Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSouthern Intertie Project Records Of Decision 2002SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Records of Decision RYT Be SU ee ai) i a ni? Ae re Ae TA Riedel (MeL eZ a7 40 A haley Shy Ue Merit (tett aud U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Fish. and Wildlife Service, Pr yey Tatum mw ilclalelg U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense Aerial View of Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska November 2002 ue . ——— POWERING ALASKA'S FUTURE November 27, 2002 Dear Reader: Enclosed for your information are (1) an executive summary and (2) Records of Decision for the Southern Intertie Project. This document is being provided for your convenience and no action is required. Copies of this document have been sent to agencies, persons, and organizations that received copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Final EJS (FEIS). Additional copies are available for review at the following public libraries in Anchorage: Z.J. Loussac Public Library Chugiak-Eagle Public Library Gerrish (Girdwood) Branch Library Mountain View Branch Library Muldoon Branch Library Samson-Dimond Branch Library Copies will also be available at these libraries on the Kenai Peninsula: Hope Community Library Cooper Landing Community Library Soldotna Public Library Kenai Community Library The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Record of Decision (ROD) is also available online at http://www.usda. gov/rus/water/ees/eis.htm. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) ROD is also available online at http://www.r7 fws.gov/compatibility/completed/kenai/kenai.cfm . This document includes the RUS, USFWS, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) final decisions regarding the potential impacts of a 138kV transmission line that has been proposed by the Intertie Participants Group between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The RUS has been the lead federal agency in the environmental review process. The USFWS and USACE have served as cooperating agencies. The RUS ROD was issued October 9, 2002, the USFWS ROD was issued September 11, 2002, and the USACE ROD was issued November 7, 2002. As stated in the FEIS, the RUS preferred alternative, the Tesoro Route (Option A), would connect the Bernice Lake Substation on the Kenai Peninsula with the Pt. Woronzof Substation in Anchorage. This alternative would parallel the North Kenai Road from Bernice Lake Substation to Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA). Beyond Captain Cook SRA, this route would be located in a planned transportation/utility corridor, including segments that parallel the Tesoro pipeline to Pt. Possession. The preferred route between Pt. Possession and Anchorage is Option D/N. However, RUS considers both Route Options B and C acceptable alternatives. A detailed description of the Tesoro Route and a map illustrating the location are provided in the summary that accompanies this letter. Chugach Electric Association, Inc. ° 5601 Minnesota Drive, P.O. Box 196300, Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 © (907) 563-7494 Fax (907) 562-0027 © (800) 478-7494 www.chugachelectric.com ° info@chugachelectric.com The DEIS was issued in October 2001. The FEIS was completed in July 2002. Notices of availability of the FEIS were published in the Federal Register on July 10, 2002 at 67 FR 45701, by RUS and on July 12, 2002 at 67 FR 46185 by EPA. The 30-day review period ended on August 12, 2002. Comments were received from two agencies and five non-profit organizations. No new issues or concerns were identified in these comments. The next step in the project process is design, survey, permitting, and acquisition of right-of-way. followed by construction. Sincerely, bent Ay Dora Gropp Manager, Transmission and Special Projects Enclosure RECORDS OF DECISION SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT KENAI PENINSULA TO ANCHORAGE, ALASKA Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture US. Fish & Wildlife Service, Department of Interior U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense November 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary Appendix A — RUS Record of Decision Appendix B — USFWS Record of Decision and Compatibility Determination Appendix C — USACE Record of Decision and Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation Southern Intertie Project i Table of Contents Records of Decision November 2002 SUMMARY This project summary is an abbreviated version of the Summary found in the Southern Intertie Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The FEIS was completed in July 2002. Notices of availability of the FEIS were published in the Federal Register on July 10, 2002 at 67 FR 45701, by RUS and on July 12, 2002 at 67 FR 46185 by EPA. The 30-day review period ended on August 12, 2002. Comments were received from two agencies and five non-profit organizations. These included U.S. EPA, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska Center for the Environment, Anchorage Audubon Society, Audubon Society — Alaska, Sierra Club — Alaska, and the Wilderness Society — Alaska. No new issues or concerns were identified in these comments. S.1. | INTRODUCTION The Intertie Participants Group (IPG), also referred to as the Applicant, is proposing to construct an electrical transmission line (the Enstar Route) between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage along the Enstar pipeline through the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR) in south-central Alaska. This 138 kilovolt (kV) transmission line, known as the Southern Intertie Project (Project), is proposed as a system improvement project to increase the overall Railbelt electrical system reliability and transfer of energy capabilities between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. Members of the IPG include Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), Matanuska Electric Association (MEA), Chugach Electric Association (CEA), Anchorage Municipal Light and Power (AML&P), Homer Electric Association (HEA), and the City of Seward. The Project is located within the Railbelt electrical system, a power grid that electrically connects central and south-central Alaska from Homer to Fairbanks. The system allows the six participating utility companies, also referred to as the Railbelt Utilities, to sell and buy power to and from each other, taking advantage of lower costs in other areas, and to provide back-up power to each other. The IPG was formed by the Railbelt Utilities to improve electrical reliability and coordination within the Railbelt by working together to improve the interconnected system through intertie improvements and cooperative energy projects. The Southern Intertie Project is one of these cooperative projects. The Southern Intertie Project FEIS was prepared in response to public and agency comments on the Draft EIS (DEIS). The FEIS is in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4346) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508). The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, was the lead federal agency for the FEIS because GVEA, an IPG member, plans to apply to RUS for financial assistance for its share of the proposed project. The FEIS was also required because the Applicant has filed for a right-of-way across federal lands on the KNWR, a Conservation System Unit designated under the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA). Rights-of-way across Conservation System Units for transportation and_ utility Southern Intertie Project S-I Summary Records of Decision 7 November 2002 systems are governed by regulations (43 CFR Part 36) implementing Title XI of ANILCA. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) of the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) were cooperating agencies in the NEPA process. This summary presents information on the purpose and need for the Project, alternatives studied in detail including the Applicant’s proposal, the affected environment and environmental consequences of the Project, public scoping and consultation, public comments on the DEIS and agencies’ preferences and decisions. S.2. PURPOSE AND NEED 8.2.1 Project Need This Project is needed because the existing Railbelt electrical system is deficient south of Anchorage. The 115kV Quartz Creek transmission line currently provides the sole path for coordinating the operation of generation on the Kenai Peninsula with Anchorage area generation. The line also is used to provide back-up power in the case of outages in the Anchorage area or on the Kenai Peninsula. The Quartz Creek transmission line is limited in electrical transfer capability (70 megawatts [MW)]), and its ability to provide reliable back-up power during system outages is effected by outages from ice, wind, and snow loading. The line is also routed across active avalanche areas. To allow full use of the Kenai Peninsula generation, the intertie secure transfer capacity needs to be increased to 125 MW. The Project would provide the increased transmission capacity to make these higher transfers possible. The Project would also create a transmission loop that increases reliability and provides a second path for power to flow during an outage of the Quartz Creek transmission line. In addition, the limitation of 70 MW of power transfer capability along the existing Quartz Creek transmission line reduces the ability to fully utilize the 120 MW generating capacity of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, owned by the State of Alaska. At the time the Power Sales Agreement for the Bradley Lake energy was signed, it was recognized that additional transmission line (interties) would be needed between the Kenai Peninsula and Fairbanks for system reinforcement and the capability to transfer the Bradley Lake hydro power throughout the Railbelt system. The 1992 Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan acknowledged that to fully utilize the Bradley Lake Project, additional transmission line upgrades are needed to carry power to Anchorage and Fairbanks. 8.2.2 Project Objectives The systems and economic studies that were conducted on the Railbelt system identified several objectives that, if met, would correct the deficiencies and make the system run more economically and effectively. Specifically, the proposed Project would provide a second path for power to flow between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage and is needed to accomplish the following objectives: Southern Intertie Project 5-2 Summary Records of Decision = November 2002 = increase the reliability of the interconnected Railbelt electrical system from the Kenai Peninsula to Fairbanks, and reduce the requirement for load shedding during system disturbances = increase the power transfer capacity between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area = provide the capability to utilize the most economic generation mix available to reduce costs to consumers and allow generation capacity in one area to support the load in the other area = reduce area requirements for spinning reserve generation, thereby reducing operating costs and increasing the life-span of generation plants = improve Railbelt electrical system stability = reduce transmission line losses for power transfers and reduce maintenance costs m provide adequate access to power entitlements from the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project for the utilities north of the Kenai Peninsula, and allow Bradley Lake generation to be more fully utilized The benefits from construction and operation of the Project have been studied and evaluated in detail. Because the interconnected system operates in an integrated manner, benefits from the Project have been evaluated by reviewing the effect of the Project on the overall system. The benefits of the Project would include: capacity sharing economic energy transfer reliability spinning reserve sharing reduced line maintenance costs avoiding minimum combustion turbine generation on the Kenai Peninsula avoiding loading the line during bad weather or construction The value of the benefits from the Project can also be viewed as cost savings. If the Project is not constructed, the unrealized benefits would continue to be part of the overall cost of producing electricity, and those costs would be reflected in the rates for electricity paid by consumers. S$.3. ALTERNATIVES STUDIED IN DETAIL INCLUDING THE APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL The following discussion provides a brief summary of the no-action alternative, the Applicant’s proposed Enstar Route, alternative Tesoro Route locations, associated project facilities, and * construction seasons. Southern Intertie Project $3 Summary Records of Decision ij November 2002 S.3.1 No-Action Alternative Implementation of the no-action alternative would mean that the Project would not be constructed and the Quartz Creek transmission line between the Soldotna Substation on‘the Kenai Peninsula and the University Substation in Anchorage would continue to be utilized as the only electrical connection between Anchorage and the Peninsula region (Figure S-1, see inset). There would be no improvements to the system to address the current electrical system deficiencies associated with this line. Overall, the Railbelt electrical system reliability and transfer of energy capabilities between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage would not be increased. Additionally, the cost savings that would accrue from construction of the Project would continue to be part of the overall cost of producing electricity, and those continuing costs would be reflected in the rates for electricity paid by consumers. S.3.2 Applicant’s Proposal — Enstar Route The Applicant’s proposal is to construct a 138kV transmission line and associated facilities between the Soldotna Substation on the Kenai Peninsula and International Substation in Anchorage. The Applicant’s proposed route is the Enstar Route including Route Options E South, F, H, and K (see Figure S-1). This route begins with an overhead transmission line at the existing substation in Soldotna and replaces an existing 69kV line, running south and then east to the Enstar pipeline (Option E South). At this point the route parallels the Enstar pipeline north through the KNWR for approximately 38.3 miles along Route Option F to Burnt Island on the east side of Chickaloon Bay. An ANILCA application for the crossing of KNWR is on file with the USFWS and USACE. Submarine cables would be used to cross the Turnagain Arm to Oceanview Park on the southern end of Anchorage and from the landing point, underground cable would parallel the Alaska Railroad north to 120" Avenue (Route Option H). From there, an overhead line would continue to parallel the Alaska Railroad to the existing International Substation (Route Option K). The overall length of the proposed Enstar Route is 73.4 miles. A local Enstar Route alternative is shown on Figure S-1, in the Soldotna area (E North), that travels north and east from the Soldotna Substation. In addition, there are two alternative routing options across Turnagain Arm and in the Anchorage area (Route Options I, M, and G, J), as shown in Figure S-1. 8.3.3 Tesoro Route Alternative The Tesoro Route alternative is located between the Bernice Lake Substation on the Kenai Peninsula and the Pt. Woronzof Substation in Anchorage. The Tesoro Route includes Route Option A — Bernice Lake to Pt. Possession, in combination with any of three options that cross the Turnagain Arm and terminate at the Pt. Woronzof Substation (see Figure S-1). This route begins as an overhead transmission line at the existing Bernice Lake Substation near Nikiski (Route Option A), and parallels the North Kenai Road to the southern end of Captain Cook State Southern Intertie Project Summary Records of Decision S-4 November 2002 Te 87 || ALTERNATIVES STUDIED a | IN DETAIL a SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Pt. Woronzof < FIGURE S-1 Intemational Pt Waronzof, Substation - he i Legend 2 |==" Applicant’s Proposed Route y Ks Fa Sr ea — Cohort . é "=" Enstar Route Options ey 3) ™="" Tesoro Route Options Chugach State Park Kenai National Wildlife Refuge [-) Chugach National Forest Private, Borough, or State Selected Lands TON Note: No-action alternative is shown in inset in upper left-hand corner of map. TEN New . ~ Bernice Lake Substation Ten Scale in Miles 1o.l NOL Kenai Lls- ese } E South) a> 1a oe , AN we, » y : = Base Map Sources: . 4 " Municipality of Anchorage (1994). TaN Soldotna ra Substation | Neo oe Chugach National Forest (1995). Kenai Peninsula Borough (1994). USGS 1:63.360 and 1:25,000 Quads. Contour Interval: 200 Feet Contour Labeling in Feet Recreation Area (SRA). Underground cable would parallel the North Kenai Road through the Captain Cook SRA and would also occur where the route is adjacent to two local airstrips along the North Kenai Spur Road. The line would transition back to overhead beyond the northern end of the Captain Cook SRA and would be located in a transportation/utility corridor designated by the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB), including segments that parallel the Tesoro pipeline to Pt. Possession. In this area, the Tesoro Route would cross two areas of Native conveyed lands. One near Grey Cliff Lake (less than | mile) and one at Pt. Possession (approximately 1 mile). Section 22(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) permitting and regulatory requirements would apply to these lands. At Pt. Possession, three options (B, C and D) are available to cross the Turnagain Arm and terminate at the Pt. Woronzof Substation. Route Option D would cross the Turnagain Arm from Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell using submarine cables. From the Pt. Campbell landing, underground cable would continue to parallel the Tesoro pipeline through Kincaid Park and terminate at the Pt. Woronzof Substation (Route Option N). The total length of the Tesoro Alternative Route using this option is 62.0 miles (see Figure S-1). Route Option B crosses Turnagain Arm via Fire Island to the Pt. Woronzof Substation. The total length of the Tesoro Alternative Route using this option is 63.2 miles. Using Route Option C, which crosses the Turnagain Arm directly from Pt. Possession to a landing at the Pt. Woronzof Substation, the total length of the Tesoro alternative is 61.3 miles (see Figure S-1). 8.3.4 Project Facilities The following five separate types of facilities and associated construction techniques are required for the Project: 1. Overhead Transmission Lines - Overhead transmission lines with the conductors supported on steel or wood structures are proposed for portions of the Anchorage area and the Kenai Lowlands. 2. Underground Lines - Underground lines are high-voltage transmission line cables buried below ground surface in a duct bank. Underground lines are proposed for selected locations in the Anchorage area and in the Kenai Lowlands. 3. Submarine Cable - Submarine cable is specially constructed to operate in a marine » environment and is more rugged than the cables used on land. Submarine cable is proposed for crossing the Turnagain Arm. 4. Transition Stations - A transition station is equipped to change a transmission line from one type to another. Transitions from overhead lines to underground or submarine cable, or from underground cable to submarine cable, would be required for the Project. Terminal facilities for the submarine cables are included in the transition stations. Southern [ntertie Project S-6 Summary Records of Decision - November 2002 Transition stations would be required near the landfalls for the submarine cable, and at selected locations in the Kenai Lowlands and Anchorage area. 5. Substations and Reactive Compensation - Substations are located at the ends of transmission lines and at generation plants, and are the points at which the electrical system is joined together to form a network. Reactive compensation involves installation of specialized equipment in a substation to provide voltage support for the system or to increase power flow across a transmission line segment. Modifications to existing substations would be required either at International or Pt. Woronzof substations in the Anchorage area, and at either Bernice Lake or Soldotna substations on the Kenai Peninsula. For the Enstar Route, a new substation would be required near Naptowne. Modifications would also be required at the Dave’s Creek Substation for either option. S.3.5 Construction Seasons It is intended that the majority of the construction activities would take place during the summer season (April to October). The exception to this is for the overhead transmission lines along the Tesoro Route north of the Captain Cook SRA, Enstar Route within the KNWR, and selected portions of the Soldotna E South Route option along the Kenai River Lowlands. In these areas, winter construction is proposed to minimize environmental impacts. S.4. