = rat ts 6) <a.9se a9 a a . o1 bor ype ania = <2.b8)> eos | (3.49><2.a8> §<3.12 —(6) = saw Pu <@ a> <2.14> 1.658 Fu 1.839 Pu 1.844 PU a POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE-KENAI INTERTIE CASE NO INTE AGE 5 OAvEeSs os 3.53 = =— <a.8 LAWING oes s @3a4 PU 5.58 ai a z 2 a vw ut LAHING oF 1.8bt Pu 3 > <@ es! > ” 7 all IV senaan a '.ete Pu nos TAP ba 4.42 ao <1 ied | 3,86 ZNS ba '.613 Pu a s aja Gia z v ons ba ‘1.612 Pu ces TAP 4s 4.28 ,3.18 => | -- avwa,2er To uAS BY TSS CTO STS ba «I id (@ Bs a.e4 HAS — ¥ aa 2 as %. aah vad FE = == ts a <a as) | Saw 2.99 1 Bat Pu <8. 294%) '.a18 FU S SIDE a) <1.21 @.918 Pu Svs <a st TR ae) ‘1.604% PU '.868 Pu a4 mus CHNR bS& <6.B1S> <8 S48> CHS aus | Bbb Pu 10 DOUGLAS 34s nee 12 ei PU 1 es Pu s s al Vv nus 12.3 tees Pu <4. se? “i 1 628 Pu ' Bas Pu <ie.e> | Tie. POWER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE -KENAL INTERTIE CAse NO Inte bs rm «a.s> '.920 Pu FHS bd ‘.8217 Pu ty Fes ‘208 (exe Pu SHAH ous LAZELLET 6t5s O mele oes Lucas ms TO CuS aHSs eo. s 19 s19 —- | -- —> ie 4ae> <@ Sea> ey srt, <B.495> ‘ere Pu 2.39 nm = s 3 ‘ <ane ,|? ‘ere u Li] n wiIPeAZELLE 1s Wf BoOusiAS 345 a 1.818 PU WE pon We 1 e44 eu =a i ) a EKLUTNAL & 9 EKLUTNA 10S e|a a s s ‘+ se8 Fu i : 8 os8 ons TEELAND 345 ecu) sue SiYnennins 1s <b. 22) 9.63 ,23.83 9.6 1.828 PU EKLUTNAR b.9 -—|— = -fita ‘aa a . = Ua z|48 (me 2a) a = 1.988 Pu 1.@a4 PU = v Ween is '.@28 Pu TEEL AND 12.8 e PRAKS ois @.991 fu S ' ge PU Scorme 615 ‘ eet Pu @ e995 Pu 0 ' UT un PIPPEL ves oe s ean a 1.0te Pu ae | gaa eu 5 ' u TEELAND 238 = @ 988 PU “A a BRIGGSTP tis s s c s s r u 2 = wlfJE TEELAND o4t5 ' @@2 Pu <taw Ee '.@to PU POHER ENGINEERS INC ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CASE NO Inte Oo mPpe wes PAGE 2 TO 1S BAIGGSIP ail, allle zule a ale ale a mLPI ays "le “Ie Sie “tlie mee is '.828 PU = = ~ I ' @ta PU By aii, aia slits & Na = STA. 12 115 c ale als ms 2 eS "Ie “le “la ary a),2..8 y v v v <a. 18.» + @ie Pe STA 18 41S STA INT 4s 3 18.1 ,28.1 “ihe a — is 3 t «e.4 <@.19> <@.a> | <te@.i> a .e - . , + eee Pu aa o|" % * i wills Cleaners ee aise * ut mea 2ae ' gad Pu ' 29 PU a a = . z ' ge: Pu a os] Hoey a mY tlas|- APA ANCH ft is + 089 Pu v STA. 14 115 sth wots 1.089 PU 1.000 PU alte MN. LTS.F ots 3 <e.ese> x sIA. @ 115 STA. 1S ts a _q tba tba e4.2 s ” " s a\. ; <8.18> 2:8 a allf¥ sta a ots 1.a88 PU ' @ee Pu %@. b> a 2 ote 1.080 Pu |.e08 Fu _ Z alls rere li a2 STA. th tts POWER ENGINEERS INC “ > Ss 4“ Or,tie - z 2 5 = Re oaligancs ANCHORAGE -KENAL INTERTIE - 2 | @@) Pu case no Inte = e Ee TEAM. 238 s . = ea.3 ,29.5 ro mPe a See 5 = = 2 re <a.81) | <33.> UNIY ANC 238 € 22.2 ° a -(ae @> s a . in " @a% Pu aa.2 2 o > VI Jou TERN 238 S |.ea0 Pu UNIV ANC 41S 2 aa )2 aa east Pu aes A = a <a asd 1% sy ry Py 1.018 Pu I z 4 a UNIV ANC 138 W HUFFMAN 238 a a ‘oe 1.025 Pu a : a e iw WS eT. MAC “ 8.989 PU * yy a . a rc PT mAC fae v v Pl owZFt 138 4@.t ais . ae — S <e 28> ANCHORAGE-KENAL INTERTIE CHSE NO INTE (@) : pase 10 Sso_DT NDIAN @ Pu \ 1.015 PU @ 998 FU | 2 3 : Tr | Unre. tae 5 2 ‘att Pu YPORTAGE | a 1 828 PU | x BELusBA 138 Pr. uze2 iae 42.8 8.968 Pu (fs - <1.8@ BURNT 1S 2238 ls 1 ele eu seareu Fhe 2 Po = e=ec esis Gna a ge ee | lol s S ally nore POWER ENGINEERS INC hata ous ons BEANICE 6&9 s.4n sovor 238 jo Tesoro Ba = so.er ves <a.asD 449 a 3447 = =| = = Ses <b 2@> Ke 4e> | Ce. 4b> (G) 1.035 PU QuARTZ 15S 21 » as em = <@ wisp «a aay [ESOS BERNICE 115 6.613 1.40> | tat tact “4 a2 <a sae | et 12.28 41.08 e.eee | ‘+32 Ice ee 1, oe <s. tb pe ey 4.908 oy ‘ ae Pu al? ee SKE HeLa Fes 2 +e s e » Wp ia.d ‘a.a ¥ = $. Sb> ally Qunatz es o.4%» Fu a 6b.t4t? Ua aed <8. ED 1.017 Pu a 3 1 ese Pu + ew! Pu =| a cr s e 2 : alf¥ wmsicor tis als 1.048 PU 8.991 Pu allo A e 3 cla BERNICE 24.9 a cle alc a £1" e\. v the coorer &s BARD JCT 115 city alk 3 ' 1 era Pu cc lal a}e 1.047 PU ciile ghlg allfc ancuor tos a ee ae als a 1.848 PU e Vv ets 2 ©) Vv BRAD L tes 49 DIAnOND a] = = Bis > Tete bib) 7.88 oe 005 -_ ee <a.ne> 78 '4 4.19><a.at <a.ea> 8.b55> (G) e444 PU <e.os)> |e ase 1.83» PU - Tees Pu coe sli = +© & Binnonp 415 Ye used 1.B49 PU INC POWER ENGINEERS ANCHORAGE -KENAL Cmse no INTERTIE Inte TO BURNT a3) Pu oes ba a APPENDIX D STATION ONE-LINE DRAWINGS 230-115 KV 200 MVA 5 KV 230KV —~_[_}— ~~} TO EXISTING SOLDOTNA SUB 230KV 5SKV 2000A 2000 NEW SOLDOTNA SUBSTATION 115 -230KV Hae 230KV REPLACE EXISTING 230KV REPLACE EXISTING Seles REPLACE EXISTING 230-69KV ISMVA — QUARTZ CREEK 230KV UPGRADE EXISTING SECONDARY NEW 230-II5KV 33 MVA : ' | '1S-KV cae Re RELOCATE 230 KV 230 KV —~_{ + SEWARD “——{_ |} 230-249KV 230 KV REPLACE EXISTING —~{_ |} COOPER LANDING 24.9 KV EXISTING . DAVES CREEK 230KV UPGRADE 230-249 = 6 DARY EXISTING 230 KV —~_[_ }— SECON 2350 KV . 2000A 230 KV UPGRADE AT INDIAN, GIRWOOD, PORTAGE, HOPE 230 KV T/L REACTORS MAY OR MAY NOI BL REQUIRED TERMINAL STATION RESERVOIR PLANT mail; REACTORS MAY OR MAY NOT | BE REQUIRED | 11 eM Ra UNDERGROUNO CABLE SECTION >| tROKV a _ a sicily ay oma = - - - --— - if IRANSEER WU ni 2 Iho pl. 230 KV 230 KV BREAKER BAY UNIVERSITY 230 KV T/L TRANSFER BUS REACTORS MAY OR MAY NOT BE REQUIRED TERMINAL STATION PUMPING PLANT SUBMARINE CABLE SECTION REACTORS MAY OR MAY NOT BE REQUIRED. 230 KV T/L 230-1ISKV 200 MVA 115 KV 230 KV TO EXISTING HUFFMAN 230KV ‘ iSKV OR 2000A 2000A INTERNATIONAL SUB. REACTOR REQUIRED FOR ENSTAR ROUTE ONLY NEW HUFFMAN OR INTERNATIONAL SUBSTATION 230-115 KV Ww z ao a9 é = i Be oo? zZ0 SO ui — NS KV 2350KV 230KV se c = 11S -230 KV 3S 150 MVA a 230 KV TO SOLDOTNA NEW BERNICE LAKE SUBSTATION 115-230 KV TO AIRPORT WEST 230KV 7, | 138 - 230 KV 250 MVA 138 KV Pee 138 KV NEW POINT WORONZOF SUBSTATION 138-230 KV T POINT CAMPBELL APPENDIX E AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE (included in Preliminary Report) Sa STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR STATE OF Aiast DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES UITTIAVIATION AVENUE P.O. BOX 196900 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99519-6900 CENTRAL REGION — PLANNING (TELEX 25-185) (907) 266-1462 March 24, 1987 RE: Anchorage-Kenai Intertie Ms. Linda Perry Owight Hart Crowser, Inc. 6 ical 2550 Denali Street, Suite 900 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 - 2 9 See Des Land ' ” G.. itactisotie xe Dear Ms. Dwight: Please reference my letter dated March 13, 19987 concerning plans by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for realignment of the Seward Highway between Bird Point and Girdwood. One point needs further clarification concerning the new alignment. Right-of-Way will be acquired for a four-lane highway, however, only a two-lane roadway will be initially constructed tentatively in 1991-1992. This route will later be widened to four lanes to accommodate increasing traffic when warranted and dependent on the availability of funding in the future. Hopefully, this additional information concerning the Bird Point-Girdwood project will be useful to you in further evaluating route alternatives for the Anchorage-Kenai intertie. Please contact me at 266-1675 or John Dickenson of the DOT&PF Reconnaissance Section at 266-1500 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mirren M. Murph O'Brien Kenai/Prince William Sound Area Planner JHH/1dm cc: John Dickenson, Project Manager, Design & Construction STEVE COWPER. GOVERNOR Te Ale tia: YL ep, a eles DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES 4111 AVIATION AVENUE P.O. BOX 196900 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99519-46900 CENTRAL REGION — PLANNING (TELEX 25-185) (907) 266-1462 March 13, 1987 RE: Anchorage-Kenai Intertie PO GB ivuj: Ms. Linda Perry Dwight Hart Crowser, Inc. a ISS 2550 Denali Street, Suite 900 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 PART-CROWSER & ASSOC., [/'>. Dear Ms. Dwight: During the Alternative Route Evaluation meeting for the Anchorage-Xenai Intertie on February 17, the possibility of conflicts between the Existing Route Alternative and future realignment of the Seward Highway between Bird Point and Girdwood was mentioned. Since detailed maps of the Existing Route Alternative were not available during the meeting, comments on this route segment comments were deferred pending receipt of a copy of the maps from your office. Thank you for sending the annotated USGS quad maps showing the Existing Route Alternative alignment. The following are DOT&PF's plans for the Bird Point-Girdwood highway project. The highway realignment project will relocate the roadway closer to Turnagain Arm, i.e., from above the railroad right-of-way to between the railroad and the existing transmission line along the shore of Turnagain Arm. The new roadway will be four lanes to meet increasing traffic demands and probably will require some realignment of the railroad because of the limited area between it and the existing transmission line. Our design staff hopes to work closely with both the Alaska Railroad. and APA during the design phase of this project. Project construction is programmed for 1991-1992. During the meeting on February 17, the suggestion was made by Al Meiners of the Division of Parks that underground cable be used for this segment of the new intertie to protect aesthetic values along this scenic area of Turnagain Arm. Also, the suggestion was made that the existing highway right-of-way be used for the underground cable, since the highway will be relocated anyway. [| have discussed these suggestions with our design staff, who feel that an underground cable along the current highway right-of-way may be a good solution to some highway-railroad-intertie clearance problems which would arise during design of the new highway segment. If the existing transmission line along the shoreline were removed, the highway probably could be designed closer to the shoreline, and less displacement of the railroad and excavation would be required. If the 230 KY option of the Existing Route Alternative were selected and the existing transmission tower alignment were utilized, this would require an additional 25 feet of utilities ROW, thus increasing Clearance problems along this route segment. We, therefore, strongly recommend that an underground cable utilizing the existing highway roadbed be considered. Linda Perry Owight Hart Crowser, Inc. I hope these comments will be of assistance in further evaluating the route alternatives for the Anchorage-Kenai Intertie. Please contact me at 266-1675 or John Dickenson of the DOT&PF Reconnaissance Section at 266-1500 if you have any questions. Sincerely, \ Msp h G hie M. Murph O'Brien Kenai/Prince William Sound Area Planner JHH/1dm ce: John Dickenson, Project Manager, Design & Construction UNITED STATES OEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Nattonal Marine Fisheries Service P.0. Boz 1668 vuneau, Alaska 99802 ies, =) se hou ts;, ly ESS) igo | se Eee a ses Sey IS 7 HART-CROWSER & ASSGC., INC. 2 SUA James D. Gill, P.E. Hart Crowser Project Manager Hart Crowser, Inc. 2550 Denali Street, Suite 900 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Mr. Gill: We have received the Anchorage - Kenai Transmission Intertie information package that you provided. Having reviewed this material and discussed the proposal during the February 17 meeting at the Alaska Power Authority, we agree with the general conclusion reached so far. That is, we concur with the decision to delete the Beluga alternative from further consideration. As both the Enstar and Tesoro routes would necessitate marine crossings of Knik Arm and construction of sub-stations at or near tidewater, these options are initially less attractive to our agency than the existing route alternative. We do not, however, consider any of the three remaining routes to be unacceptable at this time. We welcome the opportunity to review any additional information that you may provide. Sincerely, We OPerregerse— 4, (Robert W. McVey ‘Director, Alaska Region DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA Fie P.0.80X 898 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99606-0896 6 JAN 198/ { Regulatory Branch : IAN 12 1987 Special Actions Section . aaa BART-CRSVCER & ASSOC., INC. wee SA Mr. James 0. Gill Hart Crowser, Incorporated 2550 Denali Street, Suite 900 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Mr. Gill: This is in response to your request for our comments concerning the feasibility study you are conducting for the Alaska Power Authority to construct a new transmission line between Anchorage and Soldotna, Alaska. An interagency meating was held on December 15, 1986, to introduce tne study and present three general alternatives which you plan to stuay in detail within the next few months. These alternatives include: 1) Following the existing transmission line which generally parallels the Seward and Sterling highways; 2) a route across Turnagain Arm and down the west side of the Kenai Mountains along an existing natural gas pipeline; and 3) across the mouth of Turnagain Arm and along the east shore of Cook Inlet following the alignment of an existing petroleum pipeline. As you develop more specific plans for these or other alternatives, we request that you consider the following: a. Oepartment of the Army (0A) permits would be required to construct a transmission line across Turnagain Arm, either aerial or subaqueous. Particularly sensitive biological areas such as those utilized by waterfowl or extensive marshes and mudflats should be avoided. You should also address construction impacts such as dredging, spoil disposal, effects on navigation expected to result from powerline installation. b. DA permits would also be required to place dredged or fill material into waters or wetlands along the transmission line route. It is our understanding that the land - based portion of the line would be pole or tower supported. Generally pole or tower sites should be on uplands wherever practical. Where supports would be located in waters or wetlands, the type of foundation should be addressed as well as equipment access, construction techniques and construction impacts. Permanent fills or those desruptive to wetland hydrology and sensitive or unique biological areas should be avoided. c. Generally speaking, we would expect impacts to tne aquatic environment to be minimized by following the existing transmission line corridor along tne Seward and Sterling highways. Thank you for this opportunity to comment at this early planning stage of your project. If you have any questions on these comments, please contact Mr. Steve Lund of my staff at telephone (907) 753-2724. After February 1, 1987 Mr. Jeff Steen, also of my office, will be the point of contact for your projects. Sincerely, fing Feeds Larry L¥ Reeder Chief, Special Actions Section Regulatory Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA ?.0. BOX 898 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99606-0896 5 26 JAN Iyev Regulatory Branch oe Special Actions Section ee ine 7 a gece! Pomp Gis & ASSP ING. Mr. James 0. Gill SA Hart Crowser, Incorporated 2550 Denali Street, Suite 900 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Mr. Gill: We have received and reviewed your letter of January 15, 1987, with its attached information regarding alternative routes under consideration for the proposed Anchorage - Kenai Transmission Intertie. Please refer to our letter to you of January 6, 1987, for comments on the routes currently under study. We note that a fourth alternative is now being considered. This alternative would run northwest from Soldotna, cross Cook Inlet to the west foreland and follow an existing transmission line to Beluga. With this alternative, we would add that a submarine cable crossing of Cook Inlet would require a Department of the Army permit. Given existing vessel use of the inlet, additional consideration should be paid to effects of this alternative on navigation. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Steven W. Lund of my staff at telephone (907) 753-2724. Sincerely, Sieg Fadl Larry L. Reeder Chief, Special Actions Section Regulatory Branch United States Department of the Interior = Fish cP Wildlife Service Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Sunshine Plaza. Siute 2B 2 411 West 4th Avenue IN REPLY REFER TO: Anchorage. Alaska 99501 FWE ; FEB | 7 IS87 Mr. James D. Gill Project Manager Hart Crowser, Inc. 2550 Denali Street, Suite 900 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Re: Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Line Intertie Feasibility Study Dear Mr. Gill: In response to your January 26, 1987, request to provide narratives for each of the four Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Line Intertie routes proposed, we submit the following comments and concerns in the preferred ranking: 1. Forelands/Beluga Substation Route (Sheet 4). This route, as proposed, should provide the least impact to Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) wildlife resources, involving only those refuge lands near the Beaver Creek drainage. Upgrading the existing facilities within the 200-foot rights-of-way now supporting a single pole 69kV facility, a 115kV double pole structure, and a buried 8-inch gas pipeline would be preferable to new vegetative clearing parallel and adjacent to the present rights-of-way. This route does impact former refuge lands, which are now Kenai Native Association lands under the Section 22(g) covenant of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), the Marathon Oil Road, and the Beaver Creek drainage. Use of equipment within the drainage may be limited to winter conditions to protect the lowland bog, creek banks, and fishery resources. Proper posting and vehicle barriers must be installed at refuge boundaries and at the Marathon Oil Road crossing to control unauthorized vehicle use. Vegetative clearing will be minimized and vegetative screening of and within the right-of-way would be appropriate. 2. Tesoro Pipeline Route (Sheet 3). This route, as proposed, also provides reduced impacts to refuge lands and includes all the concerns of priority 1, above. In addition, it involves the extreme northern tip of the refuge at Point Possession. The Tesoro 10-inch products pipeline (50-foot right-of-way) crosses approximately 4,700 feet of refuge lands. This route, however, is within the designated Kenai Wilderness, therefore, Title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) will apply and require both Presidential and Congressional approvals. Also, this immediate area has been selected by the Point Possession Native Group for conveyance under ANCSA. Negotiations are currently underway between the Group and FWS. A number of bald eagle nests exist along this coastal routing, as well as trumpeter swan nesting locations. Shown as private land on Sheet 3, these former refuge lands, now private lands of the Tyonek Native Corporation, were conveyed with the 22(g) ANCSA covenant, i.e., “. . . lands remain subject to the laws and regulations governing use and development of such Refuge.” Existing Route (Sheet 1). The upgrading and use of the existing rights-of-way and facilities within the Kenai NWR is the preferred option under this routing. Designated Wilderness abuts both the Sterling Highway and the existing powerline rights-of-way north, which supports both 69kV and 115kV structures. Construction within the undulating terrain outside the rights-of-way would be limited. New vegetative clearing would further scar the natural scene, especially the mature forest areas along the Jean Lake hillside. Any new clearing authorized would have to immediately parallel the existing tights-of-way. New right-of-way routes would not be permitted. Winter construction within wetland areas would be required should heavy surface equipment be utilized that could result in surface scarring. Cook Inlet Region, Inc., (CIRI) 14(h)(1) selected lands include those adjacent the Russian River. Up to 600 bald eagles have been documented using the Kenai River drainage during winter. Additional line crossings could directly impact the mortality rates of eagles using this State-wide important bald eagle wintering area. Eagle nests adjacent the river have been identified. Draft recommendations for a Kenai River Special Management Area (KRSMA) Bald Eagle Management Plan will include several relating to the construction of new powerline crossings and modifications of existing transmission line facilities. Sufficient vehicle barriers and posting to control unauthorized vehicle use at the west refuge boundary will be required to be maintained for the life of the facility. Enstar Pipeline Route (Sheet 2). This proposed routing would impact the Kenai NWR lands most significantly and is the least desirable of the four proposed routings. The Chickaloon Flats region is a very sensitive waterfowl area. The approved Kenai Comprehensive Conservation Plan (KCCP), as mandated by Congress under ANILCA, does not allow the construction or use of facilities outside the existing right-of-way. In addition, the KCCP does not permit the construction of above ground facilities in the Chickaloon Flats area because of potential mortality problems associated with the migration of thousands of migratory birds. An underground facility within the existing 50-foot right-of-way would also be required. This right-of-way supports two buried gas pipelines, a bridge, gate, posting, and block valves. The routing of this right-of-way would also require the construction and continued maintenance of several bridges crossimg fishery streams. The siltation of fish streams disrupted during vehicie crossings and stream bank breakdowns would necessitate bridge construction. The maintenance and upkeep of the right-of-way to refuge standards are the responsibility of the permittee for the life of the facility (Enstar is wholly responsible for their right-of-way maintenance as uses impact the existing bridges and maintenance road). Most of the existing right-of-way passes through mature mixed forests. Bald eagle nests, fishery resources, and trumpeter swan nesting sites will be impacted along this proposed routing. In addition, stipulations attached and made a valid part of any special use permit authorizing this construction will include: fo] ° ° » @) °o Selective vegetative clearing only. Dozer clearing will be not authorized or will be very restricted. Construction of gates and maintenance of posting for the life of the facility. Access will be by the established and existing trails only. No structures will be authorized within 150+ feet of the East Fork of the Moose River. Certain structure placements may be mandatory to protect wildlife resources. Equipment crossings of fishery resource waters will be restricted. Timber salvage and payment to FWS for merchantable will be required. Burning will be restricted as to time and place. The reclamation of disturbed lands and streambeds will be mandatory and may require contouring, seeding and fertilizing as may be necessary during several seasons. A surety bond of at least $100,000 will be required. Authorization to utilize existing rights-of-way will be required from current right-of-way holders. A letter of non-objection from CIRI will be necessary, as well as from any private inholder within the refuge. FWS will be reimbursed for costs incurred in preparing and issuing any permits and for inspecting, monitoring, and enforcing compliance with those permits. Please contact either Hank Hosking of my staff (271-4575) or Mr. Daniel Doshier, Manager, Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, P.0. Box 2139, Soldotna, Alaska 99669 (262-7021) with any questions. Please copy both parties with any and all correspondence. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, ee Field Supervisor cc: Manager, Kenai NWR - Soldotna Ref. Super, South, RO7 - Anchorage ADF&G, Habitat - Anchorage United States Department of the Interior KENAI NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE IN REPLY REFER TO: P.O. BOX 2139 SOLDOTNA, ALASKA 99669-2139 (907) 262-7021 KNWR/0197L February 4, 1987 Mr. James D. Gill Hart Crowser, Inc. 2550 Denali Street, Suite 900 Re: Anchorage/Kenai Intertie Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Dear Mr. Gill: In response to your letter request of February 27, 1987, with accompanying documents, we take this opportunity to provide the following comments regarding the proposed Anchorage/Kenai transmission line Intertie as it may impact Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) lands. The proposed Tesoro route between Bernice Lake and Point Possession provides for an alternate routing east of Stormy Lake outside any existing refuge right-of-way. Substantial evidence supporting this route with respect to its compatibility with the purposes for which this refuge was established and whether there is any economically feasible and prudent alternative to the routing of this proposed utility system through this conservation system unit will be required. In addition, we are uncertain as to the criteria used in your feasibility study document titled, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Summary. We are therefore not necessarily in agreement with that summary. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the provided material and request you kindly keep this office advised of any new developments involving Kenai NWR lands. Sincerely, Daniel W. Doshier Refuge Manager pe: H. Hosking, FWS var STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 333 RASPBERRY ROAO ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 995 18-1599 PHONE. (907) 344-0541 February 9, 1987 James D. Gill Hart Crowser Project Manager Hart Crowser, Inc. 2550 Denali Street, Suite 900 Anchorage, AK 99503 Dear Mr. Gili: Re: Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed your letter of January 15, 1987 in which you present general information on four alternate routes for the Anchorage to Kenai transmission intertie. We are not providing detailed comments at this time because detailed engineering studies are not yet available. However; the following general comments are provided. Aye We strongly recommend that the Forelands/Beluga Substation route be deleted from further consideration because of the potential impacts to the Trading Bay State Game Refuge and several major anadromous fish streams. 2. We are concerned about the potential adverse impacts associated with the Enstar Pipeline route on the Potter Point State Game Refuge, particularly the Potter Marsh portion. If the line were to be buried along the Seward Highway and the Alaska Railroad, important wetlands would be disturbed, and a crossing of Rabbit Creek would be required. The transmission line would also pass through the Rabbit Creek rifle range and could adversely effect its operation. An aerial line along the Old Seward Highway in back of Potter Marsh would be more acceptable, if it could be screened from the Marsh. Construction would have to be scheduled to avoid impacts to important wetlands and wildlife populations. 3 The Tesoro Pipeline route appears to be acceptable because impacts to the Potter Point State Game Refuge will be minimized. James D. Gill -2- February 9, 1987 Construction along the existing transmission line route will involve numerous anadromous fish streams, and department approval will be required for crossings. Timing of construction will have to be closely coordinated to avoid impacts to these streams. The department will provide more detailed comments as additional information becomes available. Sincerely, Sty | Cone Philip 7d Brna Habitat Biologist Habitat Division Telephone 267-2284 cc: Bowker, USFWS Wilkerson, ADEC Hayes, ADNR Rand, OMB Sumner, EPA Dalton, MOA Spearow, KPB Meiners, ADNR/Parks Keeler, USFS Clausen, ADF&G STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT 0) S STRSED SOUTHCENTRAL REGION ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 995 10-7005 PHONE: (907) 561-2020 February 3, 1987 James 0. Gill, P.E. Hart Crowser, Inc. 2550 Denali Street, Suite 900 Anchorage, AK 99503 Dear Mr. Gill: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Line Intertie Feasibility Study. Due to the short review time our comments are limited. As more economic and engineering studies become available, we will comment in greater depth. The existing route described in Section 3.1 may present the least land acquisition and permitting difficulties since the rights-of-way have already been acquired for electrical power transmission purposes. As with all four routes presented, land status may have changed since permitting of the existing right-of-way, which may present different permitting requirements. The existing route should also be re-evaluated to determine if the route is still appropriate with the changes in land management priorities for the land impacted by the route. The Enstar Pipeline Route described in Section 3.2, being the shortest route and having the least state land impacted, is attractive, although we have the following concerns. It is unclear from the Feasibility Study how much additional right-of-way will be required for engineering safety with the transmission line route following the Enstar pipeline right-of-way and Alaska Railroad. If the land ownership along the Enstar Pipeline has changed since the acquisition of the pipeline right-of-way, the current land owner would be subject to the pipeline right-of-way as it existed at the time of transfer. Therefore, changes to the use of the right-of-way may necessitiate negotiating with the new land owner. Other concerns with a route along the railroad are the instability of Potter Hill and an airport called "Tom's Landing" between the railroad and the Flying Crown Subdivision. James 0. Gill.- Februrary 3, 1987 Page 2 Difficulties in acquiring an easement for the transmission line route along The Tesoro Pipeline Route described in Section 3.3 and the Forelands/Beluga Substation Route described in Section 3.4 would be similar to those described above for the Enstar Pipeline Route. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Deborah Heebner at 762-2274. Sincerely, Margaret J. Hayes Regional Manager Qdbwak ee Dne~ By: Deborah K. Heebner Natural Resource Officer MJH :OKH: ec :0227L ANCHORAGE-KENAI FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDICES A RAILBELT UTILITIES CORRESPONDENCE B PIRELLI CORRESPONDENCE Cc LOAD FLOW DIAGRAMS D = STATION ONE-LINE DRAWINGS E AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE E LAND OWNERSHIP MAPS G = STABILITY CASES H TRANSMISSION LINE SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS &O SI! 1064 (5.14.87) APPENDIX A RAILBELT UTILITIES CORRESPONDENCE STEVE COWPER. GOVESNOA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 3601 ¢ STREET ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 39503 PHONE. (907) 56! 2020 DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION MAILING AOORESS PO BOX 10700! February 17, 1987 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 995 10-790! James D. Gill, P.E&. Hart Crowser Project Manager 2550 Denali Street, Suite 900 Anchorage, AK 99503 Dear Mr. Gill: We have reviewed your letter of January 29, 1987 which presented “alternative routes for the proposed Anchorage to Kena. Transmission Line. We are unable to provide a detailed review of the alternatives without detailed maps and design specifications for the line. We are, however, able to offer some general comments and preferences concerning the alternatives. We strongly prefer either the West Foreland/Beluga Substation or Tesoro Products Line alternative. Our primary concern is to avoid placing the line through Chugach State Park or near the Potter Section House State Historic Site. As noted in the attached memo from Bill Garry, Superintendent of Chugach State Park, the line will have a major adverse visual and physical impact on Chugach State Park. Also, because of the investment of federal Land and Water Conservation Fund moneys in the park, detailed mitigation measures, including the acquisition of replacement lands, would be necessary. The existing transmission line in the park is considered a detriment to the park which was established "...to protect areas of unique and exceptional scenic value,..." The Enstar Gas Pipeline Route would be acceptable if the line is not located near the Potter Section House or is buried. The Tesoro Products Route will pass through the Captain Cook State Recreation Area. This recreation area has federal Land and Water and Fund invested in it and, like Chugach State Park, will require mitigation and replacement of lands used for the powerline corridor. If state park lands are involved in the project, you will need to apply for a Special Park Use Permit. Comments on the routes for our field managers are attached for your review. Please feel free to contact us as you develop more information on the project. incerely, ~ _ Qs AlVMeiners ‘' Southcentral Regional Manager enclosures MEMORANDUM State of Alaska TO FROM \ = AL ae OATE January 28, 1987 SCRO ‘ FILE NO TELEPHONE NO 345-5014 Bil? Gasz=:, Sapecnibandans J > SUBJECT Anchorage to Soldotna Chugach/Southwest Axea 2 par) Powerline Q LH wk The proposals whiéh would affect this area significantly are #1, the Existing Route, and #2, the Enstar Pipeline Route. I will immediataly comment on #2 to refute the statement in the Feasibility Study thac “It was considered desireable in the study to find a route east of Potter Marsh to connect to the Powerline Pass route of the existing pipeline.” (pg 6.) Only as a last resort should a new line be built in Chugach State Park along “the highly scenic foothills and rim of the Anchorage Bowl. The park's Legislation states clearly that "The: park is established to...protect areas of unique and exceptional scenic value,..." The existing route was established before this legislation, and it would surely not be allowed if it were a mew proposal at this time. In addition, if a new route were to be cut through the park, a large amount of recreation land would have to be added to the park to replace converted LWCF lands. Public sentiment, statutes, and cost availability of replacement lands would prohibit a route east of Potter Marsh through the park. The Existing Route (#1) has a permit for the existing powerline. According to verbal testimony from the Bureau of Land Management this permit is for the L1SKv line, and no further construction would be allowed without another permit. The BLM status plat shows two powerline rights-of-way, but in fact they are the same. Only one right-of-way permit has been issued (A046811) persuant to the Federal Power Commission License 2170 in 1964 (noted as Pwr Proj 2170 50' on the status plat). Any additional construction or use of a new right-of-way would require a new right-of-way permit from the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, since most of the existing route in the park is on state TA'd or patented land. Comments on the Existing Route are as follows: l. The land has been dedicated by the legislature as State Park land and state statute requires protecting the land for its scenic value. New construction would run contrary to public sentiment and the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation policy to protect such resources. 2. New construction would require, under LWCF Agreement, the replacement of new right-of-way lands with land of equal value. Maintaining the integrity of park land and recreational values ef Chugach State Park in this agreement would be at a high cost considering land replacement costs in this area. ALASKA STATE PARKS -- Let's Put Them on the Map! Aj Meiners January 28, 1987 Pace 2 of 2 in conclusion, I recommend that no new construction for the proposed sowerline be allowed in Chugach State Park. If, as a last resort, the park must be used, the powerline, if feasible, should be constructed underground and new land be purchased to replace rugnt-ot-way lands used. WwG/' Lk MEMORANDUM Stateioof Alaska T2 AL deraars Dare Jatiory 225, (2st Siatheaniteas. F2a1onatl manager Fii2 aa CGoocet Tabanan no Ieiel53i From: AXower 2. Lover Saaarincan i Sugi—acc: anchorage te Selaotna Fower.ine rura Parks & Ya have vsviewed the 4 propased utitity Line routes and our recommendstion would be to utilize the existing Enstar Gas Pipeline Route. It is the shortest raut2 and would totally avoid Captain Cook State Recreation Area. Without knowing the volts3e, tower/pale size or the required ROW width, it is difficult to assass the imwpscts and prescribe mitigation measures. We will research the ROW through Captain Cook SRA and would appreciate any future information regarding the reauired ROW widths. Thiz would enable us to assess the impacts accurately and provide you with more detailed information. RCL/ j nw \ 1 STEVE COWPE:!, GOVERNOR - ' 3 cay orl a ||| a a : aed ce 5) =e , DEPARTMENT OF XATURAL RESOURCES f } 3601 C STREET ! ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99503, DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION, PHONE. (907) 561-2020 MAILING ADDRESS. PO. BOX 7001 January 27, 1987 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99510 Re: 1130-13 Subject: Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study : v vv 2 Mr. James D. Gill, P.E. Hart Crowser, Inc. 2550 Denali Street, Suite 900 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Mr. Gill: Due to the short review time frame, our comments will be cursory in nature. We hope to have a longer time to review and comment on a preferred alternative. i The Seward/Sterling Highway Route probably has the least potential for impacting cultural resources. However, there are many known prehistoric and historic resources close to and in the existing right-of-way. If this becomes the preferred alternative, the route and the proposed upgrades will have to be inspected by an archaeologist to insure that any new pole or tower placement will not adversely affect a cultural resource. Some of the right-of-way has been surveyed by archaeologists, as a result of highway realignments. There may be only a limited account of field work necessary. All other proposed alignments may require more intensive pre-construction cultural resource surveys. There are known cultural resources sites in the vicinity of all alternatives and the probability is high that other such resources would be found as a result of archaeological survey. We look forward to working with you on this project. Please let us know the time of the meeting with APA scheduled for February 13, 1987. We may be able to send a representative. Sincerely, Neil C. Johannsen Director Aithlife- By: Judith E. Bittner State Historic Preservation Officer COOK INLET REGION, INC. January 29, 1987 Mr. James D. Gill Project Manager Hart Crowser, Inc. 2550 Denali Street, Suite 900 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Re: Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study CIRI 480.2 Dear Mr. Gill: Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) has reviewed the proposed alternative routes for the Anchorage - Kenai Transmission Intertie. After a review of each alternative and its impact on CIRI land, it is our recommenda- tion that the proposed intertie be confined to the existing 115 KV transmission line right-of-way. Use of the existing right-of-way has the least impact to CIR! recreational property values in the Soldotna area and should not impact CIRI historical and cultural land selections along the Russian River. It should also be noted however, that we have no objection to the Enstar Pipeline Route alternative as proposed at this time. If you should have any questions or desire additional information concerning our comments and recommendations please do not hesitate to contact me at (907) 274-8638. Sincerely, COOK INLET REGION, INC. Bul (ike Brad Curtis Senior Land Management Officer BC:ah 35:152 CIR! BUILDING 2525 “C" STREET P.O. BOX 93330 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99509-3330 (907) 274-8638 TELECOPIER (907) 279-8836 TELEX 090-26-465 COOK INLET REGION, | March 4, 1987 Mr. James D. Gill, P.E. Project Manager Hart Crowser, Inc. 2550 Denali Street, Suite 900 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Re: APA Anchorage-Soldotna Transmission Line Intertie CIRI 1468 Dear Mr. Gill: Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIR!) has reviewed the recommended routes for the Anchorage-Soldotna Transmission Line Intertie. Based on the information we received during the February 17th meeting, we concur that the existing route suffers from geologic hazards that could cause frequent interruptions of service. We therefore are in favor of the proposed Enstar Pipeline Route to be considered as the preferred alternative. We base this opinion on the following factors: - Less impact to CIRI owned lands. - Shorter route length than other alternatives. - Minimal geologic hazards. . Insignificant impacts to habitat. CIRI hopes you will consider our comments when selecting the final preferred alternative. If you should have any questions or desire additional information please do not hesitate to contact me at (907) 274-8638. Sincerely, COOK INLET REGION, . BOC Brad Curtis Senior Land Management Officer BC:ah 35: 183 CIRI BUILDING 2525 "C” STREET P.O. BOX 93330 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99509-3330 (907) 274-8638 TELECOPIER (907) 279-8836 TELEX 090-26-465 NC. c x —_ ct I ip =k, is ia 2 aa .? KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH | | BOx 850 + SOLOOTNA ALASKA 99669 > PHONE 262-444! i STAN THOMPSON . MAYOR ‘ x We March 11, 1987 Ms. Linda Dwight Perry HartCrowser, Inc. 2550 Denali Street, Suite 900 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Ms. Perry: The Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Commission recommends that the Tesoro Product Pipeline route be considered as the preferred alternative. The Commission feels the Tesoro route would be the most suitable alternative for the following reasons: Le Highest degree of ‘system reliability as compared to the other alternatives; to The most environmentally sound route of the alternatives Listed; Se It provides for industrial expansion in North kenai area which is the area of the Kenai Peninsula Borough that we have most of the large scale industrial activity which would tie in if there were users to tie into major transmission lines; 4. The development of a major transportation corridor that will increase the development or the possibility for development for commercial industrial, residential, recreational land in that part of the Kenai Peninsula Borough. oo Fenner | HE ee ly (3 /n; KF/tn Mac J 3 1997 Wy AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE (included in Final Draft) DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY UB. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA ?.0.80X 898 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99606-0898 08 MA\ 1987 Regulatory 8ranch Special Actions Section ' D E C E j VE M4Y 1 2 1987 James 0. Gill, Project Manager HART - CROWSER, INC. Hart Crowser, Incorporated ALASKA, 2550 Denali Street, Suite 900 Anchorage, Alaska 99506 Dear Mr. Gill, This is written with regard to your letter of April 13, 1987, concerning the “Preliminary Report for Alaska Power Authority Railbelt Utilities Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study," March 1987. The following comments, in addition to comments previously submitted in correspondence from this office dated January 6 and 26, 1987, are offered with regard to the above noted report and study: a. Construction of the Intertie would require issuance of a Corps of Engineers (Corps) permit prior to its installation. In the event that the Enstar Route remains the preferred alternative, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) concerning the use of wilderness areas within the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge is indicated. To assure that Corps concerns with regard to the proposed work are fully addressed in the EIS, this office anticipates serving as a cooperating agency with regard to its preparation. In the event that the Enstar route does not remain the preferred alternative, preparation of an EIS, from the Corps' perspective, may not be warranted. However, full discussion of alternative routes, including discussion of cable burying technologies, construction techniques, mitigation proposals, and other considerations would be required as part of permit application review. b. All areas subject to Federal jurisdiction, e.g., waters of the United States, including wetlands, and navigable waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328 and 329 for a complete description of areas subject to Federal jurisdiction), (Enclosure), must be identified for each alternative route. Further, the environmental impacts of work performed in areas subject to Federal jurisdiction along each route require identification and discussion. c. Mitigation measures including avoidance, minimization, compensation, and enhancement must be addressed in future documentation associated with permit application and preparation of an EIS if required. Examples of mitigative measures would include burying the proposed cable within all or portions of alternative routes, providing screening for poles, scheduling construction activities during periods of minimal biological activity, and similar measures. d. With regard to alternative routes, this office suggests that a fifth alternative be considered. This alternative would extend from the Soldotna Substation, along the existing route, to Sixmile Creek drainage. From Sixmile Creek drainage, it would continue in the vicinity of Sixmile Creek until reaching Turnagain Arm. From the vicinity of the mouth of Sixmile Creek, a cable would be placed until connecting with the existing route on the northern side of Turnagain Arm. From this connection with the existing route, it would continue to its final destination in Anchorage. The advantages of this route include avoidance of wilderness areas within Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, avoidance of additional visual intrusions at the eastern end of Turnagain Arm, avoidance of certain avalanche areas along the existing route, and minimization of costs with regard to stepping down current to serve communities at the distal end of the Arm. Included within the discussion of the feasibility of this alternative would be discussion of acquisition of right-of-way lands, the feasibility of placing cable across Turnagain Arm at the vicinity of Sixmile Creek, permit approval requirements, and associated costs. e. Consideration should be given to burying the proposed cable within the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Though not eliminating all indications of intrusion, burying the cable would significantly diminish visual impacts within wilderness areas. The “Preliminary Report" indicates that the line would be buried approximately seven miles along the existing route and six miles along the Enstar Route. These proposed burials suggest that the technology is available for such an effort within the Refuge. f. The “Preliminary Report" discusses the proposed shape, height, and type of material of proposed poles; distance between poles; and other considerations. In addition to these design features, consideration should be given to other measures which would minimize visual impacts of the proposed line. Examples of such measures would include methods and locations of pole/line screening, pole/line orientation, and avoidance of promentories and other areas of particular scenic value. g. This office does not consider, at this time, the difference in cost among the alternatives presented within the "Preliminary Report” to be significant. The “Summary of Costs--Project Alternatives", Table 1.5-2 (Beluga Route excluded), indicates an increased cost between the least expensive alternative (Enstar Route, Huffman Substation Alternative), and the most expensive alternative (Tesoro Route, Point Woronzof Alternative), of $22,777,000, an increase over the least cost alternative of approximately 30%. The difference in cost between the Preferred Alternative and the Existing Route is $15,827,000, an increase over the least cost alternative of approximately 21%. The increased cost between the Existing Route and the second ranked alternative, Enstar Route (International Substation Alternative) is less, $13,424,000, or approximately 17% over the cost of the Enstar Route (International Substation Alternative). Though the above cost figures may be realistic in today's market, a delay of three years, the anticipated amount of time necessary to obtain necessary permits/approvals for the Preferred Alternative, could significantly alter costs depending on the then present interest rates, agency shifts regarding mitigation requirements, costs of materials and labor, and other considerations. Building a more expensive alternative earlier could be less expensive than building a lesser expensive alternative later. Further, delay of theBradley Lake project could further affect final expenditures of the proposed work. h. In Item "7.2.2," page 7-6, the term “regulatory floodplains” requires clarification. Reference to, and consideration of, Executive Order 11988 on Floodplains and of Federal floodplain studies is recommended. i. The discussion in Item "7.2.4," page 7-9, requires expansion. Areas subject to Federal jurisdiction, including wetlands, need to be identified for all alternative routes including the Existing Route. j. The comment in Item "7.2.5," page 7-12, “The potential for collisions would be moderate to high as the route along Cook Inlet intersects a major flyway," requires clarification and expansion. The terms “moderate“ and “high” need to be quantified or put into context. The species at risk need to be identified. Measures to be taken to minimize collisions, including cable burial, need to be identified and aE This discussion should also include expansion of Item "7.2.6," page 7-13. k. Item "7.2.11," page 7-26, states that “Slash from right-of-way clearing that cannot be utilized and excavated materials that cannot be used as fill would be disposed of in approved sites." Activities involving deposition of dredged and/or fill material in waters of the United States, including wetlands, require Department of the Army authorization. In future documentation, site preparation, installation techniques, and maintenance of the Interite facilities require full explanation. The occasions of filling and of the measures to be taken to avoid or minimize filling in areas subject to Federal jurisdiction must be fully described. 