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The character of the existing environment in the Project area and potential environmental consequences, or impacts, that could result from the proposed Project are summarized below and followed by an overview of an alternative route comparison and the environmentally preferred alternative route. Climate - The climate of south-central Alaska is transitional between maritime and continental. Heavy precipitation, cool summers, and mild winters characterize the maritime regions of the coast. The Cook Inlet basin experiences short periods of extreme cold in winter and high winds throughout the year. No impacts to climate are expected as a result of this Project. Air Quality - The majority of the study area is classified as an air quality attainment area with the exception of urban Anchorage (non-attainment for carbon monoxide) and the Eagle River area of Anchorage (non-attainment for particulate matter nominally 10 microns or less). Air quality impacts associated with the proposed project would be minimal and of a short-term nature, and would result from construction-related causes such as an increase in air emissions from construction equipment and motor vehicles. Earth Resources - The study area includes portions of two physiographic provinces within the southern mountainous belt of Alaska: Cook Inlet-Susitna Lowlands and Kenai-Chugach Southern Intertie Project S-7 Summary Records of Decision ~ November 2002 Mountains. Due to the active seismicity in the region, soils and surficial deposits in the study area are subject to several types of ground failure associated with earthquakes in addition to the more expected hazards of slope instability, erosion, settlement, permafrost, and frost heave. The study area contains a variety of nonmetallic mineral resources, including sand and gravel, clay, and coal. Impacts to soils will be minimal after standard mitigation measures are applied. These measures include preferential use of existing access roads, winter work when the ground is frozen, and use of tracked and low ground pressure vehicles or other special equipment. Additionally, to minimize surface disturbances, directional drilling techniques are proposed for the bluff areas where the submarine cable would make landfall. Water Resources - The Kenai River is the only glacier-fed river in the study area and has distinctive runoff characteristics. Nonglacial streams in the Kenai Lowlands and Anchorage Bowl originate from lowland lakes and tributaries of the western portion of the Kenai Lowlands and Chugach Mountains. These drainage channels are typically low-gradient, meandering systems that flow high in spring from snowmelt and high in late summer and autumn from rain. Impacts to streams will be minimal after standard mitigation measures are applied. These measures include spanning streams, suspending transmission lines beneath existing bridges, boring under streams, and scheduling installations during winter months. Submarine Environment - The physiography of the study area can be described as a large tidal estuary. The seafloor in this area comprises mudflats with tidal channels and deeper channels or depressions. At low tide, approximately 70 percent of the seafloor within Turnagain Arm is exposed as elongate bars dissected by braided tidal channels. Tides within Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm are mixed, with two unequal high and low tides per tidal day. Conditions off of Pt. Possession include high sediment load, sea ice, submarine erosion, scoured bottom conditions, and boulder patches that can damage submarine cables. Expansive mud flats within Turnagain Arm provide an opportunity to embed submarine cables. Impacts to submarine environment would be minimal; however, with adherence to selective mitigation, the environmental impact would be further reduced to a non-significant level. Biological Resources - The Project area supports diverse biological resources. The six major vegetation types present along alternative transmission line routes are habitats for many wildlife species. Thirty-three species of mammals, 127 species of birds, and 28 species of fish are expected to occur in the study area. Many of these same species also occur in the Anchorage area. Special status plant and wildlife species, species of concern to various agencies, are known or have the potential to occur along the alternative routes. The primary concern regarding biological resources is the effects on special status plants and wildlife species, vegetation (loss of habitat), and general wildlife. An area of special concern is the KNWR. Possible impacts could include collision hazards (birds), loss of habitat, and increased human access. Any significant impact on the KNWR will be considered nationally Southern Intertie Project S-8 Summary Records of Decision . November 2002 significant including effects to bald eagles, trumpeter swans, general waterfowl, brown bears, black bears, wolves, and lynx. Land Use and Recreation - The study area includes lands administered by federal, state, borough, and municipal agencies; and lands privately owned in south-central Alaska. The alternative routes traverse portions of the Municipality of Anchorage and the KPB, along with portions of the KNWR. Urban land uses in Anchorage include parklands, residential, commercial, industrial, and areas managed for recreation and wildlife purposes. Significant impacts would occur on the KNWR due to potential affects to the KNWR management plans and qualification criteria for wilderness designation. The types of direct impacts on land uses include areas where the Project would create a direct conflict with residential, commercial, industrial, or transportation uses and those areas where severance of currently vacant parcels could affect future development. However, these impacts will not be significant, as mitigation measures have been identified to reduce impacts. These measures include utilizing existing access roads, closing access roads that are opened for construction but not needed for maintenance, avoiding sensitive features by spanning, shifting an alignment, or moving an alignment to the opposite side of existing lines (when paralleled). Socioeconomics and Tourism - The Project study area includes portions of the Municipality of Anchorage and the KPB. The population of the KPB increased by 22 percent between 1990 and 2000, reaching 49,691. Communities in the KPB that would principally be affected by one or another of the proposed power line alignments are Nikiski, Kenai, and Soldotna, whose populations in 2000 totaled approximately 15,000. The KPB has a diverse economy with the contribution of oil and gas, tourism, fishing and fish processing, transportation, timber, retail, and government sectors. The population of Anchorage has grown by 15 percent since 1990, reaching 260,283 in 2000. Anchorage is the state’s largest city and is the center of commerce for the state. The city has a diverse economy with oil and gas, finance and real estate, transportation, retail, services, communications, and government sectors represented. Potential impacts include temporary increases in population, employment and income during construction, and longer-term changes in or impacts on existing economic activities or land uses. Proposed winter construction on the Kenai Peninsula, however, will minimize or avoid conflicts with existing economic conditions during this time period. Subsistence - There are no designated rural communities in the Anchorage Bowl portion of the study area. The subsistence analysis conducted for this FEIS focused on three communities near the study area whose residents do some subsistence harvesting within the study area: Ninilchik, Cooper Landing, and Hope. Data compiled in 1982 indicated that 92 percent of all Ninilchik households participated in subsistence harvests. Sample data compiled for 1990 to 1991 indicate that all households in Cooper Landing and Hope used subsistence resources. No negative impact on populations of relevant species that would impair subsistence practices is anticipated. Impacts on subsistence are not projected to be significant, and do not vary significantly among the alternatives considered. Therefore, subsistence resources are not a Southern Intertie Project Records of Decision Summary S-9 November 2002 critical factor in selecting among the Project alternatives. Although the proposed project is likely to have adverse impacts on the moose population of the KNWR _ through impeded implementation of habitat improvement actions such as prescribed burning, it is not anticipated that such impacts to moose population will negatively affect subsistence opportunities on the refuge. Visual — The study area contains a variety of landscapes and viewing conditions, from the mostly urban environment of Anchorage to the natural and wilderness areas of the Kenai Peninsula. The surrounding regional landscape features, including the Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm, Chugach Mountains, Alaska Range, and northern chain of the Aleutian Mountains, contribute to the scenic quality of the Project area. Developments on the Kenai Peninsula, such as Soldotna and Nikiski, occur in rural settings. The KNWR includes landscapes, which are heavily vegetated, consisting of coastal marshes, forested wetlands, shrub bogs, muskegs, upland spruce hardwood forests, and bottomland spruce poplar forests. - There is the potential for visual impacts from project alternatives. In the City of Anchorage, visual impacts would result from views of the proposed Project from travelers and residences. Mitigation to impacts in Anchorage includes paralleling or rebuilding existing structures and utilizing existing rights-of-way. Visual impacts on the Kenai Peninsula occur in areas including Soldotna, Nikiski, and through the KNWR along the Enstar pipeline, resulting from the disruption of local residential viewsheds, right-of-way clearing, and associated ground disturbance. Mitigation to these impacts includes winter construction, variable right-of-way clearing, lowering tower heights, or altering the type of tower structure utilized in selected areas. Cultural Resources - More than 600 archeological and historical sites listed in the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey are present within the broad region in which the proposed Project is located. One of these, the Holy Assumption Church in Kenai, is designated as a National Historic Landmark. Forty-three of the more than 600 sites have either been determined eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The nomination of 14 additional properties to the Register is pending. The alternatives avoid known archaeological and historic sites, and no high impacts are projected along any of the alternatives. The degree of variation in cultural resource impacts among the alternatives is not a major factor in choosing among the options. Detailed cultural resource surveys will be conducted along the route chosen for construction. Mitigation measures will be developed in consultation with the State Office of History and Archaeology to reduce impacts to sites. Electric and Magnetic Fields and Noise - The two origins of transmission line electrical effects are electric and magnetic fields (EMF). Electric fields are due to the voltage on the transmission line and the magnetic fields are due to the current through the conductor. Electrical effects near transmission lines also include possible audible noise and radio/television interference. The line voltage and the distance of prospective line routes from residences reduce the likelihood of objectionable audible noise, radio interference, or television interference from the line. Southern Intertie Project S-10 Summary Records of Decision ~ November 2002 Impacts are expected to be minimal. Noises associated with operation and maintenance of the Project will be minimal, confined to localized, short-duration activity by maintenance crews. The EMF levels associated with the Project would be less than all existing EMF standards or guidelines. Therefore, EMF of the Project are not anticipated to cause adverse health or biological effects. Cumulative Impacts - Cumulative impact issues along the proposed Enstar Route center on potential land use, visual, and biological impacts. The existing and future foreseeable development along the western portion of the KNWR is occurring within the highest quality habitat for moose, wolves, lynx, black bears, and brown bears. The current estimate of the brown bear population on the Kenai Peninsula ranges from 250 to 300 bears (information provided in A Conservation Assessment of the Kenai Peninsula Brown Bear, Interagency Brown Bear Study Team, 2001). As this habitat gradually lowers in habitat quality, there will be additional importance to improve the quality of the area along the Enstar pipeline corridor with the prescribed burn program. Prescribed burns allow areas of mature spruce forests to be replaced by a mosaic of brush and early successional species that improves habitat for numerous species including moose. The Enstar Route would conflict with the prescribed burn program as well as increasing access in brown bear habitat. The cumulative effects on wildlife, vegetation, recreation, and visual resources within the KNWR along Route Option F are considered to be long term and significant. Any conflicts between the ability to diversify the habitat and presence of the proposed transmission line would be considered significant cumulative impacts. Cumulative impact issues that differentiate the Tesoro and Enstar alternatives are influenced by the uses associated with existing and foreseeable future development in the coastal area of the northern Kenai Peninsula versus impacts to the KNWR. The KPB has planned a transportation/utility corridor, a separate road, and several large residential parcels for rural development in proximity to the Tesoro pipeline along the western edge of the Kenai Peninsula, north of Nikiski. This development is planned along a strip of land that was withdrawn from the KNWR in order to provide transportation access between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. Land use conflicts will be minimized or avoided by utilizing the rights-of-way of the North Kenai Spur Road, the planned transportation/utility corridor, and the Tesoro pipeline right-of- way. Visual impacts on existing and planned residents could be significant, although there is,the potential for vegetation screening to reduce the effects. The quality of the wildlife habitat is in transition based on current and planned development on borough lands. Alternative Route Comparison - Table S-2 provides a comparative summary for the Tesoro and Enstar routes. This table provides information on key issues, Project description and costs, and environmental assessment results including the analysis of impact significance, short-term and long-term impacts, irreversible and irretrievable impacts, and cumulative impacts. There is a range of alternatives associated with both the Tesoro and Enstar routes as previously described and as illustrated on Figure S-1. For purposes of this comparison two alternative routes have been selected: the Applicant’s Proposal, which is the Enstar Route including Options E South, F, H, and K; and the Tesoro Route, including Options A, D, and N. The Tesoro Route alternative chosen for comparison describes potential impacts on the Kenai Peninsula and Southern Intertie Project S-11 Summary Records of Decision 7 November 2002 specifically in Anchorage. The environmentally preferred alternative, Options A and C, would avoid impacts to the Anchorage area. Expanded explanations of construction, operation, maintenance, and life cycle costs are provided in Chapter 2 of the FEIS (Section 2.2.1, pages 2-1 to 2-4). A detailed description of Project alternatives is provided in Table 2-6 of the DEIS. An expanded cost and technical comparison of alternatives is provided in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2.2, pages 2-4 to 2-11) of the FEIS, and a comprehensive environmental comparison of Project alternatives is provided on Table 2-11 of the DEIS including environmental preference. Following is a brief description of the environmentally preferred alternative. Environmentally Preferred Alternative - The environmentally preferred alternative is the Tesoro Route, Option A from Bernice Lake Substation to Pt. Possession, combined with a submarine cable crossing of the Turnagain Arm from Pt. Possession directly to Pt. Woronzof (Route Option C) for a total of 61.3 miles. This route is environmentally preferred because it exhibits on balance, lower overall environmental impacts than the other alternatives. Any of the other Tesoro Route alternatives would also exhibit overall lower environmental impacts than the Applicant’s proposed alternative and other Enstar Route options, primarily because of the impacts of the Enstar Route where it crosses the KNWR on the Kenai Peninsula. Route Option B is a submarine cable that includes a crossing of Fire Island that connects with Pt. Woronzof, which would minimize environmental impacts in the Anchorage area. Lower impacts in the Anchorage area for the Tesoro Route alternatives would also result from the underground route from Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof (Route Option N), assuming appropriate mitigation. $8.5 SCOPING, CONSULTATION, AND COORDINATION ON THE DEIS In accordance with the requirements of NEPA, RUS published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register in October 1996. The notice announced the intent of RUS to prepare an EIS for the Project and the schedule for the three public scoping meetings, which were conducted in Anchorage on November 12, Cooper Landing on November 13, and Soldotna on November 14. In addition to the public scoping meetings, RUS conducted an interagency meeting on November 6, 1996 in Anchorage. In addition, the Applicant and its consultants contacted agencies and organizations having jurisdiction and/or specific interest in the Project. A series of agency and interagency meetings as * well ‘as two public meetings (January and February 1996) were conducted. Two community working groups (CWGS) were developed, one on the Kenai Peninsula and the other in Anchorage. Each group met five times at key milestones during the process. Southern Intertie Project S-12 Summary Records of Decision - November 2002 TABLE S-2 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Evaluation Tesoro Route (Route Options A, D, N)* Enstar Route Factors Key Issues Lead Federal Agency (RUS) Preferred Alternative Applicant’s Proposal (Route Options E South, F, H, K) Cost and Technical Considerations** Project Marine hazards . Total length is 62.0 miles 7 Total length is 73.4 miles Description associated with . Parallels existing roads for 16.7 miles (including 0.5 | * Replaces or parallels existing transmission lines for 19 the ability to embed submarine cables under the Turnagain Arm in order to maximize the life of the cable. Suitable locations for transmission facilities. mile parallel to existing transmission line and 4.9 miles of underground) « Parallels the Tesoro pipeline for 27.4 miles . Submarine crossing of the Turnagain Arm for 13.9 miles (5.8 miles embedded) . Underground for 4.0 miles miles Parallels Enstar pipeline for 38.5 miles Submarine crossing of the Turnagain Arm for 10.5 miles (totally embedded) Parallels the Alaska Railroad for 5.4 miles (including 0.5 mile of underground) Project Cost Potential to embed submarine cables and the increased costs associated with assumed replacements affecting life cycle costs. Cable replacement for non-embedded cables includes | * replacing two single-phased cables or one three-phase cable twice during Project life Life cycle costs total $114.5 million (includes ® construction, operation, and maintenance and cable replacement costs) Cable replacement for non-embedded cables includes replacing one single-phased cable or one three-phase cable once during Project life Life cycle costs total $99.6 million (includes construction, operation, and maintenance and cable replacement costs) Environmental Considerations Air Quality Degradation of air based on vehicle emissions and dust. Impact significance: Not significant Short term — Yes Long term — No Irreversible — No Irretrievable — Yes, construction phase Cumulative impacts - No Impact significance: Not significant Short term — Yes Long term — No Irreversible — No Irretrievable — Yes, construction phase Cumulative impacts —- No *Environmentally Preferred Alternative - Route Options A and C; ** refer to Chapter 2 for additional cost and technical information Southern Intertie Project Records of Decision S-13 Summary November 2002 TABLE S-2 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Evaluation Tesoro Route (Route Options A, D, N)* Enstar Route Factors Key Issues Lead Federal Agency (RUS) Preferred Alternative Applicant’s Proposal (Route Options E South, F, H, K) Geologic Soil loss, erosion | * Impact significance: Not significant . Impact significance: Not significant Resources and compaction " Short term — Yes, localized . Short term — Yes, localized based on clearing | * Long term — Minimal « Long term — Yes, potential for accelerated erosion and development | * Irreversible — No . Irreversible — Yes, construction phase of access and . Irretrievable — No i: Irretrievable — Yes, construction phase with potential tower sites. . Cumulative impacts - No lingering effects Cumulative impacts - No Drainage Basins and Watersheds Loss of vegetation cover, soil erosion and resulting sedimentation in streams based on . Impact significance: Not significant . Short term — Yes, mainly localized 7 Long term — Minimal due to flat terrain « Irreversible — No . Irretrievable — No Impact significance: Not significant Short term — Yes, construction phase Long term — Slight increase in runoff and sedimentation due to presence of access and right-of-way clearing Irreversible - No vegetative . Cumulative impacts - Yes " Irretrievable — Yes, construction phase with potential clearing, lingering effects development of - Cumulative impacts — Yes access and tower sites. Marine Degradation of . Impact significance: Not significant " Impact significance: Not significant Environment marine . Short term — Minor, during cable laying . Short term — Minor, during cable laying environment during laying, embedding, or boring for cables during construction, and potential maintenance and repair activities, and replacement of cable. Long term — Numerous hazard areas lead to potential for cable replacement twice over the life of the Project . Irreversible - No Irretrievable — No Cumulative impacts - No Long term — Embedded cable results in the potential for cable replacement once over the life of the Project Irreversible —- No Irretrievable — No Cumulative impacts — No Southern Intertie Project Records of Decision S-14 Summary November 2002 TABLE S-2 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Evaluation Tesoro Route (Route Options A, D, N)* Enstar Route Factors Key Issues Lead Federal Agency (RUS) Preferred Alternative Applicant’s Proposal (Route Options E South, F, H, K) Biology Vegetation and Loss of vegetative | * Impact significance: Not significant fe Impact significance: Significant impacts due to clearing Wetlands cover and ® Short term — Yes, construction phase upland vegetation and compaction of wetlands on KNWR disturbance to ® Long term — Approximately 453 acres of upland a Short term — Yes, during construction phase wetlands based on vegetation removed. . Long term — Approximately 530 acres of upland vegetation s Irreversible — Yes vegetation removed clearing for right- | * Irretrievable — Yes, Project life ® Irreversible — Yes of-way, access s Cumulative impacts - Yes . Irretrievable — Yes, Project life and towers, and . Cumulative impacts — Yes compaction. Birds including Disturbance « Impact significance: Potential for locally significant a Impact significance: Potential for local and nationally Bald Eagles, during impacts due to tree clearing near nest sites and collision significant impacts on KNWR due to tree clearing near nest Trumpeter Swans construction, loss hazards near large lakes and at stream crossings. sites and collision hazards near Chickaloon Bay, large lakes and General of habitat, Mitigation would substantially reduce potential for bird and at stream crossings. Waterfowl increased access, collision. . Short term — Can be avoided through seasonal and potential s Short term — Can be avoided through seasonal construction increase in construction . Long term — Yes, clearing within proximity to bald eagle mortality due to . Long term — Yes, clearing within proximity to bald nest sites (two within 0.25 mile) presence of the eagle nest sites (three within 0.25 mile) . Irreversible — Yes line. « Irreversible — Yes . Irretrievable — Yes, Project life s Irretrievable — Yes, Project life . Cumulative impacts — Yes, trumpeter swans and general . Cumulative impacts - Yes, trumpeter swans and waterfowl; potential, bald eagles general waterfowl; potential, bald eagles Southern Intertie Project Records of Decision S-15 Summary November 2002 TABLE S-2 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Evaluation Tesoro Route (Route Options A, D, N)* Enstar Route Factors Key Issues Lead Federal Agency (RUS) Preferred Alternative | Applicant’s Proposal (Route Options E South, F, H, K) Large Mammals Disturbance . Impact significance: Not significant s Impact significance: Nationally significant impacts to including Brown during " Short term — Temporary displacement of moose and brown bears, black bears and moose on the KNWR Bears, Black Bears, | construction, disturbance to denning black bears during construction " Short term — Temporary displacement of moose and Moose and Caribou | conflicts with phase disturbance to denning black bears during construction phase management and | ® Long term — Yes, mortality due to increased access s Long term — Yes, mortality due to increased access and habitat plans, loss | *® Irreversible — No potential disruption to moose/habitat management plan and of habitat and s Irretrievable — No fire management plans within KNWR potential increase | *® Cumulative impacts — No . Irreversible — Yes, on KNWR for mortality . Irretrievable — Yes, on KNWR based on access s Cumulative impacts — Yes, significant improvements. Predators including | Disturbance a Impact significance: Not significant . Impact significance: Nationally significant impacts on Wolves and Lynx during . Short term — Yes, temporary displacement during KNWR construction, loss construction phase . Short term — Yes, temporary displacement during of habitat and . Long term — Increased harvest minimal in low construction phase potential for abundance wolf and lynx habitat ® Long term — Increased harvest minimal in low to increased . Irreversible — No for wolf, and unknown for lynx moderate abundance habitat for wolf and lynx mortality based . Irretrievable — No for wolf, and unknown for lynx . Irreversible — No for wolf, and unknown for lynx on access . Cumulative impacts — Not expected 2 Irretrievable — No for wolf, and unknown for lynx improvements. s Cumulative impacts — Not expected Southern