1. With regard to coordination of the proposed work, this office requests that it be invited to attend all meetings with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service so that it may remain informed of current topics of discussion. Should you have any questions with regard to the above matters, please contact Mr. Jeffrey Steen at (907) 753-2724. Sincerely, Larry 9 Reeder Chief, Special Actions Section Regulatory Branch Enclosure ECEIVE MAY 11 1987 HART - CROWSER, INC, ALASKA May 7, 1987 COOK INLET REGION, INC. Mr. James D. Gill, P.E. Project Manager Hart Crowser, Inc. 2550 Denali Street, Suite 900 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Re: Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Line Intertie Dear Mr. Gill: Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) has reviewed the Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Line Intertie Feasibility Study. The upgrade of the existing 115KV line to a 230KV line will necessitate the revision of an easement across several CIR! parcels. Further, a number of previously unencumbered CIR! parcels will be impacted by the preferred Enstar Route. At this point, it is simply our intention to bring the need for easement revision and acquisition to your attention. With respect to the existing line, there are several CIRI parcels that contain an easement for a 115KV line. This easement (ADL 38269), which was transferred to CIRI's administration in 1982 by the State of Alaska, will need to be revised to reflect the proposed 230KV use and re-issued under a CIRI easement. The easement encumbers_ the following corporate land: Township Range Section 5N OW NEtNEt, NWENE? of Section 1 (Lots 1, 2) 5N 8W Lots 3, 4, 14, 15, 16, 17 of Section 6 5N 8w NEt, NEt (Lot 1) Section 5 5N 8w NWENWE, SWENWE, NWESEL, SESE Section 4 5N 8w S3S4 Section 3 Referencing the preferred alternative, the Enstar Route, it is clear that new CIRI easements will have to be acquired in several areas. The following corporate land will be encumbered by the proposed Enstar Route alignment: Township Range Section 5N ‘ 10W NESE% Section 13 5N 10W N4NWt Section 24 SN OW SWENWE Section 18 5N OW NWSE Section 8 CIRI BUILDING 2525 “C’* STREET P.O. BOX 93330 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99509-3330 (907) 274-8638 TELECOPIER (907) 279-8836 TELEX 090-26-465 Mr. James D. Gill, P.E. Anchorage-Kenai Intertie May 7, 1987 Page 2 We trust this information will be useful when the easement acquisition Process begins. If you have any questions, please call me at 274-8638. Sincerely, COOK INLET REGION, INC. Bre) (ute Brad Curtis Senior Land Management Officer GC:ah 22:506 United States Department of the Interior KENAI NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE i IN REPLY REFER TO: P.O. BOX 2139 SOLDOTNA, ALASKA 99669-2139 (907) 262-7021 KNWR/O211L May 6, 1987 James 0. Gill Project Manager Hart Crowser, Inc. 2550 Denali Street, Suite 900 Re: Anchorage-Kenai Transm. Intertie Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Dear Mr. Gill: We appreciate the opportunity to expand upon our necessarily hasty response to your initial request for comments regarding the four preliminary route selections for the proposed Anchorage-Xenai Transmission Intertie as they may impact Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) lands. After personal discussions with you and your representative Ms. Linda Perry Dwight, it appears only the two really viable routes, i.e., the Enstar and Tesoro alternatives, are still being discussed. In light of the limited time frame provided for our response, we will confine our discussion to these two routes. The Enstar Route recommended as the preferred alternative under the feasibility study, is certainly the more environmentally damaging to Kenai NWR lands. It is also in direct conflict with the Congressionally mandated Kenai Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) as approved June 1985. That management direction confines such use to the existing Enstar right-of-way with buried facilities within the minimal management area portion. That direction also recommends new utility systems be routed away from the Chickaloon Flats/Alaska Pipeline Company corridor to the coastal strip of former refuge lands specifically provided for that use. The Enstar Route, as proposed, would require construction of a 125 foot wide right-of-way through 36 miles of forested refuge wildlands directly impacting 23 miles of a minimal management area now recommended for wilderness designation under the Wilderness Act. Construction of the powerline along this route will result in this area being unsuitable for wilderness designation. In addition to the certain visual and aesthetic impacts associated with the Enstar Route, other negative effects include fishery Stream siltation, additional bird strikes at stream crossings, with more than twice as many streams crossed via the Enstar Route, public pressure for access into otherwise undisturbed areas, other facility use demands, etc. Page 2 of 3, anehorage-Xenai Intertie, Kenai NWR Although both the Enstar and Tesoro Routes are considered equally reliable, the original project costs as listed in the Feasibility study were only twenty-three percent more utilizing the Tesoro alternative, but this figure is qualified, because 22 miles instead of the earlier 4 mile distance must be buried along the Enstar route probably increasing that route’s cost substantially. The Tesoro Route would also avoid any potential adverse effects on the wintering area of the lowland caribou herd, a major moose migration route, and the Chickaloon Flats waterfowl staging area. We are also unaware of any major waterfowl flyway the Tesoro route would cross. Except as a means of access, the Enstar Route does not utilize the existing right-of-way, rather it proposes to construct an entirely new right-of-way, an opportunity equally provided along the Tesoro Route alternative. Your letter dated April 29, 1987, which discussed the most current right-of-way location proposal for the Enstar Route, still requires the construction of a 125 foot maximum right-of-way clearing. This proposal impacts about 545 acres of refuge forest lands with new access routes to approximately 223 adjacent pole structures and the development of a completely new refuge right-of-way. The Tesoro Route, in contrast, would only require clearing about 12 acres within the Kenai NWR, should additional clearing be required outside the existing 200 fooc transmission line rights-of-way. Current laws and regulations that govern non-program uses on National Wildlife Refuge lands require a compatibility determination. This transmission facility with its proposed Enstar routing will undoubtedly require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Ome of the requirements under this Act necessitates a demonst ration that no other feasible alternative route(s) exists outside this conservation system unit. Also, under Title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980, a determination of whether there is any economically feasible and prudent alternative to the routing of the proposed system through or within this conservation unit that would result in fewer or less severe adverse impacts upon these wildlife refuge lands must be made. Your feasibility study supports such a route in the Tesoro alternative. In 1964, Congress approved a refuge boundary change which removed approximately 500 square miles from the refuge including all the coastal land from near Point Possession southwest to the Kasilof River to provide a future corridor for transportation and development. Again, during February 1974, the Kenai NWR was the subject of an extensive study by the Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission. An analysis of refuge goals was evaluated to determine whether additions, deletions, or modifications of the existing refuge boundaries should be recommended. The Commission's summary of findings stated,—”Based upon the data available for this report, it appears that local communities have sufficient lands either within their control or yet to be conveyed by the State to the Borough to accommodate normal growth patterns for Many years to come.” Page 3 of 3, Anchorage-Kenai Intertie, Kenai NWR More recently, Congress stated in ANILCA Section 10l(d), they had provided sufficient protection for the public lands and at the same time provided “adequate opportunity for satisfaction of the economic and social needs of the State of Alaska and its people.” Also, in 1982, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities prepared the Kenai Regional Transportation Study (Phase II). This study found no additional needs for transportation corridors on the refuge but identified several needs nearby. Additional protection of refuge lands occurs under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. This section states: “...the Secretary shall not approve any program or project which requires the use of any land from a...wildlife and waterfowl refuge...unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land,...and is compatible with the purposes for which those lands have been established.” The laws and Congressional mandates governing management of refuge lands require a transportation or utility project be compatible with the primary purpose of the area [50 CFR 29.21-3(a)] if there is not any economically feasible and prudent alternative to the routing of the system off refuge lands. Support for the Tesoro Route alternative, both within the feasibility study and in those letter responses.from other agencies and corporations published within that document, is apparent. We continue to stand by our original response and for the reasons cited above and recommend the Tesoro Route alternative be utilized in support of the proposed Anchorage - Kenai Transmission Intertie facility. Sincerely, Daniel W. Doshier Refuge Manager pe: P. Schmidt, Refuge Supervisor-South (RF) H. Hosking, Fish & Wildlife Enhancement RAR/rr @ Initead Stas 3s Torese ssugact IS 721 2. 9ta Ave. Jeoactmens or Service Suite 295 Ajriculture Anecnorase, AX 99501 RepLy tor 2720 Date: April 16, 1987 art Crowser, Inc. James 9. Gill, P.=. 2550 Denali Street, Suite 300 Anchorage, AX 99503 Dear ifs. Gill: Thank you for tne opportunity so review the Anchorage - Senai Transmission Line Intertie Feasibility Study. Tne Torest Service will not be involved with this project since your preferred alternative, the Enstaz Route, does not cross tational Forest System iands. Please keep us informed if there is any change in your plans or the location of your project. Sincerely, Ly ~ ae Re CARD ALTON Du LAC Ae oo iol Forest Supervisor BETTeGRSTT TT & S0506., PIC. cc: ARD Saath, SRD FS-8200-28(7-82) STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME April 28, 1987 Mr. James D. Gill Hart Crowser Project Manager Hart Crowser, Inc. 2550 Denali Street, Suite 900 Anchorage, AK 99503 Dear Mr. Gill: Re: Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has reviewed the Preliminary Report on the Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Line Intertie Feasibility Study. For a variety of reasons, the report identifies the Enstar Pipeline Route as the preferred alternative. In conducting our review, the department was unable to identify any serious deficiencies in the Preliminary Report's conclusions. However, from a fish and wildlife perspective, we continue to believe that the Tesoro route would be preferable over the other alternatives evaluated if project impacts and mitigation costs are to be minimized. Given that specific project construction and design details are not available at this time it is unknown how much additional cost might be incurred in mitigating the Enstar Route compared to the Tesoro Route. However, while the amount probably would not approach the 20 million dollar cost differential that is estimated to exist between the two alternatives, the additional expense still could be substantial. This is based on the premise that there are more environmental concerns associated with the Enstar Route than the Tesoro Route that will require mitigation, and the fact that additional time and expense will be needed to gain approval to proceed in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. To the extent possible, we believe such factors should also be considered when evaluating these alternatives. In addition, the Preliminary Report does not address the department's suggestion that transmission towers associated with the Enstar Route might be sited east of Potter's Marsh State Game Refuge and the old Seward Highway. Such a James D. Gill -2- April 28, 1987 configuration would minimize the amount of wetlands that will be lost if the transmission line is buried in the railroad right-of-way, and would avoid a crossing of Rabbit Creek. This concludes the department's comments. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely i ae Mark N. Kuwada Habitat Biologist Habitat Division (907) 267-2284 cc: H. Hoskings, USFWS R. Sumner, EPA M. Hayes, ADNR D. Wilkerson, ADEC STEVE COWPER. GOVESNCA —— DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 3601 C STREET ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99503 PHONE. .907) 61-2020 DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION May 5, 1987 ECEIWE MAILING AOORESS PO. BOX 107001 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 995 10-7C0" James D. Gill, P.E. MAY 08 1987 Hart Crowser Project Manager HART - CROWSER, INC. 2550 Denali Street, Suite 900 ALASKA Anchorage, AK 99503 Dear Mr. Gill: We have reviewed the Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Line Intertie Feasibility Study, Preliminary Report and offer the fo following comments, which are in addition to the comments we provided you on February 17th. The Enstar route, as we understand its alignment, would enter the Anchorage area somewhere in the immediate vicinity of the Potter Section House Historical Site. If this route is eventually chosen, the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation will require that the transmission line and any ancillary structures be located and constructed so their visual impacts are eliminated. This would include burial of transmission lines and the undergrounding of pump stations and other support structures for the marine cable. A primary purpose of Chugach State Park is "to protect areas of unique and exceptional scenic value...” We suggest that the intertie be buried parallel to and outside of the Alaska Railroad corridor. In the event that the Enstar route encounters technical or permitting difficulties and the APA must reconsider other route alternatives, we would reiterate our earlier concerns with the existing route and Tesoro route alternatives. In the case of the existing route alternative, we would require that several miles of powerline be constructed underground. The Powerline Pass area and other stretches of the route are highly scenic and would be protected with very strict mitigation requirements. The Tesoro alternative would traverse Captain Cook State Recreation Area. We would require that the line be entirely buried as it passes through the recreation area, paralleling the existing gas line and perhaps using its right-of-way. Please refer to our earlier comments concerning park areas which have recieved federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Monies and the mitigations measures which would be required if their uses were to be converted to powerline purposes. Thank your for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Neil Cc. Johannsen Director By: Dave Stephen Associate Mamkager Southcentral Region STEVE COWPER, COVERNOR STATE OF ALAS - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES BITTTAVIATIONTAVENUE ‘P.O. 8OX 196900 | ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99519-6900 CENTRAL REGION ~ PLANNING —/ (TELEX 25-185) (907) 266-1462 April 29, 1987 RE: Anchorage-Kenai Intertie James D0. Gill, P.E. Project Manager — Hart Crowser, Inc. i 2550 Denali Street, Suite 900 - Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Mr. Gill: The Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) has completed its review of the Preliminary Report for the Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study. We concur with the recommendation of the Enstar Route, which appears to be the Most feasible alternative in view of environmental, cost, and engineering considerations. We strongly support the Huffman Substation option, which would have the least impact on Anchorage roads. We recommend that the final report include a detailed analysis of the two alignment options in the Potter Marsh area as well as further analysis of the Huffman Substation versus the International Substation options. Thank you for the opportunity to review this preliminary report. We look forward to receiving a copy of the final report in May 1987. Sincerely, MM, Wing O'4. M. Murph O'Brien Kenai/Prince William Sound Area Planner JHH/1dm cc: Peggy McNees, Anchorage Area Planner, Planning APPENDIX F LAND OWNERSHIP MAPS GENERAL LANDOWNERSHIP MAP KEY FIRST AND SECOND DIGIT: OWNERSHIP 1 THIRD AND FOURTH DIGIT: OWNERSHIP 2 (DUAL) STATE GENERAL GRANT LAND 10 UNDIFFERENTIATED 11 PATENTED 12 TENTATIVE APPROVED SELECTION 13 DISPOSED OF TO PRIVATE PARTIES 14 CHUGACH STATE PARK 15 STATE GAME REFUGE 16 ALASKA RAILROAD BOROUGH LAND 20 UNDIFFERENTIATED 21 TENTATIVE APPROVED OR PATENTED 22 DISPOSED OF TO PRIVATE PARTIES 23 BOROUGH SELECTION-NOT APPROVED 24 MUNICIPAL PARK LAND SCHOOL GRANT LAND AREA STILL IN STATE OWNERSHIP 30 UNDIFFERENTIATED MENTAL HEALTH GRANT LAND 40 UNDIFFERENTIATED 41 MENTAL HEALTH GRANT LAND STILL IN STATE OWNERSHIP 42 MENTAL HEALTH GRANT LAND DISPOSED OF TO PRIVATE PARTIES UNIVERSITY GRANT LAND 50 UNDIFFERENTIATED LAND PURCHASED BY THE STATE FOR STATE PURPOSES 60 UNDIFFERENTIATED NATIVE INTERIM CONVEYANCE OR PATENTED LAND 70 UNDIFFERENTIATED 71 CIRI SURFACE RIGHTS 72 VILLAGE CORPORATION SURFACE RIGHTS 73 22(G) LAND FEDERAL LAND 80 UNDIFFERENTIATED 81 VACANT AND UNAPPROPRIATED 82 WITHDRAWN FOR A FEDERAL SYSTEM 83 STATE OF ALASKA SELECTION 84 NATIVE CORPORATION SELECTION 85 KENAI NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 86 CHUGACH NATIONAL FOREST PRIVATE OWNERSHIP - LAND OBTAINED FROM THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DOMAIN HOMESTEAD, ETC. 90 UNDIFFERENTIATED 99 NO DATA DATASOURCES: Base Map by State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Geophysical Services, Alaska Land and Resource Mapping Program, December, 1983. Revised with data provided by Cook Inlet Region, Inc. Land Ownership Map, 1986; ONR Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan, 1986; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Construction Plan, 1985; and Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage Coastal Resource Atlas, 1980. Beluga Generating Station. id ’ TRADING BAY as STATE” GAME REFUGE bd Bernice Lake Generating Station NN Neco NN Ngai QO il West Forelands-Beluga Station ‘Route Land Ownership (see Map Key - General Land Ownership) Approximate Mileage From Soldotna Substation » BOWEL Scale: 1”= 4 Miles ‘ngneers beorparare? [ii 2 e r acy pe a HART CROWSER we g . Soldotna Substation AZ . > University CHUGACH > ant - 4? Substation (19 ? . CHUGACH s fud @ S & aN & ¢ © \ NATIONAL e \° KENAI NATIONAL s 3 e ~~ @ < FOREST } : : - WILDLIFE REFUGE e - aN 7 (Existing) Route Soldotna Land Ownership © (see Map Key - General Land Ownership) Substation a6 i : (0) Approximate Mileage From 1¢ Soldotna Substation * Scale: 1°=4 Miles x Cheer. Gngnees ieorporaed aims HARTCROWSER oan ubstation National 7 8 . ° ; Wildlife "e/. a ti . Refuge ‘Enstar Gas Pipeline Route Land Ownership (see map Key - General Land Ownership) 86 e> 60) Approximate Mileage From Soldotna Substation Scale: 1°=4 Miles CLUE aw rei tee HARTCROWSER uoijeysS Bulyessusey » ‘International ‘Substation NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Tesoro Products Line Route Land Ownership (See Map Key - General Land Ownership) 86 uolye}SqnS euyopjos ow o 0) Approximate Mileage From 3 Soldotna Substation ° = Scale: 1"=4 Miles e CLUE oO. Engnees heorporred au iT APPENDIX G STABILITY CASES T&D $1 1064 (5/14/87) SE 1- HW 2000 2 - HW 2000 3 - HW 2000 4-HW 2000 5 - HW 2000 6 - HW 2000 7-LS 2000 8-LS 2000 9-LS 2000 10 - LS 2000 11-LS 2000 12 - LS 2000 T&D 51 1064 (5/14/87) APPENDIX G LIST OF STABILITY CASES Fault at Healy 345kV bus - open the Healy/Douglas Line. Fault at Pt. Mackenzie 230kV bus - open the Beluga/Pt. Mackenzie Line 1. Fault at Soldotna 115kV bus - open the Soldotna/Quartz Creek Line. Fault at Bradley Junction 115kV bus - open the Bradley Junction/Soldotna Line. Fault at AML&P 230kV bus - open the AML&P 230kV/University Line. Fault at Burnt Island 230kV bus - open the Burnt Island/Soldotna Line. Fault at Healy 345kV bus - open the Healy/Douglas Line. Fault at Pt. Mackenzie 230kV bus - open the Beluga/Pt. Mackenzie Line 1. Fault at Soldotna 115kV bus - open the Soldotna/Quartz Creek Line. Fault at Bradley Junction 115kV bus - open the Bradley Junction/Soldotna Line. Fault at AML&P 230kV bus - open the AML&P 230kV/University Line. Fault at Burnt Island 230kV bus - open the Burnt Island/Soldotna Line. 1 SPEED GAS E E STUDY NTERTI SPEED ANCHORAGE —KENAI 1) 1) 1) MACH 5 (7 BELUGA MACH 6 (2 BELUGA MACH 7 (6 BELUGA SPEED SPEED € 5 @ 6: $ 7 1) w 1) 1) (4 BELUGA MACH 2 (8 BELUGA MACH 3 (3 BELUGA MACH 4 (5 BELUGA 1 MACH PEED SPEED SPEED LOO ES Wi ic ob == sid Tea 10B. 144. TIME (CYCLES) 36. °o vZ0 1 6LO 4 vLO'l 6001 vOO'l ~ 666° CASE E STUDY NTERTI SPEED ANCHORAGE —KENAI 12 (54 MLP2 5 2) 13 (55 MLP2 6 2) MACH SPEED MACH MACH MACH SPEED 14 (S56 MLP2 7 2) SPEED 15 (57 MLP2 8B 2) 108. 144. (CYCLES) 726 Tl ME 36. 1 CASE E STUDY NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI ANGLE 2 ANGLE 4 ANGLE 1 155 BRAD L 4 ANGLE BUS 9 BELUGA BUS S8 MLP2 BUS 92 SOLDT. BUS 1 Z 3 4 ' 1 ' ' ' iu ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 ' 1 ' ' ' ! ' ' ! 1 ' ' 1 ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' ! ! ' ! ' ' ' ' ' ! ' 1 1 ' ‘ 1 ' ' ! ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' Vartacen O30 2 108. C CYCLES) Ti ME “ed “G8S “Sty “S82 ‘Sel “gi= & ist UDY CASE NTERTI ANCHORAGE —-KENAI ANGLE S ANGLE S ANGLE 1 105 HLP 146 MUS BUS 9 BELUGA BUS BUS 1 20 3 +oenw” a wwee docesaaacs fast ses ries ee ee len os oles ellen ool ae =o tes wis oe \ + . \ ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' 1 ' 1 ' ' ' ' 1 ' ! 1 ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' 1 t ' ' i ' t ! ' ' ' ' ' 1 lasso s ems 5 fal eer os epee edl tnt eee etc onl eoies enfosterier ass 40 | | ; ! | 8 1 1 ' ' ' a ' ' ' 1 1 ' ' ' ~ ' 1 ' ' ' w ' ' ! y ' w 1 \ \ ' = > i ' ' 1 i oO ' 1 ' ' 1 7 lame meme eee deer een er eee dew wenn eo oer dew nwnee - w<ace eeern ag * ! ob 7 ! | | = ' ' 1 ' t ' ' ' ' 1 ' t ' ' ' ' ! ' ! ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' t ' ' ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' eo Mas ws womens oe aan en haere areas es Dotti =) aSSeco4 CoE ' ' 1 ' \ oO ' ' 1 ' ' m 1 ' ! ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' \ 1 ' l | I 1 ' ' ' 1 ~ ' ' ' 1 \ {| ' ' ' i ' [lo "SEZ Ses Ser "Sez “Set Si- fe==" 956 ‘Oey 008 080 008 £'2 -- 93d 1 CASE E STUDY NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI ANGLE 3 ANGLE BUS 24 COOPER 4 ANGLE 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BUS 72 EKLUTN BERNIC 4 ANGLE BUS 21 4 180 144 we ee ee eee dee ee ee eee Meee - - = 108. 72s, TIME (CYCLES) SEL Ges ‘Sey “G87 ‘Gel Sil Vii ic) oa 1 BE _stvuay CASE | NTERTI VOLTAGE 2 VOLTAGE 4 VOLTAGE 165 BRAD L 4 VOLTAGE ANCHORAGE —KENAI 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BUS S58 MLP2 BUS 92 SOLDT. BUS 1 2 3 4 a) @ oon Ties 108. 144. TIME (CYCLES) 36. 1 CASE E NTERTI ANCHORAGE —-KENAI VOLTAGE S VOLTAGE S VOLTAGE 1 105 HLP 146 MUS BUS 9 BELUGA BUS BUS 1 Ze 3 ea . TIME (CYCLES) Visas aa) om ecw ss te a t + 1 teeenn--- a ' ' ° ' ' = 1 1 ' ' ' 1 ' 1 1 ! =a si ' 1 nn ' 1 ' t ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 oe 4 ; 1 oO ' ' Pa) 1 1 t ! 1 1 ' ' ' 1 ' Ss o Sy0} S66" S¥6° S68 S78 S62° | = fd ZO 'L c8° co” oy oe 20° €'% -- Nd 1 CASE E STUDY NTERTI KE NAI ANCHORAGE - | | | | be 4 ~-.