Intertie Project Records of Decision S-16 Summary November 2002 TABLE S-2 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Evaluation Tesoro Route (Route Options A, D, N)* Enstar Route Factors Key Issues Lead Federal Agency (RUS) Preferred Alternative Applicant’s Proposal (Route Options E South, F, H, K) Fish Loss of vegetative Impact significance: Not significant . Impact significance: Not significant thermal cover, soil erosion and resulting sedimentation in streams based on vegetative clearing, development of access and tower sites. Short term — Yes during construction phase Long term — No Irreversible — No Irretrievable —- No Cumulative impacts - No Short term — Yes, during construction phase Long term — Potentially yes due to presence of access and right-of-way clearing Irreversible —- No Irretrievable — Yes, during construction phase Cumulative impacts - Unknown Marine Mammals including the Beluga Whale Disturbance during construction, loss of habitat and increased mortality. Impact significance: Not significant Short term — Temporary disturbance during construction phase, avoids conflicts with calving areas through seasonal construction Long term — Temporary disturbance during any repairs resulting from cable failure (projected to happen once over the life of the Project) Irreversible — No Irretrievable — Unknown, during construction phase Cumulative impacts — Unknown Impact significance: Not significant Short term — Temporary disturbance during construction phase, avoids calving areas Long term — Temporary disturbance during any repairs resulting from cable failure (projected to happen twice over the life of the Project) Irreversible — No Irretrievable — Unknown, during construction phase Cumulative impacts - Unknown Southern Intertie Project Records of Decision S-17 Summary November 2002 TABLE S-2 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Evaluation Tesoro Route (Route Options A, D, N)* Enstar Route Factors Key Issues Lead Federal Agency (RUS) Preferred Alternative | Applicant’s Proposal (Route Options E South, F, H, K) Land Use and Disturbance, a Impact significance: Not significant . Impact significance: Nationally significant impacts to Recreation displacement of . Short term — Yes, during construction phase recreation and land use on the KNWR. use(s) and s Long term — No . Short term — Yes, during construction phase potential conflicts | ® Irreversible — No " Long term — Yes, conflicts with KNWR management with management | *® Irretrievable — Yes, during construction plans and qualification criteria for wilderness designation plans. . Cumulative impacts - No . Irreversible — Yes s Irretrievable — Yes, Project life x Cumulative Impacts — Yes, significant Socioeconomics Regional and . Impact significance: Not significant . Impact significance: Not significant local ® Short term — Yes, benefits based on employment . Short term — Yes, benefits based on employment employment, opportunities opportunities stability in a Long term — Yes, benefits from rate reductions . Long term — Yes, benefits from rate reductions region’s power . Irreversible — Yes ® Irreversible — Yes supply. . Irretrievable — Yes, benefits for Project life . Irretrievable — Yes, benefits for Project life : Cumulative impacts — Minor positive cumulative " Cumulative impacts — Minor positive cumulative effects effects Subsistence Disturbance to ® Impact significance: Not significant . Impact significance: Not significant wildlife, increased | * Short term — Yes, potential disruption to hunting and | * Short term — Yes, potential disruption to hunting and access for hunting trapping during construction phase trapping during construction phase and trapping. . Long term — Minimal based on increased access a Long term — Minimal based on increased access a Irreversible — No . Irreversible — No a Irretrievable — No . Irretrievable —- No . . Cumulative impacts - No Cumulative impacts - No Southern Intertie Project Records of Decision S-18 Summary November 2002 TABLE S-2 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Evaluation Tesoro Route (Route Options A, D, N)* Enstar Route Factors Key Issues Lead Federal Agency (RUS) Preferred Alternative | Applicant’s Proposal (Route Options E South, F, H, K) Visual Degradation of . Impact significance: Significant impacts . Impact significance: Significant impacts, including natural scenic (approximately 21 miles) total including consideration nationally significant on KNWR (approximately 32 miles quality and visual for landscape scenery and residential, recreational, and total including consideration for landscape scenery, and intrusion to travelway views). Mitigation would result in variable residential, recreational, and travel way views) residential, visual impacts to developing area north of CaptainCook | * Short term - Yes, presence of equipment during recreational, and SRA. construction phase travelway views. = Short term — Yes, presence of equipment during 5 Long term — Yes, presence of towers, conductors and construction phase access roads i. Long term — Yes, presence of towers, conductors and | * Irreversible — Yes access roads " Irretrievable — Yes Li Irreversible — Yes a Cumulative impacts — Yes, nationally significant ® Irretrievable — Yes . Cumulative impacts — Yes, locally significant Cultural Disturbance or « Impact significance: No determination prior to . Impact significance: No determination prior to Resources removal of sites consultation with State Office of History and consultation with State Office of History and Archaeology, or fossils. Archaeology, low to moderate impact potential Short term — Unknown Long term — Unknown Irreversible — Unknown Irretrievable — Unknown Cumulative impacts - Unknown low to moderate impact potential Short term - Unknown Long term — Unknown Irreversible —- Unknown Irretrievable - Unknown Cumulative impacts —- Unknown Southern Intertie Project Records of Decision S-19 Summary November 2002 S.6 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DEIS AND FEIS The DEIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and made available to the public on October 5, 2001. A Federal Register notice of availability and intent to conduct public hearings was published on October 3, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 192, page 50396-50397), which initiated the 60-day public review period. As required by Title XI of ANILCA, public hearings were held in the District of Columbia and the State of Alaska. These hearings were held in Washington, DC on October 30, 2001; Anchorage, Alaska on November 13, 2001; and Soldotna, Alaska on November 14, 2001. Twelve people provided verbal comments at these hearings. During the comment period a total of 102 comment letters were received. Two of these * letters were form letters signed by 158 and 907 people respectively and one letter was in a petition format with 12 signatures, bringing the actual total of commentors to 1,174. To ensure that all public comments would be received in a timely manner all DEIS recipients were contacted by letter on December 5, 2001. This letter served to notify all DEIS recipients that comments sent via U.S. Postal Service may not have been received in Washington D.C. due to new mail screening requirements, and invited comments to be sent again via email or fax. To accommodate this delay in mail delivery, comments received after the deadline were considered in the preparation of the FEIS. Fourteen issues were identified during the scoping process conducted for this Project. For consistency of analysis, these issues were used to categorize public comment received on the DEIS. Table S-3 below demonstrates the number of comments received on each issue, and the associated relative degree of concern over each issue. TABLE S-3 PROJECT ISSUES AND RELATIVE DEGREE OF CONCERN Total Relative Degree of Issue Comments Concern (%) Issue 1 - Purpose and Need for the Project 16 4.7 Issue 2 - Urban and Rural Land Use 13 3.8 Issue 3 - Aviation Safety 1 0.3 Issue 4 - Recreation and Tourism 43 12.6 Issue 5 - Management Plans 61 18.0 Issue 6 - Watershed Management and Soil Erosion 2 0.6 Issue 7 - Visual Resources 39 E15 Issue 8 - Biology 66 19.4 Issue 9 - Cultural Resources 2 0.6 Issue 10 - Right-of-Way Limitations 4 1.2) Issue 11 - Health and Safety 1 0.3 Issue 12 - Avalanche Hazards 0 0 Issue 13 - Socioeconomics 13. 3.8 Issue 14 - Alternatives to the Proposed Project 79 23:2 Total* 340 100 *Total of 340 reflects total issues listed within individual letters. For example, if a commentor listed concerns over several animal species, they received one tally for biology, rather than several. Also, form letters were counted only once, rather than multiplied by number of signatures. Southern Intertie Project 5-20 Summary Records of Decision November 2002 The FEIS was completed in July 2002. Notices of availability of the FEIS were published in the Federal Register on July 10, 2002 at 67 FR 45701, by RUS and on July 12, 2002 at 67 FR 46185 by EPA. The 30-day review period ended on August 12, 2002. Comments were received from two agencies and five non-profit organizations. These included U.S. EPA, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska Center for the Environment, Anchorage Audubon Society, Audubon Society — Alaska, Sierra Club — Alaska, and the Wilderness Society — Alaska. No new issues or concerns were identified in these comments. 8.7. AGENCY PREFERENCES AND DECISIONS Section S.7 provides a description of the RUS and USFWS preferred alternatives, and the USACE least damaging practicable alternative. This is followed by a discussion of the decisions made by each agency in their Record of Decision. S.7.1 Rural Utilities Service The decision of RUS is that the NEPA process is satisfied with respect to a request for financing assistance from Golden Valley Electric Association, an IPG member, for the construction of the Southern Intertie Project from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage, Alaska. The construction of the project will be undertaken in accordance with the FEIS. The RUS preferred alternative is the Tesoro Route. This alternative will consist of overhead, underground and submarine cable segments of 138kV transmission line. The overall length varies from 62 to 63.2 miles depending on which of the three Turnagain Arm crossing alternatives is selected. As stated in the FEIS the RUS preferred alternative route between Pt. Possession and Anchorage is Option D/N. This preference is based on economic, technical, and environmental factors. As is shown in Table 2-4 of the FEIS, the submarine cable route between Pt. Possession and Pt Campbell (Option D) is the shortest (13.9 miles), which consequently results in the lowest total life cycle cost. No serious technical issues have been identified with a cable landing at Pt. Campbell as compared to Pt. Woronzof where routing of the proposed cable would have to avoid the 14 cables that currently terminate at that location. Concerns have been raised by agencies and the public about potential impacts from submarine cable installation on Beluga Whales. If the risk of potential impacts is proportional to length, the proposed route contains the least amount of submarine cable and should represent the route with the lowest potential impacts. Modifying or curtailing construction and maintenance activities during calving season and other sensitive periods will further reduce impacts to Beluga Whales. The overland route from Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof (Option N) is approximately 4 miles. Selective mitigation has been proposed to reduce impacts. Directional boring will insure that the Coastal Trail is not impacted. The transition station will be located so as to minimize impacts to Kincaid Park. Underground construction is proposed for the entire route, which negates the visual impacts associated with above ground structures. Selective right-of-way clearing, using Southern Intertie Project Records of Decision Summary S-21 November 2002 existing access for construction and maintenance, and paralleling existing or planned linear facilities (Tesoro pipeline and airport access road) will further reduce corridor impacts. Coordination with the Municipality of Anchorage and the Airport Authority will determine the exact location of the transition station and underground cable route between Pt. Campbell and the Pt. Woronzof Substation . In the event that the Applicant is unable to acquire permits for Route Option D/N, RUS believes that alternative Routes B and C are also environmentally acceptable and may be used by the Applicant for the routing of the transmission facility across the Turnagain Arm to reach the Pt. Woronzof Substation. A copy of the RUS ROD is included in Appendix A. 8.7.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The USFWS has denied the application for a right-of-way permit for the Enstar Route alternative on lands within the KNWR. The decision was made in accordance with the requirements of Title XI of ANILCA and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (INWRSAA] [16 U.S.C. 668dd]), as amended. The decision is based on the following findings: (1) there is an economically feasible and prudent alternative to crossing the KNWR; (2) the project would result in significant adverse impacts to the natural and other resources of the KNWR; and (3) the project as proposed would not be compatible with the purposes for which the KNWR was established or the Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (see FEIS, Volume I, Appendix A- USFWS Compatibility Determination, and ROD signed September 11, 2002). As described in the FEJS, the USFWS has identified the Tesoro Route as the environmentally preferred alternative. A copy of the USFWS ROD and Compatibility Determination is included in Appendix B. 8.7.3, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The USACE conducted a Section 404 (b)(1) Evaluation for the Enstar route in accordance with Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, (33 U.S.C. 403), and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). The USACE permitting decision is based solely on Section 10 and 404 considerations. The Record of Decision and Section 404 (b)(1) Evaluation indicates no direct wetland impacts are anticipated along the Tesoro or Enstar Routes from construction or maintenance activities within the scope of the USACE jurisdiction. In addition, the aerial crossings of the Kenai River and submarine crossing of the Turnagain Arm are not considered significant. Therefore there are no appreciable differences in impacts between the Enstar and Tesoro Routes relative to areas under USACE jurisdiction. While a Department of the Army (DA) Permit could be issued for those areas within USACE jurisdiction for the Enstar Route, the current permit application filed for this route has been closed based upon the USFWS compatibility determination and its denial of the conditional use permit application for the section through the KNWR (see Section S.7.2 above). Southern Intertie Project 5-22 Summary Records of Decision oe November 2002 The USACE agrees with the NEPA determination that the Tesoro Route is the environmentally preferred alternative. The Record of Decision and 404 (b)(1) Evaluation also concluded that construction of the transmission line along the Tesoro Route is a practicable alternative to the Applicant’s Enstar proposal, without significant impacts to aquatic resources. Through this evaluation, it was determined that the Tesoro Route is not contrary to the public interest and meets the requirements of the Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines. USACE will issue a revised public notice if the Applicant submits an amended permit application for construction of the Tesoro Route. A copy of the USACE ROD and Section 404 (b)(1) Evaluation is included in Appendix C. Southern Intertie Project Records of Decision Summary November 2002 RECORD OF DECISION for the Southern Intertie Project Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage, Alaska Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture October 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS VI. VI. VII. [nitro ttt Ont sascssssassnssssssozscsconsussssseeannanasoieaeaveserosanenumeeiuetansrennmaaemmrernue nanan teees Decisions a. Rural Utilities Service b. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service... c. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Description of Project... a. Project Need........ b. Project Facilities... Range of Alternatives Considered 00.0.0... ccccceseeseeseseteeeeeeeeesesesceeeeseeeees a. Alternatives to a new transmission line eliminated ....0........eeeeeeeeeeeeee b. Alternative transmission systems eliminated....... ea c. Alternative transmission routes eliminated... eeeeesceeeeseseesececeeseeeteteteeeeeteeeeees d. No-Action alternative... ccc cesecscccseessssesesecesseseesessesecscsesececsesevaceueesaeeeseeneees Environmentally Preferred Alternative. oe Mitigation Plan... ccceeesecessssessescsescsesecsescscecscseseseseseecsesessessscecseacsssenssasseacarecesseeeneaes Scoping, Consultation, Coordination ..........seecsesceseseeseseeeececeeceeesesesececeeeacaceetaeeeeeneees Findings Required by Other Laws..... a. Endangered Species Act ....... b. Clean Water Act... ata c. National Historic Preservation Act.........0.... d. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)... e A Required Permits, Licenses, Grants or Authorizations .........0.cceee a dministrative Review, Related Authorizing Actions, and Contact Person................. OWMWANINAINAINANAHPHA HL HNN Southern Intertie Project Record of Decision October 2002 I. INTRODUCTION The following Record of Decision (ROD) has been prepared in accordance with the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Environmental Policies and Procedures, 7 CFR 1794.63, and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, 40 CFR Section 1505.2, for the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The RUS, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, served as the lead federal agency and prepared the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Southern Intertie Project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) participated as cooperating agencies in the review ofthe environmental planning process and preparation of the EIS. The Intertie Participants Group (IPG), also referred to as the Applicant, is proposing to construct an electrical transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage in south-central Alaska. This 138kV transmission line, known as the Southern Intertie Project, is proposed as a system improvement project to increase the overall Railbelt electrical system reliability and transfer of energy capabilities between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. Members of the IPG include Golden V alley Electric A ssociation (GVEA), M atanuska E lectric A ssociation (MEA), Chugach Electric Association (CEA), Anchorage Municipal Light and Power (AML&P), Homer Electric Association (HEA), and the City of Seward. The Draft EIS was made available to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the general public on October 5, 2001. Notices of availability of the Draft EIS (DEIS) were published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 192, pages 50396 and 59397) by RUS and on October 5, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 194, page 51036) by EPA. The RUS notice requested that written comments be addressed to the RUS contact in Washington, D.C. by December 5, 2002. The formal comment period for the DEIS was extended to accommodate mail screening requirements at the time. The Final EIS (FEIS) was made available to the EPA and the public on July 12, 2002. Notices of availability of the FEIS were published in the Federal Register on July 10, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 132, pages 45701 and 45702) by RUS, and on July 12, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 134, page 46185) by EPA. The wait period on the FEIS ended on August 12, 2002. The Applicant has filed for a right-of-way for the Enstar Route alternative across federal lands on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR), a Conservation System Unit designated under the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA). Rights-of-way across Conservation System Units for transportation and utility systems are governed by regulations (43 CFR Part 36) implementing Title XI of ANILCA. The USFWS completed a ROD on September 11, 2002 for the project. The Applicant has also submitted a 404 permit application for the Enstar Route alternative with the USACE. In addition to the rules governed by ANILCA (43 CFR Part 36), the USACE also evaluates 404 permits under the guidance of Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Southern Intertie Project 1 Record of Decision October 2002 Act 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), Section 404 /Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), and Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the Clean Water Act (40CFR 230). Il. DECISIONS This ROD documents findings specific to whether the RUS decision will provide financial assistance to participating RUS borrowers. The RUS Assistant Administrator of Electric Programs is the Responsible Official for this decision. The RUS decision is based on a review of the Project’s technical and economic justification, reliability, environmental issues and impacts, and the location in its entirety (federally managed lands and private property). In addition to the RUS decision on financing the project, the USFWS and USACE each had permit applications to review as part of the NEPA process and have prepared separate RODs. Rural Utilities Service The decision of RUS is that the NEPA process is satisfied with respect to a request for financing assistance from Golden Valley Electric Association, an IPG member, for the construction of the Southern Intertie Project from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage, Alaska. The construction of the project will be undertaken in accordance with the FEIS. The RUS preferred alternative is the Tesoro Route. This alternative will consist of overhead, underground and submarine c able segments 0 f 1 38 kilovolt (kV) transmission | ine. The overall length varies from 62 to 63.2 miles depending on which of the three Turnagain Arm crossing alternatives is selected. The Tesoro Route alternative connects the Bernice Lake Substation on the Kenai Peninsula and the Pt. Woronzof Substation in Anchorage. This route begins as:an overhead transmission line at the existing Bernice Lake Substation near Nikiski (Route Option A), and parallels the North Kenai Road to the southern end of Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA). Underground cable would parallel the North Kenai Road through the Captain Cook SRA and would also occur where the route is adjacent to two local airstrips along the N orth K enai S pur Road. The line would transition back to overhead beyond the northern end on the Captain Cook SRA and would be located in a transportation/utility corridor designated by the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB), including segments that parallel the Tesoro pipeline to Pt. Possession. Through coordination with the KPB the route in this location could be modified to parallel newly platted utility rights-of- way. The Tesoro Route would also cross one parcel of Native conveyed lands, near Grey Cliff Lake (less than 1 mile). Section 22(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) pennitting and regulatory requirements would apply to these lands. Upon entering the KNWR boundary at Pt. Possession, the route would parallel the existing Tesoro pipeline in a perpetual right-of-way easement that has been reserved by The Conservation Fund through conveyance of the property to the USFWS. The reserved easement includes Southern Intertie Project Record of Decision October 2002 “access for construction and maintenance, for a proposed electric transmission line, known as the Southern Intertie, to be located within Sections 17 and 20, Township 11 North, Range 6 West. This electric transmission line shall be roughly