¥ CO | ~ogd | Oo2Z2Z2u | Zuwd | w23d 2>O00w oOuw’e weeuw cCuuw | we ¢ | NT | - 4 a = < an) ONOd peg ee 3i0@ w ta o wo aaw ana nnan a 2 a2 aoaoa ay OLSEN Y VAG) re 1g 78 09 7S 09 v2 09 76 be v'C'Z*t -- ZH BO 72 TIME (CYCLES) 36 1 CASE E STUDY NITERT FREQUENCY HAI ANCHORAGE —KtI 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BUS BUS S FREQUENCY S FREQUENCY 105 HLP 146 MUS Se ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I Fees) a es Cee) ws dfs Ye Fas Fos whew Fes) Nol bac ems as So ies eos lion idan Sia ota re is 1 1 1 ' ' | ' ' ' ' ' | ' ' ' ' ' It ' ' ' ' | 1 ' ‘ ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 ' 1 ' ' ' ' i 1 1 ' ! ! ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ¢ 1 = ' ' 1 ' ' —_ | ' ' 1 1 1 | ' ' 1 ' | hg vi 49 73 09 ¥¢ 09 ¥Z 09 76 | -- ZH 99 “¥9 “09 09 gs 72. seo 108. CGY GEES) Tl ME a nm - CAS Be Z Es 1 U DY NTERTI SPEEO ANCHORAGE —KENAI SPEED SPEED SPEED 1) 1) 1) MACH 5 (7 BELUGA MACH 6 (2 BELUGA MACH 7 (6 BELUGA #5 @ 6: $7 SPEED SPEEDO 1) 1) 1) (4 BELUGA MACH 2 (8 BELUGA MACH 3 (3 BELUGA 1 MACH 0 WwW 5 > oO iW = - fa) Ww we a nv eee ay eres ee Gn ee ee SS SS Sea eel Sel ee aes oO =) ad a oO o vt 35 7 : 3 oO 5 o $ 5800 L 900°} $200 L 100-1 $866" 966° ChcCal s id 7 $2100 4 ¢24$00 ‘1 $z¥00 ‘4 ¢4£200 ‘| $Z100 4 $1666 ° 9‘S‘¥ -- Nd CASE 2 NTERTIE STUDY ANCHORAGE —KENAI aadaa wu WWW aaaa nnnu ARAA NANNY noone NANA oaaa ef 2) 2.2 22 tOOnR nonn vere noeu eeee Batt QOO09 <add 2222 -A" + 6001 2. 7L00 ‘1 7S00 1 7200 ‘1 yo a ) — fd y100'L 108. Ti2n TIME (CYCLES) 36; ° v666— CASE 2 E STUDY NAI INTERTI Shae ANCHORAGE W wu o wiisd +a002 OZZ< Za < + Nt - es) < ra ONaO<d Dau 4100 wstn oO wo onw Ana nnunnun 2) >) 2/2) ooaa -H-NMOT rs — = 1 ! ' ' \ ' fe ' i i } ' 1 i | ' 1 1 | \ \ ' \ \ \ \ ' ' \ ' \ ' 1 1 ' ' ' ' \ 1 1 ' ' ' ' 5 ee a ae ee pe t 1 1 \ ' os 1 ' ' ' ' H ' \ \ 1 ' 1 ' I ' \ ' 1 \ I ' ' \ \ 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 ' ' ; a ear a ke iain olay cia ale ese 46 1 \ ml 1 \ 2 ' ' \ ' " 1 1 ' 1 ' den \ ' 0 ' ' Ww ' ' . ie ' ' \ \ ' ' } o \ ' \ > \ \ oO ' 1 i Y ' \ cal sa cs as has ese hee fees oe Joacaa aaa = ~W ; \ Jas ' 1 1 Sa \ \ I = ' ° 1 ' \ \ : ! ' ' i ' \ \ ' ! ' 1 ' ' 1 ' ' ' \ ' ' ' 1 As ' ee ce ies ge mrtg ig kW a tas Bue 1 1 E oO \ \ ” ' ' ' ' x 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' I 1 1 ' i ' ' ' ' \ \ \ ' ' ' é ! VSS a i ek Ort 06 Qr Ol- CASE 2 BE st UDyY NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI ANGLE 1 BUS 9 BELUGA Un S ANGLE S ANGLE 105 HLP 146 MUS BUS BUS 2 o. ' . ' ' a ' ' , ' ' fi ' ' ' 1 1 a 1 1 ! ' ' 1 ‘i ' ' ' ' \ 1 ' ! ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 ' \ \ ' ' ' ! ' i 1 1 ' ' ' ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 i 1 ' ' 1 ' ' . lescscacaeaa cd fesias) aes Yesiresten Spl esis os eats = aim dewe ewe -- dee eee ee ee ' ' ' ' I | ' ' ' i ' 1 ' ! t 1 1 ' 1 ' ' ! ' ' 1 ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 ' 1 ' ' ' ' ! ' ' ' 1 ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 ' 1 ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' 1 ! . D passes wen ew we se ae Jon ee a= oJdo- he dw ee e+ deownnn--- 4a 1 1 1 1 ' 1 ! 1 ' ' g ' ' 1 1 ! ! ' ' ' 1 ' 1 ! ' ' on ' \ 1 o \ ” ' ' ' 1 ' wW ' ' ' ' ' ! 1 a ' ' t ' 2 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' o 1 ' ' ' ' - ' 1 ' ' 1 laaecerwecne dew eon eee dd ---- -' a ee deeooaoc oa - ad of a ' 1 ' ' 1 ns ' ' 1 1 ' S ' ' ' \ 1! = ! 1 ' t i) ' ' ! ' 1 ! ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 ' 1 1 ' ' ! ' ' ' 1 1 ' ' ! ' ' 1 ! 1 ' ' ' ' 1 ' ' 1 ' 1 ' leew menwonwn dow wee ee dow -- dew enw ney dee ew ee ee : ' ' ' 1 © | ' 1 m ' ' 1 1 ' ' ' ' ' 1 1 ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ! ' ! 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 ' 1 ' ' ' ! 1 ' ' ! ' 1 ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' \ 1 ' ' ' 1 1 ' °o S61 Sri 56 SY s- SS- cc kt — 930 Est) uipy GASE NTERTI ANCHORAGE —-FENAI 1 ANGLE BUS 72 EKLUTN 3 ANGLE BUS 24 COOPER 4 ANGLE BERNIC 4 ANGLE BUS 9 BELUGA BUS 21 1 2 Ss 4 [ * = = dee “OSh ' ' ' ‘ ‘ ‘ f) ' ' = 144. 108. 72 TIME (CYCLES) 36 EB STUDY CAS E I NTERTI VOLTAGE 2 VOLTAGE ANCHORAGE —KENAI 4 VOLTAGE 155 BRAD L 4 VOLTAGE 1 BUS G9 BELUGA BUS S58 MLP2 BUS 92 SOLDT. BUS 1 2 3 4 =F oe 108. 144. TQ TiME (CYCLES) CASE 2 Eo stTUDY | NTERTI VOLTAGE ANCHORAGE —KENAI S VOLTAGE S VOLTAGE 1 BUS 39 BELUGA 105 HLP 146 MUS BUS BUS CiGulaa id 144 108. (CYCLES) 2 ME iv CASE NTOERTItE STUDY KE NAI ANCHORAGE - FREQUENCY 2 FREQUENCY 4 FREQUENCY 155 BRAD L 4 FREQUENCY 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BUS S8 MLP2 BUS 92 SOLDT. BUS (CyCcits) 752. ft ME m» oo CASE tf STUDY NPreEREI FREQUENCY 5 | FREQUENCY S FREQUENCY NAI 1 HLP 146 MUS BUS 9 BELUGA 105 BUS ANCHORAGE —F I BUS 2 Bi, 22 Tt ME ‘ ' ! ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 $29 09 $2¢ 09 CCY CLS) BE) sTubpy CASSIE NTERTI SPEED SPEED ANCHORAGE —KENAI 1; MACH 8&8 (17 BERNIC 4) MACH 9 (18 BERNIC 4) 23 10 (19 BERNIC 4) SPEED MACH 3 $7900 1 s2e00 | $2100 "1 € ¢ t == fd $2866" SZ966° Wie. 108. 144. TIME (CYCLES) 36. S266 3 CASE EF STUDY NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI * ANGLE 2 ANGLE 4 ANGLE 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BUS 58 MLP2 BUS 92 SOLDT. BUS 4 ANGLE 155 BRAD L ' ' i 1 ' ' ' t ' ' ' ' 1 ( \ t ' ' ' ' 1 \ ' \ ' l 1 ' ' ' 1 ' 1 ! ' ' \ 1 1 ! ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' ere 1 ' ' vw 1 ' ! | een ess ces dae -------Jdo- ~~~ + ke ty 1 ' \ 1 1 1 ' = ' ' 1 1 ~ ' 1 ' ' 1 1 ' 1 ' ' 1 1 . ' 1 ! ' ' 1 ' . ' 1 ' ' 1 1 1 1 ' ' ' ' ' 1 1 1 1 ' ' . w—-- ee ee eee dee ee ee eee - ene eee we eee ee oe JIA ~~ +--+ ' 1 ' ' le ' id. 1 ' ' ' ' a 1 1 ' 1 ! ' 1 1 ! / ' ' ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' 1 1 ' ' ' ' ' 1 1 ' ! a ' 1 ' ' ' ! ' 1 1 2 ee ee eee dew we Je ewn dao dow focdadaonw ewer ene eo dow eee eee 1 ' 1 1 N 1 ' ' ' S ' ' \ ' ' * 1 ' ' \ ' ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 ' . ! ' ! ' 1 ! ' 1 A ' ! ' ' ' ' 1 ' 1 1 ' ' {i 1 1 i weer eee ewe idm mwwmmemwreewn Wow ooo eo eee dee - woe dee eee . ese ' ' Jo 1 ' ' ‘ m ! ! ' ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 \ ' ' 1 ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ! ' ' ' ' 1 ! ' ' ! ' . ° 06 02 os o¢ Ol Ot Was Cale ogG TIME (CYCLES) CASE 3 NTERTIE STUDY ANCHORAGE —KENAI ANGLE 1 BUS 39 BELUGA BUS BUS 1: S ANGLE S ANGLE 105 HLP 146 MUS 2 3 + v a ° o uw wl O > o jw = iE o m Pe lto Scr S82 gel cir $9I- § L¢- Z‘l -= 930 “Bh ny Sle shee oy “LS- f == 930 CAS ES Be) sTwoy NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI ? ; + i - ! ' t 1 ! ! t : o ; ° ; - ' t ~ ' n ' Ww : 4 ; Oo ; > 1 oO ; — ' aw Ns H e wy wwWwd 1 Wood 1 Ode ' <rered 1 Ea a6 : a OO> 4 oO>> ' > ¢ 1 5 nt 1 © - ao n é 1 < Oa ; onad } 2aasue 1 +11id00@ ' win 1 o o ' onan : roar | a gvaw CT ° » 92 gt gO0°L 96° 98° Sc ooaa Z'L -- Ad “NN GIT Si6 G7L Gly Gee $z0 0- Sa y'€ -- Nd Ese px CASSIE INTERTI VOLTAGE ANCHORAGE —KENAI 1 BUS 939 BELUGA BUS BUS Vs S VOLTAGE S VOLTAGE 105 HLP 146 MUS 2 3: 108. 144. (CYCLES) Dies Ti ME 36. a Site CA E STUDY NTEERI FREQUENCY 2 FREQUENCY 4 FREQUENCY HAL | -K I HORAGE BUS 9 BELUGA BUS S& MLP2 Atl BUS 92 SOLODOT. 1ao fess) yea ew ew rere J , ' ' o ' 1 S 1 1 1a 1 ' ' ' os ! ? ” ' ' \ 1 ie 1 ‘ ss 1 ' o ' ' ~ ' ' Oo ' \ - ! ! Das Gx seen Re on oe re a aw o pe 2 ' ' Ss ww ' ' > 1 ' og ! ' ad ' ' x 1 ' we ' ' ' ' } ' ' | Ss) ' ' | -_ j ! 1 ' lant cassened | Qa \ 1 © < ' ' i « \ 1 | a ‘ ' | ! 1 no ' ' | n ' ' | = \ ' | ' i | ai 4 ' | 2 i | am is } . | ‘ ' a es 7 gS¢S 09 SOvr 09 sz 09 $01 09 $$6 6S $08 &$ ve ca == ).24 6 ic E STUDY NPERTEI FREQUENCY > Ss HORAGE ~-KE WAI | BUS 39 BELUGA ANC 1 FREQUENCY BUS 105 HLP BUS 2% FREQUENCY 146 MUS ae 144. 72 Tl ME (CYCLES) oa wy E sT upy GAS E NTERTI SPEED ANCHORAGE -KENAI SPEED SPEED 10 (19 BERNIC 4) MACH & (17 BERNIC 4) MACH 9 (18 BERNIC 4) MACH “NM e | 6) jon $Z£200 1 $z000 | GSL£266° SZS66° £ Git == Nd GiZ66° 48 36. 24. TIME (CYCLES) 12), SZ066° 4 E STUDY CASE NTERTI ANCHORAGE —-KENAI ANGLE 2 ANGLE 4 ANGLE 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BUS 58 MLP2 BUS 92 SOUDT. BUS 155 BRAD L 4 ANGLE Z‘t -- 930 CeY CLES) ME T ‘8i2= s&h ‘l= ¢ -- 93d “85 ‘0Sd “009 ‘OSy “00¢ Fh == 93G) “OSL GAS & BE psi Ubpy NTERTI ANCHORAGE —-FKENAI UA BUS 9 BELUGA 1 ANGLE BUS BUS S ANGLE S ANGLE HELP 105 2 146 MUS 3 36; 48. 24 TIME (CYCLES) WZ 4 (CAS Soau Day E NTERTI NAI ANGLE AWCHORAGE —F E. ANGLE 4 ANGLE BS BUS 24 COOPER 4 ANGLE 1 EKLUTN BERNIC BUS 9 BELUGA BUS 72 BUS 21 N ‘eh Zh === 2655 655 Sosa = eS eee eee ee eS ae are ee Se 48 (CYCLES) —————EE EE —————EEEEE 56. 24. Tl ME CASE 4 E STUDY NTERTI1 ANCHORAGE —KENAI VOLTAGE 2 VOLTAGE 4 VOLTAGE 1 BUS 39 BELUGA BUS S8 MLP2 BUS 92 SOLDT. BUS 165 BRAD L 4 VOLTAGE sac (CYCLES) 4 E STUDY CASE NTERTI| VOLTAGE ANCHORAGE —KE NAI 1; 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BUS BUS S VOLTAGE S VOLTAGE 105 HLP 146 MUS 24s 3 48. 24 TIME (CYCLES) U2 " fO'L eo% ¢9 7 e'Z‘t -- Nd 4 CASE E STUDY NTERTI FREQUENCY -KE NAIL ANCHORAGE 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BUS S58 MLP2 FREQUENCY 4 FREQUENCY 2 BUS 92 SOLDT. 155 BRAD L 4 FREQUENCY BUS 24. TIME (CYCLES) 94°09 90°09 96 '6S 98 6S 92 °6S 99 @ b= ZH 99°09 ¥2 09 ¥8 6S vy 6S 70 6S 79 © == 2H & £9 L£°S9 Z 99 L°29 Z°49 i ¥ — ZH CAGE IHTERTIE STUDY [WAI HORAGE ~— BUS 9 BELUGA BUS Atk FREQUENCY 1 S FREQUENCY S FREQUENCY 105 HLP 146 MUS 2k BUS a Sib ‘09 09 4B. oe BIG ss 24. Ti ME CCYCLES) CASE E STUDY NTERTI ANCHORAGE —-KENAI aaaad Bu ww Wu aaa unan aA AA NNNN nona NANNY oaaa as-~s4dJs 2224 tOOKR nonn vvevy noe eeee cece 00900 <add 2222 -N" + ¥g00 1 a | 144 108. 36. CCYCLES) CASE E STUDY NTERTI NAI ANGLE 2 ANGLE 4 ANGLE ANCHORAGE ~KE. 1 155 BRAD L 4 ANGLE BUS 39 BELUGA BUS S58 MLP2 BUS 92 SOLDT. BUS 1 2 3: 4 - = ' A. 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 1 ' ' 1 1 1 1 1 y \ 1 t eds ee ee esl et Sd oh ' ' 1 * ' 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 ' . ' 1 1 ' ° ! ' . 1 1 { ' ' ' \ a a es estes eres aie ' ' 1 t ' 1 1 ' ' ' . ' 1 ' 1 ' ' 1 1 1 ' ' ! ' \ 1 1 BOL 89 ¥ $°¢ h —— psd = 108. 144 CCYCLES) Wes TI ME ® Gs ‘él- CASE DS B si vbyv NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KE NAI BUS 9 BELUGA 1 ANGLE BUS BUS S ANGLE S ANGLE 105 HLP 146 MUS Ze Bi “BOL 108. 144. C CYCLES) 7 2p TI ME 36 lo 1cG= EB st UDY CASE INTERTI NAI ANGLE ANCHORAGE ~—KE 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BUS 72 EKLUTN 3 ANGLE BUS 24 COOPER 4 ANGLE BUS 21 BERNIC 4 ANGLE anit STUTTTAETIT MN PET TT RT T 1 ' 1 ‘ 1 ' |. 1 ' N iu 1 1 y. ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' bs | : US | ! 7 SU ea = | ' 1 “toe ebb “18 “he 4 Cc | ==) 930 Tne 108. 144 TIME (CYCLES) 36. wo CASE E STUDY NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI VOLTAGE 2 VOLTAGE 4 VOLTAGE 1 155 BRAD L 4 VOLTAGE BUS 39 BELUGA BUS S58 MLP2 BUS 92 SOLDT. BUS £'7') -- Nd 108. 144. (CYCLES) TDs Ti ME 36 y-- 701 fd CAS E E sTjuby NTERT I ANCHORAGE —KENAI VOLTAGE 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BUS BUS Us S VOLTAGE S VOLTAGE 105, HEP 146 MUS 2 3 72s ves. 144. TIME (CYCLES) 36 no CASE E STUDY NTERTI >E -KENAI | ANCHORA >» ~.¥O ~¥OOZ OZ2w Zuwd woad 200w Owwe weew Cu we + NT ca 4 < ea OnoOd 2au8€ ti OD wtn a n onw anane nnnn aaa aaca -NOMS ~~ 8 = = S 09 09 72 Tl ME CGYCLES) C9 2 CASir NTERTIE STUDY FREQUENCY ANCHORAGE —KENAI 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BUS BUS S FREQUENCY S FREQUENCY 10S hee 146 MUS 2 3 1 ' ' ! ' ' ' ' 1 ' 1 ati rin 70 ' ' ' ° 1 ' ' c ' ' 1 ' 1 ' 2a | a ' ' ' ai ' 1 1 Prt ' ' ' 9 I ' ' > ' 1 ' oO ' i ! oot oot os (oss a os tons ad ae as ie leah a 4 a ' ' 1 NS ' 1 ! s ' 1 1 = ' t ' { ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' 1 1 ' ' 1 ' 1 ' ' 1 1 ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' 1 1 ' ee deren ee eee 4 ' ' ' © 1 ' ' ba] 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ! ! ' 1 ' ' ' 1 ' 1 1 ' ' ! ' ' \ ' | ' ' 1 \ ' 1 ' 1 1 Hes $29 09 $2S 09 Gac 09 $22 09 $20 09 $6 6S ie b=) 2 CASE 6 E STUDY NTERTI SPEED ANCHORAGE —KENAI SPEED i) 1) 1) MACH 5S (7 BELUGA MACH 6 (2 BELUGA MACH 7 (6 BELUGA 5 # 1) 1) 1) 1 €4 BELUGA MACH 2 (8 BELUGA MACH 3 (3 BELUGA MACH SPEED 6 SPEED SPEED ee SPEED i ' ' ‘ ' = ' ' ' 1 ' | t ' I ' ' ia \ ' 1 I ' ' 1 ' ' ! ' 1 I ' 1 ! ' ' ' ' 1 iu ' ' 1 1 1 \ 1 ' 1 t ' ' ' ! ' i ! 1 ' 1 ! ' \ ! ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' S|. ee dow ---- eee jJde--------- daewoo ene 1 f ' ' as I ' ' 1 Ps ' ' ' 1 ' i 1 ' ' ' ! ' 1 1 ' ' ' ' 1 ' t ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' 1 ' ' 1 ' 1 1 ; looenowoss dow Sele a amie dl Sie) S Seine J ee Se So Se ee oe aa 40 ' ' 1 ! 1 ' ° ' 1 1 ' - ' ' ' ' 1 ' ' ! ~ t 1 ' 1 ” ' ' ' ' Ww 1 ' 1 ' jo ' 1 1 ' 7 iu ' ' ' o I ' \ \ > \ ! \ 1 o ! i i S ~ 1 ' 1 No oo ee wan 4 4 ae 1 ' 1 z ' ' ! S 1 1 1 “ ' ' e a 1 1! a ! ' ! ' ~ 1 ' - 1 1 1 ' < ' ' S| 2 1 4 leeeseecaveccoctarbeaeaaadaaesannecoaeaedaaooosweceoaoedaanaaeeeaeaca WW 1 © a It Da] 1 wo vy ' +t ' 1 ed I ! o < ' = 2 4 lo * $z00t $166 $766 $296 $786 SLL6 L°9'S'p ‘EZ 'L -- Nd EB -SiLUupy CASE NTERTI SPEED SPEED ANCHORAGE —KENAI (54 MLP2 5 2) 13 (55 MLP2 6 2) i2 MACH MACH MACH MACH SPEED SPEED 14 (S6 MLP2 7 2) 15 (57 MLP2 B 2) 108. 144. CEYVCEES), Te Tl ME a6. 926° E ST UDY CASE NTERTI SPEED ANCHORAGE —KENAI MACH 9 (18 BERNIC 4) SPEED MACH 8&8 (17 BERNIC 4) + 1 e242 10 (19 BERNIC 4) SPEED MACH 3) 108. 72 TIME (CYCLES) 960 1 CASE 6 E STUDY NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI BUS 9 BELUGA 1 ANGLE BUS 58 MLP2 1 ANGLE 4 ANGLE 2 BUS 92 SOLDT. BUS 155 BRAO L 4 ANGLE z 3 4 dar 108. 144 TIME (CYCLES) 36. E SRUDY NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI ANGLE S ANGLE S ANGLE 1 105 HLP 146 MUS BUS 9 BELUGA BUS BUS 1 2 3 1 ' ' 1 ! 1 ' 1 1 ' ' ' ! ‘ ¢ ' ' 1 v 1 1 ' 7” ' ' 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 ! ! 1 1 ' ' ! 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 ' ' ' \ ' ' . motsssss is Boe mmm . 1 1 ' ee 1 1 1 1 ' ' ! ! ! Ss 1 ' ' w 1 ' 1 }ow | } ° ‘ 1 | a 1 1 a ' ' iat 1 ' Ws. ) as (ese nas ew lea Nee ag os gl as lel es sent ts es ww nn as) oe) wo est fe) SS) Ca) sy Ss cs 7 1 1 NS 1 ' nL 1 1 | = ' 1 ' 1 ' ' ! 1 1 ' ! 1 1 ann (PRS) 1g SO gn | Sn PEE, pee : 1 Oo 1 La} ' 1 1 ' ' 1 \ ' ! I ! ° 06 “09- “OLz- “09e- “OLS= "099- Giant —— 930 GASE| 6G E STUDY NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI ANGLE BUS 72 EKLUTN 3 ANGLE BUS 24 COOPER 4 ANGLE 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BERNIC 4 ANGLE BUS 21 “OSy meetin 108. 14 Was TIME (CYCLES) ° Esvi0= “OS- ESsiupy CASIE NTERTI | VOLTAGE 2 VOLTAGE 4 VOLTAGE ANCHORAGE —-KENAI 1 BUS 39 BELUGA BUS S8 MLP2 BUS 92 SOLDT. BUS 3 155 BRAD L 4 VOLTAGE 72a 108. 144. 180 TIME CCYCLES) 36 6 SE Cc Bo srew Diy NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI VOLTAGE 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BUS BUS Us + S VOLTAGE S VOLTAGE 105 HLP 146 MUS 2 3 ¢- yO °L Z‘L -- fd 904 Nd 144. (CYCLES) 2s. Tl ME 3 6s 6 E STUDY CASE NTERTI FREQUENCY 2 FREQUENCY 4 FREQUENCY ANCHORAGE —KENAI 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BUS S8& MLP2 BUS 92 SOLDT. BUS 155 BRAD L 4 FREQUENCY 99 © ° o Ww a O > oO ug Be - © m a 09 ¥Z 09 ¥8°6S v7 6S 70 6S 79 8S @ | == ZH $9 "9 “¢9 “09 19 Q9 144. VORA T 6 ES UD GAS IE NTERTI FREQUENCY ANCHORAGE —KENAI 1 BUS 939 BELUGA BUS BUS he S FREQUENCY S FREQUENCY 105 HLP 146 MUS 180 144. ' ‘ ' ' ' ' ‘ 1 ‘ ts TOG. Vai TIME (CYCLES) ' ' '‘ 1 ' ' ' ' ' w~eeew ew eee eee ee eK ee ee ee eer ee eed ¥9 09 2°09 v9 6S vy 6S vO 6S 79 QC 7 CAS E E STUDY ERT NT ANCHORAGE —KENAI aaa ad dd amare mae) aaa una PENN <i 009d 25/5) JJ J WW Ws aoa nano _—"V"w oon © Tr 00” roa 222 OOR ae aaa WW Ww ad aaa una AAA qqq Good 22> =-4sa24 ww Wb aoa Tr0” GG enn ros 009 qi eo -a" + SPEED MACH 4 (5 BELUGA 1) 4a: 1200 1 9S00 1 Lv00 L 9200 1 LEOY SiS tel == ivd 72: 108. 144. TIME (CYCLES) 3G; 7 BPs wp y GAS E NTERTI SPEED ANCHORAGE —KENAI (54 MLP2 5 2) 13 (55 MLP2 6 2) 14 (S6 MLP2 7 2) ui2 MACH 1: SPEED MACH SPEED MACH MACH SPEED 15 (57 MLP2 8 2) S$ec00 1 Spco0 1 y'C'Z't -- fd $6000 1 108. 144. Vas TIME (CYCLES) S7666 E STUDY CASE 7 NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI Wi WwW oa Wadd a00Z O 22'S Zac < + nt ra = < a) Onad 2a3u 4+i10@ a) o wn onw DNAs nnan aS 2 2] ooaaq “nm + t= = SEL 108. 144 7 25 TIME (CYCLES) 7 E STUDY CASE NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI ve BUS 9 BELUGA 1 ANGLE BUS BUS S ANGLE S ANGLE 105 HLP 146 MUS 2 Ss 144 108. r ' ' i >>> f $f — fo fe fo ef ' ' tL 72s Tl ME ‘ose 0S2 ‘OS1 0S ‘0S- ‘OS (CYCLES) ‘vel “vhh “98 avG 92 9= E STUDY CASE te 7 NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI ANGLE BUS 72 EKLUTN 3 ANGLE BUS 24 COOPER 4 ANGLE BUS 21 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BERNIC 4 ANGLE 144. 108. 72) TIME (CYCLES) “9LL “OCL “96 9S 91 “90- VG Gb) ==) O80 7 BS smu Dy CASE NTERTI ANCHORAGE —-KENAI VOLTAGE 2 VOLTAGE 4 VOLTAGE 155 BRAD L 4 VOLTAGE 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BUS S58 MLP2 BUS 92 SOLDT. BUS 1 2 3 4 eo eee {|e eae SZ L Gil SOL Sé° $3" v'C'Z'L -- Nd 108. 144. —L 725 T! ME € CYCLES): 7 Bs TY Day CAS E INTERTI VOLTAGE ANCHORAGE -KENAI 13 1 BUS 9 BELUGA S VOLTAGE S VOLTAGE 105 HLP 146 MUS BUS BUS 2 3S +! a a ae ot en ca as reagan a se alee ' ' ' ' v ' ' bal ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' 1 ' ! ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' 1 sah as Eo ces fa ote denne e-- 0 1 ' 1 1 ° ' ' at ' ' ' ' ~ 1 ' ” t- ' Ww ' ' j fj} 3 ' ' ' 1 +| > ' ' oO ' ' ~ ! ' 1 Jdewcoree--- JS — ine St - bh tet 6. Gee 4 S46 GoL° Sly Soe $20 ‘0- cic = 0d 7 E STUDY CASE NTERTI FREQUENCY HORAGE —KLNAI © AN 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BUS 58 MLP2 FREQUENCY 4 FREQUENCY 2 BUS 92 SOLDT. BUS 155 BRAD L 4 FREQUENCY luau 72 Tl ME =. 36. co nm o wo a COV CiLES) S a wo he CASE Siu Dy NTERTIE NA | ANCHORAGE =KE V4 1 FREQUENCY BUS 9 BELUGA BUS BUS S FREQUENCY S FREQUENCY LOS HLe 146 MUS 2 3 S09 OL FSET ..--------- y S 09 cr 69 7 Tl ME 144. 108. (CYCLES) 5Gi, NBR & ast U DY CAS Bs SPEED ANCHORAGE —KENAI CGT GIES) Ti Me SPEED SPEED SPEED aes ee i 12 (54 MLP2 5 2) 13 (55 MLP2 6 2) 14 (56 MLP2 7 2) 15 (57 MLP2 8 2) MACH MACH MACH MACH + o Oo 00°} 200 “| boo} i 6 VCE aid =" +g9S¥00 1 $0to0 | $st00 4 $0000 + $9066 $0L36 2 -- nd oot CASE 8 NTERTIE STUDY SPEED ANCHORAGE —KENAI MACH 5 (7 BELUGA MACH 6 (2 BELUGA MACH 7 (6 BELUGA SPEED 1) a) 1) SPEED SPEEDO 4s @ 6: $ 7 1) 1) 1) (4 BELUGA MACH 2 (8 BELUGA MACH 3 (3 BELUGA MACH 4 (5 BELUGA MACH 1 a: SPEED 2 SPEED s- 1) SPEED 4 9200 “4 9200 1 9100 ‘1 9000 "L 9666 99 ¥'¢ 251 <= Nd 2200 ‘4 L400 "1 7400 4 4000 Z000 1 5 E93 °S =—) Nd rao (CYCLES) Tt Me a a BS iby CASES NTERTI ANCHORAGE —-KENAI 1 ANGLE BUS 72 EKLUTN 3 ANGLE BUS 24 COOPER 4 ANGLE BUS 9 BELUGA BERNIC 4 ANGLE BUS 21 “Oh y £4 b — 930 (CrCLES) Tie Tt Me 36 E STUDY CASE8B NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI ANGLE 1 BUS 9 BELUGA S ANGLE S ANGLE 105 HLP 146 MUS BUS BUS 2 3 CE ClES) E STUDY CASES NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI W ww o wiidwd aAGCOZ OZZ< Zae< < + NT = 4 < ra Ona< a espe 1 od al (OND) wea o n onw AOA nnan > 2-2 2 ooaga “nm es So = S ' ' ' ( ' ' ' ' ! ' 1 1 ' ' *9iv “he S "Ele 1ou BE STUDY CASES NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI VOLTAGE 2 VOLTAGE 4 VOLTAGE 155 BRAD L 4 VOLTAGE 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BUS S8 MLP2 BUS 92 SOLDT. BUS 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 ! ! iu ' 1 1 1 ' 1 t ' ! 1 ' ' ' 1 1 ' ' ' ' 1 | i \ ' \ ' ' ' 1 1 ' ' | ' ' 1 1 ' | ' ' ! 1 ' | t t ' ' ' 1 ' ' 1 ' | i i ' ' t lee eee ew eee —B------ Se es doe eee eee deeoew ewe eee - - ' 1 I ' | ' ' ' ' 1 ' T ! 1 ' ' ' ! ' ' 1 ' ' ° ! ' ! ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 1 1 1 | 1 ' ' ' I | ' 1 ' ' ' | 1 ' ' ' t | ' ' 1 ot ' | ‘ ' ' ' 1 | ' 1 1 ot ' | ' 1 ' ' ' | eee dope 4----- dee ee - eo eee ee ee dee eee eee 4 ' 1 ' 1 1 ' ‘ 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' t t ' t i] 1 ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' | 1 ' 1 * ' t | ' ' ' ! ' ' . 1 ' ' ' ' t 1 ' 1 1 1 t i t ' t ' | ' 1 e ! ' | ' ' 1 lee eee ee Te ey dee eee ee ee deo ee - ee - t t 1 ' ' ' ' ' 1 ' ' | ' H > ' 1 \ 1 ' ' ' | ' ot ' ' | ' ' 1 4 | 1 ' 1 1 | ' ' ' ' | ' ' ! ' | ' ' ' ' ' | 1 ' ' 1 | ' ' ' ' ' ' ‘ ¥ ' ' \oee eee ee -\yorre- - = see - eee eee dee eee ee ee Joe eee eee + 4 ' 1 1 ' ' ' ' t ' | 1 1 ' ' 1 ° ' e 1 a ' | ' ' 1 ' | ' ' ' . ' ! | ! ' ' ' ' | ' ' ' ' ' | ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' f° ' 1 ' ' 1 ' 1 ' ' eFC ' | ie [at ee v7 iL vO'L 3° ¥9° vv tf ec I == 9nd 62 4 6b ot 601 66 68 6 r -- Md (CYCLES) Tt ME E STUDY GASIEIS I NTERTI VOLTAGE ANCHORAGE —KENAI 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BUS BUS 2 S VOLTAGE S VOLTAGE 105 HLP 146 MUS 35 CCrCLreés) Tt Mt CASES EB sTUubyY NTERTI FREQUENCY 2 FREQUENCY 4 FREQUENCY 155 BRAD L 4 FREQUENCY ANCHORAGE —KENAI 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BUS S58 MLP2 BUS 92 SOLDT. BUS ' ‘ ‘ ' 1 ‘ i ‘ ‘ wee ese ee ce eee ohn. ee ew we ww eh = eo ee eb i ee ee eee = kb = ” o o “ o o - o o 1009 we ty 09 Cc pCi tS) 11 Mt o E STUDY CASES8 NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI FREQUENCY 1 BUS 9 BELUGA V; S FREQUENCY S FREQUENCY 105 HLP 146 MUS BUS BUS 2 a CASE 9 E STUDY NTERTI SPEED SPEED ANCHORAGE —KENAI SPEED MACH 8&8 (17 BERNIC 4) MACH 9 (18 BERNIC 4) MACH 10 (19 BERNIC 4) 1 Zu 3 t . (700 (l $00 (1 1200 tL L100 'L 10001 VOI: my wo EE is] UDY CASE 39 NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI ANGLE 2 ANGLE 4 ANGLE 1 155 BRAD L 4 ANGLE BUS 9 BELUGA BUS S58 MLP2 BUS 92 SOLDT. BUS 1 2 33 4 i CCVCIE SD Tt Mt E STUDY CASE =o NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI ANGLE 1 BUS 39 BELUGA BUS BUS S ANGLE S ANGLE 105 HLP 146 MUS 2 3S CSC¥YEL ES) Vt Met Sis UDY CASE {9 I NTERTI VOLTAGE 2 VOLTAGE 4 VOLTAGE ANCHORAGE —KENAI 1 BUS 39 BELUGA BUS S58 MLP2 BUS 92 SOLDOT. 155 BRAD L 4 VOLTAGE BUS s90 4 G2 't iG INE'S)) Cb E STUDY CASE 9 I NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI VOLTAGE V: a, 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BUS BUS S VOLTAGE S VOLTAGE 105 HLP 146 MUS 35 3 CASE E STUDY -RTI Lhe FREQUENCY 2 FREQUENCY 4 FREQUENCY 155 BRAD L 4 FREQUENCY ANCHORAGE ~KENAI BUS 9 BELUGA 1 BUS S58 MLP2 ies a: BUS 92 SOLDT. BUS ais 4: 144 109 $20 09 $009 $20 09 09 cr ‘tb -- ZH Tl ME (GYGLES) ZL 09 £009 20 09 26 6S 26 6S 68 6S y =——28 E STUDY CASE BS NTERTI FREQUENCY ANCHORAGE —-KENAI S FREQUENCY S FREQUENCY 1 105 HLP 146 MUS BUS 39 BELUGA BUS BUS 1 2 3 ce . ' 921 09 960 09 ' a 930 09 9£0 09 900 09 e'Z't -- 2H 72. TIME (CYCLES) oo. ao 108 “wy 10 E SYUDY CASE NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI SPEED SPEED MACH 8 (17 BERNIC 4) SPEED 10 (19 BERNIC 4) MACH 9 (18 BERNIC 4) MACH 1 oii 3 t . $000 1 666 CCYCLES) 10 E STUDY CASE NTERTI| ANCHORAGE —KENAI ANGLE 2 ANGLE 4 ANGLE 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BUS S58 MLP2 Zz BUS 92 SOLDT. a 155 BRAD Lt 4 ANGLE BUS tGOrGl E'S) 1t Mt FO) E STUDY CASE INTERTI VOLTAGE 2 VOLTAGE 4 VOLTAGE 155 BRAD L 4 VOLTAGE ANCHORAGE —KENAI 1 BUS 9 BELUGA BUS 58 MLP2 BUS 92 SOLDT. BUS 1 2 Ss 4 eres 9601 9s0 4 gLol ' ' ' t ‘ ‘ ' ' ‘ ‘ ' ' a Nr es rs rare a a ee) a ee es ee se ' ' 916° Z‘L -- fd awe -- J e -- 9£6 vio 76° vl So ° y'€ -- Nd yo C Syel e's) Ti Mt 10 E STUDY CASE NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI VOLTAGE 1 BUS 9 BELUGA ts S VOLTAGE S VOLTAGE 105 HLP 146 MUS BUS BUS 2 3 9601 oc6 262 10 E STUDY CASE NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI ANGLE S ANGLE S ANGLE BUS 9 BELUGA 1 BUS 105 HLP 146 MUS BUS 1 2 + . 3 ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ‘ ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ! ' ' ' ' ' ' ' Vawc ewe ona 4 ' ' ! ' 1 ‘ ' ' 1 ! 1 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 ' ! ' ' 1 1 ' ' ' lee --- ee J ' ' 1 1 ! 1 ‘ ' 1 1 ' ! ' ' ' ! 1 ' ' ' 1 ! ' ' ' ' ' 1 lo-------- 4 ' ' 1 ! 1 ' ' ' 1 ' ! 1 ' ' 1 ' 1 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' !o-------- 4 ' 1 ' ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 ' ' 1 1 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ! 61 Grout =" 193d TIME (CYCLES) | 1 1 ' I ! 1 ' | 1 ' i 1 ' 1 ! | 1 ' ' I ' ' ' \ i) ' ' 1 Fi. woes Tea Tif.) 0 AS ' ' iS ' 1 ' ' 1 1 ! i) ' 1 ' 1 1 ' ' 1 ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' . eee eae el ee ei le tel etter etre ey 1 1 3 1 ' ! 1 ' ' ' ' ' 1 ' | ' 1 i ' ' \ ' ' ! ' ' I I wee eee eee de eww ee dao aha - --- - . ' Ja 1 Nn ' ' ; | 1 1 r 1 1 ' ' ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' ' 1 ! ' ' ' wo nf epee dee ee Hee ee dee eee ee : ' 1 Jo 1 ' Le ' ! 1 t 1 ' ' 1 ' ' 1 ' ' ! ! ' ' i) ' ' ' 1 I ' : o t= bb Le= ‘c= 10 E STUDY CASE NTERTI ANCHORAGE —KENAI WwW oo | 2000 Olea Zid < nor zeo <rewe o3a2z 23402 a3xOw wwod a Nte ONAN nnan > pie 2 ogaoaaqa -H-NOMTG Feaa IOs ( GYGLES) 10 —E STUDY CASE NTERTI FREQUENCY 2 FREQUENCY 4 FREQUENCY ANCHORAGE —-KENAI BUS 9 BELUGA 1 BUS 5& MLP2 iG 2a BUS 92 SOLDT. Se 155 BRAD t 4 FREQUENCY BUS 4: ' ' ' ! ' 1 ' ! 1 ! ' ' ' ' ' lowe e ence ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 ' 1 260 09 z7S0 09 z10°09 7246 6S we te 2 cH (CYCies) 7 2 Tt ME N 9 a a o om oa a oO wow he