parallel to an existing buried pipeline that crosses the same sections.” (Warranty Deed signed August 23, 2002 between The Conservation Fund and USFWS). Section 22(g) of ANCSA would still apply to these lands. From Pt. Possession, route option B crosses Turmagain Arm by submarine cable via Fire Island to the Pt. Woronzof Substation. The line would transition to overhead in order to cross the island, and then return to submarine cable to connect to the Pt. Woronzof Substation. Route option C would start at Pt. Possession and cross the Turnagain Arm by submarine cable and would connect directly to a landing at the Pt. Woronzof Substation. The routing of the proposed submarine cable would have to avoid the 14 cables that currently terminate at that location. Route o ption D/N also starts at Pt. Possession but w ould cross T umagain Arm by submarine cable directly to Pt. Campbell. The transition station has been tentatively located in Kincaid Park. From that location underground cable would parallel the Tesoro pipeline and the relocated Airport Access Road to the Pt. Woronzof Substation. As stated in the FEIS the RUS preferred alternative route between Pt. Possession and Anchorage is Option D/N. This preference is based on economic, technical, and environmental factors. As is shown in Table 2-4 of the FEIS, the submarine cable route between Pt. Possession and Pt Campbell (Option D) is the shortest (13.9 miles), which consequently results in the lowest total life cycle cost. No serious technical issues have been identified with a cable landing at Pt. Campbell as compared to Pt. Woronzof where routing of the proposed cable would have to avoid the 14 cables that currently terminate at that location. Concerns have been raised by agencies and the public about potential impacts from submarine cable installation on Beluga Whales. If the risk of potential impacts is proportional to length, the proposed route contains the least amount of submarine cable and should represent the route with the lowest potential impacts. Modifying or curtailing construction and maintenance activities during calving season and other sensitive periods will further reduce impacts to Beluga Whales. The overland route from Pt. Campbell to Pt. Woronzof (Option N) is approximately 4 miles. Selective mitigation has been proposed to reduce impacts. Directional boring will insure that the Coastal Trail is not impacted. The transition station will be located so as to minimize impacts to Kincaid Park. Underground construction is proposed for the entire route, which negates the visual impacts associated with above ground structures. Selective right-of-way clearing, using existing access for construction and maintenance, and paralleling existing or planned linear facilities (Tesoro pipeline and airport access road) will further reduce corridor impacts. Coordination with the Municipality of Anchorage and the Airport Authority will determine the exact location of the transition station and underground cable route between Pt. Campbell and the Pt. Woronzof Substation . Southern Intertie Project Record of Decision October 2002 In the event that the Applicant is unable to acquire permits for Route Option D/N, RUS believes that alternative Routes B and C are also environmentally acceptable and may be used by the Applicant for the routing of the transmission facility across the Tumagain Arm to reach the Pt. Woronzof Substation. The RUS’s decision is based on the following documents: = Southern Intertie Route Selection Study (1996) = Update and Reevaluation of the Economic Benefits of the Southern Intertie Project, Final Report (March 1998) Southern Intertie Project Scoping Report (February 1997) Southern Intertie Project Final Environmental Analysis (July 1999) Southern Intertie Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (October 5, 2001) Southern Intertie Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (July 2, 2002) Comments Received on the Southern Intertie Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (August 2002) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The USFWS has denied the application for a right-of-way permit for the Enstar Route alternative on lands within the KNWR. The decision was made in accordance with the requirements of Title XI of ANILCA and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (INWRSAA] [16 U.S.C. 668dd]), as amended. The decision is based on the following findings: (1) there is an economically feasible and prudent alternative to crossing the KNWR; (2) the project would result in significant adverse impacts to the natural and other resources of the KNWR; and (3) the project as proposed would not be compatible with the purposes for which the KNWR was established or the Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (see FEIS, Volume I, Appendix A and the ROD signed September 11, 2002). As described in the FEIS, the USFWS has identified the Tesoro Route as the environmentally preferred alternative. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The USACE conducted a Draft Section 404 (b)(1) Evaluation for the Enstar route (see F EIS, Volume I, Appendix B) in accordance with transportation and utility systems in, across, and access into, Conservation Systems Units in Alaska under ANILCA (43 CFR Part 36). The Draft Section 404 (b)(1) Evaluation indicates that construction of the transmission line along the Tesoro Route alternative (Route Option A) with any of the three Tumagain Arm crossing options (B, C, or D/N) is a less damaging practicable alternative to the Applicant’s Enstar proposal, without significant impacts to aquatic resources. Southern Intertie Project Record of Decision October 2002 II. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Project Need The Project is located within the Railbelt electrical system, a power grid that electrically connects central and south-central Alaska from Homer to Fairbanks. The system allows the six participating utility companies, also referred to as the Railbelt Utilities, to sell and buy power to and from each other, taking advantage of lower costs in other areas, and to provide back-up power to each other. The IPG was formed by the Railbelt Utilities to improve electrical reliability and coordination within the Railbelt by working together to improve the interconnected system through intertie improvements and cooperative energy projects. The Southern Intertie Project is one of these cooperative projects. This Project is needed because the existing Railbelt electrical system is deficient south of Anchorage. The 115kV Quartz Creek transmission line currently provides the sole path for coordinating the operation of generation on the Kenai Peninsula with Anchorage area generation. The line also is used to provide back-up power in the case of outages in the Anchorage area or on the Kenai Peninsula. The Quartz Creek transmission line is limited in electrical transfer capability (70 megawatts [MW)]), and its ability to provide reliable back-up power during system outages is subject to outages from ice, wind, and snow loading. The line is also routed across known and historically active avalanche areas. To allow full use of the Kenai Peninsula generation, the intertie secure transfer capacity needs to be increased to 125 MW. The Project would provide the increased transmission capacity to make these higher transfers possible in a secure manner by creating a transmission loop to increase reliability and provide a second path for power to flow during an outage of the Quartz Creek transmission line. In addition, the limitation of 70 MW of power transfer capability along the existing Quartz Creek transmission line reduces the ability to fully utilize the 120 MW generating capacity of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, owned by the State of Alaska. At the time the Power Sales Agreement for the Bradley Lake energy was signed, it was recognized that additional transmission line (interties) would be needed between the Kenai Peninsula and Fairbanks for system reinforcement and the capability to transfer the Bradley Lake hydro power throughout the Railbelt system. The 1992 Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan acknowledged that to fully utilize the Bradley Lake Project, additional transmission line upgrades are needed to carry power to Anchorage and Fairbanks. Project Facilities The following five separate types of facilities and associated construction techniques are required for the Project: = Overhead Transmission Lines - Overhead transmission lines with the conductors supported on steel or wood structures are proposed for the Kenai Peninsula along North Southern Intertie Project Record of Decision October 2002 Kenai Road and north of Captain Cook SRA. Primary transmission structure types will include single-shaft steel poles and steel X-towers. The right-of-way width will vary between 30 feet for single poles and 150 feet for X-tower structures. The number of structures per mile would range from approximately 13 (for single pole) to 7 (for X- towers). Underground Lines - Underground lines are composed of 138kV transmission line cables buried below ground surface in a duct bank. Underground lines are proposed in the Anchorage area between Pt. Campbell and the Pt. Woronzof Substation, and on the Kenai Peninsula in the Captain Cook SRA and adjacent to two airstrips along the North Kenai Road. Submarine Cable - Submarine cable is specially constructed to operate in a marine environment and is more rugged than the cables used on land. Submarine cable is proposed for crossing the Turnagain Amn. Transition Stations - A transition station is equipped to change a transmission line from one type to another. Transitions from overhead lines to underground or submarine cable, or from underground cable to submarine cable would be required for the Project. Terminal facilities for the submarine cables are included in the transition stations. Transition stations would be required near the landfalls for the submarine cable, and at selected locations along North Kenai Road, Pt. Possession, and the Anchorage area. Substations and Reactive Compensation - Substations are located at the ends of transmission lines and at generation plants, and are the points at which the electrical system is joined together to form a network. Reactive compensation involves installation of specialized equipment in a substation to provide voltage support for the system or to increase power flow across a transmission line segment. Modifications to existing substations would be required at the Pt. Woronzof Substation in the Anchorage area, and at the Bernice Lake Substation on the Kenai Peninsula. Modifications will also be required at the Dave’s Creek Substation. RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED A range of alternatives were identified through public scoping, a comprehensive review of previous Project documentation, and emerging energy systems. Through a comprehensive screening process, each alternative was assessed for its ability to meet the stated purpose and need, and as a result, some alternatives were eliminated from further consideration. The range of alternatives is also responsive to scoping comments regarding environmental and social issues and alternative energy options. Alternatives that initially were considered but then eliminated are listed below and then specifically described: Southern Intertie Project Record of Decision October 2002 = Alternatives to a new transmission line eliminated - battery energy storage systems: would only partially meet the purpose and need for the project due to its limited storage capacity, and was therefore eliminated - demand-side management and energy conservation: focuses on managing a very small part of the load on the system, whereas the Project need is for improvements to the entire interconnected system - conventional new generation: the overall system has an excess of generating capacity and was therefore eliminated - wind generation: additional generation is not needed and was therefore eliminated fuel cells: additional generation is not needed and was therefore eliminated increasing spinning reserves: the project is being proposed to reduce spinning reserve requirements, and was therefore eliminated = Alternative transmission systems eliminated - upgrade of the existing Quartz Creek transmission line: the high cost of reconstructing the intermediate substations along the line, the minimal change in performance, and reliability and stability issues resulted in elimination of this option - alternate voltage levels: 230kV and 138kV were studied, and 230kV would require larger and more expensive equipment without the corresponding benefits, thus 138kV was selected for the project - underground transmission lines: underground transmission lines have been proposed in certain areas where required by regulation and/or to avoid hazards that would be associated with an overhead line; high installation and repair costs eliminated the option of undergrounding the entire project = Alternative transmission routes eliminated - Quartz Creek transmission route parallel: it would not meet the purpose and need of the project because it would be exposed to the same avalanche, ice, snow, and wind conditions as the existing line, and system reliability and energy transfer capability would remain limited - Sixmile Creek to Anchorage (Submarine) Route: the addition of submarine cable between Sixmile Creek and Anchorage would increase the costs of the project substantially. Additionally this option would parallel the existing Quartz Creek transmission line from Hope Junction to the Soldotna Substation and would not meet the purpose and need as noted above; therefore, it was eliminated from further consideration - Tesoro Route local options: several different local routing options were considered and eliminated - Enstar Route local options: several different local routing o ptions were c onsidered and eliminated = No-Action Alternative : Implementation of the no-action alternative would mean that the Project would not be constructed and the Quartz Creek transmission line between the Soldotna Substation on Southern Intertie Project Record of Decision October 2002 the Kenai Peninsula and the University Substation in Anchorage would continue to be utilized as the only electrical connection between Anchorage and the Peninsula region. There would be no improvements to the system to address the current electrical system deficiencies associated with this line. Overall, the Railbelt electrical system reliability and transfer of energy capabilities between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage would not be increased. Additionally, the cost savings that would accrue from construction of the Project would continue to be part of the overall cost of producing electricity, and those continuing costs would be reflected in the rates for electricity paid by consumers. Vv. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE In accordance with the provisions of NEPA C.F.R.§1502.14(e), the FEIS identifies the environmentally preferred alternative. Based on the EIS analysis and consideration of public comments on the DEIS and FEIS, the environmentally preferred alternative consists of the following: 1. Constructing and operating a new 138kV line between the Bernice Lake Substation and the Pt. Possession submarine cable transition station along the Tesoro Route alternative (Route Option A). 2. Constructing and operating a new 138kV line consisting of a submarine cable crossing of the Turnagain Arm from Pt. Possession directly to Pt. Woronzof (Route Option C). VI. MITIGATION PLAN Mitigation planning has been an integral component of the Project from the initial Macro Corridor Study beginning in 1995 through the preparation of the DEIS. During the preparation of the FEIS, interested federal, state, and local agencies reviewed the locations and effectiveness of selective mitigation measures along alternative routes. Meetings occurred in March 2002 in Anchorage and Soldotna with the EPA, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB), Kenai River Center, Alaska Department of Governmental Coordination, and the Municipality of Anchorage-Community Planning and Development, and Parks and Recreation departments. The resulting mitigation plan as illustrated in the FEIS- Volume II, Mitigation Plan (July 2002), provides specific locations of the mitigation measures applied in the DEIS and summarizes the effectiveness of these measures in avoiding or reducing environmental impacts. Results of the mitigation plan provide both general and site-specific mitigation commitments that will be adhered to for the construction, operation, and maintenance of project facilities. This ensures that all practicable means to avoid or reduce impacts will be implemented for the project. Southern Intertie Project Record of Decision October 2002 In addition to those measures outlined in the Mitigation Plan, per the request of the EPA, the Applicant will conduct site-specific surveys for wintering waterfowl along the Tesoro Route prior to final design and construction of the project. This information will be used to determine the magnitude and extent of off-shore waterfowl behavior and will be gathered with the goal of ensuring that appropriate additional mitigation (if needed) is identified and will be implemented. At the request of the Municipality of Anchorage — Department of Community Planning and Development, and Parks and Recreation Department, the location of the underground cable and transition station between Pt. Campbell and Pt. Woronzof will be reviewed and further refined to minimize impacts to Kincaid Park and the surrounding area. Vil. SCOPING, CONSULTATION, AND COORDINATION In accordance with the requirements of NEPA, RUS published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register in October 1996. The notice announced the intent of RUS to prepare an EIS for the Project and the schedule for the three public scoping meetings, which were conducted in Anchorage on November 12, Cooper Landing on November 13, and Soldotna on November 14. RUS conducted an interagency meeting on November 6, 1996 in Anchorage. In addition, the Applicant and its consultants contacted agencies and organizations having jurisdiction and/or specific interest in the Project. A series of agency and interagency meetings as well as two public meetings (January and February 1996) were conducted. Two community working groups were developed, one on the Kenai Peninsula and the other in Anchorage. Each group met five times at key milestones during the process. All issues and concerns raised during the scoping process were analyzed in the Environmental Analysis prepared for RUS by the Applicant’s consultants and have been considered in the preparation of the DEIS and FEIS. A total of 14 issues were identified and have been addressed. They are listed below and discussed in more detail in the DEIS and FEIS documents. Issue 1 — Purpose of and Need for the Project Issue 2 — Urban and Rural Land Use Issue 3 — Aviation Safety Issue 4 — Recreation and Tourism Issue 5 - Management Plans Issue 6 — Watershed Management and Soil Erosion Issue 7 — Visual Resources Issue 8 — Biology Issue 9 — Cultural Resources Issue 10 — Right-of-way Limitations Issue 11 — Human Health and Safety Issue 12 — Avalanche Hazards Issue 13 — Socioeconomics Southern Intertie Project Record of Decision October 2002 Issue 14 — Alternatives to the Proposed Project In August 2001, a newsletter was issued that updated the Project status and announced the future availability of the DEIS. The mailing list included almost 375 agencies and individuals. The RUS Federal Register notice of the availability of the DEIS contained the dates, times, and locations of public hearings, and established a 60 day comment period that ended on December 5, 2001. In accordance with RUS procedures, the Applicant published DEIS availability notices in seven Alaska newspapers. As required by Title XI of ANILCA, public hearings were held in Arlington, Virginia on October 30, 2001, in Anchorage, Alaska on November 13, 2001 and in Soldotna, Alaska on November 14, 2001. Notices of the public hearings were placed in local newspapers during the week of the public hearings. Approximately 110 copies of the DEIS were sent to federal, state, and local government agencies, institutions, organizations, and individuals. Copies were also placed in the public reading rooms of the following libraries: Mountain View, Chugiak/Eagle River, Cooper Landing, Hope, Kenai, Muldoon, Samson-Dimond, Z.J. Loussac, Gerrish Branch, Soldotna, and Alaska State. Public testimony at the three hearings was received from 12 persons. During the 60-day comment period, a total of 102 different comment letters were received from federal, state, and municipal agencies, businesses, native corporations, non-profit organizations, and individuals. Two of the letters were email form letters signed by 158 and 907 individuals respectively and one letter was in petition format with 12 signatures. The FEIS was made available to the EPA and the public on July 12, 2002. Comments were received from two agencies and five non-profit organizations. No new issues or concerns were identified in these comments. Vill. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS The Endangered Species Act The proposed project is subject to compliance with the Endangered Species Act. The only threatened and endangered species within the project study area is the Stellar sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus). The Stellar sea lion is a year-round resident of the Lower Cook Inlet, although there are no documented haulouts in Turnagain Amm or on Fire Island. Placement of the submarine cable across Turnagain Arm is not expected to affect Stellar sea lions. No significant impacts have been identified for the Stellar sea lion as a result of the project. Southern Intertie Project Record of Decision 10 October 2002 Clean Water Act Wetlands and waters of the U.S., which may be affected by this decision, are not proposed for dredge, fill, or any direct site-specific disturbance. A revised Section 404 permit application will be submitted to the USACE by the Applicant for construction of the project along the Tesoro Route. National Historic Preservation Act There are no known historic or archaeological sites within the Tesoro Route alternative that are listed or proposed for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. However, unknown archaeological sites may be present within the area of potential effect associated with the final right-of-way. Prior to final design and construction, the Applicant will retain qualified archaeologists to conduct a survey to identify any sites within areas to be disturbed. The survey will be submitted to the appropriate federal land manager, and the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology for review. If a site is discovered and avoidance is not possible, a mitigation plan will be developed and submitted to the appropriate agencies in compliance with 36 CFR Part 800 implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470F, and Section 110 of the same act. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) directs each federal agency “to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low income populations.” EPA guidelines have been utilized in the analysis and decision processes in this decision. The Southern Intertie Project and Tesoro Route alternative do not disproportionately impact any minority or low- income populations; therefore the project complies with Executive Order 12898. Required Permits, Licenses, Grants or Authorizations The construction of the Tesoro Route will require a Compatibility Determination for the crossing of Native corporation surface lands and other lands conveyed within the KNWR subject to Section 22(g) of ANCSA. This applies to less than two miles of the Tesoro Route near the Grey Cliffs Subdivision and Pt. Possession. The Refuge Manager will conduct the determination. The State of Alaska — Department of Governmental Coordination will require a Coastal Project Questionnaire (CPQ) for construction of the Tesoro Route. This application will be submitted for a project consistency review by multiple agencies in accordance with the Alaska Coastal Southern Intertie Project Record of Decision 11 October 2002 Management Program. The CPQ will determine additional state and federal permitting requirements for the project. These permits will be identified by agencies such as the A laska Departments of Natural Resources, Fish and Game, Environmental Conservation, along with the KPB and Municipality of Anchorage. The Applicant will maintain compliance with the KPB Coastal Management policies and will apply for a plan amendment to the Utility Corridor Plan of 1990, as required by the Municipality of Anchorage. A complete listing of the permits and nght-of-way grants required by the project are located in Table 4-7 in the DEIS. IX. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, RELATED AUTHORIZING ACTIONS, AND CONTACT PERSON For further information regarding this decision contact: Lawrence R. Wolfe Mail: USDA-Rural Utilities Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW - Stop 1571 Washington, DC 20250-1571 Phone: (202) 720-5093 Fax: (202) 720-0820 Email: lwolfe@rus.usda.gov Related Authorizing Actions are: The USFWS approved its Record of Decision for the project on September 11, 2002. The USACE approval of its Section 404 (b)(1) Evaluation and Record of Decision is pending. Blaine D. Stockton Date Assistant Administrator, Electric Program Rural Utilities Service Southern Intertie Project Record of Decision 12 October 2002 USFWS RECORD OF DECISION AND COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION RECORD OF DECISION SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT INTERTIE PARTICIPANTS GROUP RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT APPLICATION E-298-KE Decision We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, through the Regional Director, Alaska Region, hereby deny a grant of right-of-way (application E-298-KE) to the Intertie Participants Group (IPG) for development of the Southem Intertie electric transmission line project on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. The proposed project would have significant adverse impacts on Kenai Refuge resources, was determined to be not compatible with the purposes for which the Kenai Refuge was established, and there exists an economically feasible and prudent alternative to crossing the Kenai Refuge. Our decision, made under authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd), complies with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act [(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.)] and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [(ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3101)]. Project Description The IPG consists of Chugach Electric Association, Inc., Municipality of Anchorage - Municipal Light and Power, City of Seward - Seward Electric System, Matanuska Electric Association, Inc., Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc., and Homer Electric Association, Inc. The IPG proposes to construct a new 138 kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The proposed transmission line (Enstar Route) would enter the Kenai Refuge east of Sterling, and follow the existing Enstar natural gas pipeline for approximately 38.3 miles to Chickaloon Bay, where it would exit the Refuge at Burnt Island. The 3-phase transmission line would be supported mostly by guyed steel X-frame towers of approximately 90 feet in height, and a typical span of 750 feet. For 5.4 miles adjacent to Chickaloon Bay, 70-foot tall single wood poles with a typical span of 600 feet would be used. A facility enclosed within a 100-foot by 130- foot fenced area would be constructed for transition from overhead to submarine cable. The right- of-way width would be 100 feet for single pole, or 150 feet for X-frame structures. © NEPA Compliance As a cooperating Federal agency, we assisted in preparation of an environmental impact statement! (EIS) for the project in accordance with the provisions of NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. We participated in public scoping and inter-agency meetings, and in public hearings on the project draft EIS as required by Title XI ' Southern Intertie Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Washington, DC, July, 2002. 1 of ANILCA. The EIS describes the consultation and coordination that has occurred during the NEPA process. Title XI of ANILCA The Kenai Refuge is a Conservation System Unit designated under ANILCA [Section 304 (4)], and rights-of-way for transportation and utility systems (TUS) are governed under Title XI of ANILCA and its implementing regulations at 43 CFR Part 36. Regulations'‘at 43 CFR 36.7 require that the following nine factors be considered in making a decision regarding a proposed TUS: 1. The need for and economic feasibility of the TUS [43 CFR 36.7 (a)(2Xi)]. The purpose and need for the project is documented in the EIS, and centers around correcting existing deficiencies in the Railbelt electrical system south of Anchorage. Deficiencies include capacity limitations of the existing Quartz Creek transmission line and its susceptibility to outages due to avalanches and other adverse weather conditions. Although evaluation of the economic feasibility of electric utility projects is beyond our scope of expertise, we have no reason to dispute the findings in the EIS. 2. Alternative routes and modes of access, including a determination with respect to whether there is any economically feasible and prudent alternative’ to routing the system through or within an area, and, if not, whether there are alternate routes or modes which would result in Sewer or less severe impacts upon the area (43 CFR 36.7 (a)(2)(ii)]. The EIS identified a number of alternatives to the proposed project, including two major new transmission line routing alternatives (Quartz Creek and Tesoro routes), and a wide variety of non-transmission alternatives, such as fuel cells, battery energy storage systems, new generation, and energy conservation. Of these, only the Tesoro Route transmission line alternative was found to meet the purpose and need for the project, and was therefore fully evaluated in the EIS. Originally identified by the IPG as a viable project alternative, the Tesoro Route generally parallels the North Kenai Road from Nikiski to Captain Cook ’ State Recreation Area, and then follows the existing Tesoro fuels pipeline along the northwest coast of the Kenai Peninsula to Pt. Possession, where it becomes a submarine crossing of Turnagain Arm enroute to Anchorage. The route would occupy a transportation corridor designated by the Kenai Peninsula Borough on lands removed from the Kenai Refuge (PLO 3400, May 22, 1964) for development of the Kenai Peninsula. Although the Tesoro Route would cross the established Kenai Refuge boundary at two locations for a total of less than two miles, a right-of-way permit from the Service would not be required at these locations. The cost to construct the Tesoro Route alternative is 2Economically feasible and prudent alternative route means a route either within or outside an area that is based on sound engineering practices and is economically practicable, but does not necessarily mean the least costly alternative route [43 CFR 36.2 (h)]. 2 approximately ten percent higher than for the Enstar Route, and the total life cycle cost favors the Enstar Route by approximately 14 percent. However, the additional costs of construction and maintenance do not disqualify the Tesoro Route alternative from being an economically feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the regulatory definition, and from the standpoint of the IPG. 3. The feasibility and impacts of including di ifferent TUSs i in ae. same area [43 CFR 36.7 (a)(2)(iii)]. ‘ Both of the new transmission line alternatives aré located adjacent to existing pipelines for much of their routes on the Kenai Peninsula. The Enstar Route parallels the Enstar natural gas pipeline across the Kenai Refuge, while the Tesoro Route follows the Tesoro fuels pipeline along the northwest coast of the peninsula. The impacts of co-locating the proposed transmission line with existing pipelines are similar for both routes, and generally include expansion of existing clearings and access routes. These impacts are described in detail in the EIS. 4. Short and long term social, economic and environmental impacts of national, state or local significance, including impacts on fish and wildlife and their habitat and on rural, traditional lifestyles [43 CFR 36.7 (a)(2)(iv)]. The environmental impacts of the project alternatives are assessed in the EIS. Asa cooperating Federal agency, the Service assisted in preparation of the document, particularly in relation to impacts to fish and wildlife, and other Kenai Refuge resources. According to the EIS, the project will have significant adverse impacts on the following: fish and wildlife resources; land use and recreation; visual resources; and Refuge management plans. The proposal would also add to already significant cumulative impacts on Refuge resources as a result of human activities in and surrounding the Kenai Refuge. Adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources of the Kenai Refuge are considered . nationally significant because of the Congressional mandate to conserve these resources. In light of the above considerations, the EIS identifies the Tesoro Route as the environmentally preferred alternative. 5. The impacts, if any, on the national security interests of the United States, that may result from the approval or denial of the application for the TUS (43 CFR 36.7 (a)(2)v)]. Our denial of this right-of-way application will not affect national security interest that may be associated with this proposed project, since a feasible alternative has been identified, and that remains available to the IPG. 6. Any impacts that would affect the purposes for which the Federal unit or area concerned was established [43 CFR 36.7 (a)(2Xvi)]. Our detailed findings in this regard are contained in the attached Compatibility 3 Determination, which is required under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and is also prepared in compliance with Title XI regulations at 43 CFR 36.1 (b). In summary, we have determined that the use of Refuge lands for the project as proposed would not be compatible with the purposes for which the Kenai Refuge was established. 7. Measures which should be instituted to avoid or r minimize negative impacts [43 CFR 36.7 (a(2)vii)]. The EIS examines a full range of practicable measures to mitigate the anticipated adverse impacts of the proposed project, however such measures would not significantly reduce the impacts sufficient to make the use compatible with Kenai Refuge purposes. 8. The short and long term public values which may be adversely affected by approval of the TUS versus the short and long term public benefits which may accrue from such approval [43 CFR 36.7 (aX(2Xviii)]. No comparison of public values and benefits is eee since we will not approve the right-of-way for the project as proposed. 9. Impacts, if any, on subsistence uses [43 CFR 36.7 (a)(2)(ix)]. Our denial of the right-of-way application for the project as enpena will have no impacts on current subsistence uses of the Kenai Refuge. Summar y Based on the factors discussed above, we have decided to deny issuing a right-of-way permit to the IPG for the Souther Intertie project as proposed. We have established an administrative record containing the documentation used in reaching this decision, including all documents associated with preparation of the EIS and Refuge Compatibility Determination. Prepared by: Lic: of bak Date: _°/22/oz_ Wildlife Biologist, Division of Natural Resources Reviewed by: Date:_ 2/22/02. Chief, Division of Approved by: Dy 2b {' 7) Date: I [%-~ Regional Director United States Department of the Interior KENAI NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE P.O. Box 2139 Soldotna, Alaska 99669-2139 (907) 262-7021 IN REPLY REFER TO: COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C 668dd-668ee, states that “The Secretary is authorized, under regulations as [s] he may prescribe, to - (A) permit the use of any area within the [National Wildlife Refuge] System for any purpose, including but not limited to hunting, fishing, public recreation and accommodations, and access whenever [s] he determines that such uses are compatible”’ and that “... the Secretary shall not initiate or permit a new use of a refuge or expand, renew, or extend an existing use of a refuge, unless the Secretary has determined that the use is a compatible use and that the use is not inconsistent with public safety.”” A compatible use is defined as “A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional judgement, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purposes of the national wildlife refuge.” The compatibility determination is to be a written determination signed and dated by the Refuge Manager and Regional Chief, signifying that a proposed or existing use of a national wildlife refuge is a compatible use or is not a compatible use. Applicable compatibility regulations in 50 CFR Parts 25, 26, and 29 were published in the Federal Register October 18, 2000 (Vol. 65, No. 202, pp 62458 - 62483). Use: Southern Intertie Project Refuge Name: Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR) Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Established as the Kenai National Moose Range by Executive Order 8979 on December 16, 1941. The boundaries were modified, purposes expanded, and name changed to Kenai National Wildlife Refuge under provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) on December 2, 1980 (Public Law 96-487 Stat. 2371). Refuge Purposes: EO 8979 purpose: “...protect[ing] the natural breeding and feeding range of the giant Kenai moose on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska...”. Page 1 of 9 ANILCA purposes: “‘(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but not limited to moose, bear, mountain goats, Dall sheep, wolves and other furbearers, salmonoids and other fish, waterfowl and other migratory and nonmigratory birds; (ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats; (iii) to ensure to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the purposes set forth in paragraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity with the refuge; (iv) to provide in a manner consistent with subparagraphs (i) and (ii), opportunities for scientific research, interpretation, environmental education, and land management training; and (v) to provide, in a manner compatible with these purposes, opportunities for fish and wildlife- oriented recreation.” The Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-577) purposes are to secure an enduring resource of wildemess, to protect and preserve the wilderness character of areas within the National Wildemess Preservation System, and to administer this wilderness system for the use and enjoyment of the American people in a way that will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. Policy (FWS 603 2.8) requires that pre-ANILCA purposes remain in force and effect, except to the extent that they may be inconsistent with ANILCA or the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, but such purposes only apply to those areas of the Refuge in existence prior to ANILCA. The Executive Order purpose to protect Kenai moose, however, is treated as complimentary to the broader ANILCA purpose of conserving fish and wildlife populations; therefore, no special attention is given the Executive Order purpose in this compatibility review process. Sec. 4(a) of the Wilderness Act provides that the purposes of the Act are to be within and supplemental to the purposes for which National Wildlife Refuges are established and administered. These purposes are applied to the approximately 1.3 million acres of Congressionally designated wilderness within the KNWR. They are also applied to the remaining approximately 700,000 acres of Refuge lands (that are not designated as wilderness) in any way that the proposed use might effect the designated wilderness areas. National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. Description-of Use: The Southern Intertie Project is proposed by The Intertie Participants Group (IPG) and entails the construction of a 138 kilovolt electric transmission line for approximately 73.4 miles from the Soldotna Substation to Anchorage, of which approximately 38.3 miles would be constructed along what is known as the Enstar Route through the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Members of the IPG include Golden Valley Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Page 2 of 9 Association, Chugach Electric Association, Anchorage Municipal Light and Power, Homer Electric Association, and the City of Seward. The Enstar Route is one of two primary alternatives evaluated in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that was released on October 3, 2001 and is the preferred alterative of the applicant. The other route evaluated in the DEIS is known as the Tesoro Route which follows the coast from Nikiski to Pt. Possession along the northwest boundary of the Refuge. The Tesoro Route was found to be the environmentally preferred alternative evaluated in the DEIS. The IPG has filed for a right-of-way permit for the Enstar Route consistent with the requirements of Title XI of ANILCA. The DEIS, a required element of the Title XI application process, was developed primarily by IPG contractors under the direction of the Rural Utilities Service (the lead Federal agency for the process). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and U.S. Amny Corp of Engineers were cooperating agencies. The proposed project is located within the Railbelt electrical systems power grid that electrically connects central and south-central Alaska from Homer to Fairbanks. The system allows the participating utility companies to sell and buy power to and from each other, taking advantage of lower costs in other areas, and to provide back-up power to each other. The purpose of the proposed Southern Intertie Project is to address deficiencies in the existing Railbelt electrical system south of Anchorage. Specifically, the project would increase the power transfer capability over the existing Quartz Creek transmission line (to enable the full utilization of the 120 MW generating capacity of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project) and to provide reliable back-up power in the event of outages of the Quartz Creek (existing) transmission line (which is located in historical avalanche areas, and subject to outages from ice, wind, and snow loading). Either the Enstar Route through the Refuge, or the Tesoro Route to the north of the Refuge, meet the purpose and need of the proposed project. The Enstar Route option is estimated to cost $ 99.6 million over the life of the project; the Tesoro Route is estimated to cost $ 114 million over the life of the project. Both the Enstar and Tesoro Route options have several variants in the proposed routes where they. would cross the Turnagin Arm of Cook Inlet and enter the city of Anchorage. The proposed Enstar alternative would begin with an overhead transmission line at the existing substation located outside of the Refuge in Soldotna, replacing an existing 69kV line, running south and then east to the Enstar Pipeline Corridor. The Enstar Pipeline is a buried natural gas pipeline that transports gas from producing fields on the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage. The right-of-way permit for the line was issued in 1960 by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Official notice of the transfer of management responsibility for the line to the Service was received from the BLM in December 1998. The proposed transmission line would parallel the buried pipeline and require a 150- foot right-of-way through the Refuge, in addition to the 50- ~ foot existing pipeline right-of-way. The right-of-way would be cleared of trees and other woody vegetation to allow safe operation and maintenance of the transmission line (including the removal of any hazard trees within or outside the proposed right-of-way that might fall onto the Page 3 of 9 line). The overhead transmission line would be constructed with conductors supported on steel or wood 90-foot tall towers. A submarine cable would be used for crossing Tumagin Arm, a distance of approximately 10.5 miles. The proposed construction season for most of the project would be April to October; however, winter construction would be undertaken through the Refuge in order to minimize environmental impacts. A complete description of the proposed project, and the affected environment, is found in the September 2001 Southern Intertie Project DEIS. Availability of Resources: Right-of-way clearing and construction of the proposed transmission line would increase public access and utility company activity into a large portion of the Refuge necessitating the increase of on-the-ground and aerial monitoring, site visits, evaluation, and law enforcement. Currently additional resources to accomplish the additional monitoring, evaluation, and enforcement are not available and the activities could not be undertaken without reductions in other Refuge program areas. Additional staff time required is estimated at: biology (160 hours), pilots (104 hours), park rangers (LE) (208 hours), and management/administration (32 hours), for an annual estimated additional staff cost of $16,900. Additional vehicle, airplane, and equipment and supply costs are estimated at $19,100, for a total annual estimated additional cost of $36,000. Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The DEIS provides an evaluation of the anticipated impacts of the proposed action between the two alternatives analyzed. These impacts are summarized on pp S-22 through S-26 of the DEIS summary document. For the proposed Enstar Route through the Refuge, significant and cumulative impacts which would be short and long term, were predicted to vegetation and wetlands. These would be expected to be irreversible and irretrievable impacts for the life of the project. When evaluating birds, including bald eagles, trumpeter swans and waterfowl in general, the DEIS recognized the potential for local and nationally significant impacts on the Refuge. These included cumulative irreversible and irretrievable impacts during the life of the project. Similarly the DEIS predicted cumulative irreversible and irretrievable impacts to large mammals (including brown bears, black bears, moose, and caribou) on the Refuge. The impacts to brown bears, black bears, and moose were predicted to be nationally significant. Predators, including wolves and lynx, were also predicted to suffer nationally significant impacts. Nationally significant impacts were also projected to recreation and land use (citing conflicts with Refuge management plans and qualification criteria for wilderness designation) and to visual aesthetics because of degradation of natural scenic quality and visual intrusion to residential, recreational, and travel-way views. In part because of the impacts summarized above , the DEIS rejected the Enstar Route as the environmentally preferred alternative for the Souther Intertie Project, stating: “The environmentally preferred alternative is the Tesoro Route, Option A from Bernice Lake Page 4 of 9 Substation to Pt. Possession, combined with a submarine cable crossing of the Tumagin Arm from Pt. Possession directly to Pt. Woronzof (Route Option C) for a total of 61.3 miles. This route is environmentally preferred because it exhibits on balance, lower overall environmental impacts than the other alternatives, as shown on Table 2-11 in the DEIS.” “Any of the other Tesoro Route alternatives would also exhibit overall lower environmental impacts than the Applicant’s proposed alternative and other Enstar Route options, primarily because of the impacts of the Enstar Route where it crosses the KNWR on the Kenai Peninsula...” [DEIS p 2-60]. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are predicted to occur for the proposed project in two categories: (1) impacts associated with ground disturbance that occurs during construction (clearing vegetation for right-of-way and access; preparing tower sites; assembling and erecting tower structures; stringing conductors - wire pulling and splicing sites), and (2) long-term impacts associated with the presence of the line and associated facilities, and maintenance of the right-of-way clearing. A significant impact to biological resources, as defined in the DEIS Table 3-1, would occur under the following conditions: (1) the resource or species has a designated legal status or protection; (2) the project creates wildlife hazards not currently present in the environment, or the resource has a high susceptibility to the kinds of impacts associated with the project and project- related impacts could result in disturbance, injury, death, or decreased productivity; (3) the project results in a loss of habitat due to right-of-way clearing, or the resource has a high value and quality as wildlife habitat, characterized by high species richness and/or providing critical resources for species of concern; (4) the project results in improved public access into areas that are currently difficult to reach, or the resource is of limited availability within the Project study area; and (5) the project conflicts with or creates obstacles to federal, state, or local resource or wildlife management plans. The DEIS explains on p 3-6 that, “A national context [of significance] considers resource status at the national level, and federal resource protection. For example, wildlife within KNWR is considered a national resource due to the USFWS mandate to protect wildlife. Adverse impacts on wildlife within the KNWR are considered nationally significant.” The proposed power line along the Enstar Route would change fire management actions and modify Refuge wildlife management goals for the area. Wildfire zoning changes would result in changing suppression response from “modified” to “full” in order to protect the integrity of the power line. The project would also not only impact management of wildfire, but would hinder the Refuge prescribed fire program. The Refuge’s Moose/Habitat Management Plan authorizes a prescribed burning effort to enhance habitat for moose, and calls for manipulating 2,000 to 4,000 acres per year. The Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan sets a population objective for moose in Game Management Subunit (GMS) 15A (the area of the proposed project) at 3,600. Page 5 of 9 The 1995 population estimate for the area was less than 2,000 moose - well below the stated objective, and the only acceptable means to substantially increase moose numbers is through habitat enhancement. The Moose/Habitat Management Plan calls for manipulation of habitats in the Refuge land management categories of “Moderate” and “Traditional”. Within GMS 15A there are approximately 185,000 acres in these two KNWR land management categories. If the Southern Intertie is built along the proposed Enstar Route, it could interfere with normal prescribed burning procedures in approximately 75,400 acres of land in “Moderate” and “Traditional” categories east of the Moose River. The power line could reduce by 41 % Refuge habitats that can be manipulated using normal prescribed burning techniques. Public Review and Comment: Public review and comment on the Southern Intertie Project was primarily accomplished through the review of the DEIS. The publication of the DEIS was followed by a 60-day comment period (closing December 5, 2001). Public hearings were held October 30, 2001 in Washington, D.C.; November 13, 2001 in Anchorage, Alaska; and November 14, 2001 in Soldotna, Alaska. Notice of the DEIS, hearings, and comment period was published in the Federal Register (Vol. 66, No. 192, pp 50396-50397) Wednesday, October 3, 2001. The DEIS, announcements of availability, and the Federal Register Notice gave notice of the Service’s compatibility determination process, and solicited public comment regarding compatibility simultaneously with comments associated with other aspects of the proposed project and related processes. Additionally, the Refuge published a separate announcement in the Anchorage Daily News Legal Section on October 24, 2001, and provided additional information at their compatibility web site (http://www.r7.fws.gov/compatibility/). The issue of compatibility was primarily addressed on pages 1-35 and 1-36 of the DEIS. Copies of the DEIS were mailed to any requester, were provided at public libraries in Anchorage, Chugiak-Eagle River, Girdwood, Hope, Cooper Landing, Soldotna, and Kenai, and made available on the web at http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/eis.htm. The U.S. Department of Agriculture - Rural Utilities Service (RUS) was the lead federal agency for the project and DEIS. Comments, including those regarding Refuge compatibility issues, were sent primarily to RUS; however, most comments were also copied to the Refuge Manager. Total comments received included 6 from Federal agencies, 3 from State agencies, 2 from local agencies, 11 from special interest organizations, 72 individuals (37 of which were in similar form), and over 1200 e:mails and faxes (most of which were in similar form). The Refuge Manager received a letter from the Center for Biological Diversity that expressed opposition to the project and | fax, 4 letters, and 1,215 e:mails from citizens opposed to putting the power line through the Refuge. The e:mails were received from people in 45 states, Washington, D.C., The Virgin Islands, and 12 foreign countries (Australia 4, England 1, China 1, Page 6 of 9 Ireland 1, Scotland 2, Canada 8, Brazil 3, The Netherlands 8, France 1, Uruguay 1, Sweden 1, and Belgium 1). Three e:mails were received from citizens that supported the proposed Enstar Route through the Refuge. Letters and/or e:mails received from 9 organizations or agencies, including the State of Alaska, Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Audubon Alaska, Defenders of Wildlife, the Environmental Protection Agency, Anchorage Audubon, Friends of Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, and the National Wildlife Refuge Association. Concer over the Enstar Route was expressed in some form from each of these commenters. Most comments regarding compatibility were general and stated that the proposed project was not compatible, the Refuge should be protected, or other statements that demonstrated opposition to the proposed action. Additionally, two letters were received far in advance of the public comment period regarding the proposed project. A February 14, 2000 letter from the Alaska Public Interest Research Group to the Rural Utilities Service, with copy to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, submitted a draft report entitled, The Southern Intertie: Who Will Pay? The letter stated that the research summarized in their report indicated that the intertie was not needed, not cost effective, and posed serous risks to Turnagin Arm and the KNWR. Also, a letter dated February 15, 2000 from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to the KNWR manager stated that the proposed power line project through the Refuge had the potential to negatively impact brown bears, a species that the State of Alaska listed as a “population of special concern” on the Kenai Peninsula. A complete set of all comments received has been retained as part of the administrative record for this project. Determination (check one below): X___ Use is Not Compatible Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Not applicable Justification: The proposed construction, operation, and maintenance of a 38.3 mile overhead transmission line through the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge materially interferes with and detracts from the Congressionally mandated purposes for which the Refuge was established, and with the Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Potential stipulations to ensure compatibility, within the context of the proposed action, were deemed inadequate given the overall nature of the project. Only those mitigative measures Page 7 of 9 addressed in the DEIS, and application for a right-of-way permit, were evaluated (i.e. consideration was not given to such actions as burying the transmission line through the Enstar route within the Refuge because it was not proposed by the applicant, nor was it felt to be economically feasible by the applicant). Refuge Purposes The proposed use materially interferes with and detracts from KNWR’s primary purpose to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity. It would cause significant, and largely unmitigated, habitat fragmentation, modification and/or loss along its entire route through the Refuge. Policy (Refuge Management: Part 603 National Wildlife Refuge System Uses 2.5) states, “Uses that we reasonably may anticipate to reduce the quality or quantity or fragment habitats on a national wildlife refuge will not be compatible.” The proposed use materially interferes with and detracts from KNWR’s purpose to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats. The loss of migratory bird habitat, and threat of mortality to a variety of migratory birds throughout the entire life of the proposed project, materially interferes with the Refuge’s ability to implement the general agreements to conserve migratory birds found in treaties with Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico, Russia, and Japan. Availability of water would not be expected to be a problem, and while water quality may be impacted during construction, or through site-specific erosion during the life of the proposed project, these impacts should be of short duration and can be mitigated; therefore, the proposed use is not believed to exceed the compatibility threshold for ensuring water quality and necessary water quantity. Likewise, impacts to the Refuge’s programs for scientific research, interpretation, environmental education, and land management training would not be expected to be significantly impacted by the proposed project. The Refuge’s purpose to provide for opportunities for fish and wildlife-oriented recreation would be influenced by the proposed action. Additional access created by the new right-of-way may allow additional users and uses of the area over what currently exist. This, however, would potentially negatively impact the users and uses that are currently in the area, and could ultimately result in use restrictions that would significantly impact current users and uses. The adverse impact of the proposed project to recreational users due to visual effects, and the loss of a more natural experience along the route also may outweigh the value of any additional access provided, especially since there is already access to the area. The DEIS recognized significant visual impacts and impacts to land use and recreation. The resources to monitor impacts, and enforce regulations for potential new uses of the area, are also lacking. Policy (Refuge Management: Part 603 National Wildlife Refuge System Uses 2.11 and 2.12) directs that if Page 8 of 9 adequate resources are not available to properly manage a use, then the use is not compatible. The proposed use would not occur in Congressionally designated wilderness. There are wildemess-related issues to the proposal, such as impacting the view from designated wilderness areas, looking beyond the wilderness boundaries to the project area, and potentially impacting future wildemess designations for current or future wildermess study areas. While these issues may be significant wildermess management issues, they do not significantly influence the compatibility determination. System Mission The proposed use materially interferes with and detracts from the National Wildlife Refuge System Mission of administering lands and waters for the conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and their habitats. The project would not only fragment, modify, or destroy significant wildlife habitats, it also would likely impede significant wildlife management efforts, especially implementation of prescribed fire activity called for generally in the Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan, and specifically in the Refuge’s Moose/Habitat Management Plan. au ot Oe G-4-07 Signature: Refuge Manager: (Signature and Date) — Concurrence: Regional Chief: SA of 0 = (Signaturd and Date) N/A Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: Page 9 of 9 USACE RECORD OF DECISION AND SECTION 404(b)(1) EVALUATION DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA P.O. BOX 6898 ETTEN TION Oe: Elmendorf AFB, ALASKA 99506-6898 CERTIFIED Regulatory Branch South Section 2-1999-1212 Ms. Dora Gropp Intertie Participants Group 5601 Minnesota Drive : Post Office Box 196300 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Dear Ms. Gropp: This concerns your request, on behalf of the Intertie Participants Group (IPG), for a Department of the Army (DA) permit to construct a 74-mile, 138kV electrical transmission line. The proposed project, known as the Southern Intertie, originates at the Soldotna Substation, makes two aerial crossings of the Kenai River, and follows the Enstar natural gas pipeline through the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR). The line would continue across Tuxrnagain Arm as a submarine cable, entering at Chickaloon Bay and landing at Oceanview Park, in south Anchorage. It would then follow the Alaska Railroad right-of-way north, terminating at the International Substation in Anchorage, Alaska. This proposed route, known as the Enstar Route, has been assigned file number 2-1999-1212, Turnagain Arm 45, which should be referred to in any future correspondence with this office. The Enstar Route proposal requires DA authorization because the project would involve work in, and the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into, waters of the U.S. under our regulatory jurisdiction. However, based upon the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), we have determined that the activities subject to our Sections 10 and 404 jurisdictions occur outside of the KNWR. Therefore, the Corps can issue a DA permit, for the aerial crossings of the Kenai River and submarine crossing of Turnagain Arm, without consideration of Title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in their Record of Decision, notified us that your proposal has been found incompatible with the purposes for which the KNWR was established. They have therefore, denied the grant of right-of- way to the IPG for the SIP to cross the Refuge. Without this permit, the Enstar Route is no longer a viable alternative. Unless this decision is appealed by you, and overturned after Presidential review, the Corps considers the Enstar Route proposal to be incomplete. As such, we are closing your permit application file, pursuant to DA regulation 33 CFR 320.4(j) (1), which reads in part: “..where the required Federal, state and/or local authorization and/or certification has been denied for activities which also require a Department of the Army permit before final action has been taken on the Army permit application, the district engineer will, after considering the likelihood of subsequent approval of the other authorization and/or certification and the time and effort remaining to complete processing’ the Army permit application, either immediately deny the Army permit without prejudice or continue processing the application to a conclusion.” The proposed project activities, subject to Corps Section 10 and Section 404 jurisdiction, generated limited interest during the NEPA review. Impacts associated with the aerial crossings of the Kenai River and submarine crossing of Turnagain Arm are not considered significant. There does not appear to be an appreciable difference to affected aquatic resources when comparing the Route alternatives. Based on information within the FEIS, the Corps could issue a DA permit for either the Enstar or Tesoro Route. Should you receive the necessary licenses and permits needed to pursue the Enstar Route alternative, the Corps would issue a DA permit for this option. We do agree with the NEPA conclusion that the Tesoro Route option is the environmentally preferred alternative. This decision is based on the project’s impacts to wildlife resources on the KNWR rather than the Enstar Route’s affects to Waters of the U.S. We have determined the Tesoro Route complies with the Section 404 (b) (1) guidelines and is not contrary to the Public Interest. By copy of this letter, we are informing the concerned resource agencies on the enclosed list of our decision. Thank you for your cooperation with the Corps of Engineer’s Regulatory Program. If you have any questions, please contact me at the letterhead address, at (907) 753-2712 or by FAX at (907) 753-5567. For additional information about our regulatory program, visit our web site at www.poa.usace.army.mil/reg. Sincerely, Miia = Section Chief Enclosures Record of Decision and Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation Department of Army, Corps of Engineers Proposed Southern Intertie Project File number: 2-991212, Turnagain Arm 45 This document constitutes the Corps of Engineers, Alaska District’s Record of Decision (ROD) for Department of the Army (DA) authorization to construct a 74-mile, 138kV electrical transmission line, identified as the Southern Intertie Project (SIP), as described in the Public Notice. The Corps decision is based upon review of the information within the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), published July 12, 2002, in accordance with Section 102 of the National Environmental Conservation Act (NEPA) of 1969, (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). The FEIS compares the applicant’s proposed Enstar Route with the no-action and Tesoro Route alternatives. The FIES has identified the Tesoro Route to be the environmentally preferred alternative for construction of the transmission line. This route follows the Tesoro natural gas pipeline, (Route Option A), beginning at the Bernice Lake Substation near Nikiski, heading in a northeasterly direction to Pt. Possession, and then continuing across Turnagain Arm to the Pt. Woronzof Substation in Anchorage. This Route follows a dedicated transportation and utility corridor along the west side of the Kenai Peninsula, established in 1964 when this area was Congressionally withdrawn from the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR) for the purpose of promoting future development. The Corps agrees with the NEPA determination that the Tesoro Route is the environmentally preferred alternative. I. Introduction A. Project Description: The proposed project is to construct a 74-mile, 138kV electrical transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage, in southcentral Alaska. The route for which the applicant has applied would begin at the Soldotna Substation, within the NW 1/4, section 26, T. 5 N., R. 10 W., Seward Meridian (SM), east of Soldotna, and proceed as an overhead line in a northeasterly direction across the Kenai Peninsula, following the Enstar natural gas pipeline corridor through the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR). The line would cross Turnagain Arm as a submarine cable, entering the arm at Chickaloon Bay, adjacent to Burnt Island, and landing at Oceanview Park in south Anchorage. It would then follow the Alaska Railroad right-of-way north, terminating at the International Substation in the SE1/4, section 36, T. 13.N., R.4 W., S.M., in Anchorage. This proposal, as submitted by the applicant, follows route options E-South, F, H and K, and is collectively referred to as the Enstar Route. Approximately 83% of the line would be attached to overhead tower structures, 16% would consist of submarine cabling and approximately 1% would be installed underground. The transmission line would make two aerial crossings of the Kenai River, a navigable water of the United States. At all stream crossings, tower structures would maintain a 200’ minimum setback. If possible, wetlands would be spanned. Any tower requiring siting in a wetland would be pile- supported. Submarine electric cable would be threaded under the vegetated intertidal estuaries of Turnagain Arm by use of horizontal directional drilling from adjacent upland areas. To cross Turnagain Arm, a water-jetting machine, towed behind the cable-laying barge, would cut a narrow trench in the basin substrate into which the marine cable would be laid. Tidal currents would redeposit the sediments, closing the trench and burying the cable. B. Purpose and Need: The Southern Intertie Transmission Line Project (SIP) is a system improvement project. The line would correct existing deficiencies by providing a second line to accomplish the following: * Increase reliability of the Railbelt electrical system and power supply to consumers by providing a second path for electrical power during interruptions of the existing Quartz Creek line and by reducing load-shedding requirements in case of system disturbances. = Increase electrical transfer capability of the transmission system between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage from 70 megawatts (MW) to 125 MW, reduce operating costs by allowing for more economical usage of existing generation sources, decrease overall system requirements for spinning reserves, and improve electrical system stability. = Provide adequate access to power entitlements from the Bradley Lake hydroelectric generating station for the utilities north of the Kenai Peninsula, allow the Bradley Lake generation to be more fully utilized to reduce system-operating costs through increased hydrothermal coordination, and provide additional spinning reserves to the system north of the Kenai Peninsula. Additional information on the purpose and need of the SIP, including existing system operations, proposed project background, studies conducted, and the benefits and costs analysis can be found in Chapter 1 of the FEIS. C. Scope of Analysis: The purpose of this section is to outline the authorities governing the scope of the Corps’ decision. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, (33 U.S.C. 403) prohibits the unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable waterway of the U.S. The construction of any structure in, under, or over any navigable water of the U.S., the excavating from or deposition of material into such waters, or the accomplishment of any other work affecting the course, location, condition, or capacity of such waters is unlawful unless the work has been permitted by the Corps. The substantive evaluation criteria for this authority are the Corps’ Public Interest Review and NEPA. The proposed Enstar Route alternative is subject to Section 10 jurisdiction at the two aerial crossings of the Kenai River and the submarine crossing of Turnagain Arm. The Kenai River crossings are only associated with the Enstar Route — Southern Option. A submarine crossing of Turnagain Arm would occur along either the Enstar or Tesoro Route alternatives and require Section 10 authorization. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) applies to the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. The substantive evaluation requirements of this act are within the guidelines developed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in conjunction with the Secretary of the Army, published in 40 CFR, Part 230 and referred to as the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Activities proposed by the applicant subject to Section 404 jurisdiction are limited to the area below the high tide line of Turnagain Arm associated with the submarine crossing. There are no discharges of fill material being proposed into waters of the U.S. along either the Tesoro or Enstar Route alternatives outside of the Turnagain Arm crossings. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42U.S.C. 4321-4347) declares the national policy to encourage a productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment. Section 102 of that Act directs that “to the fullest extent possible: (1) The policies, regulations, and public laws of the U.S. shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in the Act, and (2) all agencies the Federal Government shall .....”insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision-making along with economic and technical considerations.....” (See Appendix B of 33 CFR Part 325.) Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), Title X! — Transportation and Utility Systems In and Across, and Access Into, Conservation System Units (43 CFR Part 36) allows authorizing federal agencies to review a proposal in accordance with the procedures set fourth in this title. The Corps received an application for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities on Federal Lands from the IPG, on August 5, 1999, to construct a 138kV electrical transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and the City of Anchorage in south-central Alaska. The transmission line, following the applicant’s proposed Enstar Route, would cross the KNWR - a Conservation System Unit identified in ANILCA. The Enstar Route would require Section 10 authorization for two aerial crossings of the Kenai River and for the submarine crossing of Turnagain Arm. These crossings of navigable water are not located within the KNWR. Embedment of the submarine cable below the high tide line of Turnagain Arm would also be subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 404; again, this activity is not within the KNWR. The applicant’s proposed mitigation measures have eliminated all other discharges of dredged and/or fill material. There are no activities under Corps Section 10 or Section 404 jurisdiction being proposed on the KNWR. The applicant does not require Corps authorization to construct the portion of the SIP that crosses the Refuge and therefore, the project is not subject to Corps approval or disapproval under Title XI of ANILCA. D. Federal Agency Involvement: The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), of the US Department of Agriculture, is the Lead Federal Agency in the NEPA review for the SIP. The IPG intends to submit an application to RUS for financial assistance to partially fund construction of the transmission line. Pursuant to RUS Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 CFR Part 1794), providing funding for the project would constitute a major federal action for the agency. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW), as Federal Manager of the KNWR, has permitting authority over the applicants proposed route selection to cross Refuge Lands. The USFW is a cooperating agency in the NEPA review and is responsible for the decision to issue or deny a Right-of-Way permit for the line to cross the KNWR. The Corps of Engineers, a permitting agency based on the authorities listed above, is also a cooperating agency in the NEPA review of the SIP. ll. Alternatives A. Overview of Alternatives: All chapter and section references made in this ROD refer to the SIP DEIS. Chapter 2 contains discussion of the alternatives identified during the scoping process, including alternatives eliminated from detailed study for failing to meet the applicant’s purpose and need, and alternatives determined to be impracticable when considering public interest factors. Alternatives carried forward for detailed evaluation include: 1) the Enstar Route alternative (the applicant’s proposed project), 2) the Tesoro Route alternative, and 3) the no- action-alternative. Chapter 2 also provides details on construction, operation, maintenance and abandonment of the facilities associated with the alternatives route options. B. Alternatives Evaluated in Detail: 1) Enstar Route: This is the applicant’s proposed route. It begins as an overhead transmission line at the existing Soldotna substation. There are two route options from this substation, both of which intersect the Enstar Pipeline corridor in section 1, T.5 N.,R.8W., SM. Route Option E-North would run north from the Soldotna substation before turning east to intersect the Enstar Pipeline corridor. This 21.6-mile section of line would primarily run parallel to an existing power line between the Soldotna substation and Enstar Pipeline. . Route Option E-South would replace an existing 69kV transmission line. This route begins by heading south from the Soldotna substation, turning east and then to the north, before intersecting the Enstar Pipeline corridor. The aerial line would cross the Kenai River twice, at the same locations where the existing line crosses. Both of these locations are outside of the KNWR. Route Option E-South is 19.0 miles long and part of the IPG’s proposed route. From the point where Route Option E-South intersects the existing Enstar natural gas pipeline, the Enstar alternative parallels the pipeline corridor in a northeasterly direction through the KNWR. Along this 38.5-mile section of line, the existing gas line access trail would be utilized to construct the transmission line. The 50’ corridor would be widened to approximately 200’ in order accommodate the addition of the transmission line. The transmission line would meet Turnagain Arm on the east end of Chickaloon Bay near Burnt Island. A transition facility would convert the overhead line to marine cable where it would continue across the Arm along one of three route options. At each of the three Anchorage landing site options, a transition facility would convert the marine cable back to an underground or overhead line and continue to the International Substation, located at the Chugach Electric Headquarters building, near the intersection of Minnesota Drive and International Airport Road. The three route options across Turnagain Arm fan out from the transition facility located adjacent to Burnt Island. Route Option G would cross the Arm following a due north direction from Burnt Island, landing near Klatt Road in south Anchorage. From a transition facility here, this route would continue as Option J, an overhead line parallel to Minnesota Drive, terminating at the International Substation. This Enstar Alternative, following Route Options G and J, is 73.8 miles long and has an estimated construction cost of $90.1 million. Route Option | would cross Turnagain Arm from Burnt Island as a marine cable, landing near the confluence of Rabbit Creek in south Anchorage. From a transition facility there, an overhead line would continue as Route Option M, following the Old Seward Highway north to International Airport Road, and then turning west to the International substation. This Enstar Alternative, along Route Options | and M, is 75.4 miles long with an estimated construction cost of $90.1 million. Route Option H crosses Turnagain Arm from Burnt Island to a landing at Oceanview Park in south Anchorage. As Route Option K, the line would continue underground along the edge of Oceanview Park and an adjacent light airplane landing strip to the north. At this point the cable would transition to an overhead line and continue north, within the Alaska Railroad Corporation right-of-way, to the International substation. This route, selected by the IPG as their proposed route and submitted on the ANILCA and DA permit applications, consists of line segments E- South, F, H, and K. Collectively known as the Enstar Route, this proposal is 73.4 miles.in length, with an estimated construction cost of $90.2 million. Additional information and detailed descriptions of the facilities associated with the Enstar Route alternative can be found in Chapter 2.3.2 and 2.4. 2) Tesoro Route: The Tesoro Route has been identified as the environmentally preferred alternative through the NEPA review process. This route (option A) begins at the existing Bernice Lake Substation near Nikiski and generally parallels the Tesoro natural gas pipeline along the west coast of the Kenai Peninsula to Pt. Possession. In 1964 Congress modified the west boundary of the KNWR, pulling it inland from the coast, to create a transportation and utility corridor for anticipated future development needs of the Kenai Peninsula Borough. A transmission line constructed along the Tesoro Route would be located within this transportation/utility corridor. Underground electric cable would be installed through Captain Cook SRA, satisfying requirements of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA). Crossing Native owned lands near Grey Cliff Lake would require a permit pursuant to Section 22(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). A transition facility at Pt. Possession would convert the overhead line to submarine cable before entering Turnagain Arm. From Pt. Possession, there are three route options being considered for crossing Turnagain Arm, with each option terminating at the existing Pt. Woronzof Substation. Route Option D would cross the Arm from Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell. From the Pt. Campbell landing, underground cable would continue through Kincaid Park and the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport before terminating at the Pt. Woronzof substation. The total length of the Tesoro route utilizing Route Option D is 62.0 miles with an estimated construction cost of $99.5 million. , Route Option B crosses Turnagain Arm from Pt. Possession to Fire Island. The submarine cable would transition to an overhead line, traverse the length of Fire Island, and convert back to submarine cable to cross the mudflats to the Point Woronzof Substation. This option would require two transition facilities on Fire Island. The submarine cable between Pt. Possession and Fire Island would also encounter undesirable marine conditions that feature extreme tidal currents and rocky substrate. The cable would be exposed to tidal scouring elements that would likely result in more frequent cable failures and increased maintenance costs. The total length of the Tesoro route using Option B is 63.2 miles, with estimated construction costs of $99.4 million. Route Option C, crosses Turnagain Arm as a submarine cable from Pt. Possession directly to a landing at the Pt. Woronzof Substation. This crossing option, coupled with the Tesoro natural gas pipeline route, is the option identified as the environmentally preferred alternative in the FEIS. A concern identified with this option is the presence of a ‘cable field’ located just offshore of the proposed landing site. There are several submarine cables, which cross the Knik Arm between Pt. Mackenzie and Pt. Woronzof, already buried in this area. To avoid laying cables on top of existing cables, Route Option C would land cables south of the Anchorage Waste Water Treatment Facility and access the Pt. Woronzof substation from the east. The length of this route option is 61.3 miles with an estimated construction cost of $106.2 million. Additional information and detailed descriptions of the facilities associated with the Tesoro Route alternative can be found in Chapter 2.3.2 and 2.4. 3) No action: The no-action alternative would preclude realization of the benefits from construction of the SIP. Potential cost savings of the project would remain as costs embedded in the electricity rates paid by consumers. Cost savings would be unrealized in areas of capacity sharing, economic energy transfer, reliability, spinning reserve sharing, reduced line maintenance costs, avoidance of minimum generation on the Kenai Peninsula, and avoidance of the practice of not loading the Quartz Creek transmission line during bad weather and construction. The no- action alternative does not address the problems that the project has been designed to solve and does not meet the applicant’s purpose and need objectives. Further discussion of this alternative can be found in Chapter 2.3.1. Ill. Affected Environment A. Inventoried Environment: The resources identified as being important in the scoping process, inventoried during daia collection and described in detail by Chapter 3 include: Climate and Air Quality (Chapter 3.2) Earth and Water Resources (Chapter 3.3) Marine Environment (Chapter 3.4) Biological (Chapter 3.5) Land Use and Recreation (Chapter 3.6) Socioeconomics and Tourism (Chapter 3.7) Subsistence (Chapter 3.8) * Visual (Chapter 3.9) = Cultural and Historical (Chapter 3.10) = Electric and Magnetic Fields and Noise (Chapter 3.11) The DEIS contains resource descriptions, explanations of the data gathering methods, and inventory results. Chapter 3 also describes anticipated project impacts to these resources, and the expected environmental consequences. Information regarding proposed project mitigation and residual resource damage is also summarized in Chapter 3. B. Types of Impacts: Resource quantity and sensitivity were analyzed to determine potential impact levels for the identified resources. The quantity of a resource impacted is simply the summation of affected resource units. For example, known bald eagle nesting sites within .5 mile of the projects’ influence zone, can be compared between the alternatives by counting the number of active nesting trees along each route. Determining resource sensitivity requires a more subjective approach. Considerations can include resource values, endangered species listing, existing land use patterns, special area designations, management plan implementation, or other resource parameters. The combination of these two assessment variables determines the level of impact assigned to each resource category. Impacts are categorized into three primary types: 1) Direct impacts are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. 2) Indirect impacts caused by the action occur later in time or are farther removed. 3) Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. These impacts may be individually minor but collectively significant. Resource impacts can be further categorized into these secondary types: 1) Short-term impacts are associated with the initial ground disturbance or construction phase of the project. 2) Long-term impacts affect the resource during the operation and maintenance phases, or over the project's lifetime. Resource impacts are also evaluated to determine their significance. As defined in NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality Regulation 1508.27, significance requires considerations of both context and intensity. The factors of context and intensity are discussed in Chapter 3.1.2. Definitions for significant impact, by resource, were established to provide a means of interpreting which issues are associated with each resource in the project area, which impacts are relevant to the resource, and how those impacts must affect the resource to be considered significant. These definitions are provided in Table 3-1. Impact significance is evaluated within three levels of context: local, regional, and national. The local context for the SIP is defined as the immediate vicinity of the alternative routes. The regional context depends on resource distribution and interactions. For example, the regional context for evaluation of impact significance on brown bear resources would be the Kenai Peninsula, because the population of brown bears on the Peninsula is believed to experience little, if any, immigration from or emigration to other brown bear populations. A national context considers resource status at the national level, and federal mandates for resource protection. For example, wildlife within the KNWR is considered a national resource due to the USFWS mandate to protect wildlife. Significant impacts on wildlife within the KNWR are considered nationally significant. Accumulative impact, as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.7), is the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes other such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. These reasonably foreseeable future actions refer to future action projections, or estimates, of what is likely to take place when a proposed action is implemented. They are not part of the proposed action but are projections being made so that future impacts, cumulative and otherwise, can be estimated as required by NEPA. A complete discussion of the SIP cumulative impacts can be found in Chapter 3.12. Finally, as part of the project description, the IPG has proposed incorporating mitigation measures that minimize construction and maintenance activity impacts to the natural environment. These measures are referred to as ‘standard practice project mitigation’ and are summarized in Volume II, Table D-1. Where warranted, on a case-by-case basis, mitigation beyond these generic measures has been recommended to further reduce adverse impacts. The selective mitigation measures are identified in Volume II, Table D-2, with a detailed mitigation plan provided in Volume II of the FEIS. In discussing the environmental consequences of the proposed project below, descriptions of resource impacts take into consideration the mitigating affects of these measures. C. Environmental Consequences to Aquatic Resources Resulting from the Discharge of Fill or Dredged Material: The 404(b)(1) Evaluation is a document based on guidelines set forth in 40 CFR, Part 230. The purpose of these guidelines is to maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of waters of the U.S. by controlling the discharges of fill material. Fundamental to these guidelines is the precept that no discharge of fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences. Therefore, the following discussion will focus on aquatic resource characteristics that would be impacted by the proposed project, and the anticipated consequences. Marine Environment (Chapter 3.4): Waters of upper Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm are well mixed due to large tidal fluctuations and high current velocities. Salinity, temperature, and suspended sediment loads vary with season, water depth, and tidal cycle. Embedment of the transmission line across Turnagain Arm would result in a discharge of dredged material. Though important differences between the Enstar proposal and Tesoro alternative can be found in the basin substrates, shifting bathymetries, potential impacts from ice scour, and steep shore slopes, a discharge along either route is not expected to have more than a minimal effect on water quality in Turnagain Arm. A transmission line along IPG’s proposed Enstar Route would enter Turnagain Arm on the east side of Chickaloon Bay, near Burnt Island. The Route Options across the Arm (G, H, and 1) would fan out from this point and proceed to the three different landing sites. This area of Turnagain Arm is characterized by wide mud flats at low tide and deep glacial sediments across the entire width. Distribution of these sediments, ranging from silty fine sand to sandy silt, indicate about a 90 percent sand content near tidal channels and about 10 percent sand content near shorelines adjacent to Anchorage and Chickaloon Bay. The Turnagain Arm flood tide is stronger than the ebb tide, carrying more sediment into the Arm than is drained out. The geological conditions found in this area of the basin would allow the submarine cable to be embedded in the seafloor, resulting in enhanced reliability, reduced maintenance costs, and a longer cable life. The transmission line following the Tesoro Route alternative would enter Turnagain Arm at Pt. Possession and follow the eastern flank of Cook Inlet north. All three Route Options (B, C, and D) would cross the mouth of Turnagain Arm, with two options landing at Pt. Woronzof (B, and C), and route option D coming ashore at Pt. Campbell. The landing points on the north side of Turnagain Arm are characterized by wide mud flats, similar to those found with the Enstar proposal. The submarine cable could be embedded in the sediments here and offer the same reliability advantages listed above. The southern portion of the Tesoro Route’s marine crossing, offshore from Pt. Possession, offers less favorable geologic conditions for marine cable reliability. The Pt. Possession area exhibits easily eroded bluffs that consistently expose a large number of glacially deposited boulders. These boulders, moved by sea-ice rafting and shifted by strong tidal currents, have produced several boulder patches in the western portion of Turnagain Arm. Seafloor boulder patches have been recorded between Pt. Possession and Fire Island, and between Pt. Possession and Pt. Campbell, at water depths between 20 and 50 feet mean low low water (MLLW), and in the deep channels at depths of 60 to 90 feet MLLW. The boulders diminish in size and number to the east of Pt. Possession, near the Chickaloon Bay area. The submarine cable cannot be embedded in areas where scoured bottom conditions or boulder fields occur. Unburied cables are at an increased risk to cable failure from tidal currents, ice scouring and other hazards. Anticipated replacement of damaged submarine cables has been calculated into project maintenance cost estimates, summarized in Table 2-1 of the FEIS. Along both the Enstar proposal and Tesoro Route alternative, submarine cable would be subject to impacts and scouring from ice floes and pressure ridges. Sea ice forms in Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm in the autumn, remaining through the winter months and melting with warmer water temperatures in the spring. Much of the ice, formed on tidal flats and lifted during flood tides, is incorporated into large ice floes. Pressure ridges up to 20 feet can form on the floe peripheries from collisions with other floes. Areas most susceptible to ice scouring include the mudflats and adjacent seafloor slopes between Pt. Campbell, Pt. Woronzof, and Fire Island; the area from Pt. Campbell to Potter Marsh; and at Pt. Possession and Chickaloon Bay. Turbulent tides, throughout Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm, create changing conditions in the seafloor profile. Channels cut into the seafloor by the tide are constantly shifting and changing in size, with channel banks being particularly susceptible to erosion. Saltmarsh estuaries are found in low-lying coastal areas (e.g., below the coastal bluffs in the Anchorage area) and at the mouths of river systems (e.g., Chickaloon River at Chickaloon Bay, Kenai River in Cook Inlet, and Swanson River in Captain Cook SRA). These estuaries, considered to be extremely sensitive to disturbance, provide some of the most important habitat for wildlife in the study area. They are important feeding and resting areas for migrating waterfowl and shorebirds, especially at Chickaloon Bay. Bears feed on anadromous fish in estuaries at the mouths of streams during the summer and fall, and forage for grasses in these areas in the spring. Inter-tidal mudflats and estuarine open water areas function as habitat for low densities of epifaunal marine invertebrates, marine and anadromous fish, and feeding areas for beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) and harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). If impacted, it can take several years for saltmarsh vegetation to recover. Installation of the transmission line through intertidal transition areas, between terrestrial and marine environments, would utilize similar construction techniques along both routes. The IPG’s Enstar proposal would enter Turnagain Arm at the east end of Chickaloon Bay, near Burnt Island, and exit on the Anchorage side at Oceanview Park. On both sides of this Turnagain Arm crossing, submarine cable would be threaded under vegetated saltmarsh estuaries by horizontal directional drilling (HDD) from the adjacent upland bluffs. This construction technique can span distances up to 4000’ and allow the submarine cable to be installed under sensitive vegetated areas without mechanical trenching. On the waterward side of the saltmarshes, the HDD installed cable would transition into a mechanically excavated trench through the remaining intertidal mud flats. A trench, four feet wide by five feet deep, would be excavated with backhoes or bulldozers during low tide periods with spoilings being sidecast adjacent to the trench. The submarine cable would be laid into the trench and covered with the excavated material. No appreciable environmental consequences are anticipated as a result of trenching nonvegetated tidal mudflats along either the Enstar or Tesoro Routes. The acreages of saltmarsh habitat within the right-of-way of the proposed project alternatives are summarized in Table 3-5 below. Aconcern identified with the SIP crossing Turnagain Arm is the recent decline of beluga whales in Cook Inlet. The whales, which have been included on the state’s list of species of special concern, are commonly found in the intertidal and nearshore areas of Turnagain Arm and Cook Inlet. The distribution of beluga whale habitat is shown in Volume II, Figure MV-17. Concentrations of fish occur primarily in the early spring to late fall (March through November), usually at the mouths of rivers, and the whales frequent these waters during this time to feed on smelt and adult salmon. Beluga calving areas in Cook Inlet have not been identified, but it is believed that calving may occur in estuaries, such as Chickaloon Bay, during May and June. Discussions have been held with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding construction activities and timing windows that would reduce contact with beluga whales. The secondary impacts resulting from cable laying operations are not expected to degrade habitat or result in whale mortality along this route. However, the cumulative impacts of installing a submarine cable along the Enstar Route are unknown. Wetlands (Chapter 3.5): As defined by the Corps, wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. The wetlands along each route were inventoried using aerial photographs, National Wetland Inventory maps, and by direct observation while flying each route in helicopters. Distribution of identified wetlands is summarized in the Vegetation Cover/Wetland Maps in Volume II, Figures MV-6 through MV-8. As a result of the mitigation measures incorporated into the proposed project, no discharge of fill material is anticipated into any wetland community along either route alternative. The IPG has prescribed utilizing existing pipeline access roads, without improvements, along both routes. In addition, construction activities would be confined to the winter season and only tracked or low- pressure tired equipment would be used within a confined right-of-way area. These restrictions are intended to prevent rutting and drainage pattern changes in areas with compressible soils. Placement of overhead towers for the transmission line would skirt wetlands where possible, and attempt to span wetlands that cannot be avoided. If a tower must be placed in an area with incompetent soils (i.e. peat soils), installation of the foundation will be pile-driven without a discharge. No direct wetland impacts are anticipated along the Tesoro or Enstar Routes from construction or maintenance activities within the scope of the Corps jurisdiction. Streams, Rivers and Floodplains (Chapter 3.3): The Enstar proposal would cross several streams on the Kenai Peninsula and within the Anchorage Bowl. Primary among these proposed stream crossings is the Kenai River, which the transmission line would span twice. The Kenai River is a navigable water of the U.S. and subject to Section 10 jurisdiction. The E-South route option, as proposed by the IPG, would replace an existing 69kV line and follow the same right-of- way. The upgraded 138kV transmission line would span the Kenai River at the same two locations, River Miles 28.0 and 39.3. Tower placement, adjacent to the Kenai River, would remain at the current locations; only the height of the structures would change, increasing approximately 20 feet. The river crossings are not expected to impact navigation, a primary consideration in the Section 10 review. Other Kenai Peninsula streams that would be crossed by the Enstar proposal include the Funny River, Chickaloon River, Mystery Creek, Big and Little Indian Creeks, Burnt Island Creek, and several unnamed tributary streams. Within the Anchorage Bowl area, Route Options H and K, would span Campbell Creek and Furrow Creek. These streams are not considered navigable by the Corps, and therefore not subject to Section 10 jurisdiction. 10 The Tesoro Route alternative would cross the Swanson River, Bishop Creek, Scaup Creek, Otter Creek, Seven Egg Creek, and Miller Creek, all located on the Kenai Peninsula. This route would not cross any streams in the Anchorage area. The Corps does not have Section 10 jurisdiction over these streams either. D. Navigable Waters: Any work in or over navigable waters of the U.S. requires authorization from the Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, (33 U.S.C. 403). Navigable waters affected by the proposed transmission line include the Kenai River and Turnagain Arm. The anticipated impacts of the proposed line to these water bodies is discussed in the DEIS, Chapter 3.4, and summarized here and in the previous section of this document. A transmission line constructed along the proposed Enstar Route would span the Kenai River in two locations. The proposed line would replace an existing 69 kV transmission line and cross the River at the same locations. Concerns, in regard to the existing line or the proposed SIP creating navigational impacts to the Kenai River, were not identified as an issue during the scoping and project review process. As discussed in detail within Section II Alternatives, Part B, there are three Turnagain Arm crossing options available for both the Enstar and Tesoro Routes. The Enstar Route alternative leads the transmission line corridor to tidewater at Chickaloon Bay where the three crossing options would begin. In the applicant proposed option (K), the overhead line would transition to marine cable near Burnt Island and be threaded under the intertidal estuary by directionally drilling from an upland position. The marine cable would be buried in sediments on the basin of Turnagain Arm utilizing a barge-towed water jet apparatus. The primary concern identified along the applicant’s proposed route is regarding potential impacts to Beluga whales. Discussions with the National Marine Fisheries Service culminated in a determination that potential impacts to Beluga whales from cable laying activities are not expected to be significant. Supplemental information on Beluga whales, included in the FEIS, Section 2.2.5, does not amend this determination. No comments were received during the SIP review process that identified potential navigational concerns from the proposed submarine cable crossing of Turnagain Arm pursuant to the Corps Section 10 jurisdiction. IV. Findings: A. Consideration of Comments: Publication of the DEIS, in October 2001, was followed by a 60-day public review period. Comments on the DIES were received from federal, state, and local agencies, special interest organizations, and individuals. The format of these comments included letters, emails, and oral testimony. As required by Title XI of ANILCA, three public hearings (in Arlington, Virginia, and Anchorage and Soldotna, Alaska) were also held during the 60-day comment period. In compliance with requirements of the CEQ Regulations implementing NEPA, all comments received were reviewed, considered, and a response provided. The public testimony and comment letters were reprinted in the FEIS, Volume.1, and Chapter 1. The responses to the comments are printed adjacent to each comment letter. B. Public Interest Review: Pursuant to 33 CFR, Par 325.3(c)(1): “The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefits, which may reasonably be expected to accrue from the proposal, must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general 11 environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership and in general, the needs and welfare of the people.” The specific weight of each factor is determined by its importance and relevance to the proposal. Accordingly, how important a factor is and the amount of consideration it deserves varies with each project. Scoping, which began the public review process for the SIP proposal, identified some of the factors listed above as being important. Those deemed important were addressed in the DEIS and are detailed below. The 60-day public comment period following the DEIS, further refined the important factors. These concerns were reprinted and addressed in the FEIS, Chapter 1, Public Comments and Responses. The economic costs/benefits of the SIP, and overall energy needs of the Railbelt System, were examined in detail and discussed in the DEIS, Chapter 1. Primary factors considered include current energy demands, projected energy needs, system deficiencies, spinning reserves, line maintenance, construction methods, and alternative routes. Supplemental information on project costs/benefits is included in the FEIS, Chapter 2. Effects on aesthetics from the proposed project were captured under visual resources and discussed in the DEIS, Chapter 3.9. Factors taken into consideration for review of visual resource impacts included landscape setting, urban or rural scenery, existing conditions, viewpoints, viewsheds, travel ways and viewers. An important consideration between alternatives is that the Tesoro Route would follow a dedicated utility and road right-of-way while the Enstar Route bisects the KNWR. An historic property and cultural resources inventory was conducted and the results are summarized in the DEIS, Chapter 3, Table 3-30. High impacts to historic properties are not projected along either of the route alternatives and the differences are expected to be negligible. Property ownership and land use considerations are discussed in the DEIS, Chapter 3.6. Property jurisdiction and ownership is summarized in the DEIS, Vol. ll, Figure MV-18. Native Corporation lands, conveyed within the KNWR, are subject to Section 22(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The Kenai Peninsula Borough and Municipality of Anchorage would review either route alternative under their respective Alaska Coastal Management Plans. This review has not yet been completed. The Alaska Railroad Corporation considers installation of future transmission lines compatible with their long-term management plan within the railroad right-of-way. State of Alaska resource agencies have not completed their review of the proposal. The USFWS administers the KNWR and has permitting authority over the Enstar Route alternative pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act and ANILCA. The USFWS was required to conduct a compatibility determination before making a decision on whether to issue or deny a right-of-way permit for the SIP to cross the KNWR. Their compatibility study, included in the FEIS, Chapter 2, Appendix A, is that the SIP, found the Enstar Route to be incompatible with the Congressionally mandated purposes for which the Refuge was established and with the Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. This determination precludes the USFWS from issuing a right-of-way permit for the line to cross the Refuge. In accordance with ANILCA, Title XI, §1106. (a)(1) “... if, in compliance with §1104 (B) one or more Federal agencies decide to disapprove any authorization within its jurisdiction, with respect to that system, then the system shall be deemed to be disapproved and the applicant for the system may appeal the disapproval to the President.” Fish and wildlife values are addressed in the DEIS, Chapter 3.5, Biological Resources, and summarized in Table 3.37, Cumulative Impact Analysis. With Trumpeter Swans being the exception, more potential cumulative impacts are expected to occur if the SIP follows the Enstar Route through the KNWR. Some of the potential impacts along both route alternatives can be 12 avoided by implementing the mitigation measures proposed. Still other impacts would be mitigated to a level less than significant. However, cumulative impacts to moose and brown bear populations on the KNWR are expected to be significant even with implementing mitigation measures. Removal of vegetation from the Enstar right-of-way would provide improved human access, resulting in an increase of human/bear contacts. Moose populations would be impacted by right-of-way clearing through its effects on the fire management plan. Controlled burning is a tool used by KNWR managers to modify the age class and composition of vegetation to create a mosaic of wildlife habitat types. Lack of vegetation along the proposed route would create an unnatural firebreak and result in a linear break of habitat types. Furthermore, the presence of a transmission line would require fire crews to maintain a wider setback to prevent damaging the overhead cables from heat generated in a burn. Applying these constraints on the controlled burn program would inhibit the KNWR staff from maintaining habitat that would support the wildlife populations required to meet goals prescribed in the Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Failure to meet these KNWR goals would constitute a significant impact of national importance. Streamside vegetation removal within the KNWR would result in a long-term significant impact to an aquatic resource. Although this activity would be conducted without disturbance to mineral soil and is not typically captured under Corps jurisdiction, vegetative clearing is considered a nationally significant impact because the activity affects wildlife habitat and inhibits the prescribed burn program. Other indirect impacts of clearing activities include increased sediment loads in overland water run-off, elevated suspended particle levels in creeks and rivers, reduced forage habitat for out-migrating juvenile fish, and decreased cover for wildlife species which utilize the anadromous fish resource and stream corridors. Additional discussion of indirect project impacts is discussed in Chapter 3, and in the cumulative impact analysis summarized in Chapter 3.12.2. Impacts associated with the loss of wetland vegetation are addressed in the DEIS, Chapter 3.5 Biological Resources and catalogued in Table 3.3.7. Vegetation removal along the proposed Enstar Route, conducted by selective cutting and periodic mowing, is in a long-term direct impact to wetlands and uplands located within the proposed project corridor. Clearing would be conducted without disturbance to mineral soil (i.e. utilizing machetes and chainsaws, or hydro-axe machines), activities that are not subject to Corps jurisdiction. C. Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation: Evaluation of Compliance with 404(b)(1) Guidelines (restrictions on discharge, 40 CFR 230.10): (An * is marked above the answer that would indicate noncompliance with the guidelines. No * marked signifies the question does not relate to compliance or noncompliance with the guidelines. An “X” simply marks the answer to the question posed.) |. Alternatives test: i) Based on the discussion in FEIS, are there available, i practicable alternatives having less adverse impact on the = Xx aquatic ecosystem and without other significant adverse Yes No environmental consequences that do not involve discharges into "waters of the United States” or at other locations within these waters? ii) Based on FEIS, if the project is in a special aquatic site * and is not water dependent, has applicant clearly Xx demonstrated that there are no practicable alternative sites Yes No available? 13 b. Special restriction. Will the discharge: i) violate state water quality standards? : (The State of Alaska Department of Environmental —_ Conservation has not yet reviewed the SIP for 401 water Yes No quality certification.) ii) violate toxic effluent standards (under Section 307 of * the Act) a xX Yes No iii) jeopardize endangered or threatened species or their * critical habitat? _— X Yes No iv) violate standards set by the Department of Commerce * to protect marine sanctuaries? a X Yes No v) evaluation of the information in the FEIS indicates that * the proposed discharge material meets testing exclusion Xx criteria for the following reason(s): Yes No (X) based on the information contained in the FEIS, the material is not a carrier of contaminants. () the levels of contaminants are substantially similar at the extraction and disposal sites and the discharge is not likely to result in degradation of the disposal site and pollutants will not be transported to less contaminated areas. () acceptable constraints are available and will be implemented to reduce contamination to acceptable levels within the disposal site and prevent contaminants from being transported beyond the boundaries of the disposal site. c. Other restrictions. Will the discharge contribute to significant degradation of "waters of the United States” through adverse impacts to: i) human health or welfare, through pollution of municipal water supplies, fish, shellfish, wildlife and special aquatic Xx sites? Yes No ii) life stages of aquatic life and other wildlife? _ aXe Yes No iii) diversity, productivity and stability of the aquatic life and * other wildlife or wildlife habitat or loss of the capacity of __ Xx wetland to assimilate nutrients, purify water or reduce wave Yes No * energy? 14 iv) recreational, aesthetic and economic values? a ' ae aX Yes No d. Actions to minimize potential adverse impacts (mitigation). bl Will all appropriate and practicable steps (40 CFR 230.70-77) be _X i taken to minimize the potential adverse impacts of the discharge on Yes No the aquatic ecosystem? ll. Findings of Compliance or Non-compliance (40 CFR 230.12): (X) The discharge complies with the guidelines. (_) The discharge complies with the guidelines, with the inclusion of the appropriate and practicable conditions listed above (in III.B.2.b.iv) to minimize pollution or adverse effects to the affected ecosystem. (_) The discharge fails to comply with the requirements of these guidelines because: (_) There is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that would have less adverse effect on the aquatic ecosystem and that alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences. There are on-site uplands available which would minimize the placement of fill in wetlands. (_) The proposed discharge will result in significant degradation of the aquatic ecosystem under 40 CFR 230.10(b) or (c). (_) The discharge does not include all appropriate and practicable measures to minimize potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem, namely the use of upland alternatives. D. General Evaluation [33 CFR 320.4(a)]: The following general criteria will be considered in the evaluation of every application. i. The relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed work: The SIP is an improvement project designed to correct existing deficiencies and enhance the Railbelt electrical system. The project objectives are to maximize capacity sharing, economize energy transfer, increase reliability, enhance spinning reserve sharing, reduce line maintenance costs, avoid minimum combustion turbine generation on the Kenai Peninsula, and avert line loading during bad weather or construction. ii. The practicability of using reasonable alternative locations and methods to accomplish the objective of the proposed structure or work: Clearing activities in riparian zones and wetlands would be similar along both route options. Following the Tesoro alternative would result in fewer acres of aquatic vegetation being impacted and the cleared areas would not be located within the KNWR. Furthermore, the Tesoro Route was selected as the environmentally preferred alternative through the NEPA process in the FEIS. This option is considered to be a practicable alternative that would fulfill the purpose and accomplish the objectives of the proposed work. Our review indicates this alternative would pass the 404(b)(1) guidelines and public interest analysis. iii. The extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental effects that the proposed structures or work may have on the public and private uses to which the area is suited: The SIP lifespan is estimated to be 40 years. The likelihood of extending the project life beyond this time is unknown. If the transmission line is decommissioned and dismantled DS 40 years after construction, reclamation work could commence and the anticipated project impacts could then begin a recovery process. Vegetation would grow back within the cleared right-of-way corridor, prescribed burns could again be utilized as a management tool, human access would become more limited, and moose and brown bear populations would begin to rebound. It would likely take several years for this recovery process to reverse the adverse impacts imposed by project construction. F. Conclusion: We believe that increased reliability, reduced operating costs, and enhanced efficiency of the Railbelt electrical system are sufficient reasons to support the need for the SIP. The EIS has reviewed the resources identified as important and compared the direct and cumulative impacts of the project alternatives. Throughout the NEPA review, the issues and comments have dealt primarily with impacts to the KNWR. Based upon the information in the FEIS, the proposed activities subject to Corps jurisdiction occur outside of the KNWR. Therefore, our permitting decision is based solely on Section 10 and 404 considerations and not that of Title X! under ANILCA. In 1964 Congress adjusted the boundary of the KNWR to create a transportation and utility corridor along the western edge of the Kenai Peninsula for future development of the area. The Tesoro Route alternative follows this corridor. We concur with the NEPA determination that identifies the Tesoro Route as the environmentally preferred alternative because of the potential impacts that would occur on the KNWR if the project followed the Enstar Route. Based on the information within the FEIS, the Corps believes the Tesoro Route is a practicable alternative, without significant impacts. It is our determination that the Tesoro Route is not contrary to the public interest and meets the requirements of the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. Should the Corps receive an amended DA permit application, from the Intertie Participant Group for construction of the SIP along the Tesoro Route, we will issue a revised Public Notice. 7 The USFWS has determined that the SIP proposal to cross the KNWR along the Enstar Route is not compatible with the uses for which the Refuge was established. They have therefore, denied the grant of right-of-way to the Intertie Participants Group for the Enstar Route. Pursuant to ANILCA, Title XI, Section 1106 (a)(1)(A) if a Federal agency disapproves any authorization within its jurisdiction with respect to that system then the system shall be deemed disapproved and the applicant for the system may appeal the decision to the President. Therefore, unless the applicant appeals and the President overturns the USFWS decision, the Enstar Route is not a viable alternative. As such, we are closing the SIP permit application file, pursuant to DA regulations at 33 CFR 320.4(j)(1), which reads in part: “...where the required Federal, state and/or local authorization and/or certification has been denied for activities which also require a Department of the Army permit before final action has been taken on the Army permit application, the district engineer will, after considering the likelihood of subsequent approval of the other authorization and/or certification and the time and effort remaining to complete processing the Army permit application, either immediately deny the Army permit without prejudice or continue processing the application to a conclusion.” Our determination is that no appreciable differences in impacts were identified between the Enstar and Tesoro Routes relative to the Kenai River and Turnagain Arm crossings. Therefore, the Corps would issue a DA permit for the Enstar Route alternative should the IPG obtain the necessary licenses and permits needed to cross the Refuge. 16 D. Public interest determination: | find that issuance of a DA permit to construct the SIP along the Enstar Route alternative, as prescribed by regulations published in 33 CFR Parts 320 to 330, and 40 CFR Part 230: x is not contrary to is contrary to the public interest public interest Prepared by: Date G Mone OR © Jdck J. Hewitt roject Manager South Section Approved by: Date / Nv 02. Mifian J. Magwood Section Chief South Section 7